Thanks for the info. But, back to my original question: Why has the expansion not (already) happened?
Federal dollars may now be tight (although Washingoton's profligate spending seems to continue unabated) but clearly not so before. Note this from Wiki re: the Washington Metro system:
"Metro construction required billions of federal dollars, originally provided by Congress under the authority of the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-143). The cost was paid with 90% federal money and 10% local money."
The Metro received billions to construct a rail system that is mostly underground inside DC and mostly elevated elsewhere, but Amtrak couldn't enlarge its existing tunnels or construct new ones?
Was it a failure of imagination or a failure of will or a failure in the political system despite Amtrak's best wishes?
My original question: Why didn't the expansion take place? What was the point of all those billions going to Amtrak over the decades if this singular glaring omission remains?
JGriff The Metro received billions to construct a rail system that is mostly underground inside DC and mostly elevated elsewhere, but Amtrak couldn't enlarge its existing tunnels or construct new ones? Was it a failure of imagination or a failure of will or a failure in the political system despite Amtrak's best wishes? My original question: Why didn't the expansion take place? What was the point of all those billions going to Amtrak over the decades if this singular glaring omission remains?
Actually, I don't find this too surprising. Metro serves a large population of folks who could not otherwise travel freely ... and also serves as a prestige demonstration of national pride. Here in Memphis, the 'direct' trolley line to the airport has been hamstrung with a variety of compromised routing and multiple stops to 'serve the community' with the large number of dollars to be spent.
And here comes an expensive project to increase service for ... automobile owners who want to go south for the winter? I think I know how that's going to play at election time.... and then, later, when the perennial question of Amtrak's priorities comes up in committee...
I thought it was already a national priority to lessen the number of drivers on the road, as if that's a bad thing. Whether you accept AGW or not, decreasing air pollution is a worthy goal. Otherwise, what's to explain all the hype over the alleged benefits of high speed rail? Consider also the benefits of reducing oil importation.
Also, as it now stands, as I understand it, stacked container freight can't go north of DC on Amtrak tracks since the tunnels are too small. As indicated by prior writers who seem to speak with the authority of knowing what they're talking about, this results in circuitous routing just to get that cargo to the Northeast or, I suppose, extra trains of single stack containers.
Would it help the 'snowbirds'? Sure, absolutely.
Is that a reason not to do it?
JGriff Would it help the 'snowbirds'? Sure, absolutely. Is that a reason not to do it?
If it were up to me, yes, absolutely, I would do it. And I've worked out the services and amenities to make it pay, and know where the financing might be had.
But to present this as a project for public money, to have it branded by a great many powerful voices as service for rich people, only masquerading as meaningful levels of energy saving, is another thing entirely. Let's be honest: exactly how many vehicles, as a percentage, are being taken off I-95 by this thing, at any sane frequency of operation requiring multiple trainsets? Even as the available economy of motor vehicles rises dramatically...
It's a convenience thing. And there are too many people in government, elected and otherwise, who look at it as exactly that.
(Now, the provision of an Auto Train in parallel with the crowded roads in the Northeast... no, wait, there are problems with accomplishing that, too, especially regarding where the auto cars would be arriving at Penn Station, or how all the intermediate stops and/or switch moves to get the cars on and off would be made. And when you look at what such a thing would cost -- it's right in there with the sort of 'service' Fred Frailey was talking about, a pure luxury for people with a great deal of available income or access to expense accounts. And diverting large amounts of money from other places Amtrak could serve to such a thing is, well, what you might call a political third rail.
You've advanced a number of political arguments against extending the auto-train that I can't argue with. They're no doubt valid in this day and age. More's the pity as I stated in a prior post that Amtrak didn't move on this issue in prior decades. There was a perception of more money and less class warfare than present - it might have been successful.
I hadn't thought about trains moving through Penn Station. Obviously there would not be any attempt at establishing a collection/drop off point in mid-town Manhattan. Someplace in Northern Jersey would be ideal for that terminus.
