<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Does Senator Bond Have it Right?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:23:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Avi</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/#comment-1674</link>
		<dc:creator>Avi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:44:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2491#comment-1674</guid>
		<description>Cap&#039;n Transit, as a cyclist I hope they don&#039;t put tracks back on the Putnam line, but if they do the route into Penn Station is easy.  The Putnam line can&#039;t enter Vancortland park via it&#039;s old route since the area has been declared a wetland.  They won&#039;t even put down a gravel bike path so they will never put down new train tracks.  Once you have to divert the train, just run it west to the Hudson line and take that straight into Penn Station on Amtrak&#039;s active tracks.  You would need to double track the Manhattan portion, but that&#039;s trivial compared to what else is being described here.

In regards to the West Trenton line, it&#039;s not HSR, but NJTransit is at least in the initial planning stages of restoring passenger rail on the line.  Restoring Service to West Trenton would make a NY trip a lot easier for residents of the northern PA suburbs.  Especially if they ever decide to run some trains straight through from Philadelphia to Newark.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cap&#8217;n Transit, as a cyclist I hope they don&#8217;t put tracks back on the Putnam line, but if they do the route into Penn Station is easy.  The Putnam line can&#8217;t enter Vancortland park via it&#8217;s old route since the area has been declared a wetland.  They won&#8217;t even put down a gravel bike path so they will never put down new train tracks.  Once you have to divert the train, just run it west to the Hudson line and take that straight into Penn Station on Amtrak&#8217;s active tracks.  You would need to double track the Manhattan portion, but that&#8217;s trivial compared to what else is being described here.</p>
<p>In regards to the West Trenton line, it&#8217;s not HSR, but NJTransit is at least in the initial planning stages of restoring passenger rail on the line.  Restoring Service to West Trenton would make a NY trip a lot easier for residents of the northern PA suburbs.  Especially if they ever decide to run some trains straight through from Philadelphia to Newark.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adirondacker12800</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/#comment-1673</link>
		<dc:creator>adirondacker12800</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:50:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2491#comment-1673</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;The ARC tunnel should be redesigned to include rail freight passage to Long Island&lt;/em&gt;

It wouldn&#039;t have the capacity, too many passenger trains in the way during the day and most of the night. Looks like they have settled on Jersey City to Brooklyn as the solution.

http://www.crossharborstudy.com/index.htm

&lt;em&gt;passenger service through the lower level of Grand Central Terminal.&lt;/em&gt;

ARC is designed for service to Grand Central someday. They aren&#039;t doing anything about it today because because it would come too close to Water Tunnel 1. When Water Tunnel 3 is completed, providing redundancy to the water supply,  they can extend service to Grand Central.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>The ARC tunnel should be redesigned to include rail freight passage to Long Island</em></p>
<p>It wouldn&#8217;t have the capacity, too many passenger trains in the way during the day and most of the night. Looks like they have settled on Jersey City to Brooklyn as the solution.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.crossharborstudy.com/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.crossharborstudy.com/index.htm</a></p>
<p><em>passenger service through the lower level of Grand Central Terminal.</em></p>
<p>ARC is designed for service to Grand Central someday. They aren&#8217;t doing anything about it today because because it would come too close to Water Tunnel 1. When Water Tunnel 3 is completed, providing redundancy to the water supply,  they can extend service to Grand Central.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yonah Freemark</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/#comment-1672</link>
		<dc:creator>Yonah Freemark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:57:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2491#comment-1672</guid>
		<description>Alon -
Here&#039;s a nice website with a history and some maps of the Air Line:
http://pages.cthome.net/mbartel/ARRhistory.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alon -<br />
Here&#8217;s a nice website with a history and some maps of the Air Line:<br />
<a href="http://pages.cthome.net/mbartel/ARRhistory.htm" rel="nofollow">http://pages.cthome.net/mbartel/ARRhistory.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: railtec</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/#comment-1671</link>
		<dc:creator>railtec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:03:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2491#comment-1671</guid>
		<description>WE NEED IT ALL.

220 MPH HSR, a layer of 110-150 MPH MSR (medium speed rail) and a wide web of commuter rail 80-90 MPH LSR (low speed rail); all those freight tracks and they are everywhere with speeds of 20-25 need to be upgraded dramatically (grade separations, signalization, double track.)

The ARC tunnel should be redesigned to include rail freight passage to Long Island &amp; passenger service through the lower level of Grand Central Terminal.

