CMStPnP One big issue with the NEC and lack of High Speed implementation is Amtrak STILL does not own or control all the rails from Boston to Washington. That needs to be fixed as well as moving all the Commuter trains off the Amtrak right of way onto their own set of tracks. That alone probably requires a few Billion in new track and signalling. As for the realignment, I think that has to do with straightening out the speed restricted curves as well as making the line more accessible by a higher population North of New York. Which would make that portion of the line more financially viable.
One big issue with the NEC and lack of High Speed implementation is Amtrak STILL does not own or control all the rails from Boston to Washington. That needs to be fixed as well as moving all the Commuter trains off the Amtrak right of way onto their own set of tracks. That alone probably requires a few Billion in new track and signalling.
As for the realignment, I think that has to do with straightening out the speed restricted curves as well as making the line more accessible by a higher population North of New York. Which would make that portion of the line more financially viable.
The part that Amtrak does not own between New Rochelle and New Haven works fine for commuter and regional trains. ATK knows this and that is why they want to move to their own new ROW to be built for HSR.
CMStPnPOne big issue with the NEC and lack of High Speed implementation is Amtrak STILL does not own or control all the rails from Boston to Washington.
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority owns the track between Providence and Boston and this is double track territory. Yet Amtrak hits 150 miles an hour there.
There was a day when there were 4 tracks south of New Haven but today, at least in some places, one of those tracks has been taken up. This includes the Hell Gate Bridge which as room for 4 tracks but only has 3. To put down the 4th track all you would need is the money to do it.
There has always been at most two tracks between New Haven and Boston as far as I know. The only exception is that the State of Rhode Island has built a 3rd track between Providence and Wakefield for its diesel powered commuter train. (The train is operated by MBTA).
Sam1 As an aside, Amtrak likes to tout the fact that it has approximately 75 per cent of the air/rail market between New York and Washington, as well as the majority of the air/rail market between New York and Boston. But it does not give us the complete picture, i.e. how much of the overall intercity transport market does it have, i.e. trains, planes, buses, cars, motorcycles, etc.
As an aside, Amtrak likes to tout the fact that it has approximately 75 per cent of the air/rail market between New York and Washington, as well as the majority of the air/rail market between New York and Boston. But it does not give us the complete picture, i.e. how much of the overall intercity transport market does it have, i.e. trains, planes, buses, cars, motorcycles, etc.
I just wanted to address this part: no one flies to NYC from here. Its all trains and the bus. Few drive because you have to figure out what to do with the car once you get to NYC. It was a rather huge surprise to me when I moved here.
I'd also dispute the "no one has put up the capital so no one wants to do it." I'd wager that no one group has the money, which means they'd have to form a coalition of venture capitalists to do it. That's an unattractive prospect, especially when your competitor is the government with its effectively unlimited resources.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
And the aiports are at or near capacity also.
To say nothing of the overcrowded roads paralleling the NEC. Adding lanes or entirely new routes also costs many dollars for infrastructure and takes many acres off the already limited local tax rolls.
There is no question but what flying from Washington to Boston is faster than the train. The Acela takes about 6 1/2 hours; Northeast Regional trains are about 8 hours. Even allowing time to get though airport security flying is faster. The only way Amtrak will ever compete with flying is to build a high speed rail and that is expensive.
So why shouldn't we just let people fly between Washington and Boston and avoid the expense of a HSR link? A lot of people believe we should. We should focus on upgrading the Northeast Corridor line as it exists. It really could attract a lot more people but it would never really compete with flying for those traveling between Washington and Boston.
But there is another reason. In the northeast air space is crowded. Not flying between New York and Los Angeles is impractical and not flying between New York and London or Bejing is impossible. However, the train between Boston and Washington is possible and would reduce the air space crowding.
NittanyLion Sam1 For many people in the Washington area, especially those living in northern Virginia, National Airport is closer than Union Station. It can be reached by public transport. The same is true for Logan Airport in Boston. Except that you don't need to go to Union Station. Alexandria is served by the Regionals, as are some of the southern suburbs. Plus you're quibbling over what is literally a ten minute difference in travel time, if you're driving. For most of NoVA, its actually easier to get to Union Station by Metro than it is to get to DCA. I'll be blunt: you're going to still be looking for a parking space at DCA when your train-taking racing opponent gets to Union Station.
Sam1 For many people in the Washington area, especially those living in northern Virginia, National Airport is closer than Union Station. It can be reached by public transport. The same is true for Logan Airport in Boston.
