Which rail advocacy organizations promote high-speed rail (Northeast)?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

beautifulplanet

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
337
This one seems like one of the more difficult ones: When Amtrak is already showing an operating profit in the Northeast, both for its Acela Express as well as for its slower Regional services between Boston, New York, and Washington, why is there so little talk about introducing 220mph high-speed rail between those cities, for even bigger benefits for the people and the economy, while at the same time making an even greater profit?

In case Amtrak's Vision for the Northeast Corridor were not misread by me, then 900$+ million of operating profits could be expected in case the system was improved and expanded as suggested there - that's nearly 1$ billion every year in profits - why wouldn't there be more discussion about it, or more steps taken towards it by the involved stakeholders?

It probably would be easier to get 220mph high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor in case that corridor wouldn't consist of areas of 8 different states and 1 capital district. If it was all one state, like San Francisco to Los Angeles is, then things might be easier, as this way, 8 state governments have to make agreements, and then all have to push for the same thing, which could make things comparatively difficult. That's maybe why the state of New York rather studied how to get high-speed rail in the corridor between New York City, Albany and Buffalo (which is a good idea of course) but didn't engage in the same way to study in the same detail how to get high-speed rail in the corridor New York City, Washington D.C. and Boston (probably because just little of that is located in New York state).

Here's Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor - 2012 Update Report - PDF:
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/453/325/Amtrak-Vision-for-the-Northeast-Corridor.pdf

The federal government's involvement: A rail investment plan for the Northeast Corridor.
http://www.necfuture.com

Preliminary Alternatives Report - April 2013 (PDF)
http://www.necfuture.com/pdfs/prelim_alts_report.pdf

My impression is that it seems like Amtrak's NexGen plan is to some degree represented in Preliminary Alternative 13 of the FRA's Preliminary Alternatives Report.

What I saw was press reports about the cities not served by the NexGen 220mph line unhappy about having no stop on it, like this one:

Amtrak high speed rail could bypass Connecticut shoreline under new plan (documents)
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20120910/amtrak-high-speed-rail-could-bypass-connecticut-shoreline-under-new-plan-documents

In the meantime, there were more press reports about a Maglev for (NewYork-)Baltimore-DC, like here:

High-Speed Train in Northeast Corridor Gaining Steam

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/High-Speed-Train-in-Northeast-Corridor-Gaining-Steam-231209881.html

or here:

Avoid an infrastructure disaster with transportation reforms, former elected officials warn
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/02/07/Avoid-an-infrastructure-disaster-with-transportation-reforms-former-elected-officials-warn/4581391725752/

Maglev technology represents a lock-in, as the infrastructure owner as well as the operator stays permanently dependent on the maglev system developer when it comes to trainsets as well as infrastructure, comparatively raising costs and lowering profits. At the same time, the new infrastructure (maglev track) is incompatible with existing rail infrastructure.

Stell-wheel-on-steel-rail in opposition to that represents an open infrastructure that can be used with off-the-shelf trainsets from different manufacturers, creating competitive prices and no dependency, while having the possibility to integrate the new 220mph service with existing infrastructure (f.e. there's no reason a 220mph trainset coming from Boston wouldn't be able in Philadelphia to continue to Harrisburg with 110mph, which Maglev couldn't on existing tracks).

Still it seems sometimes like the Maglev proposal is in the news more than Amtrak's NexGen service proposal.

These are the only organizations I was able to find supporting 220mph high-speed rail between Boston and Washington D.C. - please expand the list if possible:

Northeast Alliance for Rail

http://www.northeastallianceforrail.org/

Not a citizen's initiative, instead a coalition of business and civic leaders.

And of course USHSR and NARP.

US High Speed Rail Association
http://www.ushsr.com/membership.html
Advocate Membership starting at 75$/year (students 35$/year).

NARP
http://www.narprail.org/donate/join
They seem to support high-speed rail, but their main focus seems to be the improvement and expansion of conventional Amtrak services (not high-speed rail).
Indiviual membership starting at 35$/year (senior 25$/year, students 20$/year).
 
