Crazy Transit Pitches

That is also an excellent interim step before considering the Green Line spur on the Needham half and the Orange Line on the Boston-proper half. A lot's got to get sorted out first before Green could ever go there...CBTC signaling being the top one to enable the headways, and probably the D-to-E connector being the other for rush hour management. And Green has to get built before the arguably higher-priority Orange to Rozzie/W. Rox because Needham's no better equipped to survive on the awful 59 bus alone than it was during the CR-less 80's, and would most definitely launch the lawsuit nukes if they got severed. A TV Place/128 CR stop would be a cheapie value-enhancer and route-primer that probably helps the light rail conversion case 20 years down the road. It's a much better near-term option than pissing the ROW away entirely for another rail trail (the bicycle lobby is already descending like vultures to pave it over).

I tend to like your route-priming schemes, but I still have issues with the intra-Needham usage of this line and I don't think adding a Park-and-Ride at TV Place primes the line for that use at all. I do agree that Riverside-128 is a long way, but where are the people coming from to use these things? They have to be entering 128 from a major route inbound, and there already is a Park-and-Ride location at both the Pike and I-95, so a station in Needham wouldn't really serve any inbound drivers but those from Needham and Wellesley coming down Highland Ave, and they have stations in their towns that have parking. That location simply doesn't have outside-128 drivers heading inbound that won't pass Riverside, Dedham Corporate or 128 first. The only reason to build there would be to relieve Riverside, but that can be accomplished at Bear Hill while also picking up US-20 and Waltham corporate traffic.

I just think that Highland Ave/Needham St. as a neighborhood-scale walkable commercial corridor with parallel light rail is too good an opportunity to pass up, particularly as the towns prepare to reinvent the corridor over the next 10 years. The problem, as I've said before, is that it seems not to have occurred to anyone in Needham and it isn't sellable in Newton if it only goes to TV Place (since Upper Falls technically already has GL access at Eliot). The bike trail plan has been proposed to accommodate a parallel LRT track in the future (like the Purple Line and Capital Crescent Trail in the DC suburbs), but neither idea has been overwhelmingly popular. The "bike lobby" you speak of seems to just be 1 outdoorsman with a dream...
 
My impulse for LRT in Needham is mostly due to the thought that the ROW in West Roxbury isn't wide enough to accommodate both HRT and commuter rail. If that is the case (maybe F-Line can confirm), then maintaining the Needham Line for the sake of people in Needham means permanently condemning an urban, high density area to a less optimal service. What makes the needs of Needham more compelling than the needs of West Roxbury and Roslindale?

Possible compromises?

  1. Maintain existing Needham Line as is, but express from West Roxbury to Forest Hills. Run DMU (or optimally EMU) local service from West Roxbury inbound, stopping at Highland, Bellevue, Roslindale, etc. The DMU service would have mass transit level headways and the stations would have fare restricted platforms. A small yard for off service MU storage could be built in space between the West Roxbury Shaws and Catholic Memorial High School.
  2. Run the Needham line in the opposite direction, connecting to the Worcester line, leaving the Boston section of the ROW free for an Orange Line extension.

Option 1 is probably the best for Needham, as it would likely shave about 10 minutes from the trip. It's also pretty good for West Roxbury and Roslindale, though perhaps not quite as good as a direct Orange Line connection. Option 2 is more of the crazy transit pitch variety, because I really have no idea why it would be done, but just thought I'd toss it out there.

The mainline ROW through West Rox is on an embankment, so a good deal of the sides of it is sloped earthen fill. If it were scooped out into a cut with retaining walls, then it's absolutely wide enough for 2-track Orange + 1-track CR, with assumption that the 1-track CR is not going to be making local stops. In other words, exactly like the current OL northside.

That's real effing expensive, though, and it becomes a billion dollar project. The only justification for doing that is if Millis commuter rail were on the table, and that's not going to outweigh the benefits of doing rapid-transit. It would be less expensive to do both Green-Needham Jct. and Orange-West Rox and get rid of CR altogether because the current ROW's are plenty wide enough for in-place double track. It was double to the 128 bridge until the 1980's reconstruction ripped the second iron out.


