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?
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?
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
John
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
John WRschlimmOr are you simply diverting attention from his main point because you seem opposed to HSR and corridors and prefer to restore legacy services to small towns?
schlimmOr are you simply diverting attention from his main point because you seem opposed to HSR and corridors and prefer to restore legacy services to small towns?
Sorry. I meant, of course, retain or continue.
BaltACDTruly spoken like one that has never had to 'make track space' for the movement of a train - any train.
Well, Balt, you are correct about me. I have absolutely no direct knowledge about track space issues. But Joe Boardman was testifying to the Congress. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that all of our Members of Congress are not as well informed as you are. In fact I bet more of them are as ignorant as I am than are as well informed as you. What I say and all that I say is that Joe Boardman would do himself a favor to add some context to his statement.
As I said, I do not think a train that travels less than 50 miles is the equivalent of a train that travels over 400 miles. I think Joe Boardman should have been more clear in his comparison.
I am not aware that I have ever suggested that we now restore any legacy service which Amtrak does not now have to any single small town, not on this forum and not on any other forum and not in any conversation and no where else in my life. If the Congress were prepared to add service to Amtrak why in the world would I suggest that it should be based on travel needs of over a half century ago rather than today? Beyond that, I do not oppose high speed rail corridors. If the funds are available I support high speed rail corridors.
The ideas you attribute to me I have never believed and do not now believe. Why in the world should I try to persuade you or anyone to ideas that I myself do not believe in?
John WR schlimmMaybe so, but you actually think he fudged his numbers? surely he has access to better info than anyone, or almost anyone here. Schlimm, I don't think he intended to give inaccurate information. I suppose it would be possible to count every single train on the Northeast Corridor. Assume the total is correct. But I don't think it is really accurate to say a train that goes from Boston to Washington is the same as a train that runs from Providence to Wakefield, RI or is the same as a train that runs from Philadelphia to Wilmington. John
schlimmMaybe so, but you actually think he fudged his numbers? surely he has access to better info than anyone, or almost anyone here.
I don't think he intended to give inaccurate information. I suppose it would be possible to count every single train on the Northeast Corridor. Assume the total is correct. But I don't think it is really accurate to say a train that goes from Boston to Washington is the same as a train that runs from Providence to Wakefield, RI or is the same as a train that runs from Philadelphia to Wilmington.
Truly spoken like one that has never had to 'make track space' for the movement of a train - any train. Every train must have clear track space to operate! It doesn't make any difference if it is a Accela run or the stop at every station local and even NS or other trackage rights freights that must service local industries on the NEC. While different trains may have different priorities in their operation - they must have clear track space to operate into (not necessarily a signal block that is clear of trains - but space that is not stareing at the markers of a train ahead).
And while we are downplaying the operation of 2200+ trains on the NEC - don't forget that both the track, signals and catenary must be inspected and repaired to maintain normal operations - those inspections and maintenance operations all require track time - time that is 'taken' from the operation of trains.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
John WRWell yes, Dave. And every drop of water adds to an ocean. But when tiny measurements are included with large measurements and there is no context the numbers can have very little meaning. In high school I learned and I bet you did too that numbers themselves are abstractions and lack meaning. To give them meaning they need to be linked to concrete objects.
Boardman: "This new system is needed because the current NEC is simply too congested, with its current fleet of 2,200 daily commuter, freight and intercity trains." Seems pretty clear and concrete. Which part don't you understand? 1 = one train. Or are you simply diverting attention from his main point because you seem opposed to HSR and corridors and prefer to restore legacy services to small towns?
daveklepperAnd he did not say they are the same. He was just counting total movoments, and probablly did nnot count yard and dead head movements, just those carrying passnegers And sure, more than half are short-distance commuter runs. But all add to congestion..
Well yes, Dave. And every drop of water adds to an ocean. But when tiny measurements are included with large measurements and there is no context the numbers can have very little meaning. In high school I learned and I bet you did too that numbers themselves are abstractions and lack meaning. To give them meaning they need to be linked to concrete objects.
John WR schlimmMaybe so, but you actually think he fudged his numbers? surely he has access to better info than anyone, or almost anyone here. Schlimm, I don't think he intended to give inaccurate information. I suppose it would be possible to count every single train on the Northeast Corridor. Assume the total is correct. But I don't think it is really accurate to say a train that goes from Boston to Washington is the same as a train that runs from Providence to Wakefield, RI or is the same as a train that runs from Philadelphia to Wilmington. John And he did not say they are the same. He was just counting total movoments, and probablly did nnot count yard and dead head movements, just those carrying passnegers And sure, more than half are short-distance commuter runs. But all add to congestion..
The 2200 is total trains, obviously. Debating the exact number is irrelevant. His point was that the NEC lacks sufficient capacity for the future. The capacity can be increased by many methods that he lists, one of which is higher speeds, both sustained and top. Another is to construct another route, at least in new England for the long term.
