|
|
| Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station (898795) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
|
| (899295) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 17:56:53 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by fisk ave jim on Sat Feb 13 17:49:02 2010. Arch Street *IS* the manufacture's facility, not an MTA facility.How hard is it to drive a train set to Arch Street, rather than to say Harmon? ROAR |
|
|
| (899297) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by fisk ave jim on Sat Feb 13 17:58:27 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Feb 13 14:32:28 2010. Kinda whats gonna happen when the LIRR ESA to GCT gets done. |
|
|
| (899298) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 17:59:23 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Sat Feb 13 17:51:10 2010. the LION did NOT give you false info.The LION was a regular LIRR customer on the 4:10 train every day. The brake test was done by an AMTK employee. I *takled* to the man every day, and I knew who he worked for. LIRR did NOT have any car knockers in that station. Again this was before WestSide Yard. ROAR |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (899300) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Feb 13 18:00:10 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 15:13:18 2010. It is still mean-spirited sorry |
|
|
| (899301) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Feb 13 18:02:34 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 17:43:55 2010. I *have* read the US Constitution. What in particular do you want me to look at.That whole pesky supremacy clause thing. Article 6. Your position is clearly foreclosed by one of the most bedrock Supreme Court decisions around, McCulloch v Maryland. Maryland tried to tax the Second Bank of the United States, which was essentially a corporate entity chartered by federal government, not too much unlike Amtrak. They couldn't even tax it, let alone do what you want to do, and seize it. I'm not sure where on earth you'd get such an un-American and dangerous idea from. You suggested: It is the LION'S opine that NYS should seize NYP The last time that a state tried something like that, it set off a little conflict known to students of American history as the Civil War. You're quite mad. |
|
|
| (899302) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by fisk ave jim on Sat Feb 13 18:04:21 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 17:56:53 2010. Depends on the traffic!:) |
|
|
| (899303) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Feb 13 18:05:56 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 17:56:53 2010. Arch Street *IS* the manufacture's facility, not an MTA facility.Incorrect. It is under a lease from MTA LIRR, which is soon to expire. |
|
|
| (899304) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Feb 13 18:06:04 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 17:56:53 2010. Arch Street *IS* the manufacture's facility, not an MTA facility.Incorrect. It is under a lease from MTA LIRR, which is soon to expire. |
|
|
| (899306) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Feb 13 18:12:06 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 17:56:53 2010. False, the Arch Street shops is an MTA LIRR facility, but is being leased/rented to the manfacturer |
|
|
| (899307) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Feb 13 18:12:26 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Feb 13 18:06:04 2010. Exactly |
|
|
| (899308) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Feb 13 18:14:16 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 17:59:23 2010. How long ago?Because I know now that it is done all by LIRR people, as I said maybe it was done in the 80s by AMTK (you did say 80s) but now all is done by LIRR workers (seen it with my own eyes) Sorry you need to update your facts |
|
|
| (899337) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 13 20:29:43 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Sat Feb 13 18:00:10 2010. He's the meanest monk I've ever known. |
|
|
| (899338) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Feb 13 20:32:21 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 13 20:29:43 2010. Yeah me too. |
|
|
| (899350) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Feb 13 20:59:46 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 16:36:35 2010. Thanks to you and trainsarefun. I also agree that it would be a great place to put a Light Rail system, especially with the rejuvenation of the Clinton area. |
|
|
| (899361) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 21:31:32 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Feb 13 18:06:04 2010. No. If I lease a facility from you then it is MY facility until the lease is up and then it returns to the lessor.If I lease a facility, I put MY employees in it, I use MY materials, and it is covered by MY insurance. What becomes of the facility when I am finished doing my work there is not my affair. ROAR |
|
|
| (899366) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 21:35:54 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Sat Feb 13 18:14:16 2010. The LION entered the monastery in 1983. So yes, the early 1980s.It is typical of union stations that the station provided these services to the client railroads that called there, unless, mayhap there was one big owner with several smaller tenants, in which case the principal railroad provided the service. ROAR |
