According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data, the combined populations of the major Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) for the NEC, i.e. Boston, New York, etc. was 37.8 million. The average growth of the population for these areas between 2000 and 2010 was 6.8 per cent. The DC area grew at 16.4 per cent. It was a statistical outlier. If it is backed out of the calculations, the average growth in the NEC population between 2000 and 2010 was approximately 4.5 per cent.
The population of the major SMSAs in Texas, i.e. Austin, DFW, Houston, and San Antonio, was 16.1 million in 2010. Between 2000 and 2010 these populations grew at an average rate of 28.0 per cent, which is more than four times the growth rate of the NEC when DC is included and more than six time greater when the DC outlier is removed.
Regression analysis for the Texas Triangle, which is anchored by the Texas SMSAs, as well as others around the country, show that these SMSAs are likely to continue growing at a greater rate than the SMSAs in the NEC.
Given the dramatic population increases in other potential corridors, as well as the fact that Amtrak has the lion's share of the commercial air/rail traffic between Boston and NYC, as well as NYC and Washington, why should the national government put more money into the NEC whilst short changing most of the nation's other corridors or potential corridors?
NextGen is likely to go a long way in relieving the air traffic congestion in the NY Terminal Area, which is the major air traffic stumbling block in the U.S. Moreover, if traffic demands warranted it, the airlines could increase the capacities of the airplanes on the Boston to DC runs, without any significant increase in infrastructure capacity, by using larger airplanes. This is what Qantas has done on the Melbourne to Sydney run. It is using Boeing 767s to meet the demand. I understand that it also plans to introduce Airbus A330s on this run.
I don't believe that Boardman has made a compelling case for another $400 billion for the NEC, which would be nearly double the estimated cost of the California High Speed Rail Project (both numbers include estimated debt service costs).
You make a good case for looking into relatively fast, if not true high speed corridors in Texas. Using an incremental approach, what would be the rational starting city pairs?
Some expansion of capacity in the existing NEC is needed to handle current overcrowding and future growth. However, maybe the 2nd inland route between Boston and NYC should be tabled for the foreseeable future.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam1Between 2000 and 2010 the average growth rates of the Texas SMSAs was 28.0 per cent, which is more than four times the growth rate of the NEC when DC is included and more than six time greater when the DC outlier is removed.
I more than agree with you, Sam. The fact that these Texas cities today have less than half of the population of the Northeast Corridor means a lot more land is available and installing rail transit would be much cheaper and much less disruptive of the population than in the Northeast Corridor. Then when the new population does materialize it will be in place and it will not be necessary to deal with the chocked highways and air space that we in the Northeast now live with.
The only problem I see is that in the recent Amtrak reform legislation this seems to be the kind of investment that the Congress is reluctant to fund.
John
John WR The only problem I see is that in the recent Amtrak reform legislation this seems to be the kind of investment that the Congress refuses to fund. John
The only problem I see is that in the recent Amtrak reform legislation this seems to be the kind of investment that the Congress refuses to fund.
Not really accurate. Congress has helped Illinois a lot on the CHI-STL HSR corridor.
I believe incremental and long-term incremental improvements to the corridor make more sense than a brand new line. In addition to electrifying Newark - West Trenton as an alternative Amtrak route NY-Philly, and using the NYW&B route to bypass Shell, after 4 tracks Kearney - Penn Sta., there might be some attention to reviving the White Train route through Wilimantic, 90% of which is either rail-banked or providing freight service, and even the Maybrook line and the Poughkeepsie Bridge for a non-stop Boston - DC service that bypasses NY.
But I think building the high-speed Texas and Oklahoma routes now, withou waiting for congestion to develop, makes sense.
schlimm You make a good case for looking into relatively fast, if not true high speed corridors in Texas. Using an incremental approach, what would be the rational starting city pairs?
The most effective start-up route in Texas would be from Fort Worth to San Antonio. It could draw passengers directly from Fort Worth, Arlington, Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos and San Antonio. It could also draw passengers from Dallas and Oklahoma City. Dallas passengers could use the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) for timed, across the platform connections in Fort Worth. Likewise Oklahoma City passengers could make across the platform transfers from the Heartland Flyer, or ideally its equipment would become a run through train to and from San Antonio.
Providing direct service from Dallas to the I-35 corridor points mentioned above would require a significant rebuilding of the existing rail lines or construction of new track.