Most of all we need to make a full throttle commitment to. transcontinental hsr  (the crown jewel of our new sustainable transportation grid)- Jacksonville, FL to San Diego in 12 hours ; Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, Denver, LA; New York-Miami; D.C.-Atlanta.

The next layer is infill mega-region rail networks (discussed above.)

We need to bury domestic airlines (and interstate highway system) - just as has been done in Europe.  Flying should be primarily for flights overseas, Alaska &amp; Hawaii.

All this hsr needs to be fully bicycle accessible (bikes on trains)  I understand ICE in Germany is making plans to retrofit  train cars for bicycles.  America needs to include them in the initial design.

Finally, the first rail-related infrastructure investment should be to fund the restoration of Michigan Central Terminal; Detroit is in tatters &amp; nothing would create a more symbolic boost to the concept that America is ready to &quot;rail.&quot; than to restore this glorious disused &amp; dust-bitten Motor CIty train terminal ( http://www.railtec.org/Site/Whats_new/Entries/2009/2/4_Rosa_Parks_Michigan_Central_Terminal.html ).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WE NEED IT ALL.</p>
<p>220 MPH HSR, a layer of 110-150 MPH MSR (medium speed rail) and a wide web of commuter rail 80-90 MPH LSR (low speed rail); all those freight tracks and they are everywhere with speeds of 20-25 need to be upgraded dramatically (grade separations, signalization, double track.)</p>
<p>The ARC tunnel should be redesigned to include rail freight passage to Long Island &amp; passenger service through the lower level of Grand Central Terminal.</p>
<p>Most of all we need to make a full throttle commitment to. transcontinental hsr  (the crown jewel of our new sustainable transportation grid)- Jacksonville, FL to San Diego in 12 hours ; Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, Denver, LA; New York-Miami; D.C.-Atlanta.</p>
<p>The next layer is infill mega-region rail networks (discussed above.)</p>
<p>We need to bury domestic airlines (and interstate highway system) &#8211; just as has been done in Europe.  Flying should be primarily for flights overseas, Alaska &amp; Hawaii.</p>
<p>All this hsr needs to be fully bicycle accessible (bikes on trains)  I understand ICE in Germany is making plans to retrofit  train cars for bicycles.  America needs to include them in the initial design.</p>
<p>Finally, the first rail-related infrastructure investment should be to fund the restoration of Michigan Central Terminal; Detroit is in tatters &amp; nothing would create a more symbolic boost to the concept that America is ready to &#8220;rail.&#8221; than to restore this glorious disused &amp; dust-bitten Motor CIty train terminal ( <a href="http://www.railtec.org/Site/Whats_new/Entries/2009/2/4_Rosa_Parks_Michigan_Central_Terminal.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.railtec.org/Site/Whats_new/Entries/2009/2/4_Rosa_Parks_Michigan_Central_Terminal.html</a> ).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/#comment-1670</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2491#comment-1670</guid>
		<description>Where is the Air Line, anyway? I tried looking on Google Maps, and the only alternative I saw to the Shore Line is going through Hartford and Springfield, which adds detours and is actually more curved.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where is the Air Line, anyway? I tried looking on Google Maps, and the only alternative I saw to the Shore Line is going through Hartford and Springfield, which adds detours and is actually more curved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adirondacker</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/#comment-1669</link>
		<dc:creator>Adirondacker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2491#comment-1669</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;I think I read that the Air Line is straighter than the Shore Line&lt;/em&gt;

Not by much and Air-Line has a serious fault. There&#039;s no rails on it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>I think I read that the Air Line is straighter than the Shore Line</em></p>
<p>Not by much and Air-Line has a serious fault. There&#8217;s no rails on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adirondacker</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/#comment-1668</link>
		<dc:creator>Adirondacker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:04:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2491#comment-1668</guid>
		<description>The Royal Blue made it from Jersey City to Washington DC in four hours. The Pennsylvania had similar travel times. There&#039;s a lot of work to get close to current NEC speeds.

