The number of communities served by Amtrak but not bus or air was posted somewhere around here a week or two ago....I forget what it was but I was surprised at how many there are.
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.
I looked at the Capital Limited and only Greyhound, but 6 of 16 towns were Amtrak only. Four of them were east of Pittsburgh.
As I recall the discount buses do not serve any towns between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh that Amtrak serves. They do, however, serve Penn. State.
Passenger train advocacy is by definition working outside the box. Not allowing "those in charge" to believe that only they control the show. So, if the Feds don't seem interested in solving a specific problem, maybe a State government or several states working together can. Or perhaps an authority of several local counties. And in some cases it is even private initiative.
17 years ago there was no electrification NH-Boston, Harrisburg - Phily times were deplorable, Portland and Burnzwick, ME, had no passenger service, service between Portland, OR and Seattle was skimpy. Sure there have been setbacks, like the deterioration of the old AT&SF route through Alberquerque, but overall there has been progress.
daveklepper So, if the Feds don't seem interested in solving a specific problem, maybe a State government or several states working together can.
My impression of Joe Boardman is that he is interested, very interested, in using Amtrak to solve transportation problems. He has been effective in getting states to contribute to their own trains and that has defused some of the knee jerk opposition to Amtrak. In so far as he can he is using Amtrak resources to improve the system. And he has been articulate in confronting anti Amtrak members of Congress with the facts. Finally, this year's request for operating expenses is quite modest. He is using that to ask for a big chunk of money for capital expenses. And he is asking for it over 5 years which means the current Congress can give it to him while only having to pay a small part of it upfront. He certainly understands how government operates and works smoothly and well within that framework.
One thing Boardman does not talk about is high speed rail. Of course, he is the President of Amtrak and charged with the responsibility of running that system. If President Obama has an agenda for HSR that is all well and good. However, Joe Boardman has been asked to do another job.
Speaking for myself HSR has a pie-in-the-sky quality to it. It would be just so expensive and we have so many pressing needs to maintain our current transportation systems that are now unmet. And so far President Obama has done very little to advance the idea. Perhaps the FRA's current effort will bear fruit; we will have to wait and see. But in its history Amtrack has never been more successful than it is now and we have Joe Boardman to thank for that.
As president of Amtrak, Boardman is required to follow the directives of the PRIIA enacted shortly before he became Pres. He was FRA Administrator and representative to the Amtrak board before that. It is likely he had input into the act..
"The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (H.R. 2095) — provides $13 billion for Amtrak over five years to bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair, encourage the development of new and improved intercity passenger-rail services through a federal grant program, and plan and develop high-speed rail corridors."
Here's Boardman talking about his career and HSR>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L7KTYixOkw
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WROne thing Boardman does not talk about is high speed rail.
Actually, he does. But, it is HSR for the NEC that he talks about. Amtrak put out that $170B plan last year.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WRIf President Obama has an agenda for HSR that is all well and good. However, Joe Boardman has been asked to do another job.
Which makes it all the more interesting that Obama never says the word "Amtrak" when talking about HSR.
Mostly agree. Joe B has done a nice job of starting to turn the conversation without getting all the folk in the hinterlands all riled up. Now, if he were just a better businessman. Maybe one of his newly appointed henchmen can do the job of getting Amtrak running right, internally.
daveklepper Passenger train advocacy is by definition working outside the box. Not allowing "those in charge" to believe that only they control the show. So, if the Feds don't seem interested in solving a specific problem, maybe a State government or several states working together can. Or perhaps an authority of several local counties. And in some cases it is even private initiative. 17 years ago there was no electrification NH-Boston, Harrisburg - Phily times were deplorable, Portland and Burnzwick, ME, had no passenger service, service between Portland, OR and Seattle was skimpy. Sure there have been setbacks, like the deterioration of the old AT&SF route through Alberquerque, but overall there has been progress.
Sadly, none of the push (outside the NEC spine) came from inside Amtrak. That is a symptom of what's wrong.
oltmanndActually, he does. But, it is HSR for the NEC that he talks about. Amtrak put out that $170B plan last year.