Surprisingly, if you ever ride one of the auto-trains you'll notice that the ridership is decidedly middle class. The autos that come off the train are average sort of cars - nothing exotic or luxurious. Frankly, I think a number of them are carried on the train because they don't look like they'd make the trip on their own! The wealthy people with 'a great deal of available cash' fly back and forth to their 2nd home in Florida where they keep a vehicle year round - it's parked in the garage next to their golf cart.
Fred has a number of interesting columns but, I think, he is too enamoured of the high speed train boondoggles; California's in particular. In light of the jet age, isn't a high speed train (that is somewhat faster but isn't really high speed) a 'pure luxury'? It's just the current fad I suspect.
If I were a cynic, I'd say it was the latest means devised to get money to your friends. Witness California's announcement this week that it is paying $2 mil to each of the design firms that weren't successful in getting the contract!
JGriffSurprisingly, if you ever ride one of the auto-trains you'll notice that the ridership is decidedly middle class.
You are correct. That is one of the crowning sadnesses of the way the political spin would be applied. (On the other hand, it tells us a very great deal about the kinds of amenities, services, and promotion that a private entity running this kind of service would use... ahem!)
JGriffisn't a high speed train (that is somewhat faster but isn't really high speed) a 'pure luxury'? It's just the current fad I suspect.
I am still bitter that the APT did not succeed in Britain, where the HST did ... but there, even for American distances, is that sweet spot. Tilting trains at 125mph have a potential market in a wide variety of corridors. Cost to go faster rises exponentially even before you start looking hard at the unavoidable political 'safety' issues ... or the attractiveness of HSR as a terror target.
If you have not read the FRA discussion of class 9 slab track testing, you should do so. There is good evidence that high MGT with HAL is not inconsistent with maintaining precise geometry ... certainly enough precision for comfortable 125mph service, perhaps even (with CBTC/proper PTC) higher peaks. For new 'passenger' main construction, the momentum involved with higher speeds makes heavier grades (to avoid curvature) much more practical (some French work even indicated that with care in the vertical transition spiraling, 8 to 10 percent grades were perfectly acceptable with little loss of overall trip time, and only marginally higher peak in power consumption...)
The problem with north Jersey is that it's the wrong side of the Hudson for most of the people getting off in that area. I'd be more inclined to put them off somewhere like the NY&A, and eat the 40 minutes or so involved in the switching. Or put them off in CENTRAL New Jersey, where there is still room to put free parking and (relatively) cheap accommodation space ... and good highway access ... and let them take convenient fast NEC trains into Manhattan or access the rest of the commuter rail infrastructure north and south with equal facility...
RME
In case you didn't realize it, you're talking with a neophyte here. I figured out HST probably means high speed train but the rest of the alphabet soup went far over my head. I'll take your word for it that super fast trains can be successfully constructed and operated with at least a modicum of $ success. Whether that's true in this country is still doubtful in my view but, I could be wrong.
I think of Jersey as having a northern half and a southern half - so northern Jersey to me includes a vast area. I wasn't thinking of the area immediately adjacent to the NJ-NY border - that area is extraordinarily congested and incredibly expensive. Maybe some old spur and derelict industrial area could be taken over and rehabbed, but I don't know of one.
But I don't think the political will for expansion is there anymore even if the plan was feasible. Maybe once it might have been, but not now.
JGriffIn case you didn't realize it, you're talking with a neophyte here.
Even so ... ignorance is not stupidity.
I'd recommend that you go over to the FRA digital library and download some of their material on HSR, and testing of various aspects of high-speed infrastructure. I would start with the "High speed rail safety strategy" document, as it contains a set of reasonably current descriptions of the various levels of 'speed' involved. Then look at 'An Interim Assessment of Achieving Improved Trip Times on the Northeast Corridor' to see how increasing speed can have an impact on building and planning. The 'Technical Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating the Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of Alternatively Designed Passenger Rail Equipment for Use in Tier I Service' is a good introduction to the various safety issues associated with actual HSR train design. (The slab track is covered in 'Slab Track Field Test and Demonstration Program for Shared Freight and High-Speed Passenger Service')
If you Google for these titles (which is why I listed them verbatim, so you could just cut and paste to find them) be aware that the current FRA URLs will reference "eLib" instead of just dot.fra.gov. If you pick an older URL the FRA Web site will just dump you unhelpfully at a search box -- re-paste the document name in there and it should find it for you. (I would provide the URLs, but I rename the files as I save them on my system...)
