Western Keystone Corridor study released

[afigg]

The Western Keystone Corridor study has finally been released. The documents are available on the PlantheKeystone Keystone West webpage. I have only done a skim read, but my initial reaction is What the Heck on the prices for the 3 Alternatives, especially the first two. Even the HSR alternative, which was not carried forward, strikes me as high at $33 billion for a HAR-PGH corridor, even considering the mountains ranges in-between.

One one good aspect is that a building spur line to State College PA is part of the Alternatives.

High level summary:

Alternative 1 (curve mods in existing ROW) = $1.5 billion
Alternative 2 (Alt 1 improvements + some new alignments) = $9.9 billion
Alternative 3 (Alt 1 and 2 plus continuous 3rd track) = $13.1 billion
Alternative 4 (all new electrified 2 track HSR alignment on southern route near PA Turnpike) = $38.3 billion. Not carried forward for further analysis.

I can see PennDOT laying out $300 or $400 million in incremental improvements to stations and some track upgrades for 2 or 3 trains a day between Philly and Pittsburgh, but $1.5 billion just for the lowest cost Alternative 1? I doubt it. The cost numbers at the executive summary level, which is what the politicians will read, are so high, I wonder what was going on behind the scenes in carrying out the study. The study was released on a Friday before a holiday weekend, when it would get the least press coverage, which makes me wonder if PennDOT is dumping the study and is only posting it because they have to.

The study is open for public comments through Tuesday, March 31. Comments questioning the cost figures and writing in support of improved HAR-PGH service could be helpful.

 

[Paulus]

Don't see why a spur line is a good thing; that's the sort of thing that's best taken care of by a Thruway bus isn't it?

At a quick glance, the problem is that they're doing some sort of fantasy upgrade here. There are no fewer than 40 grade separations and 31 new bridges in Alternative 1. Not counting the State College spur, there is 94.7 miles of new siding or track and 60.1 miles of new rail access road. They're basically triple tracking 38% of the route for a single freaking train.

 

[Paulus]

As a lower-cost alternative to the proposed infrastructure modifications, the round trip travel time could be reduced by approximately 38 minutes by implementing only the four proposed local platform access projects (4 minutes, 17 seconds) and using Talgo passenger coaches (17 minutes, 7 seconds eastbound and 16 minutes, 58 seconds westbound). This is 60 percent of the 65-minute round trip travel time savings achieved by the full implementation of Alternative 2 in combination with conventional Amtrak equipment. However, it must be noted that this calculation was carried out as a purely theoretical exercise since the Talgo equipment tested does not meet FRA crash worthiness standards. The use of Talgo coaches would require a dedicated maintenance facility equipped to handle that equipment and (at present) a special FRA waiver to crashworthiness regulations.

WHY WASN'T THIS A HIGHLIGHTED ALTERNATIVE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[wolfspirit]

As a lower-cost alternative to the proposed infrastructure modifications, the round trip travel time could be reduced by approximately 38 minutes by implementing only the four proposed local platform access projects (4 minutes, 17 seconds) and using Talgo passenger coaches (17 minutes, 7 seconds eastbound and 16 minutes, 58 seconds westbound). This is 60 percent of the 65-minute round trip travel time savings achieved by the full implementation of Alternative 2 in combination with conventional Amtrak equipment. However, it must be noted that this calculation was carried out as a purely theoretical exercise since the Talgo equipment tested does not meet FRA crash worthiness standards. The use of Talgo coaches would require a dedicated maintenance facility equipped to handle that equipment and (at present) a special FRA waiver to crashworthiness regulations.

WHY WASN'T THIS A HIGHLIGHTED ALTERNATIVE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because the state doesn't want to own equipment, I think. In addition, I can understand not highlighting an option that may never be allowed without waivers (and NS may just say flat-out no to that equipment).

 

[Paulus]

As a lower-cost alternative to the proposed infrastructure modifications, the round trip travel time could be reduced by approximately 38 minutes by implementing only the four proposed local platform access projects (4 minutes, 17 seconds) and using Talgo passenger coaches (17 minutes, 7 seconds eastbound and 16 minutes, 58 seconds westbound). This is 60 percent of the 65-minute round trip travel time savings achieved by the full implementation of Alternative 2 in combination with conventional Amtrak equipment. However, it must be noted that this calculation was carried out as a purely theoretical exercise since the Talgo equipment tested does not meet FRA crash worthiness standards. The use of Talgo coaches would require a dedicated maintenance facility equipped to handle that equipment and (at present) a special FRA waiver to crashworthiness regulations.

