Amtrak's $117 Billion Plan For High Speed Travel

[Riverworks]

Amtrak's $117 Billion Plan For High Speed Travel

Boston to New York in 1:20 Hours!

What can you buy for $117 billion? According to Amtrak, you can cut travel times between major East Coast cities in half. You can operate trains at up to 220 miles per hour, and you can start doing it all in just five years.
Amtrak announced a concept plan today for what would be the United States? first high-speed rail service, connecting Washington D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston. The proposed rail line would be completed by 2040, with a launch for some sections as early as 2015. Funding has yet to be finalized, but Amtrak has already requested $2.5 billion from Congress for 2011, and earlier this year Obama earmarked $8 billion of the 2009 stimulus package for high-speed rail service. The rest would come from private investment, according to CEO Joseph Boardman.
With the Next-Generation High-Speed Rail a trip between New York City and Boston would take only 84 minutes, a trek that currently takes over 2.5 hours by Amtrak?s Acela train, or four hours by bus.
Aside from the conveniences this will bring to travelers and daily commuters, the new rail would attract riders away from highway and air travel, detracting from the need for foreign oil and the carbon emissions, and making the Next-Gen the most environmentally sustainable travel option.
Still, Next-Gen pales in comparison to its more institutionalized counterparts in Europe and Asia. Its implementation is scheduled for 51 years after Japan first introduced its Shinkansen high-speed rail. France?s TGV train takes only three hours to cover the 490 miles between Paris to Marseille, whereas Next-Gen would take nearly three-and-a-half hours to travel the 426 miles between Washington, D.C. and Boston.
As uncompetitive as it is, Amtrak?s plan is the first of several investments needed to create a viable modern transit network in the Northeast, cut pollution, and bridge the infrastructure gap.

Source: http://www.fastcompany.com/1691854/amtrak-high-speed-east-coast-rail

Report found on Amtrak's website and here:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130195130/amtrak-unveils-its-vision-for-2040-washington-to-new-york-city-in-96-minutes

[Riverworks]

http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/Amtrak%20High%20Speed%20Trains_604x341.JPG

Sorry the repeat, but I liked this version better... Granted it's just a preliminary feasibility study, but at least they can begin to think about funding/financing.

Amtrak Envisions High-Speed Rail for East Coast
Published September 28, 2010 | FoxNews.com


ADVERTISEMENT
Washington to Boston in 3 hours? Amtrak wants to make it happen.

On Tuesday, Amtrak unveiled a $117 billion, 30-year vision for a high-speed rail line on the East Coast that would drastically reduce travel times along the congested corridor using trains traveling up to 220 miles (354 kilometers) per hour.

?Amtrak is putting forward a bold vision of a realistic and attainable future that can revolutionize transportation, travel patterns and economic development in the Northeast for generations,? said Amtrak President Joseph Boardman during a news conference at 30th Street Station in Philadelphia.

The proposal, which would require building a new set of tracks from Boston to Washington, D.C., is at the concept stage and there's no funding plan in place, Boardman said.

The project would likely use some combination of public and private investment and hopefully be phased in starting in 2015, he said.

The Next-Gen High Speed Rail line would have hubs in Baltimore, New York City, Philadelphia and Washington and would cut travel times in half or better. It would reduce the travel time between Washington and New York from 162 minutes to 96 minutes, according to Amtrak. The travel time between New York and Boston would go from 215 minutes to 84 minutes.

About 12 million riders a year use Amtrak along the northeast corridor.

Under the high-speed system envisioned, the trains would be able to accommodate about 33.7 million passengers by 2040. Amtrak officials estimated the high-speed system would generate an $900 million more a year with the added ridership.

High-speed rail would not only help reduce congestion on the rails, but also in the skies, since it would be more enticing to passengers making shorter trips, according to Amtrak officials and others.

"No one should take a plane for a trip shorter than 500 miles (800 kilometers),"said Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, noting that the system would be comparable to service now linking European countries.

The Democratic governor added that political leaders must generate the will to get the project done before current system is overwhelmed.

"It isn't a dream, it isn't a fantasy, it isn't an illusion," Rendell said. "Can we afford it? ... We can't afford not to do it."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[BostonUrbEx]

84 minutes? Now that's sexy!

[Riverworks]

Found this too

http://www.observer.com/files/full/High_Speed_Northeast_Map.png

[blade_bltz]

Only 51 years after the Shinkansen was introduced? In 1964, the entire 500km route from Tokyo to Osaka made its debut. Will the implementation of the first "phase" of Next-Gen in 2015 be of comparable significance? (i.e., Boston to New York in 84 minutes). LOL.

[vanshnookenraggen]

It's a shame that this will take 25 years AND probably never happen. I applaud Amtrak for thinking big for once. What is interesting is that a very similar line was actually proposed back in 1888 which was designed to cut diagonally through CT to speed times from NY to Boston. Some rail still exists out there but it bypasses so much that it doesn't really make financial sense.

