Amtrak Envisions World Class High-Speed Rail

(Sorry for these long posts) I just read through the entire report, and found a few more key details:

The $117b price tag is the estimated cost (including 10% contingency) over 25 years, and includes the USDOT's standard 7% discount rate. When translated into 2010 dollars, the project is estimated to cost $42 billion. (E.g. if you could build the entire proposed project right now, it would cost $42b. But because of inflation over 25 years, the inflation-adjusted price is $117b. It seems like a drastic increase, but remember after WWII houses only cost about $10k).

It also mentions other externalities the service would generate. By shifting the Amtrak Acela service onto a dedicated ROW, it would free up considerable commuter rail slots at key urban stations. The report specifies that this net increase in capacity will eliminate the need for $15.1b in expenditures by regional transit authorities to expand their capacity to meet growing needs. It also eliminates $6.33b of currently planned repair/upgrade NEC projects, would provide $5b in user benefits, and would improve market productivity by $7.34b.

Preliminary B/C (benefit-cost) assessments yield a positive ratio of between 1.1 and 2.3 (depending on discount rate). Currently, it's fore-casted that the GDP of the Northeast will grow by 1.78% annually between 2010-2050; if the introduction of HSR can keep this GDP from falling below predictions* by 0.05%, the project will pay for itself. In addition, the projected 2040 corridor traffic levels are achieved with only 25% of the system capacity, thus allowing for significant future growth to meet growing demands through the latter half of the 21st century.

Also, it seems the chosen "inland" route that goes to Danbury, Hartford, and Woonsocket was seems to have been chosen because it would represent a worst-case new ROW scenario.

* Economic growth predictions always assume that infrastructure spending (i.e. sewers, highways, trains, schools, etc) will keep up with market growth. If infrastructure spending slows down below market growth, it imposes a new market ceiling since the market cannot absorb higher growth given the state of the infrastructure. This is a balancing act: spending too much on infrastructure costs too much in the form of taxes and limits economic growth, and spending too little on infrastructure limits how much economic growth could occur before the system is overloaded. If significant investment in infrastructure is not made in the Northeast to accommodate the anticipated growth in population, we'd thus be imposing on ourselves an artificial economic growth cap, limiting the number of new jobs and companies in the area.


A better NYC-Boston Alighment

IMHO, a smarter (though longer route) would be to peel off the NEC somewhere around Mt Vernon or New Rochelle, curve upwards and follow a straightened version of the RT-15 right of way. With moderate straightening, a perfectly straight HSR right of way could be built between about Exit 31 and Exit 44. From there it could curve up and over Bridgeport and Milford (approximately following RT-15) before merging back with NEC around I-95's Exit 39/40 area. From there it could go into New Haven, and then up along the Springfield line to Hartford with moderate straightening and grade separation. Then, at Hartford, it could go into bored tunnel underneath the downtown area, have a new underground station near the Old State House, go under the river, and re-emerge on the surface new I-84. From Exit 60 to 64, 64 to 68, 68 to 72, 72 to (Mass) Exit 2 could all be straight segments with very slight curves between. From Exit 2 onto Mass Pike east, the ROW could gradually curve towards the east for a straight segment between Mass Pike Exit 9 and RT-56 underpass, where the HSR could curve north and merge onto existing B&A ROW to downtown Worcester. From there, the ROW could mostly follow the existing B&A RoW but with sufficient straightening to support HSR operational speeds. In downtown Boston, the North-South rail link could be incorporated into this proposal, to allow for the possibility of future through trains to New Hampshire and Maine. Also, from a geographical analysis, this is probably the straightest possible route between NYC and Boston that bypasses all the pesky draw bridges along the route.

While this might add time onto the trip, nearly all of this RoW would mostly parallel existing rail lines or highways. New Haven, Hartford, and Worcester would probably be stronger ridership magnets of the intercity Express service than Danbury, Waterbury, Hartford, and Woonsocket due to the higher population bases. And while it would not serve downtown Bridgeport or Stamford proper, suburban stations could be constructed outside both of these cities, especially where the HSR RoW would pass over the MetroNorth branch lines. It could also provide a development point, and allow for a future light rail or bus rapid transit service connecting their suburban Express stations with their downtown commuter stations, thus stimulating a ton of economic development along the entire rapid transit corridor.

Station Aficionado wrote:That said, I agree with Nellie Bly that the route options that bypassed Philadelphia were simply not believable. I wonder if they were noted solely so that Amtrak could say "see, we're already considered alternatives."

