There's no trick. There is plenty of space for more tunnels and bridges. But sensibly...I don't like stub ending a tunnel under Manhatten Island but rather see a through route between NJ and LI...would love to see a downtown NJT tunnel continue on to LIRR's Atlantic Terminal or the new uptown tunnels go on to LIC. Some of the subway tunnels might have to be used or moved. But there is a lot that can be done if warrented and thought out long term.
BTW: run through stations could mean run through services eliminating deadheading and in city storage; more available and usable regional public transportation; better use of equipment and crews (don't start the union arguement or the inter agency domain arguement, think positive, out of the box); consolidation of all kinds of services in outlying areas rather than in inner city or along the waterfronts.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6but if you have traveled either I80 east and west in Pennsylvania or through Ohio, or I81 South from PA into Virginia, you'll find trucks bumber to bumper and over the bumps at 70+ mph. I81 has been screaming for help
henry6And as for finding more rapid transit around NYC, its not as hard as it sounds. There are many underutilized or abandoned roadbeds and rights of way which can accomodate anything from light rail to 79+mph heavy rail
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Most highway congestion is urban/suburban and is The fastest and cheapest way to alleviate it is to do transit and commuter rail, not HSR. The next fastest and cheapest thing you can do is divert trucks to highway. The whole Crescent Corridor project NS has going costs only $2B, a good chunk of it from NS's own pocket and won't cost taxpayers a dime in operating subsidies. (Just the opposite, the profits made by NS will increase Fed. income tax revenue!) Of course, the details are important. It would be hard to do more transit around NYC and there are some intercity links where there is highway congestion with little chance for diverting truck traffic. There are no absolutes here. The solution has to fit the circumstances. A national, "one size fits all" HSR plan would be wasteful.
Most highway congestion is urban/suburban and is The fastest and cheapest way to alleviate it is to do transit and commuter rail, not HSR.
The next fastest and cheapest thing you can do is divert trucks to highway. The whole Crescent Corridor project NS has going costs only $2B, a good chunk of it from NS's own pocket and won't cost taxpayers a dime in operating subsidies. (Just the opposite, the profits made by NS will increase Fed. income tax revenue!)
Of course, the details are important. It would be hard to do more transit around NYC and there are some intercity links where there is highway congestion with little chance for diverting truck traffic. There are no absolutes here. The solution has to fit the circumstances. A national, "one size fits all" HSR plan would be wasteful.
These assumptions are wrong...at least for the east. Highway congestion is found most in urban areas, yes, but if you have traveled either I80 east and west in Pennsylvania or through Ohio, or I81 South from PA into Virginia, you'll find trucks bumber to bumper and over the bumps at 70+ mph. I81 has been screaming for help. NS has the answer but is looking for the Feds to help them help alleviate the congestion. And as for finding more rapid transit around NYC, its not as hard as it sounds. There are many underutilized or abandoned roadbeds and rights of way which can accomodate anything from light rail to 79+mph heavy rail...just gotta get the politicians on the right pages and the NIMBYS paid off. And you are right, a "one size fits all" HSR plan is absurd. The only two things, legal and commercial, which fits all are McDonalds and Coca Cola. And even then there are some regional differences.
BT CPSO 266if it improves their commutes or travel (rail is kid of in between travel) by either using the train or using a less constrained highway network or airways than so be it.
BT CPSO 266Look, America is sick of the current air travel conditions and are starting to get sick of driving. Some look at it and they don't care how much it cost, if it improves their commutes or travel (rail is kid of in between travel) by either using the train or using a less constrained highway network or airways than so be it.
You do miss my point! But if Chicago can do it with the Skyway, then in all likelyhood NY, NJ, and PA can get it accomplished...kinda like its all in the family.
blownout cylinder n012944 henry6 But you're talking about Indiana. I am talking about New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania! Wow, really! Thanks for pointing out what I was talking about. As I said, if it works for the state of Indiana, it should work for New York, Jersey, and Pennsylvania. I wonder what would happen if California tried this------
n012944 henry6 But you're talking about Indiana. I am talking about New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania! Wow, really! Thanks for pointing out what I was talking about. As I said, if it works for the state of Indiana, it should work for New York, Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
henry6 But you're talking about Indiana. I am talking about New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania!
But you're talking about Indiana. I am talking about New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania!
Wow, really! Thanks for pointing out what I was talking about. As I said, if it works for the state of Indiana, it should work for New York, Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
I wonder what would happen if California tried this------
Well Chicago made it work with the Skyway, and I think that is the one place more screwed up than California.
