High Speed Rail (Boston to... Texas?)

Re: regional HSR, wouldn't fares be too high for daily commuters? And if that market isn't going to bite, then what market exists?

I think it cost about $8.25 to take the T from south station to Providence for an 1:15 ride. Amtrak prices start at $23 (regional) for a roughly 30-45 minute ride depending on level of service.

I wonder if the MBTA/RI/Amtrak could work out a deal to lower regional prices to the $12-$15 range and offer express commuter service.

I think some people wouldn't mind paying a couple more bucks per trip to shave their commute in half. Although it would add about $160/month to commute prices, it would also give you an extra 20 hours a month of time off the train.

edit: i just realized my post right here take no account of acela prices, so i guess my theory falls apart. /facepalm.
 
I remember taking the bullet train from Osaka to Tokyo back in the early 2000s and it cost me 11,000 yen (~$110) each way.

Also, HSR between Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland makes sense.
 
Speaking of rail fares, and speaking of Cascades...it only costs $30 to go from Seattle to Vancouver via Amtrak! And the ride is stunningly gorgeous. They even show an in-train movie, though I don't know why you'd want to take your eyes off Puget Sound.
 
I remember taking the bullet train from Osaka to Tokyo back in the early 2000s and it cost me 11,000 yen (~$110) each way.

Also, HSR between Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland makes sense.

That was 11 years ago! I thought you were about 9!
 
I haven't read this yet but assume it's going to be fitting for this thread.

How Flaws Undid Obama?s Hope for High-Speed Rail in Florida

By MICHAEL COOPER
THE NEW YORK TIMES

The rest of the world calls them bullet trains because they go so fast. But in the United States, the nickname is apt for a different reason: They keep getting shot down.

In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama called for expanding the nation?s railroad program.

The nation?s first true high-speed railroad was supposed to leave the station in 2015, a sleek Tomorrowland-worthy train that would have whisked riders between Orlando and Tampa at speeds of up to 168 miles an hour.

The federal government had agreed to pay $2.4 billion of its estimated $2.6 billion in construction costs, railroad companies were vying to build and operate it, and state transportation planners had even dummied up proposed timetables: Train 7092 would depart Tampa at 8:10 a.m. and arrive in Orlando at 9:04 a.m.

The fast train was sought, and won, by Florida?s former Republican governor, Charlie Crist. But it was killed last month by his successor, Rick Scott, who joined several other Republican governors in spurning federally financed train projects over fears that their states could be on the hook for future costs. The final nail in its coffin came last week when a Florida court ruled that the new governor could not be forced to accept the federal money and start building it.

The demise of the Florida line is different, though. It will delay the country?s first bullet train ride by years, if not longer, and deprive the Obama administration of what it had hoped would be a showpiece that would sell the rest of the nation on high-speed rail.

The administration said Friday that it would give Florida?s $2.4 billion to rail projects elsewhere and invited other states to apply for the money.

The story of the line?s rise and fall shows how it was ultimately undone by a tradeoff that was made when the route was first selected.

The Tampa-to-Orlando route had obvious drawbacks: It would have linked two cities that are virtually unnavigable without cars, and that are so close that the new train would have been little faster than driving. But the Obama administration chose it anyway because it was seen as the line that could be built first. Florida had already done much of the planning, gotten many of the necessary permits and owned most of the land that would be needed.

In the end, though, the state?s new governor decided not to build it at all, worried that those very drawbacks would ultimately make it a boondoggle.

White House Seeks a Legacy

When the Obama administration chose Florida to get a large chunk of stimulus money to build the nation?s first high-speed rail line, some Republicans in Washington worried privately that the project might prove too popular. It was, after all, a multibillion-dollar federal project being lavished on Florida, an important swing state that President Obama had won in the last election, with the money focused squarely on the Interstate 4 corridor between Tampa and Orlando, the home of one of the most crucial blocs of independent voters in the state.

Things did not work out that way.

President Obama announced the selection of Florida in 2010 in the most visible possible setting: his State of the Union address. ?Tomorrow, I?ll visit Tampa, Fla., where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad,? he said, before flying to Florida the next day to promote the project in a town-hall-style meeting.

?There is no reason why other countries can build high-speed rail lines and we can?t,? Mr. Obama told a cheering crowd. ?And that?s what?s about to happen right here in Tampa.?