|
|
| (899374) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 21:43:38 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 13 20:29:43 2010. Good thing you've never met any Dominicans.Death is a part of life. The LION has undoubtedly tended more people in death than you have. It is not evil. The LION would not have let people live in that tunnel in the first place, but would have wanted to provide for them a better facility in which to live. It is too bad that the 'do-gooders' shut down the big state hospitals. They really are still needed. The LION would make a homeless facility on Governors Island, using buildings that are there. That someone is homeless is prima fascia evidence that they are unable to care for themselves and need the assistance of the government. The LION thinks that it is mean of you to leave them in that tunnel. ROAR |
|
|
| (899376) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Feb 13 21:44:03 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 21:35:54 2010. Ok maybe there but it is no longer the case with LIRR so now u know :) |
|
|
| (899378) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Feb 13 21:47:16 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 21:43:38 2010. It is mean of society not italianstallion.It is wrong that society allows it and need to fix it. |
|
|
| (899385) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 22:01:28 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Feb 13 18:02:34 2010. Apples and Oranges. Both have roots and grow on green trees, but are different nonetheless."National Railroad Passenger Business Information Claim This Profile National Railroad Passenger is a private company categorized under Interurban Railways and located in Washington, DC. Our records show it was established in 1970* and incorporated in District of Columbia*. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of over $1 billion and employs a staff of approximately Over 10,000. ROAR |
|
|
| (899386) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 22:09:18 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Feb 13 20:59:46 2010. The LION'S Light Rail System would mostly serve the cross park routes east and west, and then use the WestSide tunnels for yards and maint.This is because the Cross-Park LRVs would be free on the presumption that the fare would be paid on transfer to the subway. If the line bent south with PAX then exit fare gates would have to be established at that end. ROAR |
|
|
| (899397) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 13 22:16:44 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 16:36:35 2010. The heck with "LRVs". They aren't the big panacea, and they ain't cheaper than the bigger trainz . . . |
|
|
| (899417) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 22:58:01 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 13 22:16:44 2010. This depends on what you want to do with them.LION was thinking of a cross-town service operating on local streets that crossed Central Park in several locations. These would be street running units meant to circulate traffic cross town rather that to transport people downtown. Maybe this is not something that needs to be built. ROAR |
|
|
| (899440) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Feb 14 00:05:34 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 21:43:38 2010. I didn't leave them there. |
|
|
| (899463) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Feb 14 01:36:13 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 12 19:40:05 2010. Halted for now. M8 will be delivered with MNR type shoes. |
|
|
| (899467) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Feb 14 01:48:36 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 12 19:40:05 2010. Why not just order Genesis locomotives with over running third rail shoes? Are the Genesis locomotives really that unreliable? |
|
|
| (899469) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 03:35:50 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Feb 14 01:48:36 2010. Why not just order Genesis locomotives with over running third rail shoes?Wny not ALP-46s, if you aren't going to run into diesel territory? (Lots more stuff that can't run from one road to the other. New Haven electrics could run to both Penn and GCT.) |
|
|
| (899536) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Feb 14 11:30:35 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 13 00:48:31 2010. Not necessarily!! The "Bombs and Gennies" could be used, but Amtrak has a restriction on cab cars being on the head end. The MNR trains would have to be double ended with engines, or would have to have an engine on the head, operating end at all time when running there. |
|
|
| (899537) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Feb 14 11:36:05 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by fisk ave jim on Sat Feb 13 13:50:53 2010. Only what was involved, for the time, for the testing of the dual capability shoes.All other times, the M-7As you see in Queens are there at Arch Street for Bombardier warranty work and any upgrades/modifications of the on-board computer and software. |
|
|
