Vision for the Future

[Chafford1]

The Passenger Rail Working Group for the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission has just published their report 'Vision for the future: U.S. intercity passenger rail network through 2050'.

The press release is as follows:

'The Passenger Rail Working Group

Planning America’s Passenger Rail Future

Bold new vision for intercity rail service throughout America to be unveiled

Plan proposes investments totaling $357.2 billion through 2050

Washington, DC — The boldest and most visionary plan to expand passenger rail service in America in decades is being announced today. The Passenger Rail Working Group will unveil its new plan at a press conference at 10 a.m. in the Starlight Room of Union Station, where copies of the plan will be available.

 

The plan, called “Vision for the future: U.S. Intercity Passenger Rail Network Through 2050,” enhances America’s existing intercity passenger rail system, and builds upon the network substantially to create a national system connecting cities and towns that have not had passenger rail service for decades. The Vision Plan also recognizes the importance of the freight railroad network to the nation’s economy, and it respects the capacity growth needed for the freight lines. The passenger Vision Plan defines several levels of investment in passenger service, some compatible with freight operations, and some requiring expanded, parallel or separate tracks and facilities.

 

The plan will be submitted to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, a bipartisan organization formed last year with 12 members appointed by the president and Congressional leaders. Its mandate is to examine national surface transportation needs and mechanisms for funding these needs.

 

“I formed the Passenger Rail Working Group to advise the commission in response to a wide range of public testimony calling for a strong national intercity passenger rail system,” said Frank Busalacchi, a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. “Highway congestion is only getting worse. Airline congestion and delays are continuing to mount. Gasoline prices are continuing to rise over $3 per gallon. We need to develop and expand our passenger rail system, not only to provide needed mobility for our nation’s travelers, but also to help the nation’s environmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.”

 

The vision for passenger rail through 2050 maintains the entire existing national passenger rail system, and builds on it in major ways. Future proposed routes are contained in a map within the plan. The Vision Plan is based upon existing travel markets, but is designed as a dynamic document that can be added to or revised according to the travel markets as they develop in the future.

 

The passenger rail network in 2050 includes new services where the population is expected to grow significantly. Some of this service links smaller cities: like Fort Wayne with Chicago; Kansas City with Omaha; Nashville with Atlanta, Knoxville with Chattanooga.

 

The 2050 vision includes upgrading existing service — offering higher speeds and greater frequencies — in many rapidly growing corridors. Examples include the California Coast, Pacific Northwest, Midwest Regional, Gulf Coast, Southeast, South Central, and Florida corridors. The existing Northeast Corridor would strengthen linkages with the Keystone, Empire, and Northern New England Corridors.

 

The plan builds upon the existing national rail passenger network by adding more frequent service, includes development of the federally designated high-speed rail corridors and makes future service extensions designed to connect population centers. The plan also quantifies potential safety, energy, environmental, congestion and mobility benefits. Many of the investments in the improved passenger rail network also will benefit the freight rail network.

 

The funding needs associated with the plan are estimated to be $357.2 billion, or $8.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) annually, through 2050. The report recommends that a new “Intercity Passenger Rail Program” be included in the next federal transportation authorization bill to address these needs, with 80 percent of the funding coming from the federal government, and 20 percent from the states.

 

The Passenger Rail Working Group, formed by Secretary Busalacchi to advise the Commission, is comprised of intercity passenger rail experts and transportation professionals from throughout the country and includes representatives from states, Amtrak, public interest groups and regional rail transportation authorities.'

This looks like a sensible and well-thought out strategic plan, but as always depends on adequate funding.

The executive summary is at:

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/...wg-exec-sum.pdf

The full report is at:

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/...prwg-report.pdf

 

[Chafford1]

Interesting that no-one has commented on this plan. Presumably because no-one believes it has any chance of implementation.