In 2009, it had been the Obama administration that had pushed to bring high-speed rail to the United States. The vehicle was the $787 billion stimulus package, which, though it was originally sold as a public works program, devoted more money to tax cuts and aid to states than to infrastructure. With much of the construction money in the stimulus ending up paying for prosaic things like repaving roads, the administration decided to make sure that some of it would leave a lasting legacy: it devoted $8 billion to railroads and high-speed rail.

To the Obama administration, the benefits seemed obvious. The money offered a chance to put people to work designing and building railroads. High-speed trains would lure riders who would otherwise drive or fly, reducing congestion, pollution and the nation?s dependence on foreign oil. And simply building new futuristic trains zipping around at more than 150 miles an hour would be an accomplishment in itself, one that could lift the spirits of a recession-battered nation.

State Lobbies for a Bullet Train

It was Governor Crist ? who had been considered a possible Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, and who already had his eye on a run for the Unites States Senate ? who had lobbied vigorously to win some of that stimulus money to build a high-speed train in a state reeling from the downturn. ?Florida is the state that can turn imagination into reality for world-class high-speed rail in the United States faster than anywhere else in the nation,? he wrote to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in the fall of 2009.

His boast was probably true. Florida had long flirted with the idea of building high-speed rail: its voters had once passed a constitutional amendment requiring the state to build it, only to repeal it later over cost concerns. As a result, the state had already done much of the necessary planning work, gotten crucial environmental approvals and, perhaps most important, owned most of the land for the tracks, which would run along the median of Interstate 4.

The 21-mile leg between Orlando International Airport and Walt Disney World, which agreed to donate land for a stop, had the potential to attract lots of riders, and revenue ? though such a short distance would be better served by a conventional train, or perhaps a monorail.

A Route Is Seen as Too Short

Florida?s route had some glaring imperfections, though.

Tampa and Orlando are only 84 miles apart, generally considered too close for high-speed rail to make sense. The train trip, with many stops along the way, would have shaved only around a half-hour off the drive. Since there are no commercial flights between the two cities, the new line would not have lured away fliers or freed up landing slots at the busy airports. And neither Tampa nor Orlando has many public transportation options. So the question arose: Could riders be persuaded to leave their cars behind and buy tickets to places where they would still probably need cars?

The state wanted to build the project so badly, though, that after Mr. LaHood hinted that Florida should do something about its lackluster commuter rail service if it wanted a shot at winning the federal rail money, Mr. Crist complied in December 2009 by calling a special session of the Legislature. The state agreed to build a new commuter train in central Florida, and to beef up its struggling line in south Florida.

It worked. When the high-speed rail grants were announced a month later, Florida was a big winner.

The Department of Transportation did not have that many options. Only two states, Florida and California, were deemed far enough along in their planning to receive money for building actual bullet trains ? trains that can travel more than 150 miles an hour, on tracks of their own that are not shared with other trains.

The California line ? linking Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains that would go up to 220 miles an hour ? was expected to cost at least of $42 billion, and could not open before 2020 in the most optimistic projection. The Tampa-to-Orlando line, by contrast, was expected to cost around $2.6 billion and had a shot at opening by 2015.

Both states became big winners of the rail money, which grew to more than $10.5 billion after Congress devoted more money to railroads in the federal budget. The rest of the money was used to build or improve conventional train service: most of the states got at least some of it.

Florida stood out: it was on track to open the first bullet train on its own dedicated tracks in the United States. It would have been a demonstration project, visible to the millions of tourists who descend on the Orlando theme parks each year.

Still, it was probably not the line most people would have chosen if they were starting from scratch. When America 2050, a planning group, ranked potential routes in a report called ?Where High-Speed Rail Works Best,? the Tampa-to-Orlando route was not even included because the cities are too close together.

Although the state?s plan called for eventually extending the line down to Miami, making the train an attractive alternative to short-hop flights or long drives, the extension would have required more time and planning and much more money to build. When the planning group considered a route linking Tampa, Orlando and Miami, it ranked it 100th among potential high-speed rail routes in the United States, far behind likelier choices like the Northeast Corridor. (The Acela trains running between Boston and Washington can reach speeds of up to 150 miles an hour, but average around half that because they share their curvy tracks with other trains.)

G.O.P. Opposition Mounts

Then things began to fall apart. As the 2010 midterm elections heated up, Republicans began running against the federal largess states have traditionally sought.