Now, there are ways to phase this so it's not so massive an undertaking. 1-stop extension to Rozzie, where the incredible bus route duplication from Forest Hills screams for it, is doable without disrupting commuter rail at all. The line was 3-track to an old freight yard right by Rozzie station, so OL + CR fits on that footprint just fine. You'd merely trade the small 2-track section of CR for more double-tracking elsewhere. They should've done this decades ago. That 1 stop gets you 40% of the distance from Forest Hills to West Roxbury.

From there, double-tracking the CR line to W. Rox and doing high platforms prepares it for conversion. Just like Oak Grove and Malden Ctr. where the CR platforms were built for Orange conversion if the Reading extension happened and the express track got extended from Wellington. Train doors are the same height...they'd only have to install platform juts when it's time to reach the smaller OL cars. And then of course give these double-tracked high platforms enough design flex so when the conversion happens they can graft a prepayment headhouse onto them (hell, it'll probably prevent them from overbuilding a jewel-encrusted glass palace to have to make do with building around an existing platform). The actual running rails stay, and a rail grinder re-profiles them for rapid transit cars. No grade crossings here. They can install the third rail supports and run the wiring conduits while CR is still running. Then shut down the line for 6 months or something to swap the signals, wire everything up, install temporary headhouses, and restart service on Orange. Then do finish-up work building the full station headhouses.

That's not difficult. It's even less difficult on Green because the low platforms are same height as the raised ADA light rail platforms. Just tear down the commuter rail mini-high ramps at the ends when it's time. Double-track while it's still CR. Install the catanery poles and dig the conduits while it's still CR. Phase I the light rail spur to 128. Then built it to Heights on a temp platform north of the still-running CR platform, with the rails cut between them to separate modes. Then close the line for 6 months--only transit loss is Center and Junction because you've got the temp Heights platform--, re-grind the rails, do the signaling and electrical hookups, re-time the grade crossing protection so there's fast gates for quicker/more frequent crossings, and build a new Needham Jct. platform on a loop replacing the current wye.


It's not GLX-expensive. Either one. It's just on the list of priorities it's below super-critical Red-Blue and Blue-Lynn they've procrastinated themselves out of. The Rozzie 1-stop extension would've certainly happened by now via squeaky wheel methods if we had a Hizzoner who didn't treat those neighborhoods like second-class citizens.
 
I don't see the attraction to doing anything to the CR in Needham
aside for the thin industrial belt along Rt-128 -- there is very little opportunity for development in Needham -- the population has been unchanged since 1970 and the residents are rich, have large lots and are satisfied

Needham, like Wellesley and Weston is going to remain a bedroom community

Bunk. It is not Wellesley or Weston, and 67 years of study for light rail on this corridor has supported that. That isn't conjecture...there's generations of data on the transit demand in that town.

The Needham Line does 1250 boardings at Heights, Center, and Junction and 1175 riders on the 59 bus paralleling it. Rozzie to West Rox is 1335 CR riders. The whole line does fewer than 500 boardings less than Greenbush, and has the lowest frequency of any CR line except Greenbush. Only 16 round-trips per day and very sparse off-peak. It's only had weekend service since 2000, and now that's being gutted again. The 59, as horribly delayed as it is by the traffic on Highland Ave., is in the upper 45% of bus ridership on the system and the highest-ridership line crossing Route 128. It does more than the CT3, 74, and 79.

Last time the ridership was studied for the PMT with only Upper Falls, 128, and Needham Heights (CR transfer, no CR replacement) ridership projected to 3400 daily vs. 4250 in the 2009 Blue Book on the D for the Riverside, Woodland, Waban, and Eliot stops past where the lines would split. Throw in Center and Junction and it swelled to 6000, which is only 1500 less than the D past Reservoir.


