Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is actually part of why I think high speed rail might ultimately have enough political backing to become a reality--the air system can't economically serve places like Altoona even with subsidies, and at the same time there are still serious air congestion problems in place like Chicago and New York. High speed rail could simultaneously provide economic intercity service to places like Altoona, while also helping relieve air congestion in big cities, thus (perhaps) creating a working political coalition.
true high speed rail may well bypass these areas which are on the historic ROW. I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. Ultimate, engineers and finance guys will have to compromise on how to approach building it...chances are some of the towns on the current ROW will be left out. and if it's going to be high speed, you won't want to make too many stops. by high speed, I mean 186-220 (or theoretically more) mph not up to 135 mph which I'd view as an intermediate step. I think we could go pretty far with electrification and use of tilt trains such as pendolinos or talgos but ultimately, an expensive new alignment will be needed for air service competitive times, as far as I can tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I agree, but that is part of why I see this happening first in the Midwest--it is going to be less expensive to build out there, and the case for it will be very strong. The Pittsburgh to Philly part will indeed be pretty expensive, but I think justifiable if it turns out that the Midwest network is a success.
In the mean time, it may be worthwhile to upgrade what we do have. the PRR main (the alignment of the current Pennsylvanian) is extremely well engineered and could be restored to 3-4 tracks. Plans for electrification were drawn up decades ago as well. Not many states have such a ROW (in contrast, the route to Baltimore and Philly from Pitt is like a country road, the PRR main like a highway, and high speed a limited access highway). I also think it could be largely funded by the state whereas real HSR will have to come form the feds. We don't need to wait for real HSR to get better train service.
BTW, I took the Penn once (connecting to CHI). we arrived in Pitt an hour ahead of schedule, that indicates to me the trip time has a ton of padding in it.
true high speed rail may well bypass these areas which are on the historic ROW. I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. Ultimate, engineers and finance guys will have to compromise on how to approach building it...chances are some of the towns on the current ROW will be left out. and if it's going to be high speed, you won't want to make too many stops. by high speed, I mean 186-220 (or theoretically more) mph not up to 135 mph which I'd view as an intermediate step. I think we could go pretty far with electrification and use of tilt trains such as pendolinos or talgos but ultimately, an expensive new alignment will be needed for air service competitive times, as far as I can tell.
I don't think we are too far off in how we are conceiving of high speed rail. For it to compete with air travel between big cities, a route has to be a total of about four hours or less, and ideally it would be faster than that from Philly to Pittsburgh (so that people would also consider taking a train from Philly farther west and vice-versa, increasing ridership on this route). And for those speeds I understand the existing rights of way could indeed not always be used.
On the other hand, I don't think such a system has to literally pass through each of these central PA towns with a stop to make it a great asset for them. And that is because unlike with Pittsburgh and Philly, air service isn't really a serious competitor in these markets (and becoming less so all the time). Hence, for them it is good enough just to have a regional stop along the high speed line within a closer drive than, say, the Pittsburgh and Philly airports, and suddenly they have what is for them a very competitive intercity travel option.
That said, I understand the people in these areas would really, really love to have that regional stop in their particular town, which may cause some political holdups. But ultimately I do think they can be convinced they would be beneficiaries even if they didn't get their own stop.
Quote:
In the mean time, it may be worthwhile to upgrade what we do have. the PRR main (the alignment of the current Pennsylvanian) is extremely well engineered and could be restored to 3-4 tracks. Plans for electrification were drawn up decades ago as well. Not many states have such a ROW (in contrast, the route to Baltimore and Philly from Pitt is like a country road, the PRR main like a highway, and high speed a limited access highway). I also think it could be largely funded by the state whereas real HSR will have to come form the feds. We don't need to wait for real HSR to get better train service.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this plan on a state level, but I do think most of the real benefits of rail will come when suitable multi-state regions are linked together, which will require federal funding and maybe federal coordination. To slightly oversimplify, on the state level you are basically talking about rail competing with cars. But rail is just as capable of competing with airplanes at around the 600 mile distance or less, and indeed as I noted is about the only real way to provide a substitute for the sort of regional air service that is rapidly being discontinued.
Quote:
BTW, I took the Penn once (connecting to CHI). we arrived in Pitt an hour ahead of schedule, that indicates to me the trip time has a ton of padding in it.
Yep, and partially because you can experience long delays because of freight trains. In fact, I took this train from Altoona to Philly (and back) once, and we were late on both ends because of freight delays.
On the other hand, I don't think such a system has to literally pass through each of these central PA towns with a stop to make it a great asset for them. And that is because unlike with Pittsburgh and Philly, air service isn't really a serious competitor in these markets (and becoming less so all the time). Hence, for them it is good enough just to have a regional stop along the high speed line within a closer drive than, say, the Pittsburgh and Philly airports, and suddenly they have what is for them a very competitive intercity travel option.
