HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2012, 9:01 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,052
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
No, it is not similar to Europe because they have improved their slower lines while putting in HSR lines at the same time.

Also, unlike European countries, he precluded adding HSR in the best HSR market in N. America and then suggested increasing speed by 1 mph per year on existing rail which is silly. Train speeds don't increase by 1 mph / year anywhere. Waiting 20 to 30 years to upgrade our slow rail to slightly higher speed rail before thinking of putting in proper HSR is a waste of time. This is because land prices will increase and will make any future HSR even more expensive to construct. So, no. I disagree vehemently. Any decent HSR train line will have a trickle down affect that will encourage more investment in slower regional branch lines as more passengers will be attracted to ride the system by the HSR trip times. However, in the case of the NEC, the second slower layer is currently in place (the current line). It is also being considered for 160mph acela operation in certain sections in NJ (up from 135mph top speed). So, again 1 mph/year improvement on the NEC is ludicrous. This is where HSR needs to be and it has the best business case. Amtrak has taken 70 per cent market share on the NY-DC route due to post 9-11 airport hassles. It could increase up to 90 percent + if HSR was added.
Amtrak just recently tested Acela to speeds up to 160 mph on many sections of the NEC, the 135 mph limitation is based more on self imposed limitations than anything else. The main reason being the antiquated catenary system. I wonder what speeds Amtrak could achieve safely if the entire catenary was replaced with the existing Acela trains and with newer replacement trains?
Do we really need an entirely new corridor built from scratch, or will rebuilding the existing corridor suffice?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2012, 9:58 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is online now
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Amtrak just recently tested Acela to speeds up to 160 mph on many sections of the NEC, the 135 mph limitation is based more on self imposed limitations than anything else. The main reason being the antiquated catenary system. I wonder what speeds Amtrak could achieve safely if the entire catenary was replaced with the existing Acela trains and with newer replacement trains?
Do we really need an entirely new corridor built from scratch, or will rebuilding the existing corridor suffice?
With the Curves fixed around Metuchen and the Curve/Viaduct Replacing in Elizabeth you can hit 200mph in New Jersey south of Newark. PA , Delaware and Maryland are different stories all Major cities need a bypass they are just to tight even if the people on this Forum moan and grip about there favorite stations being shifted around. The Bypass Sections are the New Tracks south of New York other then that the Corridor will be expanded from 4 to 6 tracks in parts of New Jersey , up to 5 tracks in PA , up to 4 tracks in Delaware and up to 5 tracks in Maryland... The Extra tracks are for Regional Rail and Intercity Rail Expansions and Freight which uses the line on weekends and at night... No New completely separated line is Needed at least South of New York. Theres Rumored a Newark Bypass is in the works , which by 2030 would be needed as Newark would become a bottleneck...like Philly or Baltimore are....


The New England line will be separated , this keeps moving around. The First vision was to Tunnel from Penn Station to Grand Central then to White Plains , then hug I-684 /84 to Danbury/Waterbury/Hartford > Woonsocket > Boston. Now they reduced costs by cutting off the through service to Grand Central. The line will now just go through Penn Station , continue you up to near Port Chester and break off towards I-684..they also changed Woonsocket , now instead it will be Providence which is a better choice. It would intersect at every city in New England with a connecting Rail Service.... NIMBYS will be a huge problem for this line ,however there is an untapped Commuter Rail potential between Danbury and Hartford and Hartford and Providence , add Commuter rail to the line while making it slightly more costly would probably reduce the amount of NIMBYs since there's now a local benefit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2012, 10:13 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
With the Curves fixed around Metuchen and the Curve/Viaduct Replacing in Elizabeth you can hit 200mph in New Jersey south of Newark. PA , Delaware and Maryland are different stories all Major cities need a bypass they are just to tight even if the people on this Forum moan and grip about there favorite stations being shifted around. The Bypass Sections are the New Tracks south of New York other then that the Corridor will be expanded from 4 to 6 tracks in parts of New Jersey , up to 5 tracks in PA , up to 4 tracks in Delaware and up to 5 tracks in Maryland... The Extra tracks are for Regional Rail and Intercity Rail Expansions and Freight which uses the line on weekends and at night... No New completely separated line is Needed at least South of New York. Theres Rumored a Newark Bypass is in the works , which by 2030 would be needed as Newark would become a bottleneck...like Philly or Baltimore are....


