Minimal cost for true HSR on the NEC?

[PRR 60]

And yes, I think that the NYP-WAS segment is what needs to be focused on...that's the oldest, steadiest segment of anything resembling HSR in the United States, and it's also one of the places where there's a really solid market for it, too, though I don't know what the Acela share of the market is on that stretch versus NYP-BOS.

Note that these numbers aren't the entire travel market, but rather the air/rail market.

According to a recent report Amtrak owned 69% of the market between NY & DC, leaving the airlines to divide the remaining 31%.

I can't currently find a cite for it, but I believe that the last number that I saw for NY & Boston was 41%, but that was for 2009 also, so I would expect it to be a bit higher now. Especially after seeing sold out trains on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday during my travels to/from Boston.

And of course it should also be noted that there is a much bigger travel market between NY & DC than there is between NY & Boston.

Do you have a link to the report with ridership numbers that supports 69% of the market WAS - NYC for Amtrak?

 

[Tracktwentynine]

Do you have a link to the report with ridership numbers that supports 69% of the market WAS - NYC for Amtrak?

According to Amtrak's An Interim Assessment of Achieving Improved Trip Times on the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak's share of the air/rail market was 63% WAS-NYP and 49% NYP-BOS in 2008. Prior to Acela startup in 2000, those market shares were 37% and 20%, respectively.

You can find those numbers on page 19 of the report, which can be found at Amtrak.com -> Inside Amtrak -> Reports & Documents. And it will be under PRIAA Submissions and Reports.

I don't know if there are more recent numbers on market share or not.

 

[PRR 60]

Do you have a link to the report with ridership numbers that supports 69% of the market WAS - NYC for Amtrak?

According to Amtrak's An Interim Assessment of Achieving Improved Trip Times on the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak's share of the air/rail market was 63% WAS-NYP and 49% NYP-BOS in 2008. Prior to Acela startup in 2000, those market shares were 37% and 20%, respectively.

You can find those numbers on page 19 of the report, which can be found at Amtrak.com -> Inside Amtrak -> Reports & Documents. And it will be under PRIAA Submissions and Reports.

I don't know if there are more recent numbers on market share or not.

What I'm looking for are the station to station passenger numbers that are the basis for those percentages. What is the Amtrak ridership WAS - NYC? What stations are included in the end points for the Amtrak count? What airports are included in the numbers for the air count? I've seen the percentage figures published by Amtrak before, but the percentages are never backed up with actual numbers.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

I'm curious how much ridership on the NEC would increase with the construction of new HSR lines connecting to the NEC. Like an expanded Keystone corridor, NYC-Albany-Toronto HSR, and WAS-ATL HSR.

 

[Anderson]

Actually, I just had a thought: If they're going to reinvent the wheel with a completely new HSR line on the NYP-BOS front, would it make sense to run that line through Albany? I'm thinking partly from an eminent domain perspective...keep the Acela line running on the coast at lower speeds, but running the "super express" line through Albany would do three things: Add the Albany metro to the Wonderful World of HSR (not to mention "interior" parts of MA), open up the possibility of Boston-Toronto services (so that a line going to Toronto would have two plausible destinations to run trains on rather than just NYP), and upgrade the Empire Corridor (a plus on its own). I know that you'd lose at least some of your time advantage with this, but if the line could maintain speed for longer I think you might still come out ahead. Mind you, I'm thinking "completely new line which emphasizes getting the best route picked out and which only has 3-4 intermediate stops", not the existing, winding railroad through the region.

 

[jis]

Actually, I just had a thought: If they're going to reinvent the wheel with a completely new HSR line on the NYP-BOS front, would it make sense to run that line through Albany? I'm thinking partly from an eminent domain perspective...keep the Acela line running on the coast at lower speeds, but running the "super express" line through Albany would do three things: Add the Albany metro to the Wonderful World of HSR (not to mention "interior" parts of MA), open up the possibility of Boston-Toronto services (so that a line going to Toronto would have two plausible destinations to run trains on rather than just NYP), and upgrade the Empire Corridor (a plus on its own). I know that you'd lose at least some of your time advantage with this, but if the line could maintain speed for longer I think you might still come out ahead. Mind you, I'm thinking "completely new line which emphasizes getting the best route picked out and which only has 3-4 intermediate stops", not the existing, winding railroad through the region.

What makes you think that acquiring a right of way through the east shore of Hudson area will be any easier than getting one in inland Connecticut?