This one seems like one of the more difficult ones: When Amtrak is already showing an operating profit in the Northeast, both for its Acela Express as well as for its slower Regional services between Boston, New York, and Washington, why is there so little talk about introducing 220mph high-speed rail between those cities, for even bigger benefits for the people and the economy, while at the same time making an even greater profit?
Who says there isn't? There is even a ballpark price tag of $110 billion to $120 billion in today's dollars over a 35 year period, which many believe to be a low ball estimate. Problem is real estate acquisition in a densely populated corridor. Won't be easy or cheap, and a lot of it will be required since very little of the existing ROW can be reused for such a line. Just got to find that $3.5 billion per year continuously for 35 years :) No one seems to believe that the cost would be recouped anytime soon. I have not done the arithmetic. But what I believe or not is pretty irrelevant anyway.
NARP really does not have much to say about 220mph anything on the NEC.

Midwest High Speed Rail Association http://www.midwesthsr.org/ is more into HSR than NARP, though one of the directors of MWHSRA is a member of the NARP Council.
 
This one seems like one of the more difficult ones: When Amtrak is already showing an operating profit in the Northeast, both for its Acela Express as well as for its slower Regional services between Boston, New York, and Washington, why is there so little talk about introducing 220mph high-speed rail between those cities, for even bigger benefits for the people and the economy, while at the same time making an even greater profit?

In case Amtrak's Vision for the Northeast Corridor were not misread by me, then 900$+ million of operating profits could be expected in case the system was improved and expanded as suggested there - that's nearly 1$ billion every year in profits - why wouldn't there be more discussion about it, or more steps taken towards it by the involved stakeholders?
There are steps being taken. The NEC Future study and eventual report are steps toward reaching an agreement on what a Future NEC should look like. Meanwhile, Amtrak appears to be proceeding within the framework of the 2020 Stair Step 2 laid out in their 2012 Vision to advance to an NEC with some 160 mph segments and new HSR trainsets.
The reality for the 220 mph NextGen NEC concept is that it will be very expensive to build. At the present time, the federal government is in the grips of austerity budgets with a Republican controlled House with many members who are hostile to federal infrastructure spending on anything resembling HSR. Even if a private investment consortium were to be put in place to a build a 220 mph NextGen NEC, the vast amount of capital needed will require extensive federal and state backing.

There is a fundamental question that has to be answered which is whether a 220 mph NEC II is worth the cost over a more "modest" $30 or $40 billion modernization and upgrade of the current NEC to 160 mph segments, expanded capacity, and more aggressive but constrained route improvements in CT. The Stair Step 3 & 4 NEC spelled out in the Vision is a markedly improved NEC over what we have now. Is it worth it to spend an additional $60 or $80 billion or whatever to build the NextGen NEC or would it a better investment to spend that money on other HSR and HrSR corridors in the east and the Midwest?
 
Also

ESPA endorses the 110mph alternative for the Empire Corridor.

NJ-ARP supports the NEC upgrade in NJ that is in progress.

But I don't think either of those consider the 220mph proposals as viable at this point in time. That might change after the NEC Futures PEIS is completed and the NEC Commission gets its act together in general funding plans for infrastructure upgrades.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you very much for your reply.

[...] why is there so little talk about introducing 220mph high-speed rail [...]
Who says there isn't? There is even a ballpark price tag of $110 billion to $120 billion in today's dollars over a 35 year period, which many believe to be a low ball estimate.
Certainly above there was no statement that there is no talk. It might seem to some though that there is little talk about it, while for example the California high-speed rail project appears to be in the news every other day. It could even be perceived in a way that even Texas Central Railway's high-speed rail project is generating more talk then NexGen high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor. The exact amount of the estimated necessary investment for Amtrak's Vision for the Northeast Corridor can be found right in that first link above. Seeing the total proposed investments in the corridor are more than twice the projected amount for California's system maybe it's even already an estimate that takes into consideration the higher density and extra tunneling, land acquisition needed.

Problem is real estate acquisition in a densely populated corridor. Won't be easy or cheap, and a lot of it will be required since very little of the existing ROW can be reused for such a line. Just got to find that $3.5 billion per year continuously for 35 years :) No one seems to believe that the cost would be recouped anytime soon. I have not done the arithmetic.
It might appear to some like few great achievements are ever cheap or easy. At the same time, some would come to the conclusion great achievements are still worthy of serving as a goal to pursue, even if they rarely are cheap and easy.

To outline the situation as some might perceive it:

- The United States is the richest nation on earth.

