UPenn Students Create Ambitious plan for NE Corridor High Speed Rail service

[volguus zildrohar]

This is an intriguing plan for The Northeast Corridor.

Penn students offer contrasting plans for Northeast Corridor rail service

The Penn students proposed a $98 billion project, with two dedicated high-speed tracks on a reconfigured route and a number of new stations, including a main Philadelphia stop at the Market East station in Center City.

The proposal for bypassing 30th Street Station in favor of using Market East, a Philadelphia commuter hub, is...interesting.

[ardecila]

Wow. Just... wow.

There's no reason they need to spend $98 billion to achieve these benefits.

The Baltimore tunnel to Charles Center might be worth it because the existing tunnels need replacement and Baltimore Penn is in bumblef*ck, but why the hell does this thing run to Long Island? Solely for the JFK connection? There's a reason LI Sound has no rail or road crossings - it's just too damn expensive for the limited benefit it provides. They could get much of the same benefit with a shorter detour to JFK (or LGA) and then a crossing at Whitestone or Throgs Neck, rejoining the Northeast Corridor in Pelham Bay Park.

The new Philly tunnel is also a big waste. A much shorter tunnel under 30th Street Station to North Philadelphia would achieve many of the same benefits, avoiding the complex switching yards and sharp turns along the Schuylkill without boring a diagonal tunnel under a grid city (world's biggest legal nightmare). Also, Philly has 80 years of transit systems designed to get people to 30th Street. Shifting intercity service to Market East would throw off quite a bit of the SEPTA network.

I do like the idea of running north from New Haven to Hartford and Worcester. Providence would be screwed, but there's no reason they can't still have the 150mph service they do today.

[llamaorama]

It must be a common idea putting a line up through western Mass as opposed to along the coast, its a fantasy I've had as a train geek. It is the straight line between Boston and New York, after all.

Anyways, I'm skeptical anything like that would be built in the US, where does the money come from? I'm more interested in realistic ideas that involve of upgrading the existing infrastructure to consistent medium speed operations,cutting the prices of taking the train, making overall trips easier and shorter. What I'm saying is, would perhaps more frequent service and cheaper fares do more than a marginal increase in speed in a cost vs. benefits comparison? In what ways could a small one time investment reduce the amount of public subsidy needed by the system?

I don't know anything about transportation, this is just my opinion.

[Cirrus]

I'm always at a little bit of a loss when college studio projects like this hit the news. Everybody in planning school produces a report like this about some topic 4 or 5 times before they graduate.

Anyway, some thoughts:

• The plan here seems to be operating on a fairly simple premise: to connect every major downtown and international airport between DC and Boston. All things being equal that's a great idea, but with Acela already in place all things are not equal.
• Way too many new stations. This is supposed to be high speed rail, not a suburban commuter line. Odenton? Nassau? Meriden? Riverside? Cut all that crap out.
• I'm intrigued by the inland New England route, but am not convinced it's the right idea. It's nice to hit Hartford and Worcester, but cutting Providence-Boston from the main line hurts, and those crowded coastal CT cities produce plenty of their own passengers. Meanwhile, if we're going to go to the trouble of a new route anyway, why not hit the biggest cities and go New Haven - Hartford - Providence - Boston? All in all I see some potential to this idea, but it needs much more detailed study.
• The new Long Island route on the other hand is completely unnecessary and outrageously expensive. Hitting JFK is not worth the cost of a 19-mile tunnel under the sound.
• I like the idea of more direct downtown stations in Philly and Baltimore, but again, given what's already in place such marginal improvements aren't worth the enormous cost suggested here. Better to use the existing stations and sink that money into improved local transit.

[babybackribs2314]

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

[electricron]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

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'll agree. But not every train needs to make a stop at every station.
You can have "locals" that do. (commuter rail)
You can have "thoroughs" which stop only at major stations. (regional rail)
You can "expresses" that run from one specific major station to another. (Auto Train)

[Cirrus]

why not construct new tracks through the exurbs?

I suppose you could, but it would be a lot more expensive, and you'd have the problem of getting to the exurbs from downtown.

[Cirrus]

I see the benefit of some of the secondary stations, but there are just way too many on that map. If I were to design a new east coast line, it might be as follows:

Stations in ALL CAPS are served by all trains, stations in regular type are only locals.

