With no specific mention of Lowell or the Lowell line, I wrote to Colin Durrant of the EOT (Executive Office of Transportation) to confirm that indeed, the Capitol Corridor refers to the extension of the Lowell commuter rail line to Nashua, Manchester, Concord, through to Burlington VT, and up to Montreal. What’s more, it’s listed on the map of this plan as a “Designated High Speed Rail” corridor. Whoo hoo!!
Here’s what the document and press release have to say about it:
New Hampshire’s Capital corridor will create easily accessible passenger rail service for more than 500,000 residents of Southern New Hampshire with stops in the cities of Concord, Manchester, Nashua and Boston. The rail line will also stop at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, creating a much-needed connection for tourists and travelers from across northern New England. Eventually, this service will extend north to White River Junction, VT and to Montreal fulfilling the vision of this designated High-Speed Rail Corridor.
Durrant also mentioned that Massachusetts provided support for NH’s pre-application for this particular corridor, again signifying movement on this long-talked-about rail expansion. I know it’s “just a vision,” but it was a collaborative one between all the states’ Governors, and that in and of itself is a huge new development. The trickiest part of regional rail is getting the various jurisdictions on board. With the stimulus money to boost this and all leaders working together, I don’t see why this can’t become a reality.
Also, this corridor is just the tip of the iceberg in the plan, which includes 5 other major regional rail expansions, though the one that most affects us here in Lowell is the one I’ve outlined here (all politics is local after all). But if you’re a central or western Mass resident, there’s plenty to love about this plan as well.
but having looked at the map, let me say:
<
p>1. Awesome.
2. There’s no “around” Boston to get to lower VT, or to NH or ME. How does this relate to the North/South Rail Link?
3. Awesome.
4. Can we expect work on making the Boston-NY route faster too?
if ME, NH, VT, RI, and CT all have better to/from through Boston, there will be far more pressure to finally implement the North/South rail link for long distance and commuter rail. Heck, 12% of the US Senate would be in favor of the DOT funding it. Even if the DOT was willing to fund 80%, the other six states would have varying interest in funding the other 20%. Even as simplistic as 10/2/2/2/2/2 for MA/others might be enough. Alternatively, 10/3/3/2/1/1 MA/NH/RI/ME/CT/VT based on usefulness of the cut-through.
… HSR plan to Montreal extended the Fitchberg line through southern VT.
<
p>I don’t see the Boston-NY route getting faster without addressing congestion.
New Haven to the CT/NY border is brutal because MetroNorth speed limit is 80 mph. With some infrastructure improvement, they’ll be able to up that to 100+. At 80 mph those 50 miles take 38 minutes. At 100 mph, it will take 30 minutes. That’s an 8 minute speed up in that section alone, and that’s only at 100 mph. If they can get to 120, it will be a 13 minute speed up.
<
p>There are also a few places to speed things up between New London and New Haven, including track straightening and improved signals. It’s in the works, and it will shave a few minutes there.
<
p>
<
p>Now, (hopefully!) getting faster leads to congestion… as in, shaving 20 minutes from the trip makes it that much more attractive, and more people ride Acela instead of flying or driving, resulting in congestion!
… grade crossings have been remediated already? Isn’t there a congestion issue with MBCR along the line already (for Acela, not for MBCR)?
<
p>I wonder at the type of track improvements necessary, especially at open stations. We did some studies a while back on the aerodynamics of the train going by (as relates to passengers on the platform) and it really didn’t pose a problem at all at current speeds. I don’t think it’d pose a problem at higher speeds either, but track access might need additional addressing for the train’s sake at those speeds. Is there an FRA speed restriction at open stations? If so, that’s a big hurdle by itself. Mitigating that will require either a rule change, access infrastructure, or new ‘go around’ track and the associated acquisition of additional ROW.
As of late 2005, there were still 11 grade crossings on the NEC (DC-Boston). I have no idea how many remain; I would hope fewer than that, with even fewer after the stimulus. I know the collision in Sep 2005 that killed 3 in Connecticut involved the Acela doing 70 mph. Clearly every grade crossing slows the train down, although grade crossings at 70 mph aren’t much slower than the 80 mph speed limit in SW CT, so while removing them is important for safety and speed, each crossing removal will save a different amount of time, ranging from seconds to perhaps a minute or three.
<
p>To directly respond to MBCR: I have no idea.
<
p>To directly respond to FRA speed restrictions: I have no idea, but couldn’t find anything.
<
p>To directly respond to ROW: Yip, it’s a challenge — it’s one of the big challenges for MetroNorth region, where the trains can’t bank because there’d be 10″ clearance and that isn’t quite enough wiggle room. ROW is a problem that can be mitigated with enough money. We manage to do it with interstates every single time — roads like the parkways of the northeast are simply not built anymore like they were; bridges are built tall enough with enough span, mountains are chiseled away, and if necessary eminent domain grabs sufficient land, regardless of price.