The report does not specify bypassing Philadelphia in their "chosen" route. In fact, it specifies that Phily and NYC will be the only stops on the Super Express between Washington and Boston. What the report says is that a new route will be (most like) tunneled under downtown Philadelphia and will include a stop at their airport.

Although for the purposes of a study, studying alternate routes that challenge ones assumptions is a rational option. Sometimes the best solution may not be the most obvious. I'm not saying this specifically in regards to Philadelphia, but in general. It allows the people/government/politicians to see the options and see rationality why a particular option is the preferred option.

Northeastern292 wrote:Well said. I also am hoping for true HSR through Upstate New York.

Honestly, I think the US should focus on a few key routes (like the NEC and California) for true 220mph high-speed rail. For most everywhere else, we should just focus on building networks of electrified 125mph service to build ridership, familiarity with rail travel, and high density, walkable development with sufficient public transit in the downtown cores to make future upgrades to 220 mph service possible. I could definitely see a 125mph electrified rail line between NYC and Montreal, and between Boston and Buffalo/Toronto, with an intermediate stop on both lines in the Albany area. It's about 500 miles from Toronto to NYC, with minimal stops and an average speed of about 80 mph, end-to-end service could take 6.25 hours.

I could also see future 125mph rail links between cities like NYC<>Chicago, NYC<>Orlando/Tampa/Miami, Chicago<>New Orleans, Orlando/Miami/Tampa<>Houston, or Seattle<>San Francisco making sub 12-hour trips feasible. Now this sounds high, but on a recent trip to China I realized how genius this strategy of (10-12 hour trips at 125mph service) is: it allows for perfect overnight rail service. Run a train of mostly sleeper cars, you leave departure city between 7-10pm and wake up between 6-8am at your destination. For cities about 700-1000 miles apart, it was the perfect way to travel, since the majority of the travel time was spent comfortably sleeping. It allowed you to leave one city, get to your destination in time for a 9am business meeting, stay through the day, and leave on that evening train to get home the next morning, all without any red eye or rush hour flights eating up half the day.

Any minute now the NIMBYs in Westerchester County and Connecticut will file their lawsuits against the required land-taking for the proposed new right-of-way. That will tie things up for another couple decades. And no, I'm not really joking -- look at what has happened to the Cape Wind wind turbine project off the Massachusetts coast, already delayed 10 years by NIMBY lawsuits. You can't build anything of any size in this country anymore without disgruntled locals suing to stop it.

Regrading Mr. Nelligan's immediate point, and residing in Cos Cob CT 1946-1951 then Riverside 1951-1970 (both communities within Greenwich), I can only concur that the assorted NIMBY factions will be "calling in their markers" - and within Fairfield County, be it assured those markers are "heap big".

Of note, when residing in Cos Cos (OK, I was just a kid, but I do have eyes and ears) I can recall the debate over the alignment of I-95 (it was known as The Thruway back then). I can recall my Mother and Father having heated and worried conversations 'they're going to put it right over the top of our house' (Mead Ave) "we got to go to the next RTM (Representative Town Meeting - strange how Greenwich is incorporated as a Town)". If such went on in our house, how about the many others?

During the mid-50's, when construction actually began, I could recall seeing houses about the size of ours in Riverside being cleared away; I can recall 'holdouts', i.e. the one house still standing and blocking "progress". I can also recall comments by my Mother and Grandmother regarding the alignment of the Merritt Parkway as that was aligned through 'Back Greenwich' (you know where the hedge fund types as well as a few fugitives hang out nowadays).

There is also a reminder visible to anyone (Otto?) driving on US1 (Post Road) on the West side of the Mianus River bridge. There you'll note a (last time I went by) a now "boutique' retail store standing all by itself on the North side of the road. That came about because the owners "held out' and finally the authorities concluded 'screw 'em'; they simply realigned the road and bridge some 200ft to the South.

Multiply these little vignettes along 456 miles of railroad and I will make the flat out prediction 'ain't gonna happen".

The best that any future eminent domain projects, air, rail, or highway, within or through any populated area and with an exponential curve factored by the affluence of such (I laugh at the earlier reference to an expansion of KHPN served by HSR) can expect is improvements to existing facilities. I could well foresee new tunnels through Baltimore and under the Hudson, Connecticut, and Thames Rivers, new fixed bridges over the Mianus and others within Fairfield (oughta make the Fairfield Navy happy), and maybe a realignment through Elizabeth. But beyond that, curves at East Lyme such as illustrated on Page 31 of the current NHRHTA Shoreliner, are simply going to be part of the landscape - forever.