I think the main difference is that I view a true HSR with few, if any stops between the two cities. the current ROW is probably "good enough" and riders from altoona could connect to the high speed line at, say, harrisburg, or Pitt. I think with electrification and tilt trains, you could come in under 5 hours. At that speed, you will mainly compete with buses and cars, but you will draw some leisure air travel as well. a lto of people don't prefer to fly either because it makes them nervous, it's a hassle, or they just like the scenery. this would be particularly the case between Philly and Pitt. there are less baggage restrictions and the economics of trains are a bit different (can't couple planes). Also, if I lived in johnstown, it really would be an asset to have the train stop IN the town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Yep, and partially because you can experience long delays because of freight trains. In fact, I took this train from Altoona to Philly (and back) once, and we were late on both ends because of freight delays.
Supposedly they not only ripped up track but a lot of interlockings as well. It woudl be nice if Amtrak got over the finger pointing and started finding money to improve service. an interlocking here and there over the years woudl have added up by now. It's not HSR, but it makes a difference. c'est la vie.
BTW, back to Pitt, is there any other must see? I'll likely be carless.
It is hard to say what changes permanently higher gasoline prices might bring, and I don't think investing in high speed railways for intermediate trips (200-600 miles or so) is out of the question--it just requires a change of mindset from cars and airplanes being the only two major travel options. My guess, though, is that first would come a high speed rail network out of Chicago, which would stretch out to Pittsburgh. At that point, it would make sense to link up the Northeast Corridor to this Midwest network via Philly and Pittsburgh.
Look at Europe, they have trains that run everywhere! My first trip to Europe as a teen I traveled only by train. I loved it.
Just curious, which is closer, DC or Philly? Thanks. ALso, which is the closet beach, lake/ocean. thanks!
I think the main difference is that I view a true HSR with few, if any stops between the two cities.
I'd go with at least two stops between Philly and Pittsburgh: Harrisburg and one in the Altoona area. That would put most people in Central PA within an hour or less of a stop.
Quote:
I think with electrification and tilt trains, you could come in under 5 hours. At that speed, you will mainly compete with buses and cars, but you will draw some leisure air travel as well. a lto of people don't prefer to fly either because it makes them nervous, it's a hassle, or they just like the scenery. this would be particularly the case between Philly and Pitt. there are less baggage restrictions and the economics of trains are a bit different (can't couple planes).
I agree, but again what you are describing here is a train serving non-air travelers between Philly and Pitt and points in between. What I ultimately think will have the most support is a train system that not only can compete for business travelers flying between Pitt and Philly, but also can take people from within PA to cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, DC, NY, and so on in a reasonable time.
Quote:
Also, if I lived in johnstown, it really would be an asset to have the train stop IN the town.
Sure, but if you lived in Johnstown, and could only have one, which would you rather have: a slower train that stopped right in Johnstown, but basically only substituted for car travel to Pittsburgh and Philly, or a faster train that only stopped in Altoona and not Johnstown (requiring about an hour drive), but which then substituted for air travel not only to Pittsburgh and Philly, but also to much of the rest of the Midwest and Northeast? And when answering, keep in mind that local air service in that region is declining, with even more cutbacks likely coming.
Anyway, I think in truth these two ideas are not mutually exclusive, and it will be interesting to see what sort of resources become available.
Quote:
BTW, back to Pitt, is there any other must see? I'll likely be carless.
Around Downtown, a trip up the Duquesne Incline is a must ... it is kinda touristy, but really well worth it. There are a lot of other interesting things in that area--you can spend some time in the South Side, which is a very historic rowhouse area going through a renaissance, and head to the North Side for things like the Science Center and Warhol Musuem, and in between can actually take a ride on the rivers.
I'd also personally recommend getting out to some destinations in the historic East End neighborhoods, which fortunately are served by a lot of bus routes from Downtown (some taking a dedicated express busway). The biggest single concentration of things to see is in Oakland, where Pitt is located. In fact in a compact area you can see Pitt's Cathedral of Learning (I would recommend checking out the nationality rooms) and Heinz Chapel, and the main complex of the Carnegie including the Art Museum, Museum of Natural History, and Main Library, and Phipps Conservatory.
If you have the time and inclination, I would also highly recommend heading a bit further east to the Frick Art and Historical Center. That is the former estate of Henry Clay Frick, and the Center includes the Clayton (the main residence) along with various outbuildings and small (free) museums on the grounds. It is really a great way to see some of Pittsburgh's "Robber Baron" past.
Look at Europe, they have trains that run everywhere! My first trip to Europe as a teen I traveled only by train. I loved it.
And they have also developed a lot of great train technology we could incorporate into designing our train systems. Of course, we will still need airplanes because of our continent-sized country, but regional train service would make a lot of sense.
Quote:
Just curious, which is closer, DC or Philly? Thanks.
Washington is about 60 miles closer (by car) than Philly to Pittsburgh.
Quote:
ALso, which is the closet beach, lake/ocean. thanks!
There are lots of small lakes in the area, but the closest big lake is Lake Erie, with various beach areas. People also go out to the Jersey Shore, Ocean City Maryland, and so on.
And they have also developed a lot of great train technology we could incorporate into designing our train systems. Of course, we will still need airplanes because of our continent-sized country, but regional train service would make a lot of sense.
Washington is about 60 miles closer (by car) than Philly to Pittsburgh.