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican, killed a long-planned commuter train tunnel under the Hudson River. Scott Walker, the new Republican governor of Wisconsin, killed a new conventional passenger train line that was to be built between Milwaukee and Madison, and paid for with $810 million in federal stimulus money. The new governor of Ohio, John R. Kasich, killed a $400 million federally financed line that would have linked Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. When President Obama called for expanding the nation?s rail program in this year?s State of the Union address, Sarah Palin took to her Facebook page to denounce it as ?a bullet train to bankruptcy.?

With Florida?s new governor, Mr. Scott, expressing reservations about the plan, the Obama administration moved quickly to award $342 million of the forfeited money from the Midwest to Florida. That brought the federal commitment to Florida to roughly $2.4 billion, almost enough to cover the projected $2.6 billion cost.

But the backlash was strong in Florida. In his race for the United States Senate last year, Mr. Crist found his success at winning stimulus money for Florida turned into a liability. Conservatives, and a newly powerful Tea Party movement, saw the federal spending as a problem, not as a solution to the state?s high unemployment rate. Mr. Crist ended up leaving the Republican Party and running, unsuccessfully, as an independent.

Last month, Mr. Scott decided to scuttle the project after reading a report by the Reason Foundation that questioned its ridership estimates. The foundation is a prominent libertarian policy research organization that employs several respected transportation analysts, but it gets some of its funding from donors with ties to the oil industry, including foundations related to Koch Industries, which owns oil refineries.

?The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers, and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits,? Mr. Scott said.

But a state-sponsored ridership study, which was released this week, concluded that the proposed line would actually have been a money-maker from the start.

Other Prospects Remain

Obama administration officials are still pushing ahead with their goal of winning a $53 billion commitment to railroads over the next six years, and say that other states are clamoring for the money rejected by Florida.

Transportation advocates are continuing their push, too; this week the U.S. Public Interest Research Group released a video with two actors from ?Mad Men,? in character, expressing their certainty that America would build bullet trains. (?I read a piece that said that in 40 years, gas is going to cost almost a dollar a gallon,? one says.) And Representative John L. Mica of Florida, the new Republican chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, supports high-speed rail, but would like to see efforts focused on the Northeast Corridor linking Boston, Washington and New York, the nation?s most successful rail route. But any effort to make that a true high-speed line is years ? if not decades ? away.

Now, with the collapse of the Florida route, it looks as if the nation?s first segment of true high-speed rail will be in an even unlikelier place ? linking Fresno and Bakersfield, in California?s Central Valley, and scheduled to end construction in 2017.
 
Tampa to Orlando is just silly for HSR for the reasons cited.

This is exact reason why more money should have been pumped into our nation's existing "high speed rail system" along the NE Corridor: Boston - MBTA, NYC - MTA, DC - WMATA. It just makes sense. If we could actually get high-speed trains cruising at their top speed for the majority of the way instead of ONLY Bos > Prov, it would be much more attractive. I saw figures estimated at 3:30 for Bos > DC if the Acela trains ran at their top speed the whole way. This is how long it currently takes Bos > NYC.

I totally support the cause of building new HSR systems, but we need to fix what IS broken before we start building new things.
 
Boondoggle -> Most overused word of 2010/2011.

It's not overused when describing the most ineffective spending orgy in history.

Why the Hell isn't money being spent to improve rail lines with PROVEN RIDERSHIP instead of new rails to NOWHERE?
 
It's not overused when describing the most ineffective spending orgy in history.

Why the Hell isn't money being spent to improve rail lines with PROVEN RIDERSHIP instead of new rails to NOWHERE?

I heard from some good sources that $1 billion of the $2.6 is going to the Northeast Corridor (Gateway Project, Portal Bridge, etc). I imagine the rest of it is going to California and possibly North Carolina. NC has been doing great work getting projects running with ARRA funds.

I'm curious to see where the rest of it goes...
 
Couldn't they use some of that money to upgrade curves for Accela where , I believe, there are a lot of slow spots Boston to NY. I also believe some CT yacht club is putting up a fuss about some bridge? Couldn't we use some of this money to make incremental upgrades to the actual profitable line already built?
 
FYI, the NEC was officially designated an HSR corridor today (sad and ridiculous that it took this long, but chalk it up to Acela already providing service here, and maybe the desire to evangelize HSR nationwide). Anyway, it basically means that Amtrak can request and receive money for the route now; before, individual state governors had to do so.

It also looks like the NEC will be getting the Florida money. Woohoo!
 
I sure hope some of that money goes into making all shared sections of the NEC triple tracked at minimum. The fact that the Acela has to share a double track for much of the MBTA Providence Line is completely ridiculous.
 
