Posted on 05/29/2010 5:31:40 AM PDT by Willie Green
Quest for higher top speeds may mean wider track corridors
On a recent visit to Buffalo, President Obama indicated an appreciation for what high speed rail can mean for revitalizing a state's economy … and added, jokingly, that there would be the added benefit of avoiding the airport security line practice of taking off one's shoes. It all sounded good.
Now, let's clear the hurdles.
The Obama administration announced $8.5 billion in high-speed rail grants in late January, with $151 million to help with a proposed high-speed line from Buffalo to New York City. Indeed, that's a disappointing amount compared to the anticipated costs. But, along with about $4.6 million secured from this year's Consolidated Appropriations Act, it will make a difference.
The $151 million in federal money is to go toward preliminary work on a third track between Rochester and Batavia and construction of a second track between Schenectady and Albany, in addition to improvements between Albany and Montreal. The Depew and Rochester train stations are to be renovated to comply with the American with Disabilities Act.
But there are challenges to be overcome and significant points that could derail these plans if not ironed out by Sept. 1 … specifically, the state's previous agreement with CSX Corp., which owns the right of way for the planned high-speed track from the Albany area to Buffalo, for a top speed of 90 mph. The hope now is for a 110-mph line.
The company has safety concerns involving a relatively narrow 30-foot gap between the high speed lines and the company's freight tracks, necessitating a slower 90 mph on curves.
That's a valid concern, although others look at examples of narrow gaps around the country and doubt there's a problem. The 110-mph goal is important to reducing travel time between upstate and downstate cities, expanding the linkages and helping rail travel ease growing airline congestion.
But those speeds have to be safe speeds. Dedicated high-speed passenger rail lines in safer corridors, even if that means some additional land acquisitions on the curves, are the best path to 110 mph … which, as Assemblyman Sam Hoyt of Buffalo has pointed out, is the low end of the definition of "high speed" rail.
There were enough looming issues to raise concern by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., over what appeared to be a stalled agreement on the best way to deploy the funding and on the specifications for a new high speed rail line. The federal money can indeed lead to relatively quick improvements in the current delay-plagued passenger rail system … at the 90-mph level.
Servicing freight business in upstate New York has to continue to be a priority, and harming the economy by forcing CSX to change its business model defeats the economy-enhancing purpose of high speed rail, as Hoyt said. High speed trains and CSX freight can coexist in the same corridor, with a designated track for passengers, but CSX sees the 30-foot separation between freight and rail tracks as key.
Both the state and company's reported willingness to work out differences is encouraging. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, who formed the upstate congressional caucus, convened a meeting with the stakeholders and Secretary Ray LaHood. In that meeting, LaHood pledged his full support … but it was the presence of Karen Rae, deputy administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, that offers hope, especially after the recent departure of the state's top high speed rail official, Ann Purdue.
Sources said Purdue may have left out of anger that other state officials demanded the deal with CSX be changed. She probably had a right to be upset. The state, as Schumer said, "tied itself in knots" by signing the CSX agreement, for which the company should not be faulted.
If New York State wants to be a player in high speed rail, it must solve these issues. Proper use of the available federal funds would help create jobs and a healthier economy, so it's important that the governments and the rail lines keep talking to find a way to get this job well, and safely, done.
It might be cheaper to offer free air service.
To be truthful...if you just put more money into track maintenance and ensured 75 mph speeds were absolutely safe...I think most people would vote for that option over bullet trains.
Imagine this....we spend eight billion dollars on a federally subsidized bullet train from LA to Vegas. Twelve months after opening....a crash occurs. The rail is shut down for sixty days and then you learn that the rail is barely safe at speeds they want to run...so you need another eight billion to beef-up the rail. At that point, you realize the rail will never be profitable to pay back the state or nation...and this entire game ends.
1) Just widen the damn thruway to three lanes from Buffalo to Albany.
2) People ride the Albany to Montreal rail for the scenery of the Adirondacks and Lake Champlain,not because of the speed. I 87 north of Lake George is West Texas desolate and very quick.
Over 75% of the species on the plant use flight as the preferred method of travel. Only one species builds trains. Hmmmmm........
Would you ride a train at 100+mph with Amtrak driving it?
Make rail fast, and safe...in some other country.