An "expensive model collector"
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
BT CPSO 266 Bucyrus What do you mean by succeed? Prosper, used, provides benefits; this is what I mean and how I look at success.
Bucyrus What do you mean by succeed?
What do you mean by succeed?
Prosper, used, provides benefits; this is what I mean and how I look at success.
1) Prosper
2) Be used
3) Provides benefits
As an expression of success, items #2 and 3 are so easy to achieve as to be irrelevant to the test of success. To have any relevance at all, some minimum quantity of them must be considered as a threshold for the measure of success.
By the most common definition, item #1 implies a return on the investment where the direct use or related benefit makes the financial investment worthwhile. Certainly the fares paid by riders will not come anywhere close to paying for an HSR installation.
So if success is measured only by items #2 and 3 in any quantity, HSR cannot avoid success. However, if you include item #1 in the measure, HSR cannot possibly succeed.
henry6 Actually the governors of NY, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, among others, have talked about privitizing the toll roads.
Actually the governors of NY, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, among others, have talked about privitizing the toll roads.
It has already been done. The State of Indiana leased the Indiana Toll Road, or I-80, to a private company a couple of years ago. As someone who drives it everyday, I can say that conditions on it have improved since the lease. There are less pot holes, it is plowed more often, and we finally got a electronic payment service. It also netted the state of Indiana 3.8 billion dollars. I would like to see all interstates done this way, with a reduction in the fuel tax as a result.
CopCarSS And all I'm saying is that voters saying that they would ride HSR and voters ponying up to pay for HSR are two very different things.
And all I'm saying is that voters saying that they would ride HSR and voters ponying up to pay for HSR are two very different things.
And that may be what nails the project. They may DESIRE, or WANT. this HSR but can they AFFORD it?
BT CPSO 266The voters said they would use HSR if they had the option. You may look at it as they voted for something nice, I see it as they voted because they are sick of air travel and starting to get tired of driving. If a private company won't step in and give them what they want to use they turn to their elected officials. I strongly believe that Urban America can do what ever they want. If you look at the presidential election results for 2008. Urban America pretty much put Obama in the white house. Now this is not a statement against or for Obama, I am just saying a county by county break down shows urbanized counties voted mostly for Obama, and rural America voted mostly for McCain. So it kind of shows who really has the say in the matter of intercity travel alternatives. Just saying.
I strongly believe that Urban America can do what ever they want. If you look at the presidential election results for 2008. Urban America pretty much put Obama in the white house. Now this is not a statement against or for Obama, I am just saying a county by county break down shows urbanized counties voted mostly for Obama, and rural America voted mostly for McCain. So it kind of shows who really has the say in the matter of intercity travel alternatives. Just saying.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
CopCarSSBT CPSO 266Do what California did, next election PUT IT TO A VOTE. I strongly believe since the majority of the population are living in cities, it will pass. What are we putting to a vote? The idea that HSR would be nice to have to alleviate airport and highway congestion? Of course that'll pass. The same as if we were voting that it would be nice to have free lunch Fridays sponsored by the government. Now...trying to pass a measure that would actually pay for either? There's no way it would pass even given an urban majority that would directly benefit.
BT CPSO 266Do what California did, next election PUT IT TO A VOTE. I strongly believe since the majority of the population are living in cities, it will pass.
What are we putting to a vote? The idea that HSR would be nice to have to alleviate airport and highway congestion? Of course that'll pass. The same as if we were voting that it would be nice to have free lunch Fridays sponsored by the government.
Now...trying to pass a measure that would actually pay for either? There's no way it would pass even given an urban majority that would directly benefit.
The voters said they would use HSR if they had the option. You may look at it as they voted for something nice, I see it as they voted because they are sick of air travel and starting to get tired of driving. If a private company won't step in and give them what they want to use they turn to their elected officials.
It seems development of High Speed Rail is simply that people don't want change or face the truth that America is going to change drastically in the coming decades. We want to keep what we have now but that is not an option.
The same hurtles over come by the Interstate System are no different than what HSR has to over come. Such as grade separation, rider ship, cost of construction. Instead of using money to pump in money to lessen the strain on highways and air travel, relieve them by building something else.
It was mentioned earlier how I said a rancher would see no us of of a High Speed Rail system, and that I had the option because I would live near it. He has the option to use it just as much as driving to the use and interstate or air travel.