I have seen that. My preferred alignment would be one that puts trains through JFK, but I think the price tag alone on the tunnel/bridge across Long Island Sound would be scary enough before combining it with the overall cost for the rail line.
 
Couldn't they use some of that money to upgrade curves for Accela where , I believe, there are a lot of slow spots Boston to NY. I also believe some CT yacht club is putting up a fuss about some bridge? Couldn't we use some of this money to make incremental upgrades to the actual profitable line already built?

The slow sections are between New Haven and New Rochelle on MetroNorth tracks, MN won't allow the Acela to tilt because of clearance issues between passing trains if it does. There is no economical way to widen the right-of-way in that area.

Construction of the new bridge at Niantic will apparently alleviate some of the boat owner concerns, and I think some of the bitching was from big charter fishing boats. Once the new bridge is in place, AMTRAk is going to increase train frequency. (Construction is at the caisson stage for the new bridge piers.)

IMO, there is less a need for a complete third track between Readville and Attleboro, as there is for the MBTA to electrify the commuter trains on that route, and to have high platforms at each station for the full train length. Those two steps would reduce dwell time in the station, and speed up the trains.

A future problem is not having enough platforms at Penn Station. MetroNorth is talking about wanting to run some trains into Penn Station as opposed to Grand Central.
 
^ That problem should be partially alleviated with the opening of Moynihan Station and the bathtub of platforms that will come from the proposed Amtrak East River tunnel that would replace the New Jersey-spurned Access to the Region's Core (ARC) tunnel. Also, with the LIRR adding the ability to enter Grand Central, some pressure will be taken off Penn.

I have seen that. My preferred alignment would be one that puts trains through JFK, but I think the price tag alone on the tunnel/bridge across Long Island Sound would be scary enough before combining it with the overall cost for the rail line.

Acela's route already passes over L.I. Sound into Queens and circles Astoria before entering the East River tunnel into Midtown. Theoretically, you would just have to expand the loop a little to JFK. But this would be an inconvenience to the majority of passengers who would endure a longer ride for those wanting to exit at JFK. What would make more sense would be a stop within Astoria connecting to an expanded Air Train that linked JFK to LaGuardia, which is extremely close to the Astoria Amtrak loop. This would also make LaGuardia more accessible from other cities in the region (Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven) that could use better airport connections.
 
From the Globe: http://mobile.boston.com/art/35/new...s_vies_for_rail_funds_spurned_by_fla_governor

Mass. vies for Fla.?s spurned rail funds

At South Station, passengers prepared to board an Acela train. The state got $32.5 million in funding to plan an expansion of the station that would add more train platforms.

Eric Moskowitz, Globe Staff / Mar 27, 2011 03:33 AM

When the Obama administration awarded $10.4 billion for high-speed rail projects last year, Florida was a big winner, scooping up 20 times as much money as Massachusetts. But now that Florida?s new governor has rejected his state?s $2.4 billion for political reasons, Massachusetts officials are racing to make another pitch to Washington.

The competition is likely to be fierce. Officials and members of Congress from dozens of states began lobbying Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood almost as soon as Governor Rick Scott of Florida turned down his state?s funding in mid-February. Scott followed in the path of two other Tea Party movement-backed governors, in Wisconsin and Ohio, who had also rejected what they viewed as wasteful and ill-advised federal rail funds.

This month, LaHood announced a formal contest for the spurned money, with applications due April 4. The $2.4 billion can be used not only for true high-speed rail, but also for projects improving existing links or building new conventional connections between cities at least 100 miles apart.

?That?s what we?re fighting to get, and the tea leaves are reading well for us,?? said Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Somerville Democrat. ?But they don?t matter until they have a check attached to it.??

Massachusetts officials say they will seek $110 million to replace a rickety, 92-year-old rail bridge in Haverhill that has forced speed restrictions and delays on Amtrak?s Portland-to-Boston Downeaster, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority?s Haverhill commuter rail line, and freight railroads crossing the Merrimack River.

The Merrimack River Bridge is considerably less glamorous than the proposed 170-mile-per-hour link between Tampa and Orlando that Scott rejected, but it is one of many investments needed in the Northeast to improve city-to-city rail connections.

?It?s going to be a very competitive grant,?? said Richard A. Davey, general manager of the MBTA and the statewide rail and transit administrator. ?But we?re hopeful that we?ll put in an aggressive application that demonstrates that this project can assist in improving the running times of a very popular intercity route.??