I am willing to bet that if you count every tran...revenue and deadhead and moves between midnight and midnight and between South Station and Boston and Union Station in D.C. for all the railroads that use the Corridor, there are at least 2220 movements and track usage..
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.
You would know better than I, but I would think when the CEO asks for numbers, some underling will not embarrass him with fakes ones, on pain of dismissal.
schlimm blue streak 1 John WR . But I am skeptical of the "2200" daily trains. JOHN: I also fault Boardman on that statement as it is very misleading. Only Amtrak goes end to end. You have MBTA, SLE MNRR, NJT, SEPTA, DELEWARE (?), MARC, & maybe VRE -thru the 1st st tunnel (?). Does it count downeasters and MNRR New Rochelle - NH and the branch line trains. Then is Amtrak also counting all the Dead Head moves from terminals to yards ? Some of these trains may only travel a few miles ( feet ?) on Amtrak and if VRE is counted then only on WASH's station tracks. The Jersey coast lines trains are another. Short trips of various natures can be handled because the signaling systems are built for very short blocks. Only a detailed traffic density map of each segment of track will let us know where there are choke points. Maybe so, but you actually think he fudged his numbers? surely he has access to better info than anyone, or almost anyone here.
blue streak 1 John WR . But I am skeptical of the "2200" daily trains. JOHN: I also fault Boardman on that statement as it is very misleading. Only Amtrak goes end to end. You have MBTA, SLE MNRR, NJT, SEPTA, DELEWARE (?), MARC, & maybe VRE -thru the 1st st tunnel (?). Does it count downeasters and MNRR New Rochelle - NH and the branch line trains. Then is Amtrak also counting all the Dead Head moves from terminals to yards ? Some of these trains may only travel a few miles ( feet ?) on Amtrak and if VRE is counted then only on WASH's station tracks. The Jersey coast lines trains are another. Short trips of various natures can be handled because the signaling systems are built for very short blocks. Only a detailed traffic density map of each segment of track will let us know where there are choke points.
John WR . But I am skeptical of the "2200" daily trains.
. But I am skeptical of the "2200" daily trains.
JOHN: I also fault Boardman on that statement as it is very misleading. Only Amtrak goes end to end. You have MBTA, SLE MNRR, NJT, SEPTA, DELEWARE (?), MARC, & maybe VRE -thru the 1st st tunnel (?). Does it count downeasters and MNRR New Rochelle - NH and the branch line trains. Then is Amtrak also counting all the Dead Head moves from terminals to yards ? Some of these trains may only travel a few miles ( feet ?) on Amtrak and if VRE is counted then only on WASH's station tracks. The Jersey coast lines trains are another.
Short trips of various natures can be handled because the signaling systems are built for very short blocks. Only a detailed traffic density map of each segment of track will let us know where there are choke points.
"Has access to" might be a pretty far distance from "has the numbers". Certainly the data flow from CETC will allow a unique train count - it has to feed a Federally mandated train sheet. The question is, does Amtrak store this data where people can query it? Don't automatically assume "yes".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WRBetween New York and Washington the line has 4 tracks (although there are 6 tracks in some places).
There are two tracks from Penn to Newark, four south to Wilimington (almost), then three with some stretches of two south of there.
The Great American Problem has always been coordinating cost with value. They kept the 5 cent rapid transit fares much too long causing the public...and the politicians...to lose the judgement other than in terms of votes.
I'd have to say this is mostly good new.
Just noticing the Shuster says he's okay with funding a "good state of repair" for the NEC is a looong way from the old mantra of "privatize it".
The issue remaining, then, is who, how and when to fund capacity and speed improvements. I'd say Amtrak's $170M proposal, the FRAs proposal and Shuster's "money is scarce" statements are just opening gambits.
There is no question but what the line north of New York is curvy. But I am skeptical of the "2200" daily trains. I counted Metro North trains on its New Haven Line. The format of the time table is hard to work with so my figures may not be precise but I was able to count 250 trains each week day. Amtrak runs fewer trains. South of New Haven the line has 4 tracks. Between New York and Washington the line has 4 tracks (although there are 6 tracks in some places). But there is no new alignment beyond the new Hudson River tunnels south of New York.
However, from New Rochelle to New Haven Metro North owns the line and limits the number of Amtrak trains.
Boardman: "This new system is needed because the current NEC is simply too congested, with its current fleet of 2,200 daily commuter, freight and intercity trains, and too curvy, with much of its route dating back to the 1850’s, to support this type of high-speed rail service.
As every major high speed system around the world has shown, dedicated tracks and new alignments are necessary to support very high speed trains and to permit the type of frequent and reliable service that has made these services financially successful.
So, taken together, these two programs will both improve the existing NEC for all users [especially commuters he says elswhere], which must be done to protect the existing services and allow near-term growth, while also creating an entirely new high speed service that unlocks the potential of our currently constrained Acela service. While these plans call for a total capital investment in the $100 to $150 billion range over the next 30 or so years, they will provide America’s most densely-populated and congested region with a transportation alternative designed to accommodate nearly a century of growth."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.