| (899538) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 11:38:31 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 03:35:50 2010. New Haven electrics operated when NHRR was still 25Hz.MNCR upgraded the system to 60Hz, the LION is told at the behest of AMTK who then, due to fiscal turds from Washington, reneged on its side of the project. GCT does not have overhead wires. It does not have the clearances to accommodate same. It did have overhead third rails but only over switches, and these were much lower. ROAR |
|
|
| (899562) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by fisk ave jim on Sun Feb 14 12:25:58 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Feb 14 11:36:05 2010. Ok Thanks!! |
|
|
| (899565) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 12:36:10 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Feb 13 14:39:52 2010. FBA/LIC/HPA service was to remain constant, just like NYP service. Essentially, no AM peak hour cuts, just 24 extra trains, and don't quote me on this but I think that of those 24 extra trains it's 6 each for the Ports, 4 each for KO and Babylon, and 1-2 for the other electrified branches excepts WH.This sounds somewhat excessive. Remember, the third mainline track is to run express trains. The fact is, and LIRR is very sly about not stating this affirmatively, if they ran skip/stop on the DIVIDE-QUEENS stretch, that third track is unnecessary. The reason why LIRR needs third track on that stretch is that its timetable has very different running times for trains on the stretch. If they went with a uniform running time for all trains on that stretch, no train would catch up to its leader. The problem with the Main line is that it is used by South Shore diesels which mostly run non stop between Hicksville and Jamaica. That means they cannot share the same track with the regular local trains, which necessitates shutting down the eastbound track for nearly two hours in the morning. The issue will be whether LIRR can transfer these slots to MNCR without AMTK or NJT objecting. Remember that MTA LIRR's rights are via its predecessors and I don't know what the relevant agreements say. I don't think Amtrak would care, as long as the total number of combined trains does not increase over the current number of LIRR trains. NJT is basically Amtrak's bitch in this manner and has little say over much of anything. |
|
|
| (899566) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 12:39:03 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Feb 13 14:57:10 2010. Yeah, that sounds politically tenable. Money to the NEC and nothing else for nobody until it's finished?No, I propose the HSR money go to Amtrak in general, with spending on projects predicated on ridership levels, which would mean most would go to the NEC. But not all ... |
|
|
| (899568) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 12:42:20 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 13 15:06:38 2010. That would probably make the most sense. NJT does not have the ability to lend out it's fleet for rush hour Metro North trains.NJT wants to retire their older ALP-44's, instead of rebuilding them. If CDOT purchased them and overhauled them, that would allow PSA with existing passanger coaches. If they need more, I'm sure they can call NJT and ask to borrow a cup of Comet III's. |
|
|
| (899570) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 12:49:19 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 21:31:32 2010. No, a lease does not imply ownership. NJT still owns those 8 Comet I's SEPTA uses, and NJT could demand their return after an agreed upon time period passes. CDOT itself leased a handful of P40DC's from Amtrak for a few years before outright purchasing them last year. |
|
|
| (899590) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 14:20:10 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 12:42:20 2010. I tried to find an ALP-44 with New Haven logos, speaking of that. Instead, I came across this sim shot of a HHP-8, allegedly at Bridgeport. |
|
|
| (899598) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Feb 14 14:51:36 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 11:38:31 2010. I think that at this point, any Metro-North train that goes to Penn Station will realistically have to use a fleet that won't be able to enter Grand Central. |
|
|
| (899600) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Feb 14 14:54:27 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 21:43:38 2010. Good post, but I think that it's too late to convert some Governors Island buildings as they're trying to turn it into some "hip" destination now. |
|
|
| (899601) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Feb 14 14:55:29 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Feb 14 11:30:35 2010. They would also have to order new engines with overrunning third rail. |
|
|
| (899615) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Feb 14 15:30:56 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 14:20:10 2010. Better if it had more of the McGinnis scheme, but interesting look. |
|
|