Be sure to pick up your copy of the ACSES simulator while you are there! ;-}
Northern Jersey is not particularly crowded and congested outside of a couple of corridors (287 and 17 come to mind). The most severe congestion goes south and west (with 95 and 80 respectively) and by the time you get north past, say, Sparkill, it's not that overly developed. As I used to joke, we keep the Turnpike surrounded with Bayways and such to keep the out-of-staters moving along, and not stopping to spoil all the attractive country further out...
Problem is that there are few direct alternative corridors to the Northeast available to auto-trains. Much of the bridge-line capacity provided across north central NJ is now gone, and most of what there was wasn't particularly high-speed amenable. Get into the Ramapos and Watchungs, and then the Poconos, and you're in for some really hard railroad building -- take a look at the time and budget to put 78 through, for example, and that stretch of road is STILL a horror to negotiate in bad winter weather.
In the 'short run', the extended route I'd think about would be to parallel 81, roughly, into north central Pennsylvania, and then come across on a rebuilt Lackawanna Cutoff. The Hudson poses as much of a challenge as it did to the Federal in the 'teens -- I dont believe even the Gateway tunnels would be spec'd for automobile carriers, although if bilevel Superliners would fit, I'd think bilevel car carriers could be made to fit. Nearest practical crossing remains Castleton, just south of Albany, and it's a hard slog indeed going east of there (over the old B&A or that old NY&NE route in central Massachusetts) to get near the Boston area. There is the 'new Tappan Zee' rail link, but that is likely to tie across to NJT/MNCR rather than involving the old West Shore, and how you would proceed eastward from White Plains without involving commuter service or the Corridor is not a particularly pleasant prospect...
The real catch is getting from the general NYC area up to Albany; there is no good way that won't make freight railroads scream. (I'd be tempted to re-track part of the West Shore, first in the mostly-grade-separated four-track portion, and then double track north of Dumont -- but the curves on that line aren't going to make for particular comfort even if the scenery from one side of the train is delightful. As I mentioned, going around, say, via Maybrook would require far more construction than the revenue would ever justify. (Do not bother speculating on whether to repair the Poughkeepsie Bridge .. that answer is a big flat NO...)
Going waaaaay around the New York area, and coming down into Boston, might be something to consider, but doesn't solve the issue that was the original point of the exercise: to provide Northeasterners a convenient way to travel that does not require driving in congested areas to reach.
Thanks for all the info and the links for add'l information. I'll check into it.
I wasn't contemplating a series of additional locations where people from various locales could make a short drive to in order to board an auto-train heading south. I was thinking of one centrally located terminus. I thought of upstate NY, or western MA or central PA because of the lower density of population (i.e., more available land).
I assumed that people would rather drive 100-150 miles inland, even in a direction opposite where they ultimately intend to go, as an alternative to the I-95 corridor. The MASS Pike leads west to the NYS Thruway south of Albany. For me, I'd gladly travel up I-91 from the New Haven area to the MASS Pike to head in that direction as well.
If I also had to drive further south to PA, I could do that as well. Even a longer trip to that area would be infinitely better than driving on 95. I assumed that many other people in this region would feel the same way although I have seen no studies of the issue to say whether my assumptions are correct or not.
But, from what you've stated, upgrading some former freight line to accomodate passenger traffic (together with the construction of a passenger terminal even with the minimal services they presently offer) probably isn't financially feasible.
I believe, however, that it's fair to criticize Amtrak for neglecting to develop this scenario over the decades of its operation. Clearly, money was available in the federal government for such an undertaking from the 70s through the early '00s. Now, not so much although Washington still spends like a drunken sailor (and having been one from time to time, I know).
