# High speed rail proposed for North East US



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

I found this document interesting reading. It's conclusions, that high speed passenger trains will be needed to avoid traffic stoppages on roads and airports due to overloading, are very consistent with the kind of analysis done by California which ended up justifying their HST program. Simply put, you can't widen the roads enough to handle the increasing population....nor the airports. 


Here's the report. High Speed Rail for the North East Corridor


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

"Simply put, you can't widen the roads enough to handle the increasing population....nor the airports."

Tell that to the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. They are adding lanes north of exit 6 like there's no tomorrow. As for the study, I'll believe that a high speed rail system is coming when I see it up and running. We here, in the Philadelphia area, have been waiting for a cross county commuter line for over thirty years. Every few years there is a hearing or study on the issue. And the shame of it is that the track and roadbed in already in place. The old Pennsylvania RR Trenton Cutoff is the route in mind. Right now, and for ever, if you want or wanted to travel from Dolyestown to Paoli, your train travels into center city, then out to Paoli, or vise versa. Before the commuter tunnel was built, connecting all of the old Reading and Pennsylvania commuter lines, you would get on the train at Doylestown, travel into the Reading Terminal, get off the train, walk to Suburban Station, about five blocks, get on a train there that would take you to Paoli. The cross county commuter line would not only make the trip shorter and more palatable, but once people got it in mind to use it, would eliminate tons of traffic that clogs the five county area roads. God, our system moves slower than a snail in winter.

Another example of how fast molasses moves in January is the Blue Route, otherwise known as Interstate 476. It took thirty years to complete a section through the "Main LIne" due to the "Main Line". Who didn't want it here, who wanted sound barriers, put it in someones back yard. Then there were the. You all know the drill. And that was built before most of the environmental impact studies were commonplace. 

Listen, I was a Seabee. We built bridges in a day. Heres the hole, heres the steel and lumber, build a bridge, DONE.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Fortunately...the HST folks tend to go UNDER the cities in tunnels...so they avoid many of the issues. The CA HST Authority is having HUGE issues now with lawsuits from three towns on the Peninsula that don't want the HST to run on the existing train corridor...well sort of...it does require a lot of grade crossings removed.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Here in Lancaster, we are getting a lot of action with regard to improved service from Amtrak. True, the service is to and from Philadelphia/New York, but that works for me. They got money to refurbish the station that hasn't seen much improvement since it was built in 1929. And it is in the top 20 busiest stations in the entire Amtrak system. I am looking forward to the replacement of the crumbling stairways, too. That'll go nicely with the 'high speed' trains here, slated for 125 in the not too distant future. 

Dan, When I was in college, I found a book in the Villanova library that was a study of the 3 year old Schuykil Expressway (I-76). The finding was that the highway was out of date by the time it was finished in 1959. Also, the Blue Route necks down from 3 lanes to 2 south of Broomall, due to those townships blocking a 3 lane (each way) highway. Guess what that does for traffic? Adding more lanes has proven time and again to not work. New Jersey should have asked Atlanta about that. Having commuted from D-town to Norristown, I dreamed about commuting by train, but instead of a 20 mile direct train, it would have been a 60 mile trip in to philly and back out again, nearly 2 hours (or twice as long as simply driving. I mean, sitting in my car and occassionally releasing the brake to roll forward and stop. Should have put road slicks on a bike and just ridden.) 

I'm glad to see Amtrak actually looking like they are actually getting the support to improve their service (not that they haven't wanted to in the past). The market at Amtrak for high-tech jobs is really interesting right now, too. In the brief time I was laid off recently, I found a half dozen jobs based out of PHL that looked like good fits for me. I did get a call back for one, but it was well after when I had started my new job, so I didn't pursue it. 3 hours from Washington to Boston sounds nice.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

One thing I noticed when reading a bit on the Acela is that in effect is normal European (Bombardier I believe?) high speed train built to US standards. 
I have no idea why those standards limit the speed and increase the weight so dramatically. If an airliner would be built to those standards it would never be able to take off. 
Similar trains in Europe have reached a top speed of 570km/h (350mph) 
Is it the airline lobby that influences decision makers into making ridiculous requirements for other transportation options? 

One can wonder 

Also, unless the original route is dead straight and level it's really not a good idea to reuse any of the old line. Either way all the track and sub roadbed has to be replaced, so it usually ends up just as cheap to just build new. 

