Hartford Line CtDOT New Haven-Springfield - NHHS (Before Launch of Service)

Thank you Otto for unlocking for this post of a news article. In deference to forum guidelines, please let's not go too far afield.

This is an interesting and sometimes skeptical look at the prospects for the line, its costs, and utility. More skeptical than pro, I think, and seemingly very well researched, with facts to back up opinions. It covers both pro's and con's well. A little off-color, too. I can't believe "wet dream" made it into print!

"Long-Distance Runaround" Fairfield Weekly 7.23.09

Viable commuter rail service between New Haven, Hartford and Springfield has become a transportation wet dream for swarms of Connecticut politicians, environmentalists, economists and anyone fearful of a gridlocked I-91.

It's a glittering vision: cleaner air, fewer consumer dollars being sucked away at the gas pump, less urban sprawl, quicker commutes, even images of sleek Euro-style high-speed trains. And for politicians like Republican Gov. Jodi Rell and Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, there's the prospect of sexy reelection campaign ads.

The problem with wet dreams is waking up to cold, messy reality.

No one really knows what a workable New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail system would cost, how we'd pay for it, or when it could actually begin running.

Very interesting article, and thank you Otto for unlocking this thread. I've a couple of questions after reading this-- I hope they're not too off-track.

First, does anyone have an exact breakdown of the $750 million figure? From what I've read here and in other places, it sounds like the most critical/pricey elements to the plan are (in no particular order): rebuilding the viaduct at Hartford Union Station; rehabilitating the Connecticut River bridge at Windsor; double-tracking; and (I assume) signalization.
Some of this stuff (like the Hartford viaduct) would presumably need to be done anyway in order to maintain current service levels-- is it fair to include it in the $750 million startup estimate?

Second, is it true that there is enough extra rolling stock stored in New Haven to start commuter service without acquiring additional equipment?

What proportion of the operating expenses of SLE are recovered through the farebox? Would it be realistic to assume a similar recovery ratio for proposed NH-H-S service?

How much would it cost to add one mile of extra lane to I-91 in say the Middletown-Rocky Hill area (which the article cites as the most congested part of the highway)?

Reading all of this, it feels to me as if there are really two separate but related projects they are trying to get off the ground: 1) improving the Springfield line to potentially increase the speed on the Amtrak service, and 2) restoring local service on the Springfield line for commuters.

To answer some of your questions, the primary engineering items that need to be done revolve around double tracking. The viaduct at Hartford is a key example along with the Connecticut River Bridge. Further, the station constructions at North Haven, Newington, and Endifled along with rehabing the spotty stations on the line drive up the cost. Signalling wouldn't be too tough as Amtrak already has their singaling systm along with Cab installed from NHV-SPG so the trick would be just to add signals to the new sections of track versus installing a whole system. As to adding another lane on I-91, iimmeaditely south of Harford up until the Route 3 interchange is 3 lanes with no room to expand. Plus with the plethora of accidents that seem to ocurr in that vicinity it makes it a terible area with I think is surrounded by wetlands, precluding any expansion.

I would agree that the two tiered approach should be used here. First allow monies to be freed to upgrade the current RoW to make more competitive travel times with cars. Then install the commuter operation with the new stations and the like.

It may not be worth doing if it cost $750 million. Even at half that price CT would have beg, borrow and steal to raise the money needed. I doubt "high speed" would wok on this line anyway. There are too many curves and too many grade crossings to contend with. If it were more a bare-bones project (forget electrification, which I'd love to see) and maybe a few less grade crossings and more longer stretches of double tracking, it might be worth it. But for the time being CT has two massive rail projects that will suck up evey spare penny for the next 5 years. The New Haven Yard Project, and the M8s. Add those two projects together and you're talking almost 2 billion dollars!!!

UNHAlumInCT wrote:Be that as it may, wouldn't an improved inland route SPG-HFD-NHV with electrification allow through trains to NYC? Wouldn't greater frequency and a reasonable trip duration with a faster trip to New Haven (without an engine change/train transfer) increase ridership significantly? Wouldn't a good connection into Bradley (via rail not bus, CTDOT ) make more Fairfield County residents to consider Bradley over a NYC airport and convince more Hartford and New Haven county residents to take the train to BDL rather than driving? Wouldn't quicker trains between SPG-HFD-NHV attract more commuters? Why shouldn't CT attempt to get a paradigm shift in transportation and attempt to reverse the trend of sprawl within the state with transit related development?

Personally, I think you need to make major, dramatic changes to attain significant change.

(Emphasis added is my own)

So many questions, so little common sense.

