High Speed Rail (Boston to... Texas?)

[Weasel420]

WASHINGTON, D.C. ? Today, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced a bill to create new jobs by updating the nation?s crumbling infrastructure. The High-Speed Rail for America Act of 2008 would transform America?s outdated and underfunded passenger rail system into a world class system

This would help finance the California proposed corridor and make needed improvements to the Northeast corridor. The legislation provides $5.4 billion over a six-year period for rail infrastructure bonds. The Federal Rail Administration has already designated ten rail corridors that these bonds could help fund, including connecting the cities of the Midwest through Chicago, connecting the cities of the Northwest, connecting the major cities within Texas and Florida, and connecting all the cities up and down the East Coast.


Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/11/kerry-and-spect.html

[ablarc]

Drop in the bucket.

Truly paltry.

But better than nothing.

[Weasel420]

Well, with Obama pushing domestic infrastructure projects, everyone trying to go green, and the airline industry teetering on collapse... this seems like the ideal time to catch up with the rest of the world and build a high speed system.

I'm hopeful.

[mass88]

Well, with Obama pushing domestic infrastructure projects, everyone trying to go green, and the airline industry teetering on collapse... this seems like the ideal time to catch up with the rest of the world and build a high speed system.

I'm hopeful.

How do you figure the airline industry is teetering on collapse? Are you thinking about the U.S. auto industry? Oil is now well below $100 a barrel. If it were $190-200 it would be a different story.

[vanshnookenraggen]

But oil isn't going to stay down. We need to be thinking about the infrastructure needs for the next 50 years. Oil is running out and we need to have alternatives in place before we are totally screwed.

[kennedy]

Oil will be below $100 a barrel for a short time, and due only to deflation, not because of traditional economic forces.

Although the airline industry is not teetering per se, it is for sure in trouble and in need of restructuring, as is the auto industry.

This is an optimal time to invest in the nation's rail system, and should be the easiest for the government since they control the nations rail system (Amtrak).

[Weasel420]

How do you figure the airline industry is teetering on collapse? Are you thinking about the U.S. auto industry?

How about if I rephrase?

The airline industry, should it be confronted with competition from a high speed rail transit system, will probably shed much of it's business.

I have no economic knowledge/background/info other than being a flyer for the better part of my 30 years on earth. :) So it's a personal belief call more than a statement of fact.

I travel to DC quite regularly, and if I can take a high speed train (no, accela does not count) and make it there in 4 hours while avoiding the airports, I will do so.

[jenkins]

Funny--I'd been talking about this with a friend all week. Here's what I got:

This is the current proposal for HSR in the US:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations.png

I thought it wasn't really enough, so I put it through paint a bit, and came out with this:
http://i539.photobucket.com/albums/ff354/34chan/USHSR.png

Any comments? I've already been chided for drawing a branch from Miami to Key West, so ignore that part unless you think it would be useful.

[czsz]

The fragmentation of the corridors is a bit bizarre. Wouldn't there be a fairly big market for Houston-Dallas? And why not link Pittsburgh and Cleveland for a through route between New York and Chicago? (Meanwhile, Columbia, SC and Portland, ME get special spurs!?)

[TheBostonian]

Yeah, what is the deal with the fragmentation? Would regular-speed trains keep running across the gaps in the high speed network?

[vanshnookenraggen]

This is a fantasy map taken from a blog but it is an interesting idea:

http://www.verysmallarray.com/wp-content/uploads/081124_nationaltransp21.gif (http://www.verysmallarray.com/?p=790)

[statler]

Why not Boston to Chicago via Cleveland?

[atlrvr]

It's actually a cartographical representation of a mathematical array problem, rather than a vision based on logic.

[nico]

I really like how the Jenkins' maps have trains from North Station to Montreal. Having to take a train from South through NY to Montreal (believe it's 12 hr trip) is a bit absurd when it?s a 5/6 hr. drive. Montreal is a great city and I think greater exposure to it would benefit Boston in many ways.

[czsz]

I've always been surprised that the Montreal high speed line plans include Boston but not New York.

[kennedy]

I've always been surprised that the Montreal high speed line plans include Boston but not New York.

Because there is already a line to NYC, and nothing to Boston?

Why can't America have a national high-speed rail network, similar to the interstate system? 3 west-east routes (Seattle to Boston, SF to DC, LA to Atlanta), 3 north-south routes (Seattle to San Diego, Chicago to Houston, Boston to Miami). Then you could connect most major and minor cities via high-speed, and connect minor cities via regular lines.

[czsz]

National high speed rail would not ever be competitive with airlines. While there's a plausible case to be made that a 6 hour rail trip between DC and Boston works out at roughly the same time when you take into account getting to their airport, through security, etc., you lose a lot more time on a longer trip. That's why high speed proposals have always been for relatively short corridors or regional hub-and-spoke systems.

As for Montreal - it has a line to New York because there's a larger market for rail travel between the two, so it seems to make more sense to upgrade it to high speed.

[kennedy]

I was just trying to justify it, I don't actually believe that Boston-Montreal deserves high speed rather than NYC.

[jenkins]

National high speed rail would not ever be competitive with airlines. While there's a plausible case to be made that a 6 hour rail trip between DC and Boston works out at roughly the same time when you take into account getting to their airport, through security, etc., you lose a lot more time on a longer trip. That's why high speed proposals have always been for relatively short corridors or regional hub-and-spoke systems.

I suspect that high-speed rail would actually be pretty competitive with air travel, especially, as you pointed out, over shorter distances. What I doubt is the ability of any study to prove this--it would really be a case of build it and see.

Luckily, the construction of such a system would in itself be a huge boon to the country, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and pumping up the economy. If the system were started on smaller, high-traffic corridors (like those in the DOT map), then I think it would naturally expand to a much larger network over time, as more and more cities try and put themselves on the list (turning into something like my map).

[czsz]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I only meant that extremely long-distance (read: coast to coast length routes) would never really be competitive. Even in Europe no single high speed line is longer than Paris-Marseille, which does not begin to compare to, say, Boston-Seattle. I think New York-Chicago is the longest line that could really be competitive in the US.

(On a sidenote: on short distances, high speed rail is so popular in parts of Europe that it actually killed flights. You can no longer fly between Paris and Brussels, for example. But on long distance routes Europe experienced a renaissance of air travel from the 90s on.)

[kennedy]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I only meant that extremely long-distance (read: coast to coast length routes) would never really be competitive. Even in Europe no single high speed line is longer than Paris-Marseille, which does not begin to compare to, say, Boston-Seattle. I think New York-Chicago is the longest line that could really be competitive in the US.


I guess I wasn't clear-when I said Boston-Seattle and the other coast to coast routes, I intended for stops to be included in all major cities along the way. Boston-Seattle, for example, would include Boston to NYC to Cleveland to Chicago to Omaha to Seattle, possibly with a few minor stops along the way.

[statler]

White House.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/)
Thursday, April 16th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
A Vision for High Speed Rail
"I'm happy to be here. I?m more happy than you can imagine," said the Vice President, a noted rail enthusiast, before introducing the President for the release of his strategic plan (http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31) for high speed rail in America. Revolving around the $8 billion in the Recovery Act and the $1 billion per year for five years requested in the President?s budget to get these projects off the ground, the President painted the picture (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-and-the-Vice-President-on-High-Speed-Rail/) that will become a reality as a result of these investments:

What we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. (Laughter.) Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.

Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It is now. It is happening right now. It's been happening for decades. The problem is it's been happening elsewhere, not here.

In France, high-speed rail has pulled regions from isolation, ignited growth, remade quiet towns into thriving tourist destinations. In Spain, a high-speed line between Madrid and Seville is so successful that more people travel between those cities by rail than by car and airplane combined. China, where service began just two years ago, may have more miles of high-speed rail service than any other country just five years from now. And Japan, the nation that unveiled the first high-speed rail system, is already at work building the next: a line that will connect Tokyo with Osaka at speeds of over 300 miles per hour. So it's being done; it's just not being done here.

There's no reason why we can't do this. This is America. There's no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders. Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already overburdened aviation system ?- and everybody stands to benefit.

The inclusion of high speed rail in the Recovery Act (http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2153) was one of many symbols of the new vision for America and its economy that guided the plan. As the Vice President explained in his introduction, joined by Transportation Secretary LaHood, in addition to putting Americans to work across the country it went towards several the Recovery Act?s key goals:

And we're making a down payment today, a down payment on the economy for tomorrow, the economy that's going to drive us in the 21st century in a way that the other -- the highway system drove us in the mid-20th century. And I'm happy to be here. I'm more happy than you can imagine -- (laughter) -- to talk about a commitment that, with the President's leadership, we're making to achieve the goal through the development of high-speed rail projects that will extend eventually all across this nation. And most of you know that not only means an awful lot to me, but I know a lot of you personally in this audience over the years, I know it means equally as much to you.

With high-speed rail system, we're going to be able to pull people off the road, lowering our dependence on foreign oil, lowering the bill for our gas in our gas tanks. We're going to loosen the congestion that also has great impact on productivity, I might add, the people sitting at stop lights right now in overcrowded streets and cities. We're also going to deal with the suffocation that's taking place in our major metropolitan areas as a consequence of that congestion. And we're going to significantly lessen the damage to our planet. This is a giant environmental down payment.

The report formalizes the identification of ten high-speed rail corridors as potential recipients of federal funding. Those lines are: California, Pacific Northwest, South Central, Gulf Coast, Chicago Hub Network, Florida, Southeast, Keystone, Empire and Northern New England. Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston to compete for funds to improve the nation?s only existing high-speed rail service:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/images/rail_map_blog.jpg

[Charlie_mta]

The "Other" passenger rail routes - the non high-speed ones - are rather few and far between on the map. It would seem that there should be more conventional rail routes to connect major cities in those corridors not covered by proposed high speed rail.

[czsz]

Again, the weird arbitrariness with the routes. Why is there a branch for Savannah and Columbia, SC, but no connection between the Southeast system and Florida, or between the Keystone/Empire and Chicago hub? If not through trains on these routes, why not give someone the option to at least connect between networks?

The first thing we need to do is change the definition of "High Speed Rail" in this country. Calling the NE Corridor "high speed" is embarrassing.

Agreed, although note that Obama, in his speech, referenced systems that are far speedier than Acela as benchmarks, and the NEC is allowed to compete for funds in the pool for its own improvements.

[Riverworks]

Hope they can make this vision "affordable", unlike now. $109-$140 from Boston to New York on Acella? I'll pass. I'd say $60-$80 range is a fair price...

Notice how they're not proposing anything going to Las Vegas .. the infamous train to nowhere. What about Phoenix, and Albuquerque, Sante Fe ... or evening connecting the high speed line from San Francisco to Portland? Actually now that I look closer, connect Jacksonville to Orlando and Buffalo/{Pittsburgh to Cleavland. Make it more continuous.

[ablarc]

Mapquest tells me it takes 6 hours and 41 minutes to get by car from my home in Charlotte to my preferred hotel in Washington, DC. Having done this frequently, I can verify that this just about exactly right. If they occur, traffic jams on the interstate can add as much as an hour to this time. I hate the drive: boring, ugly, stressful, infested with trucks. The distance is 398 miles.

To make the same trip door to door by air takes me 4-1/2 hours if there are no delays. This includes airport transportation and allowing time for the security search. So I save 2 hours and 11 minutes. I hate to fly: uncomfortable, stressful, and somewhat dangerous during the hour you?re actually in the air.

By train, I?m forced to depart at 7:40 a.m. or not at all. The train is scheduled to arrive in Washington 13-1/4 hours later at 8:58 (an average of 30.0 mph), but it?s almost always late --sometimes by several hours. Though the train is pleasant transport, this is a ridiculous way to travel, and it becomes stressful as the train gets further behind schedule. Including transportation to/from the stations, you have to allocate 14-1/2 hours door to door even if the train is right on time. More than twice as long as driving, and over three times flying.

If the train took an hour longer door to door as driving, and it gave me a second option for departure, I would use it every time. This means it would have to get from Charlotte?s station to Washington?s in 6 hours and 40 minutes. To do that, it would have to progress at an average speed of 59.7 mph, including stops --the same speed as driving. This is routinely achieved by European trains that no one refers to as ?high speed.?

I never mentioned cost. Driving is cheapest, the plane is half again as much. If the train were faster and reliable and cost the same as the plane, I'd take it every time.

[ablarc]

From SSC:

We often hear people saying that the US is too large and its population density too low to make an HSR network viable.

Here's a map showing both Eastern US and Western Europe at the same scale. In red, you can see European HSR network. As you can see, a system as extensive as the one currently existing in Europe would be already far enough to serve most of US HSR needs.

http://grandparis.free.fr/us-eu-rail-comparison.gif


In looking at that map, I realized how much we actually underestimate European distances compared to US distances. For instance, we imagine Boston and Miami to be incredibly far away, but Boston is actually closer to Miami than Hamburg is to Sevilla ! Both European cities being actually served with high speed rail...

I think that if we don't realize that European distances aren't that small, it's because of two major problems: First, half of the US is empty (all the Rockies and desert states) and can thus be ignored here. Second, Europe has a very weird shape with tons of islands and peninsulas. As such, there are tons of water in Europe (North sea, Med sea, Adriatic sea, Baltic sea), which are of course not counted in land area but which don't put Helsinki, Palermo or Edinburgh any closer.

.

[czsz]

These European HSR networks are ostensibly connected, but they really work more like short-corridor or hub-and-spoke systems as are proposed for the Midwest and Texas. It's still true that most of the country, even in the east (including places like the Ohio valley and the Carolinas' Atlantic Coast) are too spread-thin and depopulated for viable routes, and that long-haul routes like Boston-New Orleans would not be a safe bet without major improvements in speed.

[ablarc]

Nonsense.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Nonsense.

Care to explain? Long haul HSR isn't very popular in Europe due to the extreme cheapness of Ryanair and easyJet. I doubt it will be popular in the US as well; the demand just isn't there, so the long-haul US HSR lines are unlikely to be built in the first place.

[belmont square]

Another big difference is that most of the European cities served by high speed rail are much more dense and have much better intracity transit services. There's a good chance that the Brussels to Berlin train rider is able to either walk to a high speed rail station or take a direct transit link there on both ends of their trip, than the Charlotte to Indianapolis traveler. And once you have to add in parking fees and/or rent a car, most metropolitan Americans will find it easier (and cheaper) to make the trip via air.

The typical Boston to NYC Acela rider is originating at a downtown office or a location easily served by the MBTA or MTA, and destined for same. They are not using Acela for trips between Tewksbury and Pasippany.

[Benson]

One day short trip air travel will not be profitable enough to survive. An alternative is needed. Certainly long distance flights will remain but shorter routes in the 500 mile range will not. When that happens the physical layout of our metropolitan areas will slowly change as land values near train stations go up. It will be a 30 - 50 year shift.

[belmont square]

^

I agree with the first few points. But the future layout of metropolitan areas and land values near train stations will likely have very little to do with the primary travel mode used for 500 miles trips. Land costs around successful CBD intercity rail stations are already high (Union, South, Penn, Grand Central) absent a comprehensive HSR network. Land costs around the northeast airports the currently dominate the 500-mile trip market (Logan, LaGuardia, Newark, etc.) are likely lower than they would be absent that function being served there.

[czsz]

I think they're only lower for certain things. It would be wrong to say that an airport didn't stimulate demand for services which brings up land costs around them. It's true that the value for, say, residential real estate might plummet, or for certain high-income commercial uses, but it's the opposite for virtually anything else.