We have the same discussion about high speed lines here in Norway right now. And it's very similar to power discussions that goes like the following: 

Public: "We need higher power capacity" 
Companies: "Ok, let's build a windmill park" 
Public: "We don't want a windmill park. It's an eyesore" 
Companies: "Ok... let's build a dam" 
Public: "We don'æt want a dam. It's an eyesore" 
Companies: "hmmmm.... ok, let's build powerlines to your region and make power somewhere else" 
Public: "We don't want powerlines. they are an eyesore"" 
Companies: "Then we can't get elecricity to you?!" 
Public: "We need higher power capacity" 

Never ceases to amaze me


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Found this section
_Next-Gen High-Speed Rail systems require dedicated tracks with stringent design criteria to ensure safe and comfortable operations. While the track’s vertical grade can be somewhat steeper than traditional rail, its curvature limits are much more restrictive (minimum 3-mile radius curves vs. ½-mile radius for traditional commuter rail track), and even more gentle curves required to reach and maintain higher-end speeds. To further offset the force effects experienced on curved sections at very high speeds, high-speed rail tracks can be more “banked” (similar to race car tracks). _


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Speaking of sound barriers I hait them. They Spoil the view. If you don't like the noise move or get ear plugs. 

What we really need is a High Speeed train East to West. But that will never happen.

In countries that have a high speen network for passenger trains do they have high speed for freight?


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By John J on 01 Oct 2010 05:48 AM In countries that have a high speen network for passenger trains do they have high speed for freight?

What is high speed?
Our freight runs around 62mph. Don't know the average US speeds, but then we do not have any high speed lines for goods. They are reserved for commuter trains.

I believe it's about the same in the UK.


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

Public: "We need higher power capacity" 
Companies: "Ok, let's build a windmill park" 
Public: "We don't want a windmill park. It's an eyesore" 
Companies: "Ok... let's build a dam" 
Public: "We don'æt want a dam. It's an eyesore" 
Companies: "hmmmm.... ok, let's build powerlines to your region and make power somewhere else" 
Public: "We don't want powerlines. they are an eyesore"" 
Companies: "Then we can't get elecricity to you?!" 
Public: "We need higher power capacity" 

Nice...well, comforting...to know that we're not the only ones fighting NIMBY (not in my back yard). The locals here in Upstate NY apparently have killed any idea of wind farms being built way out in Lake Ontario bacause it would "spoil the view". 

Last year I did a 6500 mile trip out to the southwest and plains states and fell in love with the wind farms out there. Far as I go, they're beautiful and hypnotizing. And impressive as ****. 

My argument to those who don't like windmills is this. Stand in one spot, any spot, anywhere in the country (anywhere in the world, actually). Rotate 360 degrees and count the cellphone towers. Now multiply by three, for all the cell sites disguised as trees (there's one near Philadelphia that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen), flag poles, on top of tall buildings, etc. If you don't like cell towers, don't use your cellphone. If you don't like windmills, make your own electricity. 

I grew up under the flight path into Buffalo Intl. Airport back in the days of propeller airliners and the earliest jets. When a plane flew over, we automatically stopped talking, just froze in mid-sentence, then continued on as if that minute never existed. Since then, airliners aren't nearly as loud. Twenty years ago, I bought a house right next to a local Interstate. Shortly after we moved in, the state put up a wall. It did make a difference, but nothing masked the semi's. Especially the ones going downhill. Ahhh, the jake brakes! 

Big trucks aren't as loud and smelly as they used to be, either. Likewise the school buses. And many cars now are so silent as to pose a danger to people, especially sight-impaired, crossing the street. It would seem that the smart approach would be to work for quieter locomotives and still-quieter trucks. And put a muffler on the Harleys and the ricers. 

JackM


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

high speed for freight
John, 
The freight and HST are separated in Europe - the UK HST link to the Channel Tunnel is a dedicated line under the Thames River from the north side of London and through the stock-broker belt (guess how many NIMBYs in that locale!) The french do the same - and part of the reason is mentiuoned above - you can't have grade level crossings and the curves need to be eased a bit. 

Which is not to say that high speed freight doesn't operate, or that the low speed freight runs when the HSTs are asleep. Amtrak has a problem on its NEC north of DC, as the coal for the Potomac power plant comes down the NEC in between passenger trains. 

Nice...well, comforting...to know that we're not the only ones fighting NIMBY (not in my back yard). 
It seems to be a global / human problem. Everyone's happy with what they got - better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Real estate is probably the largest investment anyone makes, and represents their largest single piece of savings. Of course they object to change that may reduce the value of their property, even if that change is in the common interest and they get a better travel expereince from it. 

you can't widen the roads enough to handle the increasing population.
I take my wife to the DC Metro most days (in a diesel Jetta that gets 50mpg, so I don't feel too bad about the pollution.) MD Rt 50 takes the huge urban population of Annapolis and surrounding neighborhoods to DC (gov and beltway jobs) every day - I reckon about 50,000 cars make the trip each day. There is no alternative transport, and the old railroad tracks/walks are being overbuilt. I'm wondering how long before they start clamoring for a Metro extension to the State Capital, Annapolis, as is now being done over on the west to Dulles. When the commute gets to +1 hr? +2hrs?