Arlington wrote:Forget Congress. Since the vast majority of the benefits of this project are to locals and visitors to the NEC, that's who should pay for it.

My solution is both gas taxes and that the airports (BWI, PHL, Trenton/TTN, EWR, Westchester/HPN, Hartford/BDL, BOS) be hooked up to the system, and, in return contribute billions from their Passenger Facility Charges (the same way that Dulles/IAD is paying for the Metro to be extended from DC).

As I've often been told via PM, politics is an integral part of any Amtrak discussion; in this case, very integral. So I'll indulge myself this one time. but caution everyone not to engage in hyperbole'. Save that for Fox and MSNBC.

You can't forget Congress. They control the purse strings. In the very next paragraph, you argue for the impoundment of the passenger facility charges. Don't you think that's going to take some kind of legislation?

As others have pointed out, 218+51+1.

TomNelligan wrote:Any minute now the NIMBYs in Westerchester County and Connecticut will file their lawsuits against the required land-taking for the proposed new right-of-way. That will tie things up for another couple decades. And no, I'm not really joking -- look at what has happened to the Cape Wind wind turbine project off the Massachusetts coast, already delayed 10 years by NIMBY lawsuits. You can't build anything of any size in this country anymore without disgruntled locals suing to stop it.

I sympathize, but think of the neighborhoods destroyed by everyone's favorite strawman on here, Robert Moses. With all of the eminent domain abuse going on, I can understand that type of reaction. Yes, in this case, there's a genuine public use, and I agree the precautions have gone too far.

As for the Cape Wind turbine project, wouldn't the NIMBY's in that case have been the Kennedy's, champions of the poor and downtrodden? Just thought I'd point that out......

Mr. Smith, your immediate posting would suggest that you are prepared to entertain discussion of the social issues regarding eminent domain. They certainly would be part and parcel of any HSR vision such as contemplated within this topic.

With reference to Moses, it would appear "the latter' had as much use for rail transport as did "the earlier' for water (at least that in the Red Sea), but be that as it may, let us note that his projects envisioned condemnation of land in less affluent areas than would be the case with this proposed "real HSR" Corridor. Moses wanted to build a Cross-Manhattan Expressway, was such to be aligned through, say, the East 70's? no; it was to be through Lower Manhattan which during Moses' era was not all that affluent (Radio Row; public housing). Moses got his Cross Bronx Espressway I-95 for all the reasons he didn't get his X-Manhattan - where was the affluence?

But this has already noted that eminent domain can be coupled with "abuse". The most flagrant recent case ended up in the US Supreme Court with Kelo v. New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) . Any petitioner for condemnation of private property under eminent domain must establish public benefit - and in this instance, private real estate interests wanted the land on which Ms. Kelo's home stood for commercial development. The public benefit was construed to mean more Real Estate Taxes for the municipality. But alas, i guess Ms. Kelo got a new home and her "fifteen minutes" - maybe even a "book deal".

However, we should note sometimes the "little guy' wins one; case in point was proposed routing of I-95 through NE Wash DC. As planned, what is now I395 was to be I-95 and that would have continued from Mass Ave heading Northeast to the present junction with I-495 (Beltway), but in this case, not all that affluent residents "fought back" - and won.

But my earlier point stands, here is a planned right-of-way (rail or highway matters not) through some of the most densely populated and affluent regions in the country. I give it 'the snowball's chance UNOWARE".

I'd prefer to try to contextualize the eminent domain argument in a positive manner. Rather than taking property from the poor and middle class to give to the rich, this project would actually use eminent domain as originally intended: to create linear rights of way free from potentially extortive practices of landowners.

We need to be careful, of course, that the "fair market value" of the land isn't as artificially low as the government normally assumes it is. We also need to use caution to ensure that the same social injustices (zigzagging to go through poor neighborhoods while avoiding the rich ones) don't occur with this project as did with the Interstate Highway System.

Don't say it too loudly lest a radio commentator end up on your lawn...but eminent domain is kind of socialist.

Is it not funny/sad to anyone else that we're proposing a rail system for when my children are 43 and 41 years old?

we could have a 100% democrat senate and house and this would not happen, imagine how many politicians from new haven and STAMFORD would be opposed to this, never mind the democrat from oklahoma who doesn't want to pay for a hedge fund manager to travel from boston to new york... who's to say we can't build this corridor between Oklahoma city and fort worth? Why not Seattle and Portland? Chicago and St. Louis? Washington to North Carolina? Cleveland and Chicago? Are you saying the manhattan lawyer is more important than the senator traveling in between Springfield and chicago?