Well, yes he does, Don. But I think we both know that although speeds on the NEC can be improved it will never truly be high speed rail.
John
John WR oltmanndActually, he does. But, it is HSR for the NEC that he talks about. Amtrak put out that $170B plan last year. Well, yes he does, Don. But I think we both know that although speeds on the NEC can be improved it will never truly be high speed rail. John
That's going to be a hard thing to do.... Glad they are working toward an incremental plan.
oltmannd John WR oltmanndActually, he does. But, it is HSR for the NEC that he talks about. Amtrak put out that $170B plan last year. Well, yes he does, Don. But I think we both know that although speeds on the NEC can be improved it will never truly be high speed rail. John The first pass at the $170B was pretty much all new 220 mph stuff. Even the FRA plan's last stage is a "new spine". That's going to be a hard thing to do.... Glad they are working toward an incremental plan.
The NEC Amtrak project is a perfect example. 170 Billion dollars for a small section of the country for what is standard high speed rail. The NEC project is more expensive than the Japan Maglev project. 6 Billion for a station just for a station come on. How does anyone pull of these numbers. It is looting pure and simple. Pretty much passenger rail projects always end up costing too much, going over budget, and under performing.
Railroad to Freedom
ontheBNSFPretty much passenger rail projects always end up costing too much, going over budget, and under performing.
The NEC and it's extensions serve a pretty sizable portion of the population of the country - at least 1/4 of it. It's also the one place reasonably priced alternatives to add capacity don't exist. With a few exceptions, the rest of the country can pretty much add a lane or a runway where needed.
Always? The Lynchburg train? The Norfolk train? Under budget, completed early, greatly exceeding projections. Of course, these are NEC extensions.
ontheBNSFThe NEC project is more expensive than the Japan Maglev project. 6 Billion for a station just for a station come on.
Uh, "just a station?" That's pretty funny! But seriously, what's the alternative?
oltmannd ontheBNSFThe NEC project is more expensive than the Japan Maglev project. 6 Billion for a station just for a station come on. Uh, "just a station?" That's pretty funny! But seriously, what's the alternative?
The alternative is a less fancy station which just adds extra capacity.
ontheBNSFThe NEC Amtrak project is a perfect example. 170 Billion dollars for a small section of the country for what is standard high speed rail. The NEC project is more expensive than the Japan Maglev project. 6 Billion for a station just for a station come on. How does anyone pull of these numbers. It is looting pure and simple. Pretty much passenger rail projects always end up costing too much, going over budget, and under performing.
I think you are speaking of alternative D which is to build a whole new passenger line. That is high speed rail; it is not Amtrak. As far as I know Amtrak is not building any new stations on its northeast corridor line.
There is no advantage to passenger rail it is outdated technology. People were happy to give it up and people will be happy to give it up in other countries when the opportunity comes. People only use it when there is no alternative or when the alternatives are made intentionally bad. Passenger rail costs more and any energy savings are moot. It was shown by the bart project that energy saved was off set by the energy required to build it and current Amtrak trains actually use more energy than a very efficient car. Improvements in aeroplane technology will close the energy efficiency gap between it and HSR. You can carry more people with a lane of highway than with rail and airports take up less infrastructure.
./trolling
What absolute nonsense! Particularly the lane of highway. The most used highway lane in the country is the inbound Lincoln Tunnel bus-only lane in the morning rush hour, which sees one bus every 45 seconds, and is estimated to have 4500 passengers per hour, some standing. With private automobiles, the headway could be reduced to 20 seconds because of faster stopping capability, and with 2 people per car, which is a higher than statistical average, we come up with 360 people per hour. I am assuming, of course, a reasonable speed, 45 miles per hour. If you want to crawl along bumper to bumper, your can get a headway of a car every 10 seconds, but you'll be traveling at 20mph. Even then, only 1200 people per hour.