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

One must remember that we do have a high speed train system known as the North East corridor however at present as Amtrak has mentioned it needs further up dates for a higher speed. Till they can meet the track standards for the speeds and can obtain the equipment and can pass FRA certification they are at a stand still. The right of way is in place and is a dedicated one which is one of the requirement for high speeds(above 90mph). Cal has the high speed but its only to a max of 90 for now so as we use to say when I was in the industry it's not high speed. Amtrak currently operates across western KS and Colo at 90 so nothing new for them. They have done it since the 80s out there.

As far as frights we currently have 70 mph frights that cross the county daily. The problem with this is the class of track they have to maintain the RR to be able to operate at these speeds. Just think freights that operate at 70 need a class 5 FRA standard. Very strict , now for Amtrak to operate at 90 they meet the same requirement. Later RJD


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By John J on 01 Oct 2010 05:48 AM 
Speaking of sound barriers I hait them. They Spoil the view. If you don't like the noise move or get ear plugs. 

What we really need is a High Speeed train East to West. But that will never happen.

In countries that have a high speen network for passenger trains do they have high speed for freight?



John, It did happen. But that was only on television, back in the late seventies or early eighties. I believe the show was "Supertrain". A high speed train that ran cross country.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By JackM on 01 Oct 2010 06:47 AM 
Public: "We need higher power capacity" 
Companies: "Ok, let's build a windmill park" 
Public: "We don't want a windmill park. It's an eyesore" 
Companies: "Ok... let's build a dam" 
Public: "We don'æt want a dam. It's an eyesore" 
Companies: "hmmmm.... ok, let's build powerlines to your region and make power somewhere else" 
Public: "We don't want powerlines. they are an eyesore"" 
Companies: "Then we can't get elecricity to you?!" 
Public: "We need higher power capacity" 

Nice...well, comforting...to know that we're not the only ones fighting NIMBY (not in my back yard). The locals here in Upstate NY apparently have killed any idea of wind farms being built way out in Lake Ontario bacause it would "spoil the view". 

Last year I did a 6500 mile trip out to the southwest and plains states and fell in love with the wind farms out there. Far as I go, they're beautiful and hypnotizing. And impressive as ****. 

My argument to those who don't like windmills is this. Stand in one spot, any spot, anywhere in the country (anywhere in the world, actually). Rotate 360 degrees and count the cellphone towers. Now multiply by three, for all the cell sites disguised as trees (there's one near Philadelphia that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen), flag poles, on top of tall buildings, etc. If you don't like cell towers, don't use your cellphone. If you don't like windmills, make your own electricity. 

I grew up under the flight path into Buffalo Intl. Airport back in the days of propeller airliners and the earliest jets. When a plane flew over, we automatically stopped talking, just froze in mid-sentence, then continued on as if that minute never existed. Since then, airliners aren't nearly as loud. Twenty years ago, I bought a house right next to a local Interstate. Shortly after we moved in, the state put up a wall. It did make a difference, but nothing masked the semi's. Especially the ones going downhill. Ahhh, the jake brakes! 

Big trucks aren't as loud and smelly as they used to be, either. Likewise the school buses. And many cars now are so silent as to pose a danger to people, especially sight-impaired, crossing the street. It would seem that the smart approach would be to work for quieter locomotives and still-quieter trucks. And put a muffler on the Harleys and the ricers. 

JackM 


We all want, but none of us wants to give for the common good. What's that old phrase; *The good of the many out weigh the good of the few*. I think that phrase has been put in some dark vault somewhere and completely forgotten.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Of interest...the negative responses to the Amtrak HST plan are starting to emerge now. And get this...the major complaint is that Amtrak is proposing to take 30 years to build the whole route. Reviewers are openly asking why it can't be done in MUCH less time. In other words...they think Amtrak set the bar too low.

Frankly, AMTRAK is estimating it will generate 44,000 jobs for 30 years to build the line from Boston to Washington.... 1.32M man years...if I read their material properly. So, given that, it would employ 132,000 folks per year IF they attempted to complete it in 10 years...at what would be something like $12B a year in cost. Actually, that sounds doable given the number of folks out of work...and cheap given the kind of money Congress throws around now. 


Seems to me that this project and the one in California and the one in the NW and the one in Texas and the one in the midwest....might be good things to spend a lot of money on...to get the economy going again...and get a LOT of the unemployed reemployed again.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Sounds like a capital idea Mike. You're correct about congress and their interest in* our* deep pockets. 12,000,000,000 is a drop in the bucket when compared to some of the ways they can throw *our* money around the planet.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike, I agree! Why drag it out for 30 years and deal with the major cost escalations that will occur? What might cost $12b today could be more like $100b in 10-20 years. 


It would be an interesting proposition to run a coast to coast train, non stop from the major east coast cities of New York, DC or Atlanta to LA, San Francisco or Seattle. 300 MPH trains exist. Power it all with electric on brand new, dedicated right of ways. The real technological challenge would be the crossing of the Rockies. Have to solve the cooling problem at altitude of the electric motors. Kind of fun to think about a 10 hour train ride coast to coast. Certainly would be more enjoyable than a 6 hour flight (and the 2 hour pre-flight sitting around in the airport).