[belmont square]

Right, but presumably residential and high-income commercial uses were the ones Benson was thinking of when he spoke of increasing land values around HSR stations (and not freight forwarding, rental car facilities or Hampton Inns with long term parking).

As center cities hopefully continue to become more desirable places to live and work HSR will be more likely to succeed. But the reason is that those higher income residents and uses drawn by the benefits of the center city also happen to be more likely to make use of high speed intercity transport. Not the other way around.

[czsz]

Oh, I don't know about that. It took half a century of subsidization of road and air transport to create our current landscape. It wasn't simply that people "came to prefer" suburbia and the infrastructure followed. I don't see why HSR/mass transit/"smart growth" can't work in the same way.

[choo]

A Bridge to Somewhere
Sometimes, if you build it, they really do come.
By Alex Marshall | June 2009
Alex Marshall
is a Senior Fellow at The Regional Plan Association in New York City. E-mail him at alex@alexmarshall.org.

Most transportation improvements happen mainly because one thing leads to another. A lot of people want to cross a river, you build a bridge to replace the overcrowded ferry. Lots of cars are on a road, you expand the road into a highway. More and more people want to fly somewhere, you build a bigger airport.

And that?s a legitimate way to plan transportation.

But there is another way. Rather than reacting to demand, you anticipate demand. You build a bridge or a road or an airport that leads where people are not traveling very much. This is riskier than simply responding to demand, but the payoff is potentially bigger.

The greatest historical example is the Erie Canal. In the early 1800s, few were trying to get from Albany, New York, to the tiny town of Buffalo, an almost impossible journey of nearly 300 overland miles through dense forest, rivers and rugged terrain. It was only a dream?in this case a governor?s?that if a canal were built, passengers and shippers would want a route to Buffalo, on the Great Lakes, so they could travel along the lakes to the Midwest. Because it was an unproven idea, many derided the Erie Canal before and during its construction.

But not after. Financed with unprecedented levels of debt by the state, the Erie Canal became the greatest public works project of all time, measured by the amount of wealth created. The Erie Canal now connected the Midwest to the East Coast and to the rest of the world. The canal was the reason New York City became the nation?s economic capital. It repaid the public debt many times over.

But you don?t have to go back two centuries to find projects that anticipate demand and make it work. Spain, eyeing the fast trains in France in the early 1990s, opted to build its first high-speed rail line from Madrid to Seville, a beautiful city of Moorish architecture and Flamenco dancers, but not an economic dynamo.

Many thought a better choice would have been to build it between Madrid and the thriving city of Barcelona. Many businessmen already made that journey, and many wanted to do so more quickly and easily.

I rode the new Seville line in 1994, shortly after it opened. I made the 300-mile trip from Madrid to Seville in less than two hours, visiting the Seville World?s Fair and returning to Madrid in time for dinner. Even so, I wondered at the wisdom of making Madrid-Seville the first line in the system.

But over the past 17 years, the line to Seville has jump-started the economy not only of that city but of an entire region of the country, beautiful but struggling Andalucia. And once the rest of Spain saw how well high-speed train travel worked, the network was expanded, to Barcelona and other major cities, as well. There are predictions that by 2020, nine-tenths of the country?s population will be living within about 30 miles of a high-speed train connection.

It?s not only transportation between cities that illustrates this principle. It?s also transportation within a city or metropolitan area. While Spain was building its high-speed rail network, Paris was constructing its latest subway line, The Meteor. This high-tech marvel with conductorless trains and sliding glass doors goes from the busy Left Bank along the Seine over to the Bercy district on the other side, long an underused part of the city filled with older industrial buildings. Planners thought that a good way to drive metropolitan growth into an underutilized area was to build a fast subway line there?along with a nearby billion-dollar National Library. It worked.

In all these examples, planners ignored areas of substantial existing demand, and put the public money into places where there was little congestion. They understood that congestion, whether on a train or a road, is not always the best indicator of where to invest transportation dollars.

This is as true in the United States of 2009 as it was in Albany in 1820. Planners within a metro region in the United States are not necessarily making a mistake if they ignore a congested highway in a ?favored quarter,? and instead spend with a goal of driving population and economic growth into a less-favored area.

Americans seem to recognize that infrastructure investment can jump-start an economy. But as states and localities decide where to put their money, they shouldn?t simply generate studies to show where the traffic is. They should ask how transportation can expand commerce and trade, and make better places to live.

Former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was derided for his infamous ?bridge to nowhere,? which connected remote Gravina Island to the Alaska mainland. And maybe this was a boondoggle. But the mere fact that nothing much had been happening on Gravina Island doesn?t automatically make the creation of access to it a bad idea.

Sometimes a bridge to nowhere can create a somewhere in the end.


http://www.governing.com/column/bridge-somewhere

A good article on proactive transportation planning. Whenever I read something like this I always say "damn silver line bus." Another reason for investing in a real subway line.

[kennedy]

Heya, Buffalo.

[a630]

interstate highway system a good example.

[Lrfox]

Biden to governors: Be bold on rail
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor June 3, 2009 01:38 PM

Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and other governors at a White House roundtable today that they should think boldly about high-speed rail.

The $787 billion economic stimulus package includes $8 billion for high-speed passenger service, and President Obama is asking for $5 billion more in his budget. The White House says that detailed guidance for applying for the money will be announced later this month and the first round of grants will be awarded as soon as late summer 2009.

But the Globe reported last month that the Northeast is behind California and the Midwest in the competition for the cash, in part because it has not put as much time and money into organizing a regional effort.

?Everyone knows I?m a big believer in our nation?s rail system ? I?ve devoted a big part of my career doing what I can to support it ? and I?m proud that this administration is about to transform that system fundamentally,? Biden said in a statement. ?Thanks to an $8 billion investment from the Recovery Act, we?re going to start building a high-speed rail system that will loosen the congestion suffocating our highways and skyways, and make travel in this country leaner, meaner and a whole lot cleaner.?

America is ready to embrace a new level of passenger rail service that offers a safe, convenient, and sustainable way to travel from city to city, and region to region,? added LaHood. ?President Obama has handed us an extraordinary opportunity ? and now it is up to all of us to seize the moment. With creative input and contributions from governors across the country, I believe we?ll be able to do just that.?

Other governors in attendance, according to the White House, were Pat Quinn of Illinois, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Jay Nixon of Missouri, Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Jim Doyle of Wisconsin.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/06/biden_to_govern.html

Admittedly, I haven't done enough homework on this subject and I'm also a bit partial to the South Coast having grown up there.

However, I think high speed rail should be considered for the Fall River/ New Bedford commuter rail line. I know it's a relatively short route, but it's an about 75 minutes via standard rail and even slightly higher speeds could significantly reduce that commute time which really would make the South Coast a much more viable commuter option.

Right now, stops are planned in New Bedford (3 stops) Fall River (2 stops), Freetown (1 Stop) and Taunton (1 Stop) before the line connects to the existing Stoughton line and continues into South Station. To allow for higher speeds to be reached along the corridor, stops could be cut out. New Bedford could eliminate at LEAST 1 stop and probably 2 (keeping only the downtown stop and possibly the industrial park stop) while Fall River could easily just keep the downtown stop. Freetown doesn't need a stop at all. In fact, many residents of Freetown are hesitant to accept having a stop built in Freetown as they feel it will "adversely affect the small-town feel of the community" (I know, surprising attitude in Massachusetts). Limiting the number of stops to one in Fall River, one in New Bedford (possibly 2) and one in Taunton before connecting to Stoughton (which would need some updating) would allow trains to reach Boston form Fall River and New Bedford in under an hour.

Given that funding is an issue for the South Coast commuter rail project, if the federal funding for higher speed rail is available, then it makes sense. Furthermore, if it's regional cooperation that is desired, the Fall River spur can EASILY be extended into Rhode Island down to Newport. It's absolutely mutually beneficial for Boston and South Eastern MA and RI. If the Southcoast can become a viable commuter option you're looking at significant revitalization in the area as its coastal location, interesting ethnic populations and diversity as well as relatively low housing costs make it VERY attractive to anyone looking to live/work in the Boston area. For those in Boston, having a quick rail service to New Bedford for the Martha's Vineyard ferry and even New Bedford's attractions and having high-speed service to Newport has got to be an ideal prospect.

Finally, part of the South Coast rail project is renovation and upgrades at South Station (including, I believe, additional platforms). Funding that comes from high-speed stimulus could help pay for these upgrades.

I know it's a shot in the dark, but if there's a possibility it can work, I'd like to see it looked into. The Downeaster to Portland could use a high-speed upgrade as well and high speed service to Springfield (Albany?) via Worcester doesn't sound like a bad option either.

[kennedy]

STL <> CHI <> NYC <> BOS


PLEASE!!!

[statler]

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/08/04/officials_forge_plans_for_ne_rail_network/) - August 4, 2009
Bid for US aid envisions wide N.E. rail system

By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | August 4, 2009

WASHINGTON - Transportation officials from six states sketched their vision for an advanced New England rail network yesterday, seeking federal help for projects that range from repairing a rusted bridge in Haverhill to building a bullet train that would whisk travelers from Boston to Montreal. (oh, please, oh please, oh please!)

Described as the first regionwide passenger rail agenda, the New England system would speed up trains, increase service, and open new commuter lines throughout the region - as well as provide high-speed routes linking New England to Quebec with 110 mile-per-hour trains.

The officials acknowledged they face long odds, with stiff competition from projects proposed by states in the West and Midwest. But they said New England needs an economic boost and a better transportation system, and the best way to jump-start the effort is by using some of the $8 billion set aside for rail projects in the economic stimulus package approved by Congress in February.

?This plan will not only improve mobility and the environment, but also economic growth and development in New England,?? said James A. Aloisi Jr., Massachusetts transportation secretary, who attended a meeting of the six states in Burlington, Vt., where the plan was unveiled.

Officials said just getting the plan down on paper has significant political value and will lay the foundation for future rail construction.

The projected price tag of the Northeast projects totals $35 billion - far more than is available nationwide. Other states also are aiming high. Overall, the government has been deluged with $102 billion in applications, according to the US Department of Transportation.

?It promises to be a very difficult fight, because this is a discretionary program, and there are a lot of regions that are vying for this money,?? said Joseph F. Marie, commissioner of Connecticut?s Department of Transportation. ?While $8 billion sounds like a lot of money, the need exceeds it tenfold. It?s really important to manage expectations.??

Forty states and the District of Columbia have filed 278 applications for the money, which are due later this month and will be awarded in the fall. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and other Obama administration officials have hinted that California, Florida, and the Midwest, whose high-speed rail plans are closer to being ?shovel ready,?? are front-runners to receive much of the funding - Washington?s largest-ever commitment to high-speed rail.

LaHood told the Wall Street Journal in May that California, which has been developing plans for a $40 billion bullet train between San Francisco and Los Angeles for more than a decade, was ?way, way, way, ahead?? of other applicants. California requested $22.3 billion in high-speed rail projects under the stimulus program.

Still, New England officials said they were optimistic that the federal government was keeping an open mind and that at least some of the projects in the regional rail blueprint will make the cut.

?I think at the end of the day New England will get its fair share,?? said Aloisi, who said he had a cordial meeting with LaHood last month to push for the region?s rail plans.

David Cole, commissioner of the Maine Department of Transportation, said that the state had shovel-ready projects that fit the federal guidelines, including a proposal to extend the Downeaster, which runs from Boston to Portland, north to Brunswick.

?The Brunswick project is ready to go. We?re not complacent. It?s not a slam dunk, but we should have a decent shot at funding,?? he said.

The New England plan identifies dozens of other projects, but singles out six as top priorities: raising speeds and running more trains between Springfield and New Haven, where the state of Connecticut hopes to introduce commuter rail; raising speeds and expanding the number of trains on the Downeaster; inaugurating passenger rail between Boston and Concord, N.H.; increasing capacity on the Northeast Corridor in Rhode Island; and improving service to the east and west sides of Vermont. The Vermont plan would return passenger trains to Northampton, Mass., after an absence of several decades.

Several of the proposals are intended to establish connections between train lines and airports in Providence, Hartford, and Manchester, which the federal guidelines say is a plus in deciding grant awards.

New England officials said that even if they don?t win funding this time, the legwork they are doing now could pay dividends later.

The Obama administration has promised that the $8 billion in the stimulus is just a ?down payment?? on a national high-speed rail network.

Congress is considering $4 billion more for high-speed rail in next year?s budget - four times as much as the administration requested - and a draft of long-term federal transportation legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill includes $50 billion more for high-speed rail.

Michael Lewis, the director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, said he was confident that more high-speed rail money would be provided.

?I don?t think this is the end,?? he said. ?Our investment in intercity rail is going to be a long-term commitment. The intercity highway system was built over 40 years.??

?It?s going to be heavy competition,?? Cole said. ?But what we don?t get this round, we?ll continue to pursue.??

[bostonbred]

You want Monreale strip places for the lapp dances which I cannot see because I am not old enough to be a Gentleman!!! But I would be against this if it means more deisle smoke in the BIG TRENCH by Mr Ned F and others of the SEnd.. Spend your stimulation by electrifying a rail. so that the silver bullets are modern, not like old style stinky trains.

[ablarc]

^ LMFAO.

Surely, you're a professional author. How else could you come up with this stuff?

Archy and Mehitabel:

"expression is the need of my soul," declares Archy, who labored as a free-verse poet in an earlier incarnation. At night, alone, he dives furiously on the keys of Don Marquis' typewriter to describe a cockroach's view of the world, rich with cynicism and humor. It's difficult enough to operate the typewriter's return bar to get a fresh line of paper; all of Archy's dispatches are written lowercase, and without punctuation, because he is unable to hit both shift and letter keys to produce a capital letter.

"boss i am disappointed in some of your readers," he writes, weary of having to explain the mechanics of his literary output. " ... they are always interested in technical details when the main question is whether the stuff is literature or not."

I'm glad you've discovered capital letters.

[palindrome]

I wish the new england states would work together more on projects like this. When you think about it, thats 12 senators working to cover an area similar in size of NY state.

[found5dollar]

hey, has anyone found this page yet?
http://www.eot.state.ma.us/recovery/HSR.htm

and look there is a map!
http://www.eot.state.ma.us/recovery/downloads/HSR_expanded_updated%20map.jpg

[vanshnookenraggen]

The fact that they don't plan on building a new ROW through the mountains in western Mass means we will never have a great system like they do in Europe. We are trying to do this on the cheap and we are just going to end up paying more in the future for it.

[Pierce]

The fact that they don't plan on building a new ROW through the mountains in western Mass means we will never have a great system like they do in Europe. We are trying to do this on the cheap and we are just going to end up paying more in the future for it.

Totally.... Check out that "High Speed" stretch of switchbacks through Vermont. It will be going like a bullet [train] through granite [mountains]

As for western Mass, I'm not an engineer but it seems to me they would not even necessarily have to blast a new ROW or tunnels, but rather after springfield run it along (or within) the Pike.... its definitely straight enough, I'm guessing the catch is the slope for the road is too much for the train?

[JohnCostello]

That's a tough climb through the western parts of Westfield, Woronoco, Russell, and Blandford. (Course I was doing 85 on it on Sunday).

[Dan]

The map of High Speed rail routes is too political in my opinion (and by political, I refer to accepting political boundaries, not politics in the sense of Republican vs Democrat).

Case in point: It makes far more sense to connect Pittsburgh to Cleveland via Youngstown and Akron than it does to build a route across the mountains to Philadelphia.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Like I said, they are trying to do this on the cheap by using existing ROWs that were laid down back in the 19th century. I'm all for investing in our rail network but this seems like a political stunt rather than something up there with the Interstate System.

