# Minimal cost for true HSR on the NEC?



## GlobalistPotato (Feb 28, 2011)

I don't really want to talk about the politics of the NEC or how much resources should be dedicated to it.

I'm thinking about the costs required to improve speeds and services.

Penn Design Studio did a study on true HSR in the Northeast and came up with this report: http://studio.design...edu/hsr/node/81

They predicted that the whole system would cost about $100 billion for a WAS-NYP-BOS High Speed Rail line at 300 km/h. The system would be built over the next 20 years and would double the ridership along the NEC.

Amtrak also released their own plan for true HSR in the Northeast as well: http://www.amtrak.co...7/1237405732517

They placed the price tag at $117 over 30 years. Like Penn Design, they predicted it would double the ridership.

Differences: Amtrak's planned speed is at up to 220 mph, while Penn Design is up to 186 mph.

Both studies upgraded the existing NEC between WAS-NYC, and avoided the Shoreline route from NYC-BOS. The difference is that Penn Design proposed the rail line would go through Long Island, then connect to New Haven by a "chunnel" under Long Island Sound before going through CT along I-84 and I-90. Amtrak recommended going north of the Shoreline and taking an inland route.

Of course building the NYC-BOS section would be much more expensive (about 2/3rds of the project cost based on the studies), but what I find really interesting is how much (or how little) speeds can be brought up between NYC-WAS.

Alon Levy gave his estimate at $10 billion, excluding expanded capacity and rolling stock and other costs.



> $1 billion buys you constant tension catenary from NY to DC, which is worth about 15 minutes on its own, and much more when you include other upgrades. Getting the rest of the NY-DC corridor up to full speed is a matter of about 10 or so easements in Maryland and New Jersey, most of which have costs measured in the tens of millions each; only one should require any eminent domain. Getting the FRA to repeal its 150 mph speed limit costs nothing. By then you've already gotten NY-DC down to about 2:00-2:15 for $1-1.5 billion, on current equipment. Noncompliant EMUs running at 300 km/h should be able to do it in about 1:45, or 1:30 with a Wilmington bypass and a new tunnel in Baltimore (whose estimated cost is about $250 million).


He added on this about the Shoreline:



> NY-Boston is more expensive because the Shore Line is too curved. It requires four big ticket items: a tunnel east of Stamford, another tunnel in Bridgeport, an el between the two tunnels, and a bypass in the I-95 median from New Haven to the Rhode Island state line. At the common per-km costs they should add up to about $5 billion. If NIMBYs and cost overruns make that impossible, then upgrade only on one side of New Haven, and then use the speed differential to convince people that spending the extra money is worth it; that’s how they built the TGV.



$5 Billion seems a bit low to me.

Keep in mind that his estimates don't including adding two more tracks to add capacity, or any new tunnels under the Hudson or East Rivers, or upgrades to stations along the route.

Still, I'd like to see the electrical system replaced between NYC-WAS. Once that's done, Acela can run at up to 150 mph for most of the distance between the two cities.


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 28, 2011)

If they don't use the shoreline route - and go thru KIN



- then I'm against it!





But I agree something has to be done to eliminate the grade crossings in southeast CT. (Including 3 at the NLC station itself!



) These are the only grade crossings on the entire NEC!


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Feb 28, 2011)

The costs of replacing the tunnels in Baltimore is not $250 million. It's estimated to cost at least $1 billion by Amtrak (see their report _An Interim Assessment of Achieving Improved Trip Times on the Northeast Corridor_, available on the Amtrak Website under "Inside Amtrak" and then "reports and studies"). That tunnel replacement is very much needed, and would save 2 minutes Washington-New York.

Maryland's governor, Martin O'Malley has suggested using Florida's HSR money to replace the B&P Tunnel or to replace the 3 bridges over the Gunpowder, Bush, and Susquehanna rivers. The bridges' replacement would cost around $2 billion and saves 2 minutes.

From the report, page 20:



> *New York to Washington*
> 
> 
> $10M	South End Alignment Study and Tier 1 Programmatic EIS
> ...