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

OK all sounds good. Now who in the heck do you think is going to pay for this?, Just remember Amtrak is a govt funded RR. So if you folks want to start paying bigger taxes you can have your RR in a faster period of time. Some how we got to get some body/folks to think about an investment. Then there are the feasibility studys(Joke) that take for ever and throws a lot of money into the wind. It's a no win situation unless folks wake up. Oh and do not forget the environmental impact this will have (joke again)Some more bureaucrat junk. For some of you folks here we ain't going to be around that long to see it happen. Sad yep True Yep. Later RJD


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 02 Oct 2010 05:39 PM 
OK all sounds good. Now who in the heck do you think is going to pay for this?, Just remember Amtrak is a govt funded RR. So if you folks want to start paying bigger taxes[/b] you can have your RR in a faster period of time. Some how we got to get some body/folks to think about an investment. Then there are the feasibility studys(Joke) that take for ever and throws a lot of money into the wind. It's a no win situation unless folks wake up. Oh and do not forget the environmental impact this will have (joke again)Some more bureaucrat junk. For some of you folks here we ain't going to be around that long to see it happen. Sad yep True Yep. Later RJD 
12 billion is but a minuscule fraction of what is being spent on the two wars we absolutely had to start. Oh, and did I mention that the idiot that was in the white house from 2000-2008 cut taxes at the same time. Now that was a moronic move. So don't tell me that we should pay more taxes, when we already were. It's just that someone wanted to cut taxes so that the next guys would have to raise them and look like the bad guys. I didn't want this topic to turn political. But when anything that has to do with the government is brought up, the political views are not far behind.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 02 Oct 2010 05:39 PM 
OK all sounds good. Now who in the heck do you think is going to pay for this?, Just remember Amtrak is a govt funded RR. So if you folks want to start paying bigger taxes you can have your RR in a faster period of time. Some how we got to get some body/folks to think about an investment. ... Later RJD 
OK...I got a partial explanation...just partial. Here's how you pay for part of this...and it's based on the fact that when the government buys construction...not welfare...not bank bailouts...not save GM...it directly generates between 2.8 and 3.8 dollars per dollar spent IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. The money that goes to the general contractor is spent again to buy labor and material. The money spent on labor in turn is spent by the laborer to buy goods. In turn, that money is spent by the goods provider to buy more goods...creating more jobs...and so on. Similarly, the money spent to buy material is spent by the material provider to pay for labor to create the material (e.g. concrete) and to buy machines to make the material (e.g. a mixer truck) and to buy more of the base material...which is produced by another firm...who spends that money to pay salaries and other materials.

So...the key deal is that when government money is spent to BUY something...it's spent many times....somewhere between 2.8 and 3.8 times. So...in this case, $12B spent per year generates between $33.6B and $45B...and a significant percentage of that money is taxable. OK...so the average working level guy in the US pays about 16% of his income for federal income tax. So, lets say that 85% of the money generated was spent on labor...and those laborers paid 16% to the feds...that would mean that the feds got between $4.5B and $6.1B from income taxes.


But there's more...employed folks don't suck up unemployment funds from the government. Employed folks don't receive assistance, welfare, Medicaid, etc...thereby reducing STATE expenses. To keep this on a financial heading...lets do the easy thing...just accept that the benefits they get are worth $1500 a month...$18000 a year. For 132,000 that would be employed on a 10 year build project, that's a savings of around $240M per year. Not much in the big world...but employed folks are happier folks and the kids of employed folks grow up in a richer environment. 

OK..but some will say that folks that receive unemployment, assistance, welfare, Medicaid, etc ALSO create jobs. That's true...but there are two realities. Reality 1 is that the multiplier for spending by that group is in the 1.8 to 2 range. So, government spending on direct support does NOT generate as much money in the PRIVATE ECONOMY as does money spent by the government to BUY construction of stuff.

Reality 2 is that the folks that receive direct support from the government generally pay NO Federal income taxes. In fact, many often receive a credit payment FROM the government...costing the taxpayers more. 


So...my logic says, if we want HSTs in the US, lets get on with it. I've shown that between one third and a bit more than half OF THE EXPENSES, the Feds get back in taxes immediately. And, for the 132,000 folks employed by this project...there's 132,000 folks NOT unemployed saving direct support costs...but that's NOT the whole story. There's the AFTER.


AFTER the project is completed...heck during it if they open parts of it as it's completed...it GENERATES more NEW jobs both directly in jobs related to running the HST...and indirectly through the jobs that availability of the HST presents...from Starbucks at the terminal to construction of new business and residential construction around the terminals.

None of this "good idea" addresses your question of "where does the money come from"...but, my view is that BUILDING something is a WAY BETTER way to get this economy going again than I'm hearing on the news...and KEEPING it going. Think InterState Highway benefits to the US....