- Other countries, having much more limited resources, like Spain or even Turkey, managed to build it (weather the current services are operated at 300kmh, or 250kmh, in both countries at least some portions of the track system were actually designed for 220mph)

- So at the same time, the richest country on earth, having annual federal expenditures of $3.45 trillion, so $3450 billion in 2013, is not able to fund high-speed rail (of course, all the individual states' expenditures still exist on top of that)

- As a sign of hope, at least some investment for high-speed rail exists, both on federal level (f.e. through the $8 billion of the program of high-speed intercity passenger rail service in 2009's Recovery Act), and on the level of some states

- With total federal expenditures of $3450 billion annually, it might seem to many that also including $3.5 billion per year over the 35 years should be possible, in the richest nation on earth.

- So those $3.5 billion per year translate to just about 0.1% of the total federal expenditures, and then possibly even a mix of federal and states' funding could be used.

- Just for comparison: According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Department of Defense (DoD) received $580 billion in funding for 2013. Then in addition, there are roughly $87 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), formerly called "War on terror", so for additional military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other related areas. Then there is the Department for Homeland Security and other defense-related budget items, that are separate and additional to the DoD and OCO spending.

- There might be some who would think, that with all this money spent, $3.5 billion a year for Northeast Corridor NexGen high-speed rail, which is going through the Northeast megalopolis of currently nearly 50 million people, which is expected to add another nearly 10 million by 2025, could be included in federal budgets. Some might even think that it could be vital for this region, one of the richest and economically most successful in the world, and that neglecting necessary investments could be counter-productive.

- When it's possible to come up with funding for a project to put underground and expand Boston's highways (a project having improved infrastructure in that metro region) at a total cost of estimated $24 billion, then to many it might appear like it should also be possible to come up with funding for a transportation project that is not solely going to benefit one single metro area like Boston's, but instead most major metro areas in the Northeast at the same time.

- In Fiscal year 2011, Acela Express had $204.9 more in revenue than it had operating expenses, $44.6 million in the cast of Northeast Regional. So as today's operations in the Northeast Corridor already show profits, many people might estimate that future profits with a more-frequent, faster service with longer trainsets and higher capacity will even show substantially higher profits.

- So when it comes to "Problem is real estate acquisition in a densely populated corridor. Won't be easy or cheap" - today's rail infrastructure in the Northeast Corridor was largely built between 170 and 100 years ago. And it still served all those past generations, the current one, and it will serve future ones. It was probably not easy or cheap to built it back then, still generations of the past carried through with it, and did not from refrain from doing so, just because it wasn't easy or cheap.

- Quite the opposite, in case the current corridor wouldn't have been built those 170 to 100 years ago, besides from all the generations that benefited from it in the meantime, it would be multiple times more expensive and harder to built the same infrastructure today. Population growth might probably just continue. Real estate - with fluctuations - might probably just get more and more expensive. So once again, the longer construction of new infrastructure - possibly requiring real estate acquisition - is delayed and moved into the future, the more expensive it will get. The sooner it will be done, the cheaper it will be, and the more people will benefit from it.

- It might seem obvious that creating a corridor like that is a long-term investment, while many people today might just be familiar with the unsustainable thought patterns of many private enterprises and their desire for very short-term profits. So when it comes to "No one seems to believe that the cost would be recouped anytime soon", it seems like besides foolish short-term-focused private enterprises, nobody would even look for anything being "recouped anytime soon", as obviously it is a long-term investment. What it amazing is that in the very long-term, the investments might be recouped, at least partially, because as stated above, if recalled correctly from the Amtrak Vision PDF, then the Northeast Corridor profits are estimated to increase to $900 million per year with implementation of the plan.

- That could be contrasted with most other federal expenditures today. All open highway or local road projects will recoup next to 0% of their cost. Most military projects won't recoup any of their cost. Still probably few would argue that all non-toll road construction or military operations should be stopped, as they don't make a profit from their operations. That's why to many it might seem logical that even if building high-speed rail would be just like that, and make no operational profit, it would still be a good investment, just in the same way. The fact that it's most likely going to make profits so huge that long-term it could partially or fully pay for its construction might seem just amazing to many. And like just another reason to proceed with 220mph NexGen high-speed rail.