The Obama administration wants to make high-speed, intercity rail its signature transportation initiative, and the president sees construction of a robust national rail network ? a 21st-century answer to the Interstate Highway System ? as a way to alleviate highway and airport traffic, create jobs, and benefit the environment.

But the idea and the funding for it, like so much in Washington, have been ensnared in partisan politics. The $787 billion stimulus package enacted in 2009 included $8 billion for high-speed rail, and the president persuaded Congress to include almost $2.5 billion more in the 2010 annual budget ? what Vice President Joe Biden called a ?down payment?? on the eventual network the administration envisions.

When the money was offered, leaders from nearly three dozen states filed applications seeking more than six times the amount available. But the funding also became a target for criticism from conservative and Tea Party camps, attacked during the midterm elections as naive and wasteful spending that would be better off saved, returned to taxpayers, or redirected to roads.

Although rail is most popular in the densely populated Northeast, much of the federal money was directed at giving rail more of a foothold in other regions; electoral battleground states received a disproportionate share.

The Florida project had special appeal to the White House because it was the most ready for construction of any true high-speed rail proposal, and it was relatively small in scale ? an 85-mile route that could be completed by 2015, making it a potential demonstration project for promoting high-speed rail to the rest of the nation.

From the first $8 billion, Florida grabbed $1.25 billion. New England got less than $200 million, with $35 million to Maine to extend the Downeaster from Portland to Brunswick, and $160 million for a Connecticut-Massachusetts-Vermont project to improve the Vermonter line along the Connecticut River corridor. (That included $70 million for Massachusetts to make its portion faster and more direct, rerouting it through Greenfield and Northampton.)

In the same round, Massachusetts was rejected in its application for nearly $2 billion for South Coast Rail, to restore Boston service to Fall River and New Bedford, a commuter rail application that Massachusetts officials concede was a stretch to qualify for intercity money.

In the second round, Florida got another $800 million, while Massachusetts got $32.5 million to plan the expansion of South Station from 13 platform tracks to 20 or more, which would benefit both commuter and long-distance rail by relieving delays caused by a shortage of berths at the Boston hub.

That was in October, and the election that followed a few days later elevated several candidates who had attacked rail projects as boondoggles. Governors-elect in Ohio and Wisconsin quickly rejected a combined $1.2 billion, and LaHood swiftly redirected the money to past applicants, including $2.8 million more to Massachusetts to fully cover its Vermonter application. Meanwhile, Florida got another $342 million ? a bid to keep its new governor, Scott, from walking away from the high-speed line backed by predecessor Charlie Crist.

That put the federal share at $2.4 billion for the nearly $2.7 billion Florida project, and private companies were lining up to cover the rest. But Scott thought his state would be stuck paying for construction overruns and subsidizing the annual operation, and he questioned who would ride a train between two cities where cars are needed to get around. After lawmakers who supported the project failed to stop Scott in court, LaHood said he would not force Florida to take the money.

?States across the country have been banging down our door for the opportunity to receive additional high-speed rail dollars,?? he said in a statement, announcing a formal application process for redistributing Florida?s money.

Local rail proponents said the opposition elsewhere is unfortunate, even as it presents opportunities for New England. But Richard Arena, president of the Boston-based Association for Public Transportation, criticized Massachusetts for not being more ambitious in advancing true high-speed rail and for not having applications ready the moment LaHood opened the door.

?The people who are going to get the money are the ones who are in the best shape to pull it off,?? Arena said.

Massachusetts officials scrambled for two weeks to pick one project most likely to succeed, rather than submitting competing projects, given the time and labor needed to compile each application. Those can run hundreds of pages, including charts, maps, drawings, and other supporting material, said Jeffrey B. Mullan, the state?s secretary of transportation. Mullan also met in person and by phone with other New England and Northeast Corridor leaders to discuss coordinated efforts.

The Northeast Corridor is the only one in the country where some trains already travel above conventional speeds. The Acela trains that run between Boston and Washington are capable of reaching 150 miles per hour, but they average only about half that because of infrastructure conditions, train traffic, and other constraints.

?Things that are good for the Northeast Corridor are good for Massachusetts,?? Mullan said, referring to the Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington line as ?one of the world?s great rail corridors.??

After the money Florida spurned gets disbursed, the next round of funding is an open question. The administration recently announced it wants to spend $53 billion more over the next six years, but Congress is wrestling over even the next $1 billion. Capuano said he considers the opposition shortsighted.

?If they denied the money for the Interstate Highway System when Eisenhower was president,?? he said, ?what kind of country would we have???
 

Back
Top