I wish we had the political leadership to pull this off. The only way I see this happening is if the governors from all these states come together and somehow convince Washington that this is worth financing.

[Riverworks]

Agreed. Governor Rendell was present at the press release and showed some serious support. There is also a Northeast Coalition of DOT Directors that support such advancements.

[czsz]

This is Amtrak's Mars exploration plan. Will be killed as soon as a Republican tea party president topples Obama in 2012.

[GW2500]

Yea according to infrastructurist.com most republicans are against HSR (along w/ stem cell research, abortion, culture, acknowledging global warming etc...). But have no fear they are all about creating jobs, somehow...?? oh yes by making sure billionaires don't pay a slight increase in taxes. Trickle down effect is a CROCK of SHIT. Hopefully the tea partiers (aka clueless closet-racist retards) will ruin the modern republican party and they(smart repubs) reform as the respectable party they used to be. Having a great job-creating investment like this would be a good start.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

I love passenger rail and I think there is no better place for it than the Northeast Corridor. But how does it make sense to spend $117 billion to generate $900 million more a year ??? And I presume that's revenue, not profit. I'm not saying it should have to pay for itself the same way a private sector project would, but shouldn't it pay for itself in 100 years?

[KentXie]

You have to take in account the economic boost generated by this project. Revenue to each city could increase by the millions, from cost cutting, new businesses, people moving closer to the city (because these hubs only exist at cities) generating positive real estate development, and higher productivity.

[jass]

I love passenger rail and I think there is no better place for it than the Northeast Corridor. But how does it make sense to spend $117 billion to ??? And I presume that's revenue, not profit. I'm not saying it should have to pay for itself the same way a private sector project would, but shouldn't it pay for itself in 100 years?

The actual amount in 2010 dollars is 40 billion, same as california HSR.

[palindrome]

Its just downright depressing to think that this won't be done till i am in my late 40's/early 50's.



http://images.politico.com/global/cartoon/100927_cartoon_600.jpg

[czsz]

Yep, the crumbling continues. A 40 year old highway sign fell onto the Pike in Newton yesterday. The pole holding it up had been rotting for no one knows how long.

But by all means, let's vote for the alcohol tax cut so that it's cheaper to drink and drive on the increasingly dangerous roads.

[Lrfox]

Where are Providence, Worcester and New Haven in the plan? Seems like they should be connected, no?

[AmericanFolkLegend]

You have to take in account the economic boost generated by this project. Revenue to each city could increase by the millions, from cost cutting, new businesses, people moving closer to the city (because these hubs only exist at cities) generating positive real estate development, and higher productivity.

Jose Gomez-Ibanez (a well know transportation expert at Harvard) did a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis on intracity rail that tried to incorporate all social and economic direct and indirect impacts. Reduced congestion, air pollution, traffic safety, carbon emissions, noise pollution, cost of capital, ripple effects of construction spending, business productivity, etc . . . Just a fabulous study (which unfortunately I can't find online). Anyway, the only Amtrak corridor that broke even when incorporating all social and economic costs was the Northeast Corridor. Every other route in the country was a loser. With some long-haul routes in middle America costing literally $1000's of dollars to society for each passenger trip.
Interestingly there was also a route to Florida that ferried cars and families from the midwest that almost broke even. I guess they charged a ton to take your car, which made up for the losses. Although I think that route has since been cancelled.
I'll try and find a copy of the study from my old grad school materials and post here.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

The actual amount in 2010 dollars is 40 billion, same as california HSR.

That's a bit more reasonable I guess. Where did you see that Jass?

[HenryAlan]

Where are Providence, Worcester and New Haven in the plan? Seems like they should be connected, no?

Worcester is a regional stop on the new main allignment. Providence and New Haven are bypassed by the new main line, but are given upgrades as a secondary route, so they will also see big improvements. But to go from Boston to NYC via the new shore line will not be 1.5 hours, more like 2.25 if I recall correctly from the chart buried deep in the PDF.

[HenryAlan]

The actual amount in 2010 dollars is 40 billion, same as california HSR.

So the project is similar in scope to California, involving 8 states and DC. This makes me hopeful that it can be done. The hardest part is regional cooperation. From the Massachusetts perspective, I'd far rather see a few billion dollars go to this than South Coast Rail.

[AdamBC]

Where are Providence, Worcester and New Haven in the plan? Seems like they should be connected, no?

I would think that with Providence and Worcester part of the MBTA Commuter Rail, they're relatively connected to Boston, and if you go to New Haven you have to deal with the crazy sailboaters who create such a bottleneck to cross the Connecticut River that you can kiss a <90 min trip to NYC goodbye.

[Shepard]

Has anyone proposed using interstate highway medians as a ROW whenever possible? I-84 from I-90 to the start of the HOV lane outside Hartford for example...