The PRR tubes under the Hudson River handle a train every two mintues with an average occupancy of 1000 people per train, for 30,000 passengers. Admittadly these are commuter trains with standees, mostly. If they were all long-distance trains, the passenger count would drop to 10,000,, still a lot more than any highway lane.
You ought to compare yourself with a truck driver who says trucks should replace railroad freight because trucks are more efficient and can go anywhere and don't require loading on flatcars or transfering frieght from a truck to a train and back to a truck. His coment would be as stupid as yours but no stupider.
Sure comparing the most efficient auto with the average of Amtrak makes the auto come out ahead. But comparing the average auto with Amtrak's average shows Amtrak ahead, and comparing the most efficient Amtrak operation with the most efficient auto also shows Amtrak ahead.
I can't accept your assessment, BNSF, because there are so many people using rail services today. In rural and other sparsely populated areas, not, probably not. But get to heavily populated urban areas or along corridors of dense population or connecting major population centers and you'll increasing use of rail passenger services by force of need. Even from Manhatten almost 100 miles to Greenport or over 100 miles to Montauk on Long Island, the LIRR services often are faster than driving even if there are no traffic jams. Likewise going east and north out of GCT to Connecticut and NYS points is often better than the drive. Even NJT from the Hudson north, west, and south is better than driving at certain times of the day. Down in Philly, SEPTA offers the same. Plus, in all cases, newer equipment and technology, along with the dismissing of old railroad routes to accommodate today's interchange or through line connections have thrown out the choo choo train in favor of today's needs. Boston, Chicago and San Francisco are among the "old" reconstituted systems, a totally reincarnated and rebuilt system in LA, and all kinds of new systems in many cities and metropolitan areas refute your contention.
daveklepper What absolute nonsense! [in reference to the original poster's contention]
What absolute nonsense! [in reference to the original poster's contention]
Well said!!
ontheBNSF oltmannd ontheBNSFThe NEC project is more expensive than the Japan Maglev project. 6 Billion for a station just for a station come on. Uh, "just a station?" That's pretty funny! But seriously, what's the alternative? The alternative is a less fancy station which just adds extra capacity.
Exactly how much of the $6B is for "fancy"?
daveklepper What absolute nonsense! Particularly the lane of highway. The most used highway lane in the country is the inbound Lincoln Tunnel bus-only lane in the morning rush hour, which sees one bus every 45 seconds, and is estimated to have 4500 passengers per hour, some standing. With private automobiles, the headway could be reduced to 20 seconds because of faster stopping capability, and with 2 people per car, which is a higher than statistical average, we come up with 360 people per hour. I am assuming, of course, a reasonable speed, 45 miles per hour. If you want to crawl along bumper to bumper, your can get a headway of a car every 10 seconds, but you'll be traveling at 20mph. Even then, only 1200 people per hour. The PRR tubes under the Hudson River handle a train every two mintues with an average occupancy of 1000 people per train, for 30,000 passengers. Admittadly these are commuter trains with standees, mostly. If they were all long-distance trains, the passenger count would drop to 10,000,, still a lot more than any highway lane. You ought to compare yourself with a truck driver who says trucks should replace railroad freight because trucks are more efficient and can go anywhere and don't require loading on flatcars or transfering frieght from a truck to a train and back to a truck. His coment would be as stupid as yours but no stupider. Sure comparing the most efficient auto with the average of Amtrak makes the auto come out ahead. But comparing the average auto with Amtrak's average shows Amtrak ahead, and comparing the most efficient Amtrak operation with the most efficient auto also shows Amtrak ahead.
It's interesting that most of us (with one notable exception!) who snipe at each other about this and that pretty much come down on the same side vis a vis the NEC.
oltmanndWhat absolute nonsense! Particularly the lane of highway.
Nonsense alright*, but not quite in the sense you mean...
The most used highway lane in the country is the inbound Lincoln Tunnel bus-only lane in the morning rush hour, which sees one bus every 45 seconds...
And here I was thinking that you were from New York.
