Comments on: Learning from the Keystone Corridor http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/ Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:27:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: eldondre http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/#comment-31040 eldondre Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:15:43 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3823#comment-31040 Actually, Pitt is already shorter than the water level route and with tunnels, it would be even shorter. I don't think a new high speed segment would necessitate abandoning the old route, you'd just end up with two different levels of service (acela vs regionals for example). you tart by upgrading the current ROW, then work on. When talking about reak HSR (be it 220 or 186) I think th ePitt Phily route makes more sense in that the pop centers are more centered. Philly is bigger than all of western NY stops combined and pitt is twice as large as buffalo, all by making only two stops. I'd also argue that Pitt-Cleveland is a larger market than Buff-cleveland. nonetheless, I'd be happy, for now, with a reasonably competitive conventional route Actually, Pitt is already shorter than the water level route and with tunnels, it would be even shorter. I don’t think a new high speed segment would necessitate abandoning the old route, you’d just end up with two different levels of service (acela vs regionals for example). you tart by upgrading the current ROW, then work on. When talking about reak HSR (be it 220 or 186) I think th ePitt Phily route makes more sense in that the pop centers are more centered. Philly is bigger than all of western NY stops combined and pitt is twice as large as buffalo, all by making only two stops. I’d also argue that Pitt-Cleveland is a larger market than Buff-cleveland. nonetheless, I’d be happy, for now, with a reasonably competitive conventional route

]]> By: Ocean Railroader http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/#comment-27228 Ocean Railroader Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:15:22 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3823#comment-27228 When I was on the Key Stone I noiced that a lot of the major delays were not really the speed of the trains but getting off of one train and getting on to another. If they could add a few more trains running eatch day and maybe restore the three track to four track mainline that would make things better with the freight companies and the local passanger lines. When I was on the Key Stone I noiced that a lot of the major delays were not really the speed of the trains but getting off of one train and getting on to another. If they could add a few more trains running eatch day and maybe restore the three track to four track mainline that would make things better with the freight companies and the local passanger lines.

]]> By: Woody http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/#comment-27224 Woody Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:12:29 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3823#comment-27224 Ocean R -- To get to 220 mph HSR through PA, we'll be looking at some magnificent tunnels, with costs to match. And above, Alon points out that incremental improvement Chicago-Cleveland-NYC will probably cheaper on the Water Level Route. One day we'll want HSR on Philly-Pittsburgh, but that day probably is a long, long time away. Meanwhile PA has some plans to chop a few hours off the conventional service. That's fine -- but I'm with you. Let's leave the Horseshoe Curve in the schedule. It could slow us down 5 or even 10 minutes, a very quick detour to see a scenic, historic, and engineering wonder not to be missed. Ocean R — To get to 220 mph HSR through PA, we’ll be looking at some magnificent tunnels, with costs to match. And above, Alon points out that incremental improvement Chicago-Cleveland-NYC will probably cheaper on the Water Level Route. One day we’ll want HSR on Philly-Pittsburgh, but that day probably is a long, long time away.

Meanwhile PA has some plans to chop a few hours off the conventional service. That’s fine — but I’m with you. Let’s leave the Horseshoe Curve in the schedule. It could slow us down 5 or even 10 minutes, a very quick detour to see a scenic, historic, and engineering wonder not to be missed.

]]> By: Alon Levy http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/#comment-27223 Alon Levy Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:47:24 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3823#comment-27223 Woody, there is really no need for a direct Pittsburgh-DC high-speed line. Trains can go through Philly, where they wouldn't even have to change direction; alternatively, Amtrak can ask people to transfer in Philly. A line through Harrisburg would cut travel time from 3 hours through Philly to about 2:10. It would be nice to have, but it would involve 130 km of rail in hilly terrain, which is too expensive for the benefit. Woody, there is really no need for a direct Pittsburgh-DC high-speed line. Trains can go through Philly, where they wouldn’t even have to change direction; alternatively, Amtrak can ask people to transfer in Philly. A line through Harrisburg would cut travel time from 3 hours through Philly to about 2:10. It would be nice to have, but it would involve 130 km of rail in hilly terrain, which is too expensive for the benefit.

]]> By: Ocean Railroader http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/#comment-27215 Ocean Railroader Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:05:47 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3823#comment-27215 I'm working on a idea of what the mainline would look like if the Penn type catenary was up graded and built to Pittsburg. It will have photo chopped photos of what the new high speed rail lines would look like with catenary. There is a rail line that used to have catenary on it that goes from Baltmore to Harrsionburg along the river. They need to restore the catenary wires on it to make a new bypass of Phili in case something happens to the city or rail lines leading into it. At Altoona and in some of the other mountain pases it would need tunnels but I wounder though that people traveling on the high speed rail line would want to see the Hourseshoe Curve though and not want to pass under it? I’m working on a idea of what the mainline would look like if the Penn type catenary was up graded and built to Pittsburg. It will have photo chopped photos of what the new high speed rail lines would look like with catenary.