<
p>
<
p>As far as Acela, I do believe that with continued investment we’ll be able to shave minutes off of the trip. The few remaining grade crossings, a little track straightening here and there, modern catenary wires, and a better political/logistical/infrastructure situation with MetroNorth will all help. My hope is that each incremental change makes Acela that much more attractive, to the point where more riders helps increase political pressure to keep making improvements to shave 0:30 or 1:00 here and there. I also think that extending the Acela southward to Richmond, and then RTP, G’boro, and Charlotte NC, and then Atlanta GA would help tremendously too, because it would bring on US senators who don’t currently have a constituency who supports rail. Acela has 16 senators. Adding VA and NC, and GA would give ’em 22. Heck, with a North/South Rail Link, we could get NH and ME and have 26 but that seems to be a dream too big. Plus, I’m rambling.
Because when I travel for fun, seven times out of ten I wind up in beautiful New Hampshire, Vermont or Maine, but if we’re going to spend billions on high speed rail lines, does it really make sense to look north?
<
p>I can understand a train that gets you from Manchester to Boston (via Lowell) in 25 or 30 minutes, I can understand a train that gets you from Boston to Worcester in 35 minutes or a train that gets you from Boston to New York (Via Providence and New Haven) in under two hours, but i’m not so sure White River Junction to Concord or Springfield to Pittsfield to Albany makes the most sense.
<
p>Sure, in an ideal world this would be in place, but I’d be curious what kind of population density is necessary to support a train. Put another way, if we lay this map over an area of equal size in Europe or Japan, would we find similar sized cities with similar populations getting reliable, fast rail service? If so, lets go for it, otherwise, I’m not sure the money wouldn’t be better spent expanding high speed rail from Atlanta to Washington or out from Chicago.
(and not commenting if those standards are appropriate)
<
p>
<
p>My first instinct was the UK (well, UK sans NI).
UK-NI: 239,475 square miles
New E: 71,992 square miles
<
p>Now, here’s a map of UK rail (pdf). It’s logical not geographic, but for kicks I tried some Scottish locations with rail service.
<
p>Small end-of-lines
* Fort Williams: population 9,908
* Oban: population 8,120
Mini-hubs
* Inverness: population 70,207
* Perth: population 43,450
Large-hubs
* Glasgow: population 580,690
* Edinburgh: population 471,650
<
p>
<
p>Now, there are clear differences, ranging from cultural use of rail to density of suburbs to pricing of train and auto options. Still, it seems to me that the UK rail is a half-decent comparison to New England (perhaps NE + NY might be better), and it seems that their rail does include towns far smaller than those proposed in the New England rail plan.
I’m asking what kind of population density is necessary to support a train system. Does northern New England have it? If so, great, we’ll be the model for the nation, but if not, we’re setting ourselves up to be a symbol of why rail doesn’t “work” in this country.
<
p>I was playing around on the national rail schedule, and it’s interesting, you can get from Perth (tiny) to Glasgow (big) in less than an hour by train. To go from Pittsfield (medium) to albany (medium large) which is half the distance take almost two hours (but costs less than $10).
<
p>It’s a fantastic system and it would be wonderful, but I’m not sure, even though the geography might match, it’s an apt comparison. The population of the UK is 61 million, New England and NY is 34 million – like I asked, does New England have the population density to support this system and does the area of proposed new rail have it?
<
p>Looking at the Manchester, Boston, Providence, Hartford, Worcester, New York City Corridor(s) I see the makings of a robust system, but moving north from Concord might be biting off more than we can chew.
<
p>It’s like the Watertown Square to Belmont to Alewife Red Line extension I’d like to see. It’d be nice, but does it make sense?
<
p>The standard you set was: we should build the network if we find similar sized cities with similar populations getting reliable, fast rail service in Europe or Japan. I checked one network — UK-NI. Sure enough, it’s a pretty good fit. UK-NI is bigger in absolute terms, but by population density NE+NY is more dense than UK-NI. 269 people per square mile in NE+NY vs. 246 people per square mile in UK-NI.
<
p>NE+NY has more density and a smaller total area, which means accomplishing a network like the one proposed by the governors takes less time and costs less money.
<
p>Keep in mind that in most/all cases, the right of way already exists. Upgrades are needed to be sure, and they can be phased in over time in the same way that Acela upgrades have been phased in (though not fast enough!). This is a network for 2030, not for 2013.
… higher speeds might require additional ROW.
makes things too difficult to plan. That’s public transportation development 101.
<
p>Build the trains and people will come. Couple the rail expansion with new zoning laws that allows for dense building nearby the trains, complete with business space in those residential areas, to spark business growth and strong communities. A city like Springfield could expand to house far more people than it does now. If we create new opportunities there, more people will choose to make Springfield their home.
My point is given limited resources, what’s the best use for high speed rail. If you believe getting a high speed rail link between Pittsfield and Albany rates higher than getting actual high speed rail (150mph) between Boston and Washington DC, okay, but I’m not sold and I don’t believe that both are possible in the next 15 years.
<
p>Springfield doesn’t need to expand to hold more people now, it needs economic development, but as towns along 495 can attest to, just having a road and beneficial zoning doesn’t mean you’ll be the next technology corridor.
a. the swing bridge in SE CT is being replaced ($100M), which could shave a few minutes in and of itself.
b. parts of SW CT are 80 mph, but this general New England plan aims to work on that.
c. some of the catenary wires between Philly and NYC were built during the last stimulus package in the 1930s. When they get upgraded during this stimulus package, they’ll be able to support faster rail.