[HenryAlan]

Has anyone proposed using interstate highway medians as a ROW whenever possible? I-84 from I-90 to the start of the HOV lane outside Hartford for example...
That is part of this proposal. Just imagine flying past the Sturbridge tolls at 200 miles per hour and waving at the cars in the back-up! Although, I don't know exactly which sections of highway ROW they plan to use, so my illustration may be inaccurate. Somewhere in the document it says that the route will follow a combination of existing RR and highway ROWs, newly built tunnels, and newly acquired ROW.

[Tombstoner]

Just imagine flying past the Sturbridge tolls at 200 miles per hour and waving at the cars in the back-up!

Quite seriously, the rhetoric of that image will do a lot to get people behind mass transit. You just have to have that experience of watching the train speed by while you're in a traffic jam a couple times for it to make a big psychological impact.

[czsz]

Where are Providence, Worcester and New Haven in the plan? Seems like they should be connected, no?

The fact that these places "have to be connected" and have lobbies to argue as such is one of the reasons the current Acela isn't as effective as it could be. They could probably shave an hour just by eliminating all these intermediate stops on a super-express of some kind. Boston (South Station only)-New York-Philadelphia (maybe)-Washington only.

[Riverworks]

I would think that with Providence and Worcester part of the MBTA Commuter Rail, they're relatively connected to Boston, and if you go to New Haven you have to deal with the crazy sailboaters who create such a bottleneck to cross the Connecticut River that you can kiss a <90 min trip to NYC goodbye.

I think this study also considered the double tracking of the New Haven to Springfield alignment and trains, service levels, added. I like how this connects to the Metro North spokes of Waterbury and Danbury.

I agree with the comments on Woonsocket/Providence and the MBTA. Extend the Franklin Branch one or two more stops and it reaches Woonsocket, so it connects to this plan. The Providence and Worcester freight line could become a passenger rail shuttle between Providence and Woonsocket. In some cases, it makes sense to make people come to HSR and not bring HSR to every city. Besides, Providence will continue to be served by Acela the plan says.

[Riverworks]

Has anyone proposed using interstate highway medians as a ROW whenever possible? I-84 from I-90 to the start of the HOV lane outside Hartford for example...

If these trains are operating at average speeds on the northern portion (New York to Boston) at 147 mph, there is no way trains can follow 84 or 90. They would follow too many tight curves and would have to slow down, thus making the travel time more.

[stellarfun]

The fact that these places "have to be connected" and have lobbies to argue as such is one of the reasons the current Acela isn't as effective as it could be. They could probably shave an hour just by eliminating all these intermediate stops on a super-express of some kind. Boston (South Station only)-New York-Philadelphia (maybe)-Washington only.
Can't shave an hour between Boston and New York, curves between New Haven and Kingston aside, because MetroNorth restricts Acela speed between New Haven and New Rochelle as the tilt mechanism can't be used on that stretch. Slowest speed is on that section currently, and won't get much better.

Can't go higher speeds between New York and Washington until all the catenary is replaced with constant tension wire.

[stellarfun]

Below is a link to a photographic record of the building of a high-speed line between Amsterdam and Brussels. Each thumb to a gallery opens into dozens of pictures. But it gives you an idea of what it took to build a high-speed line near existing rights of way for railroads and highways.

http://www.open.ou.nl/hon/bijzond.htm

[Dan]

Politically, the route should include both Hartford and Providence, and maybe Long Island.

Also, if we are talking about spending $100 billion or so, the North-South rail link should be thrown in so HSR can extent to the Anderson Transportation Center in Woburn and maybe to New Hampshire or Maine.

[gooseberry]

Long Island? Why and how?

[Dan]

Long Island? Why and how?You didn't read the original Amtrak proposal, did you ?

Try here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38345039/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail-in-the-Northeast-Corridor

There are five sets of alignments from NYP to Boston mentioned in Section 3.0:
1. Hudson
2. Highway
3. "Air line"
4. Shorline
5. Long Island

But in any event, I just mentioned Long Island because it is a major population center, currently connected to the rest of the Northeast Corridor only through Penn Station. A tunnel route from Long Island to New Haven would be "interesting", but that doesn't mean I am sold on the idea.

[Lurker]

Instead of spending billions on new ROWs and tunnels, which will face cost overruns, court cases, environmental review, and other assorted delays, why can't existing highway ROWs be used? Simply build an elevated rail bed using the same prefab elevated concrete structures used to connect to the Big Dig in the center medians of existing highways. The project would be 10x faster and cheaper for the same, if not better, result.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Instead of spending billions on new ROWs and tunnels, which will face cost overruns, court cases, environmental review, and other assorted delays, why can't existing highway ROWs be used? Simply build an elevated rail bed using the same prefab elevated concrete structures used to connect to the Big Dig in the center medians of existing highways. The project would be 10x faster and cheaper for the same, if not better, result.