BOSTON SOUTH STATION
Westwood/Rt 128
PROVIDENCE
HARTFORD
New Haven
Stamford
NEW YORK PENN STATION
Newark
Newark Airport
Metropark
Trenton
PHILADELPHIA 30TH STREET STATION
Wilmington
BALTIMORE PENN STATION
Baltimore-Washington Airport
New Carrollton
WASHINGTON UNION STATION
Fredericksburg
Richmond Main Street Station
Norfolk

... Then layered on top of that I'd keep the existing NE Regional service that stops at places like Aberdeen and Bridgeport.

[afiggatt]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The Baltimore tunnel to Charles Center might be worth it because the existing tunnels need replacement and Baltimore Penn is in bumblef*ck, but why the hell does this thing run to Long Island? Solely for the JFK connection? There's a reason LI Sound has no rail or road crossings - it's just too damn expensive for the limited benefit it provides. They could get much of the same benefit with a shorter detour to JFK (or LGA) and then a crossing at Whitestone or Throgs Neck, rejoining the Northeast Corridor in Pelham Bay Park.

This proposal by UPenn was discussed on Transport Politic a month or 2 back.
The reason for the Long Island part of the proposal has little to do with JFK, but instead points out that the population of LI is not well served by the current NEC configuration. LI, if Queens and Brooklyn are included, has a population of around 7.5 million people which is a sizable number.

If you live out in Suffolk county and want to take Amtrak to DC, you can take LIRR to Penn Station and then south. Not super fast, but ok. But if you want to head to Boston or other points beyond New Haven, you take LIRR to Penn Station and then Amtrak all the way back through the East River tunnels and then north across the Hell Gate bridge. Rather slow. When the East Side Access to Grand Central is finally finished, there will be the option of taking LIRR to Grand Central, then the New Haven line to Stamford and then Amtrak from there to Boston. Still not very fast.

The other reason for their LI proposal is that it bypasses the entire slow CDOT owned New Haven line. But the idea of running the HSR line all the way to mid LI and then north under the sound to New Haven is mind boggedly expensive and getting the ROW for HSR alongside the existing LIRR route is as close to a nonstarter as it gets.

An alternate approach that might make some sense is to run the HSR line underground pass LaGuardia Airport with a intermodal station and then under the sound to rejoin the current NEC somewhere in the Bronx. That could be combined with a airtrain connection to LaGuardia. But that would not offer enough a speed improvement for the NYP to BOS run to be worthwhile. Amtrak has plans to speed up the NEC from Hell Gate Bridge to New Rochelle because they do own that part of the NEC. A new Amtrak/LIRR access to Grand Central station somewhere around Woodside on LI might be a better compromise to provide better service for those on LI heading north to New England on the NEC.

[afiggatt]

Commenting on the other parts of the ambitious UPenn plan for replacing the NEC.
Baltimore - A new station in downtown Baltimore with completely new tunnels under Baltimore is not a bad idea, but likely already overtaken by events. $60 million was awarded from the $8 billion HSR money for a detailed engineering and design study on replacing the B&P Tunnel in western Baltimore. The engineering is only in the context of new tunnels to the existing Penn Station which also can be used for a route through Baltimore for double stack freight trains. The price tag on the UPenn proposal for Baltimore has to be pretty steep.

Philly - already has a good setup with 30th street station with connections to commuter trains, downtown, and to the airport. Rerouting the entire line by Philadelphia airport and under downtown Philly is not going to gain that much for the serious bucks. Better use of available funds in that segment of the NEC is to speed up the NEC through North Philly and make incremental improvements between Wilmington & 30th Street station.

Inland route from New Haven to Boston - a lot of new ROW to be acquired and also bypassing Providence is not going to go over well with Rhode Island. Which oddly enough has much of the only 150 mph parts of the NEC. A more aggressive re-alignment of the Short Line route in eastern CT using selective segments of the I-95 ROW would offer a better return on the money spent.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Just straighten the NEC and add 2 dedicated tracks for True HSR and you'll be fine. Theres no reason to build a New NEC......why would you go onto LI? The NIMBY's would kill the project on announcement. As for the CT alignment Amtrak has plans to electrify and upgrade the New Haven - Springfield Corridor and Springfield - Boston Corridor. So in a way that becomes a New NEC , its really a new Trunk system for New England to build off of. 90% of it will be grade separated form what i'm told. This has to many stations like some have said , some of those stations are covered by the LIRR & other systems. Most NEC stations with the exception of NYC , Boston and DC have alot of spar capacity left. Cities centers should be best left for Transit hubs , Not HSR stations....