 

[stonesfan]

Having spend a reasonable amount of time in the USA during the last 8 years, and having made several friends, all of whom have been put under the spotlight of why they don't use trains(!), most have said that car travel has been artificially cheap during the last 30-40 years, and for short to mid distances, has simply been far too tempting and far too convenient than taking the train. Obviously I cannot speak for those who live in areas that railways do not serve. However, congestion on the roads is becoming quite shocking in places. I must admit I've never been in such bad traffic as LA.

You can understand why Americans don't believe a word of it though. After all, I didnt believe a word of what that fat, bloated deputy PM John Prescott said about sorting out our own railway system and taking it back into public hands if it didnt deliver. And considering the latest price rises and engineering shambles, its clear he was full of hot air........

Interesting that no-one has commented on this plan. Presumably because no-one believes it has any chance of implementation.

 

[George Harris]

Interesting that no-one has commented on this plan. Presumably because no-one believes it has any chance of implementation.

Maybe because many of us have seen way too many of these things that turned out to be all "sound and fury signifying nothing". In particular, grandiose national in scope plans requiring multi-billions to implement do not seem to be worth the time it takes to read them when the simplest of minor upgrades are difficult to achieve, and when they do occur any politician that finds himself standing around in the area puts out enough hot air to lift the Hindenberg trying to take credit for it as if it were some massive achievement.

 

[Chafford1]

The Midwest High Speed Rail plan which proposes upgrading the main routes to 110mph (using diesel traction) looks like an eminently sensible template for upgrading US railways if money isn't available for 200mph TGV lines. I understand some progress has been made on implementing this on the Chicago to St Louis line.

http://www.midwesthsr.org/pdfs/raildevplan07suppfinal.pdf

 

[VentureForth]

Interesting that no-one has commented on this plan. Presumably because no-one believes it has any chance of implementation.

There is no such thing as a 43 year "plan". The entire US interstate system was designed and built in less than that. What is just now being implemented that was dreamed up in 1965?

Plans and studies somehow make a lot of people a HECKUVA lot of money without anything to really show for it. New Mexico has one of the fasted implemented 'plans' for commuter rail, taking almost 6-8 years to design build and start a 100 mile route. Not bad. Took Dallas and Fort Worth about the same amount of time to build a 30 mile route. Granted, both of these already had a relatively acceptable infrastructure to start with, but look at phase II of the NM RailRunner - From the time they decided on an alignment to the time service will start will have been about a 3 year period, including all of the new construction of almost 40 miles of rail.

I'm going to get a lot of flak for this next statement, but I'm willing to listen, so don't flame too harshly.

I believe that we are on the right track right now - albeit slower than cold honey. A national network only works if there is local infrastructure to feed it. I believe that the states need to be putting in their in-state long distance service in first, then conglomerates of states - much like what has been done in Illinois, California, North Carolina, and the NEC. The Palmetto shouldn't be Amtrak, and neither should most of the Illinois in-state services. Why should fed money be spend on something that exclusively benefits a single state? Amtrak routes should all be 'interstates'. It ties regional service to regional service by connecting major US cities and picking up smaller communites that are lucky enough to be inbetween.

I don't have a 100-page proposal on how to pull that off, but it would really use local funds for local service and federal funds for national service.

But since THAT isn't going to happen, I think what Amtrak needs to focus on at the moment with their pittance of funding is restoring restorable stock, providing fair and balanced wage contracts that includes provisions for firing inept personnel who think their job is an entitlement rather than a priviledge, get upper management under control that includes provisions for firing inept management who think their job is an entitlement rather than a priviledge, and upgrade power and track on the NEC to at least the 1980's.

 

[VentureForth]

FWIW, $357 BILLION is equal to about $17,000 spent PER MINUTE for the next 40 years. When you put that into an 8-hr day with weekends off, it's closer to $71,500 spent per minute.

It's also enough to employ 44,650 people at $200,000 per year for the next 40 years.

On the brighter side, that's only a $30 per man woman and child annual contribution to the government.