WHY WASN'T THIS A HIGHLIGHTED ALTERNATIVE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because the state doesn't want to own equipment, I think. In addition, I can understand not highlighting an option that may never be allowed without waivers (and NS may just say flat-out no to that equipment).

Talgo Series 8 is FRA compliant (and the study authors need to be defenestrated for "Oh, but it wasn't running yet when we did it!"), though admittedly ugly as sin, and while the state may not want to own equipment, a vastly cheaper option should always be highlighted instead of just "Welp, we'll just go spend billions on infrastructure just cuz" options.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I'm in no way surprised.

I'd read that NS said, "Another train, another track."

So to add one lousy train was gonna cost billions.

We knew that.

Not worth it.

You want to spend billions? Let's do it. Priorities:

(1) South of the Lake.

(2) Then 110 mph corridor Chicago-Toledo-

Cleveland-Pittsburgh.

(3) D.C.-Richmond-Petersburg-Raleigh.

Then skipping down the list a ways to

(101) Harrisburg-Pittsburgh.

Just not worth it. Sorry.

From the Pennsylvania point of view, for that

$1.5 Billion or $9.9 Billion, how about instead

Philly-Reading,

Philly-Bethlehem-Allentown-NYC,

Scranton-NYC,

or even

upgrades Erie-Cleveland to speed up the Lake Shore?

(Yeah I know Erie is small while Pittsburgh is giant,

but if you're spending FEDERAL Billions, then

Erie-Cleveland makes good sense.)

Instead of a Billion-dollar route to Pittsburgh

these other routes might well deliver much

more bang for the Billion.

 

[neroden]

Someone on trainorders said that he was part of the company which lost the bid to do the study. He thought that the study was deliberate sandbagging, designed to discourage the state from doing anything.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3662399

He pointed to the previous study in the mid-2000s, which said that it would cost a lot less:

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/bureaus/PublicTransportation/Keystonestudyvol1.pdf

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/PublicTransportation/Keystonestudyvol2.pdf

----

Studying a *spur* to State College is not suitable: the spur proposed comes from the Pittsburgh direction and seems to have been determined by the existing railroad route, whereas the spur needed most is probably from the Philadelphia direction. But State College should be on the *through route*. Tyrone to State College is a nice straight existing railroad line. If you're going to spend big money, the thing to do is to do new-build tunnels from Lewistown to State College to the existing railroad line, which also incidentally bypasses some of the more congested and twisty parts of the NS line.

This also provides a coherent phasing with independent utility for the project, which has been absent. This is how I'd do it:

Phase one: Harrisburg to State College: state-owned third track from Harrisburg to Lewistown, new track from Lewistown to State College, operated as a Keystone extension. Expensive but has substantial independent utility, what with the 50000 students, academic conferences, etc. in State College.

Phase two: State College to Tyrone rehabilitation (and state purchase of the track), reroute the Pennsylvanian.

Phase three: Tyrone to Pittsburgh, additional Pittsburgh service.

Eat the elephant one bite at a time. I'm not sure if the political alignment is present for a billion-dollar route to State College, but frankly it should be.

The current, extremely bad, study proposed spending $6.5 billion on improvements from Lewistown to Huntingdon, which could be *bypassed completely* by new-build tunnels from Lewistown to State College, which would be *much more useful*.

----

I just submitted an email comment to them saying that their study was incompetent, telling them to do a new study, and specifically recommending study of direct tunnels from Lewistown to State College. (They're proposing $6.5 billion of improvements in the areas which would be BYPASSED by Lewistown-State College tunnels, and for that amount of money... why not go directly to State College?)

 

[jis]

Good proposal neroden! That is the reason I pointed out on trainorders that the business about the $6.5 billion for Lewistown to Huntingdon, and using that in effect to make Alt 2 look too expensive for just 38 min saving, and the State College spur by itself makes no sense at all.

The combo that you propose makes a heck of a lot more sense! Indeed, I was informed that the Lewistown - Huntingdon proposal in Alt 2 by itself would gain all of 12 mins or so. Which is completely absurd for that kind of money.

That is typical obfuscation used by the good for nothing consultants when they sense their paymasters are looking for a specific conclusion. The thing to worry about here is what does PennDOT really want! The results of the study is discouraging as far as that goes.

 

[Paulus]

Billions in additional sidings and triple tracking proposed yet...

This conceptual feasibility study only assessed the prospective performance of passenger trains on a hypothetically unimpeded railroad. Therefore, the potential conflicts between passenger and freight trains are not directly accounted for in this analysis....This software simulates the operation of a single train on a single track; therefore, the effects of conflicting traffic on travel time are not reflected in the results.