Hey, there! Log in / Register

All Aboard!

At yesterday's New England Rail Summit, organizers unveiled a preliminary plan for upgrading the regional railroad network. And it's a promising first step toward making the Hub a Rail Hub again.

IMAGE(http://www.universalhub.com/images/2009/hsrmap.jpg)

There are three key aspects for this plan, from the perspective of those of us who live in Metro Boston. The first is its promise, over the horizon, of widespread high-speed rail service. The proposal envisions high-speed lines running to Montreal (via Manchester/Concord); north along the coast to Portland, Maine; westward, tying together Worcester, Springfield, and Pittsfield en route to Albany; and branching off to the south, to New Haven via Hartford. That last link is perhaps particularly exciting, because the corridor along which it runs could be upgraded to replace the current Acela service to New York and points south.

The second is ancillary to the proposals themselves. Three of the four proposals that the Patrick Administration submitted involve upgrading lines running to/from Boston - specifically, toward New Bedford, Springfield, and Portland. Upgrading those rail corridors not only positions us for improved intercity links, it also stands to upgrade the quality and frequency of commuter rail service.

But all of this is a long ways away. There's a very limited pot of stimulus funds available, to be split among worthy projects nationwide, and the list of projects in New England alone would cost several times as much to build. No, the exciting new here is that we're planning. Because without detailed plans and surveys, without studies of environmental impacts and rights-of-way, without cost estimates and engineering studies, you can't land federal funds, no matter how meritorious the project. That's why California seems to have the inside track on the current round of federal funding, even though its proposals stand to produce fewer economic or environmental benefits, almost no matter how you score the competing plans. The Golden State invested decades of effort in formulating plans, and because it's so darn huge, it's able to propose large-scale construction without crossing state lines. No New England state can do the same. To be competitive, we need to band together.

And when we do? Then we're extremely competitive. Think of it this way - we've got five states all invested in the same set of proposals. That's ten United States Senators. There's no similar regional consortium elsewhere in the country. The most we can honestly hope for in this round of funding is seed money for planning, and some small grants for discrete improvement projects. But if we can really get behind these proposals, and invest the time and effort necessary to develop detailed plans, we'll be unstoppable - the combination of political clout and economic benefits will put rival projects to shame.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

and branching off to the south, to New Haven via Hartford. That last link is perhaps particularly exciting, because the corridor along which it runs could be upgraded to replace the current Acela service to New York and points south.

So Providence gets cut out of high speed service to NYC?

up
Voting closed 0

I assume the high speed rail labeled on the map is representing future projected high speed rail projects, not the system that currently exists. The ACELA train already runs through Providence and provides high speed rail to NYC, all the way down to Washington D.C. So to answer the question, no, Providence can't be cut out because it already has the service.

I am excited about the opportunities presented here, though. As long as they can get the funding, it'll be good to see consistent rail service back to New England... at least the areas that have none.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, that's correct. The current Acela route isn't included because it already runs as fast as the proposed new high-speed corridors. (And, since there's nothing directly in the plan for them, the representatives of the Ocean State didn't even bother attending the summit, and haven't signed on to the plan.)

But I'll add this thought. The Acela passes for high-speed in this country, but would seem laughably slow in most other modern industrialized nations. There are several reasons for that (including split-ownership of the rights-of-way, and at-grade crossings) but the biggest one is that it simply has to twist and turn too much along its coastal path. Buying up, or seizing through eminent domain, enough land to straighten its path would be both prohibitively expensive and politically impossible. The train runs right through the heart of coastal towns and cities, and along some of the more expensive coastal real estate in New England. An inland route, however, has some definite possibilities. Unlike the coastline, the inland corridor isn't continuously inhabited. The land is cheaper. And many of the cities and towns along its path would gladly trade land for the chance of new relevancy and economic revitalization. So although the current plan doesn't propose making the Boston-Springfield-Hartford-New Haven path any faster than the existing Acela line, it certainly has a higher ceiling than the coastal route.