 

[Anderson]

Mainly the large amount of existing right-of-way, and the fact that particularly above the north end of the Metro North coverage area the population does thin out, while running along the coast it really doesn't (note the presence of the Shoreline East line and the proposed Hartford line). My presumption is that at least on part of the line, you'll be piggybacking on the existing lines (and then splitting out to run parallel somewhere between Croton-Harmon and Poughkipsee). More importantly, though, much of the line runs near enough to the shoreline that you've got a number of stretches where it's city-railroad-greenspace-river or city-railroad-river. This would reduce the eminent domain takings needed (even if it might complicate the EIS picture), particularly on the southern end of the line (and I think that most proposals tend to either concede that you're not getting onto a new alignment until you get up into Westchester County at best, or throw a super-expensive tunnel project into the picture that forces the cost to balloon), and once you break out to the north you won't be cutting across as many highly-populated areas.

Putting it in plain English, I think it's probably easier to substantially widen the right-of-way on Metro North (probably to a largely rebuilt four track setup), split off above that, and acquire the line through western MA than it is to acquire entirely new right-of-way inland in CT unless you go way up in the state (to the point that you may as well link to Albany and gain that market at some point). There will still be speed limits on parts of the line (probably in the 125-150 MPH range, and possibly lower...unless you're doing a superdeep tunnel, there's only so fast you'll be going in Harlem, for example.

Of course, the politics of this line would be a mixed bag: On the one hand, you'd only have to keep two states on board instead of four; on the other, you'd only have two states working with you in Washington instead of four.

 

[Steve4031]

Mainly the large amount of existing right-of-way, and the fact that particularly above the north end of the Metro North coverage area the population does thin out, while running along the coast it really doesn't (note the presence of the Shoreline East line and the proposed Hartford line). My presumption is that at least on part of the line, you'll be piggybacking on the existing lines (and then splitting out to run parallel somewhere between Croton-Harmon and Poughkipsee). More importantly, though, much of the line runs near enough to the shoreline that you've got a number of stretches where it's city-railroad-greenspace-river or city-railroad-river. This would reduce the eminent domain takings needed (even if it might complicate the EIS picture), particularly on the southern end of the line (and I think that most proposals tend to either concede that you're not getting onto a new alignment until you get up into Westchester County at best, or throw a super-expensive tunnel project into the picture that forces the cost to balloon), and once you break out to the north you won't be cutting across as many highly-populated areas.

Putting it in plain English, I think it's probably easier to substantially widen the right-of-way on Metro North (probably to a largely rebuilt four track setup), split off above that, and acquire the line through western MA than it is to acquire entirely new right-of-way inland in CT unless you go way up in the state (to the point that you may as well link to Albany and gain that market at some point). There will still be speed limits on parts of the line (probably in the 125-150 MPH range, and possibly lower...unless you're doing a superdeep tunnel, there's only so fast you'll be going in Harlem, for example.

Of course, the politics of this line would be a mixed bag: On the one hand, you'd only have to keep two states on board instead of four; on the other, you'd only have two states working with you in Washington instead of four.

Interesting idea. However you would have to build an entirely new line across Massachusetts to Boston. NYP to Albany is 142 miles, and Albany to Boston is 200 miles, for a total of 342 miles. In order for this to be viable, these trains would have to average over 100 mph to keep the travel time below 4 hours. For this to really work, it the trains would have to be going 150 mph most of the way. It would be very expensive to build such a route over the Berkshires. I'm not sure the ridership would improve either because Stamford, New Haven, and Providence are not being served by the new route. Albany and Springfield probably would not replace the lost ridership.

 

[jis]

Of course, the politics of this line would be a mixed bag: On the one hand, you'd only have to keep two states on board instead of four; on the other, you'd only have two states working with you in Washington instead of four.

Keeping states on board typically is a lesser problem than keeping localities on board. You could have the state on board all you want. All it takes is a handful of localities to blow any scheme sky high or at least block it to a point of impracticality.

Few people were deeply involved enough in rail advocacy that are present on this board to remember what transpired before it was finally decided to electrify the NHRR alignment through New London. There was a serious plan to go inland on the Hartford line a little ways and then follow an existing old ROW with a few deviations to get a much straighter run to Coston than the cowpath through New London that is used today. The problem was not the populated area along the Hartford corridor, the state of Connecticut or the Sate of Massachusetts. The problem was what appears to be open fields with no one apparently living there. They effectively blocked it, and that on the whole delayed electrification of any route to Boston by 15 years.

Frankly I am actually quite dubious even about what I consider your wishful or wistful thinking that eminent domain problems will be any less between Croton Harmon and Poughkeepsie than it is in inland Connecticut (not to speak of Poughkeepsie to Albany). I'd strongly recommend that you get in a car and drive around that part of the country and observe all the estates that you will have to run your railroad through. IOW I think you have struck a gold mine of an impractical idea. Just IMHO of course, having spent a lot of time in that area hiking on the trails and such for years.