I'm not saying it's an utmost priority, because they did slack off on the really urgent ones like the Blue extensions and GLX for so long. But those are not the rapid transit numbers of a typical "bedroom community". There is sorely unmet demand here at minimum addressible by doing something to enhance the existing mode instead of cutting it again.
 
Do they have an estimated ridership for the Rozzie square extension? I'd be curious how that compares to BL Lynn or RBConnector?

Also, am I right that the Forest Hills - Hyde Park segment is three or four-tracked all the way down after the Needham line branches off? That seems like an even easier OL extension than Needham/W Rox.
 
Do they have an estimated ridership for the Rozzie square extension? I'd be curious how that compares to BL Lynn or RBConnector?

Also, am I right that the Forest Hills - Hyde Park segment is three or four-tracked all the way down after the Needham line branches off? That seems like an even easier OL extension than Needham/W Rox.

They only projected FH-128 via Rozzie and didn't segment it by stop, but that was +11,300 riders. A whole lot of that was diversion from buses, which is sort of the whole point with 9 slow routes duplicating each other between FH and Rozzie. Rozzie should be at least as large a bus transfer than FH if they were segmented out, and the largest stop on this extension by ridership. I truly believe that if we had a Mayor who acknowledged at all that that neighborhood existed that this would be rolling by now, especially being able to punt the whither CR/Needham question down the road by first-phasing it on the portion of the ROW wide enough to fit both modes.

The 35/36/37 duplicate Bellevue and Highland before diverging at West Roxbury and the 52 passes within a couple blocks, so that's point in favor of second-phasing it there. Going all the way 128 I'm not sure is worth doing on Orange. Relocating Hersey to Greendale Ave. is still not close enough to the Great Plain Ave. exit to be much of a draw and there's no TOD potential there, so I think the ridership past W. Rox is going to crater too severely to merit it. Highland Ave./Green is a much better 128 stop by location, density, and redevelopment attention, and the ridership curve on that route to Needham Jct. doesn't fall off a cliff like Orange would past W. Rox.

Probably worth a re-study segmenting this out further. But Rozzie's going to be the biggie that also makes the bus system run a whole lot better. And West Rox is the effective cutoff point before it dwindles to a trace.



The Hyde Park routing fared poorer on ridership--4700 boardings--because the 32 is the only bus that parallels the whole route and station spacing was a lot wider with only Mt. Hope as intermediate stop between FH and HP. Hyde Park station's largely duplicated by the Fairmount CR stop 3 blocks away, so Orange headways over high-frequency Fairmount CR don't have the same ridership boost here as with the Needham Line stops. Also would impose serious capacity constraint to reduce the NEC from 3 to 2 tracks, requiring half the trains to be sent over the Fairmount missing Back Bay. No bloody way in hell is Amtrak allowing that with its trains, so that would bust the number of Franklin, Stoughton/South Coast, and Providence riders with Back Bay access down to a minority (small or zero minority for the branches) of the schedule. Which also would be hugely unpopular.

4th track's coming back anyway in Amtrak's NEC cap improvements plan to handle projected 2030 loads, so it could only be 5 years before the ROW is maxed out. They want slow Franklin and Stoughton trains on totally separate tracks from Amtraks and potentially faster Providences so they can get up past 100 MPH between FH and Westwood/128 instead of crawling through Readville. And that's probably the appropriate move for the kind of intercity growth we can expect. Doing Fairmount-to-128 at good headways is good enough.

(Besides, Hizzoner couldn't be arsed to pull any favors for his home base. Cleary Square vicinity is lucky the Big Dig commitments give Fairmount and Readville the love they're getting, because it sure wasn't due to their favorite son's efforts.)


EDIT: Blue-Lynn is +21,000 riders, Red-Blue +6500 (that's Blue-exclusive new paid boardings, not Red transfers who boarded elsewhere on Red.) Yeah...those are still the two undisputed one-ton elephants of the needs list.
 