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 02 Oct 2010 05:39 PM 
....Then there are the feasibility studys(Joke) that take for ever and throws a lot of money into the wind. It's a no win situation unless folks wake up. Oh and do not forget the environmental impact this will have (joke again)Some more bureaucrat junk. For some of you folks here we ain't going to be around that long to see it happen. Sad yep True Yep. Later RJD 
OK...part 2...I'm on a roll tonight. Feasibility studies CAN be a joke...and often are. Then again, they generate jobs...and 2.8 to 3.8 more dollars spent. So, feasibility studies aren't completely bad...and frankly, coming from a development world, they're a necessary evil. You MUST establish the requirements...and you need studies to do that.

The environmental thing is WAY WAY WAY harder to deal with. It's really frustrating me. It goes from the NIMBY problem...to the just COMPLETE NO position that's developing in the environmental world...NO to everything. No to wider freeways. No to bigger airports. No to more electrical generation. No to more water. It seems to go on forever...and I don't know how to deal with that. Our nation was built on the idea of compromise...but that's really lacking now.


Bureaucratic junk...yeah, lots of that. But, private industry puts up with it...and overcomes it...it's just a cost of doing business...but less would junk would help. 


Lastly...you started with it's a government owned RR...yeah, it is. Maybe it shouldn't be. The NEC HST. Maybe the Feds should "contract it out"...compete it...and by that I mean, contract out the construction AND operation for...say....50 years. Let private investment pay for it. It would be interesting to see how private investment folks would respond to that. Orange County, California did that with freeways....now we have Toll Roads paid for with private investment money. The NEC HST would be a **** of an opportunity...especially with the looming gridlock in the highways and airports.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

I like Mikes logic 
And I would think all would agree that it is money better spent than bank bailouts.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Mike,

Your logic is clear and simple. Now if we could only get the politicians to understand it. I'd like to copy it and send it to a few of them.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Dan....not a chance in them understanding. I didn't include the kickback/donation/bribe aspects that benefit them.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

I am in the camp that says public transportation and communication is the governments responsibility. 
As in it's their responsibility to ensure that we have it. Who does the job is of less importance. 
I feel that is what I am paying taxes for, so it's them I blame when they do a poor job (and they generally do)


----------



## Ross (Jul 19, 2009)

The French did it with great enthusiasm and government backing - with a brilliant result. But on the Paris-Lyon route they completely destroyed villages. The USA would be the place for hi speed but the cost would be enormous. Those who want it should pay for. After all...if YOU the taxpayer have to pay for it remember..you also have to BUY a ticket!! . . . and the shareholders of the company take the profit.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well they tried to make Amtrk not a govt thing but you folks just did not want to bail them out so your stuck. Don't agree with the feasibility studies, Ya may put folks to work but waste of time and money especially when they say Na. We have gone throgh the process here in GA for a high speed train between Atlanta and Chattanooga and it all comes down to it will not work as they say. Now here is the good part we have spent this money for the study and no is the answer so now we do it again. OK what is wrong with this picture. Had we not done all the study crap we would be running trains by now. So just snuggle up to the fact the Govt has the last say and you/I will at some point pay for this project. I worked to many years within the govt that deals with RR so it's a sad note that I can say is most of folks here we are not going to see it in our life time. Later RJD


----------



## wchasr (Jan 2, 2008)

As part of a volunteer organzation last year I held a state wide position and IF I could have travelled by public transport in a timely manner I would have. Currently for me to travel downstate to NYC I need to drive an hour and half north to Buffalo. Wait 2 hours for the mandatory security checks etc. then the short flight to any of the NYC airports and a wait for my baggage and then a wait for a rental car or public transport to my destination. Total trip time over 12 hours. When we chartered a buss to go to NYC fro Grand Ldoge we'd stop in 3 places in Western NY along the southern border and stop in PA for lunch and be in times Square by 3 depending on traffic. so a 7 hour trip. Need to go the Island? Add at least another hour driving time. 
This past year most places I travelled to 60 years ago had passenger service on the trains with decent taxis or busses to finish my destination. Not any more. The Lady that took the partners place last year came for her "Official Visit" at the beginning of September and flew into Buffalo. Her trip from her dorstep on Long Island to our Lodge was over 14 hours on a Friday. simply put a High speed rail line would help some of the tax payers and a whole LOT of auxilliary folks who work in the construction and support of the rail line BUT it would rarely help me directly in my current and future travels. AHvign said all that I WOULD vote for it. 

