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

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

HS1 in England is only 67 miles in length to the tunnel under the English Channel.
From Penn Station in New York City, 67 miles away to the north only reaches Bridgeport, CT, to the south reaches Trenton, NJ. That's nowhere close to the entire length of the NEC that's 453 miles in length.

When England builds a HSR line that's 453 miles long, maybe just maybe it can be compared to the NEC.

ferroequinologist wrote:

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).

Local governments in the US also have much more political and legal power than local governments in Britain; in the UK, London basically calls all the shots. You can thank the men of Lexington, Mass. for that difference.

electricron wrote:

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

HS1 in England is only 67 miles in length to the tunnel under the English Channel.
From Penn Station in New York City, 67 miles away to the north only reaches Bridgeport, CT, to the south reaches Trenton, NJ. That's nowhere close to the entire length of the NEC that's 453 miles in length.

When England builds a HSR line that's 453 miles long, maybe just maybe it can be compared to the NEC.

ER:

Distance wise both Trenton and Bridgeport are 58 miles from NYP...
67 miles S and N gets us to Grundy (just north of Bristol,PA going towards PHL) and West Haven,CT respectively...
9 miles further or 18 miles total does add up here...

There are YouTube videos that I have watched on the Channel Tunnel that also show the London HSR route...

The UK DOES have two comparable high speed routes to the NEC which are both the electrified East Coast
and West Coast Main Lines from London north into Scotland

I agree that unless a new New York to Boston HSR route is built using an existing rail or road corridor that
the project will be prohibitively expensive or face significant NIMBY opposition which could delay any type
of progress toward construction indefinitely...

MACTRAXX

MACTRAXX wrote: The UK DOES have two comparable high speed routes to the NEC which are both the electrified East Coast
and West Coast Main Lines from London north into Scotland
MACTRAXX

But they aren't HS1.
And Scotland isn't a part of England.

Who said anything about England? The term that was used was Britain, and normally Scotland is believed to be part of Britain, no?

Actually ECML has probably more sustained 125mph segments than does the NEC.

It should be noted that the original proposed line from the tunnel to London was through South East England , and was shelved due to protest.
The current line was built through East London , and area that need regeneration, and the line was seen as helping that process. Even so , more had to be put in tunnel than originally planned.
Construction cost balloned to more than 4 times the cost per mile of the connecting line in France.

From the BLE: http://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=43069" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And from My Central Jersey: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/ne ... /77180436/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes 8 billion over 5 years is 1.6 billion each year. Maybe they can come to a state of good repair.

more info : http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/2 ... autologin=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone here intending to go to one of the public hearings? I intended to go to the one yesterday (Dec. 14th) in New Haven, but fates conspired against me and I had more urgent matters to attend to. I'll probably just try to catch them when they go up to Hartford in January.

I was also thinking of what I would even potentially bring up as a question or comment; so much of it seems to be ludicrous that I don't even know where to begin at coming up with a cogent and meaningful comment/question.

Some cost figures on including:

1. nothing more than rebuilt/repaired existing NEC infrastructure: $20B

2. the Old Saybrook-Kenyon Bypass: $65B

3. the New Haven-Hartford-Providence-Boston re-route: $135B

4. a tunnel under Long Island Sound: $290B (!!!!!)

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think we can start to write off the bypass and tunnel options by now. Too much cost for not that much gain to be worth it. If they're going to spend big money on this they might as well try to get around New Haven Line traffic by widening the ROW or building the inland route via White Plains.

I really want to see more "David Gunn" in these plans, with a focus not on higher speeds, but on shorter travel times to downtown (and better transfer/connections, where possible)

I want to know how much these cost:
1) Baltimore Charles Center Station (tunnel from So Balt to Bayview)
2) Philly Airport & "Central" Stations
3) Providence E-W alignment to unused tangent segment south on east side of PVD

Not on anybody's radar, but way better passenger-mile/minute-dollar
4) Electrification and capacity beyond WAS to L'Enfant, Alexandria, Springfield, Lorton Terminus/Catering/Crew/Yard*
5) Electrification and capacity beyond BOS to Woburn Terminus/Catering/Crew/Yard*
...both of these have the potential to trim :20 to :40 minutes worth of travel time/connections at the "anchor" ends just like 1 & 2 trim :20 mins from door-to-door times in the middle. And also on "sides" of their metro areas where the airports "aint" (and have no potential to be).

The Virginia "half" of Washington is too huge a market--far larger than the "North Station" half of Boston--to rely on only WAS and NCR, and takes only wires on a bridge that's going to get built soon anyway.

*both of which allow higher-value passenger and real estate development on the current downtown terminals, and a "clean sheet" design of support functions.

You know, I can't help but wonder if repeated airing of some of the more outlandish alternative routings through CT and RI is doing a disservice.

Anyone at all familiar with the geography of southeastern Connecticut-- anyone who lives there or has driven through there-- knows there's a reason the Shore Line was built where it was back in the 1830's-50's. East of the Connecticut River, the countryside is an unbroken series of high, rocky ridges running generally N-S, and gaining in elevation from south to north; on the seaward end, the ridges become points. Any attempt to build through that part of the world inland from the coast would involve either a large amount of tunnels or several viaducts on the scale of Lyman and Rapallo on the old Air Line farther north-- 1,000 ft long and 150 ft high.

Similarly, anyone at all familiar with Westchester and Fairfield Counties knows that there is no way it would be politically possible to build anywhere other than the existing rights-of-way of either railroads or Interstate highways. This is some of the most expensive real estate in the United States, owned by people who would fight an eminent domain acquisition all the way to the Supreme Court and the floor of the House.

Floating these "lines on a map" proposals makes the planners look out of touch with reality. And, the price tags assigned to them-- only $260 billion for New England's very own Chunnel!-- give ammunition to those opposed to infrastructure spending in general.

I went to the Washington, DC, public hearing on Wednesday. The FRA has narrowed the proposals down to four alternatives: the required no-build alternative, which includes projects under way but no more; maintain and expand, which includes the southeastern Conn. bypass of drawbridges and additional track here and there; major expansion, which includes all the above plus a two-track line from Hartford to Providence; and "transform," which includes everything else plus a new high-speed line Washington to Boston. All the alternatives include new Hudson tunnels and keep the present corridor. After receiving public comments, the FRA will decide on the best investment plan.

the 3rd version sounds great to me.

So one way or another the OSB-Kenyon Bypass will be a part of whatever "build" alternative the FRA decides on? Doesn't make any sense at all. The party that would primarily benefit from it would actually be CDOT as it would remove anywhere from 9 to 14 Acela RTs on weekdays allowing those slots to be replaced by Shore Line East trains to/from New London along with any extended service to Westerly, essentially making that segment of the Shore Line a commuter/Regional line. They're definitely not planning on adding any more Regionals before 2030 and after that is anyone's guess depending on New Haven Line slot availability.


Furthermore the first 3 alternatives don't solve the "what do we do about the New Haven Line" problem in any way. And "Alternative 4" would render a SE CT "bypass line" rather redundant if there's also going to be a new NHV/NYP-HFD-PVD dedicated high speed line.