The worst part about it is the government just redefines HSR as faster than 90mph rather than above 150mph like EVERYONE ELSE.

[babbittd]

Documents that should interest this forum. Apologies if they've already been posted, but I didn't see a reference to them in this thread.

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/rail-vision-2050.htm

Vision for the future: U.S. intercity passenger rail network through 2050

Report prepared by the Passenger Rail Working Group for the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in December 2007

http://transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/

Transportation for Tomorrow: Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission Transportation for Tomorrow December 2007

from the first link above:

The 2050 map below is for illustrative purposes only and does not constitute the exact routes that would be included in the passenger rail network by 2050.

http://i36.tinypic.com/29mn1ig.jpg

[ablarc]

^ Unambitious.

[statler]

To take the 'glass half full' POV (as opposed to the popular 'Oh my God we're all going to die of dehydration' POV):

At least we are having this discussion. It wasn't too long ago (say, about a year or so) that the idea of expanding our rail network and adding more high speed lines, would have been laughed out of the Oval Office.

[Justin7]

Wow, it will only take 40 years to turn a shitty rail system into a slightly less shitty rail system?

In 2050 the NE Corridor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BosWash) should be 300+ MPH maglev.

[czsz]

Am I reading these maps wrong or do they act as if the NE Corridor is already perfect and requires zero improvements?

[BarbaricManchurian]

European HSR wasn't nearly as good as I thought it would have been when I rode it, it only went at an average speed of 60 mph (100 kph), not much faster than Amtrak (my ride was Vienna-Dusseldorf). Asian HSR is the way to go, it's a minimum of 150 mph (250 kph) everywhere, with top speeds of 220 mph (350 kph), and 310 mph (500 kph) conventional tracks and maglev in development. At those speeds, air travel between Europe and Asia can even be replaced, though creating a HSR track between the two continents will be quite expensive.

[vanshnookenraggen]

European HSR wasn't nearly as good as I thought it would have been when I rode it, it only went at an average speed of 60 mph (100 kph), not much faster than Amtrak (my ride was Vienna-Dusseldorf). Asian HSR is the way to go, it's a minimum of 150 mph (250 kph) everywhere, with top speeds of 220 mph (350 kph), and 310 mph (500 kph) conventional tracks and maglev in development. At those speeds, air travel between Europe and Asia can even be replaced, though creating a HSR track between the two continents will be quite expensive.

The other thing Europe has is different levels of rail for different budgets and different speeds. That's what America really needs.

[czsz]

European HSR wasn't nearly as good as I thought it would have been when I rode it, it only went at an average speed of 60 mph (100 kph), not much faster than Amtrak (my ride was Vienna-Dusseldorf). Asian HSR is the way to go, it's a minimum of 150 mph (250 kph) everywhere, with top speeds of 220 mph (350 kph), and 310 mph (500 kph) conventional tracks and maglev in development. At those speeds, air travel between Europe and Asia can even be replaced, though creating a HSR track between the two continents will be quite expensive.

Yeah, but it depends where you go. Not every point in Europe is connected by the most rapid HSR (Vienna-Dusseldorf isn't exactly the most high-profile, high priority connection). The Asian HSR networks aren't a continent-wide system, either.

When you can pick any two cities in China and take a 200kph train between them, then tell me Asia's HSR is superior to Europe's on the basis of a Vienna-Dusseldorf run.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Yeah, but it depends where you go. Not every point in Europe is connected by the most rapid HSR (Vienna-Dusseldorf isn't exactly the most high-profile, high priority connection). The Asian HSR networks aren't a continent-wide system, either.

When you can pick any two cities in China and take a 200kph train between them, then tell me Asia's HSR is superior to Europe's on the basis of a Vienna-Dusseldorf run.

That was just one example of the heavily lacking HSR that I found when traveling Europe, in most places not better than Amtrak. In Dusseldorf, I wanted to take a day trip to Paris, but imagine my disappointment when I found the fastest train took 6 hours to reach there, when the distance was only 256 miles (412 km). From Prague to Vienna, the train was not high-speed but was about the same speed as Germany’s “high speed” system in most places, and consequently took forever (6 hours). In almost all cases rail connections between cities in Europe are far below 200kph.

Contrast this with the Asian HSR systems. In Japan, you can reach almost any city in the country from Tokyo in less than 6 hours at an average speed of far greater than 200 kph, so it’s no wonder why it has the world’s most popular HSR, 6x more popular than the 2nd most popular, France (6 billion vs 1 billion rides). In South Korea you can reach from Seoul to Busan in less than 3 hours. In Taiwan you can reach from Taipei to Kaohsiung in 90 minutes. Even all this pales in comparison to China’s new HSR plan. Already there is the world’s fastest HSR from Beijing to Tianjin reducing the travel time for the 75 mile (120 km) trip from 90 minutes to 30 minutes, traveling at a top speed of 220mph (350kph). Many new 150mph (250kph) lines have already opened, such as Shijiazhuang-Taiyuan, Hefei-Wuhan, Wenzhou-Fuzhou, and Wenzhou-Ningbo. This is just a prelude to the thousands of miles of 220mph (350kph) HSR to be opened in the next few years. There is the 665 mile (1070 km) distance between Beijing and Shanghai to be covered with a high-speed line, reducing travel time from 12 hours to 5 hours (actual line distance is longer, I just measured the straight line distance between the two cities). There is the 1222 mile (1967 km) distance to be covered between Beijing and Hong Kong with a high-speed line, reducing travel time from 20 hours to 8 hours. All these awesome developments will make Asian HSR networks a continent-wide system, especially if North Korea decides to go capitalist and if the planned tunnels from China to Taiwan and Korea to Japan will be completed. This is in comparison to European HSR systems, which you all idolize but are just a collection of disjointed, breaking across country lines, occasionally high-speed but usually low-speed “systems” slightly better than Amtrak, not in speed but in frequency and reliability.

[BarbaricManchurian]

The other thing Europe has is different levels of rail for different budgets and different speeds. That's what America really needs.

No, America needs true high-speed rail to cover the large distances on the continent, which will requires a lot of money, investment, foresight, and true vision. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen (except maybe in California), so all we can do is dream.

[KentXie]

Doubt California can do it seeing how the whole state is going down the shit hole.

[BarbaricManchurian]

At least they have a detailed plan and a presumable funding source, nowhere else in the US has even gotten that far.

[vanshnookenraggen]

No, America needs true high-speed rail to cover the large distances on the continent, which will requires a lot of money, investment, foresight, and true vision. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen (except maybe in California), so all we can do is dream.

Considering how much empty space there in in America I still stand by my comment. HSR doesn't make sense, compared to air travel, when talking about long distances like from Chicago to Denver. HSR is only economically feasible where it competes with commuter air travel.

HSR is needed but we also need local rail systems that can serve the people HSR will bypass, better commuter rail systems, and better standard Intercity Rail.

[czsz]

That was just one example of the heavily lacking HSR that I found when traveling Europe, in most places not better than Amtrak. In Dusseldorf, I wanted to take a day trip to Paris, but imagine my disappointment when I found the fastest train took 6 hours to reach there, when the distance was only 256 miles (412 km). From Prague to Vienna, the train was not high-speed but was about the same speed as Germany?s ?high speed? system in most places, and consequently took forever (6 hours). In almost all cases rail connections between cities in Europe are far below 200kph.

All your examples are cross-border routes and illustrate the true weakness of the European system - which is not shitty HSR, but the fact that almost every major high speed line (with exceptions like Thalys and Eurostar in the London-Paris-Amsterdam triangle) is a national network, and HSR is hard to come by in Europe when desiring to cross borders. That goes double for any line crossing into a former Eastern Bloc country.

There's EU new legislation designed to push cross-border HSR that should alleviate these issues soon enough - at least sooner than you'll ever see a tunnel between China and Taiwan, or "North Korea going capitalist".

In the meantime, you should check out the TGV, some of the better ICE lines in Germany, and the aforementioned Thalys and Eurostar before writing off the Continent entirely. And don't forget - just because it's advertised as high speed doesn't make it so. After all, the Mattapan Line on the T is, too.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Considering how much empty space there in in America I still stand by my comment. HSR doesn't make sense, compared to air travel, when talking about long distances like from Chicago to Denver. HSR is only economically feasible where it competes with commuter air travel.

HSR is needed but we also need local rail systems that can serve the people HSR will bypass, better commuter rail systems, and better standard Intercity Rail.

I'm not meaning super-long distance like transcontinental (though I’d like that to be an eventual goal in my dream world), I’m meaning long distance enough to be feasible to compete with air and be faster than car, like Chicago-NY (or Philly), NY-Miami, San Diego – San Francisco (plans already complete), which are longer than comparable lines in Europe and will therefore cost more money. Of course HSR to a minor city may not be economically feasible, but there is history of HSR making a city more of a destination than before (e.g. Seville, after the Madrid-Seville HSR was opened, many more tourists visited). Of course local rail will not be removed, that has not happened anywhere where HSR is built and in fact there are usually different levels of HSR trains that stop at either all stops, some stops, or just the beginning and terminus.

[BarbaricManchurian]

All your examples are cross-border routes and illustrate the true weakness of the European system - which is not shitty HSR, but the fact that almost every major high speed line (with exceptions like Thalys and Eurostar in the London-Paris-Amsterdam triangle) is a national network, and HSR is hard to come by in Europe when desiring to cross borders. That goes double for any line crossing into a former Eastern Bloc country.

True, I know European HSR is good in small sections, but it's not really this mythical standard which we should aspire to. If you want the best, you have to copy from the best and make it better (which Japan and China have done at the beginning of the development of their HSR systems).

There's EU new legislation designed to push cross-border HSR that should alleviate these issues soon enough - at least sooner than you'll ever see a tunnel between China and Taiwan, or "North Korea going capitalist".

Not really, it just makes European rail more free-market, and doesn't actually cause construction of international HSR links to happen, though they will probably happen within time. China-Taiwan tunnel of course won't happen before next year, when this legislation is supposed to be passed, but I consider it likely, of course it's not economically feasible but when there's politics involved the complaints about costs go way down (in this case). And North Korea see-saws between engagement and threats, but they have been slowly moving toward capitalism with some foreign industrial parks and special economic zones.

In the meantime, you should check out the TGV, some of the better ICE lines in Germany, and the aforementioned Thalys and Eurostar before writing off the Continent entirely. And don't forget - just because it's advertised as high speed doesn't make it so. After all, the Mattapan Line on the T is, too.

Yes, I did. In fact, on my trip from Vienna to Dusseldorf it involved a section on the 300km/h ICE between Frankfurt and Cologne, it was fast (though it didn’t seem as thrilling as my 350km/h ride between Beijing and Tianjin because I have already been traveling for 9 hours, vs. the BJ-TJ only being a 30 minute “shuttle”), but not very long. I just thought that since Europe is small geographically, and it had “high-speed” rail, it would be a breeze to travel between different cities. The European rail system doesn’t suck entirely, it may not be fast in most places, but it is frequent and reliable, something that we can learn a lot from.

[Weasel420]

Ladies and Gentleman, we have both lobbyists and momentum.

This is very encouraging news.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/64213-advocates-for-high-speed-rail-lobby-for-more-after-8-billion-in-stimulus#

[bdurden]

What I've been told is that the Tampa to Orlando line (with a stop at Disney) is a favorite among members of the DOT. Not that it doesn't leave room for other proposals but $8 billion for rail, considering the vast proposals, is rather small. My hunch is the Northeast corridor will get a substantial amount to improve Acela but that is about it.

[Weasel420]

The spending bill in the Senate is an additional $1.2 billion in High speed rail funding. The House measure passed a $4 billion measure earlier. Those allocations are in addition to the 8 billion in the stimulus funding... so we're now at $13.2b. Or over 25% of the way to granting all requested funds (in this round of allocations). That is astounding progress for an industry that has had a hard time grabbing a foot hold in the American psyche.

The goal should be to get one line up and running. Once that starts printing cash for it's owners, the rest of the corridors will follow suit and try to get theirs. If that first line is in FLA, then more power to it. We just need one section to get functional to demonstrate it's benefits and the rest will take care of itself.

[palindrome]

Do Tampa and Orlando have any lightrail? Is it a highly traveled corridor?

Basically i am asking is this actually the most deserving corridor to receive money first?

[jass]

Do Tampa and Orlando have any lightrail? Is it a highly traveled corridor?

Basically i am asking is this actually the most deserving corridor to receive money first?

As far as I know, the corridor has very bad amtrak service in which costumers are usually put on ambuses because of extensive delays.

Theyre too far apart of light rail. Tampa does have light rail downtown though (with expansion plans)....and orlando has the monorail.

[bdurden]

The Feds told Florida they would commit the funds only if it links up to the proposed commuter rail system in Orlando. The high speed rail study for Tampa-Orlando has already been done (due to a similar proposal a year ago) which makes it even more appealing to DOT. The major problem I see with their plan is that it travels from downtown Tampa, with a stop in Lakeland, Disney, the Orlando Convention Center area (attractions/hotel district) and the Orlando International Airport (and then on to Miami, future connection). It bypasses downtown Orlando--big long-term mistake.

[palindrome]

Does Disney plan to pay for their stop?

[bdurden]

Yes,

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/orl-high-speed-disney-100209,0,3720794.story

[jass]

The Feds told Florida they would commit the funds only if it links up to the proposed commuter rail system in Orlando. The high speed rail study for Tampa-Orlando has already been done (due to a similar proposal a year ago) which makes it even more appealing to DOT. The major problem I see with their plan is that it travels from downtown Tampa, with a stop in Lakeland, Disney, the Orlando Convention Center area (attractions/hotel district) and the Orlando International Airport (and then on to Miami, future connection). It bypasses downtown Orlando--big long-term mistake.

Orlando has a downtown?

[Lrfox]

I wonder how they plan on weeding out who gets the funding and who doesn't. I know that Southcoast Rail applied for 1.9 billion (also strange that the price jumped overnight from $1.4 to $1.9 billion) of the funds, but there's no way in hell that they get any of it because A) it's not shovel ready (they haven't OFFICIALLY selected a route although they know it's Stoughton), and B) it doesn't come close to meeting the high speed criteria that is required.

[czsz]

What is Southcoast Rail?

Florida high speed rail may be a waste. The culture of driving there might torpedo it - are people really going to drive to downtown Tampa and then take the train to Disney World that often?

Either improve Acela or build something in California; these are by far the most deserving.

[jass]

What is Southcoast Rail?

Florida high speed rail may be a waste. The culture of driving there might torpedo it - are people really going to drive to downtown Tampa and then take the train to Disney World that often?

Either improve Acela or build something in California; these are by far the most deserving.

Id assume the people taking the train to disney would be flying into tampa airport

[czsz]

Why would anyone do that? How many would?

This just seems like a waste of money for the sake of redistributing an insignificant number of people around Florida.

And if it doesn't take off, it'll set a bad precedent for the rest of high-speed rail.

[bdurden]

People taking the train to Disney fly into Orlando International Airport (a stop on the proposed line).

[statler]

Banker & Tradesman (http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/news135643.html) - November 16, 2009
New England States Team Up For High-Speed Rail Funds

Associated Press

Today

Transportation leaders of the six New England states say they're teaming up to boost the region's chances for federal stimulus grants for high-speed commuter rail and freight service.

Top transportation officials from all six states met Thursday in Connecticut and will get together again in February in Portland, Maine.

Joseph Marie, Connecticut's transportation commissioner, says the states want to coordinate strategies to achieve a common goal. And David Cole, Maine's transportation head, says a team approach boosts everyone's chances at winning some of the federal money.