For many people in the Washington area, especially those living in northern Virginia, National Airport is closer than Union Station. It can be reached by public transport. The same is true for Logan Airport in Boston.
Except that you don't need to go to Union Station. Alexandria is served by the Regionals, as are some of the southern suburbs.
Plus you're quibbling over what is literally a ten minute difference in travel time, if you're driving. For most of NoVA, its actually easier to get to Union Station by Metro than it is to get to DCA. I'll be blunt: you're going to still be looking for a parking space at DCA when your train-taking racing opponent gets to Union Station.
There are approximately 50 Acela and regional daily departures from Washington Union Station to New York. Some of them go onto Boston. There are approximately six daily NE regional trains from Virginia that stop in Alexandria before proceeding to Washington and New York City. Five of them go on to Boston.
The average dwell time in Union Station is 25 minutes. Add to that the nearly 20 to 25 minutes to get from Alexandria to Union Station, and an Amtrak passenger traveling north of Washington has spent nearly an hour on the train before departing Washington.
The NE regional departing Alexandria at 7:47 a.m. arrives in New York at 12:05 and Boston at 4:36 p.m. The 9:50 train arrives in New York at 2:20 p.m. It does not go to Boston. The 1:00 p.m. departure arrives in New York at 5:21 p.m. and Boston at 9:52 p.m. I don't know of many business persons who would spend this kind of time on a train, especially getting to Boston. They could spend an hour driving around the parking lot at or near National and still beat the train to Boston by a wide margin.
Persons going from Alexandria to Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, etc. might find that the NE regional is a good option. My guess, however, is many if not most of the business people, at least, would drive from Alexandria to Baltimore, Wilmington, etc.
I don't remember whether the wires go as far as Alexandria. In any case, with additional capital expenditures, Amtrak could extend the Acela or whatever comes next to northern Virginia and improve the times from there to New York as well as intermediate points and beyond. The big question, however, is where are they going to get the money? If expanding the NEC were a viable commercial proposition, venture capitalists would put up the money in a heartbeat. It isn't!
Sam,
I was unaware of your cat. I saw the name on your post and accepted it at face value. Was that a mistake?
John
Sam1As noted in several posts, Samantha (now Sam1) was the name of my cat. It is not my name. That does not mean that we share common gender traits.
I think that may have been prior to John WR's becoming a regular poster here.
John WR schlimm Does a person usually include the interest from your 20-year mortgage. No. So why in the case of Amtrak capital costs? Mainly, Schlimm, because I don't want to just go on and on. Sam is clear and articulate. I assume anyone who wants to understand her reads what she herself says rather than what I say about her. I'm sure you do. Perhaps in this case my writing was too casual. I regret that. John
schlimm Does a person usually include the interest from your 20-year mortgage. No. So why in the case of Amtrak capital costs?
Mainly, Schlimm, because I don't want to just go on and on. Sam is clear and articulate. I assume anyone who wants to understand her reads what she herself says rather than what I say about her. I'm sure you do. Perhaps in this case my writing was too casual. I regret that.
As noted in several posts, Samantha (now Sam1) was the name of my cat. It is not my name. That does not mean that we share common gender traits.
There is absolutely an upgrade needed for the NEC. With all the commuter traffic present & future WASH - NYP needs to be 4 track all the way. As that is done the slow sections will be eliminated and travel WASH - NYP should be about 2:20.
East of NYP there are projects that can reduce the shoreline times somewhat without spending a fortune. Probably east of NH a thid track and eventually a 4th will be needed as trip times are reduced and more LD & commuters use the facilities. New Acelas will probably reduce times NH - New Rochelle by being able to tilt more.
Traffic growth will determine when the new routes are needed but they will probably be built too late.
Amtrak is ALREADY the best option for Philadelphia-Stamford business travel.
I have seen numerous executive types make this trip via both Acela and Regionals.
Flying involves using White Plains airport and a long cab ride.
Small airports are subsidized just like Amtrak.
Accountants, bankers, mortgage brokers, etc. view the cost of an item (equipment, services, etc.) as the price, less any discounts, plus the debt service cost, as well as several other relatively minor costs, i.e. training, start-up, taxes and transfer, transportation-in, etc. This is the total cost that gets booked. Price and cost are different markers.
If a purchaser fails to pay for all the costs associated with an asset (car, house, etc.), i.e. price, debt service, etc., the asset will be reposed. This is true whether the asset is purchased for a business or an individual.