It would be cheaper to fire 100 of the troopers that we use to raise revenue via the “Taxation by Trooper” scheme that the state employs to strip us of our hard earned dollars.
I drive it everyday. The Troopers, making an average of 75- 80K, love oppressing the citizenry.
Low energy content (cost) to build an infrastructure to get to just about everywhere instead of a just few places and routes where predators can easily converge on their prey.
Willie, you've been peddling this for months, isn't it time you provide a business plan that proves passenger rail can be profitable? And explain why, when Our Lord Barak jokes about no TSA on rail travel, he skips over the fact that the TSA is going to start inspecting carry-on luggage in Chicago at Union Station.
Think of how much fun a bomb over a passenger car truck at 110 mph would be...
Oh yeah. I witnessed a shootout in Five Points MARTA station in Atlanta many moons ago. Pretty much cured me of ever having the desire to ride mass transit again. Funny thing is I flew commercial several times a week for over 15 years and I never saw a shootout in an airport......
Yep, that’s apparently the way things work across the Animal World.
Yep and when you provide a space for the animals to do their bidding you will draw them by the hundreds.....
Willie, you've been peddling this for months, isn't it time you provide a business plan that proves passenger rail can be profitable?
I'll do that as soon as YOU provide a business plan that proves that the Interstate Highway system is profitable.
While admitting that I am not intimately familiar with the rail corridor under discussion, the CSX separation requirement is somewhat workable. A larger issue, especially when $$$ are considered, is eliminating at-grade crossings for HSR. That is the only way to achieve the desired speeds with a satisfactory safety factor.
Simply stated, the vastness of the US keeps Euro-style HSR a pipedream.
One problem with a train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas is that both cities are spread out over dozens of square miles. Once the traveler reaches the rail terminal, he will have to depend on the local transportation to reach his final destination. Las Vegas has only buses, as far as I know—I’ve never used its public transportation system—and Los Angles has a light rail system of limited scope—but these are a far cry from the sophisticated urban rail systems of New York City and Washington, DC.
Simply stated, the vastness of the US keeps Euro-style HSR a pipedream.
US Population
1940 - 142 million
1950 - 161 million
1960 - 189 million
1970 - 213 million
1980 - 236 million
1990 - 259 million
2000 - 291 million
2010 - 309 million (est)
While our continental vastness will always favor air travel for long distance trips, our population growth demands more efficent high-speed passenger rail for regional trips of 150~600 miles.
Once the traveler reaches the rail terminal, he will have to depend on the local transportation to reach his final destination. Las Vegas has only buses, as far as I know—I
LV also has a monorail that can be expanded to pickup passengers at the airport/rail station.
But there are also plenty of taxis, car rentals, hotel courtesy vans, etc. etc.
Even during a recession, Vegas gets millions of visitors...
and they don't all get there by driving their own car.
So there are plenty of other options available.
OK, we have had population growth but it is still spread out across a vast geographic area. Of course, this excludes the NEC and the area discussed in the original article may qualify for that designation as regards density.
While I love trains, their highest/best use is moving freight, not people. I refuse to participate in TSA security theater so I drive or I don’t go.
90 mph from DC to Dulles. 200mph from Dulles to Hunt Valley. 90 mph from Hunt Valley to Baltimore. 200 mph from Hunt Valley to West Chester. 90 mph from West Chester to Wilmington and to Philadelphia. 200 mph from West Chester to Edison, NJ. 90 mph from Edison, NJ to NYC. 200 mph from Edison, NJ to Danbury, CT. 90 mph from Danbury, CT to NYC. 200 mph from Danbury, CT to Storrs, CT. 90 mph from Storrs to Hartford from Storrs to Providence. 200 mph from Storrs to Framingham or Lowell. 90 mph to Boston. Add to Charlottesville or Richmond on the south, to Manchester or Portland on the north. Dulles to Lowell with all the stops in between is 509 miles using roads. 200mph - 85 miles roughly between stops - let's say 25 minutes between stops, and 5 mins at the station. 3 1/2 hours between Dulles and Lowell, MA. Each local hop would be about 15 minutes. DC to NYC would be 15 + 1.5 + 15, or 2 hours. DC to Boston 4 hours.
A lot of people would use this.
But they really wouldn't use any of these slightly faster than normal trains that are intended to go from one not all that populated place to another not all that populated place. It just seems like pork.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.