 

[Dakguy201]

I believe that we are on the right track right now - albeit slower than cold honey. A national network only works if there is local infrastructure to feed it. I believe that the states need to be putting in their in-state long distance service in first, then conglomerates of states - much like what has been done in Illinois, California, North Carolina, and the NEC. The Palmetto shouldn't be Amtrak, and neither should most of the Illinois in-state services. Why should fed money be spend on something that exclusively benefits a single state? Amtrak routes should all be 'interstates'. It ties regional service to regional service by connecting major US cities and picking up smaller communites that are lucky enough to be inbetween.

I'm not going to give you flak for that statement; I agree with it. Somehow this study, and others, has the flavor of a bunch of grad students in some urban planning ivory tower. The various state sponsored rail services are a real world attempt to solve problems here and now and should be expanded/encouraged. The role of a federally subsidized Amtrak should be to knit those various pieces together into a transportation system.

 

[AlanB]

The Palmetto shouldn't be Amtrak, and neither should most of the Illinois in-state services.

The Palmetto is the perfect example of a train that should be run by Amtrak. I think that you meant the Piedmont, which runs exclusively within North Carolina.

Why should fed money be spend on something that exclusively benefits a single state? Amtrak routes should all be 'interstates'. It ties regional service to regional service by connecting major US cities and picking up smaller communites that are lucky enough to be inbetween.

As for this idea, I have no problem with states paying Amtrak the monies needed to operate the service that aren't covered by ticket sales. And IMHO I think that it actually makes sense for states to pay Amtrak to do that, since it makes life easier for the passenger in terms of through ticketing and such. One stop shopping is always nice.

Yes it is possible to still make that work, even if the state hired someone else to run the trains, but it will never be as easy as just contracting with Amtrak.

That said, most state orientated services do not use federal dollars to run, at least operationally. They are probably benefiting from Federal dollars on Capitol items. California however and North Carolina are examples though where the states are even chipping it capitol monies. Both states actually own equipment and don't rely solely on Amtrak for equipment. Illinios does relay solely on Amtrak for equipment, but they do pay for the operational costs. Pennsy also pays most of the operational costs, and while they don't own equipment, they have spent millions on track upgrades.

Maine has used federal money to get the Downeaster up and running, however it was direct funding from the Fed and not fed through Amtrak. The same was originally true of the Heartland flyer, however that train is now currently sponsered solely by Texas and Oklahoma now. It however really should be just an Amtrak train, not a state sponsered train. If we look to the Cascades service, again we find that the states of Washington (more) and Oregon (less) help to pay for that service. Washington also owns equipment, although not all of the equipment and both states have helped to pay BNSF for track improvements.

Frankly the one state that IMHO is getting a free ride is sadly my home state NY. They have spent some monies on some track improvements and there was the ill fated Turboliner project. But overall NY gets free train service from Amtrak.

 

[VentureForth]

The Palmetto is the perfect example of a train that should be run by Amtrak. I think that you meant the Piedmont, which runs exclusively within North Carolina.

Doh! You're right.

 

[George Harris]

The Midwest High Speed Rail plan which proposes upgrading the main routes to 110mph (using diesel traction) looks like an eminently sensible template for upgrading US railways if money isn't available for 200mph TGV lines. I understand some progress has been made on implementing this on the Chicago to St Louis line.

Unfortunately the Midwest High Speed Rail Association is a planning agency only. If this missive had come from Illinois DOT, it might mean something will actually happen. Coming from the Midwest HSA it is a wish list and no more. Sorry, but this is no indication that anything is about to happen. A few things were done several years ago, but these seem to have been no more than correcting some of the deferred maintenance. So far as I know, nothing has happened recently other than the increase in the number of trains funded by the state.

 

[Trogdor]

FWIW, $357 BILLION is equal to about $17,000 spent PER MINUTE for the next 40 years. When you put that into an 8-hr day with weekends off, it's closer to $71,500 spent per minute.
It's also enough to employ 44,650 people at $200,000 per year for the next 40 years.

On the brighter side, that's only a $30 per man woman and child annual contribution to the government.

Or about one year's worth of fighting halfway around the world.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

A lot of highway construction is paid for by the federal government. And there are Interstate highways that don't leave a single state (H-1, H-2, and H-3 are certainly examples, and I bet there are some short highways with three digit Interstate numbers in the 48 contiguous states as well that don't cross state lines).

