This is not the first time this topic has come up here and the situation is no different now than it was last year or the year before. Part of the reason the corridor is as successful as it is is the important intermediate stops in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Stamford is an important suburban point with major connections, New Haven in addition to the situation at Stamford also has Yale which is a traffic producer, New London is a major travel point with bus connections, ferry connections, military posts and colleges in the area. Rhode Island is the same with colleges, military posts, big city (Providence) and other traffic sources. By-passing these points by running inland would destroy the mission of running trains, New York - Boston service amounts to much more than just New York and Boston. Building a whole new railroad through Westchester County, New York and Fairfield County, Connecticut is simply not going to happen, the cost would be trillions of dollars which do not exist and will not exist in the future either. The inland route east of New Haven would wipe out major sources of traffic and would still cost way too much. Having said all that, it would still be possible to get rid of at least two of the worst bottlenecks for speed which are Bridgeport and New London. It would cost a lot of money but it would be possible to tunnel under the harbor area of Bridgeport which could eliminate several restrictive curves and New London which would also eliminate a number of curves. Restrictive drawbridges could also be skipped. The trackage through Bridgeport would be retained for Metro-North plus some Amtrak trains that would continue to stop there as well as New London in order to continue service to that important stop. Building tunnels is not cheap but at least with tunnels they would not for the most part have NIMBY problems and would not have to acquire nearly as much expensive property. Providence is a restrictive curve as well but in this case all trains stop there anyway and there is not much likelyhood of trains not stopping at Providence in the future as it is an extremely important source of traffice. Yes there are a number of other places where you could straighten out curves and get ride of some more restrictions but at a big cost and maybe knock off a few more minutes here and there. Again the worst two spots are Bridgeport and New London and if they were to do anything, these two spots are where something should be done and running time could be reduced as a result. Two tunnels with sustained speeds of maybe 80 MPH compared with the stretches in question plus a mile or two less in both cases and elimination of 5 drawbridges would help save much time and still continue to serve all of the points that presently are served. You would still have restrictions at several locations but with good electric power the time lost would not be that severe. Many places where they have built successful high speed rail lines it has happened because the routes pass through areas that are not nearly as built up as suburban New York and suburban Boston and they have not had to deal with property owners who do not want a railroad line anywhere near their residence, NIMBY's, attorneys and other obstacles that exist in our country and will always exist. I do not think it would be possible to bypass the existing rail line between New York and New Haven. There is just no available land to build another railroad line at this time and probably not in the future either. To sum this up, in my opinion it would be far better use of funds to improve on the existing lines than to start from scratch and build new ones. A few minutes here, a few more minutes there could reduce the running times between New York and Boston and still provide good service to all.
Noel Weaver
Noel Weaver