<
p>Fixing those will shave about 15 mins BOS-NY and perhaps another 15 NY-DC. That’s a big help, and then every incremental project to shave another minute or two will help. The key is lengthening the stretches where Acela can go 150, and shrinking the number of times it’s got to brake to below 100.
<
p>2. Comparing roads to rail in terms of economic development doesn’t make much sense. Roads lead to sprawling corporate office parks in the suburbs. Rail tends to lead to much denser development near the stations themselves. I don’t know which is better for pure economic development, but I suspect that the latter is because it would seem to generate more local commerce since walking down the street to the restaurant/coffee shop/retail shop is so much easier than driving there in suburban office park traffic.
<
p>3. Keep in mind that high speed rail will never compete with longer USA flight routes. Bostonians won’t ever take high speed rail much farther than BOS-DC. Chicago is 1000 miles — even at 150 mph with no stops you’re at over 6.5 hours. High speed rail will reduce the short leg flights, as well as reduce traffic on highways, particularly on high traffic holidays.
<
p>4. Hopefully, high speed rail includes allowing for more commercial shipping on rail at the same time. That will also reduce road traffic and highway congestion, 24x7x365.
Actually, in some ways, the opposite. I’m talking urban planning. The Burlington area is decidedly not urban. I’m talking small businesses, not necessarily large. Create an area where people can work and live cheaply and efficiently and they will choose to invest and live there. Period.
<
p>I’m not sure about Pittsfield and Albany, but Springfield to Hartford should be a major, major priority. You can pick and choose your favorites, but the fact of the matter is over in Western Mass, this is one of the most important issues. This could lift up the entire region.
<
p>I also think the point is we need much more serious investments in rail. With current resources, we can’t do perhaps do many major northeastern projects, but who’s to say we won’t be able to get a Rail Bill through Congress — something that would pour $15-30 billion into rail? It’s beyond apparent that the current stimulus bill isn’t enough to turn around the economy; Congress is going to have to invest more in public resources and do so without calling it a stimulus bill. Creating a major public transportation bill would be a great way to kill two birds with one stone, while temporarily stimulating the economy through construction jobs and permanently growing it through major infrastructure improvements. Even Pittsfield to Albany would likely create thousands of permanent jobs.
Maybe you should have, too?
<
p>The Pittsfield-Albany route already exists.
It takes two hours to go 38 miles. – is it worth it to spend $30 million, or $1 Billion or $10 billion to make that trip 30 minutes? This plan does look beautiful, I’d love it, but is it feasible?
<
p>If we’ve only got $30 billion, what’s the best way to spend it? If we expect a rail system to cover 30-60% of costs with fares, is it at all feasible to expect this system to do that?
My question is: how much do we have, and over what time frame? Do we only have $30 billion?
<
p>Another question: can we get there incrementally? Acela is doing that now — picking off bottlenecks one at a time, be they grade crossings, 100 year old swing bridges, 80 year old catenary wires, etc. Can we make a long term plan for high (really medium) speed rail, and then do capital projects one at a time to shave the trip time down 10, 30, 180 seconds at a time? This way we don’t over commit, but we have a long term plan in mind to help guide our decisions as part of a bigger framework. For example, if we know that there’s a grade crossing which is undergoing construction for unrelated reasons, can we go ahead and spend a little more to install the overpass now instead of rebuilding the whole thing 10-15 years later and spending money twice?
It wasn’t one of the lines that was proposed to be changed. It was just marked as ‘already exists.’ So, again, your question is moot.
it’s a “designated high speed rail corridor”, which is what I was responding to.
It sure as hell doesn’t mean MagLev or anything fancy. My guess is that it simply means that when opportunities exist to upgrade the rail there, they’ll upgrade to support 150 mph rail — more gentle (perhaps slightly banked) curves, no grade crossings, sufficiently wide right of way (ROW), train platforms which meet high speed safety standards, signalization spaced for work with high speed trains, that sort of thing.
Dont think this will happen – especially considering how cash strapped states are. Who would fund this project? Surely not the federal government
Sure as a practical matter money might be an issue, but multi-state rail certainly falls under interstate commerce. I imagine it would just be an extention of Amtrak and quite likely under the same authority. Maybe there would be joint state-federal jurisdiction similar to the Interstate Highway System.
and yes, based on your comments on the recent “we’re screwed” threads, you are a troll.
<
p>To answer your question, the Feds often fund 75-80 percent of the project, with state and local responsible for the rest. Given that highway traffic has actually gone down in the last year or two (though clearly not on every road, that’s just the average), there’s less demand to build massive highways than in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s. Perhaps that will free up resources for rail, which will only help continue the trend of decreasing highway usage.
What great news! High speed from Boston to Albany toooooooo! Oh I hope they’ll make a quick stop in Palmer, even if it’s for advanced tickets sales only. That would be fine with me. What an amazing vision, it’s time to reconnect the North East with rail service everywhere!
Super Terrific!