Chas


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

OK, it seems that either the government or private enterprise needs to do something. We've been trying government owned or run railroads for some time now. I am not educated on the subject enough to say whether or not, Amtrak or any other state run railroads around the country are or are not really working. Wasn't the idea of taking over railroads and commuter lines, to keep them in operation until public transportation became either self supporting, or some private party saw an opportunity to make money and buy them. One of the main obstacles, in my mind, keeping railroads from making a go of it and actually making money is still the automobile. It's still less expensive to travel by car for the most part. Case in point. My wife and I recently drove to Marthas Vineyard. About 350 miles. We spent approximately $150.00 on gas tolls and the ferry. We looked into taking the train, about $475.00, including the ferry from Kingston R. I. to M. V. Both modes of transportation took about the same time 5 1/2 hours. We just couldn't justify the cost of taking the train. Even taking SEPTA into Philadelphia costs about the same as driving and parking for two people. Granted, if you commute daily into center city, and buy a monthly pass, you are better off than driving. But for people wanting to travel by train, it still is not cost effective enough. I have said, in conversations with friends, on the subject of rail travel, until the car gets too expensive to operate, no one is going to voluntarily give it up. 

So maybe the argument for privatizing the rails for High Speed trains is a good one. Why should tax payers pay for something that only a few people will use. On the other hand, maybe the tax payers that would benefit from the train are paying taxes to support something I use.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 02 Oct 2010 05:39 PM 
OK all sounds good. Now who in the heck do you think is going to pay for this?, Just remember Amtrak is a govt funded RR. So if you folks want to start paying bigger taxes you can have your RR in a faster period of time. Some how we got to get some body/folks to think about an investment. Then there are the feasibility studys(Joke) that take for ever and throws a lot of money into the wind. It's a no win situation unless folks wake up. Oh and do not forget the environmental impact this will have (joke again)Some more bureaucrat junk. For some of you folks here we ain't going to be around that long to see it happen. Sad yep True Yep. Later RJD 

People who ride it can pay for it.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Madman on 05 Oct 2010 09:22 PM 
OK, it seems that either the government or private enterprise needs to do something. .... Even taking SEPTA into Philadelphia costs about the same as driving and parking for two people. Granted, if you commute daily into center city, and buy a monthly pass, you are better off than driving. But for people wanting to travel by train, it still is not cost effective enough. ...

So maybe the argument for privatizing the rails for High Speed trains is a good one. Why should tax payers pay for something that only a few people will use. On the other hand, maybe the tax payers that would benefit from the train are paying taxes to support something I use. 


Costs the same....is good. That means we don't have to spend more money on freeways....IF, the high speed rail IS privatized.

On the subjext of "only a few people will use"... the HST in the NEC is about BUSINESS TRAVEL. Getting business folks from point A to point B faster IS good for our economy. Time is money is still a truism. 


So...given that...and given that 30 lane wide freeways are kinda expensive.....and given that there's really NO WAY to accommodate the required business travel in the NEC via plane without HUGE increases in airport development...what's the solution? That is EXACTLY what the huge California Environmental Impact Statement concluded...that led to it's HST solution. And...whomever wrote that, sold it to the citizenry here, because the $10B bond issue to pay for the HST passed.

Something like that will have to be generated for the NEC HST...a compelling argument.


Now...if it's SO COMPELLING, I argue there's a good opportunity to have it privately financed and operated. IMHO, if the government did the requirements studies so that private investors could see a way to make money...and then allowed them a way to bid for a construction and operating lease...kinda like we had with the Panama Canal...we'd have a win win situation. Taxpayers don't pay to build or operate the HST...and lots of employment results from private industry.

Amtrak operates financially unprofitable lines...because they're required to. That's the ole public transportation philosophy..deliver service even when it's not profitable. I think if Amtrak were to run the NEC HST, you'd see a continuation of that thinking. That's why I think trying to do it privately is important...like airlines do now...sorta.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

There is one other plus for the taxpayers that will not use this train as they are not in the "target area".
Now you can actually go by car or plane to your destination faster, because the rest are taking the train.

For countries/cities on such a network there is hardly any short to medium distance flights at all any more, people go by train because it's in effect much faster than the aircraft up to a certain distance. Also a lot less hassle. From City center to city center in 4-5 hours beats the airplane ride by about 2 hours.
I think that Europe in that way can be compared to your NEC. The airlines have even started buying stock in the trains.
The difference between Europe and the USA is that for you guys everything has to "pay itself", the "So let them pay" attitude eagerly displayed in all posts about such things in this forum is evident. 

Building and developing such things is a government matter (if no private enterprise wants it) and the initial investment will not "pay off" dollar for dollar until the railroad has been there for some time. And it is commonly accepted in Europe as a "social investment" (socialist?)

It may not go in the green/pluss for several years, but at the same time makes life a lot easier for the citizens. I would say that is as good a use of tax payers money as... not to be too political... many other things I could think of that your government is currently spending bucket loads of money on. 



*John Forbes Nash, Jr.* postulated the "Nash equilibrium" setting aside the economic theory that Adam Smith postulated and founded deeply in the US. 

Smith's theory was that a society would be best off if everyone did what was best for them.

Nash's theory added a line. A society is best off if everyone does what is best for themselves while considering what is best for everyone else as well as that in turn makes life easier for everyone including one self.