[FoUTASportscaster]

I see having stops at only the major cities as a problem. I see the Main issue being the airport stops. This is pure conjecture on my part, since there is no North American study that I am aware, but I don't see a whole lot of O&D passengers transfering between the two modes to make up the added cost, both in construction as well as increased headways.

As for the smaller cities, it does make sense. Ten small cities adding 1,000 passengers a day makes a big market. The decreased travel times would be attractive to those types of passengers.

[philvia]

^^and those 1000 people a day screw over the huge majority. there should only be 7 stops on a NEC HSR and they've already been mentioned in this thread

[Swede]

Yeah an HSR line can by defenition not stop everywhere since that would make it SlowSpeedRail. Adding new tracks for an HSR line would free up capacity on the old tracks though, making more local services possible.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I see the benefit of some of the secondary stations, but there are just way too many on that map. If I were to design a new east coast line, it might be as follows:

Stations in ALL CAPS are served by all trains, stations in regular type are only locals.

BOSTON SOUTH STATION
Westwood/Rt 128
PROVIDENCE
HARTFORD
New Haven
Stamford
NEW YORK PENN STATION
Newark
Newark Airport
Metropark
Trenton
PHILADELPHIA 30TH STREET STATION
Wilmington
BALTIMORE PENN STATION
Baltimore-Washington Airport
New Carrollton
WASHINGTON UNION STATION
Fredericksburg
Richmond Main Street Station
Norfolk

... Then layered on top of that I'd keep the existing NE Regional service that stops at places like Aberdeen and Bridgeport.

Newark and Metropark should also be on that list. There major boarding hubs for the Acela.

[Cirrus]

They are on the list, for the non-express route.

Metropark, New Carrollton, and Westwood all basically do the same thing. They're the suburban alternative for people who want to drive to the train. They are all less-used than their central city counterparts, by far.

They're good stops to have for your 2nd tier of service, but if you're going to provide a high-speed express to the most important stations, they don't belong on the list.

Acela, for the record, is more along the lines of what a 2nd tier service should be. It isn't fast enough for a true first tier high-speed line.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Newark is New Jersey's NY Penn station so you need to include it in any HSR plans. Many of us hate using congested NY Penn.

[Cirrus]

Yeah, and Trenton is Trenton's Penn Station, and Wilmington is Wilmington's Penn Station. Many of those people hate going to Philly 30th Street, but too bad. That's the trade-off you get with an express line. There has to be fewer stations otherwise it's not an express.

Here is the list of the Amtrak stations between DC and Boston, ranked by ridership (only showing stations >100,000):

   Station		Annual boardings/deboardings

1. NYC Penn		8,739,345
2. DC Union		4,489,955
3. Philly 30th St	3,968,278
4. Boston South		1,393,691
5. Baltimore Penn	1,020,304
6. Wilmington		  731,539
7. New Haven		  705,458
8. Newark Penn		  679,279
9. BWI Airport		  644,640
10. Providence		  608,417
11. Trenton		  436,058
12. Boston Back Bay	  398,240
13. Metropark		  369,477
14. Westwood/Rt128	  366,649
15. Stamford		  337,674
16. New Carrollton	  179,344
17. New London		  159,317
18. Kingston		  153,023
19. Newark Airport   	  109,517

If we added Newark we'd be obliged to add Wilmington as well, at the absolute least. Which would be silly, as many trains *already* skip Wilmington, and we're trying to create a new level of faster/more express service.

Nobody wants their home station to be bypassed, but if we're going to have express trains then some stations will have to be. Newark is admittedly a borderline case, but at the very, very least it can be said that the arguments for stopping every single train there are no stronger than the arguments for having the very fastest trains pass it by 1/3 of the time.

[Nexis4Jersey]

I Agree with the Trenton and Wilmington situations , but Newark is different. Its the Hub for NJT Electrified Rail network and the future hub for the Urban LRT network. Its a popular station and the city is rebounding meaning more ppl are moving back and more ppl are using the station.......So if you took out Newark that would be unfair. Most ppl who use Newark , hate using NYC due to its complex and dangerously crowded station. Newark is sweet and simple to use. BTW its not Trenton & Wilmington Penn stations. The Trenton Transit Center and Wilmington Station.

[Cirrus]

By calling them that I meant the situations in those places are comparable to the situation in Newark. And they are.