NEC Future: HSR "High Line", FRA, Amtrak Infrastructure Plan

I grew up about 2+ miles from where the western CT inland bypass and the Springfield Line-that-inexplicably-runs-on-the-Air Line converge en route to Hartford in Alt. 3 on page 80 of the Appendix PDF: http://www.necfuture.com/pdfs/tier1_dei ... /app_a.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Those of you familiar with the area know the convergence point as Meriden Mountain/Ragged Mountain, the gigantic trap rock formation that rises 700+ ft. tall with vertical drops on the Meriden end at I-691 and the Plainville end at I-84 and the gigantic Tilcon quarry overlooking 84. And also the geological formation framed on THREE sides by extant rail lines at the low elevation points 1 mile or less from the cliffs: Springfield Line to the east, Canal Line (what's left of it + most recently landbanked section) to the west, Highland Line (future Hartford-Waterbury commuter rail) to the north.

Here's a helpful not-to-scale illustration I drew over that p. 80 rendering of my thoughts on this apparently very serious proposal, from the perspective of a local whose bedroom window for first 18+ years of life stared out at that formation they apparently want to build a 7-mile, two-pronged tunnel straight through.




Seriously...my brain is bleeding here.

I traced the "NY to Hartford via Central Connecticut" in a custom Google Maps map, with the topographic background selected; at the time of posting this, I have the big spine done from Mamaroneck to where it joins up with the Springfield Line. I'll probably try and do this with the other spine options at some point, but there's that for now. Based it off of the part 1 maps, which have more detail to them then the part 2 maps which show grade type (tunnel/embankment/at-grade/bridge/etc). Little shaky with my certainty of what I put down between downtown New Britain and the Springfield line, but the rest I can say is accurate (enough).

YamaOfParadise wrote:I traced the "NY to Hartford via Central Connecticut" in a custom Google Maps map, with the topographic background selected; at the time of posting this, I have the big spine done from Mamaroneck to where it joins up with the Springfield Line. I'll probably try and do this with the other spine options at some point, but there's that for now. Based it off of the part 1 maps, which have more detail to them then the part 2 maps which show grade type (tunnel/embankment/at-grade/bridge/etc). Little shaky with my certainty of what I put down between downtown New Britain and the Springfield line, but the rest I can say is accurate (enough).

It's like they're taking a grand TBM tour of every igneous basalt formation east of the Palisades. This is a performance art. Hats off to the team that stole itself a paycheck putting these renderings together.

So they're proposing *taking* land through eminent domain in the towns of Mamaroneck, Scarsdale, Rye, Armonk, Bedford, Lewisboro and North Salem, NY, and Greenwich, CT. Apparently they decided to not only seek out the hardest rock but also the most expensive possible real estate to acquire north of NY City.

And forget the Zombie Apocalypse- this plan would bring on the NIMBY Apocalypse. Comparing the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition to what the people of those towns would bring is like comparing a guy in a Boston Whaler waving a 12-gauge to the USS Ticonderoga- they both float and have guns, but that's about it.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: there is no way you're getting through Fairfield or Westchester counties without using the existing ROW of either an interstate or a railroad. End of story. That leaves as options the Hudson and Harlem divisions, the former NY Central Putnam Division (now a trail), I-87, I-287, I-684, and the Hell Gate Route/New Haven Line. Nothing else would ever be remotely politically feasible.

That might be a reason for literally tunneling under upper Westchester County after they diverge from the interstate, and western and central CT. I'd certainly like to see a cost-benefit analysis of that, though, or some indication that that's what they're doing. If they actually followed I-684 from where their proposed route diverges between Katonah to where I-684 forks north to interchange with I-84, tunneled under that mountain the same way they did, and then just connected in to the Maybrook line near the CT border, the route through New York would actually be reasonable enough to at least be considered... because it'd mostly follow the established I-684 RoW. Getting to I-684 from the NEC would still just be incredibly hard for your aforementioned reasons, though, there's no way to do it without pissing off some of the most politically connected people you could think of.

That still doesn't get you through Connecticut, though, which has been the problem railroads have tried to solve for their entire existence... to which they solve by literally drawing an air line. At least "air lines" in the past just tried to be as straight as reasonably possible; just because TBMs exist today doesn't mean you don't have to somewhat follow the topography, guys!

Probably going to map out some of the other spines, and sketch some of the ideas I have that'd bring this more into the actual reality we live in. I'll post back whenever I do that.

Ridgefielder wrote:So they're proposing *taking* land through eminent domain in the towns of Mamaroneck, Scarsdale, Rye, Armonk, Bedford, Lewisboro and North Salem, NY, and Greenwich, CT. Apparently they decided to not only seek out the hardest rock but also the most expensive possible real estate to acquire north of NY City.

And forget the Zombie Apocalypse- this plan would bring on the NIMBY Apocalypse. Comparing the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition to what the people of those towns would bring is like comparing a guy in a Boston Whaler waving a 12-gauge to the USS Ticonderoga- they both float and have guns, but that's about it.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: there is no way you're getting through Fairfield or Westchester counties without using the existing ROW of either an interstate or a railroad. End of story. That leaves as options the Hudson and Harlem divisions, the former NY Central Putnam Division (now a trail), I-87, I-287, I-684, and the Hell Gate Route/New Haven Line. Nothing else would ever be remotely politically feasible.