Those projects together, with next generation equipment, would result in a trip time reduction between New York and Washington from 2h52 to 2h15.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 28, 2011)

the_traveler said:


> If they don't use the shoreline route - and go thru KIN
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The grade crossings are the least of the worries on the NEC along the CT shoreline. They could still be taken at 110 MPH, but for all the sharp curves. It's those curves that need to be dealt with far more than worrying about a few grade crossings. In fact tha biggest worry about the grade crossings might be that some inspector stands by them and grades the train's crossing of the street. :lol:

It's things like the 25 MPH running through New London due to sharp curves and either 25 MPH or 35 MPH (I don't recall which) through the curve at Bridgeport that really hurt Acela's overall speed.


----------



## jis (Feb 28, 2011)

GlobalistPotato said:


> Still, I'd like to see the electrical system replaced between NYC-WAS. Once that's done, Acela can run at up to 150 mph for most of the distance between the two cities.


What proportion of the distance between New York and Washington is today cleared for 125mph? 135mph? What proportion do you think will get cleared for 150mph with just the addition of CT catenary? How much additional time savings will materialize should the easement changes actually get executed, a big if in places like NJ.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Feb 28, 2011)

jis said:


> GlobalistPotato said:
> 
> 
> > Still, I'd like to see the electrical system replaced between NYC-WAS. Once that's done, Acela can run at up to 150 mph for most of the distance between the two cities.
> ...


Aren't there stretches between MET-TRE that would be suitable for 150MPH running if there was upgraded catenary?


----------



## afigg (Feb 28, 2011)

jis said:


> GlobalistPotato said:
> 
> 
> > Still, I'd like to see the electrical system replaced between NYC-WAS. Once that's done, Acela can run at up to 150 mph for most of the distance between the two cities.
> ...


There is a stretch between Perryville MD and Newark DE where the Acela can run at 130 and 135 mph. The other segments where the Acela can reach 135 mph are the straight segments in NJ between Trenton and New Brunswick. Don't know whether upgrading the catenary in MD would allow for > 130-135 mph speeds there. There are a number of other 115 to 125 mph segments for the Regionals and Acelas between WAS and NYP. But most of the route between NYP and WAS is not limited by the catenary.

As for time savings, increasing the speed from 135 to 150 mph over a, say, a 30 mile stretch, only saves around 80 seconds.


----------



## jis (Feb 28, 2011)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Aren't there stretches between MET-TRE that would be suitable for 150MPH running if there was upgraded catenary?


I am aware of County to Ham between Jersey Avenue and Trenton, Ragan to Prince in DE/MD, and two other segments both in Maryland. NJ has additional 125mph segments between Metuchen and New Brunswick, and Elmora and Iselin. I believe there is some 125mph in PA between Morris and Holmes.

The reason I asked the question is that I suspect that people are being a tad overly optimistic about how much of the NEC will become 150mph capable with just a change of catenary. Actually the sorts of things that would really help increase speeds are things like higher underbalance on curves, and higher allowed cant, both of which FRA appears to eb dead set against. And of course lighter trains. The effect of heavier trains on track quality is obvious each time one rides an Acela at 150, and discovers that it bounces around all over creation compared to a TGV or ICE at 186 to 200mph.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Feb 28, 2011)

According to that report I cited above, Constant Tension Catenary, in conjunction with signal upgrades, would shave 10 minutes off a trip between Washington and New York.


----------



## afigg (Feb 28, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> The costs of replacing the tunnels in Baltimore is not $250 million. It's estimated to cost at least $1 billion by Amtrak (see their report _An Interim Assessment of Achieving Improved Trip Times on the Northeast Corridor_, available on the Amtrak Website under "Inside Amtrak" and then "reports and studies"). That tunnel replacement is very much needed, and would save 2 minutes Washington-New York.
> 
> Maryland's governor, Martin O'Malley has suggested using Florida's HSR money to replace the B&P Tunnel or to replace the 3 bridges over the Gunpowder, Bush, and Susquehanna rivers. The bridges' replacement would cost around $2 billion and saves 2 minutes.
> 
> ...


