Will a Faster Acela Require a Tunnel Under Long Island Sound?
The quite successful, profit-generating Amtrak Acela is currently the only service resembling high speed rail in the United States. With an occasional top speed of 150 mph, and an average of 80 mph, it has been able to attract a lot of travelers and has a bigger share of the travel market on the Northeast Corridor than the airlines.
But to expand that service, adding more trains at faster speeds to increase capacity, requires a significant new investment in tracks. One proposal to do that would include a tunnel under Long Island Sound:
Trains speeding from Washington to Boston would run through the heart of Long Island, cross into Connecticut through a tunnel emerging in Milford, head to Hartford and then race east toward Worcester on new tracks running alongside I-84.
The segment between Manhattan and Hartford would cost about $20 billion, according to the University of Pennsylvania’s high-speed rail design studio, which first put forward the idea in 2010. Overall, the full 450-mile route from Washington to Boston would cost about $100 billion, PennDesign said.
That’s an entirely new alignment between NYC and Boston. Currently, the Acela follows the Connecticut coast to Rhode Island, stopping in Providence before continuing on to Boston. The new route would head out to the middle of Long Island from NYC, then veer north under the sound to serve New Haven and then Hartford on the way to entering Boston from the west. You’d lose Providence but pick up Hartford, and I am not familiar enough with New England to know whether that’s worth it. But there are practical reasons why this alignment might be needed:
Connecticut is a particularly problematic stretch of the existing shoreline route because of century-old bridges and steady twists and bends along the southeastern coast. They prevent the Acela from getting anywhere close to its top-rated speed of 150 mph. Amtrak’s own proposal is to bring trains from New York up to Danbury, then create an all-new corridor running to Waterbury and then Hartford before banking eastward for Providence.
European-style high-speed rail would require two tracks dedicated exclusively to 220 mph bullet trains, advocates say. The routes would have to be mostly uninterrupted by grade crossings or sharp curves so that the trains could maintain speed and stick to much faster schedules than what Amtrak offers now.
This underscores just how much new capital investment will be needed to upgrade the Acela. I believe that investment is worth doing. But to those who argue that the US should only invest in HSR along the Northeast Corridor and not in places like California, I’d just point out that there’s nowhere this can be done cheaply. Besides, cheap isn’t the point of high speed rail. The point is to build lasting infrastructure that creates value for decades to come.
This underscores just how much new capital investment will be needed …
You truly are the most scandalously underpaid of construction industry shills. Sweatshop blogging: a modern tragedy.
Meanwhile: “Northeast Corridor HSR, 90% Cheaper”
Tom McNamara Reply:
September 6th, 2012 at 9:49 am
No Richard, you are.
Someone with your degree of technical acumen spending as much time as you do to educate all of us non-engineers on the value of certain curve radii is doing the Lord’s work. Throwing yourself tirelessly like Jean Jacques Rosseau against political realities should earn you a martyr’s feast day in the Catholic Church.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 6th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Pain. Need more pain.
PS Speaking of internet sweatshops, give generously.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 6th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Two dollars a day ought to be enough for everybody.
VBobier Reply:
September 6th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Yep, the $2 a day worker, no one can survive on that, except Millionaires and Billionaires, My check is badenov, but $2 a day is ridiculous…
No.
To elaborate a bit, the Shore Line is problematic but not unworkable. The first thing to do is to get rid of MNRR’s 120 km/h speed restriction. But given a more regular service pattern (local/express, not a bunch of limited stop stuff, timed overtake at Stamford maybe), there’s no reason why Metro North’s express trains couldn’t reach their top speed on the express tracks. Strategic and relatively simple (usually) curve realignments could make the line good for at least 160 km/h south of Stamford and 200 km/h north of Stamford. A few bypass sections would be needed, Bridgeport being the prime example. And of course you want lightweight, tilting (or similar active suspension) rolling stock (anyone know how the cant deficiency increase of Bombardier’s WAKO system compares with Pendolinos or Talgos?). North of New Haven you can just build a new HSL along I-95.
And also worth noting, Long Island isn’t exactly a breeze. If you use the LIRR main line you’ve got a straight shot between Hicksville and Jamaica but a sharp curve just west of Hicksville and probably another one near Farmingdale. If you go via Garden City you’ve got the curve at Floral Park. In any case you’re going through some heavily populated areas so anything greater than 200 km/h is unlikely. Once you get into Suffolk county things improve a bit but then you’ve got the tunnel itself. Given real-world examples, speeds in the tunnel would be limited to 250 km/h at most and in practice probably more like 200. So how much are you really gaining with this expensive alignment?
I’m not sure why you’re blogging this now. The Penn Design proposal is 2 years old.
Anyway, I wrote up my thoughts on Hartford vs. Providence and on whether a Long Island Sound tunnel is desirable at the beginning of the year.
Since then, I’ve learned that the Penn Design people proposed a first-phase upgrade that looks a lot like what I’m proposing for the NEC, for a similar cost: fixing the Shore Line curves, bypassing segments that can’t be fixed, reelectrifying NY-DC, and a few smaller projects. They say it’s just preliminaries, but there are existing trainsets capable of doing Boston-Washington in about 3:30 on such alignment and trainsets that would be easy to procure that can do it in about 3:15.
A commenter who went to the UIC conference in Philadelphia tells me he asked the Penn Design people and they think it’s impossible to serve Providence due to water crossings and curves on I-95 and trains would have to go through Hartford anyway. But otherwise they seem familiar with and positive about my ideas, they just say that they’re a first phase.
Paul Druce Reply:
September 6th, 2012 at 8:57 am
It’s been in the news recently, I’ve a google news alert for “high speed rail” and there have been a few stories on it the past few days.
The University of Pennsylvania has a high speed rail design studio. Can a university in California have a high speed rail design studio? I think this only help in California and in the western U.S.A.
This project fails the “first rule of American HSR planning”: it actively tries to reduce the number of states service passes through.
Just like with the Interstate Highway Act, the only way to get states on board is to make sure all of them get something, even if HSR between Great Falls and Bismarck doesn’t quite pencil out.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 6th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
I don’t think it actively tries to do that. It avoids Rhode Island if that’s what you’re talking about, but the Penn Design people think that an I-95 route is too hard, with river crossings and curves in southeastern Connecticut. I think they’re wrong, but this means there are enough technical reasons to serve Providence over Hartford independently of politics.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 6th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Providence would still have service, it’s just that between New Haven and Boston it would be at the same speed it is now. Not the worst thing in the world.
European-style HSR is neither all on HSR-only tracks, nor is it at 220mph, nor does it use a concreete-first paradigm.
Totally, totally off topic, but too funny not to share:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=518043464876078&set=a.241971295816631.74953.236565153023912&type=1&theater
OK, it’s a cartoon critical of the Republicans, but that’s not what makes it funny. Rather, it’s what I noticed when I looked at this, as did a commentor at the site named Mary Withers. She wrote:
“Hmmm… Notice how the alien invaders’ robots look like cats!
“I love cats, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find they were involved in a plot to achieve interstellar dominion. ;-)”
Sharp eyes, Mary–and notice that the “ears” seem to be able to move, judging from the different positions on the “heads!” THAT is what makes this funny for me–especially since my wife and I have five of the furry beasties!