Rep. Frelinhuysen to Give Away HSR Funds to the South

You folks do realize that Rep Frelinghuysen has been one of the biggest proponents of the Lackawanna Cutoff....

Also have you folks seen the news reports of flooding out west? Worst flooding since the 1880's Those poor people have an immediate need for funds today! Those floods have broken many records and will last for weeks, if not months. He wants to use money earmarked for HSR to use to repair flood damaged facilities. Is that not a more pressing need than HSR?

Sorry, I am all for continued funding of Amtrak, but IMO addressing people's safety by repairing flood damaged levees is higher on the priority list than replacing catenary on the corridor.

cjvrr wrote:You folks do realize that Rep Frelinghuysen has been one of the biggest proponents of the Lackawanna Cutoff....

In which alternate world? He is my Congressperson, and all his support for Lackawanna Cutoff has consisted of occasional platitudes about it. He is yet to do anything meaningful to make it happen. Just talk talk and talk. So no I do not consider him a proponent of the Lackawanna Cutoff. He was basically brought kicking and screaming to the table by Morris County Transport Commissioner Mr. Rielly, who no longer holds that post. And Rodeny has also stopped saying much about it.

cjvrr wrote:You folks do realize that Rep Frelinghuysen has been one of the biggest proponents of the Lackawanna Cutoff....

Also have you folks seen the news reports of flooding out west? Worst flooding since the 1880's Those poor people have an immediate need for funds today! Those floods have broken many records and will last for weeks, if not months. He wants to use money earmarked for HSR to use to repair flood damaged facilities. Is that not a more pressing need than HSR?

Sorry, I am all for continued funding of Amtrak, but IMO addressing people's safety by repairing flood damaged levees is higher on the priority list than replacing catenary on the corridor.

why did he single out this project then? It's a false aregument putting people above rail. why do sugar farmers in the south continue to receive federal subsidy? why not shift farm subsidies or ethanol subsidies to help them rather than take money from necessary infrastructure projects? how abotu the massive defense budget?

Suburban Station wrote:

cjvrr wrote:You folks do realize that Rep Frelinghuysen has been one of the biggest proponents of the Lackawanna Cutoff....

Also have you folks seen the news reports of flooding out west? Worst flooding since the 1880's Those poor people have an immediate need for funds today! Those floods have broken many records and will last for weeks, if not months. He wants to use money earmarked for HSR to use to repair flood damaged facilities. Is that not a more pressing need than HSR?

Sorry, I am all for continued funding of Amtrak, but IMO addressing people's safety by repairing flood damaged levees is higher on the priority list than replacing catenary on the corridor.

why did he single out this project then? It's a false aregument putting people above rail. why do sugar farmers in the south continue to receive federal subsidy? why not shift farm subsidies or ethanol subsidies to help them rather than take money from necessary infrastructure projects? how abotu the massive defense budget?

Well said.

I still cannot beleive that there are people on this forum who still don't get it! Listen! Disasters happen all the time but you DO NOT TAKE AWAY MUCH NEEDED MONEY that Amtrak has to fight like dogs over table scraps year after year after year just to get the things that prevent breakdowns upgraded. It's not like we are getting a train made out of gold here. The basic things like new catenary wires ARE KEY to keeping the trains moving and NOT stuck with hundreds of people inside and stranding thousands of others on other trains. Our economy depends on the infastructure like NEC. We cannot keep cheapening our infastructure and keep putting a band aid or just defer repairs because otherwise our future generations will HATE US TO DEATH by passing them on a substandard system beaten by damn near every country around the globe! I remember when Rudy Guliani was in power he didn't like the fact that the Port Authority for years was negleting the bridges, tunnels into NYC and even JFK Int. I remember that even til the 1990s along with LGA the place looked like a horrible deteriorating mess from the 1960s. Well just like Guliani it's time we fought back and demaded that our upgrade funds remain where they are supposed to be.

As is we are getting a "D" in infastructure. I do not want to see an F I want this country to go back to being an A as we were when the NYC, PRR were running the rails.

I should have known better than to preach to the choir.

Sorry but I still have to side with Rodney, he is my representative too. I work right across the street from his office.

Not doubting the need for improvements to the corridor or to Amtrak's infrastructure, but when you have thousands of people currently displaced from their homes, again in my opinion, it is much more important to address infrastructure repairs for them now rather than for a few hundred that may be stranded at some point in the future on a train on the corridor.

cjvrr wrote:I should have known better than to preach to the choir.

Sorry but I still have to side with Rodney, he is my representative too. I work right across the street from his office.

Not doubting the need for improvements to the corridor or to Amtrak's infrastructure, but when you have thousands of people currently displaced from their homes, again in my opinion, it is much more important to address infrastructure repairs for them now rather than for a few hundred that may be stranded at some point in the future on a train on the corridor.

I respectfully disagree. The NEC infrastructure is old and needs to be upgraded sooner rather than later. If anything, funds to help those affected by the floods should come from some other place and not from a project that makes much needed improvements to the NEC.

cjvrr wrote:I should have known better than to preach to the choir.

Sorry but I still have to side with Rodney, he is my representative too. I work right across the street from his office.

Not doubting the need for improvements to the corridor or to Amtrak's infrastructure, but when you have thousands of people currently displaced from their homes, again in my opinion, it is much more important to address infrastructure repairs for them now rather than for a few hundred that may be stranded at some point in the future on a train on the corridor.

It's fairly obvious by now that he's more than your representative...and that your opinion is far from unbiased. would anyone miss a helicopter or two from the military's arsenal? no. would anyone notice that the train keeps breaking down? yes.