Because there isn't enough space on existing highway ROWs (in urban areas). Elevated rail would have to contend with overpasses so it wouldn't be that simple. Also highways are not designed with high speed trains in mind so their curves in places would be too much.

A new, dedicated ROW is the proven way to do this.

[Dan]

Right. Curves designed for cars at 65 or 75 mph are not adequate for HSR moving at 200+ mph.

And for that matter, the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) is just about as curvy as the existing New Haven railroad alignment.

(This doesn't mean that a highway alignment couldn't be taken advantage of in some instances.)

[Lurker]

Space isn't an issue supports can shift from center span to transverse rather easily as required. Look at the highway ramps connecting to tunnels and Zakim Bridge. They shift in this manner to clear all kinds obstacles underneath.

As far as interchanges, the elevated structure simply climbs higher and maintains the grade change if need be for multiple interchanges spaced closely together.

HSR trains automatically tilt to make tight turns. An elevated structure would allow for the track bed to be banked like a race track to further take advantage of this and provide tighter curves than would be normally be possible on conventional track beds.

[MonopolyBag]

Not only are our high speed trains non existent as of now in this country, but think of this. Currently, Amtrak has a few lines up here in NE. But when it comes to regular trains running, example the MBTA commuter rail, it stops at the states borders rather than continuing past providence and it literally stops at the NH border. While other countries have trains that run regularly between countries that hate each other.

Pretty sad.

However, new transportation has popped up within the as 10 years and many new talk about concepts. I think within a total of 20 years, our environmental impact, transportation, city development and the standard way of living will have drastically changed for the better abse don the way we seem to be moving.

[Ron Newman]

MBTA commuter rail is being extended to Warwick RI (and I think beyond, eventually). They'll be happy to run into New Hampshire too if that state will kick in a little subsidy for a change. NJ Transit, SEPTA, Maryland commuter rail, and I think some other transit agencies (St. Louis? Portland OR?) cross into neighboring states.

[Jackson]

Logistically this would be tough, but would it make sense to create some type of large rail system that ran between Manchester to the north, Boston, Providence, Hartford, Springfield, and Worcester? It would certainly connect a large portion of southern New England.

Obviously with the state of the MBTA and other neighboring transit agencies, I'm not by any means suggesting this will happen, but it's just a concept. Imagine if the states of Rhode Island, MA, Conn, and NH all chipped in? Just a thought I had.

[czsz]

Since these agencies are all state-run, they tend not to operate across state lines. SEPTA doesn't run into New Jersey; the NJ suburbs of Philadelphia are served by NJ Transit. NJ Transit doesn't run into PA or NY; the Port Jervis line of Metro North (on the western bank of the Hudson) uses NJ Transit track to get from Manhattan to that part of NY state via New Jersey, but doesn't stop there. Metro North trains from Grand Central to Connecticut are actually run by that state's DOT. Maryland's MARC serves DC, but doesn't extend into VA, which has its own commuter rail network.

The bottom line is that, while some state agencies run trains into other states, they do so on the basis of their own state population's needs (CT commuters need to get to NY) or form contracts to use each others' trackage like the rail systems of different countries in Europe would.

[TMcLaughlin]

Since these agencies are all state-run, they tend not to operate across state lines. SEPTA doesn't run into New Jersey; the NJ suburbs of Philadelphia are served by NJ Transit. NJ Transit doesn't run into PA or NY; the Port Jervis line of Metro North (on the western bank of the Hudson) uses NJ Transit track to get from Manhattan to that part of NY state via New Jersey, but doesn't stop there. Metro North trains from Grand Central to Connecticut are actually run by that state's DOT. Maryland's MARC serves DC, but doesn't extend into VA, which has its own commuter rail network.

SEPTA does run to Trenton and West Trenton, as well as DE. MARC doesn't go to VA but it does go to WV. They tend not to go too far over the border, but there is a lot of multi-state cooperation in commuter rail.

[Justin7]

Since these agencies are all state-run, they tend not to operate across state lines. SEPTA doesn't run into New Jersey; the NJ suburbs of Philadelphia are served by NJ Transit. NJ Transit doesn't run into PA or NY; the Port Jervis line of Metro North (on the western bank of the Hudson) uses NJ Transit track to get from Manhattan to that part of NY state via New Jersey, but doesn't stop there. Metro North trains from Grand Central to Connecticut are actually run by that state's DOT. Maryland's MARC serves DC, but doesn't extend into VA, which has its own commuter rail network.

The bottom line is that, while some state agencies run trains into other states, they do so on the basis of their own state population's needs (CT commuters need to get to NY) or form contracts to use each others' trackage like the rail systems of different countries in Europe would.

This is why we have Port Authorities (http://www.ridepatco.org/stations/routemap.html), though the transfers are annoying if not well planned.

[Ron Newman]

NJ Transit doesn't run into PA or NY

Lots of NJ Transit trains run into NYC's Penn Station.

the Port Jervis line of Metro North (on the western bank of the Hudson) uses NJ Transit track to get from Manhattan to that part of NY state via New Jersey, but doesn't stop there.