- In case in the richest nation on earth, with a federal budget of $3450 billion, $3.5 billion a year can not be allocated towards 220mph high-speed rail in the corridor that earns 1$ of each 5$ within the national economy, then that would just clearly be a voluntary choice by the people and their representatives. It might seem encouraging to many, that f.e. in other regions of the country like in California, the people and their representatives chose to start a project like that, even though in the beginning funding of all of the project cost is not allocated, still slowly more and more funding comes into place, and there seems to be a determination in the leadership to proceed with a project which might be seen as a benefit for the whole region. Many might wish for the respective leadership to proceed with the 220mph high-speed rail project in the Northeast Corridor to proceed with the same determination.

NARP really does not have much to say about 220mph anything on the NEC.
Some might wish that NARP was more vocal about their support for high-speed rail, indeed though right on their first "About us" page called "Mission & Goals" it says "NARP also seeks to have at least one high-speed rail line with trains operating at a maximum speed of at least 220 mph in operation by 2025". This doesn't explicitly mention the NEC, still at least 220mph high-speed rail seems to be clearly endorsed as a concept.


Also just recently (about 4 weeks ago), a blog post was published on NARP criticizing the distraction that the Hyperloop proposal is, and defending 220mph high-speed rail.

See here:
http://narprail.org/news/narp-blog/2493-ca-rule-of-cool


In 2011, when the house testimony took place, NARP also stated again on its website that "we support Amtrak’s nextgen vision for the Northeast Corridor".

See here:
http://www.narprail.org/resources/statements/hill-statements/1795-northeast-corridor-high-speed-rail


So it might seem like they could say so much about NexGen high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor, at least they said something about it (that they indeed support it).

Midwest High Speed Rail Association http://www.midwesthsr.org/ is more into HSR than NARP, though one of the directors of MWHSRA is a member of the NARP Council.
Yes, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association seems to be solely dedicated to high-speed rail, which seems to be the reason for it to be more into HSR than NARP. That's why over in the other thread "Which rail advocacy organizations promote high-speed rail (outside CA / Northeast)?", the MHSRA was mentioned:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/58780-which-rail-advocacy-organizations-promote-high-speed-rail-outside-canortheast/

It's great to learn that MHSRA and NARP have connections in that way.

Many might wish that there would be more vocal support for high-speed rail in general, and for NexGen high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor as well.
 
In reply to "[...] why wouldn't there be [...] more steps taken towards it by the involved stakeholders?"

There are steps being taken.
Certainly it seems like it wasn't stated before that no steps are being taken, still it might seem strange to some (given the importance of the Northeast Corridor) that not more steps are being taken then the ones that currently seem to be happening.

The NEC Future study and eventual report are steps toward reaching an agreement on what a Future NEC should look like. Meanwhile, Amtrak appears to be proceeding within the framework of the 2020 Stair Step 2 laid out in their 2012 Vision to advance to an NEC with some 160 mph segments and new HSR trainsets.
Of course any steps that actually are being taken seem like a very positive development to many. It might seem to many that of course new trainsets are desperately needed to increase capacity, as well as very concrete, near-term improvements in the Northeast Corridor that might not even be related to 220mph operations. It appears that one things should not exclude the other.

The reality for the 220 mph NextGen NEC concept is that it will be very expensive to build.
Of course this statement is very legit. Of course it seems obvious that it's said in a good will. And it probably could be understood in a way that a significant investment is necessary to build transportation infrastructure. While assuming the same good will please allow the remark that to many if something's expensive seems to be relative to the value of a thing. For a transit ticket, $100 seems expensive. For a trainset, $100 seems cheap. For what it is, improving 457 miles of rail infrastructure in the most utilized rail corridor of the nation while building new infrastructure in new right of way and taking service to a whole new level, so at least to some the concept doesn't seem expensive for what it is. For the value it has. These becomes even more obvious to many when reports estimate the Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq to have been at least $757.8 billion, still rarely will one hear people say that it was expensive. Some will have realized that military operations are not possible with a low investment, thus it is not called expensive, though the total cost was multiple times higher multiple times higher than any high-speed rail proposal (and even though Mr. Hussein was not a member of Al-Qaeda and there were no weapons of mass distruction to be found).