The New England line will be separated , this keeps moving around. The First vision was to Tunnel from Penn Station to Grand Central then to White Plains , then hug I-684 /84 to Danbury/Waterbury/Hartford > Woonsocket > Boston. Now they reduced costs by cutting off the through service to Grand Central. The line will now just go through Penn Station , continue you up to near Port Chester and break off towards I-684..they also changed Woonsocket , now instead it will be Providence which is a better choice. It would intersect at every city in New England with a connecting Rail Service.... NIMBYS will be a huge problem for this line ,however there is an untapped Commuter Rail potential between Danbury and Hartford and Hartford and Providence , add Commuter rail to the line while making it slightly more costly would probably reduce the amount of NIMBYs since there's now a local benefit.
If no new line is needed south of NY for HSR, why is there a massive Amtrak plan which proposes just that at a cost over 100B dollars and a time period of 30 years or so? Also, isn't a new segregated line needed for such high speeds due to FRA regulations?

Also where is your source for the latest plan that you describe, I want to see the link. Having no line to GCT is a bummer, as that connection is needed to bring njT trains to the East side of Manhattan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2012, 10:59 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is online now
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
If no new line is needed south of NY for HSR, why is there a massive Amtrak plan which proposes just that at a cost over 100B dollars and a time period of 30 years or so? Also, isn't a new segregated line needed for such high speeds due to FRA regulations?

Also where is your source for the latest plan that you describe, I want to see the link. Having no line to GCT is a bummer, as that connection is needed to bring njT trains to the East side of Manhattan.
The 100+ billion is broken down into replacing or renovating all the Viaducts , Stations , Bridges , Tunnels and Grade Separating Every Railway JCT south of NYC....along with the new Bypasses in Baltimore , Wilmington , Philly and Newark. Then you have other projects which are more so state projects , but Amtrak seems to indicate Running them like the Downstate Delaware Network which would run from Newark to Ocean City via Dover and Salisbury and another branch via Milford , or the Lehigh line from Harrisburg to Newark via Reading and Allentown , or the Northwest Service between Baltimore and Harrisburg via York or the Cape Codder between New York and Cape Cod via Providence.... These projects without a doubt are going to be folded into the final cost.

Upgrading the Old NEC is pegged at 54 billion , at least the old plan was between DC and Boston replacing all the Bridges , Tunnels , Wires , adding new tracks or restoring trackage in Maryland , Delaware , New Jersey , New York , Connecticut and Rhode Island , high level platforming all stations , Curve Straightening and grade separating....

The New line will cost 60 billion , and the various feeders between 10-15 billion...alot of the feeders are underway or funding being sought as we speak. The States will build these lines as Diesel then Amtrak will electrify them later on...none of these projects are expensive , the Lackawanna line might cost close 2 billion due to 4 viaducts needing to be overhauled and a few curves eliminated. But Most will cost between 40 & 400 million , Delaware has the cheapest network....the question is whether it will be entirely grade separated allowing for mini HSR up to 135mph. The Feeders will be Mini High Speed lines....

Northeast Master Plan , the Lehigh , Northwest , Cape Codder are State Proposals....

New Northeast Corridor HSR Plan

NE Megapolis HSR Map - 2050 plan

Old Plan....

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2012, 11:31 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,680
Thanks. I looked through but couldn't find the part where you said they are dropping the GCT connection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2012, 11:41 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is online now
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Thanks. I looked through but couldn't find the part where you said they are dropping the GCT connection.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Conten.../1237405732517

2010 Plan , see GCT , Woonsocket were in there...then due to cost reductions they were thrown out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2012, 4:09 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
No, it is not similar to Europe because they have improved their slower lines while putting in HSR lines at the same time.
Look at Germany, where ICE is a unified brand of high-speed service but it operates on a patchwork of a few short dedicated high-speed segments and a lot of upgraded legacy lines.

Legacy lines are a trickier problem in the US because the vast majority are owned by freight railroads, but the Northeast Corridor is not. Read Alon Levy for some suggestions on how to dramatically improve travel times on the NEC at a fraction of the cost of a new, greenfield HSL.