All six states have applied for stimulus grants for regional high-speed rail service, but don't yet know if they'll get the money.

[czsz]

I would rather see the NE corridor states caucusing on this. We don't really need high speed rail to Hartford or Portland - honestly, it would be a waste of resources when upgraded regular rail would serve such destinations just fine. We really do need hypercompetitive NE corridor rail service.

[KentXie]

I wonder how great of an effect will building a High Speed Line on the NE corridor have on the smaller cities such as Portland, Hartford, Providence, etc etc. We all know what happened to Chicago when the trains came. Would it cause a boom?

[jass]

I wonder how great of an effect will building a High Speed Line on the NE corridor have on the smaller cities such as Portland, Hartford, Providence, etc etc. We all know what happened to Chicago when the trains came. Would it cause a boom?

Probably not for providence.... the best route would be the inland one.

[bdurden]

I would rather see the NE corridor states caucusing on this. We don't really need high speed rail to Hartford or Portland - honestly, it would be a waste of resources when upgraded regular rail would serve such destinations just fine. We really do need hypercompetitive NE corridor rail service.

I'm not so sure about Hartford, but a quick, easy connection between Boston and Manchester/Portsmouth/Portland would have a great impact on the region.

[czsz]

^ You could achieve that with nonstop or limited regular trains.

You do not need to invest in a 200km/h train for the route between Boston and Portsmouth.

[bdurden]

It would sure make the morning commute a bit more pleasant if commuting from the North into Boston, or commuting from Boston to Maine during the summer months. I like the idea and see the benefits, both on quality of life and economic potential. This sort of thing is all over Europe, and at even shorter distances.

I agree that the NE corridor should be improved and upgraded as well.

[czsz]

Nowhere in Europe allocates trains that fast to distances that small.

[bdurden]

^Yes, HSR is in Europe at smaller distances. The LGV, the ICE -- two examples.

[czsz]

Sorry, how far is it from Boston to Portsmouth? Well under two hours? There might be ICE trains that stop at intervals that far apart, but there are no point to point HSR lines that are that distance and that don't stretch beyond any further.

I mean, it's a question of resources. Yes, it would be great to have HSR to everywhere. But I'd rather it connect major cities first.

[bdurden]

Sure, and if it were a national service funded and connected by the national government, that would play out just fine. I wish it were. It isn't, and if this region is going to push forward with HSR then I am all for it. I'm not sure I agree that connecting the bigger cities first is even the best approach. Interconnectivity between regional outposts makes a lot of sense in getting Americans on board with rail.

[Roxxma]

Nowhere in Europe allocates trains that fast to distances that small.

Nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg-Munich_high-speed_rail_line)?

[BarbaricManchurian]

Nowhere in Europe allocates trains that fast to distances that small.

Yup, Europe is the perfect model for everything! :rolleyes:

[GW2500]

Any idea how much a hsr ticket from Boston to Portsmouth would cost? I don't see Americans dropping too much cash for a train ride, especially if they were to be doing it for a daily commute.

[Justin7]

Any idea how much a hsr ticket from Boston to Portsmouth would cost? I don't see Americans dropping too much cash for a train ride, especially if they were to be doing it for a daily commute.

Boston to Providence starts at $30 on Acela (I think).

[czsz]

Nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg-Munich_high-speed_rail_line)?

Munich -> Nuremburg = 171km

Boston -> Portsmouth = 83km

Nuremburg = 500,000 people

Portsmouth = 20,000 people, smaller than most suburbs of Boston

Yup, Europe is the perfect model for everything!

That's not the point. My argument is this: Europe is generally more willing to build and operate HSR. If Europe can't justify building an HSR at that distance, the US certainly can't.

Boston to Providence starts at $30 on Acela (I think).

Keep in mind the only reason that Acela even touches Providence is because it happens to be between Boston and New York. You'd have to have a higher price to fund a rail link that was solely between Boston and a small city like Portsmouth, or it would have to be far more subsidized than Acela, which isn't likely.

[bdurden]

Munich -> Nuremburg = 171km

Boston -> Portsmouth = 83km

Nuremburg = 500,000 people

Portsmouth = 20,000 people, smaller than most suburbs of Boston



Boston -> Portland, ME 172km

That was the original point. A stop in Portsmouth or Manchester would only make sense along such a route.

[JohnAKeith]

Last paragraph is relevant:

Senate hopeful pitches free T for all (http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20091120senate_hopeful_pitches_free_t_for_all/)
Dave Wedge, Boston Herald

Straphangers would get a free ride and the T would get a massive federal bailout under a transportation plan being floated by Republican Senate hopeful Jack E. Robinson.

?(The government) put $185 billion into (troubled lender) AIG. That would fund the T for 40 years,? Robinson said yesterday. ?There is money to be used smartly and intelligently.?

Robinson, who is running against state Sen. Scott Brown for the GOP nomination in the race for the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy?s vacant seat, is suggesting the MBTA bailout as part of a proposal to make all public transportation nationwide free. Robinson aides said there are cities in Washington and Oregon that offer free public transit.

Robinson trumpeted the plan last night at the Park Street MBTA station, much to the delight of subway riders.

?I think that?s awesome,? 33-year-old commuter Jason Harris of Boston said. ?Free is great.?

Robinson said the plan could work if the feds kicked in the $453 million a year the T rakes in from fares. In addition to saving commuters money, Robinson said the plan would help the environment by getting more cars off highways.

Robinson?s proposal also calls for a $3 billion bullet train from Springfield to Boston that would travel at 180 mph and run alongside the Mass Pike.

[czsz]

Can you even connect those three cities with one linear route? I think you're talking about justifying two lines at least.

And, BTW, the Munich-Nuremburg line still serves way more people than a line connecting all those northern New England cities would. The populations of Portsmouth, Manchester, and Portland combined don't equal Nuremburg's, let alone the other cities (like Ingolstadt, which is around the size of Manchester) along the German route.

[Tenenbaumster]

The usability of High Speed Rail is not a matter of distance or population. It hinges on whether or not it provides a service that is accessible and convenient to those who would actually use it. New England is blessed that it's a hub that centers around Boston. Satellite cities like Portland, Providence, and Worcester can really benefit from this style when they are provided with the services needed to thrive.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Can you even connect those three cities with one linear route? I think you're talking about justifying two lines at least.

And, BTW, the Munich-Nuremburg line still serves way more people than a line connecting all those northern New England cities would. The populations of Portsmouth, Manchester, and Portland combined don't equal Nuremburg's, let alone the other cities (like Ingolstadt, which is around the size of Manchester) along the German route.

Umm, yes, they're in a straight line! This line wouldn't get enough service to justify getting the highest speed rail service (350 kph, 220 mph) in a country that cares about it, but as a secondary line, would still get a decent speed considered to be high speed (250 kph, 150 mph).

[czsz]

Portsmouth and Portland could be on a linear route from Boston, but Manchester could not, unless it somehow makes sense for the line to make a 50mi detour west and then another 50mi return to the coast.

http://www.nhantiquealley.com/images/regionalMap.gif

[Lrfox]

I think High Speed Rail to Portland makes sense. It makes more sense for the rail to have a stop in Portsmouth given that it's on a direct line. Portland only has 63,000 people but it's the principal city of a metro area of about 200,000 (513,000 if you consider the entire area from Kittery to Brunswick part of "Metro Portland"... I don't). Right now the Downeaster (which has teetered on the brink of extinction) has something like 21% regular commuters which is low. A high speed rail line would absolutely increase that number. Portsmouth, similar to Portland, is the seat of an area with more than its tiny "city" population would show. The towns surrounding it are relatively populated as well. This would be an effective route (Manchester would have to deal with a regular train to Boston or a spur into Portsmouth... it doesn't make sense to loop the route around like that).

It would be MOST effective if there were a North/South rail link in Boston and this could be a continuation of the Acela to New York. However, I really don't think the NSRL is feasible or even necessary (I'd much rather see a surface trolly or tram connection to N/S Station).

Even then, I think you'd find that many in Maine and NH would be fiercely opposed to high speed rail. Portland and Portsmouth have some real NIMBY attitudes toward development. People in those areas want them to continue to remain small town-y, cute and rural. There is a HUGE desire to be separate and different from Boston. Many of them (I've had discussions with people like this while living there) feel that a high speed connection to Boston will make them an undeniable part of metro Boston (Portland, and Portsmouth to a degree, understandably love that they can claim some sort of independence from Boston... an "independent Portland" subculture is very large up there). Furthermore, they feel that the connection to Boston will trigger some more suburban development which they seek to avoid because it will take away from their serene woodsy feel. Most people I know in the Portland area, anyway, are entirely content with the Downeaster as-is. They don't feel that they want or need a high speed train. Unlike Springfield, they want to be as separate from Boston as possible (really, "as is convenient"... they still love the Downeaster). In addition, in New Hampshire, in particular, there are a LOT of people who live in these areas who feel that government subsidized public transit is an attack on their personal freedoms. For as nice as Portsmouth and Portland are, they are small enough to really fringe on some rural areas where public transit is a simple government burden for those people who live in cities. You'd be hard-pressed to find too many people up there who would want see "their tax dollars wasted" on some fancy-shmancy "train."

[czsz]

Yeah, I totally forgot about the backwoods libertarian impediment. I canvassed for Obama in rural New Hampshire and it was downright scary at times..."No Trespassing, Shoot on Sight" signs, mailboxes shaped like guns, that kind of thing. Some of the addresses were long dirt driveways that led to what seemed like communes filled with guys in flannel jackets who said they would never vote for anyone because government as a concept was alien to them.

They also seem to have an acute technophobia up there. I met a friendly guy who had developed solar cars back in the 70s and said that when he'd tested them on the roads around town that some old women had called the police to report UFO sightings.

Anyway they're all happy to have government subsidized highways for their pickups, but them trains is evil.

[bdurden]

It appears that Florida is paving the way to secure stimulus funds for High Speed Rail:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-sunrail-senate-20091208,0,3304424.story

Note: This legislation actually approves a commuter rail system for the Orlando metro which was twice previously rejected in the House Senate. FDOT said Florida's only chance at securing stimulus funds for HSR was to move forward on intercity rail, which it has now done.

[palindrome]

from the article:


The notion was that the authority would also improve the state's bid for high-speed rail. Florida is seeking $2.6 billion. Federal officials are sifting through 45 requests from 24 states seeking a total of $50 billion for high-speed trains.



$50B couldn't be found in a stimulus package that cost over $700B? I wonder how much went to constructing highways. Although, the CA high speed rail is projected to cost something like $45B alone.

Good for Orlando though. I still don't think Florida should receive priority over other high speed rails, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. It also shouldn't be a zero sum game and we should be building multiple lines across the country. Now, if they could spur some development and create denser downtowns and perhaps some light rail then they should be fully funded.

[czsz]

I wonder how much went to constructing highways.

To be fair a lot of the existing roads in the country are falling apart. I want HSR, but not at the expense of another Minneapolis bridge collapse.

[palindrome]

That is certainly true.

What really got me about that disaster was something like a week before that disaster happened, Minneapolis approved a new tax increase to pay for a new twins stadium.

[statler]

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/12/17/rail_stimulus_funds_to_bypass_northeast/) - Dec 17, 2009
Rail stimulus funds to bypass Northeast
Environmental rules will keep states from pursuing $8 billion

By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | December 17, 2009

WASHINGTON - The railroad tracks from Boston to Washington - the busiest rail artery in the nation, and one that also carries America?s only high-speed train, the Acela - have been virtually shut out of $8 billion worth of federal stimulus money set aside for high-speed rail projects because of a strict environmental review required by the Obama administration.

Because such a review would take years, states along the Northeast rail corridor are not able to pursue stimulus money for a variety of crucial upgrades.

The projects, aimed at increasing speeds, range from bridge replacements in Connecticut to new overhead wires in New Jersey. They would cut the Acela?s travel time from Boston to New York by almost 30 minutes, and from Boston to Washington by a full hour.

When the first grants are announced in January, most of the money - and accompanying jobs - is expected to go to railroad projects in California and the Midwest, which currently have no high-speed trains but are trying to establish service for the first time.

?It?s frustrating,?? said Yoav Hagler, a planner at the Regional Plan Association in New York, a nonprofit regional planning group in New York.

?We have a thriving intercity passenger market between our major cities and we need major investment in the corridor, so it?s a little strange to put that need in the same category as these new programs that are just applying and trying to build a market now,?? he said.

Northeastern states are seeking some stimulus money for separate rail projects within their borders, such as the Massachusetts proposal to add commuter rail from Fall River and New Bedford to Boston. But travelers on the Acela will miss out on the promise of a faster train and will have to continue waiting for the day when the Northeast route matches the performance of European and Japanese lines.

The obstacle was a decision this year by the Federal Railroad Administration that, before any major upgrades could proceed, a comprehensive environmental review would have to be conducted on the entire 457-mile railroad.

Longstanding rules require such environmental studies - even if the heavily traveled corridor already carries high-speed trains, said Mark Yachmetz, associate administrator for railroad development at the FRA. Upgrading the Acela route to reduce travel times would take the program to ?the next level, beyond what they have been planning for up to now,?? and requiring more study, he said.

The FRA itself would be in charge of conducting the review. Although there is no timetable for completing it, similar studies in the past have taken years.

Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and a major backer of high-speed rail, said in a written statement that in future rounds of funding he would work to ?ensure that any procedural obstacles are either removed or overcome to provide for an outcome where the corridor gets all the resources it needs.??

?Ensuring that the Northeast Corridor can access federal funding available to other regions is critical to moving us towards a rail system that is up to par with the high-tech rail systems across the globe,?? he said.

Amtrak has identified $11.8 billion in upgrades to reduce travel times on the corridor. In addition to better overhead electric supplies and stronger bridges, it includes straightening sections of curvy track and upgrading signaling systems. Without the review mandated by FRA, those plans will sit on the shelf for now, although states were able to apply for a few smaller grants under a separate part of the high-speed program.

The Obama administration, which has embraced high-speed rail as a flagship effort in the stimulus and boasts of Vice President Joe Biden?s long history as an Amtrak commuter, has framed the $8 billion as only the first step in the creation of a nationwide network.

Congress voted recently to provide another $2.5 billion for high-speed rail next year, meaning states that miss out in January will have at least one more chance to apply. But it may be difficult to complete a full environmental review of the Northeast railroad corridor in time for that money, either. A spokesman for Amtrak, Cliff Black, said the last such review for the Corridor took about three years in the mid-1990s, and covered only the stretch between New Haven and Boston.

Kevin Brubaker, deputy director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago, said state governments nationwide were surprised by the requirements, but that some were able to quickly complete reviews - a practical impossibility for the Northeast region. Its railroad corridor passes through eight states plus the District of Columbia and shares the tracks with seven commuter rail agencies, including the MBTA.

?People were caught short by the environmental requirements that FRA imposed,?? said Brubaker, who is involved with the Midwest effort. Brubaker said that in the past, states seeking to upgrade existing rail routes, rather than building a new one, had been subjected to a lower standard of environmental review.

When the stimulus turned FRA almost overnight from a little-known regulator to the custodian of billions of dollars in stimulus money, he said, the agency adopted a conservative reading of federal law mandating environmental reviews.

?They were understaffed and ill-equipped and they have been cautious,?? he said.

At the urging of lawmakers from the Northeast, Congress voted recently to give the railroad agency $50 million to help states plan for high-speed rail, which could include work on environmental reviews.

The bad news for the Northeast is expected to translate to a windfall for other parts of the country. In the past, critics of rail spending have argued that the Northeast corridor soaked up too much federal transportation funding; the Government Accountability Office estimated in March that since 1990, the corridor had received $3.1 billion - about 75 percent of all federal funds for high-speed rail related projects in that period.