There is a rail line that used to have catenary on it that goes from Baltmore to Harrsionburg along the river. They need to restore the catenary wires on it to make a new bypass of Phili in case something happens to the city or rail lines leading into it.

At Altoona and in some of the other mountain pases it would need tunnels but I wounder though that people traveling on the high speed rail line would want to see the Hourseshoe Curve though and not want to pass under it?

]]> By: Woody http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/#comment-27214 Woody Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:44:06 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3823#comment-27214 Don't give up. I hope that we'll see a broad new plan for the NorthEast Corridor to include the tributary lines, like the Keystone Corridor, and extending down to Richmond and perhaps beyond. True, not every state that has been spending got big rewards in this round. But most of them would catch up if we next put $30 billion or more into the NEC. As for extending service out to Pittsburgh, I don't think we've begun to think that through. Alternative routes could include upgrading the Main Line, or shadowing I-80 to the north, or something closer to Andrew Carnegie's route now the Pennsylvania Turnpike ... I'm wondering if you were going to go for "true" HSR at 220 mph, would it make sense to combine the Pittsburgh-Philly route with the Pittsburgh-D.C. route to share the cost of some base tunnels, then separate a little west of Harrisburg. Don’t give up. I hope that we’ll see a broad new plan for the NorthEast Corridor to include the tributary lines, like the Keystone Corridor, and extending down to Richmond and perhaps beyond. True, not every state that has been spending got big rewards in this round. But most of them would catch up if we next put $30 billion or more into the NEC.

As for extending service out to Pittsburgh, I don’t think we’ve begun to think that through. Alternative routes could include upgrading the Main Line, or shadowing I-80 to the north, or something closer to Andrew Carnegie’s route now the Pennsylvania Turnpike … I’m wondering if you were going to go for “true” HSR at 220 mph, would it make sense to combine the Pittsburgh-Philly route with the Pittsburgh-D.C. route to share the cost of some base tunnels, then separate a little west of Harrisburg.

]]> By: eldondre http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/#comment-27200 eldondre Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:52:55 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3823#comment-27200 so I guess we learned that using your own money to upgrade a corridor is rewarded by not getting federal money. so I guess we learned that using your own money to upgrade a corridor is rewarded by not getting federal money.

]]> By: Ocean Railroader http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/#comment-11588 Ocean Railroader Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:49:57 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3823#comment-11588 They could ofter tax breaks to railroads that put in eletrifaction of their mainlines. Amtrack might possibly buy the abondoned S Line from CSX in Viriginia and make it Amtrack owned and controled. CSX is going to benfit from the federally funded 11.5 mile thrid track widening project that the goverment is going to pay them 72 millon dollars for so maybe the railroads have a odd relashionship with the goverment taxes. They could ofter tax breaks to railroads that put in eletrifaction of their mainlines. Amtrack might possibly buy the abondoned S Line from CSX in Viriginia and make it Amtrack owned and controled. CSX is going to benfit from the federally funded 11.5 mile thrid track widening project that the goverment is going to pay them 72 millon dollars for so maybe the railroads have a odd relashionship with the goverment taxes.

]]> By: aw http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/#comment-11579 aw Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:24:06 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3823#comment-11579 I don't have a problem with railroads paying property on their right-of-way, but it is absolutely senseless to disincentivize investments in improving the infrastructure. If you have a class 1 mainline, it ought to have one valuation irrespective of how many tracks, signals, turnouts, etc. are on it. Same thing for the regional RRs and short lines. There's nothing wrong as I see it in getting more property tax for the locals from yards, transload facilites, office buildings, depots and other uses when they're improved. Of course another way that the railroads wring cash out of their free land is by selling off utility easments, that then make re-establishment of tracks problematic. I don’t have a problem with railroads paying property on their right-of-way, but it is absolutely senseless to disincentivize investments in improving the infrastructure. If you have a class 1 mainline, it ought to have one valuation irrespective of how many tracks, signals, turnouts, etc. are on it. Same thing for the regional RRs and short lines. There’s nothing wrong as I see it in getting more property tax for the locals from yards, transload facilites, office buildings, depots and other uses when they’re improved.

Of course another way that the railroads wring cash out of their free land is by selling off utility easments, that then make re-establishment of tracks problematic.

]]> By: Alon Levy http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/#comment-11558 Alon Levy Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:47:13 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3823#comment-11558 No, the new tax money will probably go to providing subsidies for transplant factories... As far as I can tell, publicly owned railroads are tax-free. NJT and Caltrain don't have to pay property taxes. So publicly owned infrastructure like CAHSR will not pay property taxes. The 110 mph tracks I'm not sure about; I don't know the Illinois plans, but in Upstate New York they want to build a state-owned third track on the same ROW. No, the new tax money will probably go to providing subsidies for transplant factories…

As far as I can tell, publicly owned railroads are tax-free. NJT and Caltrain don’t have to pay property taxes. So publicly owned infrastructure like CAHSR will not pay property taxes. The 110 mph tracks I’m not sure about; I don’t know the Illinois plans, but in Upstate New York they want to build a state-owned third track on the same ROW.

]]>