Only red and yellow are greenfield lines; the blue is upgraded legacy track (125-145 mph, like NEC) and the grey is just well-maintained legacy track.

source
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2012, 4:16 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
EDITED TO ADD: The only major thing I would change would be to break Amtrak into seven segments, six each to concentrate on improving passenger rail within specific regional submarkets (Northeast/New England, Midwest, Southeast, Texas, Cascades, and California) and one to run the long-distance routes.
Agree with this. Merge the localized commuter rail agencies into the regional Amtraks. Many of these rail lines, especially out west, are operated by Amtrak anyway. Funding for each commuter network would continue to flow from the existing sources, but this would simplify dispatching, cross-ticketing, signage and wayfinding, etc.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2012, 1:12 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
No, it is not similar to Europe because they have improved their slower lines while putting in HSR lines at the same time.

Also, unlike European countries, he precluded adding HSR in the best HSR market in N. America and then suggested increasing speed by 1 mph per year on existing rail which is silly. Train speeds don't increase by 1 mph / year anywhere. Waiting 20 to 30 years to upgrade our slow rail to slightly higher speed rail before thinking of putting in proper HSR is a waste of time. This is because land prices will increase and will make any future HSR even more expensive to construct. So, no. I disagree vehemently. Any decent HSR train line will have a trickle down affect that will encourage more investment in slower regional branch lines as more passengers will be attracted to ride the system by the HSR trip times. However, in the case of the NEC, the second slower layer is currently in place (the current line). It is also being considered for 160mph acela operation in certain sections in NJ (up from 135mph top speed). So, again 1 mph/year improvement on the NEC is ludicrous. This is where HSR needs to be and it has the best business case. Amtrak has taken 70 per cent market share on the NY-DC route due to post 9-11 airport hassles. It could increase up to 90 percent + if HSR was added.
This post is just dead wrong.

In conjunct with ardecila's post above, which gives us Example 1 (Germany), let us remember Example 2--the United Kingdom. There is only one true greenfield high-speed line in the UK, constructed in the early 1990s as the British approach to the Channel Tunnel. The other two main lines, the East Coast and West Coast, are upgraded traditional lines (the former LNER and LMS mains, respectively). Example 3 is Spain, which did not begin construction of its high speed lines in earnest until the 1990s. It began improvements to its traditional network in the '80s. Example 5 would be Italy...The only European nation that hews to your paradigm might be France, purely due to the age of LGV Sud-Est; most Western European nations had begun extensively improving their traditional networks in the '80s, and (outside of France) did not begin serious HSR implementation until the '90s.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2012, 5:05 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
This post is just dead wrong.

In conjunct with ardecila's post above, which gives us Example 1 (Germany), let us remember Example 2--the United Kingdom. There is only one true greenfield high-speed line in the UK, constructed in the early 1990s as the British approach to the Channel Tunnel. The other two main lines, the East Coast and West Coast, are upgraded traditional lines (the former LNER and LMS mains, respectively). Example 3 is Spain, which did not begin construction of its high speed lines in earnest until the 1990s. It began improvements to its traditional network in the '80s. Example 5 would be Italy...The only European nation that hews to your paradigm might be France, purely due to the age of LGV Sud-Est; most Western European nations had begun extensively improving their traditional networks in the '80s, and (outside of France) did not begin serious HSR implementation until the '90s.
Very good. You obviously know a lot more about rail than I. However, I still am in favor of true HSR on the NEC sooner rather than later The cost of acquiring land will only get more expensive the longer we wait. Also, 10 years to increase speeds on the NEC by 10 mph just seems awfully slow to me, sorry if I seem impatient but it seems ludicrous IMO.

Last edited by aquablue; Dec 30, 2012 at 5:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2012, 5:31 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,884
It doesn't matter that land costs will only increase. We need the national political will to build high speed rail, and that means Midwestern, Western, and Southern cities will need to be linked into the Amtrak network with rail service on legacy lines that is far better than the crap they currently receive.

I should point out that, even in boom times, European unemployment is dramatically higher than the US, so there's a lot more political will for big public works projects that directly create jobs. In the US, Americans are more easily able to find private-sector jobs, so the only leverage for transportation improvements is congestion, convenience, and speed.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2012, 5:45 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
It doesn't matter that land costs will only increase. We need the national political will to build high speed rail, and that means Midwestern, Western, and Southern cities will need to be linked into the Amtrak network with rail service on legacy lines that is far better than the crap they currently receive.