| (899624) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Feb 14 15:49:39 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 12:39:03 2010. No, I propose the HSR money go to Amtrak in general, with spending on projects predicated on ridership levels, which would mean most would go to the NECCongratulations, you created a system that ensures little political support for Amtrak improvements due to its ultra-regionalization, and denies the provision of actual rail services to other corridors in the country. By your logic, during the construction of the interstate network, money should have been given only to existing roads with nothing going to areas that had no expressway networks. BTW, a sizable bit of that HSR money is going to services that are run by Amtrak like the Chicago-based, Surfliner, North Carolina, Cascade services. It also pays for the engineering projects works for what will be a critical portion of the NEC's future, a new tunnel in Baltimore. |
|
|
| (899625) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 15:49:49 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 12:49:19 2010. Correct. But I was talking about a building. Once MTA leases a building and tracks to Bomba, then it is Bomba's facility until the lease is up.Most businesses in the city lease space. It is their space. They house their business in it, and pay the bills. Some problems will remain that of the landlord, such as the plumbing, but other issues will be that of the tenant, such as removing the snow. It is all specified in the lease agreement. Rolling stock is somewhat different, Especially "power-by-the-hour" schemes. There you are leasing power rather than machinery. Just like when we rent a field to put cows in. Fences and improvements are our problem, but we are really buying with our money is a summer's worth of grazing grass. ROAR |
|
|
| (899627) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sun Feb 14 15:56:33 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 14:20:10 2010. Do u know which sim that is? |
|
|
| (899628) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sun Feb 14 15:58:28 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Feb 14 14:51:36 2010. Why? If MNR uses their diesel fleet it can go to both (engine on both ends) Both Hudson and NH line trains do have engines and coaches assigned to them |
|
|
| (899633) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station ?? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Feb 14 16:39:18 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station ??, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Feb 13 17:03:11 2010. The capacity constraint there may be the two tunnels, not whether LIRR is willing or able to sacrifice slots in the existing station.The issue is terminal, not track, capacity. It's exacerbated by the fact that tks 1-4 at NYP, which are the core of NJT operations, are stub-end. If the new tunnels and terminal are completed, maybe no one will care about vacant LIRR slots in the existing terminal. AMTK certainly will care, and probably NJT will too, especially in LIRR capacity on tks 13-17. Telecommuting may not eliminate the need for this capacity, but it certainly will reduce it. Even if 30% of Manhattan commuters stay home one or two days a week, that's a huge drop in ridership. It's a valid point, but rather unsupported by the evidence for the foreseeable future. |
|
|
| (899635) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Feb 14 16:44:37 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 22:01:28 2010. With all respect, you're quite mad. You could just as well argue that a state could "seize" - your term, with all of the Marxist connotations - the Federal Reserve. Your view is completely uninformed - a state sovereign can't condemn federally chartered entities - and utterly wrongheaded. |
|
|
| (899648) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 17:52:16 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 15:49:49 2010. Correct. But I was talking about a building. Once MTA leases a building and tracks to Bomba, then it is Bomba's facility until the lease is up.It's theirs to use, not theirs physically. |
|
|
| (899649) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 17:53:32 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 14:20:10 2010. Too orange for my tastes. |
|
|
| (899651) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 18:00:08 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Feb 14 15:49:39 2010. Congratulations, you created a system that ensures little political support for Amtrak improvements due to its ultra-regionalization, and denies the provision of actual rail services to other corridors in the country.Other corridors do not carry nearly as many passengers. ultra-regionalization is a fact of life, Amtrak's demand is regionalized. It's unwise to spend a disproportionate amount of precious funding to ensure political support. There are other ways of creating political will to pass it. |
|
|
| (899652) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 18:00:43 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Feb 14 15:49:39 2010. Congratulations, you created a system that ensures little political support for Amtrak improvements due to its ultra-regionalization, and denies the provision of actual rail services to other corridors in the country.Other corridors do not carry nearly as many passengers. ultra-regionalization is a fact of life, Amtrak's demand is regionalized. It's unwise to spend a disproportionate amount of precious funding on little used segments of the syster, only to ensure political support. There are other ways of creating political will to pass it. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