The cost numbers are higher in the NEC Infrastructure Master Plan report which also has more details. Page 38 for NYP to WAS improvements lists $6.225 billion for trip time improvements, $1.42 billion for state of good repair programs, and $1.505 billion for other capacity and related improvements. But the WAS to NYP trip time improvement in that report is 2:21 with the 2:15 time for a WAS-NYP express service.

The B&P Tunnel replacement is not likely to get any of the returned Florida HSIPR funds because the engineering design and EIS work for the replacement tunnel has not been done yet. Maryland got $60 million in the HSIPR stimulus grants for the Preliminary Engineering and NEPA work for the B&P tunnel replacement. That needs to be done first. In the Amtrak FY2012 submission, the letter states the proposed B&P Tunnel replacement is a 12 year $1.25 billion dollar project.

The 3rd track installation south of Wilmington was funded in the FY2010 HSIPR grants, so if Congress does not rescind the HSR money, that bottleneck will be fixed in the next several years.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 28, 2011)

Replacing the B&P tunnels and approaches does not really get you that much in proportion to the money spent. What really needs to be done in Baltimore is to put in a completely new cross city route west to east, mostly in tunnel. It should be at least 4 tracks, possibly 5 or 6 and should carry Amtrak, Maryland Commuter trains and freight. No, it would not go through the current Penn Station site. It should be in/under the US40 Mulberry Street/Franklin Street - Orleans Street alignment. This line would at one fell swoop get rid of all the Baltimore tunnel issues, including that of CSX under Howard Street. The tunnel portion would be about 4 miles long, and there would need to be a freight track or two built parallel to the Corridor tracks from there south to the point where the corridor and CSX cross. At the east end of the tunnel, the Corridor and the CSX tracks are almost adjacent. Build a nice high speed railroad style station at Calvert and Orleans having about 2 or four high speed platform tracks and 2 or 4 commuter platform tracks.


----------



## GlobalistPotato (Feb 28, 2011)

Isn't one of the other areas that prevent 150 mph running on the WAS-NYC portion are some curves in Maryland and Delaware? How much would straightening those sections cost?

I think the proposed Wilmington bypass is what has the price tag of $250, not the tunnel through Baltimore.

As for Baltimore, Penn Studio recommended building a new Baltimore station in downtown. I guess that could work along with the idea of running the alignment under US 40.

But how does one set of planned improvements give a 2:15 hr trip time while a slightly different plan gives a 1:30 hr trip time? I'm guessing that comes from new rolling stock and changing the FRA's rules.


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 28, 2011)

jis said:


> I am aware of County to Ham


So *THAT'S* where all the *PORK BARREL* projects that Congress hands out goes to - the County of *HAM*!


----------



## afigg (Feb 28, 2011)

GlobalistPotato said:


> Isn't one of the other areas that prevent 150 mph running on the WAS-NYC portion are some curves in Maryland and Delaware? How much would straightening those sections cost?
> 
> I think the proposed Wilmington bypass is what has the price tag of $250, not the tunnel through Baltimore.
> 
> ...


The Amtrak Next Gen NEC HSR proposal - which is a high level proposal with few specifics - is not a slightly different plan than the NEC Infrastructure Master Plan, it is a very different plan. New high speed tracks, new tunnels and routes through Baltimore, Philly, a 12 mile long tunnel under NYC, and an entirely new route through CT and RI.

Both the Penn State proposal and the Amtrak Next Gen NEC proposal called for a new tunnel running under downtown Baltimore with a new station downtown. The Amtrak proposal has a Baltimore Charles Center Station. The geography in Baltimore would make building the tunnel through the center of Baltimore a challenge.

The word on the outline of the current B&P Tunnel replacement plan is that they are considering including a freight tunnel with clearance for double stacked container trains that would run parallel or be shared with the passenger tunnel tracks. One of the Union tunnels would be rebuilt to provide a 4th track for double stacked freight trains to provide a route through Baltimore for CSX and probably NS to use. If this happens, no need for a deep freight tunnel running under Baltimore.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Mar 1, 2011)

I find it strange that there not bypassing Newark....or overhauling Newark....


