schlimmFaster sustained speeds allow for more passenger capacity, as does a second line. He is looking ahead, as he should, not just looking at now or the short term.
Yes, Schlimm. Even if the Shoreline route were all state of the art it would not sustain 220 mph. And north of New Haven it is only double tracked which also limits the number of trains. Certainly true high speed to Boston would attract a lot more people going both to New York and south of New York.
John
Sam1If you already have the lion's share of air/rail travelers between NYC and Washington or NYC and Boston, why should the nation spend more than $400 billion (estimate with inclusion of debt service) to upgrade the existing route or build a new one? Where are the market demand studies that show the need to do so? Or is this about bragging rights?
Sam,
What Amtrak does not have is the lion's share of the traffic between Boston and Washington. That is what Joe Boardman wants. This is off the top of my head but as I understand it the air routes in the northeast are full. If more people can be moved away from flying and to the train between Boston and Washington and Boston and Philadelphia that would free up air space for people taking longer trips.
Also, as I understand it, there is no new alignment proposed between New York and Washington. However, the catenary there was built in the 1930's or earlier and is inadequate for high speed (220 mph) service.
North of New York there is some work needed too but less. However, north of New York Amtrak wants to build a whole new track that will be fairly straight and avoid the current Shoreline Route that curves along the seacoast. Building an new track, as you might imagine, is the really expensive proposition. Whether Congress will appropriate money for it is the big question.
To my mind repairs and upgrades to the existing system are a lot easer to justify than building a whole new rail line.
You make a good point, Schlimm, one that I even overlooked earlier. So if you gain even 15 minutes say, that means you can fit at least one train for up to 1000 more people to ride in that hour span..
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.
Just my reading, but one of Boardman's justifications for the upgrades in the NEC is capacity related and allowing for future growth. Faster sustained speeds allow for more passenger capacity, as does a second line. He is looking ahead, as he should, not just looking at now or the short term.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I have often thought that High Speed Rail is over reach for many markets and conditions. First, what is HSR? I am sure everybody has a concept and idea from anything over 80 to 300 mph. It all sounds sexy and glamouous and so, so futuristic. But is is realistic? At what point does the governor cut off the steam and stem the speed for economy, efficeincy, for realism? A third D.C. to NY rail right of way? How expensive is that economically, environmentally, realistically? Or is it all political posturing, saying what wants to be heard by those who govern in populists ways?
Amtrak has 75 per cent of the end point air/rail commercial passengers between New York City and Washington. According to his testimony, Boardman want's to spend $50 billion on the NYC - Washington portion of the NEC to reduce the running time of the Acela between the end points from 2 hours 45 minutes to 2 hours 15 minutes. The $50 billion is before debt service charges, which could double the cost of the upgrades.
Also according to the testimony Boardman recommends spending $100 to $150 billion before debt service to build, as I understand it, a new, high speed railroad for the NEC. According to his testimony, Amtrak now carries more passengers between Boston and NYC than all the airlines combined.
Boardman offered no details on how these improvements are to be funded, other than to use public monies. He alluded to private/public funding partnerships. If the California High Speed Rail Project is any indicator, he is not likely to get many takers from the private sector, other than equipment, materials, and construction entities with the potential to sell their stuff to the project.
If you already have the lion's share of air/rail travelers between NYC and Washington or NYC and Boston, why should the nation spend more than $400 billion (estimate with inclusion of debt service) to upgrade the existing route or build a new one? Where are the market demand studies that show the need to do so? Or is this about bragging rights?
Why should the nation's taxpayers agree to a massive investment in the NEC, as opposed to using scarce resources to develop or upgrade other corridors, i.e. Dallas to San Antonio, Chicago to Minneapolis, etc?. Given that Amtrak has a strong footprint in the NEC, providing one overlooks buses and personal vehicles, this does not make a lot of sense. Whoops, who ever said that politics makes sense?
Remember Amtrak doesn't have to nor should serve every station stop between D.C. and Boston or every station on any other route. Boston to Providence to Warwick to New Haven to Stamford with a few others is all that's needed for them since the other stations are served by commuter or other state agencies. Same west of NYP....Newark, Airport, Metro Park, New Brunswick, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, BWI Airport, and D.C. should be the main worries for Amtrak here. BUT: there should be an effort by these commuter districts and state agencies and Amtrak to make reasonable (no more than say, 10 minutes) and guaranteed connections where it makes sense.
schlimmCT will continue to be served.
I agree with you, Schlimm. Amtrak intends to continue running trains along the Shoreline Route with all of its curves. However, a new alignment would replace most of the Shoreline. It is possible there could be a station stop in Connecticut south of New Haven.
Amtrak strongly believes that to compete with airlines it must have a 220 mph route between Boston and New York and the only way to get that is to have the new alignment. Frankly, I hate to see New London and New Haven bypassed but I think Amtrak is correct on the issue. And of course New London and New Haven passengers can use the Northeast Regional Service to New York Penn Station and change trains there.
Clearly the focus for Boardman is the NEC. And you do understand that the new, dedicated ROW for 220 mph service is in addition to the existing route, so CT will continue to be served.
This is a general assessment of the current status of the Northeast Corridor Line describing what has been done recently and giving Joe Boardman's vision of where Amtrak should go.
It begins with the importance of keeping up to date with basic maintenance such as cutting brush and cleaning out drainage ditches. Because these things and similar things were done the recovery from Hurricane Sandy was much faster than it would otherwise have been. It also looks forward to building new Hudson River Tunnels and new track alignments where the tracks are "survey," particularly along the Shoreline between Providence and New Rochelle. And it predicts 220 mile an hour trains.
Boardman does comment on bridge replacement such as replacing NIantic's 105 year old bridge. Yet if the new alignment is built the trains using it will bypass Niantic along with every other station in Connecticut.
Although been unable to read yet -- some summaries state Amtrak is eating its assets on the NEC due to underfunding.
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/823/289/Amtrak-CEO-Boardman-House-T&I-testimony-Dec-13-2012.pdf
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.