Look, America is sick of the current air travel conditions and are starting to get sick of driving. Some look at it and they don't care how much it cost, if it improves their commutes or travel (rail is kid of in between travel) by either using the train or using a less constrained highway network or airways than so be it.
We got to face reality, keep investing in systems that can not meet the needs of a growing population or open up a new artery.
Do what California did, next election PUT IT TO A VOTE. I strongly believe since the majority of the population are living in cities, it will pass.
The only way a national system of HSR can be built is incrementally. To build the whole thing at once, you could not throw enough money at it. You would first have to pay to build the public sector money-spending machine that would have the needed capacity. You could not throw enough money to even build that machine. The scale of the project goal would simply institutionalize an ongoing cost overrun that would soak up the funding before it could be applied to track and trains.
The currently committed $15 billion is just a tiny down payment on a system of ten corridors totaling perhaps 10,000 miles. When you consider not only the cost of the trains and track, but also all of the grade separation at crossings, the new roadbed infrastructure, and the shoehorning of HSR into operating freight right of ways, the cost will tally into thousands of billions of dollars. We would need a whole new government-spending infrastructure just to move the money.
And then just to make it a little more challenging, consider that we don’t have a dime. The whole cost has to be borrowed from future taxpayers. Overall, a goal of national HSR is about as realistic as a goal of populating the moon.
As succinctly noted above the answer is money. Two additional answers are money and more money.
I do not favor establishing an additional gas tax to fund HSR, just because of the opposition to the concept from those who don't like a tax that does not provide them a direct benefit.
However, here is a perspective. We use about 50 billion of gasoline a year. A one dollar per gallon tax would generate $50 billion per year and based on the California HSR planned cost of $50 million per mile, that would buy a thousand miles of HSR. I do not know how many miles of HSR would need to be built to meet any minimum threshold extablished for protential ridership, but if it is 10,000 then we have the prospect of spending about $500 billion.
That is a little bit more than the cost of building the Interstate Highway System in current dollars. It took about 20 years to essentially complete the Interstates. My personal view is that taking at least 20 years, spending at a rate of about $25 billion per year, would be a fairly rational aproach to building the HSR system.
The argument the someone living out in the middle of nowhere could not or would not benefit from HSR fails at a couple of points. A person wishing to use the service would do essential the same thing done to use air service, i.e, drive their car to the nearest station, park, and ride a train instead of a airplane. Even those who only use their auto to travel might also get a significant benefit. With the decline in gasoline consumption, due mainly to the current recession, we are now paying about $1.50 per gallon of gas less than the $4.00+ prices of a couple of years ago. If an HSR system had a comparable impact on demand it sure looks like car owners could save a lot of money. Personaly, I wouldn't mind spending 50 cents if it was going to save me another buck, but that is just me.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
daveklepperI think domefoemer has the right idea, and I don't beleive separation from frieght operations is essential in all cases, some yes, but not all, depending on volume of freight and type of freigiht service. Investment in right of way should in many cases be used to improve freight as well as passenger service.
I think domefoemer has the right idea, and I don't beleive separation from frieght operations is essential in all cases, some yes, but not all, depending on volume of freight and type of freigiht service. Investment in right of way should in many cases be used to improve freight as well as passenger service.
I agree that coordinated improvements would be more effective in the short term. Maybe we'll all have transporters in 50 years making vehicles obsolete - just don't speak the wrong address or get disconnected.
I am chagrined by Virginia and North Carolina putting such a priority in rebuilding the xSAL from Petersburg to Raleigh instead of upgrading the A Line for 110 mph as an interim plan. It asks for faith in a risky outcome for a major public investment. Maybe a few more full trains would help change that.
Upgrading with grade separation and electrification from Washington to Raleigh would spread the benefits and even may allow stretches of 125-150 mph speeds. Faster service more competitive with driving should attract additional riders to fill existing and additional trains.
Current state laws cited by others in this forum that seem to prevent and discriminate specifically against railroads from benefiting from publicly funded improvements need to be changed if the public is to fully benefit.
Just eye-balling the SEC alignment alternatives tied to the SAL route, the middle-of-the-road 150 mph level of improvement seemed to be the best compromise. I wonder if the freedom of a mostly new 220 mph alignment, like the TGV or ICE hochbahnstrecke might work better.