All of the Port Jervis line trains make at least a small number of stops in New Jersey, and some of them make lots of local NJ stops. Schedule (http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/rail/R0020.pdf)

[belmont square]

SEPTA regional rail also serves NJ and DE. And MARC serves West Virginia.

[czsz]

The point is that interstate operations tend to be pretty minimal. Of course NJ Transit operates to NY Penn - that's practically its entire raison d'etre.

What there clearly aren't, really, are completely integrated systems across state lines. One system for the Philadelphia metro area, or New York's, largely because of the interstate issues (although I'm not sure why Metro North and LIRR aren't the same agency for anything other than historical reasons).

[HenryAlan]

One system for the Philadelphia metro area, or New York's, largely because of the interstate issues (although I'm not sure why Metro North and LIRR aren't the same agency for anything other than historical reasons).

They are. Both fall under the umbrella of MTA, and are in most respects no different than the North and South side operations of MBCR (which likewise don't interoperate), just with different names (and rolling stock). Two divisions of the same railroad, essentially.

[erikyow]

To be fair, there aren't many local, European systems that cross national boundaries either. I.e. You can't take the RER from Paris to Brussels. In Germany, which has a federal system similar to the US's, where trains cross state boundaries (however, the Munich S-Bahn does not leave Bavaria), it can do so easily because the S-Bahns are usually just arms of Deutsche Bahn. In other words, Amtrak would have to directly take over the regional rail systems from their respective owners.

Where a drastic improvement could be made is in cities where multiple systems operate, having one, integrated fare system. This may already be the case in New York but not to the extent I'm thinking. What I'd like to see is someone be able to buy a fare card (or a CharlieCard-like plastic card for commuters) in Stamford, use it on the Metro-North to Grand Central, then transfer to the Subway on the same card and then have it as valid fare on NJ Transit from Penn Station to Princeton. So, in that sense, the traveller will have travelled on three different systems but, as far as fares are concerned, he will have bought only one ticket. So, essentially, you're given a fare card (or maybe incorporating it with an open-payment system, like what the NY Metro has trialled, i.e. MasterCard PayPass) and then you have a period (say 3-4 hours) where your fare card is valid. Then have fare inspectors travel the commuter rail systems with handheld devices to check the validity of the ticket.

I suppose you could get SEPTA on board as well and essentially have one fare system from Southwestern Connecticut to Northern Delaware, though fares would centre around the respective cities, mainly because it would be difficult (probably impossible) to ride the Metro-North, Subway, NJ Transit and SEPTA from New Haven to Newark, DE via local transit in the allotted time (again, say 3-4 hours).

[czsz]

There definitely should be more integration to that extent. In Japan, you can use the same farecards on transit systems in the entire country! (and not only that, but you can use them as debit cards at vending machines and in certain convenience stores too...or you could even use your phone!)

[choo]

Amtrak is trying to get out of the FRA's requirements for heavier trains. Hopefully this means better looking, better functioning, faster trains at a cheaper off the shelf price.

If amtrak does this, could the T as well for future orders? is there any good rolling stock for the T if so? Can we plug and play some of those Paris trains for the Green Line?

Article (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-02/amtrak-seeks-safety-changes-to-allow-u-s-bullet-trains.html)