But at the end of the day, we're talking about complimentary services. The demand for passenger travel along the Northeastern Corridor well exceeds the supply, and the service is profitable, something rarely achieved even in the golden age of rail. Train service to Providence isn't going anywhere - and Westerly and Kingston will continue to have their stops, too. But if we can open a second corridor from New Haven to Boston, and relieve the tracks of some of their congestion, everyone wins.

up
Voting closed 0

and branching off to the south, to New Haven via Hartford. That last link is perhaps particularly exciting, because the corridor along which it runs could be upgraded to replace the current Acela service to New York and points south.

What does the word replace mean to you?

up
Voting closed 0

>So Providence gets cut out of high speed service to NYC?

No, the Acela train from Boston to NYC already runs through Providence.

up
Voting closed 0

I'll have to come back to read everyone's comments, but quick question: did any of you also nearly fall out of your seat when the Globe described the contemplated Boston to Montreal run as a "bullet train" and then, in the very next paragraph, said it would run at 110 mph?

110 mph is not a bullet train by any country's standard - not even ours. 110 mph is only about 20 mph higher than we should reasonably expect the longer commuter rail lines to travel at.

up
Voting closed 0

I turned to a German at work here and asked him 2 questions:

1) How many high-speed rail options are there in Germany and how fast do they go?

2) How much did they cost to build?

The answer to 1 is "many and they go over 150 mph".

The answer to 2 we worked out from a Wikipedia link that gave the 1998 amount for one of their projects. In 2007 USD, they laid out 100 miles of track for $4 billion dollars. They also planned for it to take 4 years to build (court cases and geological problems added 3 years in the end). The SanFran-to-LA train that's "shovel-ready" and likely to be the first funded: proposed at $40 billion for 400 miles (and nothing ever meets the proposal) AND it'll take 8-11 years to open an "initial segment" of it!

What the hell? This country has lost its ability to do anything quickly, efficiently, affordably, or on-time or on-budget.

up
Voting closed 0

Notwithstanding his/her name, Cynic is reasonably optimistic abou this plan, and I think, reasonably so. I particluarly liked the point about five or six states meaning 10 or 12 U.S. Senators - that is not a throw away argument. Rhode Island should get its rear end on board now.

I also liked the commentary on the inland route. This has been a pet peeve of mine for quite some time. It is ridiculous that there is only 1 or 2 trains to Albany each day, and that it takes nearly five hours. A high speed route to Albany would also create massive economic development in Worcester, Springfield/Holyoke, and Pittsfield. And while this may come as a surprise to many of you, there are many, perhaps not half but nearly half of the population, in Albany who are just as tied to Boston and particularly Western MA as NYC (both for business and personal reasons - I speak from a decent amount of experience with this). There is also the fundamental truth that if the state capitals in Vermont, NH and RI will be tied to Boston, so should that of NY.

The one thing that I was disappointed was not included was a passenger service line across the northern tier of Masssachusetts - from North Station to at least North Adams. (The existing freight operation across most of this route is being substantially upgraded by a joint venture of Norfolk Southern and PanAm (successor to Boston & Maine) as part of a project called the "Patriot Corridor". It would be smart and cheaper for the state and federal government to work something out with them now so that the line could carry high speed passenger trains in the future). This would have the same beneficial economic effect on the Rt. 2 corridor cities that the inland line would have across the southern tier. Greenfield, for example, would become a destination overnight.

up
Voting closed 0

This would be such a great thing.

Even at 110 mph (or slower), the Acela ride to NYC is such a pleasant contrast to going to Logan, undressing to go through metal detectors, enduring 30 minute delays for 35 minute flights, landing in LaGuardia, then taking a slow bus or paying megabucks for a cab to get to Manhattan.

If they could put down some new tracks and speed it up, heaven.

And cheers to Dukakis for having beat this drum for decades, even when few were listening. He's got a lot left in his tank, and it would be fitting for him to be among the leaders in seeing this through.

up
Voting closed 0

but not much.

up
Voting closed 0

right. The big idea here is that the new line will be able to allow the acela trains to achieve optimum speeds that they are only able to get to for limited stretches along the current route, which twists and turns all the way south through cities and along the coast.