At the present time, the federal government is in the grips of austerity budgets with a Republican controlled House with many members who are hostile to federal infrastructure spending on anything resembling HSR.
While the austerity budgets in the US might look still quite different than most of the austerity budgets in other countries of the world (much more spending), of course the above probably describes the current political situation quite well. At the same time, with annual federal expenditures of $3.45 trillion, so $3450 billion, it at least theoretically would seem more than possible to allocate some billions of that towards state-of-the-art high-speed rail systems as well. For some rail advocates, the current political situation then might not be "Oh, this is were the story ends" but "This is where the story begins". :) It might seem to some that then it might be exactly that point of time when it would be up to rail advocates to build even more momentum for the projects.

Also, it might seem to many like high-speed rail necessarily would not be a partisan issue. There are also Republicans - while not current members of the House - supporting high-speed rail. Former Republican California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supported the project, just as Fresno's former mayor, Republican Alan Autry did, and current Republican Fresno mayor Ashley Swearengin does now. And there are more. To quote from a New York Times article:

"Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House, has written books and given speeches about the importance of high-speed rail in the United States, and he supported a study for a high-speed line from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tenn., sought by local boosters when he was in Congress. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas saw a role for high-speed rail in his failed $175 billion transportation plan to build what would have been called the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Even Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a small-government libertarian, signed a letter that several members of Texas’ Congressional delegation sent to federal officials in 2009 urging them to give the state money for rail studies to help it build “a truly ambitious and world-class high-speed rail network.”

But Mr. Gingrich may be the most outspoken Republican presidential candidate when it comes to his support of high-speed rail. He has spoken and written admiringly of China and France, and how far ahead of the United States they were when it comes to high-speed rail. He has opined that high-speed train lines would make sense in Florida and California — places the Obama administration sought to build them — and in the Northeast, among other places. And he has spoken of a role for government to help build a national rail network."

See here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/us/politics/for-high-speed-rail-support-in-the-past-from-gop-presidential-hopefuls.html?_r=0

And in the times before the 8$ billion were actually allocated for high-speed rail through 2009's Recovery Act, in 2004 high-speed rail was even in the Republican Party platform stating that “Republicans support, where economically viable, the development of a high-speed passenger railroad system as an instrument of economic development and enhanced mobility.”

And in 2011, Michigan's Republican governor Rick Snyder gladly accepted $200 million in high-speed rail funds going towards rail improvements in his state.

More aspects of how partisan politics should not hold back rail advocates from proceeding with drumming up support for high-speed rail could also be provided here. To sum it up, when the case for 220mph high-speed rail in the nation's most traveled corridor is presented in a way that is compelling enough for many, it might actually garner more widespread support.

Even if a private investment consortium were to be put in place to a build a 220 mph NextGen NEC, the vast amount of capital needed will require extensive federal and state backing.
Yes, at least to some the 220mph NexGen high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor seems like too big of a project to shoulder for any private investor (unlike Texas Central Railway's planned private high-speed rail system in Texas), and that is why it could at least theoretically be carried out as a public project without private investment - that in detail was one of the topics in the following post:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/58594-hsrs-future-how-we-the-people-can-help/&do=findComment&comment=505911

There is a fundamental question that has to be answered which is whether a 220 mph NEC II is worth the cost over a more "modest" $30 or $40 billion modernization and upgrade of the current NEC to 160 mph segments, expanded capacity, and more aggressive but constrained route improvements in CT. The Stair Step 3 & 4 NEC spelled out in the Vision is a markedly improved NEC over what we have now. Is it worth it to spend an additional $60 or $80 billion or whatever to build the NextGen NEC or would it a better investment to spend that money on other HSR and HrSR corridors in the east and the Midwest?
It seems like there could be many fundamental questions regarding transportation.

And of course it's legit to question the proposed investments in rail infrastructure, just as it is legit to question anything.