The buses in the bus-only lane, during rush hour, are on MUCH less than "45-second" headways. I do not think it's less than a few seconds, measured in time as opposed to distance -- and yes, it's dangerous as hell, but the drivers manage it nicely.
I do not know the 'official' speed limit in the counterflow lane, but let's call it 30 mph, or 44 feet per second. That's one MCI-9 coach length with a little clearance. There is much less than a bus length visible between buses -- but for grins, call it a whole length. That's a headway of ... two seconds, Split the difference on the seat tracking and call it 45 pax per coach. Or on average, 23 pax per second. That does not produce "4500 passengers per hour".
Put 'radar cruise control' and some intervehicle 'mechatronic' controls to make braking safer, and you can reduce the effective headway somewhat further. It has been 'practical' for many years to run buses essentially nose to tail (with what are essentially spring buffers for absorbing any residual delta due to transient vehicle, road, or weather conditions). Autonomous-control assistance, when perfected, will facilitate this further, but there are diminishing returns to scale in this situation.
With private automobiles, the headway could be reduced to 20 seconds because of faster stopping capability ...
Twenty-second headway? In NEW JERSEY??
Methinks you've been 'upcountry' far too long.
If it's more than about 2 seconds following distance, on that kind of road, I'd be surprised. And at whatever speed would prevail in the absence of blockage (not by any means a safe assumption, and I'll get to it later, but you were talking about unrestricted capacity, not actual Lincoln Tunnel or whatever traffic...) Meanwhile, the average length of a car has gone down fairly dramatically, as have the characteristics requiring longer braking distance to avoid collision, so headways can be effectively shorter for a variety of reasons. True, you're not going to approach bus seating density. But you can easily make that point without having to "lie with statistics."
As a sanity check, the guideway parameters estimated for PRT system 'mains' fall neatly into the middle of this range of occupancy, with a somewhat tighter packaging leading to (slightly) better headway metrics.
, and with 2 people per car, which is a higher than statistical average, we come up with 360 people per hour.
All you have to do is look at that number and you'll see it's ridiculous. I see traffic counts for two-lane roads -- suburban roads -- that are higher than that. By an order of magnitude or more. And that implicitly presumes one passenger per vehicle...
I am assuming, of course, a reasonable speed, 45 miles per hour. If you want to crawl along bumper to bumper, your can get a headway of a car every 10 seconds, but you'll be traveling at 20mph. Even then, only 1200 people per hour.
And that, of course, is the joker in the deck for lane capacity, and the point you SHOULD have emphasized about lane capacity.
On the approach to the Lincoln Tunnel in rush hour, lane capacity is reduced by two notable characteristics: 'average' travel speed somewhere in the 2-5 mph range, and following distance that can vary in length depending on reaction time and acceleration/braking as drivers fail to react to openings. (You can watch this effect clearly on overhead-camera views that have been speeded up). So you have variable headway even (particularly, in most circumstances!) at slow speeds or in aptly-named 'stop and go traffic'.
As Frederik Pohl noted, "a pipeline has two ends". And if the inner end is blocked or impeded, and the fluid in it is incompressible beyond a certain point and statistically resistant to compression for a ways above that, it does not take a math or physics degree to understand that flow, by any measure, is implicitly reduced. On roadways this occurs almost always in conjunction with periods of peak demand (which is when any measure of occupancy has particular meaning in a comparison analysis).
The traditional methods of highway capacity expansion (multiple lanes, dedicated flow lanes alternate routes) have no particular applicability to a lane-capacity analysis in this context.