My understanding is that states have to balance their budgets, and the federal government doesn't have to. So if you argue for state funding only, you're putting a significant limit on the funding that might be available.

I've done interstate travel without a car using entirely MBTA services (the Red Line, and the Providence Line), and the MBTA is certainly not the only organization in this country running commuter rail trains across state lines. On the other hand, a trip entirely within California could easily be many times the length of my Boston to Providence trip.

 

[wayman]

I bet there are some short highways with three digit Interstate numbers in the 48 contiguous states as well that don't cross state lines).

Almost all Interstates with 3-digit numbers don't cross state lines. 3-digits beginning with an even digit designates a beltway around a city, 3-digits beginning with an odd digit designates a stub into a city. 3-digit numbers are re-used in many instances--495 (DC Beltway), 495 (Wilmington Beltway), 495 (Boston Beltway)--but considered separate highways.

I've done interstate travel without a car using entirely MBTA services

Several friends and I dream of the day MARC and SEPTA drive their golden spike somewhere between Newark and Perryville, and it becomes possible to take VRE to WMATA to MARC to SEPTA to NJT to MTA to MetroNorth (Fredricksburg to New Haven, through seven states and DC) entirely by commuter rail and mass transit. The gap is only about fifteen miles; it's never gonna happen, of course, but it's fun to think about. (But the closest MetroNorth and MBTA Commuter Rail get is New Haven to Providence, or else Waterbury to Worcester, each about 100 miles, no?)

The Northeast really is nearly a single urban sprawl. I've been here twelve years, and it's still a shock to me when I think about it.

 

[AlanB]

(But the closest MetroNorth and MBTA Commuter Rail get is New Haven to Providence, or else Waterbury to Worcester, each about 100 miles, no?)

While you are correct that the closest that Metro North gets to the MBTA is New Haven, one can get much closer to the T at Providence via commuter rail. If one rides the Shore Line East commuter railroad, which connects with MN at either New Haven or Stamford, then one can get as far east as New London a mere 62 miles away. And once the T starts running trains to the new station at TF Green Airport south of PVD, that gap will shrink by a few more miles.

PS. You might want to check out this trip report by Kevin Korell (aka SuperlinerDiner), as it documents a trip that he did between Boston and DC using every possible commuter RR and only resorting to Amtrak to fill in the gaps in service.

 

[Randy Limm]

I bet there are some short highways with three digit Interstate numbers in the 48 contiguous states as well that don't cross state lines).

Almost all Interstates with 3-digit numbers don't cross state lines. 3-digits beginning with an even digit designates a beltway around a city, 3-digits beginning with an odd digit designates a stub into a city. 3-digit numbers are re-used in many instances--495 (DC Beltway), 495 (Wilmington Beltway), 495 (Boston Beltway)--but considered separate highways.

I've done interstate travel without a car using entirely MBTA services

Several friends and I dream of the day MARC and SEPTA drive their golden spike somewhere between Newark and Perryville, and it becomes possible to take VRE to WMATA to MARC to SEPTA to NJT to MTA to MetroNorth (Fredricksburg to New Haven, through seven states and DC) entirely by commuter rail and mass transit. The gap is only about fifteen miles; it's never gonna happen, of course, but it's fun to think about. (But the closest MetroNorth and MBTA Commuter Rail get is New Haven to Providence, or else Waterbury to Worcester, each about 100 miles, no?)

The Northeast really is nearly a single urban sprawl. I've been here twelve years, and it's still a shock to me when I think about it.

You don't need WMATA... VRE connects directly to MARC at Union Station in DC

 

[birdy]

It seems to me that we have to do the permitting and condemnation at the federal level if we want to get a move on. Don't get me wrong. this is a democracy and the NIMBYs have to be heard. Truth be told, sometimes the NIMBYs are right. Just speed it up.