CJVRR, Not only have I been a resident of Morris county for the last 30 years but my family has been part of his district since the late 1970s. We are completely at a loss on why he would set up this state and her people for failure. Had the polticians given NJT and Amtrak the money they needed over the years instead of nickel and diming and whinning about how it's too expensive we would be on par with our counterparts in Europe and Asia. It's sad on how far we have fallen. I still meet up with the retired railway employees of the CNJ, EL and even the PC on how their railroads were the best of the world and on how people from other countrys were at awe of our system....No more. We are now the laughing stock. Compare our NEC to the Chunnel Train or even the Japaneese Bullet train and we would be left in the dust.

Now is not the time to be a penny wise and a dollar foolish esp when future generations are counting on us to keep an already crumbling infastructure from going to crap! Future ghenerations will hate us for what people like this congressman are doing. A crime indeed.

BostonUrbEx wrote:Commuter rail just means more sprawl.

I disagree. From what I've seen in the Chicago area, densities near stations are increasing (high-rise condos within walking distance to the station). Again, all those commuter trains drop people in one location—all railroads lead to Chicago and all.

I'd bet the same is true in Boston. I don't really recall seeing T commuter rail running along 495 or 128, but rather running form Haverhill to Boston. Worcester to Boston.

sipes23 wrote: I disagree. From what I've seen in the Chicago area, densities near stations are increasing (high-rise condos within walking distance to the station). Again, all those commuter trains drop people in one location—all railroads lead to Chicago and all.

I'd bet the same is true in Boston. I don't really recall seeing T commuter rail running along 495 or 128, but rather running form Haverhill to Boston. Worcester to Boston.

it's a bit more complicated than that but yes, commuter rail can encourage sprawl. look at nj, they've paved over their state and a alrge part of it is the ability to move large amounts of people longer distances to jobs in ny, by rail. rail is transportation, it can encouraging TOD, etc, but it can't make up for other factors encouraging land use patterns. it can't make cities have better school systems, it can't force suburban areas to concentrate jobs near the stations themselves, etc, etc. anyway, I think rail can encourage or prevent sprawl but it depends on its application.

Suburban Station wrote:anyway, I think rail can encourage or prevent sprawl but it depends on its application.

^ This. It can definitely be used in a way that does not encourage sprawl but many times it only encourages.

A couple high density residential buildings alongside a little asphalt platform in the middle of nowhere is still sprawl.

Commuter rail stops on a road in a small suburb may get people who would drive to work, but they'll still drive to do their errands or other daily activities.

Haverhill to Boston? Excellent. North Wilmington to Boston? Terrible. A stop like North Wilmington simply makes an autocentric world seem more attractive.

I must disagree regarding encouraging sprawl unless you go WAY back. NJ rail corridors serve primarily older established communities. They were the sprawl of the early part if the 1900's and are the town centers that planners now long to return to. The true sprawl that the term was coined for is along the interstates and because of them. Consider in days past there was rail service from Hoboken to Scranton -as long distance service. It's reinstatement argument is as a commuter service due to people moving out there for cheaper housing and discovering that at rush hour rt 80 doesn't move too quickly so the train may perhaps provide a little relief to the sprawl created by the overwhelming success of the Eisenhower Interstate System. That's assuming the tracks ever go west of Andover again on some relevant time- frame.

As to Rodney, he was my rep for most of my life. He's a well educated and spoken party hack rarely wandering far from what he's told to vote for or against by the "leadership".

RS115 wrote:I must disagree regarding encouraging sprawl unless you go WAY back. NJ rail corridors serve primarily older established communities. They were the sprawl of the early part if the 1900's and are the town centers that planners now long to return to. The true sprawl that the term was coined for is along the interstates and because of them. Consider in days past there was rail service from Hoboken to Scranton -as long distance service. It's reinstatement argument is as a commuter service due to people moving out there for cheaper housing and discovering that at rush hour rt 80 doesn't move too quickly so the train may perhaps provide a little relief to the sprawl created by the overwhelming success of the Eisenhower Interstate System. That's assuming the tracks ever go west of Andover again on some relevant time- frame.

As to Rodney, he was my rep for most of my life. He's a well educated and spoken party hack rarely wandering far from what he's told to vote for or against by the "leadership".

Not really, NJ has continued to pave over farmland. if you go way back, commuter service didn't reach trenton. I think it'd be hard to argue that giant parking lots like metropark aren't there to encourage sprawl. if you brought back scranton service it wouldn't necessarily cause more sprawl than already exists, but if you start placing stations with the idea that people of monroe county should be able to easily drive there, and if that service went directly to nyc, you'd definitely encourage sprawl since the more attractive trip times at the new park n ride would make living there more tolerable. trains are like highways. if they'd built a highway from ny to philadelphia with no exits in between, it seems likely that highway would not encourage spraw in the same way one with many stops would.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The American dream is a pesky pain in the @$$, aint it?

BostonUrbEx wrote:

Suburban Station wrote:anyway, I think rail can encourage or prevent sprawl but it depends on its application.

^ This. It can definitely be used in a way that does not encourage sprawl but many times it only encourages.

A couple high density residential buildings alongside a little asphalt platform in the middle of nowhere is still sprawl.

Commuter rail stops on a road in a small suburb may get people who would drive to work, but they'll still drive to do their errands or other daily activities.

Haverhill to Boston? Excellent. North Wilmington to Boston? Terrible. A stop like North Wilmington simply makes an autocentric world seem more attractive.