Last edited:
Some miscellaneous highway pitches:
  • Every single interchange between 495 and another major highway is a mess, and most of them can probably be fixed easily by upgrading to two-lane exits.
  • The mess of an interchange that is the beginning of 93 needs to be torn down and rebuilt, one way or another. I'd prefer a Y-junction, but there's plenty of room for a new routing in that vicinity. Literally anything is better than the aborted cloverleaf we've got now.
  • Speaking of aborted cloverleaves, 295/95 in Attleboro needs to be fixed. I'm partial to 295 being extended to a new terminus in Attleboro, myself.
  • The decision to get on the Pike East or Westbound should be made before the toll plaza(s), not after. Strategic application of barriers and new signage could fix this.
  • Express Tolled Lanes for 93 between both 93/95 interchanges. Options to enter the lanes would exist at Routes 24 and 3, Morrisey Boulevard, Mass Ave, the Pike, and Route 99, but the only opportunities to exit the lanes would be at Route 3 and the Pike. Congestion pricing would be implimented.
  • Switch to open road tolling immediately, everywhere!
  • Grade separate Route 2 for the length of its existence west of Alewife. Keep all the junctions it has as exits if possible.
  • Begin phasing in distance-numbered exit signage. Abandoning the numbering on interstate interchanges like New Hampshire as part of the change is an option.
 
Grade separate Route 2 for the length of its existence west of Alewife. Keep all the junctions it has as exits if possible.

No, we should actually go the opposite direction. Remove the median barrier in Lincoln, add crosswalks at a few intersections, and allow left turns onto and off the highway. As it is now, the road is a barrier to all north-south travel in the town, including by pedestrians and bicycles.
 
No, we should actually go the opposite direction. Remove the median barrier in Lincoln, add crosswalks at a few intersections, and allow left turns onto and off the highway. As it is now, the road is a barrier to all north-south travel in the town, including by pedestrians and bicycles.

Total grade separation would fix this by letting north-south travel go above/below Route 2 on the formerly-intersecting surface roads. This is a superior solution to slowing through traffic down even more than it presenty is and forcing pedestrian traffic to contend with Route 2 motorists as well.
 
Some miscellaneous highway pitches:
  • Speaking of aborted cloverleaves, 295/95 in Attleboro needs to be fixed. I'm partial to 295 being extended to a new terminus in Attleboro, myself.

As someone who is familiar with that area, I'm wondering what would you fix and why you think 295 needs to go down to Attleboro? It would have to tear through a relatively dense (for the area) residential area or through a park. And then what do you have that's so much better?

Not that I'm not saying that that area doesn't need some reworking. (152 is awful, for example.) But bringing 295 in doesn't seem to address those problems, from what I can see.
 
As someone who is familiar with that area, I'm wondering what would you fix and why you think 295 needs to go down to Attleboro? It would have to tear through a relatively dense (for the area) residential area or through a park. And then what do you have that's so much better?

Not that I'm not saying that that area doesn't need some reworking. (152 is awful, for example.) But bringing 295 in doesn't seem to address those problems, from what I can see.

Oh no no no, you misunderstand. I'm talking about finishing out that cloverleaf and running 295 to the next closest street and ending there. (Incidentally, that road may in fact be 152!) This seems like a much easier solution than ripping up the whole interchange for a new Y junction, re:my proposed fix for 93/95 and the OTHER half-clover interchange to nowhere.

My problem with that junction is that looks unsightly, it's a matter of ~1/4 mile or less to connect 295 to Attleboro, and I've never been a fan of that curve.
 
As someone who is familiar with that area, I'm wondering what would you fix and why you think 295 needs to go down to Attleboro? It would have to tear through a relatively dense (for the area) residential area or through a park. And then what do you have that's so much better?

Not that I'm not saying that that area doesn't need some reworking. (152 is awful, for example.) But bringing 295 in doesn't seem to address those problems, from what I can see.