With respect to expense, the expense is easily affordable. If corporations contributed to the overall tax revenues in the same average proportion that they have for the past 40 years, that would be a $100 billion dollar a year corporate tax increase. In fact, the entire $350 billion could be financed almost exactly by taxing the 400 largest individual taxpayers at an average federal rate of 26% (what they paid in 1992) up from the pathetic 17% effective rate they pay now.

As long as we are talking about planning decades out, how about a little cutting edge research? Let's expend a few million bucks to explore the possibility of putting Maglev in a vacuum pipeline or tunnel. Go supersonic.

 

[zoltan]

Several friends and I dream of the day MARC and SEPTA drive their golden spike somewhere between Newark and Perryville, and it becomes possible to take VRE to WMATA to MARC to SEPTA to NJT to MTA to MetroNorth (Fredericksburg to New Haven, through seven states and DC) entirely by commuter rail and mass transit. The gap is only about fifteen miles; it's never gonna happen, of course, but it's fun to think about.

You're not the only one that wants MARC to Newark, believe me! Apart from the fantastic through connectivity - even disregarding cheap travel avoiding Amtrak, think Perryville to Philadelphia or Marcus Hook to Washington, and having no trains whatsoever to Elkton is pretty criminal, to be honest.

While the Shore Line and the MBTA are not connected by bus, a pretty ridiculous ride on two buses, one of which is one of these odd community sort of minibuses on which someone like me boarding halves the average age on board, takes you from Newark to Perryville.

I've put some thought to this, and I've put together a document detailing the schedule one can take. It was originally to show the possible itinerary from DC to NYC, and I've since extend it to include the furthest extent of commuter rail and local bus connections; there is no regular transport other than Amtrak between Old Saybrook and Providence. I shall share it:

Fredericksburg to Old Saybrook.pdf

Apologies for the 24 hour time, as that's what I'm used to and it was made for my own use.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

While the Shore Line and the MBTA are not connected by bus

Which leads to the question of how big the SEAT-RIPTA gap is.

Greyhound also appears to offer service between Providence and New London.

I've put some thought to this, and I've put together a document detailing the schedule one can take. It was originally to show the possible itinerary from DC to NYC, and I've since extend it to include the furthest extent of commuter rail and local bus connections; there is no regular transport other than Amtrak between Old Saybrook and Providence

Don't some Shore Line East trains get all the way to New London?

Fredericksburg to Old Saybrook.pdf

Thanks for sharing that.

There's also the PATCO-Riverline routing available from Philadelphia to Trenton, if you're willing to take detours from the NEC.

 

[Ryan]

Interesting that no-one has commented on this plan. Presumably because no-one believes it has any chance of implementation.

There is no such thing as a 43 year "plan". The entire US interstate system was designed and built in less than that. What is just now being implemented that was dreamed up in 1965?

Depends on what yardstick you use.

Wikipedia:

Due to the cancellation of the Somerset Freeway, Interstate 95 is discontinuous in New Jersey. When the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project concludes in or around 2009, the last section of the original plan will be completed.

The article also mentions that some people use the completion of I-70 in 1992 as the "finished" yardstick, there's also I-485 in North Carolina that's still under construction, although I can't find a reference as to whether that was in the original plan or not.

 

[George Harris]

The article also mentions that some people use the completion of I-70 in 1992 as the "finished" yardstick, there's also I-485 in North Carolina that's still under construction, although I can't find a reference as to whether that was in the original plan or not.

There are quite a number of chunks of interstate that were not in the original plan. Several are logical extensions or connections, a few were and are simply exercises in political power.

 

[Ryan]

The article also mentions that some people use the completion of I-70 in 1992 as the "finished" yardstick, there's also I-485 in North Carolina that's still under construction, although I can't find a reference as to whether that was in the original plan or not.

There are quite a number of chunks of interstate that were not in the original plan. Several are logical extensions or connections, a few were and are simply exercises in political power.

Well, yes. That's why I said that there's some discussion over what "finished" actually means. What is actually relevant to the discussion here is that there really is such a thing as a "43 year plan", since it took that long for the original planned interstate system to be constructed.