I should point out that, even in boom times, European unemployment is dramatically higher than the US, so there's a lot more political will for big public works projects that directly create jobs. In the US, Americans are more easily able to find private-sector jobs, so the only leverage for transportation improvements is congestion, convenience, and speed.
Military spending is too high. Infrastructure spending too low.

Also, I am not sure how Asia fits in with your unemployment argument regarding HSR. Countries like Korea, Taiwan, Turkey etc. Also, S. America is about to get on the bandwagon with Brazil perhaps starting a system.

Also, I somehow doubt that improving people's legacy lines up to 110 mph will make a huge difference in their interest in funding true HSR lines. I'll believe it when I see it.

Last edited by aquablue; Dec 30, 2012 at 9:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2013, 3:55 AM
Alon Alon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 216
Re HSR versus incremental improvements, Spain should be in the same category as France, not Germany and the UK. In all of those countries, there was a medium-speed express intercity service - the original Kodama in Japan, the Mistral in France, etc. Germany and the UK spent money on raising the speed of those medium-speed lines. France and Spain built HSR early. (Spain only opened its first line in '92, but it was also starting from a lower level of development than the parts of Europe that hadn't been fascist since the end of WW2.) Of course it's not as simple as that - France also heavily upgraded the legacy line to Bordeaux and Toulouse and is only now building a full LGV that far southwest, Germany built some strategic bypasses and also upgraded the Berlin-Hamburg line so heavily that with tilting 230 km/h trains it achieves higher average speed than the 300 km/h lines.

Either way, in the NEC, this medium-speed express intercity service already exists. There's demand for it, and there'd be much more demand for faster service.

Of course, it depends on the price of boosting speeds. That's why it's so important to keep costs down. This means that a lot of the wishlist items, even bridge replacements, need to be treated as secondary priorities. The Canton Viaduct is older than the Maryland bridges that Amtrak wants to replace. The priority should be fixing the slowest segments - e.g. Elizabeth, Metuchen, Frankford Junction, New Rochelle - and getting cutting edge rolling stock and systems that can run on mixed-quality track.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2013, 4:19 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is online now
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alon View Post
Re HSR versus incremental improvements, Spain should be in the same category as France, not Germany and the UK. In all of those countries, there was a medium-speed express intercity service - the original Kodama in Japan, the Mistral in France, etc. Germany and the UK spent money on raising the speed of those medium-speed lines. France and Spain built HSR early. (Spain only opened its first line in '92, but it was also starting from a lower level of development than the parts of Europe that hadn't been fascist since the end of WW2.) Of course it's not as simple as that - France also heavily upgraded the legacy line to Bordeaux and Toulouse and is only now building a full LGV that far southwest, Germany built some strategic bypasses and also upgraded the Berlin-Hamburg line so heavily that with tilting 230 km/h trains it achieves higher average speed than the 300 km/h lines.

Either way, in the NEC, this medium-speed express intercity service already exists. There's demand for it, and there'd be much more demand for faster service.

Of course, it depends on the price of boosting speeds. That's why it's so important to keep costs down. This means that a lot of the wishlist items, even bridge replacements, need to be treated as secondary priorities. The Canton Viaduct is older than the Maryland bridges that Amtrak wants to replace. The priority should be fixing the slowest segments - e.g. Elizabeth, Metuchen, Frankford Junction, New Rochelle - and getting cutting edge rolling stock and systems that can run on mixed-quality track.
Metuchen is fine and can handle up to 140mph , Elizabeth will be replaced along with station hopefully later this decade.... From New Haven to New York Penn will be replaced or rehabbed in terms of bridges , and grade seperation in New Rochelle and at South Norwalk and Waterbury upgraded Interlocks... Canton was just rehabbed and is a state landmark , you can build a Bridge next to it preferable pre-cast... Frankford JCT ,will be grade seperated and prepped for the Tunnel to Market East and Freight upgrades... The Inland Bypass is still needed , but it needs to be re-thought. Your not going to get support by bypassing all the Important towns along the I-84 Corridor or between Providence and Hartford which has a decent commuter shed i'm told. There should be regional service that services all the towns and cities next to the HSR service....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2013, 5:40 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alon View Post
Either way, in the NEC, this medium-speed express intercity service already exists. There's demand for it, and there'd be much more demand for faster service.
The NEC must grapple with the rest of the country. I don't think it's realistic to expect Congress to hand the Northeast $100bn of rail spending and leave the rest of the country out of it.

