I think this project sounds ridiculous, for many of the reasons noted above... rail can't be high-speed if it has frequent stops! If you want a truly high-speed rail system you need to limit it to DC, Baltimore, PHL, NYC, and BOS... no airport stops in between (that's what commuter rail is for...).
I think the logic behind these maps is interesting as well... but I'd like to make a suggestion: why follow the existing tracks for most of the way? If we use current/future technology with trains that can achieve speeds of 250mph, I'd like to propose a new route--why not construct new tracks through the exurbs? I'm talking of a route from DC to NY that, instead of going through Baltimore, runs N out of DC and then crosses through the exurbs of DC/Baltimore and the countryside of SE PA/NW NJ before going in through the Jersey suburbs to NYC? The small additional distance would be entirely offset by the huge increase in speed. Basically, think of the line as an arc from DC to NYC as opposed to a straight line up 95. Reducing the train time from NY to DC to an hour or less would be a HUGE advantage and would drastically boost usage #s.
The plan proposed by the students seems no different than our current Acela... if you want high-speed you can only include center cities, IMO. And, as others mention; Long Island stations? What the hell? IT IS NOT COMMUTER RAIL! It is high-speed!!!!
Added a map, I guess additional stops at Hartford/Providence should be included as well... but besides those. The map basically shows my idea regarding the arc. As an addendum to that, Philly and Baltimore are obviously not on the arc--so there would be tracks leading to/from the arc to each city, at little additional cost. The negatives to my proposal would be the costs of acquiring new lands, but the positives? Minimal interactions going in/out of cities (aside from NYC), no tunnels (aside from those in/out of cities, if they must have them), and no major water crossings (i.e., large bridges).
Uploaded with
ImageShack.us