Radical thinking


----------



## wchasr (Jan 2, 2008)

Rune, 
I think that this is best done and probably ONLY done governmentally sicne no private enterprise in this time and palce would tackle the project based solely on getting that much land usage. The government is already set up to do it relatively easily in terms of acquiring the land alone via "Eminent Domain" etc. ....now keep in mind I do NOT know what I'm talking about but just stabbing around in the dark. I do know that traffic on the 4 lane Interstate 86 that runs past our town has been increasing not only in car traffic but also in truck traffic as well. The fact that it is a non-toll road that runs all the way across the southern section of NY state helps. It is an alternative to using interstate 90 across the northern portion. My rant earlier about the trip downstate to NYC by plane or car also applies to the trains. To catch ANY of the train we'd need to drive to Buffao (near the airport actually) and wait for a trian that is usually late. Suffer the delays and the potential lost baggage and arrive someplace between 9 hours and 16 hours later in NYC. Also not an option, even for business travellers. IF ANY transportation system is to work well it needs to run somewhat close to a regular schedule. Understandable delays can be excsued and should be accepted among travellers but to be regularly late with trains is un-excusable. Since 9-11 my experience with the airline industry has more late and delayed flights than prior to that time. To the tune of the last 4 flights have all had at least one leg of the fllight that was delayed over a technical problem. Usually the return trip for some odd reason? No system is perfect and it certainly will not be that way with this but it has to help. 

Chas


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Sooner or later every country in the World will have to do it. 
When the oil runs out, which it will sooner or later, the planes will not be taking off. 

Those that do it now will be best placed to gain an economic advantage whilst the laggard countries play catch up.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike,

I took the time to read this study and looked at the pictures. This shows some serious thought, in my opinion, especially for the NEC. The route from Boston to NYC using parts of the old Air Line is astonishing. Paralleling I-84 and I-684 on seldom used/dormant rail lines while drawing traffic in a counter commute direction (in CT, commuters generally go toward NYC, this would draw them away from NYC). Also, going through Hartford, instead of New Haven shows some thought, too, since Hartford is the capital and seems to have more commuters than Hartford. There already exists service on the shore line from NYC to New Haven and taking the high speed trains off that line would allow better transit times for those commuters. I didn't expect that Amtrak would add completely new service, but that appears to be the case. But that is expensive real estate, so I wouldn't expect it to be cheap. It does make sense from an urban planning standpoint, so the pessimist in me knows it will never happen.

Also, another key is connecting the major airports. The Philly airport has a SEPTA connection, but it is bypassed by the normal high speed train lines. I've flown to Frankfurt Germany where they have three train lines for high speed, local and subways. This makes getting from the airport to where I needed to go very simple. 

It was interesting to note in yesterday's New York Times that there are several gubinitorial races right now where some candidates have focused on these train projects that are already kick started with stimulus money and are saying they are unneccesary and too expensive. Particularly the Ohio candidate was saying it was not going to work yet the Ohio DOT has been planning a huge corridor from Cincinnati to Cleveland for about 10 years now, and essentially have everything ready to go. People are out of work, this creates multiple levels of jobs, from engineering/professional to manufacturing to operations. Taking cars off the road, lowering our dependance on foreign oil, putting people back to work, I can't see how anyone wouldn't back a project like this. I guess I am just lucky to have grown up using train service and have found it convenient and cost effective. But, I do hate that projects like this that can do so much good for us all become politcal pawns. 

Edit: I kept reading after I posted, and wow, it is great to see that Grand Central Terminal is planned as a major station in NYC again. I think Amtrak stopped using GCT in the late 80s. Looks like all trains will go through GCT and only some will use Penn Station.