At the same time, some would not like that logic, especially with the idea of saving funds for spending them on rail improvements elsewhere. In the same way, one could say, California should not build its $68 billion high-speed rail, instead only carry out minor improvements costing $14 billion or less (which is also the cost estimate for current higher-speed proposals NYP-Albany-Buffalo). Still to many it might seem, that it would not make sense. A 220mph, $68 billion high-speed system in California would be a big success, most likely be profitable, be very competitive to flying or driving, it would have a transformational effect on lots of cities on the route, and the California state economy as a whole. Spending a way smaller amount on modest improvements wouldn't lead to the same high ridership numbers (f.e. in case the LA-SF travel time would be improved to 6h, which then wouldn't be competetive with flying and possibly still slower than driving), it would not have the transformational effect for the cities on the route, and for California's economy as a whole. While probably still a worthwhile investment, maybe it would be subject to even bigger critizisms once it would be implemented. Many might be disappointed: This is what so much money was spent on, and the end result is not even high-speed rail like in other countries, but just these very modest improvements? So instead of the option to possibly still upgrade to 220mph high-speed rail at a later point of time, the implementation of a half-baked compromise solution to save money might lead to many people abandoning the idea that 220mph high-speed rail in US is desirable or even possible. At least some might think, if one is going to make such an investment in rail infrastructure, then one should try to do it right the first time. And not try to backtrack from one solution needing full investment that could realize the corridor's full potential to f.e. a solution that only costs a half and only delivers a tenth of the potential. It might be better if somehow feasible not to short-change a real solution for some stopgap solution just because it's cheaper or easier. If possible, it would be worth it to advocate for doing it right.

In addition, it seems like this "[rather] spend that money on other HSR and HrSR corridors in the east and the Midwest" might not be possible. Just as now it is not possible for California to divert those 3.3 billion in federal funds for some other project (like highways) than high-speed rail as currently proposed by some, it potentially also might not be possible to divert unused funds for Northeast Corridor high-speed for other high-speed rail projects. In case the rail advocates say, okay, the funds for phase 3 and 4 of NexGen high-speed rail shouldn't be spent in the Northeast Corridor, but in other corridors as well, it is possible that Congress would say, well, if the investment in rail in the Northeast Corridor is not necessary, then the funds will be used for something completely different than rail. So instead of playing the different rail projects out against each other, maybe it would be better to follow through, both with improvements to existing lines in the short-term, as well with 220mph high-speed rail in the long term. Or that a full investment in the Northeast is possible, and a full investment in the Midwest or other places at the same time. For some, it might seem like a good thing that they are aware of it that it could not only be the one thing or the other, but maybe both.
 
The Northeast Corridor: It is called diminishing returns. Anything done in the Northeast Corridor will be extremely expensive and for very little benefit. There is also the NIMBY factor. Any proposed alignment improvement will result in massive resistance and be tied up in court for years by those opposed. Since the area is approaching urbanized from end to end, the cost and disruption of any alignment revisions will be extreme. The maximum speed limit on these lines to at least as late as the early 1960's was 80 mph and all the facilities were oriented to operation at no more than that speed. The track centers are very close, clearances in the tunnels and at overpasses tend to be very close, the alignment adjustments prior to that time, most of which were built in the 1920's or earlier were based on speeds of 80 mph or less. By now just about as much speed has been squeezed out of the existing facilities as can be. There have been improvements where feasible. There were a few curve adjustments early on and some station approaches were modified for increased speed, but there is little more that can be done without someone writing checks that have more zeros ahead of the decimal than any heretofore.

The current fraction of the total travel demand being carried by rail is approaching the likely practical maximum, as there will always be some that will drive or fly even when it is less convenient and more costly than rail. Thus there is little in the way of additional passenger volume that can be achieved by reducing run time.

Yes, there is the need to replace some of the major bridges, but these will not result in significant reductions in run time, as increasing speeds that are already at 50 to 60 miles per hour will save less than one minute per mile even with speed increases to near infinity.

The situation in Texas and California are both significantly different. Texas currently has no rail passenger service at all between its two largest urban areas. It also has much open country between Houston and Dallas so that any given mile of completely new railroad will be significantly less in cost than any but the most minor of improvements in the northeast, and will result in significant reduction in the volume of air traffic and likely a lot of transition from road to rail. Likewise, in California the current rail service between is incomplete entailing a bus ride for about 100 miles. Closing the gap with a rail route that provides a run time equivalent to the bus will alone result in a significant increase in the traffic carried by rail, and the high speed railroad proposed will cut the run time to less than one-third of the current time and a passenger volume several times that of that which would occur with a through rail service at the current end to end times.

When it comes to money spent on improved rail service, I regard the northeast as a location where that has already happened. If any more is to be spent there it should be spent on expanding the system, not on pathetically small improvement for large money on what is already there. Think such stuff as Washington to Harrisburg, Philadelphia-Reading-Harrisburg, New York to various points west into Pennsylvania and mid-state New York, etc.
 