In this case the activity that drives the finance cost is the upgrade of the NEC or the construction of a new railroad. If there is no upgrade or new railroad, there would be no need for any financing. Or if Amtrak or the government could pay for the upgrades from free cash flow, there would be no need for financing. Not likely! So whoever upgrades the NEC (existing right-of-way or new one) will have to use debt to finance the project, and it will have to service the debt. It is part of the total cost.
John WR Sam1I am not sure why you are ascribing $151 billion to me. I simply copied and pasted your statement, Sam. And you said "estimated cost" so I think (and certainly hope) people will understand you are referring to an amount you have seen in the literature. Beyond that, my own point would be that the amount is so large that it will be very difficult to fund. I certainly don't want to misrepresent you and I hope I am not. John
Sam1I am not sure why you are ascribing $151 billion to me.
I simply copied and pasted your statement, Sam. And you said "estimated cost" so I think (and certainly hope) people will understand you are referring to an amount you have seen in the literature. Beyond that, my own point would be that the amount is so large that it will be very difficult to fund. I certainly don't want to misrepresent you and I hope I am not.
"The estimated cost to achieve the stated improvements is $151 billion. Not exactly! As is the case with the California High Speed Rail Project, the proponents have overlooked or at least failed to state the debt service costs. If the project were to be funded at the current Treasury long bond rate of just a bit over three per cent, the total cost of the project with debt service would be $228.9 billion."
So in fact an estimate including debt service of almost $229 bil. I notice sam1 always includes debt service which is accurate in the sense that it might be the total price. But if one considers many other substantial purchases an individual makes, do we usually include debt service? Not to my knowledge. You buy a car for 5% off the sticker price of $20K and get it for $19K. Do you include total financing for a 48-month loan? No. You buy a house for $400K. Does a person usually include the interest from your 20-year mortgage. No. So why in the case of Amtrak capital costs?
While we both often disagree I think in questioning whether the New England part of high speed rail is worth what it would cost we are in agreement.
And, while I would like to see the North East Corridor itself upgraded, beyond that I think your point that the northeast is not the only place in the country and there are other places deserving of improved transportation too is correct.
Capacity constraints on the NEC (current and future) may justify upgrading the route. A key question is whether the nation needs to spend upwards of $200 billion (includes debt service costs) or whether something on a lesser scale would do the job.
If the market is Stamford to Philadelphia or any number of intermediate points, is a 220 mph railroad the optimum solution for the problem?
I have a great fondness for passenger trains. I ride them whenever I get the opportunity to do so. I also have a burning passion for fiscal responsibility. To lay out a proposal for upgrading the NEC or any other rail corridor without a solid plan to pay for it bothers me.
Paul Milenkovic A couple of things. A new HSR line, funded to the tune of 150-220 billion dollars, depending on how you count, doesn't "compete" with the airline companies in any meaningful way.
A couple of things. A new HSR line, funded to the tune of 150-220 billion dollars, depending on how you count, doesn't "compete" with the airline companies in any meaningful way.
Paul MilenkovicMaybe I can be faulted for "failing to think big." The 220 MPH Boston-Wash line has a kind of space-age-y Tom Swift and his Electric Bullet Train aspect that might pry 225 billion free whereas all of the incremental "grow a passenger train network to feed the NEC" doesn't have the Democracy-whiskey-sexy appeal to the imagination.
How appealing to ascribe ridiculous motivations to something you are steadfastly against!
Yeah, yeah, the airlines are "subsidized too", but if you had 220 billion dollars of spare gummint money laying around to throw at the airlines, I am sure they could provide a deluxe service with "gourmet meals" (of the kind Representative Mica enjoys), more legroom, and expedited security (a polite young woman could come up to me and say, "Sir, I am sure your 'development' is perfectly normal for a male of Eastern European genetics, if I may dare to presume your heritage based on your last name, and for your age and body-mass-index, but if you would be so gracious as to allow me to feel the front of your chest to assertain that the scan isn't picking up a not-permitted package of liquids . . " (this actually happened at Milwaukee Mitchel, a 'naked body scan' followed by a no-refusal pat-down, the woman was quite stern, and a male TSA person performed the pat-down)).
Oh, an addition to the 150-220 billion spent on the NEC, we can spend another 100+ billion on such a thing in Texas, simply because we ought to do this. If I were Plato's benevolent Philosopher King, there are all manners of things I would choose to spend money on, but I would still be subject to the limitation of the grumblings of my "subjects" on this matter.
It is easy to be the "kid in the candystore without a restricted budget" and say, "Yeah, I would like a new NEC 'backbone', you are right, let's build a Texas HSR -- and one in Florida while we are at it -- because we have to build for the future and the anticipated demand" and so on.