Amtrak Seeks Safety Changes to Allow U.S. Bullet Trains
By Angela Greiling Keane - Jan 2, 2013 12:00 AM ET
Facebook Share
LinkedIn
Google +1
0 COMMENTS
Print
QUEUE
Q
Amtrak will recommend new U.S. rail- safety regulations to allow it to replace its Acela trains in the Northeast U.S. with lighter, faster equipment, Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman said.
U.S. crashworthiness standards force Amtrak to use trains that have locomotives on both ends and are slower and heavier than bullet trains used in Europe and Asia, Boardman said in an interview. Those standards reflect that U.S. passenger trains often share tracks with freight railroads rather than operating on their own lines.
Enlarge image
Amtrak Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman said, “What we’re really looking for is a performance specification here.” Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
22:00
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Robert Stevens, chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin Corp., and Marillyn Hewson, president and chief operating officer, talk about the potential impact of automatic federal budget cuts on the company and defense industry, and the outlook for the F-35 fighter program. Amtrak Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman discusses the company's improvement plans. Bloomberg Government's Robert Levinson talks about the implications of fiscal uncertainty for the defense industry. They speak with Peter Cook on Bloomberg Television's "Capitol Gains." (Source: Bloomberg)
4:24
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- "Capitol Gains" profiles the man trying to get Amtrak back on track. Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman is trying to get Congress on board with his multibillion dollar plans to upgrade the passenger train service and move high-speed rail forward.
Existing standards apply to trains traveling as much as 150 miles per hour (241 kilometers per hour). Writing new rules that relax railcar structural-strength requirements for faster trains “would allow for less use of fuel, quicker acceleration, a different performance profile,” Boardman, 64, said. “What we’re really looking for is a performance specification here.”
Amtrak last month announced it would seek bids to replace its 12-year-old fleet of 20 Acela trains operating between Washington and Boston instead of adding two cars to each train, a plan its inspector general questioned as too expensive. The Acela carried about 3.4 million passengers and produced about a fourth of Amtrak’s $2 billion in ticket revenue for the year ended Sept. 30.
Boardman, in the interview, said he’d like to add at least 10 to 12 trains before beginning to retire the current Acela fleet. The cost, for which Amtrak said it will seek information from potential suppliers in early 2013, may be $30 million to $40 million per trainset, Boardman said.
“It depends on how many we actually would purchase and whether anybody else in this country is going to move forward with high-speed trainsets,” he said.
Train Competition
Amtrak in 1996 signed a contract valued at $1.2 billion to buy the original Acelas, which operate much more slowly than their maximum speed on most of the Northeast Corridor due to the limitations of tracks and tunnels.
Companies including Siemens AG (SIE), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. (7011) and Hitachi Ltd. (6501) may want to compete with Bombardier Inc. (BBD/B) and Alstom SA (ALO), the joint suppliers of Acela equipment used since the service’s start 12 years ago. Amtrak is subject to rules that require its equipment to be made in the U.S.
Safety standards for passenger trains operating at more than 150 mph are being developed, Kevin Thompson, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration, said in an e-mail. Amtrak is “working with FRA and other members of the Railroad Safety Advisory Council to better define the car strength criteria for higher-speed passenger equipment,” he said.
Amtrak’s long-term plan for high-speed service in the Northeast envisions those trains running on dedicated tracks.
Congress Challenge
Boardman, who was FRA administrator from 2005 to 2008, said he’ll also challenge Congress this year to commit to maintaining taxpayer funding for long-distance train service outside the Northeast Corridor, so it can get the best value on equipment purchases.
Amtrak will be up for reauthorization by Congress in 2013, as the railroad’s chief critic in the House, Florida Republican John Mica, relinquishes his seat as chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee due to term limits.
Representative Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican who has said taxpayer subsidies for Amtrak are inevitable, will assume the panel’s chairmanship this month. Amtrak has never made an annual profit and received about $1.4 billion in taxpayer aid in the 2012 fiscal year.
“Until Congress establishes that reliable funding source for rail infrastructure investment, it’s going to be very difficult to take advantage of millions of dollars available from the private sector,” Boardman said.
Non-Cash Returns
Boardman, who became Amtrak’s CEO in 2008, said it won’t be easy to convince budget-conscious lawmakers to spend more money on a transportation service they sometimes hold out as an example of waste. Mica held a series of hearings last year to criticize Amtrak’s subsidies, especially on long-distance trains, and its $151 billion proposal to build a high-speed system in the Northeast.
“It’s always that way in business; there are always scarce resources for the things that you want to do,” he said. “So you continue to look for the returns. Those are not always returns in cash money.”
Mica’s staff in September released a report showing taxpayers have provided Amtrak subsidies of $50.97 per ticket sold for the past five years, an amount Boardman said needs to be compared with taxpayer support for highways and airports.
President Barack Obama made establishing high-speed rail passenger service in the U.S. a priority shortly after taking office in 2009. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last week in a blog post said that vision still exists even after states including Florida and Ohio rejected grant money they’d received to build such projects.
To contact the reporter on this story: Angela Greiling Keane in Washington at agreilingkea@bloomberg.net

[Nexis4jersey]

Could you imagine these operating on the MBTA or MTA or NJT , the lighter trains would mean they be cheaper to buy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/SBB_RABe_511_T%C3%B6ssm%C3%BChle.jpg/1280px-SBB_RABe_511_T%C3%B6ssm%C3%BChle.jpg

R9W0tNNW5x8

[Commuting Boston Student]

If amtrak does this, could the T as well for future orders? is there any good rolling stock for the T if so? Can we plug and play some of those Paris trains for the Green Line?

The FRA only controls interstate railroads, i.e. parts of the system physically connected to rails that freight happens to run on or even parts of the system only connected to other parts of the system on which freight may run.

In other words, the entire Northeast Corridor is subject to FRA regulations simply because a million-pound coal train is physically able to find its way onto the line, and therefore 'might' go on to collide with a Regional in Midtown Manhattan.

Yes, it is exactly that ridiculous. If you physically disconnect all active freight routes (and I mean seriously disconnect, disable the switches and obstruct the crossing), or run rails that don't connect to active freight routes (or connect to routes that connect to active freight routes, recursive indefinitely), then the FRA has no regulatory authority over you (unless you're crossing state lines and they argue authority based on interstate commerce, but I don't think that ever happens).

In practice, that means the FRA has zero say in what runs on the Red/Blue/Orange/Green Lines. The T could apply for waivers for their commuter rail operations, though.