Gosh, I feel for you. I wish I was ignorant enough about the political realities that I still thought great things were possible. But they aren't. Stop trying to fight on this level; you can't win. Fight on the level at which your enthusiasm will actually do good purpose.

And concentrate on getting decent, hourly or half hourly trains and other transit to people in cities that have none at all. My pipe dream is getting a friend of mine to help fund a $50 million F40 and ex-METRA Gallery shuttle between Norristown, PA and Reading, PA to provide service to one of the nicest cities in Pennsylvania and bring economic benefit to its many transit-dependant residents. I'll fight for that. It will benefit thousands of people every day, provide vastly improved mobility, relieve massive congestion on U.S. 422, I-176, and the Penn Pike, and on and on.

I will not fight to spend $100 billion plus to improve speeds on a line that already carries the vast majority of inter-city traffic moving along its length.

Because for $100 billion I could build a hell of a good commuter/regional rail system throughout New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and have enough money left over to operate it for 10 years. And now you know why us rail realists over here in the northeast don't think about that stuff. Everytime we hear fools talking about $100 billion we're thinking of all the myriad projects that we believe in and think useful that could be funded instead that would give real people real mobility real fast.

Tell me I'm wrong, Jishnu. I dare you.
 
The GML and I are singing the same song here. (There have been more than a few times we have not.)

When we are talking about spending money on improvements to the passenger rail system, we should be looking at it from the perspective of the benefit cost ratio. In other words, get the biggest bang for the buck. Very little if any of the high benefit cost ratio projects will be on the existing northeast corridor line. It could be that quite a bit could be spent on feeder lines and regional services in the northeast. A lot of the money could well be highly beneficial in transitioning passengers from road and air to rail if spent in other parts of the country altogether.

The major problem we have is that rail passenger spending more than any other form of transportation spending is very highly politicized. All forms of transportation spending is skewed by politics to some extent, it is just that rail appears to be the worst. Likely the second worst would be the various navigation projects, more so in the past than now, since it appears that major waterways projects are history. Air projects also tend to be more political than road projects. The "essential" air service funding and spending on minor airports as feel good projects are the main item here. Despite such major ridiculous boondoggles such as the eastern part of the SF bay bridge, highway programs are probably the least skewed by politics.

The major solution would be for passenger rail improvements to have some sort of defined funding mechanism. Presently they do not.

To moan and groan about how rail spending relates to defense spending is a waste of breath. There are several other very large government programs that could be used for the same purpose. Using defense will be taken simply as an expression of the political stance of the person making the comparison and treated accordingly. We MUST get rail spending to be considered as part of transportation spending and get it completely divorced from political viewpoints (liberal/conservative), (democrat/republican) or whatever. Getting it stuck in those terms simply clouds the issue and puts it into an emotional context that clouds rather than clarifies the issue.
 
GML, on this issue I don't disagree with you at all as far as the NEC goes. I don't see any real reason to strive for anything beyond 160 mph which is at the edge of what can be achieved with current ROW width. I think money would be much better spent on segments to raise speeds from say 30/45mph to 60+ mph. Getting hold of real estate to achieve that will cost plenty. The goal should be realizable and competitive end to end run times and not some specific max speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some 30 plus years ago a statement I read in an article in the Railway Gazette International one of the most profound statements on the whole issue of high speed trains ever made in one sentence. It is the basic concept in what Jishnu said:

The best way to go fast is to avoid going slow.

To attempt to make the picture more clear: If we can raise one mile of track from 30 mph to 60 mph that saves one minute. You would have to raise 5.5 miles of 125 mph track to 200 mph to save the same one minute, and that is assuming that you are not losing a good bit of it in accelerating and braking.

That is also a good illustration of why I say "diminishing returns" when we are talking about raising the maximum speed in the congested Northeast.
 
This post doesn't have to do directly with the original subject of this thread, still it was mentioned:

My pipe dream is getting a friend of mine to help fund a $50 million F40 and ex-METRA Gallery shuttle between Norristown, PA and Reading, PA to provide service to one of the nicest cities in Pennsylvania and bring economic benefit to its many transit-dependant residents. I'll fight for that. It will benefit thousands of people every day, provide vastly improved mobility, relieve massive congestion on U.S. 422, I-176, and the Penn Pike, and on and on.
In case it is possible, please write more about this at the following new thread:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/58829-proposals-for-passenger-service-between-norristown-reading-pa/

Thank you.
 
