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

The usability of High Speed Rail is not a matter of distance or population. It hinges on whether or not it provides a service that is accessible and convenient to those who would actually use it. New England is blessed that it's a hub that centers around Boston. Satellite cities like Portland, Providence, and Worcester can really benefit from this style when they are provided with the services needed to thrive.
 
Can you even connect those three cities with one linear route? I think you're talking about justifying two lines at least.

And, BTW, the Munich-Nuremburg line still serves way more people than a line connecting all those northern New England cities would. The populations of Portsmouth, Manchester, and Portland combined don't equal Nuremburg's, let alone the other cities (like Ingolstadt, which is around the size of Manchester) along the German route.

Umm, yes, they're in a straight line! This line wouldn't get enough service to justify getting the highest speed rail service (350 kph, 220 mph) in a country that cares about it, but as a secondary line, would still get a decent speed considered to be high speed (250 kph, 150 mph).
 
Portsmouth and Portland could be on a linear route from Boston, but Manchester could not, unless it somehow makes sense for the line to make a 50mi detour west and then another 50mi return to the coast.

regionalMap.gif
 
I think High Speed Rail to Portland makes sense. It makes more sense for the rail to have a stop in Portsmouth given that it's on a direct line. Portland only has 63,000 people but it's the principal city of a metro area of about 200,000 (513,000 if you consider the entire area from Kittery to Brunswick part of "Metro Portland"... I don't). Right now the Downeaster (which has teetered on the brink of extinction) has something like 21% regular commuters which is low. A high speed rail line would absolutely increase that number. Portsmouth, similar to Portland, is the seat of an area with more than its tiny "city" population would show. The towns surrounding it are relatively populated as well. This would be an effective route (Manchester would have to deal with a regular train to Boston or a spur into Portsmouth... it doesn't make sense to loop the route around like that).

It would be MOST effective if there were a North/South rail link in Boston and this could be a continuation of the Acela to New York. However, I really don't think the NSRL is feasible or even necessary (I'd much rather see a surface trolly or tram connection to N/S Station).

Even then, I think you'd find that many in Maine and NH would be fiercely opposed to high speed rail. Portland and Portsmouth have some real NIMBY attitudes toward development. People in those areas want them to continue to remain small town-y, cute and rural. There is a HUGE desire to be separate and different from Boston. Many of them (I've had discussions with people like this while living there) feel that a high speed connection to Boston will make them an undeniable part of metro Boston (Portland, and Portsmouth to a degree, understandably love that they can claim some sort of independence from Boston... an "independent Portland" subculture is very large up there). Furthermore, they feel that the connection to Boston will trigger some more suburban development which they seek to avoid because it will take away from their serene woodsy feel. Most people I know in the Portland area, anyway, are entirely content with the Downeaster as-is. They don't feel that they want or need a high speed train. Unlike Springfield, they want to be as separate from Boston as possible (really, "as is convenient"... they still love the Downeaster). In addition, in New Hampshire, in particular, there are a LOT of people who live in these areas who feel that government subsidized public transit is an attack on their personal freedoms. For as nice as Portsmouth and Portland are, they are small enough to really fringe on some rural areas where public transit is a simple government burden for those people who live in cities. You'd be hard-pressed to find too many people up there who would want see "their tax dollars wasted" on some fancy-shmancy "train."
 
Yeah, I totally forgot about the backwoods libertarian impediment. I canvassed for Obama in rural New Hampshire and it was downright scary at times..."No Trespassing, Shoot on Sight" signs, mailboxes shaped like guns, that kind of thing. Some of the addresses were long dirt driveways that led to what seemed like communes filled with guys in flannel jackets who said they would never vote for anyone because government as a concept was alien to them.

They also seem to have an acute technophobia up there. I met a friendly guy who had developed solar cars back in the 70s and said that when he'd tested them on the roads around town that some old women had called the police to report UFO sightings.

Anyway they're all happy to have government subsidized highways for their pickups, but them trains is evil.
 
It appears that Florida is paving the way to secure stimulus funds for High Speed Rail:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-sunrail-senate-20091208,0,3304424.story

Note: This legislation actually approves a commuter rail system for the Orlando metro which was twice previously rejected in the House Senate. FDOT said Florida's only chance at securing stimulus funds for HSR was to move forward on intercity rail, which it has now done.
 
from the article:

The notion was that the authority would also improve the state's bid for high-speed rail. Florida is seeking $2.6 billion. Federal officials are sifting through 45 requests from 24 states seeking a total of $50 billion for high-speed trains.


$50B couldn't be found in a stimulus package that cost over $700B? I wonder how much went to constructing highways. Although, the CA high speed rail is projected to cost something like $45B alone.

Good for Orlando though. I still don't think Florida should receive priority over other high speed rails, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. It also shouldn't be a zero sum game and we should be building multiple lines across the country. Now, if they could spur some development and create denser downtowns and perhaps some light rail then they should be fully funded.
 