----------



## jis (Mar 1, 2011)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> I find it strange that there not bypassing Newark....or overhauling Newark....


They don't bypass Newark because it is a relatively heavy traffic generator. The bypassing that could be done is by digging under and is expensive. The real grand super HSR could tunnel all the way through from say around Linden all the way to Westchester County with four underground station - Newark Airport, Newark, New York Penn and New York Grand Central.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Mar 1, 2011)

afigg said:


> The word on the outline of the current B&P Tunnel replacement plan is that they are considering including a freight tunnel with clearance for double stacked container trains that would run parallel or be shared with the passenger tunnel tracks. One of the Union tunnels would be rebuilt to provide a 4th track for double stacked freight trains to provide a route through Baltimore for CSX and probably NS to use. If this happens, no need for a deep freight tunnel running under Baltimore.


I wrote about the B&P Tunnel replacement concept a while back and made some maps to illustrate the ideas. The maps are based on an FRA study from 2005, but the basics of the plan seem to be the same.

Map: Existing Baltimore Railroads (by me)

Map: B&P and Howard St Tunnel replacements (by me)

Map: B&P Tunnel replacement options (by me)


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Mar 1, 2011)

jis said:


> Nexis4Jersey said:
> 
> 
> > I find it strange that there not bypassing Newark....or overhauling Newark....
> ...


They can use the CSX line that runs to the West the CBD bypassing the slow area of Newark for True HSR. Everything else can go to Newark.


----------



## jis (Mar 1, 2011)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> They can use the CSX line that runs to the West the CBD bypassing the slow area of Newark for True HSR. Everything else can go to Newark.


Pardon my ignorance, but which CSX track west of CBD are we talking of that connects to the NEC? The only through CSX/NS (actually Conrail Shared Asset) ROW that I am aware of is south-east of the CBD and NEC.

And what makes you think that CSX is eager to let that happen? That just ain't gonna happen. Also that track, if anything has sharper curves than the NEC track.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 1, 2011)

Alright, I've got to ask: Assuming that we agree that cutting times on trips is worthwhile in a vacuum, how much is knocking 5-10 minutes off worth? Put another way: Say that everything up there was done _except_ the bridge projects? Where would that leave us, travel time-wise? I know that slowing for the bridges and then speeding back up would be a pain, but how much time does that involve?

I think the Baltimore tunnel project is worthwhile, but probably not on time savings alone. The same can probably be said for the other bridges and so forth...they're good projects, the upgrades are worthwhile, but not on shaving a minute here or two minutes there off a two hour trip alone. I know I'm basically asking "how can we do quasi-HSR on the cheap", but I'm asking this in light of where budget arguments are going. And yes, I think that the NYP-WAS segment is what needs to be focused on...that's the oldest, steadiest segment of anything resembling HSR in the United States, and it's also one of the places where there's a _really _solid market for it, too, though I don't know what the Acela share of the market is on that stretch versus NYP-BOS.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 1, 2011)

Anderson said:


> And yes, I think that the NYP-WAS segment is what needs to be focused on...that's the oldest, steadiest segment of anything resembling HSR in the United States, and it's also one of the places where there's a _really _solid market for it, too, though I don't know what the Acela share of the market is on that stretch versus NYP-BOS.


Agree completely. There are simply more people and a better established rail travel market between Washington and New York than there is between New York and Boston.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 1, 2011)

Anderson said:


> And yes, I think that the NYP-WAS segment is what needs to be focused on...that's the oldest, steadiest segment of anything resembling HSR in the United States, and it's also one of the places where there's a _really _solid market for it, too, though I don't know what the Acela share of the market is on that stretch versus NYP-BOS.


Note that these numbers aren't the entire travel market, but rather the air/rail market.

According to a recent report Amtrak owned 69% of the market between NY & DC, leaving the airlines to divide the remaining 31%.