The hard facts of reality are that the 225 billion spent on the one project are not available for something else. "But what about all of the money spent on 'the war' (or on health care for seniors, or any number of things)?" Yes, what about all of those things?
225 billion is a lot of money to raise through the political process (yes, let's complain about how our politics are unjust, but if a thing isn't able to raise the needed capital through the private marketplace, it competes in a political marketplace against a whole panoply of spending priorities, may of which we think are wasteful, but there are other political players who would judge "our" request for 225 billion the same way.
What am I saying? 225 billion, forget that, some small portion of 225 billion would go a long way of expanding a synergestic passenger train network around the NEC -- the Vermont train, the Harrisburg train, the Virginia train, Don Oltmann's idea of a Crescent-route day-train service.
Maybe I can be faulted for "failing to think big." The 220 MPH Boston-Wash line has a kind of space-age-y Tom Swift and his Electric Bullet Train aspect that might pry 225 billion free whereas all of the incremental "grow a passenger train network to feed the NEC" doesn't have the Democracy-whiskey-sexy appeal to the imagination.
But all this presumes that getting our political system to cough up 225 billion is an easy thing, even if you can have an ad compaign such as "Fly California" on the side of computer-animated bullet trains (Why would I want a train to reproduce the aviation experience? Is the California bullet train going to be 6-seats across as they are doing on some trains in Japan, with cramped leg room, intrusive security (what makes you think that isn't a possibility after the Madrid incident), and no food?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Many overlook other city pairs where rail is the clear winner. I talking about places like
Stamford, CT that has become quite a business center. Acela connects it with Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Newark, Boston, Providence, and Wilmington. Air is not a good option for
those kinds of trips.
Sam1The author of the article highlighted the proposed train time from Washington to Boston. The apples to apples comparison is DC to Boston. Over shorter distances, i.e. NY to Boston, Philadelphia to New Haven, etc., the train may be a clear winner. It is a winner now in many markets, as per Amtrak's numbers, at least with respect to air vs. rail travelers, thereby raising the question why does Amtrak (taxpayers) need to invest up to $228 billion to what appears to be a new railroad from Washington to Boston?
All true, except you ignore Boardman's stated reason for improvements to the exising infrastructure and the new NYC-Boston line: Creating greater capacity for now and the future, by achieving greater speed, thus more trains per unit of time . NYC-BOS has some many curves and bridges, so a speed increase through improvements of the existing line are thought to be more expensive than a now line (I wonder about that, but they probably know). One constraint Boardman points out is that the corridor is shared with large numbers of commuter trains in different areas, as well as some freight.
I agree that Texas is a prime candidate for fast, corridor services because of distances and population and expected growth. "If you build it, they will come" is the assumption, although you have pointed out many times that Texans love their cars and pick up trucks and have almost no experience with trains as transportation for people. Folks in the NEC clearly do. The smart move would be to build for needed present and future capacity ineeds in the NEC and start building in Texas.
John WR Sam1The estimated cost to achieve the stated improvements is $151 billion. Sam, Right now the Northeast timetable shows the Acela takes about 6 1/2 hours between Boston and Washington, DC. The approximate cost is $200 to $225. Along the current route the speed could be reduced and will be reduced when the whole catenary is replaced. However, I don't know what the travel time will be then. No doubt, a new high speed track on the Northeast Corridor would be expensive. When or if it will be accomplished is questionable right now. You give flying time Boston to Washington, DC as 1 hour and 24 minutes. A close friend of mind flies on domestic flights fairly often and I take her to the airport. Our experience at Newark Airport is that you need to be there at least 2 hours before flight time in order to be sure you will get through security and other details and be on your flight. It usually takes less than 2 hours but if you do not allow that amount of time you risk missing your flight. (My friend had a joint replacement several months ago. She missed one flight because the TSA security officer suspected she was trying to smuggle something aboard the plane and simply refused to hear her explanation. If she possibly could she would ride Amtrak rather than flying but Amtrak no longer serves her destination). I fly occasionally but not very often at all. When I do I find air line seats extremely small and confining to the point where they make the trip difficult and uncomfortable. I know air fares are now relatively low and you get what you pay for. If Amtrak were to build a new high speed track in New England as I understand their plan the train would run from Boston to New York with probably a single stop at Hartford. However, there could not possibly be any stops on the Shore Line (Providence, New London, New Haven or Bridgeport) because the new rail line would not pass those stations. Because of that people in Rhode Island and Connecticut are not very enthusiastic about that proposed high speed rail line. John
Sam1The estimated cost to achieve the stated improvements is $151 billion.