Now, meanwhile, over on the NYCR, the situation is not static. With the assumption of CBTC, effective headway shrinks to 'electronic' following distance, even at higher track speed. "Throughput" in this situation is time-limited in a different sense; due to (1) required reduction in speed for the east end of the tunnels, negotiation of the yard to arrival tracks, and (2) dwell time on available tracks, plus time to clear them after deboarding. This was as I recall a big piece of why THE Tunnel was so complex and expensive on the New York end. And for anyone experienced in freight track-occupancy concerns, where effective over-the-road speed and hence available ton-miles is limited by yard approaches and yard capacities, this will come as no particular surprise. The 'busway' proposal has a theoretical advantage: at the receiving end there is a multiplicity of separate routes going to separate platforms, all of which essentially operate in parallel -- there is no trudging down a long platform in a sea of people. (This in part makes up for the difficulty posed by over-the-road buses usually lacking rear or center doors, but theoretically there is no engineering reason I know of why low-floor artics would not be suited for counterflow bus lanes with high-occupancy control systems, and while admittedly there are some placement difficulties over doors in the rear section of artics, you could easily put in a short section of high-level platform, or a lift, to access the area over the engine and drive...)
None of this is intended in any way to subtract from the original point, which is that one 'lane' of unidirectional rail can carry more traffic easily than any rubber-tired route short of something like a Metro. Especially when overhead clearances permit full bilevel cars to run. I had thought that just an inspection of the 'packing fraction' of the plan would tell people that. It's just not as bad as the provided numbers would indicate.
* this is the one rhetorically permissible use of 'alright' instead of 'all right'... if it galls you think of it as a colloquialism.
Ballpark for autos per hour per lane of freeway is 2000.
OvermodAnd for anyone experienced in freight track-occupancy concerns, where effective over-the-road speed and hence available ton-miles is limited by yard approaches and yard capacities, this will come as no particular surprise.
Yup. You can run'em at 50 mph two blocks apart (~4 miles)...until you have to yard them somewhere. Then, 3 or 4 trains a hour can get tough.
Actually trains can...and in dense traffic areas on passenger railroads actually are...run closer than yhou suggest OLTMANND. In these areas you usually have shorter blocks...maybe a half to 3/4 of a mile, even less on rapid transit lines...plus cab signals and at much higher speeds than 50, up to 79 or more. With speed and stopping distances taken into account you can be running trains at 5 minute intervals which would give you up to 12 trains per hour....NJT runs 21 eastbound trains into Penn Station, NY between 7AM and 8AM,including there are some Amtrak trains, too. It is a two track railroad but four at Sec. Jct. Normally the two tracks are tr 1 west, tr 2 east but are reverse signaled. However, there are 18 westbounds during that same hour, so reverse traffic is non existant. If the average load is 1000 per train, then that is 21,000 people in that hour in one direction. Fewer people westbound because several of the trains are deadhead moves. That also means that one lane of traffic would have to handle up to 14,000 cars (at 1.5 persons per car) per hour at .0042857 seconds apart to handle the equivelant of the railroad.
henry6Actually trains can...and in dense traffic areas on passenger railroads actually are...run closer than yhou suggest OLTMANND.
I agree. I was referring to freight traffic where you typically have to move an entire mile long train off the main into a yard at restricted speed (typically 15-20 mph). It's a mainline capacity killer.
henry6 Actually trains can...and in dense traffic areas on passenger railroads actually are...run closer than yhou suggest OLTMANND. In these areas you usually have shorter blocks...maybe a half to 3/4 of a mile, even less on rapid transit lines...plus cab signals and at much higher speeds than 50, up to 79 or more. With speed and stopping distances taken into account you can be running trains at 5 minute intervals which would give you up to 12 trains per hour...
Actually trains can...and in dense traffic areas on passenger railroads actually are...run closer than yhou suggest OLTMANND. In these areas you usually have shorter blocks...maybe a half to 3/4 of a mile, even less on rapid transit lines...plus cab signals and at much higher speeds than 50, up to 79 or more. With speed and stopping distances taken into account you can be running trains at 5 minute intervals which would give you up to 12 trains per hour...
This is the reason I explicitly brought up CBTC, which allows trains to run with MINIMUM safe headway regardless of legacy or default 'block' structure. That will give you more than 12 trains per hour, and I believe some more specific capacity estimates are available specifically for the NYCR north/east of Allied/Secaucus/Lautenberg whatever.
NJT runs 21 eastbound trains into Penn Station, NY between 7AM and 8AM,including there are some Amtrak trains, too. It is a two track railroad but four at Sec. Jct.