With apologies to the moderators, I can't resist this little OT comment: Systems Consciousness, is that you? I do believe he's the only poster who has used the term "paradigm shift" on these threads.

Oh no not him again. He always seems to be lurking around.....

Ridgefielder wrote:How much would it cost to add one mile of extra lane to I-91 in say the Middletown-Rocky Hill area (which the article cites as the most congested part of the highway)?

Oh, probably tens of billions of dollars and twenty years. You have to find replacement wetlands and replacement parkland and buy some people's houses, but worse, you have to rebuild dozens of bridges.

Reading all of this, it feels to me as if there are really two separate but related projects they are trying to get off the ground: 1) improving the Springfield line to potentially increase the speed on the Amtrak service, and 2) restoring local service on the Springfield line for commuters.

I agree that it feels like two separate but combined projects. Which probably accounts for the cost.

Which is cheap, by the way.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense--at least to me, I know most people here differ, which I respect--to have this line be electrified so that it can truly be part of the NEC with trains not needing to change engines in New Haven. Moreover, electrification provides for the ability to support Metronorth north of New Haven.

engine change? if ever there is thru service we have these things called genesis locomotives capable of 3rd rail and diesel (for the 1 or 2 possible dream thru trains) sitting on a bomb car from spg-gct for at least 3 hours is rough....again look at mn's hudson line no elecricts north of harmon and no problem run hourly + service so what is this obsession with wires? i believe now a days theres only a handfull of trains that swap engines at nh just the few through triains to spg and vt

The Dual modes do not run on SLE or on Springfield trains. only in MNCR pool trains.

bartholmew wrote:...sitting on a bomb car from spg-gct for at least 3 hours is rough....

Exactly my thought when I hear the discussion of through service all the way from Springfield to GCT; some might do it because of the price (just like some people go from New York to Philly via NJT and SEPTA w a change at Trenton) but I don't think there'd be enough of a market to justify the expense of acquiring dual-modes for the GCT tunnels.

If they're smart, what they're looking to do is set up a service pattern similar to that on the Shoreline: 1) Commuter trains making local stops Springfield-Hartford-New Haven, with maybe a couple of trains going all the way to Bridgeport or Stamford; and 2) Improved and more frequent Amtrak service between Springfield and NY Penn, serving the through market.

What with Mass Mutual in Springfield, and The Hartford, The Aetna, Travelers, Phoenix Fire and United Technologies in Hartford, a reasonably quick, reliable and comfortable Amtrak service to NY & Stamford should have a decent chance of picking up business travelers who are currently in their cars on I-91.

What with Mass Mutual in Springfield, and The Hartford, The Aetna, Travelers, Phoenix Fire and United Technologies in Hartford, a reasonably quick, reliable and comfortable Amtrak service to NY & Stamford should have a decent chance of picking up business travelers who are currently in their cars on I-91.

I spent almost a year commuting from New Haven to Hartford via car because the earliest train arrives at HFD at 09:27. To return to NHV, the choices depart HFD at 16:42 and 19:56. This schedule obviously does not support commuting for any position that requires a "normal 9-5" work day in Hartford. Given the central location of the HFD station - it's only a few blocks to the core of the downtown business - it is absurd that there are not commuter-oriented trains that would arrive at 07:45 - 08:45 and depart at 17:15 - 19:00. Of course, it would also most likely require improving the parking situation at NHV (most parking is filled by NYC commuters by about 08:00).

FRN9 wrote:The more I think about it, the more it makes sense--at least to me, I know most people here differ, which I respect--to have this line be electrified so that it can truly be part of the NEC with trains not needing to change engines in New Haven. Moreover, electrification provides for the ability to support Metronorth north of New Haven.

Although I would rather first see the North-South line (re-) double tracked with modern signaling and more trains, a separate line of thought about electrification is that is would support more flexibility with regard to power generation methods in the future. We've already seen proof that petroleum prices can dramatically increase in price quickly. Will there be supply issues as well? The current federal administration has made it clear they are pursuing all energy options. We have already seen the start of the first real efforts for providing "alternate" power generation from wind, solar, and other means; this will obviously take time and money to develop into systems that can supply a significant part of our energy needs. Perhaps we need to look "outside" of the rather conservative engineering mindset that train folks tend to have (with good historical reasons, of course) at see such a proposal on the higher level of a national energy policy rather than a debate over the impact of engine change times upon train schedules.

For NH - Hart - Springfield service ... a DMU (diesel light rail) would be a much cheeper way to go ....
BUT it can't co-exist with freight & Amtrack.
AND the only maker of full size DMU, CRC, in US just went out of business

They could run a DMU LRV from NH to Middletown then from there to Hartford, but how do you get to Springfield ?