If you've ever ridden the acela you know that it is capable of shaving far more, as it accelerates so quickly from stops, and further it is much more adept at absorbing the vibrations and shakes of fast travel. Even though its current improvement over the regional train is measured in minutes (Though it speeds up the trip by 45-60 minutes, which I'd say is considerable for a 4-4.5 hour trip) look for the new route to cut even more time.

up
Voting closed 0

When talking about Mike, I wouldn't mention his tank if I were you.

up
Voting closed 0

It's always been annoying and kind of ridiculous that you can't take a train to Hartford. Well, you can, but let's say you want to go tomorrow.

You'll leave Back Bay at 6:00 am, arrive in New Haven at 8:33, board a shuttle at 10:30 am and arrived in Hartford at 11:19.

That's over 5 hours to travel a very short distance between two state capitals in the most developed segment of the most developed transit corridor in the nation.

That's pathetic.

An inland route would be welcome if it does away with the nonsensical routing currently employed by Amtrak. It'll also have the benefit of side-stepping the Thames River Bridge in New London which must be kept open when a train is not passing per Coast Guard regulations, and can only close X number of times per day thanks to rich boaters lobbying the government. Because a few yachts are obviously more important than a rail corridor.

up
Voting closed 0

I think they did away with the inland route because most traffic was through to NYC and the route via Hartford took longer than the Providence route. That became even more pronounced with the advent of electrification between Boston and New Haven.

up
Voting closed 0

how about the fact that to take a train to montreal from here you either have to ride the single daily amtrak train to albany, stay overnight, then take another amtrak train to montreal. OR, go via NYC. And similar is true of Boston and destinations in Vermont. Either way requires multiple purchases because amtrak's software doesn't recognize overnight stays as a single trip.

up
Voting closed 0

Imagine the psychological impact on drivers who would lose a lane in each direction where the Pike is wider than 4 lanes AND as they're doing 85-90 mph praying not to get ticket, just on the other side of a fence, Amtrak blows by them doing 150 mph...with a kid waving as they go by.

Man, that'd be awesome. Too bad we don't have the society ready for such a great means of getting around. Boston to Springfield to Albany to NYC! 2 hours. It'd be so great.

up
Voting closed 0

...the "high-speed rail" that was coming to New England. I lived in Providence, and was looking forward to being able to zip over to NYC.

It was a bit of a bait&switch, whether or not anyone intended it to be.

The 30 minutes that I saved Boston->NYC on the Acela was nice when someone's business arranged the tickets for me, but not so nice that I spring the extra money myself.

Hopefully we'll get real high-speed rail while I'm still around to enjoy it.

up
Voting closed 0

I just booked tickets for this weekend from South Station to Philly. The difference in price between the Acela and the Northeaster local was about $50. The difference in time was 1 hour. I don't make $50/hr, so I don't pay $50/hr.

up
Voting closed 0

Personally, I'm in no hurry to get to Springfield - or Albany, for that fact.

up
Voting closed 0

Deval just announced the next step on the South Coast Rail plan on Wednesday.

This is so stupid. No offense to the people of Fall River, etc. but we already can't afford all of the trains we're already running, we have NO plan to pay for CURRENT debt, transportation improvements, and maintenance issues because Deval is too weak to accomplish a gas tax. And the people in charge have proven to be too inept at maintaining a schedule in competition with Amtrak/CSX/etc....

EVERY aspect of our current commuter rail network is FAILING ... and the answer is to add MORE tracks and trains to the problem!?

I've about had it with Deval between this, his inability to push anything meaningful like the gas tax through the legislature, the scooter law changes, failure with his casinos legislation, and his completely botched handling of Grabauskas (and completely misidentifying the problem as being DanG and not the horrendous debt obligation foisted on the MBTA from 2000).

The only thing Deval seems to be able to accomplish is honking his own horn when the Feds give him earmarked economic stimulus money...something he HAS to spend on a specific project and had no real hand in accomplishing other than to ask for free money that was already being handed out.

up
Voting closed 0

how about the fact that to take a train to montreal from here you either have to ride the single daily amtrak train to albany, stay overnight, then take another amtrak train to montreal. OR, go via NYC. Sohbet muhabbet And similar is true of Boston and destinations in Vermont. Either way requires multiple purchases because amtrak's software doesn't recognize overnight stays as a single trip.

up
Voting closed 0