My biggest issue with a number of HSR projects does fall into this vein. While I'd like to see an effort made to achieve the goals set back in the 1960s and 1970s for WAS-NYP-BOS travel times, the other projects don't seem worth it in terms of what they crowd out. Assuming there was $60bn dropped into a passenger rail fund right now, would I fund CAHSR? Only insofar as I'd punch a Bakersfield-LA connection through (and there only because I see large potential ridership gains and a major service gap), and then maybe bump top speeds in the Central Valley on the existing line. Once that's done, other projects come to mind, and most of them involve bumping lines up to 110/125 MPH service.
 
This is the reason that the NEC plans were clearly split into two segments, one being SOGR + achieving original goals set, something like 2:45 to 3:00 for NYP - BOS, and 2:00 - 2:30 NYP - WAS. Both are achievable with targeted investments in fixing the slowest obstacles that exist in the two routes with some targeted fixups plus rebuilding significant parts of the electrification infrastructure in NEC South which is way overdue. The rebuilding of existing electrification infrastructure in NEC North is very close to completion and is just a couple of years from getting there.

Then there is the separate Next Gen NEC, which currently falls mostly in the realm of fantasy, and is something that should not be addressed ever to the exclusion of SOGR and achieving original goals. It's only redeeming feature is that it makes NEC become air competitive in the BOS - WAS market, and that for an absolutely enormous cost.

That money would be better spent IMHO in enhancing capacity to allow for more regional service and also for building out on several routes from the spine e.g. Newark - Allentown/Bethlehem, Newark - Scranton (perhaps all the way to Binghamton), Philly - Reading (and connecting up with Allentown, NHV - Springfield - Knowledge Corridor, New London - Palmer and onto Vermont. etc. etc. , and complete mid-HSR on the Empire Corridor. That on the whole will do more in the way of moving people to rail and consequent positive environmental effects than getting NEC Next Gen in place. Just IMHO, and I am sure there will be many that disagree vehemently and others that agree with the strategy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It might be worth creating a topic specifically about "high(er) speed rail in the Northeast, NOT on the Northeast Corridor".

Because when I read this topic, my first thought was "The NEC is fine, but damn do we need work on the Empire Corridor, both sides of Vermont, the Inland Route, the Pennsylvanian, the Lackawanna Cutoff, restoration of service to Bethlehem/Allentown, etc. etc. etc."

There's no equivalent of MWHSR for the Midwest gathering together the groups pushing for more rail in different areas in the Northeast.
 
For information on the state of the NEC and a summary of the proposed improvement projects, the April 2014 issue of Trains Magazine has a cover story on the NEC. Fairly comprehensive with comments from a number of the key players. I have an electronic subscription, so I read through the article on my iPad several days ago. The paper edition may have arrived in the mailboxes by now. As I recall, the paper edition shows up on the newsstands around the beginning of the month.
 
Another report has been released to build the case for investing in the NEC. The NEC Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission has posted a new report dated February 2014 on the "State of the Northeast Corridor Region Transportation System". 32 page, 10 MB summary report. This report is on the population growth and travel systems of the northeast with statistics on commuter rail, auto travel, traffic congestion, air travel between the cities of the NEC. This is a readable political argument support document, not an in-depth technical report.

The report covers the positive population growth in NYC, DC, Boston from 2000 to 2010 census. However, this overlooks the growth just since 2010. The US Census has yet to release a full set of data for 2013, they have only released state-wide numbers so far, but DC grew by almost 45 thousand from 2010 to 2013. I think the county level data for 2013 is due out later in March. The return to population growth of most of the cities and inner urban/suburbs along the NEC is an overlooked factor that is going to increase passenger traffic on the NEC.

For interesting stats, the report list the top 15 annual number of passengers for 2010 between the airports in the NEC region. The top one was Logan to BWI had 1.05 million passengers in 2010. #2 was Logan to LaGuardia with 875K passengers, #3 was Logan to Reagan National. A markedly faster BOS-NYP and BOS-PHL trip time would certainly capture a lot of that business.

What I am not clear on is the relationship between the NEC Commission and the NEC Future PEIS study. How much overlap is there between the members and whether there is any coordination in activities?
 
Back
Top