This is (partly) why I think we need to upgrade legacy lines in the Midwest, South, and West before building 300km/h HSR in the Northeast. California's struggles have thrown the political problem into the light.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2013, 9:12 AM
Alon Alon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 216
Metuchen is not fine and cannot handle 140 mph. The current limit is 100 mph (I can forward you the track map with the speed limit), and there's very little room for increasing that with higher cant limit. Go to Google Earth and compute the curve radius; it's not one that any train in regular revenue service in the world can safely take at 140 mph.

The point of not building gratuitous tunnels like Market East and the transition tunnels from New Rochelle to I-84 is that at $100 billion, it's not worth it and Congress will never find the money. At $10 billion, it becomes a realistic possibility. On the margin, the question should always be "how many minutes does this extra $100 million save?", and the answer toward the end is measured in seconds. The B & P replacement saves about 1.5 minutes using Acela trainsets, or about 2 using more modern stock (the better the trains accelerate, the worse a speed limit in the station throat affects travel time), and is estimated to cost $750 million. With the capacity gains, and the reduced squeal coming from lack of very tight curves, and the reduced maintenance costs coming from said squeal, it becomes worth it. The Market East tunnel, in comparison, is about $10 billion for another 2 minutes of time savings relative to straightening Frankford within ROW and squeezing extra speed out of the existing line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2013, 1:14 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is online now
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alon View Post
Metuchen is not fine and cannot handle 140 mph. The current limit is 100 mph (I can forward you the track map with the speed limit), and there's very little room for increasing that with higher cant limit. Go to Google Earth and compute the curve radius; it's not one that any train in regular revenue service in the world can safely take at 140 mph.

The point of not building gratuitous tunnels like Market East and the transition tunnels from New Rochelle to I-84 is that at $100 billion, it's not worth it and Congress will never find the money. At $10 billion, it becomes a realistic possibility. On the margin, the question should always be "how many minutes does this extra $100 million save?", and the answer toward the end is measured in seconds. The B & P replacement saves about 1.5 minutes using Acela trainsets, or about 2 using more modern stock (the better the trains accelerate, the worse a speed limit in the station throat affects travel time), and is estimated to cost $750 million. With the capacity gains, and the reduced squeal coming from lack of very tight curves, and the reduced maintenance costs coming from said squeal, it becomes worth it. The Market East tunnel, in comparison, is about $10 billion for another 2 minutes of time savings relative to straightening Frankford within ROW and squeezing extra speed out of the existing line.
Which tracks Maps do you have , the ones the Rail community had were taken down. The Acela does 110mph through Metuchen....I guess some Straighten is required for the curves but its not as bad as Elizabeth....

I don't see the Problem with Market East , Charles Center , Wilmington South , or the Inland NEC... The Inland NEC would fill a much needed travel void in New England which was never completed and would of course bypass the congested / curvy coast. Most of Philly , Baltimore and Wilmington's plans run through cheap , poor land , except near the stations but this cheap , poor land makes tunneling cheaper then say 2nd Ave line. Sure the land is soft , but tunneling advancements make this easy and not a complex job...hence why I don't see Philly being a problem nor costly....same with Baltimore or Wilmington.... What happened to building big in this country why do we need to look at downsizing every project in this region....its starting to drive me nuts.... The Cost of the 151 billion is divided into various projects , Old NEC upgrade , New NEC , Keystone , Regional upgrades and misc things so about 2,780+ miles of new tracks , bridges , tunnels , stations , rolling stock... Not bad , also its not all Fed , some is state about 15-20 billion and some will be private... If PA removed its stupid PPP ban Market East would probably get built with Private funding...