JGriffBut, from what you've stated, upgrading some former freight line to accomodate passenger traffic (together with the construction of a passenger terminal even with the minimal services they presently offer) probably isn't financially feasible.
Let's bump this topic...
Actually -- given slightly different assumptions about funding, the implementation of slab track for 110-mph operation *with full HAL stability* has been demonstrated for several years now. The great potential attractiveness is that, once laid properly, maintenance will be relatively slight, and even if built (comparatively inexpensively!) to Class 9 standards, operation slower than that for 'regional' service would remain smooth 'enough', long enough, to make the trick work in the long run.
The 'catch', as with electrification, is where the original capital expenditure to clean down to the subgrade, stabilize things, etc. and then set up the top-down alignment and cast the slab will come from. SOME railroads are forward-looking enough to capitalize now to save money in the future -- but not that many, and if I were responsible to today's kind of stockholders, I might conclude so, too. What a perfect opportunity this was for the Great Obama 'Recovery' Giveaway ... but if it's for strictly private gain, Government money isn't directly forthcoming, and without some participation by 'enlightened self-interest' and recognition of salient benefit by, say, that evil concrete industry that some other threads are railing on about...
Having said all that: it's time for FRA et al. to decide where to put in some of this track as a practical demonstration. I remember hearing several years ago that one or more of the Illinois "110mph" corridors was going to get this, and hopefully plans are well in hand to accomplish it, but if not... a 'first best place' to do the experiment would be trackage where Amtrak is running long, heavy trains with a large percentage of 'freight cars' ...
My father's family being from North Central PA, I would certainly like to see the 'regional' stop be established somewhere around... well, why not near the intersection of 80 and 81, or near Stroudsburg, or perhaps even Scranton, with 'through access' to NYC via a rebuilt Lackawanna Cutoff HSR project utilizing the same access and parking facilities... [Yes, I am intimately familiar with the topography and construction issues in that region, so don't bother me by discussing them as deal-killers... ;-} ]
It does occur to me that somewhere in the vicinity of Stewart is a contender for this, even though it would involve considerable 'new construction' on old grades. Much of the civil work is already done, there is in fact positive benefit to zero remaining trackwork, nd part of the 'development' might well include that fourth-airport access that is so popular over in the Transit discussions...
J Griff
If you check Fred Fraily's column you'll find a little more information on Autotrain.
John
I read them.
It was his effusive, uncritical praise of a seriously deficient system that started me off in this whole discussion.
J Griff,
I doubt Fred sees himself as "effusive." However, he is a guy who genuinely enjoys riding trains and that shows through.
You call Amtrak "seriously deficient." Perhaps you could share with us some examples of serious deficiencies. Speaking personally, I have never rode Amtrak without getting a seat except for one time. It was between Newark, NJ and Princeton Junction and Amtrak honored by New Jersey Transit commuter pass. Commuters flocked to Amtrak trains because they are more comfortable than NJT's own trains. But I can remember times under the New Haven and Penn Central that I had to stand from Providence to New Haven. Amtrak is not perfect. Trains are not always as clean as they might be but they are not remotely as filthy as trains I've traveled on riding the above two private railroads. For now I'll go with Amtrak which consistently provides the best North East Corridor service I've seen in my lifetime.
Your earlier criticism of Autotrain is that there is not more of them. There are worse criticisms to make.
With best regards, John
Sorry. I have neither the time nor the desire to repeat everything that I have already said. I don't think the community would have much patience for it either.
I suggest that it might be fruitful for you to go back through the postings and re-read what I posted, what others have posted in reply and my continued responses, as well as theirs. It only starts 3 or 4 weeks ago. You could re-read everything in a couple of hours I'm sure.
Hey J Griff,
This is from your first post: "anyone I know would gladly travel 100+ miles inland to catch the auto-train up by Albany or in Western Massachusetts rather than drive down through NY, NJ, DE, MD and past DC just to catch the train in Northern VA."
That's why I suggest that one of the "serious deficiencies" you identify is that there are not more Autotrains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.