Baltimore and the northeast corridor (cost of, bus, to move)

[edsg25]

I just was looking at a map that was the proposal for high speed rail in the northeast corridor. It showed the track arrangement from Washington to Boston. I noticed that Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston were given hub status and that an super express train would make stops in only these 4 cities (but other trains would make stops all along the corridor.

I don't know if this map were an official plan or not, but I was trying to understand why since there are clearly 5 major cities in the northeast corridor (a fact that I would say is pretty well known), why was only one, Baltimore, not given that hub status?

[kharing]

I believe you saw the super express high speed map. The hub cities will have an express high speed train to get to the super express.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/214/393/...t-Corridor.pdf

So, I would have to go to DC to use the super....I'll be okay with that! If it stopped at all the hubs it wouldn't be a "super express".

[Infinite_heights77]

"..but I was trying to understand why since there are clearly 5 major cities in the northeast corridor (a fact that I would say is pretty well known), why was only one, Baltimore, not given that hub status?"

*Great question! Because the transportation authority doesn't consider Baltimore a major destination. If it was, do you think this question would be necessary?? I think not!

Originally Posted by edsg25

I just was looking at a map that was the proposal for high speed rail in the northeast corridor. It showed the track arrangement from Washington to Boston. I noticed that Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston were given hub status and that an super express train would make stops in only these 4 cities (but other trains would make stops all along the corridor.

I don't know if this map were an official plan or not, but I was trying to understand why since there are clearly 5 major cities in the northeast corridor (a fact that I would say is pretty well known), why was only one, Baltimore, not given that hub status?

[picardlx]

True high-speed trains benefit from limited stops. I don't see why a HSR train just reviving-up would then have to begin slowing down just 40 or so miles down line.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by picardlx

True high-speed trains benefit from limited stops.

^^This.
What B'more needs is to get the HS train line extended south to Richmond.

[james777]

Originally Posted by MrRational

^^This.
What B'more needs is to get the HS train line extended south to Richmond.

Why?? If Baltimore doesn't warrant a stop on the proposed high speed line, why should Richmond, a metro area a fraction the size of Baltimore need a stop? And why should this be a cause for the people and crooked politicians of Baltimore to strive for? Shouldn't that be something that the people and politicians of Richmond to strive for? Also, I would imagine that the cost of extending the high speed track another hundred miles south of DC to Richmond would be prohibitive, and the cost would never be recouped in the additional fares.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by james777

Why?? If Baltimore doesn't warrant a stop on the proposed high speed line...

Because it's too close to DC....
did you read the earlier post about the mechanical limitations?

You could instead work to move DC farther away. Would that suit your world view better?

[james777]

Originally Posted by MrRational

Because it's too close to DC....
did you read the earlier post about the mechanical limitations?

You could instead work to move DC farther away. Would that suit your world view better?

"work to move DC further away" What?? My world view? What view, please explain as I am clueless.

Maybe your name should be Mr. Irrational.

I read the post about the mechanical limitations, and I believe it and understand it. However, I know that if Baltimore were a larger metro area, say the size of Chicago or Philadelphia, the train would stop in Baltimore as the number of riders would warrant a stop, regardless of the mechanical limitations. The one motivating factor behind any type of rail line is RIDERSHIP, not speed or scenery, or the wishes of some people who would like it to come to their small city. If they can't get the ridership, a rail line won't get built as it doesn't pay. This is true of all rail lines and even other types of public transportation such as bus lines and air routes. That is exactly why the Baltimore subway is so small compared to the DC subway. The Baltimore subway as originally proposed back in the early 1960's was to be eight lines radiating in every direction from downtown, not one line. The rest did not get built because of lack of riders. The one line that did get built was decided upon by the number of riders that would use the line, as all new or expanded rail lines are decided.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by james777

(The principle) motivating factor behind (prior/existing types) of rail line (has been) RIDERSHIP, not speed...

But this time it isn't about those prior/existing types of rail line. Is it?

"work to move DC further away" What?? My world view?
What view, please explain as I am clueless.

Speed is the raison d'etre of the entire exercise.
Having stations too close to one another defeats that purpose.

hth

[P47P47]

Originally Posted by james777

The Baltimore subway as originally proposed back in the early 1960's was to be eight lines radiating in every direction from downtown, not one line. The rest did not get built because of lack of riders. The one line that did get built was decided upon by the number of riders that would use the line, as all new or expanded rail lines are decided.

Actually, it was originally supposed to be six lines, not eight, and the reason it didn't get built as proposed and was limited to the ridiculous little fishhook that it is now is because of nimbyism and racism.