Now granted I'm playing devil's advocate here, but what is going to dismiss these arguments?

Semper Fi, and Mr. Norman, as long as the eminent domain discussion pertains to the practical application of this proposal, I have no issues whatsoever. We don't need to debate the merits of "Kelo" except to recognize the eminent domain is controversial; clearly, there's a public use to this proposal. I agree with all of the observations about "poor areas" and the need to avoid zig-zags, etc.

hi55us, are you implying Republicans wouldn't support this project? This is the type of hyperbole' I won't engage here; the allowance of political discussion isn't blanket.

It's just "window dressing" by the current Administration, a pre-election counterpart to the over-promotion of HSR in the days just before the inaugural. Anyone who spends any substantial amount of time among the regulars at "our" site gets a fast education in the obstacles in the path of serious rail redevelopment, and the long time horizons involved.

The question is: "How can we turn this cycle into something whch can generate real progress?"; nothing too fancy, just a plan to extend a system built on proven technology into markets and regions where it can make a siginificant impact on the combination of short-sight and dependence on unreliable energy sources that got us here to begin with.

That's what a lot of us here recognize that the typical sheltered "swing-voter" doesn't. And until the issue is addressed in greater depth, not mch progress is likely.

I see vague references to 900 million in additional revenue, and tripling the passengers. is there any mention of what a typical ticket would cost? I would want to know that, since it would affect the demand for this service.

Acela Philly to NY costs about $100 to $140, and DC to Boston is over $200. Would this new service cost over $500? (2010 dollars)

Launcher wrote:Acela Philly to NY costs about $100 to $140, and DC to Boston is over $200. Would this new service cost over $500? (2010 dollars)

Seats on trains like the TGV and ICE can be had more cheaply than Acela seats.

But this is just needless distraction, imo, when the existing Northeast Corridor needs significant maintenance and upgrades.

2nd trick op wrote:It's just "window dressing" by the current Administration, a pre-election counterpart to the over-promotion of HSR in the days just before the inaugural.

This document is not political in nature. It strikes me a thoughtful effort, and if the conclusions are largely erroneous and the plan is overambitious, perhaps even implausible, at least it doesn't lack in sincerity. If the plan has appeared just before the election, it's probably a coincidence. No doubt, there was a working party at Amtrak responsible for compiling this proposal, and most likely, it was simply unveiled when it was done. As it is, the timing is unfortunate, not because of the upcoming election, but because the window of opportunity was open in January 2009.

2nd trick op wrote:The question is: "How can we turn this cycle into something whch can generate real progress?"; nothing too fancy, just a plan to extend a system built on proven technology into markets and regions where it can make a siginificant impact on the combination of short-sight and dependence on unreliable energy sources that got us here to begin with.

You mean something like the very sensible proposal to extend electrification into Richmond? Sadly, the uproar over HSR has drowned out the reasonable passenger rail proposals.

The real danger of this highly confused plan is that it might not lead to a positive consensus for NE Corridor improvements and conventional service extensions.

2nd trick op wrote:That's what a lot of us here recognize that the typical sheltered "swing-voter" doesn't. And until the issue is addressed in greater depth, not mch progress is likely.

Who's more "sheltered?" An old fashioned party-line voter, of either party, who simply votes the party line without regard to the candidates or the issues or an an engaged "swing voter" who actually is willing to consider the candidates and issues?

I really don't know where the current political trends are headed, but I think it's wrong to stereotype the motivations and level of engagement of swing voters.

How about sharing Washington Union Station, the NEC between Secaucus and New Rochelle, and Boston South Station to save several billion dollars? An 11+mile tunnel is pricey.

I'm wondering if somewhere between Kafka's statement that "All revolutions fade, and leave behind only the green slime of a bureaucracy" and Machiavelli's treatise on "How Princes Should Keep Faith" lies the actual purpose of Mr. Boardman's approach here.

Boardman, or perhaps others in the leadership at Amtrak (The NRPC) may feel, for reasons concerning Amtrak's future corporate/political survival, that it HAS to issue visionary statements just to keep pace with its critics who quietly or otherwise infer that Amtrak needs to be bypassed where any and all "big-money" appropriations for high-speed rail are concerned.

Not to mention any "small-money" appropriations.