I can't currently find a cite for it, but I believe that the last number that I saw for NY & Boston was 41%, but that was for 2009 also, so I would expect it to be a bit higher now. Especially after seeing sold out trains on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday during my travels to/from Boston.

And of course it should also be noted that there is a much bigger travel market between NY & DC than there is between NY & Boston.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Mar 2, 2011)

jis said:


> Nexis4Jersey said:
> 
> 
> > They can use the CSX line that runs to the West the CBD bypassing the slow area of Newark for True HSR. Everything else can go to Newark.
> ...


West of Downtown Newark , the line that runs next to US 1/9. CSX and NS use if i'm not mistaken , the ROW is big enough for 2 more tracks or Houses could be demolished since that side of the Ironbound is poor....there should be little opposition....but then again in Newark the poor have there ways. This route would shave off 10-30 mins , you could maintain high speeds. The Next 2 problems in NJ are harder to solve , the Elizabeth and Metchun curves will require alot more ...


----------



## Anderson (Mar 2, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, I think that the NYP-WAS segment is what needs to be focused on...that's the oldest, steadiest segment of anything resembling HSR in the United States, and it's also one of the places where there's a _really _solid market for it, too, though I don't know what the Acela share of the market is on that stretch versus NYP-BOS.
> ...


On WAS/NYP, that sounds about right. I haven't seen numbers for 2010 yet (I'd give that another few weeks to a month), but I know the airlines have not taken competition from Amtrak well in recent years. In the case of NYP/BOS, the rail portion of that market had been steadily expanding (the Acela alone is apparently on 41% between Boston and NYP...but I suspect that the Regional isn't taking up _quite_ as much of the market there). I _am_ left wondering about bus competition on that particular route (I know there have been_ some_ inroads attempted by both Megabus and what I've heard called the "Chinatown bus" lines, and I know when I was surveyed by Amtrak regarding Acela services, they listed bus travel as something they wanted my opinions on), but the narrative for Amtrak on the NEC has generally been good.

I guess part of how I look at this is relative utility of improvements: Would knocking travel times down be nice? Absolutely. But assuming that we got a blank check for $10 billion or more, would HSR dollars be better-spent in some other ways than pushing the NEC's top speed from 150 MPH to 186-220 MPH? I think there's a strong argument to be made for bringing NYP-ALB and PHL-HAR (Empire and Keystone services, respectively) up to NEC standards; at that point, I would honestly ask if running a "second Acela" ALB-NYP-PHL-HAR might not work out well...the market isn't as big, but especially if Amtrak were to allow connections strictly within the express market, even at NYP alone (preferably at both NYP and PHL, but I don't see that happening), I think it might be a success given that the Empire and Keystone services run somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million people per year (though ridership on NYP-ALB has been stuck in the doldrums for _years_). Transfer gains would be incremental, but I suspect that they'd add to the overall service totals.

Of course, I'm straying from the original topic of this thread: How much of the $100 or $117 billion (and assuming those are "real dollars" rather than nominal ones so that we can set aside inflation) would have to be spent if we _didn't_ make major upgrades to the system? For example, I know that the Acela trainsets will probably have to be replaced at some point anyway, and I know that some bridge improvements will come when structures have to undergo major refits (let's face it, a lot of those bridges _are_ getting close to 100 years old and some are in need of a lot of maintenance).


----------



## jis (Mar 2, 2011)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Nexis4Jersey said:
> ...


That row that you speak of is south-east of downtown, not west of downtown, and no it won't save 10 to 30 mins, and also its connection at the east end back to NEC will be an expensive porposition and no cheaper than the fix to Elizabeth or Metuchen.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 2, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, I think that the NYP-WAS segment is what needs to be focused on...that's the oldest, steadiest segment of anything resembling HSR in the United States, and it's also one of the places where there's a _really _solid market for it, too, though I don't know what the Acela share of the market is on that stretch versus NYP-BOS.
> ...


Do you have a link to the report with ridership numbers that supports 69% of the market WAS - NYC for Amtrak?


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Mar 2, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> Do you have a link to the report with ridership numbers that supports 69% of the market WAS - NYC for Amtrak?