There is a proposal for an Attleboro Connector off the 295 stub ramps to 152 on the pre-graded, state-owned land for the canceled highway. One of just a couple cases left in the state where there's par-or-better chance of eventually building a road where no road currently exists (the other being finishing the 2001 extension of Route 57 for another 1.5 miles into Southwick). But that's mainly because it's a cheapie and Attleboro's community support ranges from ambivalent to very mildly supportive.

But it's not a 295 extension, just a very long exit ramp to 152 akin to the Route 85 stub off 290 in Marlborough. They still hope to rework that malformed, clogged cloverleaf into a functioning T interchange, so the cloverleaf will be gone under any circumstance to correct the traffic flow. They'll probably just provision for a turnout on the rebuilt interchange to peel out onto the connector. They will specifically avoid a 290/85 situation where the interchange feeds the high-speed traffic in the wrong direction.
 
Total grade separation would fix this by letting north-south travel go above/below Route 2 on the formerly-intersecting surface roads. This is a superior solution to slowing through traffic down even more than it presenty is and forcing pedestrian traffic to contend with Route 2 motorists as well.

The good news: DOT designed a solution that is a hybrid of both of your recommendations (at least at the big bend in Lincoln). Route 2 will be separated from the current intersection of the Cambridge & Concord Turnpikes by a series of retaining walls and shifted further south. And that intersection will be made more pedestrian friendly. This is no small feat - there's something like 11 retaining walls and they will need to demolish 8-10 homes.

The bad news: DW White was the low bidder last month. They were notoriously slow on a Route 24 project recently. And they came in at $42M with all other bidders in the $48-50M range. Meaning, they either bid it wrong and will have to make up the money. Or they're planning on undermanning/underequipping the job.
 
Oh no no no, you misunderstand. I'm talking about finishing out that cloverleaf and running 295 to the next closest street and ending there. (Incidentally, that road may in fact be 152!) This seems like a much easier solution than ripping up the whole interchange for a new Y junction, re:my proposed fix for 93/95 and the OTHER half-clover interchange to nowhere.

My problem with that junction is that looks unsightly, it's a matter of ~1/4 mile or less to connect 295 to Attleboro, and I've never been a fan of that curve.

There is a proposal for an Attleboro Connector off the 295 stub ramps to 152 on the pre-graded, state-owned land for the canceled highway. One of just a couple cases left in the state where there's par-or-better chance of eventually building a road where no road currently exists (the other being finishing the 2001 extension of Route 57 for another 1.5 miles into Southwick). But that's mainly because it's a cheapie and Attleboro's community support ranges from ambivalent to very mildly supportive.

But it's not a 295 extension, just a very long exit ramp to 152 akin to the Route 85 stub off 290 in Marlborough. They still hope to rework that malformed, clogged cloverleaf into a functioning T interchange, so the cloverleaf will be gone under any circumstance to correct the traffic flow. They'll probably just provision for a turnout on the rebuilt interchange to peel out onto the connector. They will specifically avoid a 290/85 situation where the interchange feeds the high-speed traffic in the wrong direction.

Aha, this all makes much more sense than what I was thinking Commuting Boston Student meant. Fwiw, the next street from 295 isn't 152 (North Main Street) but North Avenue, which parallels North Main about a half mile to the west, and is more lightly used. (Although there has been a southbound detour on it for a long time now because of construction on 152, so more people know about it and use it now.) See here: http://g.co/maps/4gdy6

Opening a new ramp there would not be a bad idea, imho. 152 is always terrible, and if I had to guess, I would say it's because of people trying to get from Downtown Attleboro to I-95 (and to a lesser extent, from 95 to 295). Opening up a ramp here would, in theory, take some pressure off of the century(s) old skeleton of roads in the surrounding area (Rt 152, Rt 1, Rt 1A, Rt 123, Elm Road/Robert F. Toner Blvd.).

On the other hand, Attleboro and North Attleborough both have a very nice ratio of developed to undeveloped land, to my sense of aesthetics. A ramp here might change that balance... heh, so maybe I do think it would be a bad idea!
 