----------



## sandbarn (Feb 13, 2010)

All,

About 3 years ago I had to make a business trip from San Antonio to Dallas. I decided to take Amtrak instead of driving (mainly just because I wanted an excuse to get on a train). But as it turned out it was the most convenient and cheapest method I could have chosen. The train leaves San Antonio at 7:00am. Since San Antonio is the origin of the #22 Texas Eagle the departure was on-time. The schedule called for an arrival time of 3:20pm. As expected it was late arriving in Dallas. We arrived at about 4:30pm. Since I chose to take the train for the joy of the trip an extra hour was not an inconvenience. 
Upon arriving in Dallas I walked across 2 tracks and boarded the DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) Red Line which took me to within 100’ of the Westin City Center Dallas Hotel.
Five days later I started my return trip. Took the DART (not sure why they call it ‘Rapid’) back to the Union Station to catch #21 Texas Eagle back to San Antonio. Since Amtrak #21 originates in Chicago, it was (not surprisingly) late by about 2 ½ hours. 
Now for the bad part. Since #21 was so late getting to Dallas, when we arrived in Ft. Worth and picked up the dining car we were told if we wanted to eat we needed to get to the dining car immediately because the dining staff was off at 7:00pm. Well I did eat as we sat at a siding just south of the Ft. Worth station. We waited there for about 1 ¼ hours. When we got started again it was dark (not sure of the time). We seemed to move fairly quickly after that until we got just north of Austin (Round Rock actually). We were told we would be waiting there for “quite a while, Oh, also the snack bar will be closing in 15 minutes so if you want anything, you better get it now”. Well we waited there for almost 4 hours waiting for 3 long freights to come up the MoPac corridor out of Austin. During that time the entire train staff (everyone) disappeared into their bunk rooms, never to be seen again. When we finally got started again it was about 2:00am. We finally got into San Antonio at 4:30am (scheduled arrival was 10:40pm). When we stopped at the San Antonio station none of the train staff were around to open any of the doors, one of the passengers had to do it. There were station personnel present at that point to help passengers exit the train, but still none of the train staff.
Now for the good part. I love to travel by train. It is the most comfortable (by a loooong shot) way to travel of any other method. It was cheap. My total round trip (including DART) was $56. That’s cheaper than driving (275 miles each way at 21mpg and about $2.65/gal for gas comes to about $70) and way cheaper than flying (about $223).
All the bad parts above would still not keep me from traveling on Amtrak again. I love the comfort and being able to see the country side (which you can’t really do if you’re driving or flying). The reason for the bad parts was to point out Amtraks apparent disregard for passenger comfort or safety. The train staff apparently work on a schedule that has no relation to the trains actual time. I’m sure they know that by the time the southbound Texas Eagle gets to Dallas it’s going to be late, and by the time it gets to San Antonio it’s going to be even later. The train staff should never desert passengers until the train reaches its destination and the passengers have gotten off.
As to the NEC high speed proposal, the first thing that struck me was the 30 year schedule. I understand there are many city, county, and state agencies that need to be dealt with before construction actually begins, but still…. 30 YEARS!! How long did it take to build the first transcontinental railroad (150 years ago)? I can’t think of any commercial enterprise that would be willing to invest that much money for that long before they start to see any return on their investment. So it has to be the federal government that makes the investment to do the preliminary work to acquire the ROW. Once that’s done the project could be sold to commercial investors who could see, on the horizon, where the profit would start. A new commercial venture (Like this would be. I don’t really think of Acela, at 150mph, as hi-speed rail. Didn’t a 4-4-0 hit 100mph about 170 years ago?) will be most concerned with acquiring and maintaining a loyal and happy customer base. This also includes maintaining strict safety standards (a dead passenger is not a happy passenger).
I’ve rambled on quite a bit here because I, like I think most of you, would really love to see this happen. But most of us won’t (30 years is too long for me anyway). It’s an interesting topic that would be fun to discuss in person with all of you rather than trying to express ideas in writing here. 
Lloyd


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

The Flying Scotsman was a 100mph thingy
Funny how every record up to 160mph was set before the war and the Acela claims that to be high speed








Not much better of here though. Our only "high speed" line is only just starting to make feeble baby steps out of the capitol (argh)


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Lloyd,

I had a similar experience with train crews on Amtrak. I called their customer service line and discussed it with them and they sent me some vouchers. In my case there was such a major difference between two different crews, I felt like it was necessary to make Amtrak aware of the discrepancy. 

170 years ago was 1830. Railroads were just being built, I think you meant the late 1890s. 

I was thinking about the 30 year plan, as well. Seems like too long to drag it out.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Forgot the link


----------



## ChaoticRambo (Nov 20, 2010)

Riding the double decker high speed line in France was an amazing experience - a million times more comfortable and convenient than flying. When we got to the train station we literally walked right in, showed them our ticket, and sat in the waiting room. The train got there exactly on time, and left on time. A couple hours later we arrived in Paris exactly when the schedule called for. The nice thing about this type of high speed service, is that the trains are running 5 minutes apart at 180 mph once outside of the cities.

As much as I like to complain we don't have adequate passenger trains for the times, our freight is a million times more sophisticated than France's. When we were riding the train out of the city, we were next to a freight line that is still using the screw and buffer connections, along with tiny little box cars. We actually saw a 2 axle car in use. This mainly comes from the fact that compared to the US, all Western European Countries are tiny, so their freight needs are minimal compared to ours, and there need for passenger service is much greater for the distances people are going.


Something to keep in mind is that the US is larger than all of Western Europe. And many states are larger than individual countries over there. High speed trains would be great for city to city, and state to state (for nearby states), but cross country travel would still be fastest by plane.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

One must remember that RR in Europe have long had passenger trains and have always expanded on it where as the US gave up on it and now most folks expect the got to pick up the tab like every thing else. One would think that we need less govt and more involvement by prvt sector to get things up and running. We have way to much govt control as is and I guess that is what folks want, Be led around by the govt and be told what to do. Then folks wonder why the price of things keep going up. Later RJD


----------