I wonder how much went to constructing highways.

To be fair a lot of the existing roads in the country are falling apart. I want HSR, but not at the expense of another Minneapolis bridge collapse.
 
That is certainly true.

What really got me about that disaster was something like a week before that disaster happened, Minneapolis approved a new tax increase to pay for a new twins stadium.
 
Boston Globe - Dec 17, 2009
Rail stimulus funds to bypass Northeast
Environmental rules will keep states from pursuing $8 billion


By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | December 17, 2009

WASHINGTON - The railroad tracks from Boston to Washington - the busiest rail artery in the nation, and one that also carries America?s only high-speed train, the Acela - have been virtually shut out of $8 billion worth of federal stimulus money set aside for high-speed rail projects because of a strict environmental review required by the Obama administration.

Because such a review would take years, states along the Northeast rail corridor are not able to pursue stimulus money for a variety of crucial upgrades.

The projects, aimed at increasing speeds, range from bridge replacements in Connecticut to new overhead wires in New Jersey. They would cut the Acela?s travel time from Boston to New York by almost 30 minutes, and from Boston to Washington by a full hour.

When the first grants are announced in January, most of the money - and accompanying jobs - is expected to go to railroad projects in California and the Midwest, which currently have no high-speed trains but are trying to establish service for the first time.

?It?s frustrating,?? said Yoav Hagler, a planner at the Regional Plan Association in New York, a nonprofit regional planning group in New York.

?We have a thriving intercity passenger market between our major cities and we need major investment in the corridor, so it?s a little strange to put that need in the same category as these new programs that are just applying and trying to build a market now,?? he said.

Northeastern states are seeking some stimulus money for separate rail projects within their borders, such as the Massachusetts proposal to add commuter rail from Fall River and New Bedford to Boston. But travelers on the Acela will miss out on the promise of a faster train and will have to continue waiting for the day when the Northeast route matches the performance of European and Japanese lines.

The obstacle was a decision this year by the Federal Railroad Administration that, before any major upgrades could proceed, a comprehensive environmental review would have to be conducted on the entire 457-mile railroad.

Longstanding rules require such environmental studies - even if the heavily traveled corridor already carries high-speed trains, said Mark Yachmetz, associate administrator for railroad development at the FRA. Upgrading the Acela route to reduce travel times would take the program to ?the next level, beyond what they have been planning for up to now,?? and requiring more study, he said.

The FRA itself would be in charge of conducting the review. Although there is no timetable for completing it, similar studies in the past have taken years.

Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and a major backer of high-speed rail, said in a written statement that in future rounds of funding he would work to ?ensure that any procedural obstacles are either removed or overcome to provide for an outcome where the corridor gets all the resources it needs.??

?Ensuring that the Northeast Corridor can access federal funding available to other regions is critical to moving us towards a rail system that is up to par with the high-tech rail systems across the globe,?? he said.

Amtrak has identified $11.8 billion in upgrades to reduce travel times on the corridor. In addition to better overhead electric supplies and stronger bridges, it includes straightening sections of curvy track and upgrading signaling systems. Without the review mandated by FRA, those plans will sit on the shelf for now, although states were able to apply for a few smaller grants under a separate part of the high-speed program.

The Obama administration, which has embraced high-speed rail as a flagship effort in the stimulus and boasts of Vice President Joe Biden?s long history as an Amtrak commuter, has framed the $8 billion as only the first step in the creation of a nationwide network.

Congress voted recently to provide another $2.5 billion for high-speed rail next year, meaning states that miss out in January will have at least one more chance to apply. But it may be difficult to complete a full environmental review of the Northeast railroad corridor in time for that money, either. A spokesman for Amtrak, Cliff Black, said the last such review for the Corridor took about three years in the mid-1990s, and covered only the stretch between New Haven and Boston.

Kevin Brubaker, deputy director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago, said state governments nationwide were surprised by the requirements, but that some were able to quickly complete reviews - a practical impossibility for the Northeast region. Its railroad corridor passes through eight states plus the District of Columbia and shares the tracks with seven commuter rail agencies, including the MBTA.

?People were caught short by the environmental requirements that FRA imposed,?? said Brubaker, who is involved with the Midwest effort. Brubaker said that in the past, states seeking to upgrade existing rail routes, rather than building a new one, had been subjected to a lower standard of environmental review.

When the stimulus turned FRA almost overnight from a little-known regulator to the custodian of billions of dollars in stimulus money, he said, the agency adopted a conservative reading of federal law mandating environmental reviews.

?They were understaffed and ill-equipped and they have been cautious,?? he said.

At the urging of lawmakers from the Northeast, Congress voted recently to give the railroad agency $50 million to help states plan for high-speed rail, which could include work on environmental reviews.

The bad news for the Northeast is expected to translate to a windfall for other parts of the country. In the past, critics of rail spending have argued that the Northeast corridor soaked up too much federal transportation funding; the Government Accountability Office estimated in March that since 1990, the corridor had received $3.1 billion - about 75 percent of all federal funds for high-speed rail related projects in that period.