According to Amtrak's _An Interim Assessment of Achieving Improved Trip Times on the Northeast Corridor_, Amtrak's share of the air/rail market was *63%* WAS-NYP and *49%* NYP-BOS in 2008. Prior to Acela startup in 2000, those market shares were 37% and 20%, respectively.

You can find those numbers on page 19 of the report, which can be found at Amtrak.com -> Inside Amtrak -> Reports & Documents. And it will be under PRIAA Submissions and Reports.

I don't know if there are more recent numbers on market share or not.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 2, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a link to the report with ridership numbers that supports 69% of the market WAS - NYC for Amtrak?
> ...


What I'm looking for are the station to station passenger numbers that are the basis for those percentages. What is the Amtrak ridership WAS - NYC? What stations are included in the end points for the Amtrak count? What airports are included in the numbers for the air count? I've seen the percentage figures published by Amtrak before, but the percentages are never backed up with actual numbers.


----------



## GlobalistPotato (Mar 2, 2011)

I'm curious how much ridership on the NEC would increase with the construction of new HSR lines connecting to the NEC. Like an expanded Keystone corridor, NYC-Albany-Toronto HSR, and WAS-ATL HSR.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 4, 2011)

Actually, I just had a thought: If they're going to reinvent the wheel with a completely new HSR line on the NYP-BOS front, would it make sense to run that line through Albany? I'm thinking partly from an eminent domain perspective...keep the Acela line running on the coast at lower speeds, but running the "super express" line through Albany would do three things: Add the Albany metro to the Wonderful World of HSR (not to mention "interior" parts of MA), open up the possibility of Boston-Toronto services (so that a line going to Toronto would have two plausible destinations to run trains on rather than _just_ NYP), and upgrade the Empire Corridor (a plus on its own). I know that you'd lose at least some of your time advantage with this, but if the line could maintain speed for longer I think you might still come out ahead. Mind you, I'm thinking "completely new line which emphasizes getting the best route picked out and which only has 3-4 intermediate stops", not the existing, winding railroad through the region.


----------



## jis (Mar 4, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Actually, I just had a thought: If they're going to reinvent the wheel with a completely new HSR line on the NYP-BOS front, would it make sense to run that line through Albany? I'm thinking partly from an eminent domain perspective...keep the Acela line running on the coast at lower speeds, but running the "super express" line through Albany would do three things: Add the Albany metro to the Wonderful World of HSR (not to mention "interior" parts of MA), open up the possibility of Boston-Toronto services (so that a line going to Toronto would have two plausible destinations to run trains on rather than _just_ NYP), and upgrade the Empire Corridor (a plus on its own). I know that you'd lose at least some of your time advantage with this, but if the line could maintain speed for longer I think you might still come out ahead. Mind you, I'm thinking "completely new line which emphasizes getting the best route picked out and which only has 3-4 intermediate stops", not the existing, winding railroad through the region.


What makes you think that acquiring a right of way through the east shore of Hudson area will be any easier than getting one in inland Connecticut?


----------



## Anderson (Mar 4, 2011)

Mainly the large amount of existing right-of-way, and the fact that particularly above the north end of the Metro North coverage area the population _does_ thin out, while running along the coast it really doesn't (note the presence of the Shoreline East line and the proposed Hartford line). My presumption is that at least on part of the line, you'll be piggybacking on the existing lines (and then splitting out to run parallel somewhere between Croton-Harmon and Poughkipsee). More importantly, though, much of the line runs near enough to the shoreline that you've got a number of stretches where it's city-railroad-greenspace-river or city-railroad-river. This would reduce the eminent domain takings needed (even if it might complicate the EIS picture), particularly on the southern end of the line (and I think that most proposals tend to either concede that you're not getting onto a new alignment until you get up into Westchester County at best, or throw a super-expensive tunnel project into the picture that forces the cost to balloon), and once you break out to the north you won't be cutting across as many highly-populated areas.