But does it have to compete with the NEC? It has to compete with taking a train from a local station, Plainfield or Jenkintown, versus driving to a NEC station. It has to compete with driving from Jenkingtown to NY or driving from Plainfield to Philadelphia. . . start slow. Restore commuter service between West Trenton and NY. Run a few NY-Philadelphia trains a day each way during rush hour - during rush hour slow trains beat slower cars. When that works out, electrify the line. . .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Royal Blue made it from Jersey City to Washington DC in four hours. The Pennsylvania had similar travel times. There&#8217;s a lot of work to get close to current NEC speeds.</p>
<p>But does it have to compete with the NEC? It has to compete with taking a train from a local station, Plainfield or Jenkintown, versus driving to a NEC station. It has to compete with driving from Jenkingtown to NY or driving from Plainfield to Philadelphia. . . start slow. Restore commuter service between West Trenton and NY. Run a few NY-Philadelphia trains a day each way during rush hour &#8211; during rush hour slow trains beat slower cars. When that works out, electrify the line. . .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/#comment-1667</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2491#comment-1667</guid>
		<description>The West Trenton line is less straight than the NEC. Between Newark and Philadelphia, the NEC has exactly one bad curve, at Metuchen. The West Trenton line has several curves, for example in Middlesex and Penndel.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The West Trenton line is less straight than the NEC. Between Newark and Philadelphia, the NEC has exactly one bad curve, at Metuchen. The West Trenton line has several curves, for example in Middlesex and Penndel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cap'n Transit</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/#comment-1666</link>
		<dc:creator>Cap'n Transit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:33:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2491#comment-1666</guid>
		<description>Alon, I agree with you that we should restore the Northeast Corridor trackage that was taken out.  And I agree that the Housatonic and Putnam lines are old and curved.  But the Connecticut Air Line and the West Trenton Line look pretty straight to me on the satellite and aerial photographs.

I think I read that the Air Line is straighter than the Shore Line, but for the Acela project Amtrak decided to spend less and upgrade the Shore Line instead of putting in all new tracks, catenary and bridges.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alon, I agree with you that we should restore the Northeast Corridor trackage that was taken out.  And I agree that the Housatonic and Putnam lines are old and curved.  But the Connecticut Air Line and the West Trenton Line look pretty straight to me on the satellite and aerial photographs.</p>
<p>I think I read that the Air Line is straighter than the Shore Line, but for the Acela project Amtrak decided to spend less and upgrade the Shore Line instead of putting in all new tracks, catenary and bridges.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/23/does-senator-bond-have-it-right/#comment-1665</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:25:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2491#comment-1665</guid>
		<description>Avi, the electrification portion of the NEC improvements that led to the Acela cost about $3.5 million per mile. This translates to $800 million from New York to DC.

There is a lot less traffic on the NEC than you&#039;d think, because almost all traffic has to share tracks with some non-NEC traffic when entering the 2-track tunnel into Penn Station. For example, between Newark and Rahway, there are, I believe, 16 tph at rush hour. In addition, in New Jersey there&#039;s still room for 6 tracks; the line used to have 6 tracks but has since been reduced to 4. Similarly, in Maryland, the line has been reduced from 4 tracks to 2, but there&#039;s still room for 4. If the former capacity is restored, which should by itself cost $1-1.5 billion, depending on how much four-tracking Maryland needs, then the Acela will run on dedicated tracks from New York to Washington except near the major stations.

Cap&#039;n Transit, the parallel rights-of-way have to be extensively repaired for high-speed operation. Even medium-speed operation requires more precise track geometry and more modern signaling than is available on American rail lines outside the NEC. Those lines are also less straight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Avi, the electrification portion of the NEC improvements that led to the Acela cost about $3.5 million per mile. This translates to $800 million from New York to DC.</p>
<p>There is a lot less traffic on the NEC than you&#8217;d think, because almost all traffic has to share tracks with some non-NEC traffic when entering the 2-track tunnel into Penn Station. For example, between Newark and Rahway, there are, I believe, 16 tph at rush hour. In addition, in New Jersey there&#8217;s still room for 6 tracks; the line used to have 6 tracks but has since been reduced to 4. Similarly, in Maryland, the line has been reduced from 4 tracks to 2, but there&#8217;s still room for 4. If the former capacity is restored, which should by itself cost $1-1.5 billion, depending on how much four-tracking Maryland needs, then the Acela will run on dedicated tracks from New York to Washington except near the major stations.</p>
<p>Cap&#8217;n Transit, the parallel rights-of-way have to be extensively repaired for high-speed operation. Even medium-speed operation requires more precise track geometry and more modern signaling than is available on American rail lines outside the NEC. Those lines are also less straight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