You could write off Charles-Baltimore but I don't see that going over well with the Transit/Rail Advocates of that region which want Amtrak to do more....even bigger plans , same with the New England Rail Advocates which are very happy with the latest plan....the only grip is the lack of Regional Rail service between Providence and Waterbury...and no new Providence station but there happy with the rest. They don't want to really keep the Shoreline , which seems to be a regional wide agreement as a bad line... Inland has a ton of support , theres a question of in and around Providence to Boston. The North-South Tunnel proposal has divided the community... People like me think it should go through so the T could through run and lessen the strain on South Station along with Through HSR and Intercity Rail to New Hampshire and Maine... Others think its a waste , I would sacrifice Charles-Baltimore if the North-South Tunnel was added in.

Baltimore Penn Station is being expanded so MARC can expand service along with Amtrak , it will come with the Tunnel Replacements... But theres very little I know about the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2013, 3:44 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,714
You must look at these things as an engineer. It's not just enough to make an investment; you must also make the most productive investment possible. And to do that, you have to balance benefits against costs. The most productive investments have the highest benefit relative to cost; they are not necessarily those with the highest costs or the highest absolute benefits. Don't be fooled by the numbers: crunch them.

Engineering isn't about making political coalitions. It's about making the numbers work. It's about understanding what the best possible project actually is, rather than just taking what someone else says ipso facto.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2013, 12:43 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is online now
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
You must look at these things as an engineer. It's not just enough to make an investment; you must also make the most productive investment possible. And to do that, you have to balance benefits against costs. The most productive investments have the highest benefit relative to cost; they are not necessarily those with the highest costs or the highest absolute benefits. Don't be fooled by the numbers: crunch them.

Engineering isn't about making political coalitions. It's about making the numbers work. It's about understanding what the best possible project actually is, rather than just taking what someone else says ipso facto.
May I ask if your an Engineer? I look at this from a Rail Prescriptive which I have extensive knowledge of what works and what doesn't and things that should be done... Sometimes I feel like there's a disconnect between Engineers and Urban Planners and the Rail community , often plans come with flaws or skip important populated areas.... So to say an Engineer would have a better view then say a Rail employee or volunteer isn't all that correct... Why is Philly the only region complaining about the New and Expanded plan , everyone else loves it...? Sure some stations will be bypassed by with a New station but the old station will be getting more services not less.... Ive noticed quite a few people in Philly and along Coastal CT suggest Amtrak is abandoning them and thats not the case...HSR is splitting from Intercity , in most cases more services like Downstate Delaware , Cape Codder , Northwestern , Lehigh and Lackawanna are all new lines along with Ethan Allen , Vermonter , Berkshires , Concord Express... PA and Northeast are getting more not less...it disgusts me that the PA Rail community is making sound like Amtrak is abandoning 30th street when its not the only station that is being dropped is Cornwall Heights... Of course the PA Rail community is one of the largest , and I can't say the whole community is twisting the words but there's a vocal few that are....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2013, 2:18 AM
Alon Alon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 216
I don't know which Philly transit activists you've talked to, but the ones I know via Philadelphia2050 are completely meh about Market East. There was no local demand for it; the Penn Design people came up with it on the theory that HSR stations should always be put in the CBD, Amtrak seems to have adopted it, and now the proposal is $10 billion heavier for no real reason. 30th Street Station is where it is because the PRR found it better to have a station that could be used by through-trains from New York to Washington than to have all trains head into Broad Street/Suburban Station. Although not all decisions from that era are good ideas today, that decision is in line with recent practices from Japan, France, and Spain, in which a near-CBD station with good transit connections to the CBD is good enough if it's too hard or too operationally constraining to enter the CBD.

Likewise, the Providence-area activists I know of didn't care much for HSR to Woonsocket. Of course based on city size the highest benefit comes from having a line from New Haven to Hartford cutting east to Providence and then to Boston, but the terrain is hilly and it's much cheaper to leave Hartford out and follow I-95. Until recently I'd thought that cutting Providence instead and following I-91/84/90 like in the Penn Design plan was a good second option, but the Penn Design plan has several tunnels whereas an I-95 route could be done without tunnels north of New Haven, and just two difficult bridges.

The importance of a working knowledge of best industry practices worldwide is that the rail discipline works by apprenticeship; too many insiders in the US today were taught by people who are used to FRA regulations, multi-conductor regional trains, separate concourses and ticket machines at each station for different kinds of trains, non-clockface schedules, long turnaround times, etc. This way, you have people who are convinced that the Providence Line is at capacity and the only way to program more intercity trains is to triple-track nearly the entire line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.