Putting it in plain English, I think it's probably easier to substantially widen the right-of-way on Metro North (probably to a largely rebuilt four track setup), split off above that, and acquire the line through western MA than it is to acquire entirely new right-of-way inland in CT unless you go _way_ up in the state (to the point that you may as well link to Albany and gain that market at some point). There will still be speed limits on parts of the line (probably in the 125-150 MPH range, and possibly lower...unless you're doing a superdeep tunnel, there's only so fast you'll be going in Harlem, for example.

Of course, the politics of this line would be a mixed bag: On the one hand, you'd only have to keep two states on board instead of four; on the other, you'd only have two states working with you in Washington instead of four.


----------



## Steve4031 (Mar 5, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Mainly the large amount of existing right-of-way, and the fact that particularly above the north end of the Metro North coverage area the population _does_ thin out, while running along the coast it really doesn't (note the presence of the Shoreline East line and the proposed Hartford line). My presumption is that at least on part of the line, you'll be piggybacking on the existing lines (and then splitting out to run parallel somewhere between Croton-Harmon and Poughkipsee). More importantly, though, much of the line runs near enough to the shoreline that you've got a number of stretches where it's city-railroad-greenspace-river or city-railroad-river. This would reduce the eminent domain takings needed (even if it might complicate the EIS picture), particularly on the southern end of the line (and I think that most proposals tend to either concede that you're not getting onto a new alignment until you get up into Westchester County at best, or throw a super-expensive tunnel project into the picture that forces the cost to balloon), and once you break out to the north you won't be cutting across as many highly-populated areas.
> 
> Putting it in plain English, I think it's probably easier to substantially widen the right-of-way on Metro North (probably to a largely rebuilt four track setup), split off above that, and acquire the line through western MA than it is to acquire entirely new right-of-way inland in CT unless you go _way_ up in the state (to the point that you may as well link to Albany and gain that market at some point). There will still be speed limits on parts of the line (probably in the 125-150 MPH range, and possibly lower...unless you're doing a superdeep tunnel, there's only so fast you'll be going in Harlem, for example.
> 
> Of course, the politics of this line would be a mixed bag: On the one hand, you'd only have to keep two states on board instead of four; on the other, you'd only have two states working with you in Washington instead of four.


Interesting idea. However you would have to build an entirely new line across Massachusetts to Boston. NYP to Albany is 142 miles, and Albany to Boston is 200 miles, for a total of 342 miles. In order for this to be viable, these trains would have to average over 100 mph to keep the travel time below 4 hours. For this to really work, it the trains would have to be going 150 mph most of the way. It would be very expensive to build such a route over the Berkshires. I'm not sure the ridership would improve either because Stamford, New Haven, and Providence are not being served by the new route. Albany and Springfield probably would not replace the lost ridership.


----------



## jis (Mar 7, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Of course, the politics of this line would be a mixed bag: On the one hand, you'd only have to keep two states on board instead of four; on the other, you'd only have two states working with you in Washington instead of four.


Keeping states on board typically is a lesser problem than keeping localities on board. You could have the state on board all you want. All it takes is a handful of localities to blow any scheme sky high or at least block it to a point of impracticality.

Few people were deeply involved enough in rail advocacy that are present on this board to remember what transpired before it was finally decided to electrify the NHRR alignment through New London. There was a serious plan to go inland on the Hartford line a little ways and then follow an existing old ROW with a few deviations to get a much straighter run to Coston than the cowpath through New London that is used today. The problem was not the populated area along the Hartford corridor, the state of Connecticut or the Sate of Massachusetts. The problem was what appears to be open fields with no one apparently living there. They effectively blocked it, and that on the whole delayed electrification of any route to Boston by 15 years.

Frankly I am actually quite dubious even about what I consider your wishful or wistful thinking that eminent domain problems will be any less between Croton Harmon and Poughkeepsie than it is in inland Connecticut (not to speak of Poughkeepsie to Albany). I'd strongly recommend that you get in a car and drive around that part of the country and observe all the estates that you will have to run your railroad through. IOW I think you have struck a gold mine of an impractical idea. Just IMHO of course, having spent a lot of time in that area hiking on the trails and such for years.


----------