Rob McCulloch, a transportation advocate for Environment America, said that ending that imbalance might have the effect of broadening the political constituency for rail, which would ultimately benefit the region.

But by the same token, he said, giving money to other regions inexperienced at big passenger rail projects could mean delays at putting people to work and getting results - ostensibly the purpose of the stimulus.

?It actually would probably go a lot further in the Northeast,?? McCulloch said. ?But the idea is to create a nationwide network sooner rather than later.??

[Shepard]

Goodbye, future of rail. Nobody is going to take a high speed train from one suburbsprawl to another. Ridership will depend on density and mass transit in urban areas it serves. The Northeast is one of only two or three places in the country where HSR makes sense and its investment can be justified - when we build out Houston-Nashville and nobody rides it, the country's appetite for this typ of boondoggle will dwindle.

[Ron Newman]

I don't agree. While Acela is not ideal, I'd rather see the money spent to add high-speed service where it isn't now (for instance, LA-SF) than to further concentrate the service in our region.

[ablarc]

Goodbye, future of rail. Nobody is going to take a high speed train from one suburbsprawl to another. Ridership will depend on density and mass transit in urban areas it serves. The Northeast is one of only two or three places in the country where HSR makes sense and its investment can be justified - when we build out Houston-Nashville and nobody rides it, the country's appetite for this typ of boondoggle will dwindle.
You need Zipcar rental at major train stations. No different from an airport, but more hassle-free and comfortable

[Shepard]

I'm not denying that it's more comfortable and (for now) more hassle-free than flying. But what I am suggesting is that with the exception of the Northeast and a few other areas of the country, HSR is a solution in search of a problem.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I don't agree. While Acela is not ideal, I'd rather see the money spent to add high-speed service where it isn't now (for instance, LA-SF) than to further concentrate the service in our region.

I have to agree with Ron. The Northeast Corridor is already served by a myriad of reliable, affordable, and pretty quick transportation alternatives. The same cannot be said for most of the rest of the nation.

[GW2500]

Cali highspeed rail is a great idea. Other areas: Michigan/Ohio/Chicago/Wisonsin/Minn
connect the Texas cities
Maybe even one from Atl to Miami

[Shepard]

I have to agree with Ron. The Northeast Corridor is already served by a myriad of reliable, affordable, and pretty quick transportation alternatives. The same cannot be said for most of the rest of the nation.

I'm not disagreeing with any of you - in principle. But in practice, this investment needs to be concentrated. Diffuse this investment and you'll get a whole lot of ill-maintained rails to nowhere that transport nobody. And the reason this is important is that this stimulus wave will set the tenor for how HSR is received nationwide. Build these railstumps and nobody will clamor for it. Build one sparking system with concentrated investment, and you'll create the enthusiasm this really needs (an enthusiasm which must go beyond governors chasing ephemeral stimulusdough).

Why the Northeast? Because this is where the airline shuttle is economically viable - a place where people routinely daydrip and city-hop for travel and business. Maybe this pattern exists in a few other places, but I would be surprised if it did between Houston and Dallas, or Atlanta and Miami. I'm not even sure about California.

Concentrate the investment. Build a sparking result that moves people and benefits the region economically. That's how to build a broad base of real HSR enthusiasm.

[Ron Newman]

Lots of people fly between the LA area and the SF/Oakland/San Jose area. Whole regional airlines once existed just to serve these routes (AirCal and PSA). If I had the power to add high-speed rail to any single corridor in the USA, I'd pick this one.

[bdurden]

I'm not disagreeing with any of you - in principle. But in practice, this investment needs to be concentrated. Diffuse this investment and you'll get a whole lot of ill-maintained rails to nowhere that transport nobody. And the reason this is important is that this stimulus wave will set the tenor for how HSR is received nationwide. Build these railstumps and nobody will clamor for it. Build one sparking system with concentrated investment, and you'll create the enthusiasm this really needs (an enthusiasm which must go beyond governors chasing ephemeral stimulusdough).

Why the Northeast? Because this is where the airline shuttle is economically viable - a place where people routinely daydrip and city-hop for travel and business. Maybe this pattern exists in a few other places, but I would be surprised if it did between Houston and Dallas, or Atlanta and Miami. I'm not even sure about California.

Concentrate the investment. Build a sparking result that moves people and benefits the region economically. That's how to build a broad base of real HSR enthusiasm.

Just playing devil's advocate here:

If you concentrate on one area, the rest feel left out and would likely not support future expansion programs. As has already been mentioned, the Northeast corridor is already pretty well served by mass transit alternatives and other regions are totally bottlenecked. To get trains up and running in less served regions will fuel a renewed interest in mass transit.

[Shepard]

the Northeast corridor is already pretty well served

I'm assuming many of you have used Acela, in which case you know that it's neither HSR nor does it well-serve everyone in the region - which is why the shuttle flights are still full.

Edit: Acela = Silver Line of HSR.

[Ron Newman]

Sure, Acela is not ideal but it is much better than most of the country has. There is only one slow train a day between densely populated SF and LA, for instance. The only parts of the US with reasonably frequent train service now are the LA-San Diego corridor and some regional routes radiating out from Chicago.

(And by the way, LA-SD is a huge success and proves that rail can be made to work well in what many people would consider to be 'sprawl'. it has much more service now than before Amtrak took over in 1971.)

[czsz]

A couple nights ago Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was on the Daily Show and specifically promised Jon Stewart that the NEC would be "fixed up" along with the new HSR routes. So much for that.

If they can't use the stimulus money to upgrade the tracks, how about expanding the number of trains? Why is the last Amtrak train (never mind the Acela) from New York to Boston on a Friday night at 7:30!? All these trains are packed, too. And...

the shuttle flights are still full

Which puzzles me. The last decade has seen the expansion of NEC transportation options go from the air shuttles to Acela to literally a dozen or more private bus lines between Boston and NY alone. Has there just been a phenomenal increase in passenger load in the Northeast? How are all these things so busy?

[Roxxma]

The only parts of the US with reasonably frequent train service now are the LA-San Diego corridor and some regional routes radiating out from Chicago.

Not to mention the Bay Area-Sacramento-Bakersfield corridor services (trains to and from Bakersfield are connected by Amtrak California buses to LA's Union Station -not 100% ideal, but it worked pretty well when I took it) and the Vancouver, BC to Eugene OR corridor which sees frequent service between Seattle and Portland...

[czsz]

Wait, LA isn't even connected to SF by rail? WTF!?

[Ron Newman]

LA is connected to Oakland, and you can transfer at San Jose to a local Caltrain that runs to San Francisco. However, LA-San Jose-Oakland is just one train daily (which continues north to Oregon and Washington).

[jass]

Which puzzles me. The last decade has seen the expansion of NEC transportation options go from the air shuttles to Acela to literally a dozen or more private bus lines between Boston and NY alone. Has there just been a phenomenal increase in passenger load in the Northeast? How are all these things so busy?

A lot of people taking the shuttles are on connecting flights. If youre going Boston-Dallas, and HAVE to connect in NYC because theres no direct flight...youll take the shuttle. No way youre driving or training to NYC to get to their airport.

[czsz]

Okay, but that doesn't explain how, with a huge variety of new transportation options, everything is still full.

[jass]

Okay, but that doesn't explain how, with a huge variety of new transportation options, everything is still full.

Well, the bus lines might have generated a lot of demand. Suddenly, people can take a day trip to NYC for $2-30 round trip, when in the past doing so would never be an option.

[Justin7]

17% of the US population lives on just 2% of the country's land along a 400 mile long reasonably straight line from Washington to Boston. To not use a fair portion of this investment on the NE corridor is foolish.

[blade_bltz]

Wait, LA isn't even connected to SF by rail? WTF!?

Yes, the San Joaquin route starts at Jack London Square, Oakland (bout a mile walk from BART), then goes north hugging the Bay to avoid the foothills, east to Stockton, and then south through the valley until Bakersfield, where as Roxxma mentioned, you've got to switch to a bus (LA traffic woohoo!!) All told, it's a pretty ridiculous journey (probably 9 or 10 hours on a good day), and that's just counting the ride from Oakland. Factor in the additional Amtrak bus/BART from elsewhere in the Bay and it gets more inconvenient. I've only gone as far as Fresno, which is minimum 5 hours by train, but once again, getting to Jack London Square is a hassle. It's ridiculous that neither SF nor SF has a major regional train station.

I haven't really kept up with this HSR talk, but looking cursorily at these plans I just can't fathom having high speed rail run through the backyards of Atherton and Menlo Park, to say nothing of a stop at Palo Alto!!! The NIMBYs must be fighting this tooth and nail. No doubt they want to push this whole thing over to the East Bay. *noses up*

Also, Ron, what is this once-a-day service from LA-SJ-Oakland you speak of? I've never heard of San Jose being directly connected by rail to Southern California.

[bdurden]

17% of the US population lives on just 2% of the country's land along a 400 mile long reasonably straight line from Washington to Boston. To not use a fair portion of this investment on the NE corridor is foolish.

12% of the population lives in California (SF to LA=348 miles).

[Ron Newman]

Also, Ron, what is this once-a-day service from LA-SJ-Oakland you speak of? I've never heard of San Jose being directly connected by rail to Southern California.

Amtrak's Coast Starlight (http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Route_C/1241245648567/1237405732511)

[jass]

Amtrak's Coast Starlight (http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Route_C/1241245648567/1237405732511)

Also known as the star late, where 8 hour delays are common, and a 12 hour delay is not a surprise!

[czsz]

I knew about the lack of connection between SF and Oakland due to the Bay...the ridiculous thing to me is the 100 mile bus ride from Bakersfield to LA!

[blade_bltz]

If Amtrak already runs trains from San Jose to Oakland..why don't they start the San Joaquin service from Diridon?!?1

Did they just assume BART was always "just around the corner"?

[Shepard]

I can always count on good ol' Danny Grabauskas to back me up

The news today that the Northeast Corridor (think your Amtrak trip from Boston to New York to Washington DC) would be shut out of the first round of high-speed rail funding is very bad news and a missed opportunity. And not just bad news for the Northeast Corridor, though certainly that, but for the future of high-speed rail itself...

... Nothing breeds success like success. Nothing. And while we can recognize the fact that as a region we?ve benefited more than other areas of the country in terms of dollars spent is fine. But let?s be clear, spending the money the way proposed makes this is a national jobs bill -- not a national transportation bill. Sound national transportation planning would have dictated some additional investment now in the only example we have of effective high-ish speed rail in the US.

http://www.cwunbound.org/2009/12/northeast-corridor-shut-out-of-highspeed-rail-funds.html

If only I were as eloquent as Dan, I would've summarized my argument on the previous page as "nothing breeds success like success." Quod erat demonstratum...

[unterbau]

Oddly, he was referring to the Mattapan High Speed Line

[Shepard]

Haha, nice.

[Justin7]

17% of the US population lives on just 2% of the country's land along a 400 mile long reasonably straight line from Washington to Boston. To not use a fair portion of this investment on the NE corridor is foolish.

12% of the population lives in California (SF to LA=348 miles).

Does 12% of the population live in the combined LA and SF areas? Otherwise the comparison doesn't really make sense.

Not to say LA and SF shouldn't be connected by high speed rail.

[blade_bltz]

The route is not simply SF to LA, as if there's nothing in between (or to the side). The Central Valley alone is already the size of Massachusetts (and rapidly growing). The HSR route hits all the major population centers:

LA
Inland Empire (stop at Riverside)
San Diego
Central Valley
Sacramento
Bay Area

Outside of that, you don't have much in the way of people. The hypothetical state of Jefferson only has a population of 400k! "Upstate" California as a whole has a population of 1.6 million (out of 37), and a large chunk of that falls under the Sacramento metro anyway. I suppose Santa Barbara County would be outside the scope of HSR as well, but again, that's only 400k people.

[BarbaricManchurian]

360? panoramic aerial view of 380km/h Wuhan-Guangzhou High-Speed Rail:

Qingyuan Station (Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.yaohua2000.org/2009/20091223/wuguang.kmz&ll=23.70,113.13&t=h&z=14))
http://www.nddaily.com/multimedianews/360/200912/t20091222_1102418.shtml
http://umedia.nddaily.com/pano360/20091222qingyuan.swf

Shaoguan Station (Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.yaohua2000.org/2009/20091223/wuguang.kmz&ll=24.74,113.50&t=h&z=14))
http://www.nddaily.com/multimedianews/360/200912/t20091222_1102417.shtml
http://umedia.nddaily.com/pano360/20091222jingzhujiaohui.swf

Dawoshan Tunnel (Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.yaohua2000.org/2009/20091223/wuguang.kmz&ll=23.53,113.14&t=h&z=14))
http://www.nddaily.com/multimedianews/360/200912/t20091222_1102416.shtml
http://umedia.nddaily.com/pano360/20091222qingyuanduan.swf

North River (Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.yaohua2000.org/2009/20091223/wuguang.kmz&ll=24.05,113.30&t=h&z=14))
http://www.nddaily.com/multimedianews/360/200912/t20091222_1102415.shtml
http://umedia.nddaily.com/pano360/20091222beijing.swf

Guangzhou South Station (Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.yaohua2000.org/2009/20091223/wuguang.kmz&ll=22.99,113.26&t=h&z=14))
http://www.nddaily.com/multimedianews/360/200912/t20091222_1102409.shtml
http://umedia.nddaily.com/pano360/20091222guangzhounanzhan.swf

Simply amazing.

[vanshnookenraggen]

One thing people overlook when comparing Europe/Asian HSR to America is that because land use patterns are different there is must more space to build new ROWs. The last time America had that much free space we used it for highways and now how suburban sprawl to contend with. This is the major reason upgrading the Northeast Corridor to full HSR is so expensive.

Look at those European/Asian lines and they go through a lot of country side. In the cities it is easy to use older rail ROWs or along new highways.

[bdurden]

Highway expansion cut right through cities and neighborhoods, some never recovered.

[BarbaricManchurian]

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/6009/fastest.png

A local comparison to this speed would be traveling between Boston and NYC in one hour. 3.5x as fast as Acela. 2x as fast as European HSR. So the lower limit to travel time is near-limitless, we just need the political willpower to actually get this done (and not confuse top speed with average speed, we need a service between Boston and NYC without stopping). I know, its very expensive, but it sure as hell will be worth it. 2.5 hours between Boston and DC, I would not want to miss that train :)

[czsz]

political willpower to actually get this done

I'm just not sure laying track on a straighter route optimized for trains of that speed is possible in the crowded NEC. Try as we might, I don't think we're going to be able to summon the same political willpower of an authoritarian country where the concept of private property is shaky.

[palindrome]

Looks like Orlando>Tampa is going to be the first winner. Good for them, but there needs to be a stop in downtown orlando.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2010/01/25/the-first-winner/

[kennedy]

But as Yonah Freemark observed in July, the price of Florida's high-speed rail victory may be paid over time by residents of the Tampa-Orlando area. Without a link to downtown Orlando, the rail network's potential to promote dense, mixed-use development near its various stations could be significantly diminished.

How true.

[palindrome]

At least it appears there is a connection to the orlando airport.

[bdurden]

The route is Orlando International Airport --> International Drive (convention center area) --> Disney/Celebration --> Lakeland --> Tampa/Ybor City

[ablarc]

Moscow to St. Petersburg is a 404-mile ride. The route?s been busy since Czarist times, linking Russia?s versions of New York and Chicago (which --at 810 miles?lie twice as far apart).