Right now the Northeast timetable shows the Acela takes about 6 1/2 hours between Boston and Washington, DC. The approximate cost is $200 to $225. Along the current route the speed could be reduced and will be reduced when the whole catenary is replaced. However, I don't know what the travel time will be then.
No doubt, a new high speed track on the Northeast Corridor would be expensive. When or if it will be accomplished is questionable right now.
You give flying time Boston to Washington, DC as 1 hour and 24 minutes. A close friend of mind flies on domestic flights fairly often and I take her to the airport. Our experience at Newark Airport is that you need to be there at least 2 hours before flight time in order to be sure you will get through security and other details and be on your flight. It usually takes less than 2 hours but if you do not allow that amount of time you risk missing your flight. (My friend had a joint replacement several months ago. She missed one flight because the TSA security officer suspected she was trying to smuggle something aboard the plane and simply refused to hear her explanation. If she possibly could she would ride Amtrak rather than flying but Amtrak no longer serves her destination).
I fly occasionally but not very often at all. When I do I find air line seats extremely small and confining to the point where they make the trip difficult and uncomfortable. I know air fares are now relatively low and you get what you pay for.
If Amtrak were to build a new high speed track in New England as I understand their plan the train would run from Boston to New York with probably a single stop at Hartford. However, there could not possibly be any stops on the Shore Line (Providence, New London, New Haven or Bridgeport) because the new rail line would not pass those stations. Because of that people in Rhode Island and Connecticut are not very enthusiastic about that proposed high speed rail line.
I am not sure why you are ascribing $151 billion to me. That is the estimated amount of the improvements as per the article. My point is that the estimate does not include the finance costs (debt service), which can lift the total cost significantly.
The reason the cost estimates don't include the debt service costs is because the proponents don't have a realistic plan to finance their project(s). My estimate of $228.9 billion is very conservative. It assumes that the project could be funded at the U.S. Treasury current long bond interest rate, and inflation would stay about where it is over the life of the project. Both are best case scenarios.
Dragoman Sam1 The current flying time from National Airport in DC to Logan in Boston is 1 hour, 24 minutes. Most people aren't actually travelling from Reagan National to Logan, but rather from Washington to Boston. Add city-to-airport/airport-to-city travel times, check-in times, security clearance times, long walks from curb to gate -- 3 hours would be quite competitve, without even considering that most people find trains more comfortable than planes. Let's try to compare apples-to-apples!
Sam1 The current flying time from National Airport in DC to Logan in Boston is 1 hour, 24 minutes.
The current flying time from National Airport in DC to Logan in Boston is 1 hour, 24 minutes.
Most people aren't actually travelling from Reagan National to Logan, but rather from Washington to Boston. Add city-to-airport/airport-to-city travel times, check-in times, security clearance times, long walks from curb to gate -- 3 hours would be quite competitve, without even considering that most people find trains more comfortable than planes.
Let's try to compare apples-to-apples!
The author of the article highlighted the proposed train time from Washington to Boston. The apples to apples comparison is DC to Boston. Over shorter distances, i.e. NY to Boston, Philadelphia to New Haven, etc., the train may be a clear winner. It is a winner now in many markets, as per Amtrak's numbers, at least with respect to air vs. rail travelers, thereby raising the question why does Amtrak (taxpayers) need to invest up to $228 billion to what appears to be a new railroad from Washington to Boston?
I fly six to ten times per year. And through some of the countries busiest airports, i.e. New York, Washington, Atlanta, Miami, San Francisco, DFW. It has never taken me more than 15 minutes to pass through security. But my experience, as is true for any individual's, may be unusual. More, if I signed up for the TSA's expedited pass through program, which a lot of regular travelers have, the time to get through security is greatly reduced.
Many supporters of improved rail capabilities cite the times required to get to the airport, park, and get through security, but ignore the time require to get to a railroad station, park, and board the train.
RayG8 Has anyone seen or is anyone aware of a study that compares the actual difference in running time NYP to South Station between the proposed new alignment and the existing Shoreline? Basically how much advantage is gained for how many dollars, has a comprehensive study of the shoreline from New Haven to Boston ever been done? What about straightening it out in the worst areas, adding another track or two etc?
Has anyone seen or is anyone aware of a study that compares the actual difference in running time NYP to South Station between the proposed new alignment and the existing Shoreline? Basically how much advantage is gained for how many dollars, has a comprehensive study of the shoreline from New Haven to Boston ever been done? What about straightening it out in the worst areas, adding another track or two etc?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.