The existing passenger rail route (BNSF from Fort Worth to Temple, and UP from Temple to San Antonio) parallels I-35, which is one of the most congested interstate highways in the U.S. Moreover, significant portions of the roadway are being rebuilt, which is causing motorists a major headache. An alternative to driving could appeal to many of them.
Relatively quick, frequent, reliable, comfortable, and economical trains might entice people out of their cars along the I-35 corridor. This would be especially true for people traveling just part of the distance, i.e. Fort Worth to Austin, where flying is not practicable.
Many people along the NEC take the train out of habit. But it is not a habit in most other parts of the country. If the authorities could implement better train service between the Texas anchor cities mentioned above, they might get more Texans to develop the train habit.
If the Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited were discontinued, Amtrak or another operator would have the equipment necessary to offer at least three trains a day between the aforementioned cities. Less frequent service would not cut it. Moreover, the scheduled running time between Fort Worth and San Antonio could be reduced by eliminating the dwell time in Fort Worth, as per the current Eagle schedule, and cutting the fat out of the Eagle's scheduled arrival time into San Antonio.
Ultimately, if demand warranted the investment, a better option would be to upgrade the former MKT line (UP) from Fort Worth to Austin, thereby providing downtown service for Hillsboro, Waco, Temple, Georgetown, Round Rock and on into Austin. The other improvement that would be needed is better access into San Antonio. Currently, the trains has to crawl down a back track to get to the Amtrak station. To add insult to injury, northbound trains have to back out of the station, which is a very slow process and adds greatly to the schedule.
Currently TXDOT and OKDOT contribute approximately $1.5 million each for the Heartland Flyer, proving that states can cooperate to provide passenger rail services. However, what is missing in Texas is the will and means to develop the aforementioned corridor. It is not likely to happen until people get thoroughly frustrated with the growing highway congestion and demand better alternatives to driving.
schlimmNot really accurate. Congress has helped Illinois a lot on the CHI-STL HSR corridor.
Schlimm,
I believe nuances are important and I appreciate your comment here. I've changed "refuses" to "is reluctant to" because of it.
Sam1 The most effective start-up route in Texas would be from Fort Worth to San Antonio. It could draw passengers directly from Fort Worth, Arlington, Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos and San Antonio.
The most effective start-up route in Texas would be from Fort Worth to San Antonio. It could draw passengers directly from Fort Worth, Arlington, Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos and San Antonio.
SAM1: You make a good case. do you have the populations in the service areas of both this route and for comparsion the CHI - STL route? The figures would seem to be similar although the connections are not as good at DAL - FTW?
Sam1Currently TXDOT and OKDOT contribute approximately $1.5 million each for the Heartland Flyer, proving that states can cooperate to provide passenger rail services. However, what is missing in Texas is the will and means to develop the aforementioned corridor. It is not likely to happen until people get thoroughly frustrated with the growing highway congestion and demand better alternatives to driving.
Thank you Sam1 for such a thorough answer to my query.
blue streak 1 Sam1 The most effective start-up route in Texas would be from Fort Worth to San Antonio. It could draw passengers directly from Fort Worth, Arlington, Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos and San Antonio. SAM1: You make a good case. do you have the populations in the service areas of both this route and for comparsion the CHI - STL route? The figures would seem to be similar although the connections are not as good at DAL - FTW?
The combined 2010 population for the Chicago and St. Louis SMSAs was 12.3 million. The combined 2010 population for the DFW, Austin, and San Antonio population was 10.2 million. The average increase in the population for the Chicajgo and St. Louis areas from 2000 to 2010 was approximately 4.1 per cent, which was well below the average increase for the Texas SMSAs.
I did not look at the population figures for the cities between DFW and San Antonio, with the exception of Austin, and I did not look at the population numbers for the cities between Chicago and St. Louis. Both routes have several mid size cities that probably have populations of 100,000 to 250,000. If Oklahoma City is included in the numbers, the populations of the two corridors appear to be very close.
It is 284 rail miles from Chicago to St. Louis. It is 283 rail miles from Fort Worth to San Antonio. However, the current Eagle route from Fort Worth to San Antonio includes a 35 mile dogleg that could be eliminated if the former MKT route was rebuilt. In any case, the mileage is similar. It is 206 miles from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City, making the total distance from OK City to SA 489 miles.
A key point lies in the fact that cities in the south and west have been growing at a significantly greater rate than the cities of the northeast and middle part of the country, although there are exceptions. Accordingly, it seems to me that if the national government is going to increase the investment in intercity passenger rail, it should look to corridors other than the ones that it has invested in heavily.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.