Ironically, the most speed-constraining part of the existing Southeast Corridor alignment lies between Washington and Richmond. This would seem to be the greater priority for new high speed alignments given the combined SEC, Florida, and proposed Norfolk services. I liked the idea of exploring the feasibility of alignments for different levels of improvement done for Raleigh-Richmond. Richmond-Washington also is a priority because of the more imminent threat of development land-locking the existing line.
Proposals have been made for separating HSR and freight between East Chicago and Porter in Indiana where a third main track along the NS would alleviate some of the current congestion. The existing route is with few exceptions grade separated. The alternatives offer little if any improvement in alignment and require far more extensive and costly grade separation and elevation of the tracks that would not improve safety along the NS. A comparable improvement in capacity is needed between 41st St, Chicago and East Chicago, including another bridge and track across the Calumet River for Indian improvements to be effective.
Another case is the Hiawatha Corridor where advocates have wanted the CP to use the UP freight line; but that does not provide the greater benefit for the railroads, Amtrak, Metra, or the public with scarce resources. An 11-mile stretch between Lake Forest and Gurnee has only two road and one rail crossings.
MHSRA is pushing for separate and parallel HSR sharing railroad alignments that would benefit all. In the meantime and not part of their plan, improvements could be made to bring speed up to 110 mph, improve capacity and schedule reliability, and begin strategic incremental grade separation. The latter would afford stretches of 125-150 mph non-electrified operation through mostly rural areas with few crossings.
Down here in GA, the ever-road-happy DOT keeps trying to find ways to pay for new roads when the meager fuel tax (2nd lowest in the US) and general rev. don't provide enough. There have been several quasi-private toll road projects offered up. A couple of years ago, it was to replace a the 4 lane road from Atlanta to Athens with a toll road. The bidder would have to fund the construction out of the tolls. Even assuming all the current traffic would move to the toll road, the toll would have had to be $5 for the 50 mile trip. There were no takers.
The latest pipe-dream is that there will be some private contractor interested in building HOT lanes along I-75. This may have a better chance than the Athens road, but I wouldn't hold my breath...
henry6 How did the government get into the road business? The Post Office! Had to have a way to transport the Post between cities and towns. They moved on to turnpikes, canals, railroads, and mass transit systems from there. So what is being argued here is something that goes back as an accepted function of government actually to before the Revolution! How much longer do we argue about it with n no resolultion in sight?
How did the government get into the road business? The Post Office! Had to have a way to transport the Post between cities and towns. They moved on to turnpikes, canals, railroads, and mass transit systems from there. So what is being argued here is something that goes back as an accepted function of government actually to before the Revolution! How much longer do we argue about it with n no resolultion in sight?
Maybe what we need to think about is just how passenger rail service should be priced. If METRA is able to price WEEKEND passes at $5.00 then we need to find workable models to make it more AFFORDABLE for Jane and Joe Plebe to afford train travel. Amortize the lot over a longer period? Who knows? A mixture of approaches may be the way to do things. I think a resolution will be coming, although not the way some would like. Piecemeal---as opposed to the complete system.
BTW--up in 'cottage country' there are a lot of private roads that lead to entire clusters of cottages. All of these roads are maintained by their respective landowners. Just an extension of what happened up here in the mid 1800's. Roads were maintained by those who lived on them. And yes, tolls were paid as well---gotta keep the roads up somehow
schlimm Bucyrus (Ohio?): I chose not to continue the discussion because your use of a fallacious "straw man" ( if you don't seem to recognize this term: look it up) argument renders any further discussion with you impossible and pointless.
Bucyrus (Ohio?): I chose not to continue the discussion because your use of a fallacious "straw man" ( if you don't seem to recognize this term: look it up) argument renders any further discussion with you impossible and pointless.
I understand what the term means. But I don't understand why you are using it here.
Bucyrus (Ohio?): I chose not to continue the discussion because your use of a fallacious "straw man" ( if you don't seem to recognize this term: look it up) argument renders any further discussion with you impossible and pointless. Your particular strategem appears to be a cross between the straw man argument and a argumentum ad metum. In any case, it is disingenuous and fallacious.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Bucyrus henry6 Private toll roads! What's next, canals? I am talking about public toll roads, not private ones. It will be pay-as-you-go driving on all public roads.
henry6 Private toll roads! What's next, canals?
Private toll roads! What's next, canals?
I am talking about public toll roads, not private ones. It will be pay-as-you-go driving on all public roads.
I think he was referring to my post about the privately run 407ETR toll highway in Toronto ON. That highway WAS at one time provincially run but was since turned into a private company.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.