Rob McCulloch, a transportation advocate for Environment America, said that ending that imbalance might have the effect of broadening the political constituency for rail, which would ultimately benefit the region.

But by the same token, he said, giving money to other regions inexperienced at big passenger rail projects could mean delays at putting people to work and getting results - ostensibly the purpose of the stimulus.

?It actually would probably go a lot further in the Northeast,?? McCulloch said. ?But the idea is to create a nationwide network sooner rather than later.??
 
Goodbye, future of rail. Nobody is going to take a high speed train from one suburbsprawl to another. Ridership will depend on density and mass transit in urban areas it serves. The Northeast is one of only two or three places in the country where HSR makes sense and its investment can be justified - when we build out Houston-Nashville and nobody rides it, the country's appetite for this typ of boondoggle will dwindle.
 
I don't agree. While Acela is not ideal, I'd rather see the money spent to add high-speed service where it isn't now (for instance, LA-SF) than to further concentrate the service in our region.
 
Goodbye, future of rail. Nobody is going to take a high speed train from one suburbsprawl to another. Ridership will depend on density and mass transit in urban areas it serves. The Northeast is one of only two or three places in the country where HSR makes sense and its investment can be justified - when we build out Houston-Nashville and nobody rides it, the country's appetite for this typ of boondoggle will dwindle.
You need Zipcar rental at major train stations. No different from an airport, but more hassle-free and comfortable
 
I'm not denying that it's more comfortable and (for now) more hassle-free than flying. But what I am suggesting is that with the exception of the Northeast and a few other areas of the country, HSR is a solution in search of a problem.
 
I don't agree. While Acela is not ideal, I'd rather see the money spent to add high-speed service where it isn't now (for instance, LA-SF) than to further concentrate the service in our region.

I have to agree with Ron. The Northeast Corridor is already served by a myriad of reliable, affordable, and pretty quick transportation alternatives. The same cannot be said for most of the rest of the nation.
 
Cali highspeed rail is a great idea. Other areas: Michigan/Ohio/Chicago/Wisonsin/Minn
connect the Texas cities
Maybe even one from Atl to Miami
 
I have to agree with Ron. The Northeast Corridor is already served by a myriad of reliable, affordable, and pretty quick transportation alternatives. The same cannot be said for most of the rest of the nation.

I'm not disagreeing with any of you - in principle. But in practice, this investment needs to be concentrated. Diffuse this investment and you'll get a whole lot of ill-maintained rails to nowhere that transport nobody. And the reason this is important is that this stimulus wave will set the tenor for how HSR is received nationwide. Build these railstumps and nobody will clamor for it. Build one sparking system with concentrated investment, and you'll create the enthusiasm this really needs (an enthusiasm which must go beyond governors chasing ephemeral stimulusdough).

Why the Northeast? Because this is where the airline shuttle is economically viable - a place where people routinely daydrip and city-hop for travel and business. Maybe this pattern exists in a few other places, but I would be surprised if it did between Houston and Dallas, or Atlanta and Miami. I'm not even sure about California.

Concentrate the investment. Build a sparking result that moves people and benefits the region economically. That's how to build a broad base of real HSR enthusiasm.
 
Lots of people fly between the LA area and the SF/Oakland/San Jose area. Whole regional airlines once existed just to serve these routes (AirCal and PSA). If I had the power to add high-speed rail to any single corridor in the USA, I'd pick this one.
 
I'm not disagreeing with any of you - in principle. But in practice, this investment needs to be concentrated. Diffuse this investment and you'll get a whole lot of ill-maintained rails to nowhere that transport nobody. And the reason this is important is that this stimulus wave will set the tenor for how HSR is received nationwide. Build these railstumps and nobody will clamor for it. Build one sparking system with concentrated investment, and you'll create the enthusiasm this really needs (an enthusiasm which must go beyond governors chasing ephemeral stimulusdough).

Why the Northeast? Because this is where the airline shuttle is economically viable - a place where people routinely daydrip and city-hop for travel and business. Maybe this pattern exists in a few other places, but I would be surprised if it did between Houston and Dallas, or Atlanta and Miami. I'm not even sure about California.

Concentrate the investment. Build a sparking result that moves people and benefits the region economically. That's how to build a broad base of real HSR enthusiasm.

Just playing devil's advocate here:

If you concentrate on one area, the rest feel left out and would likely not support future expansion programs. As has already been mentioned, the Northeast corridor is already pretty well served by mass transit alternatives and other regions are totally bottlenecked. To get trains up and running in less served regions will fuel a renewed interest in mass transit.
 
the Northeast corridor is already pretty well served

I'm assuming many of you have used Acela, in which case you know that it's neither HSR nor does it well-serve everyone in the region - which is why the shuttle flights are still full.

Edit: Acela = Silver Line of HSR.
 

Back
Top