This addresses some of the 'overlap' involved at the Secaucus stop, but not track capacity 'inbound' through the tunnels. I do not think it unfair to presume that setting up switches to route a given train to its platform can be done in less than CBTC headway, although there may need to be some 'ripple' interlocking action to ensure positive control, so assume that inbound platform space and dwell time are not significant until limits are actually exceeded (probably not at 21 trains/hour inboard... but this ignores all the westbound LIRR stuff going to many of the same platforms at the end needed to 'clear' eastbound consists when they are empty...)
However, there are 18 westbounds during that same hour, so reverse traffic is non existent.
But you just said something about 12 trains per hour being the number for your headway, even assuming short blocks, cab signals, and better speed. It is obvious that even NJT's AVERAGE headway over that hour is considerably less, and I'll bet (without looking at the schedule) that there are a couple of 'knots' where trains must operate on closer spacing to avoid delays.
Yes, this makes your point even more dramatically. It's interesting to see what the maximum 'theoretical' capacity of the NYCR is, net of acceleration and deceleration at Allied (we can rule out the pure dwell with the multiple tracks). It should not be surprising that this calculation has been done, and perhaps less surprising that a principal justification for the Gateway project is to open up additional capacity for this period (at the least, by allowing Amtrak service to be separate from NJT locals from all the myriad ways).
If the average load is 1000 per train, then that is 21,000 people in that hour in one direction.
Stipulated. Practically this number per hour could be somewhat greater if the westbounds (especially the deadhead moves or partially-empty counterflow trains) were not prioritized during peak for eastbound rush. That might involve staging trains as far east as possible.
One lane of traffic would have to handle up to 14,000 cars (at 1.5 persons per car) per hour at .0042857 seconds apart to handle the equivalent of the railroad.
Indeed. But we can't be looking at a one-lane automobile road as the alternative -- that would be like taking the entire flow of inbound auto traffic to Manhattan and routing it through one bore of the Holland Tunnel. I think it is safe to assume that even by 1927 it was understood that multiple lanes would be required even for 'normal' flow density of auto traffic to and from Manhattan during rush hour.
Which brings up the peak dedicated-bus-lane numbers again. Use Oltmann's freeway-occupancy stats for dwell, since the additional following distance or stopping time for the buses is balanced by the fact that all the drivers are relatively highly skilled, experienced, and alert/responsive. The assumption (probably justified in this model) that there will be insignificant delay to reach a platform, and relatively large 'parking' capacity for buses that are not needed for deadhead or other purposes (and implicitly that there are enough buses to sustain these conditions during the full time considered).
For fun: Run the same numbers assuming sesqui-deck Van Hools or whatever (like what MegaBus runs), or articulated sesquidecks that are essentially full bilevel in the forward chassis. Capital cost of those things may be much lower per passenger than dedicated bilevel rail equipment, particularly if the rail equipment has to be built to FRA standards for buff, draft, and empty weight. Also not difficult to provide dedicated electrical power to a BEV-capable bus for the duration of its running in a dedicated bus lane (counterflow or otherwise) -- you'll need to be CAREFUL, but it could be done.
So I would not be too smug about the general superiority of rail. An important point that hasn't been mentioned is that the absolute width of railroad 'lane' does not involve any required shoulders or other lateral clearance, since 'steering' is done by default and without particular danger or risk. So there 'ought' to be far less concern over safety than there is with bus lanes ... make the bus guideway physically separate, and the capital concerns need to be factored in... vis-a-vis the existing railroad alternative, but in light of required railroad capacity upgrade costs.
OvermodFor the MCI-9 given, you have 44 nominal seats multiplied by 2000 slots.
The newer MCI D4500 commuter buses have 55 seats (w/o a wheelchair rider - they have two wheelchair "slots" that take up six seats). They are quite nice. I commute in one. No seat pitch issues...I have a 35" inseam and can pretty much fit in any seat, even when the guy ahead of me reclines.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.