Amtrak's Thirty Year Plan for the NEC

[mightyace]

^^^

I don't see it either, but for another reason.

The Acela trains currently don't stop at the Newark Airport Station just the main Newark station.
Other Amtrak trains and NJ Transit do.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Route_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245664867

[NJRoadfan]

^^^

I don't see it either, but for another reason.

The Acela trains currently don't stop at the Newark Airport Station just the main Newark station.
Other Amtrak trains and NJ Transit do.

They may run a bus shuttle to Newark-Penn for people who want to take Acela. PANYNJ was even thinking about expanding the PATH to EWR a few years back.

Oh, and I'm sure Amtrak's plan depends on the ARC project (new Hudson River tunnel to New York Penn) being completed. That project is on the verge of being halted due to funding concerns.

[shadyjay]

In addition to being an avid road fan, I am also a very avid railroad buff.  I ride Amtrak whenever humanly possible, and have frequented their "Vermonter" service from Waterbury VT to New Haven CT several times, even though its much faster to drive.  Why do I take the train?  Because I can relax, not worry about traffic, vehicle issues, or other drivers.  I can sleep, read, have a beer or a snack, etc.  And I'm not alone - ridership is up significantly over last year and the year before that, which saw record ridership.  

With all that said, I really can't see this plan getting off the paper.  It would be nice to have such a high speed route along the NEC but the costs, acquisition of property, and politics are going to fail this project.  What I can see is improving the existing corridor as much as possible, then go from there.  

BTW, the recently-suspended project in NJ to construct a new pair of tunnels under the Hudson River would have had ZERO benefit for Amtrak, since the new tunnels would have dead-ended in a second station several floors beneath the present Penn Station.  In addition, said project was not to "free up" present NJ Transit "slots" into Penn Station (which would have meant more space for Amtrak trains), but rather to ADD commuter capacity from New Jersey into the new station.  Many were against this plan anyway.  Any plan to construct new tunnels under the Hudson River should connect to the existing infrastructure to be able to be equally used by the commuter trains in addition to Amtrak service.  

On Amtrak's web site, you can download the PDF showing the proposed route map for the long-term line relocation.  While it would serve Hartford, it cuts out all coastal Connecticut as well as Providence.


In addition to improvements to present NEC infrastructure, improvements have to be made to develop other corridors across the country.  Amtrak operates coast-to- coast but among many issues affecting the system off the NEC, the freight railroads own the tracks and therefore limit when the trains run, how many trains run, and whether or not they're delayed by freight trains.  Amtrak itself is limited by its budget and desperately needs to acquire new rolling stock to replace equipment that's been running around for decades, some cars since the WWII era.  Its future is always in jeopardy with various administrations who take up office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  

Before everyone comments on wasting precious dollars on an intercity rail network, think of the following:
*   How many billions and billions are poured into the Interstate system?  Think of rebuilding an interchange, widening projects, bridge replacements.
*   How much money was given to the airlines after 9/11?

And perhaps the best example why we need a nationwide intercity rail system...

In the days following 9/11, Amtrak was the only way to get across country - unless you were driving!

[froggie]

and have frequented their "Vermonter" service from Waterbury VT to New Haven CT several times, even though its much faster to drive.  Why do I take the train?  Because I can relax, not worry about traffic, vehicle issues, or other drivers.  I can sleep, read, have a beer or a snack, etc.

I have two probelms with the "Vermonter"...first, it takes 11 hours to get from here to White River Jct, and then I'd still have an hour-15 drive on top of that, when I can drive it in 90min less time.  Second and more importantly, there is no evening departure from DC.  There isn't even a mid-day departure...they only leave DC first thing in the morning, which makes it effectively useless for my schedule.

I have pondered taking Amtrak up to Albany, but I'd still have to rent a car for the roughly-4-hour drive from there to the NEK, which would require a leaving-no-later-than-noon departure to make it work.  Might as well just drive the whole thing.

Flying isn't much easier for me.  The nearest airport on the Vermont end is still a 2 hour drive away.

[mightyace]

Before everyone comments on wasting precious dollars on an intercity rail network, think of the following:
*   How many billions and billions are poured into the Interstate system?  Think of rebuilding an interchange, widening projects, bridge replacements.
*   How much money was given to the airlines after 9/11?

And perhaps the best example why we need a nationwide intercity rail system...

In the days following 9/11, Amtrak was the only way to get across country - unless you were driving!

I can't argue with you there.  It shows that what we need in this country is transportation policy not highway policy, high-speed rail, commuter rail, bus, airline, etc.  A few states and local areas have integrated transportation policies but the are the exception.

With each mode being in an "island", so to speak, we get into road vs rail discussions when, in many cases, it should be how much road and how much rail will best serve the public need.  (or any other mode)

[J N Winkler]

What Mightyace calls for is best thought of as an "eternal hope" rather than something that has actually been achieved.  In fact I suspect it may not even be humanly achievable.  The problem is that the various modes of transport (water, air, rail, highways, etc.) have widely different burdens of fixed costs.  Rail, for example, has huge fixed costs and also a huge problem of joint costs because the permanent way requires continuous controlled operation.  This means that rail can produce a social surplus only in situations which mobilize its capabilities for huge economies of scale.  For bulk goods like coal and gravel that is easy (and is the reason freight rail has 42% mode share in the US on a tonne-kilometer basis, a mode share which European rail operators can only dream of, and which is made possible by our ability to run more tonnes per train and then run that train over much longer distances), but for passengers it involves land use planning issues which stick well outside a transport policy portfolio.  An additional complication is that the investments required for all modes of transport--not just rail--have to be planned and delivered on time cycles which are far longer than electoral cycles, so that policy is forever subject to the meddling of politicians who are worried about the next election and have no time to develop technical competence in the issues.  Moreover, although it is possible to measure social savings according to rational rules, the rulesets for doing so are not unique, so that the choice of a policy metric is often down to personal political preference.  One man's integrated transport system is another man's mode monopoly.

[froggie]

forever subject to the meddling of politicians who are worried about the next election and have no time to develop technical competence in the issues

Truer words have never been spoken...

[NJRoadfan]

...and the ARC project is dead.

[Alps]

...and the ARC project is dead.

Life support, not dead yet.  "It's getting better"