Using the Harlem line or the Putnam division would require joining either one to the Hell Gate Line first. The Harlem Line is pretty straight south of White Plains but gets curvy immediately north of there until Pleasantville, where it is pretty close to I-684 anyway. For that reason, I feel as if you lose the benefit of the Harlem line unless you join it pretty close to Midtown. Using the Bronx River Parkway on the east side of the Bronx Zoo to join the Harlem Line around Williams Bridge, we might have something. Then following the Harlem Line to North White Plains and tracking roughly along Mt. Kisco Road gets us to I-684 and I-84 toward Hartford via a relatively straight path. Construction right near one of the City's key drinking water reservoirs might make conservationists skittish, but there must be ways to manage the risk.

Something roughly along the line that YamaOfParadise drew on Google Maps--the Hell Gate line and a small part of the New Haven Line trunk to Mamaroneck Avenue--doesn't seem terribly outlandish either. In White Plains, some condemnation is probably inevitable in this case, but it seems near enough to an interstate that the land may not be so valuable.

In Fairfield and New Haven counties, there are a couple of stretches where a small deviation from the "crayon stroke" puts you in the I-84 ROW, which will likely save some land acquisition and tunneling costs. The alignment through CT doesn't have to be arrow-straight to support sustained 150-180 mi/hr running. In terms of curvature, pretty much anything should be an improvement over the New Haven Line, and that combined with avoiding the congestion and the drawbridges will really do a number on the running times.

In terms of sheer trip time reductions, I feel that there is more pay dirt to be struck north of NY than there is south. Plus, the slowest stretch from NYC to Boston runs through CT, meaning that by dealing with only one state a big improvement in speed and throughput can be had. Could it be that the north-of-NYC HSR segment gets advanced before the NYC-WAS tract?

The problem with the Putnam Division ROW is that it's not exactly a straight shot. The most you could get out of it is a dedicated ROW without having to share with commuter trains. You might as well stick to the New Haven Line. And at least some of the bridges would require either substantial strengthening or complete replacement as they have not been used to carry trains for at least 50 years in most parts.


The "Old Put" would be better used as a new Metro-North "Putnam Line/Yorktown Line" to provide more capacity when/if the Hudson and Harlem lines can't handle any more trains in the future. And even that is a pipe dream (albeit a very nice one).


The Harlem Line would very much be an ideal conduit for routing the ROW through Westchester County. It's wide enough for 4 tracks in most spots and would require little to no property acquisition. It definitely won't come cheap to add up to 2 more tracks and reconfigure/realign the existing 2-3 tracks where necessary (especially @ Bronxdale and Scarsdale), but it is no doubt a whole lot cheaper than trying to build a new ROW through or under some of the most affluent suburbs in the country.


If only the NYW&B had been landbanked... It truly could have lived up to it's name!

Mamaroneck Avenue is just not suitable for anything more than LRT. It's a huge climb from Saxon Woods to White Plains, with more than a few curves, particularly in Mamaroneck near the reservoir (s-curve), and again approaching the downtown (a 90 degree turn at Old White Plains Rd.) It's a nice road in that most of it is 4-lane divided; why I think it would be excellent for LRT on a well-used bus route. But it's not going to happen. Ever. Not practical never mind the NIMBY's. I know I posted the summary and have downloaded the full report, but I haven't read it yet. Does it really contemplate a Mamaroneck - White Plains leg? They'd be better off using the 287 corridor using the contemplated TZB routing.

AFAIK the legal status of the Put in Westchester and Putnam is parkland. I don't believe it was land-banked (obviously not rail-banked since it was scrapped). You'd never get past that hurdle. It was not a high-speed route; it was valuable as a wide clearance route which was obviated when the West Shore was realigned and single-tracked. It goes through quite a bit of NYC watershed too. Nice to imagine; never going to happen. As to the allusion of utility for MNRR, yeah, I've thought it would be useful up to Elmsford and the old "around the horn" Golden Bridge - Mahopac - Carmel - Brewster (you could drop off one of the termini) to get traffic off the SMRP/100/22/Crouton Falls Rd (misspelled purposely). But again, parkland and ROW encroachment/acquisition, and capacity issues south of BN and on the Park Av viaduct/tunnel.

I love the allusion to the NYW&B! It was a completely grade-separated route. Others know it better than I; I don't know if the character of the line would have lent itself to this. Of course, beyond 3rd Avenue in Mt. Vernon there's not a lot left; a trail beyond the Heathcote bypass in WP and a small Pelham highline.

Their best bet if they decide to "High Line" it across central CT is bring it down 684 and 287 Danbury to Port Chester, and maybe use a viaduct along 95. I really don't think the Harlem Line is usable; if anyone needs more tracks, it's MNRR. Too many bridge/clearance issues, and Hartsdale - Scarsdale - Bronxville won't go for it. And how do you get it over to the NEC? Forget the Hutch or BRP; that's like a Grand Prix track. Want "Empire Service" to WP? Activate the western Beacon line, and wye it to get it to NYP; again, operationally difficult given traffic bottlenecks.

