Join the discussion on the following article:
FRA seeks comments on Northeast Corridor’s future
If this project evolves into physical development of a second route, completion will be a century after the Pennsy GG1’s entered service.
One alternative route would be the former Baltimore and Ohio combined with the former Reading Line for the Washington - New York segment through additional tracks to separate high speed trains from freight trains and grade separation. Beyond New York City, additional tracks and grade separation may be added to existing lines to Boston.
Otherwise, immanent domain would have to be implemented in a densely populated region. One can imagine the controversy and politics that would stir, making the issue of routing the Texas Central Railway between Houston and Dallas pale by comparison.
We as a country can’t even keep the current system in a state of good repair with tunnels and bridges now let alone add the capacity of a much needed second Hudson River tunnel, or make a direct route through Boston happen, or electrify the system to Virginia and North Carolina
What about maglev? How does Northeast Maglev and the Japanese factor in on this EIS?
Dream big alternative 3. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, steel wheel on steel rail is a proven well used technology.
With maglev your using energy to get your vehicle off the ground.
Here’s a comment for the FRA - find the $$$ and replace the drawbridges.
Wow! As Marty would say… “Heavy”. I would advise start with the Highlights Brochure “No Build” base alternative costs $19.9 billion because it includes all the necessary work planned or ongoing, funded or unfunded; to keep the NEC function as is! That I imagine includes the new tubes under the Hudson River and into Penn Station.
I can’t imagine the public sector funding $131–$136B for Alt 2 or the $267–$308 for Alt 3. When compared to a Pentagon defense project like the F-35 its no unreasonable, or the countless billions that Apple or Warren Buffet has… but to the average man and woman on the street its an unimaginable amount of money, and immediate turn-off.
I think Alt 1 done in stages with its cost spread out over a decade could be sold, that financing for it could be found. Right now Northeast Maglev is beginning to look like a more affordable option at the estimated cost of “only” $10B Washington-Baltimore… well $100B likely gets you to New York… another $100B to Boston… oh… now I see why the Alt. 3 costs so much!
Alt 3 should really be a no-brainer. The NEC is not just a regional need, it’s well-being affects the entire country. Maintaining at current levels when everything around is changing is delusion at work. If this country could put a man on the moon in less than 10 years back in the 60’s, surely we can build some railroad that is fit for the 21st century in the next few years.
I would recommend careful analysis of satellite images of the existing route, and finding places where it could be straightened for faster service. They do exist, and the amount of eminent domain would be far less than building an entirely new route, which would also need new stations which just add to the cost. Straighter routes also means shorter distances to cover, which contributes to shorter travel times as well as less maintenance on the existing route. New routes just mean more route miles to maintain, more train sets needed, and either weaving into existing stations, or like I said, building new stations.
I would start with the slowest sections of the route, New Haven-NYC,which would provide the most benefit by providing the greatest increase in speed.
Moreover, improving the existing route not only benefits the fastest trains, but ALL other trains as well, right down to the commuter locals. Once this is done and being used to its maximum capacity, increase fares and find other ways to raise revenue in order to finance other improvements.