What's stopping us from using 'off-the-shelf' rolling stock for the Green Line is the fact that its signaling system is a relic from the 19th century and that the Boylston curve still hasn't been shaved down a matter of inches to make it smooth enough for off-the-shelf rolling stock to traverse. Also, I'm pretty sure most light rail lines outside of the US don't have doors on both sides, but that's a comparatively minor issue.

[Matthew]

The FRA does not have authority over transit systems, not even ones that cross state lines.

Transit systems as old as Boston's usually have some idiosyncrasies which require some customization. But F-line has stated here that they could run off-the-shelf equipment on the Green Line if they did the following: ease the Boylston curve by shaving the wall a bit, make additional vertical clearance on the St Mary St portal, and avoid using the Park St and Lechmere loops (the latter of which is going away soon). What else?

As for Amtrak -- about time. Also, I saw that Austin's tiny little commuter railroad system uses Stadler DMUs, but I think they do time-separation, if those tracks are even still used for freight at all.

[Nexis4jersey]

The FRA does not have authority over transit systems, not even ones that cross state lines.

Transit systems as old as Boston's usually have some idiosyncrasies which require some customization. But F-line has stated here that they could run off-the-shelf equipment on the Green Line if they did the following: ease the Boylston curve by shaving the wall a bit, make additional vertical clearance on the St Mary St portal, and avoid using the Park St and Lechmere loops (the latter of which is going away soon). What else?

As for Amtrak -- about time. Also, I saw that Austin's tiny little commuter railroad system uses Stadler DMUs, but I think they do time-separation, if those tracks are even still used for freight at all.

Yea , there are a few systems like the Riverline here in NJ , Sprinter in Oceanside , a few lines in Texas.... There are over 40 of these lines proposed....there cheap to build and maintain for the ridership they get which is below 20,000.

[F-Line to Dudley]

There's lots of room for relaxing some of the more insane FRA regs. The most insane being that equipment weight somehow directly correlates to buff strength. That's like 1940's auto maker mentality on safety: the safest car on the road is the biggest hulk of steel on the road with the highest differential of damage it can inflict vs. damage it can absorb on lesser hulks of steel on the road. Yeah...how did that philosophy end up playing out over 70 years of modern car design? We don't drive 'boats' as the vanilla choice of ride anymore so things evolved just a smidge, didn't they? There are Euro and Asian train designs/regs out there that are 100% as effective as U.S. regs at preventing injury and enabling safe evacuation. But they're treated like autos: it's a whole-train design treatment, not some uselessly narrow and arbitrary set of goalposts. And the more you have to customize from a tried-and-true design to get something arbitrarily-fit like the Acela, the harder it's going to be to maintain, the quirkier it's going to be to operate, the shorter it'll last in service lifetime, and the more expensive it'll be. If stuff breaks down too much because it's over-customized it can in some cases end up less safe than "weaker" standard equipment. Hell...look at the local light rail analogies: Type 8 vs. Type 7.


That said, the U.S. does have a hell of a lot more freight and a hell of a lot heavier freight than much of the rest of the world. Its passenger network is behind its freight network in development, it has to mix-and-match a lot of infrastructure of very degrees of decay to function, and it has to bootstrap onto the freight network as a practical matter for getting anything useful done. That's true to some degree on the NEC too, although most dramatic on most new-growth routes where the surviving thru-freight corridors are simply the most well-developed traffic corridors for any kind of movement...freight or passenger. Mainly because the interstate highway network grew in parallel alongside them. We definitely can't use tincans on steel wheels in mixed traffic. That is not adequate for safety. At minimum the regs have to set a "do no harm" golden rule as baseline. So we're going to have to adopt comparatively heavier designs than some countries have the luxury to. We're going to have to enforce time separation on the RiverLINE-type operations that go on exemptions. The amount of flex zero-freight lines could be afforded in exemptions may be limited by the fact that they're interconnected with freight-carrying branches and in the name of interstate commerce can't be prohibited from carrying freight again from the national network should the need arise (which would affect the T's commuter rail purchases, because you never know if Rockport's going to have a must-have freight customer drop out of the sky and move into town next year bringing such an incredible economic windfall that freight rights slam-dunk need to go out to bid north-of-Salem for the first time in 30 years). And the feds do have constitutionally-protected interstate commerce authority for common carriers and 180 years of caselaw built up around RR's that--like it or lump it--still stands and is impossible to dismantle without chaotically destabilizing transport. There is a need for the agency that calls itself the FRA.


But the car analogy is apt. The regs need to see the forest for the trees and start favoring aggregate safety of both (rail)road and vehicle over OCD micro-focus like the current buff strength inanity. Safety still has to be absolute; we can't compromise it. But there's a shitload of reform and a shitload of better-value and flat-out-better equipment that can run here if stupid old habits are allowed to die when they have functionally nothing to do with real-world safety. The framing needs to be careful on this...we don't want this to be about cutting corners. We want to untie manufacturers and buyers from a straightjacket so we can have train equipment evolve to be as nimble and exponentially safer as autos have been allowed to evolve through the years.