No, these are all nice scenarios, but none practical.

Jeff Smith wrote:Their best bet if they decide to "High Line" it across central CT is bring it down 684 and 287 Danbury to Port Chester, and maybe use a viaduct along 95. I really don't think the Harlem Line is usable; if anyone needs more tracks, it's MNRR. Too many bridge/clearance issues, and Hartsdale - Scarsdale - Bronxville won't go for it. And how do you get it over to the NEC? Forget the Hutch or BRP; that's like a Grand Prix track. Want "Empire Service" to WP? Activate the western Beacon line, and wye it to get it to NYP; again, operationally difficult given traffic bottlenecks.

No, these are all nice scenarios, but none practical.

100% agree that the only workable alternative to get through Westchester is 684 to 287-- or more properly, Maybrook Line to Brewster -> Harlem Division Brewster-Katonah -> 684 -> 287. The biggest problem with that route is the fairly steep hill between Katonah and Armonk but presumably that could be engineered away somehow. And a big chunk of the ROW between Port Chester and New Rochelle still has room for 2 extra tracks courtesy of the NYW&B Port Chester branch.

Oh yeah, I know that hill well. I commuted to and/or from Danbury quite a bit while in the Reserves, dated a young lady in Mahopac while living in Mamaroneck, and lived in Patterson for a while. My family is buried not far from Bedford green just off 22. There was a time I could tell you every pothole along 684.

It's actually two hills; the first coming off a ridge above the Mt. Kisco exit down to a well-know speed trap at the bottom. It plateaus there a bit (near the SB rest area), then drops again down to Katonah. Maybrook west of Danbury to Brewster North down to Katonah works. Not sure what the grade of those two hills are. Couldn't find that info anywhere.

Additionally, there's the up-hill grade at the southernmost end near Anderson Hill Rd. I think this and the others could be alleviated by a "fly-over" type viaduct raising the level at which any trackage would approach those hills, making the inclines less severe.

Of course, this is academic and unlikely to happen given cost and other engineering obstacles.

Finally, a bit of trivia from this I684 site: http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-684_NY/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Engineers already had a head start: part of the route was built on an old right-of-way acquired by the Westchester Northern railroad, an extension of the New York, Westchester and Boston Railroad for a Danbury extension that was graded, but abandoned in 1925. Landscape architects were commissioned to make the six-lane highway an aesthetically pleasant one for both users and residents along the route.

I wonder how in Britain they were able to put in the new right of way for HS1, the high speed line from London to the Channel Tunnel, through an area even more densely populated that CT. Maybe they don't have NIMBY's there. (or course they would have to be NIMBG's - Not in My Back Garden

Jon

Very low population density for much of the route, paralleling the existing M20, M2, and A2 roadways where possible, and judiciously applied tunnels where density and geography mandated. Also much flatter terrain!

I share the irritation of many posters who think the DEIS preparers threw the kitchen sink at the route options selected for Alternative 3, but that is to be expected at least to some extent. This EIS is a very early document; it is the draft of the programmatic EIS for the whole WAS-NYP-BOS corridor. The final programmatic EIS will incorporate comments not only from the public but also from other agencies that should lead to some refinements. For each segment, I would anticipate that there will be a further project-level EIS to perform a more granular cost-benefit analysis. I highly doubt concepts like tunneling straight through Ragged Mountain in central CT when there are valleys on either side will survive past that phase.

It is my understanding that California, whose HSR line's construction phase began this summer, was where we are about a decade ago. A lot of refinements were made and continue to be made as project-level environmental impact statements continue to advance for later segments of that project. Again, there are a lot of ideas in this DEIS I'd consider wacky (tunnel under Midtown, tunnel under Philadelphia), but at least some concept is on the table. The bottom line is that this is progress, not as much as anyone would like to see, but progress nonetheless.

jonnhrr wrote:I wonder how in Britain they were able to put in the new right of way for HS1, the high speed line from London to the Channel Tunnel, through an area even more densely populated that CT. Maybe they don't have NIMBY's there. (or course they would have to be NIMBG's - Not in My Back Garden

Jon

Land use in England is also very different from the US in a way that makes it much more favorable to new construction. Outside of major cities, usually there are very densely populated cities and towns surrounded by countryside. They've got a high population density overall, but they've also got loads more open space than the US does. American suburbs stretch out until they reach the next suburb, which doesn't happen to nearly the same extent in England (or much of Europe, for that matter).

Mr. Student of the Iron Horse, you make a definite point between the US and European landscapes.

If there could be on the Corridor improvements such as a flyover at New Rochelle, that would go a long way to making the Corridor a World Class railroad.

But to have a true HSR, such as in Europe and Asia is simply out of the question. I think of Austria, where I have visited twice in as many years ( for music and not railfanning), they have made incremental improvements so that their premium Rail Jet trains, operating over what can only be considered as"higher speed rail", make a good showing for themselves with the true HSR systems in Germany and France.