There are lots of small lakes in the area, but the closest big lake is Lake Erie, with various beach areas. People also go out to the Jersey Shore, Ocean City Maryland, and so on.
A lot of people drive down to Deep Creek Lake in Maryland (Garrett County, MD). But if you're going to make that 2 hour drive...you could probably just drive the 2 hours North to the beaches on Erie.
I'd go with at least two stops between Philly and Pittsburgh: Harrisburg and one in the Altoona area. That would put most people in Central PA within an hour or less of a stop.
I'm no engineer, but I think Altoona is likely NOT to be on a new alignment. I also think you're starting to get away from HSR. what's really the benefit? If they already have a reliable, relatively fast connection to Harrisburg and Philadelphia, they can use that. HSR best fits large metropolitan areas with virtually no stops in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I agree, but again what you are describing here is a train serving non-air travelers between Philly and Pitt and points in between. What I ultimately think will have the most support is a train system that not only can compete for business travelers flying between Pitt and Philly, but also can take people from within PA to cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, DC, NY, and so on in a reasonable time.
I'm going to disagree with you. If it had more support, it woudl have been built already. To me, it's like putting the cart before the horse. You have to get people on trains first, then you build support for a really big project. Again, you'd like pull peopel from airlines (leisure travellers only) just not nearly as many. You'd negate the need for wasating fuel and airspace serving smaller markets...and politically, the state can not only afford it, but it satisfies needs in many districts. When a nation HSR network is finally built, these smaller cities will eb connected to it. In Europe, they have both levels of service. You can take a high speed train from Rome to Florence (no stops) or you can take a slower (and by slower, I mean on par with Amtrak's Northeast Regionals) train that makes intermediate stops, or you can take a painfully slow local. Adding stops to a train going 186 mph adds significant operating costs and reduces its overall benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Sure, but if you lived in Johnstown, and could only have one, which would you rather have: a slower train that stopped right in Johnstown, but basically only substituted for car travel to Pittsburgh and Philly, or a faster train that only stopped in Altoona and not Johnstown (requiring about an hour drive), but which then substituted for air travel not only to Pittsburgh and Philly, but also to much of the rest of the Midwest and Northeast? And when answering, keep in mind that local air service in that region is declining, with even more cutbacks likely coming.
I'd rather the train stopped a block form my house was non-stop everywhere I wanted to go, but it doesn't make it realistic. Bear in mind, slower doesn't mean slow...slow is what we have now.
Thanks for the recomendations.
London-if you meant by train (which you probably didn't), Philly is slightly closer adn the train is much more reliable. From 30th St you can connect to a train to Altantic City (yes, they have a beach and a boardwalk). A
Erie: how are the beaches there?
I'm no engineer, but I think Altoona is likely NOT to be on a new alignment.
It doesn't have to be Altoona--just somewhere in that area roughly between State College and Johnstown.
Quote:
I also think you're starting to get away from HSR. what's really the benefit? If they already have a reliable, relatively fast connection to Harrisburg and Philadelphia, they can use that. HSR best fits large metropolitan areas with virtually no stops in between.
I think the possible uses of HSR are a bit more complicated than that--you can't justify an entire HSR route just to serve small communities, but if there are enough small communities scattered between two large cities, an additional stop or two could significantly increase ridership. To be sure, there is definitely a tradeoff between speed and the number of stops, but that is why I am suggesting only two stops in about a 300 mile run--with fast enough trains, you can do that run in under three hours even with those two stops. And, of course, you could have some trains make these stops and some not, depending on actual demand.
And again, the demand I am suggesting is not just going to be for people getting between Harrisburg and Philly (or Pittsburgh)--I agree HSR can't be justified for just that purpose. Instead I am suggesting HSR could serve people traveling anyplace within roughly an hour's drive of Harrisburg and Altoona (or wherever that stop is located) to destinations as far away as NYC, DC, Cleveland, and even Chicago.
Quote:
I'm going to disagree with you. If it had more support, it woudl have been built already.
Well, this is where rising energy costs, environmental concerns, national security concerns, congestion (air and road) issues, and so on come in. We'll just have to see, but I think the somewhat unique conditions which led to the United States overlooking a major component of transportation planning in most developed countries may be coming to an end.
Quote:
To me, it's like putting the cart before the horse. You have to get people on trains first, then you build support for a really big project.
Well, it is one thing if you try out a HSR test route first before giving people a full network. But what you are proposing is just fundamentally different in kind from what I am proposing, even though both involve trains. So, I'm not sure your proposal really would work as a step toward the sort of network I am proposing.
Quote:
When a nation HSR network is finally built, these smaller cities will eb connected to it.
I don't think we will ever have a national HSR network ... the distances are just too large. But as noted above, I do think a regional network out of the Midwest will likely come before an extension through PA.
The bottomline is that I think we pretty much agree we are talking about two very different proposals. It seems the only potential disagreement is that you might see your proposal as a step toward my proposal, whereas I more see your proposal as just a different thing with no necessary relation to my proposal. And largely that is going to come down to a political question, so I guess we shall see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