The good news: DOT designed a solution that is a hybrid of both of your recommendations (at least at the big bend in Lincoln). Route 2 will be separated from the current intersection of the Cambridge & Concord Turnpikes by a series of retaining walls and shifted further south. And that intersection will be made more pedestrian friendly. This is no small feat - there's something like 11 retaining walls and they will need to demolish 8-10 homes.

The bad news: DW White was the low bidder last month. They were notoriously slow on a Route 24 project recently. And they came in at $42M with all other bidders in the $48-50M range. Meaning, they either bid it wrong and will have to make up the money. Or they're planning on undermanning/underequipping the job.

I can't find any information on exactly how many curb gets are getting zapped. MassHighway documents say "scope of work" from Bedford Rd. to Route 126, but that means almost nothing in the nitty-gritty. I'd be interested to know if it's just the bend around the Corner that's getting it or if they're settling up curb cuts further away. Sandy Pond Rd. is the only intersection/cut on the 126-to-2A segment, so if that street were to go they'd gain a full extra mile of separation. Bedford Rd. to 2A is the single densest segment of curb cuts on the entire highway, so that may be the more significant piece depending on how many cuts get knocked out. I would be hella impressed if they made it as far as Brooks Rd., but that seems implausibly far.
 
Top High Speed rail Networks by 2050

California High Speed Rail Network
Size : 800+ Mi (1,300kms)
Number of lines : 6
Stations : 25+
Projected Ridership : 95 Million a Year or 260,730 Daily
Top Speed : 220mph (350Km/h)
Cost : 68.5 Billion $

Midwest High Speed Rail Network
Size : 700 Mi+ (1,296Kms)
Stations : 76+ (Feeders factored in)
Lines : 6+ with 7 Feeders
Projected Ridership : 43 Million a year or 120,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 58 Billion $


Northeastern High Speed Network
Size : 1940 Mi+ (3,592kms)
Lines : 4+ with 6 Feeders
Stations : 90+ (Feeders factored in)
Projected Ridership : 127 Million a year or 350,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 120 Billion $


Taken from MWHSR , CAHSR and AMtrak Next gen sources , all done by 2050 or 2060 which is easy to do...Some of the lines are under Construction I do count the 110mph lines for now. I would say that 260 miles is under construction for enhancements and HSR prep in the Northeast which means 110mph , with room for 125mph Electric service down the road.

Top Regional Rail Networks by 2050

Midwestern Regional Rail Network - OH - IN - IL - MI - WI - MN - MO - KS - NE - ND - SD
Size in 2012 : 527.7 Mi
Size by 2050 : 2740 Mi
Electric lines in 2012 : 76 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 890 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 12
Number of lines by 2050 : 36
Top Speed 2012 : 100mph
Top Speed 2050 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 304,600
Daily Ridership in 2030 : 780,000


Northeastern Regional Rail Network - NJ - NY - CT - DE - MA - RI - NH - ME - VT - PA - MD - DC - VA
Size in 2012 : 3493 Mi
Size by 2050 : 9,300 Mi
Electric lines in 2012 : 2150 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 8,400 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 64
Number of lines by 2050 : 134
Top Speed in 2012 : 125mph
Top Speed in 2012 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 1.6 Million
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 4.2 Million


California Regional Rail Network
Size in 2012 : 716 Mi
Size by 2050 : 892 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 12
Number of lines by 2050 : 17
Electric lines in 2012 : 0 Mi
Electric lines by 2050 : 630 Mi
Top Speed in 2012 : 90mph
Top Speed in by 2050 : 125mph
Daily Ridership in 2012 : 107,500
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 480,200


Taken from the various State , County , City Plans and Proposals and Transit advocate wishlists... Ridership Projections for 2030 are from me....factoring in various TOD and service enhancement projects aswell as new lines.
I have yet to do the LRT / Metro and streetcar build out comparisons...