[Nexis4jersey]

They should at least relax the regs for the Northeastern states our Freight network is shrinking not growing and alot of the older lines are becoming commuter or Intercity rail...

[F-Line to Dudley]

They should at least relax the regs for the Northeastern states our Freight network is shrinking not growing and alot of the older lines are becoming commuter or Intercity rail...

Slippery slope. We've got a ragged-looking rail network, but it is at least unified to carry any kind of traffic. You don't want to start introducing fragmentation to what can and can't run on it, and you most definitely don't want to fragment it by region. Interstate commerce is important enough to preserve as a common denominator. That's one area where the U.S. network will, and probably has to, look a little different from the light-freight or freight-free networks overseas that do use less-crashworthy equipment. There is precedent for this. By the Civil War the northern states had moved aggressively to standard-gauge rail--and spent a shitload of money to retrofit--so all the track was compatible and they had a pretty robust common carrier network to move troops and supplies anywhere-to-anywhere. The South was behind the curve. It quite literally lost them the Civil War when they had narrow-gauge lines that couldn't interchange with standard-gauge lines and left them a step too slow and cumbersome to move their troops or feed their citizens. The enormity of fixing that inequity left their postwar economy lagging far behind the North for generations. Fragmentation is real; it's left scars that shaped history.

Hell...I don't even think the feds thought the PTC mandate out well enough. It's too rigid on what has to be retrofitted, and too rigid on the types of systems (and available manufacturers of those systems) to use. There are exemptions galore, and all kinds of pending appeals for more exemptions. And there are cases where it may not even be necessary on minimal-traffic lines where dispatch rules are already draconian enough to ensure that only one train will be occupying a line at one time. You don't need expensive technology to prevent two trains from crashing when there is 99.9999% regulatory probability that there will be no physical means of two trains being within several ZIP codes of each other to collide at all. That's how unsignaled passenger lines ALREADY work. Apply new regs where it makes sense and the probabilities call for it. They're risking fragmentation of the network by absolutist-overkilling this the way only the FRA can overkill something.


Now, exemptions can be granted for new dedicated HSR lines like in California. Or the FRA can designate an entire new track class that bans freight or requires grade separation from freight tracks (maybe even one-and-the-same to integrate things like CAHSR). But as an organic extension of the current classes, not as network fragmentation that effectively spins off whole separate modes.

We don't know what freight's going to look like in 50 years. Or passenger Just as folks in the 1920's when the private RR's peaked in power couldn't have ever known that it would hit its nadir as a form of transport 50 years later in the 1970's. We do know the mode of transport is going to be around in 50 years, so every effort should be made NOT to preclude necessary uses we can't foresee today. There is a fine line here. We want to keep up with the world, but we also still have levels of freight the rest of the world doesn't and it ebbs and flows. Freight's undergoing a revival with intermodal. It doesn't look like the freight patterns of 50 years ago because it's coalescing around long distance travel to large hubs as opposed to local deliveries on a web of tiny branchlines straight to some mom-and-pop's loading dock. But the volumes are growing because that's the type of shipping that beats trucking on price. And it's going to grow a LOT in Massachusetts. Go look up CSX's stock. It's rock solid and gets a hearty "buy" recommendation from analysts. So do a lot of the other big carriers. That's what 50 years of ebb and flow netted us. Couldn't have predicted that when the B&M and NYNH&H were going tits up in New England in the late 20th century. It would be foolish to limit future flex when we don't know what 50 more of ebb and flow and evolution shaped to current needs is going to do. What if we have another major war and need to use the national network to transport equipment? Why would we ever weaken ourselves in that way? Money talks...land a big enough customer and even the NIMBY's and pols will shut up if a freight absolutely has to chug down the Needham, Newburyport, or Greenbush lines again. Or think in the smallest terms...what if somebody has to make a one-off move of an electrical transformer too heavy for the expressway? The state borrowed CSX for one day to do that a couple years ago on the Plymouth Line, which hasn't had any freight rights whatsoever in 15 years. What if there's a disaster or highway bridge out and somebody has to move relief supplies to an area? Are we really going to prohibit that just because a line doesn't have active freight?


Need to be careful. We aren't even getting close to the current regs' ceiling on mixed passenger traffic...because there's so little of it overall. Reform the regs and get rid of their stoopider constrictions, but until we're approaching the ceiling we don't need a whole new paradigm equivalent to what suits Japan with its huge HSR network and negligible freight needs. Japan isn't the U.S. geographically, economically, historically, etc., etc. Like it or not, our passenger network has to bootstrap onto the freight network if it's going to grow into anything robust. We're just not in a place where things are sturdy enough to separate them from each other.