Last December, to considerable fanfare, the Moscow-St. Petersburg run acquired its first ?true? high-speed service (?Sapsan?), courtesy of Siemens rolling stock and extensive track upgrades. This cut the route?s fastest time from 4h30m (89.7 mph avg.) to 3h45m (107.7 mph avg.).

As on a plane, there are no intermediate stops on two out of the three Sapsan runs. The new train operates at 125 mph on the better stretches of track, but mostly it doesn?t. It?s like Acela --almost high speed. But no matter: on this route, the trains cream the planes in passenger volume.

But not for the reason you think.

If you consult a train schedule, you?ll find a paltry handful of these fast daytime trains, with service gaps of three hours or more. Where are the trains?

As you scroll down, the answer unfolds: the great majority of the trains on this busy route leave in the evening, and they take an unhurried eight hours or more to make the non-stop trip. That?s because the capitalists who own these trains want you to have a good night?s sleep.

And they want you to spend plenty on blinis and vodka ?to say nothing of a great breakfast.

The latest of these trains is hyperbolically named the Grand Express (http://grandexpress.ru/en/); it may be grand, but it?s no express; it takes its time (8h55m) to waft you between the two cities at a languid average of 45.3 mph. Folks who have also taken the hour-shorter Red Arrow prefer the slower Grand Express for the additional hour of sleep.

Actually, the perfect length of an overnight train trip for business purposes is not nine hours, but thirteen. If you depart at 6pm, you can have a couple of drinks in the club car, a laid-back three-course meal heavy on the comfort food, a couple more drinks in the club car, and a nice little nightcap while you enjoy the flat screen TV in your cabin ?or the free WiFi.

(In Russia, a lady of negotiable virtue may even offer to join you for an hour.)

Your scheduled time of arrival is 7am, though most trains arrive about a half-hour early. Plenty of time for a relaxed, cholesterol-laden breakfast before the big meeting ?and anyway, they don?t actually kick you off the train until 9am.

At an average speed of 64.8mph, the new Twenty-First Century Limited could get you reliably from New York to Chicago in exactly 12-1/2 hours. The reason? The freight lines have agreed to give it track priority. No more ridiculous eight-hour delays.

But that?s not all! 12-1/2 hour non-stop trips can also be taken linking Chicago with Philadelphia (790 miles @ 63.2mph), Washington 710 miles @56.8mph), while thirteen-hour travel times would take you from Chicago to Boston (984 miles @ 75.7mph), New Orleans (920 miles @ 70.8mph), and Montreal (850 miles @ 65.4mph).

It?s not high speed, so guess how much money has been spent on upgrading track or locomotion?

We can buy the sleeping, dining and club cars from Russia.

(The ladies are optional.)

.

[Ron Newman]

Amtrak (and Penn Central before that) used to offer an overnight 'Executive Sleeper' train between Washington DC and NYC. This was done not by running an extra-slow train, but rather by having a sleeper car sit on a siding ready for boarding in the evening. In the middle of the night, a train would pick up the sleeper car and deliver it to the other endpoint in time for morning coffee.

[ablarc]

^ Interesting story, but a largely pointless train. New York and Washington are too close for any kind of sleeper to make sense.

[Ron Newman]

Not so much a 'train' as an extra car that was added to or dropped from an already-existing train (the 'Night Owl' Boston-Washington sleeper).

Now that I'm remembering it better: the southbound Night Owl picked up this sleeper car at NY Penn Station in the wee hours of the early morning. The northbound train dropped off the sleeper car during the same wee hours (and its occupants could remain in it until 8:30 am or so).

[bostonbred]

(In Russia, a lady of negotiable virtue may even offer to join you for an hour.)

We can buy the sleeping, dining and club cars from Russia.

(The ladies are optional.)



Iam asking OLD unkle. He saying DIFFERENt guage so it not fit good.

[kennedy]

Ablarc, your (or the Russians') idea certainly seems splendid. Take the executive club out of the airport and put it on the plane. How much do you supposed a 12-13 hour overnight trip like this would cost? Of course, it would vary depending on the luxury, but if I can fly from CHI to NYC in 2-3 hours, for a similar amount of money, why wouldn't I do it?

Your solution brings back the romantic idea of rail travel (it still exists, up in B.C. you can ride around for days with a bunch of old people, or so I hear). I like that a lot. The evening you described seems awfully pleasant, especially compared to the hassle airports present.

The airline industry could learn a lot from railroads, and vice versa.

[ablarc]

Iam asking OLD unkle. He saying DIFFERENt guage so it not fit good.
Different gauge is correct (almost a foot wider in Russia). A rolling stock manufacturer can build to any gauge; wouldn't last long in the marketplace if he couldn't.

[ablarc]

He saying DIFFERENt guage so it not fit good.
Oh ... it occurs to me you might not be talking about the fit of the trains!

[ablarc]

How much do you suppose a 12-13 hour overnight trip like this would cost?
Russia?s capitalists have set the price at about $200. It seems wildly successful. And think how much additional revenue the dining and club cars bring in. The airlines are all but dead in the water on this route ?but for exactly the opposite reason why they?re dead on the Madrid-Barcelona route, where the trains are lightning-fast. Whether Spain or Russia, you can be sure that the train operators will not examine your anus for explosives ?though both countries have big Muslim populations.

Of course, it would vary depending on the luxury, but if I can fly from CHI to NYC in 2-3 hours, for a similar amount of money, why wouldn't I do it?
Not certain what your question is here, but if it?s ?why take the train??, the answer is you save the cost of at least one and maybe two nights in a hotel, you?re refreshed, you?ve had a pleasant adventure, and no one has made you get to the airport 90 minutes early to have your underwear inspected. Finally, you saved on taxi fare, had one or two good meals and still have your nail clippers. Did I mention that your suitcase never left your side?

.

[kennedy]

If rail travel really took off, wouldn't the TSA find a way to add ridiculously invasive security measures?

I didn't think of the hotel, that's a good point.

I have a feeling it would be very difficult to convince the American people of this system, whether it be the Russia model or the Spain model. And far more difficult to implement this system without some sort of concession due to bureaucratic bullshit.

Is the Russian system state owned, or by Russia's capitalists, do you mean it's actually a private corporation?

[palindrome]

Different gauge is correct (almost a foot wider in Russia). A rolling stock manufacturer can build to any gauge; wouldn't last long in the marketplace if he couldn't.

I hear that during the cold winters the gauge contracts until the wheels start turning and the steel hardens.

[ablarc]

Is the Russian system state owned, or by Russia's capitalists, do you mean it's actually a private corporation?
Competing private corporations.

[ablarc]

I hear that during the cold winters the gauge contracts until the wheels start turning and the steel hardens.
Steel gets soft in the cold?

[palindrome]

Steel gets soft in the cold?


eh it was a lame attempt at trying to continue this diatribe...lol

Oh ... it occurs to me you might not be talking about the fit of the trains!

[palindrome]

How utterly disappointing.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/HSR-ARRA-Grants1.jpg


http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/01/28/high-speed-rail-grants-announced-california-florida-and-illinois-are-lucky-recipients/

[Ron Newman]

What do you disagree with in these choices?

[palindrome]

It is not completely the choices but the classification of HSR as 79 and above. As this funding stands now, there won't be a single true HSR line built.

I know there needs to be a certain sense of fairness, but i would rather have seen 1-3 true HSR lines, instead of small upgrades to the status quo.

For example (these are just my personal opinions, feel free to disagree/critic my choices):

I would have had the Chicago/Madison line money go to the Seattle/Portland corrider. Also, every Northeast project besides the New Haven Commuter line money could go to Florida. I would have axed the Illinois/Michigan/Indiana money and added it to the Chicago/St. Louis line. Again, IMO i would rather they get the ball rolling on 1-2 true HSR lines and i am willing to sacrifice service improvements in my region for it.

I know HSR won't come overnight, but I would like it to come in my lifetime. $8b isn't even enough to build 1 true corridor. It looks to me like the privately built Desert Xpress is going to be the first true HSR in this country.

Maybe i am just impatient and small upgrades to the status quo will eventually get us there, I just get excited about this stuff and this announcement came as a let down to me. I speak with no knowledge of the current rail situations in the area's i have mention.

[ablarc]

If you let private enterprise conceive overnight lines at 65mph, you don't have to spend one red cent on track upgrades or faster locomotives --only sleeping, dining and club cars.

And the freight lines can be the private enterprise in question.

Will these freight lines choose to make their own newly-profitable sleeper trains run late, as they presently do with Amtrak on their lines? You guess.

The moneymaking future's not so much in fast trains. It's in slow trains.

[Ron Newman]

That's exactly the system we had before 1970. Except that it didn't work. The private railroads wanted to exit the passenger business as soon as the Interstate Commerce Commission would allow them to. Rolling stock was falling apart, trains were chronically late. The federal government created Amtrak to try to save at least some fraction of the remaining system.

[ablarc]

Times have changed.

And do you think freight line executives are smart enough to think outside the box? How many of them can think as creatively as Steven Jobs or Richard Branson?

In time, after the Russian success story has been written up a dozen times in U.S. business magazines, a light bulb will go on in some of these dimwits' heads.

After they have their third convention where someone lectures on the topic, they'll boozily exclaim, "Hey, maybe there's something to this after all!"

[statler]

Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/stimulus_funds.html) - January 28, 2010
When it comes to rail plan, New England not a big winner
January 28, 2010 01:08 PM

By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent

WASHINGTON - As the details of President Obama's $8 billion high-speed rail plan emerged today, one thing quickly became clear: New England is not a big winner.

Several applications from the region were rejected, including a $1.9 billion request from Massachusetts to fund the proposed South Coast commuter rail project that would link Boston, Fall River and New Bedford. The state also did not get money it requested for the "inland route" between Boston and Springfield, which would have reduced congestion and raised speeds on the MBTA commuter trains to Worcester. A Maine proposal for track upgrades between Boston and Portland also did not receive funding.

Overall, the six-state region received just under $200 million from the program, or about 2 percent of the total. By comparison, California got $2.35 billion and Illinois received $1.1 billion.

Most of the money destined for New England -- totaling $160 million -- is going to support upgrades on a line between New Haven, Western Massachusetts, and Vermont. Dubbed the "Knowledge Corridor," the project will decrease travel times between Springfield and Vermont, upgrade track, and restore service to Holyoke, Northampton, and Greenfield.

Maine also got $35 million to extend Amtrak's popular Downeaster service from Portland to Brunswick.

John Businger, a former Massachusetts state representative and longtime New England passenger rail advocate, said he hoped there would be more opportunities for the states to win funding.

"I'm disappointed in the sense that I wish it had been approved, but I hope it will go forward in short order," he said. "They need more money. They need more than $8 billion. These projects can't wait."

President Obama is unveiling the grants today in Florida, which is receiving $1.25 billion for a high-speed line between Tampa and Orlando.

The stimulus is the largest-ever federal commitment to high-speed rail, but Obama administration officials have characterized it as merely a down payment on what they hope will become a national system to rival Asia and Europe's.

Congress voted last month to provide another $2.5 billion for high-speed rail, but after that the future of high-speed funding is uncertain. By comparison, European countries have hundreds of billions building their networks; Spain is in the midst of building a high-speed network and plans to spend about 100 billion euros, or $140 billion, by 2020.

[kennedy]

I've always described myself as a democrat, primarily due to social issues. Economics are harder to understand. But does anyone else think that this federal money should be used to fund major, interstate HSR lines, as opposed to a bunch of smaller, intrastate or regional lines? That should be funded by the states, if they have the money. If not, then you know what? Sucks.

I'm very glad that St. Louis to Chicago is being upgraded, as well as to Kansas City. Those lines, as they stand today, are awful. Worse, they're in high demand.

But how about connecting Chicago and New York?

I won't try to understand it, because it's all above me. I'm rarely any good at picking up in the middle and improving something, in my view, the entire rail system in the US needs a revolution. Be that privatization, a balance of HSR and low-speed overnighters, or more federal money, I don't know. But something big has to change.

[ablarc]

...the entire rail system in the US needs a revolution. Be that privatization, a balance of HSR and low-speed overnighters, or more federal money, I don't know. But something big has to change.
All of the above.

[czsz]

I've always described myself as a democrat, primarily due to social issues. Economics are harder to understand. But does anyone else think that this federal money should be used to fund major, interstate HSR lines, as opposed to a bunch of smaller, intrastate or regional lines? That should be funded by the states, if they have the money. If not, then you know what? Sucks.
...
But how about connecting Chicago and New York?


The kind of small rail upgrades they're making won't really be competive enough with airlines beyond a certain range, so it doesn't make sense to develop longer lines.

I won't try to understand it, because it's all above me. I'm rarely any good at picking up in the middle and improving something, in my view, the entire rail system in the US needs a revolution. Be that privatization, a balance of HSR and low-speed overnighters, or more federal money, I don't know. But something big has to change.

Definitely not privatization. Amtrak was created in the 70s because private passenger rail service couldn't survive when put up against airlines, which were both faster and heavily subsidized. The UK re-privatized its rail system in the 80s with what are widely regarded to be disastrous consequences, and it's a country that's much more amenable to rail.

[kennedy]

The kind of small rail upgrades they're making won't really be competive enough with airlines beyond a certain range, so it doesn't make sense to develop longer lines.

HSR could easily overtake airlines on routes like BOS - NYC, STL - CHI, etc. It's just that all that money spent on lines between minor regional cities could have been spent on a more substantial line between two bigger cities, and would be used by more people.

[palindrome]

HSR could easily overtake airlines on routes like BOS - NYC, STL - CHI, etc. It's just that all that money spent on lines between minor regional cities could have been spent on a more substantial line between two bigger cities, and would be used by more people.

this ^.


The more i think of it, Florida HSR is going to be a disaster in its current implementation. This is extremely dangerous because it will set a bad precedent as being an over expensive waste of taxpayer money and unnecessary.

No downtown Orlando. People will only be taking the train to rent a car on the other end? You need to start somewhere, but this wasn't the place IMO. I would rather see the money allocated to creating inner city light rail at both locals.

The only people i can see this benefiting is tourists heading to Disney, which ironically enough you probably won't need a car for!

[ablarc]

The more i think of it, Florida HSR is going to be a disaster in its current implementation. This is extremely dangerous because it will set a bad precedent as being an over expensive waste of taxpayer money and unnecessary.
Exactly.

The only people i can see this benefiting is tourists heading to Disney, which ironically enough you probably won't need a car for!
Why would it do even that? Look at the map: how many tourists are heading to Disney on this rail line? The population of Tampa? And how many Disney tourists from elsewhere (99%) are really interested in a nice detour to Tampa? And how did they get to Orlando in the first place?

For the reasons you've given, this seems worse than idiotic.

[czsz]

HSR could easily overtake airlines on routes like BOS - NYC, STL - CHI, etc. It's just that all that money spent on lines between minor regional cities could have been spent on a more substantial line between two bigger cities, and would be used by more people.

Yeah, in theory. But you're being radically optimistic about what kind of HSR it would be. The only US precedent, Acela, competes with airlines for Boston-NYC and NYC-DC traffic, but not really for Boston-DC through traffic, because it's not up to TGV speeds. You'd have to lay new track or substantially upgrade track between NYC and Chicago, probably buying it out from under the freight companies, who won't let it go or won't do so cheaply, to get a really competitive HSR line going on that route.

Why would it do even that? Look at the map: how many tourists are heading to Disney on this rail line? The population of Tampa? And how many Disney tourists from elsewhere (99%) are really interested in a nice detour to Tampa? And how did they get to Orlando in the first place?