Midwestern Light / Heavy Rail Network - OH - IN - IL - MI - WI - MN - MO - KS - NE - ND - SD
Size in 2012 : 322.4 Mi
Size by 2050 : 820 Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 15
Number of lines by 2050 : 59
Stations in 2012 : 268
Stations by 2050 : 420+
Daily Ridership in 2011 : 815,290
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 3.8 Million


Northeastern Light / Heavy Rail Network - NJ - NY - CT - DE - MA - RI - NH - ME - VT - PA - MD - DC - VA
Size in 2012 : 1302 Mi
Size by 2050 : 2526+ Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 71
Number of lines by 2050 : 163
Stations in 2012 : 947
Stations by 2050 : 1784+
Daily Ridership in 2011 : 7.2 Million
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 20.3 Million



California Light / Heavy Rail Network
Size in 2012 : 431.8 Mi
Size by 2050 : 1051+ Mi
Number of lines in 2012 : 22
Number of lines by 2050 : 54
Stations in 2012 : 302
Stations by 2050 : 680+
Daily Ridership in 2011 : 1.1 Million
Daily Ridership by 2030 : 5.8 Million
 
Why no high-speed rail from DC to FL?

Commute --- how far is say Miami from DC (1055 mi by Google)
suppose that truly high speed rail is capable of 150 mi per hour average over that distance including the mandatory dozen or so stops (Lot of Cong. dists) -- that means about 7.5 hours station to station or perhaps 8.5 to 9.5 hours portal to portal

Even with the hassles with the TSA most people would rather fly for 2 hours than sit on a train for 8 -- and that's being optimistic about the average speed

Now consider a train originating in NYC or BOS -- you are talking 12 hours minimum to Miami -- no one* will do that instead of flying

Realistically -- the window for high speed rail to compete with Air is about 3 to 5 hours center city to center city -- in other words the limit is about BOS to DC with Acela running full-bore with few stops



* -- well perhaps old hippies who can still strum the "City of New Orleans" and hostel-hikers from Europe
 
Realistically -- the window for high speed rail to compete with Air is about 3 to 5 hours center city to center city -- in other words the limit is about BOS to DC with Acela running full-bore with few stops

Source, please.
 
Commute --- how far is say Miami from DC (1055 mi by Google)
suppose that truly high speed rail is capable of 150 mi per hour average over that distance including the mandatory dozen or so stops (Lot of Cong. dists) -- that means about 7.5 hours station to station or perhaps 8.5 to 9.5 hours portal to portal

Even with the hassles with the TSA most people would rather fly for 2 hours than sit on a train for 8 -- and that's being optimistic about the average speed

Now consider a train originating in NYC or BOS -- you are talking 12 hours minimum to Miami -- no one* will do that instead of flying

Realistically -- the window for high speed rail to compete with Air is about 3 to 5 hours center city to center city -- in other words the limit is about BOS to DC with Acela running full-bore with few stops



* -- well perhaps old hippies who can still strum the "City of New Orleans" and hostel-hikers from Europe

I'm not trying to pull people off of planes. My potential riders on a Southeast Express are all people who would otherwise be driving or spending 20(!) hours on the Silver Service.

If the choice is: 20 hours on the Silver "Meteor" or 16 driving and I get to keep my car instead of paying for a rental, you bet your ass I'm driving.

16 driving or 8 on a high-speed train connected into a developed Rapid Transit Network in my destination city - well, that's a no-brainer, even I still expected to need a car at some point.

And who knows - 2 hours by plane plus an hour spent in the "tender" care of a TSA hack plus half an hour at baggage claim plus an hour on the road in your choice of rental or taxi - suddenly that 2 hours is looking more like 5 or 6 - present someone who may have had one too many intimate encounters with an 8-hour alternative that lets them keep their shoes on and who knows? They might just take it.
 
I don't really see the TSA argument as a longterm argument. I see it this way, 2 things are going to happen:

1. People get fed up with TSA and start revolting against them (not like a civil war or anything, but they're going to be lobbying hard) and the TSA is dissolved.

or

2. TSA continues to exist, and as trains become more popular, trains are now a 'target' and must be 'protected'.
 

Back
Top