Actually the I-4 is one of the most heavily trafficked interstates in the US, and a fairly dense population corridor for Florida. There's a lot of travel between the two cities - tourists going from Disney to the beach, perhaps, or vice versa, or flying into the Tampa airport for a trip to Disney, which I think has become a popular budget option. Tampa also has a major naval base and there's lots of traffic to the amusement parks from disembarking soldiers, I'm sure.

So the routing isn't ridiculous in theory. But in implementation, it's a disaster - because there's no rail-oriented development tie-in. And the choice of Florida is abysmal, because even if there were a stop in downtown Orlando, it's not like it's the heart of a transit-oriented city; it would probably be a slightly less but still mostly park and ride facility. And the towns along the way are almost completely undifferentiated sprawl. There's very little incentive to not drive in this part of the US, overall.

I actually wonder how much the Florida choice was politically motivated. Florida is always a crucial swing state, and getting more stimulus shovels in the ground there might swing voters. And the I-4 is always hotly contested territory in presidential elections, which explains why it was favored over, say, a Florida East Coast link or a Miami - Tampa one.

[ablarc]

Orlando has an airport.

[czsz]

So?

[belmont square]

Are there any examples internationally of high quality rail service being provided between lower density, auto-oriented cities of the type the represent many of our largest metro areas (Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Tampa, Orlando, etc.)? It seems like rail's chief advantage is that it takes you from downtown to downtown. But other than in maybe 10 US cities, downtowns either don't have the critical mass of residential or business density, or they don't have a quality transit service feeding it, or both.

And once you get into rail-friendly city pairs that are more than 300 miles apart, it becomes very hard for rail to compete. For example, a quick search turns up numerous options for flights between NY and Chicago for under $200. Roundtrip Acela service between Boston and NY is usually $200+, suggesting roundtrip rail fares b/w NY and Chicago would be at least twice as high as airfare. On the flight I'm in the air for about 100 minutes. Even with all of the hassles on either end its a much shorter trip than on a train.

The drinking on the train thing does sound attractive, but why not take the several hours and $200 or so you'd save by flying, and get to Chicago the night before your meeting and drink in a real bar, in a real neighborhood?

[Ron Newman]

LA-San Diego is a very busy and popular rail corridor. It is far busier now than it was pre-Amtrak, and I believe it is the second most frequent Amtrak route in the US (only the NEC is busier).

[czsz]

Here's a chart summarizing all the money just released to various passenger rail projects (it's ridiculous to continue referring to all this as HSR):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/100128_1400-HSRAwards-Summary_FRA%20Revisions.pdf

[bdurden]

A Tampa/Orlando line will get more traffic than you may realize. Disney is building it's own intermodal center linking the HSR up to it's own very extensive and widely used bus system, so the direct connection from the airport will cut out any need for tourists to rent a car.

If even a small percentage of Orlando's 48 million tourists a year use this train, in a city with the second busiest convention center in the country (where a stop will be), this train will be used extensively.

Also, Tampa's station placement is in it's most urban downtown neighborhood, Ybor City (historic Cuban distrcit). It will link into the streetcar, and is a stone's throw from the Channelside Port Authority. It would be much more convenient to travel along the HSR to Tampa to catch a cruise, than to drive a car there and pay for parking. Well maybe not, but it would be cheaper.

The point is, there is some beef to this project, it's not as idiotic as Bostonians may think, although unconventional. I wish them the best, and hope it turns a leaf in transit thinking in Florida. If nothing else, it will be impressive to see these trains jetting down the median of I-4.

[belmont square]

Disney is building it's own intermodal center linking the HSR up to it's own very extensive and widely used bus system, so the direct connection from the airport will cut out any need for tourists to rent a car.

If even a small percentage of Orlando's 48 million tourists a year use this train, in a city with the second busiest convention center in the country (where a stop will be), this train will be used extensively.


While I don't know much about Orlando travel patterns, these do sound like good trips to serve with transit (although most people going to Disney are part of families/groups, for whom the on-demand $50 cab ride from the airport would be tough to beat for an infrequent train that would likely cost more if you have more than a couple in your group).

I do question whether these are the types of trips that merit federal investment in HSR--they are essentially intra-municipal journeys of less than 20 miles. If you were building the NEC from scratch today, you'd be doing it to serve intercity markets, not the South Station to Route 128 or Penn Sta to Newark markets. These Orlando trips should be served with a New Starts grant, not an HSR one.

Ybor City, while dense for Tampa, is less dense then the areas immediately adjacent to the Amtrak station in New London, CT. And relying on the Tampa trolley for transit feeder service to the station there would be like stripping away the entire MBTA system except for the Silver Line Direct Connect to South Station and saying there was decent feeder service to Boston's Amtrak station. And that's probably being unfair to Direct Connect.

[czsz]

A Tampa/Orlando line will get more traffic than you may realize. Disney is building it's own intermodal center linking the HSR up to it's own very extensive and widely used bus system, so the direct connection from the airport will cut out any need for tourists to rent a car.

It may have been nearly 20 years since I've been to Disney World, but I seem to remember there being a ridiculous abundance of free/cheap shuttle transportation from the airport to the hotels. If Disney is shutting this down, maybe people will shell out for the train. If not, well, it may be pointless.

Also, Tampa's station placement is in it's most urban downtown neighborhood, Ybor City (historic Cuban distrcit). It will link into the streetcar, and is a stone's throw from the Channelside Port Authority. It would be much more convenient to travel along the HSR to Tampa to catch a cruise, than to drive a car there and pay for parking. Well maybe not, but it would be cheaper.

Tampa apparently has a nice old station that was overlooked in order to build a new terminus. Sort of a shame.

[stick n move]

Am I the only one who absolutely loves this idea? Orlando isnt the ideal vacation city, so who woudlnt want to be able to stay with your family on the gulf of mexico and then take a quick trip to disney on a hsr. Also where else is there a more perfect testing ground than the I4 median which is basically a straight shot, really wide, almost perfectly flat, and all grass. This means they can pretty much just lay rails down on the median and save a lot of time and money on the first one being built. Then once its done the disney traffic alone will make this thing a success, and it will open new doors for the more important but also more complex systems like the california network and boston to new york. Trust me I would have wanted them to do boston to ny off the bat but there are rolling hills out here, trees everywhere, and there definately isnt one straight highway from boston to new york so it would have been muchhhh more complicated, cost a lot more money, and taken much more time than tampa to orlando. Im very confident that this will be a success and will be a model for us to push for all the future developments that we all want.

[ablarc]

So you'd fly to Tampa, stay on the Gulf and take a day-trip on the train to Disney, huh?

You can do something similar now in Italy. You can stay in Florence and take a day trip to Bologna for one of their famous meals. Actually, the train is so fast that it only takes 37 minutes, and most of it is in tunnels. The world's fastest subway?

The Bologna-Florence high-speed railway is a link in the Italian high-speed rail network. It is part of Corridor 1 of the European Union's Trans-European high-speed rail network, which connects Berlin and Palermo. Full commercial operations commenced on 13 December 2009. High-speed passenger trains take 37 minutes over the route compared to about 59 minutes previously.

The line's northern end is at Bologna Centrale railway station and it connects with the Milan?Bologna high-speed line and lines to Venice and Verona. Its southern end is at Firenze Santa Maria Novella railway station and it connects with the Florence?Rome high-speed line.

... goods trains will continue to use the old Bologna?Florence railway, completed in 1934 and known as the Direttissima.

The line is 78.5 km long and includes 73.8 km of tunnels.[!!]

[HenryAlan]

All of the above.

Yes, I think that is the right approach. I have travelled on the overnight trains in Russia and can attest that it is a fantastic way to get from Moscow to St. Petersburg. I could easily see making a similar trip to Washington or Chicago. Both are perfect examples of viable slow rail applications. But we also need high speed to NYC, high speed from St. Louis to KC, etc. We need it all and I think you are right that a good deal of it can be done privately with an eye toward a profit. What we need is Virgin Rail or iRail as you've suggested. I won't hold my breath for CSX or the FedGov to make this happen.

[ablarc]

What we need is Virgin Rail or iRail as you've suggested.
iRail, huh? Quick: buy the domain name and offer it to Jobs at five figures.

[belmont square]

Am I the only one who absolutely loves this idea? Orlando isnt the ideal vacation city, so who woudlnt want to be able to stay with your family on the gulf of mexico and then take a quick trip to disney on a hsr.

I like the interstate testing ground argument. But I think you're overestimating the number of families that would decide to travel in this way. If I'm staying with my family on the Gulf Coast (and by that, presumably you mean on the coast and not in downtown Tampa, which is not a great vacation destination), then I still have to drive 20 miles to get to the HSR station in Ybor. That 20 miles represents about 20-25% of the entire driving distance from the coast to Disney. Then I need to pay for, say, four round trip train tickets for my family. Presumably this will cost me $60 to $80. Then, I need to plan my trip around the train schedule, meaning I'll have options to depart every hour (at best) and likely every two.

Now my family actually would probably travel this way. But why would your normal, non-transit obsessed family choose the option that is more complicated, more expensive, and takes longer?

[ablarc]

I like the interstate testing ground argument. But I think you [stick n move] are overestimating the number of families that would decide to travel in this way.
Well, that's what I thought when various folks rhapsodized over the potential of this line. Glad you think that; my Florida observations suggested the same, but I thought things might have changed due to something I didn?t know about.

If I'm staying with my family on the Gulf Coast (and by that, presumably you mean on the coast and not in downtown Tampa, which is not a great vacation destination)
My in-laws lived in Tampa, and whenever I visited them I wondered why anyone would want to; why anyone would think it had tourist draw or elements of a resort, seaside or otherwise; or why Ybor City was perceived as anything but a terminally boring mishmash of kitsch, inauthenticity and suburban values (and my in-laws were Cuban!). One Ybor City visit was quite a bit more than enough; it?s the kind of place Cz would rail against if he visited.

? then I still have to drive 20 miles to get to the HSR station in Ybor. That 20 miles represents about 20-25% of the entire driving distance from the coast to Disney.
Right, and once you're in your car and the kids plugged in, why get out, and ...?

Then [after herding everone through a blazing parking lot or gloomy deck] I need to pay for, say, four round trip train tickets for my family. Presumably this will cost me $60 to $80.
Dream on. You have a family of four, right? Try $200.

Then, I need to plan my trip around the train schedule, meaning I'll have options to depart every hour (at best) and likely every two.
And better not miss the last train.

Now my family actually would probably travel this way. But why would your normal, non-transit obsessed family choose the option that is more complicated, more expensive, and takes longer?
Ain't it grand to be a railfan? I'm one too. Most of us can be found on a dozen internet forums. I'm saving up for the Cathedrals Express. Had my eye on the Duchess of Sutherland last year, but she's currently withdrawn from service.

belmont square, earlier you might have somewhat contradicted your spot-on observations:

While I don't know much about Orlando travel patterns, these do sound like good trips to serve with transit?
And then you get right back on course:

?(although most people going to Disney are part of families/groups, for whom the on-demand $50 cab ride from the airport would be tough to beat for an infrequent train that would likely cost more if you have more than a couple in your group)... I do question whether these are the types of trips that merit federal investment in HSR?

Ybor City, while dense for Tampa, is less dense then the areas immediately adjacent to the Amtrak station in New London, CT.
LOL; it?s also dense for Antarctica.

And relying on the Tampa trolley for transit feeder service to the station there would be like stripping away the entire MBTA system except for the Silver Line Direct Connect to South Station and saying there was decent feeder service to Boston's Amtrak station. And that's probably being unfair to Direct Connect.
LMAO

Am I the only one who absolutely loves this idea? Orlando isnt the ideal vacation city, so who woudlnt want to be able to stay with your family on the gulf of mexico and then take a quick trip to disney on a hsr.
Well, you can see from this thread that there isn?t universal enthusiasm for this proposal.

Then once its done the disney traffic alone will make this thing a success, and it will open new doors for the more important but also more complex systems like the california network and boston to new york. Trust me I would have wanted them to do boston to ny off the bat but there are rolling hills out here, trees everywhere, and there definately isnt one straight highway from boston to new york so it would have been muchhhh more complicated, cost a lot more money, and taken much more time than tampa to orlando. Im very confident that this will be a success and will be a model for us to push for all the future developments that we all want.
Truth is, it?s somewhat true that ?if you build it, they will come.? They built a very expensive light rail line in Charlotte, partially with Federal funds. The line has riders, and is declared a success by those who authorized it, because its ridership exceeded projections. Since you can control the numbers in a projection, you can issue them to guarantee ?success? when the real numbers come in ? but the Feds? money would have been better spent in Boston.

And the Tampa-Orlando funds would have been better sent to California.

[stick n move]

^^ I disagree that the funds would have been better spent in california. For a first step it is extremely imporant to have a finished running train as quickly and low cost as possible, which will allow many people to try it and see how viable it would be to go through all the steps to get one in their city. Floridas terrain and the fact that they had high speed rail in mind when building the I4 in the first place will allow this to happen much cheaper and quicker than california would. As I was saying before the flat median of I4 is going to keep the costs down substantially and allow it to be finished pretty quickly. What is the point of creating all of the tunnels, bridges, and rerouting all of the roads that it will take to complete one in the mountainous california terrain if theres a chance that it wont be a success. Not to mention the amount of money it will cost to completely finish the entire thing in florida would only be a drop in the bucket in terms of how much it would cost in california to finish one. Where are all of those extra funds in the present economy going to come from? That would leave the possibility of being left with an unfinished system that doesnt allow the critical public review process to happen. Im 100% convinced that this is the perfect "testing ground" for this type of transit. Im not saying that if I had to choose anywhere in america to build a high speed rail system I would choose here for reasons you mentioned, but Im saying that its going to be a critical first step. Once this is a success it will lead the way for other states like california to make the much bigger investment.

[palindrome]

^^ I disagree that the funds would have been better spent in california. For a first step it is extremely imporant to have a finished running train as quickly and low cost as possible, which will allow many people to try it and see how viable it would be to go through all the steps to get one in their city. Floridas terrain and the fact that they had high speed rail in mind when building the I4 in the first place will allow this to happen much cheaper and quicker than california would. As I was saying before the flat median of I4 is going to keep the costs down substantially and allow it to be finished pretty quickly. What is the point of creating all of the tunnels, bridges, and rerouting all of the roads that it will take to complete one in the mountainous california terrain if theres a chance that it wont be a success. Not to mention the amount of money it will cost to completely finish the entire thing in florida would only be a drop in the bucket in terms of how much it would cost in california to finish one. Where are all of those extra funds in the present economy going to come from? That would leave the possibility of being left with an unfinished system that doesnt allow the critical public review process to happen. Im 100% convinced that this is the perfect "testing ground" for this type of transit. Im not saying that if I had to choose anywhere in america to build a high speed rail system I would choose here for reasons you mentioned, but Im saying that its going to be a critical first step. Once this is a success it will lead the way for other states like california to make the much bigger investment.

What worries the majority of us is that it won't be a success, and in turn the opposite of your post will occur and the country will see no reason to continue investing in pork barrel railways.

[czsz]

I disagree that the funds would have been better spent in california. For a first step it is extremely imporant to have a finished running train as quickly and low cost as possible, which will allow many people to try it and see how viable it would be to go through all the steps to get one in their city.

The funds would have been better spent in CA if the government were more concerned with HSR's longterm viability than scoring cheap political points by, as you said, demonstrating that something is up and running quickly - not only to increase support for HSR, but for the president that implemented it - and in a swing state. Once it's operational, a FL line could be a gamble, since the whole thing could flop, but luckily for Obama it's not going to be complete til well after the 2012 election, so the administration only needs to worry about having very visible construction crews out along Florida's most heavily trafficked interstate.

[stick n move]

alright well ill be wavin to u guys out the window of the train goin by at 150 while u guys r sittin in traffic like damnn

[palindrome]

lol we are not against HSR at all and given the chance we would all be on it. The point we are trying to make is that we WANT it to succeed, but if it doesn't it will lose what little support it already has.

How much support will it have if no one finds it useful? What incentive is there for people to continue to want to use taxpayer money for it when all they have seen is the line fail.

This is a very viable (probable) outcome. In CA, they have cities that are dense enough, with public transit feeders, and enough people that already travel the corridor by both plane and car. They are also in the right mindset already approving $10b in state funds, whereas FL struggled to pass SunRail.

If/when this gets built i will most certainly take a trip on it. I just don't know what i'll do for transportation when i am done.

[jass]

If/when this gets built i will most certainly take a trip on it. I just don't know what i'll do for transportation when i am done.

If local transportation were such a problem, airports would be empty.

[czsz]

Yeah but as pointed out above, there's a huge difference in the calculus of whether to drive/taxi to a train station, take the train, and then drive/taxi away from the next station when you could just drive the whole distance in a time period that may be more than the train does its trip, but doesn't exceed the transaction cost of getting to/from stations by car and overcoming the inertia working against abandoning one form of transport for another.

And on longer routes, one of HSR's supposed advantages over every other form of transportation is its ability to overcome the hassles you deal with at airports.

Overall, feeder transit helps answer the question: why take it over some other form of transport if it doesn't deliver some additional benefit? With feeder transit, the answer is - because it's quicker and more convenient.

[ablarc]

Overall, feeder transit helps answer the question: why take it over some other form of transport if it doesn't deliver some additional benefit?
Not sure what 'feeder transit' is. Can you have a bar car on feeder transit?

[kennedy]

I was under the impression that "feeder transit" equals "local mass transit" and works in conjunction with long distance HSR lines.

[stick n move]

im sure that by the time this things built in a few years theyll have plenty of time to figure out an easy way people can get to and from the train

[jass]

Looking at HSR in California....

It'll stop in DOWNTOWN san francisco (amtrak currently does not) and connect with Muni, BART and possibly caltrain.

It will stop in DOWNTOWN LA at Union station and connect with metrolink, the red/purple subway, and the gold line light rail (and a few years later, expo and blue will make it there too).

Meanwhile, LAX connects to the rgeen line via lengthy shuttle bus, and SFO connects to BART, I believe also via shuttle bus.

[kennedy]

If Silver Line were light rail...would it be the Gold Line.

[palindrome]

the platinum line ^.

[Ron Newman]

San Francisco airport is directly on BART, no shuttle bus.

[ablarc]

San Francisco airport is directly on BART, no shuttle bus.
There's an elevated AirTrain loop (http://www.bart.gov/guide/airport/inbound_sfo.aspx) from the SFO terminals to BART.

Better than a bus. BOS should have one.


* * *

At the terminus (Transbay Terminal) of your HSR trip from Los Angeles, you might need a shuttle bus to the nearest BART station --just a few blocks away, but an eternity when struggling with luggage on city streets.

[Ron Newman]

The original Logan 2000 plan included a people-mover. I don't know why it was dropped.

[Beton Brut]

^ They opted for cheaper moving walkways instead.

My dad was stationed at Logan with the MSP for 12 years. There was talk about a people-mover as far back as the early 60s. Historically, the issue was weather conditions and their effect on the equipment. So...buses.

[Ron Newman]

But Logan doesn't have moving walkways between the terminals, at least not connecting to the T station.

[Beton Brut]

Logan's probably the shittiest large airport in America. It may have something to do with Massport being a hive of patronage jobs.

The better solution for an intermodal connection would have been to push the Red Line across the harbor in a third tube of the Ted Williams Tunnel. The present Blue Line station could have then become more focused on the community (as opposed to the traveling public).

[jass]

At the terminus (Transbay Terminal) of your HSR trip from Los Angeles, you might need a shuttle bus to the nearest BART station --just a few blocks away, but an eternity when struggling with luggage on city streets.

No, the transbay terminal is supposed to be home to BART via a 2nd underwater tube.

[atlantaden]

Logan's probably the shittiest large airport in America.

I guess you haven't been to LaGuardia or Miami International! Logan's so easy now..fly in, hop on the Silver Line Bus (I know, about everyone on here hates it, but it sure does the job), get on the commuter rail and I'm in Bridgewater! Piece of cake! Prior to the Big Dig, was a nightmare of traffic and hours of time, though I always loved the view of the city from the central artery.

[kennedy]

Yeah, in the bit of flying I've done, there aren't many airports that are better than Logan. Certainly, plenty of room for improvement, but it's an incredibly nice airport. I know the aesthetics hardly matter to most travelers, but the new Delta terminal is awesome - the escalator going underneath the tarmac has all the grandeur of a Gothic cathedral (IMHO). I guess the things that would make the biggest difference are connections between terminals, and more importantly, a connection directly to the T. Those buses are a pain in the ass.

[Beton Brut]

I guess you haven't been to LaGuardia or Miami International!

LaGuardia's tiny by comparison. And I've never traveled through Miami.

I guess the things that would make the biggest difference are connections between terminals, and more importantly, a connection directly to the T.

These are pretty important features. They represent the core of Logan's deficiencies in terms of "ease-of-use."

O'Hare is worse, like a thoughtlessly counter-intuitive maze.

[Ron Newman]

O'Hare is better, as a subway line serves it directly.

[kennedy]

Minneapolis - St. Paul is a very functional airport if I may mention it. St. Louis Lambert sucks worse than any airport I've ever been to. I wouldn't be surprised if Manchester was better. That was a little bit random, but I thought I'd share.

[ablarc]

O'Hare is better, as a subway line serves it directly.
That subway line is a depressing introduction to Chicago. Lurching its way, slow painful stop by painful stop, through the city's neverending impersonation of Dorchester, it makes you wonder if you're on a Moebius strip of slow transit. If you could figure out how to get off and over onto the other side, you could maybe find the plane you came in on still on the tarmac, and go back home.

[ablarc]

No, the transbay terminal is supposed to be home to BART via a 2nd underwater tube.
And that will happen before 2150 --if at all.

[czsz]

That subway line is a depressing introduction to Chicago. Lurching its way, slow painful stop by painful stop, through the city's neverending impersonation of Dorchester, it makes you wonder if you're on a Moebius strip of slow transit. If you could figure out how to get off and over onto the other side, you could maybe find the plane you came in on still on the tarmac, and go back home.

Still sounds better than the A train ride from the Howard Beach (!) AirTrain station outside JFK.

New York's airports have pitiful transit access. Your options for JFK are a two hour long subway odyssey through Brooklyn's still-somewhat-awful eastern ghettoes, followed by the (expensive and confusing) AirTrain, or expensive commuter rail to the expensive and confusing AirTrain. Your option for LaGuardia is semi-local bus that can only be accessed from Harlem.

Compared to this, getting to Logan by Silver Line is a dream. If New York had BRT direct to either airport it would be a huge improvement.

[jass]

Is it just me, or is Logan the emptiest airport in the world?

I've flown out of Logan dozens of times, and there's never a line, even right before a holiday. No line to check in, a tiny line to security, and then lots of room in the terminals.

Meanwhile, I was at National recently making a connection and the terminal was PACKED. I was in Las vegas last week and the security line stretched for miles...on a Thursday in January!

[czsz]

I have been in long lines at Logan, esp. check-in at Terminal E.

We need to split this thread.

[aquaman]

Miami is THE WORST airport serving a major metro area, by a mile. LaGuardia is pretty awful and Newark? Pshh... feggedaboutit.

[mass88]

Is it just me, or is Logan the emptiest airport in the world?

I've flown out of Logan dozens of times, and there's never a line, even right before a holiday. No line to check in, a tiny line to security, and then lots of room in the terminals.

Meanwhile, I was at National recently making a connection and the terminal was PACKED. I was in Las vegas last week and the security line stretched for miles...on a Thursday in January!

You do realized Las Vegas handles roughly 14-15 million more passengers than Logan right? And that Logan has check ins at all 4 terminals, where McCarran, aside from Southwest, has a consolidated security area meaning passengers from several airlines all check in at the same spot. So of course McCarran is going to be and look more busy.

You also realize that Reagan is a smaller airport in size than Logan right?

[mass88]

Miami is THE WORST airport serving a major metro area, by a mile. LaGuardia is pretty awful and Newark? Pshh... feggedaboutit.

Miami is alright. It seems that the new terminals have been under construction for years and years. From what I have heard, they are way over budget and of course well past the expected completion date.

Food options at Miami are terrible for a major hub.

[jass]

You do realized Las Vegas handles roughly 14-15 million more passengers than Logan right? And that Logan has check ins at all 4 terminals, where McCarran, aside from Southwest, has a consolidated security area meaning passengers from several airlines all check in at the same spot. So of course McCarran is going to be and look more busy.

You also realize that Reagan is a smaller airport in size than Logan right?

Those were just examples from the past 2 weeks. I also stopped by Dallas and Mexico City. Both were crowded.

Ive been to over a hundred airports. With the exception of Fresno, California and Curitiba, Brazil, I'd say Logan is usually the emptiest.

[Shepard]

"Emptiest" is the wrong word. Logan actually serves a hell of a lot of passengers - I doubt it's ever really empty, though I agree that Logan has been a breeze for a few years. I think you might <gasp> actually be looking to make a compliment? "Emptiest" = "boasts an efficient wait-reducing layout which results in shorter lines and less congestion than airports of comparable size" perhaps?

[jass]

"Emptiest" is the wrong word. Logan actually serves a hell of a lot of passengers - I doubt it's ever really empty, though I agree that Logan has been a breeze for a few years. I think you might <gasp> actually be looking to make a compliment? "Emptiest" = "boasts an efficient wait-reducing layout which results in shorter lines and less congestion than airports of comparable size" perhaps?

I didnt mean emptiest as a criticism. I think it's still the right word.

There's something about the size and layout which means, in my experience, there's never congestion.

[JohnAKeith]

The food was so bad. Plus, the portions were so small.

[czsz]

we get worried when we hear about HSR plans that are already entering deeply-flawed territory. Like the scenario in Florida, where no agreement has been made about connecting the planned Orlando-Tampa HSR line (which, as you?ll recall, got a whopping $1.25 billion of the federal HSR funds) to SunRail, a 61-mile project that?ll be built on existing CSX tracks from DeLand to Poinicana, running through the east side of Orlando.
DiggSubmit

According to current plans, the HSR line will follow Interstate 4 and have five stations ? none of which link to the SunRail. Which could severely hinder the ability of passengers to use the HSR line to get to their destinations, and consequently put a severe damper on the number of people who use both lines. What?s the point of spending millions on separate train lines in the same area if there?s no way to switch between them? The The Florida DOT is reportedly worried about slowing down travel time on the HSR line ? but if passengers aren?t able to access the train with ease, keeping up a lightning-fast speed won?t matter, since no one will ride the train. Plus we?re willing to bet that the average passenger would be willing to add 5 or 10 minutes of travel time for an opportunity to transfer between lines.

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/03/04/how-to-make-high-speed-rail-fail-dont-connect-the-lines/

[palindrome]

This line:

http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/6513/original/facepalm-face-palm-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1223672935.jpg

[czsz]

In this case the stupidity will not have even arrived on time. Or at least, it won't make its connection.

[bdurden]

From what I understand, SunRail (a commuter train on a North/South axis) and High Speed Rail (Tampa to Orlando) will link together on the planned Light Rail project (East/West axis) that will service Orlando's tourism corridor.

[czsz]

That sounds as shitty an idea as Boston having a Greenway trolley as opposed to a true North/South rail link, and Orlando doesn't even have the excuse of needing to build an expensive tunnel.

Seriously, who is going to make two transit transfers to stay on rail...in Florida?

[bdurden]

^It's not perfect in the short term, correct.

[ablarc]

Not PERFECT?? It's nowhere near acceptable. Why waste public money?

[bdurden]

There's an endemic to this forum for capitalizing entire words; soon it'll devolve into communication entirely through emoticons.

[statler]

:p

[Arborway]

There's an endemic to this forum for capitalizing entire words; soon it'll devolve into communication entirely through emoticons.

Another "forum" I visit is "notorious" for having "members" who write entire "posts" like this.

[bdurden]

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/03/04/how-to-make-high-speed-rail-fail-dont-connect-the-lines/

Well, if this comes to fruitation, the problem of connectivity between HSR and SunRail is solved:

http://www.wftv.com/news/22783479/detail.html

[czsz]

We just went over that. Absurd to force people in Florida of all places to make two rail connections. This is the kind of stopgap solution you expect for a problem that is 100 years old, like the North-South Rail Link, not for two rail projects currently in planning stages.

[bdurden]

^By that measure, all MBTA commuter trains and intercity rail should have direct connections to Acela. Instead of focusing on metro wide connectivity, let's just focus on getting everyone from everywhere to the high speed train regardless of actual inter-modal hubs for transit and future growth.

Sounds a little absurd, right?

[czsz]

Again, this is all being planned together, so it makes some sense to not make the system as convoluted as the T, which evolved over 100 years. The reason the N-S Rail Link is so popular a proposal is precisely so that every MBTA commuter train can have direct access to Acela.

[bdurden]

^True

[palindrome]

Amtrak Planning Major Push to Operate True High-Speed Lines

Suddenly forced to reckon with the prospect of serious competition from foreign companies, Amtrak has announced an internal reorganization that prioritizes the development and implementation of high-speed rail service in the United States. In addition, the publicly-owned train operator has announced for the first time that it will perform serious feasibility studies about implementing 220 mph service between Washington and Boston.


Full article can be found here: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/03/23/amtrak-planning-major-push-to-operate-true-high-speed-lines/

[BostonUrbEx]

Skip the feasibility studies and use the funding to start laying magnets from Boston to DC.

[bdurden]

Renderings of the high speed rail connection at Orlando International Airport terminal (which includes a commuter train stop with direct connect to downtown Orlando):

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa236/heartofflorida/24.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa236/heartofflorida/25.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa236/heartofflorida/26.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa236/heartofflorida/27-1.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa236/heartofflorida/28.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa236/heartofflorida/29.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa236/heartofflorida/30.jpg

[vanshnookenraggen]

How... European!

[mass88]

Is there even a need for this in a city like Orlando? Honestly. People don't take public transportation down there, they drive and eat at chain restaurants.

[Shepard]

Let's build this great wall of China right smack in the middle of our densest population centers. Sure, it won't protect anyone from those raging nomads on our northern frontier, but at least we'll see if it works. Let's also not make it 'great' but only 'sort of great' because, well, it isn't protecting anyone anyway. Hopefully the mongols won't sack Peking in the meantime, as we squander away years of building this thing and arguing about whether it works or not, which I guess we'll never know because it's not actually doing what it's meant to be doing in the first place. Sound good, everyone?

[vanshnookenraggen]

There are very good reasons for building HSR in a place like Florida.

First, keep in mind that this is a test case. Building these lines in lower populated areas keeps the costs low and delays (hopefully) down.

Second, if the Feds just threw money at the largest cities then the rest of the nation would cry foul.

Third, we all want these areas to develop more density and the only way for that to happen is to invest in rail. NY, Boston, Chicago, San Fran, these places already have systems in place.

How long and how expensive would it be to actually upgrade the Northeast Corridor to true, 200mph HSR? VERY. Sure building it in Florida won't be cheap but it will be relative to areas that are already served by fast rail.

We should all be giving these projects as much support as possible because if they succeed then the doors will open to bigger projects. Don't be petty!