The approval of the Cafritz/Whole Foods project is good news for Prince Georges County.

Prince Georges County has always been on the short end of the stick when it comes to getting the great, smart, upscale development that's now taken for granted in Montgomery County, Fairfax County, Arlington, Alexandria, and even in formerly "sketchy" parts of DC.

It's about time that started to change.

by ceefer66 on Jul 10, 2012 8:48 am • link • report

.04? What is that, one drink?

by charlie on Jul 10, 2012 8:53 am • link • report

" The bill would also lower the legal blood-alcohol content limit from .08 to .04"

Could you please finish that sentence? ...for drivers of commercial vehicles.

by Ron on Jul 10, 2012 8:53 am • link • report

Ron: Good catch. I've added it.

by David Alpert on Jul 10, 2012 9:04 am • link • report

I think .04 is a shot of cough medicine.

by Matt Glazewski on Jul 10, 2012 9:09 am • link • report

some higher speeds in 2017 up to real high-speed in 2040.

Ah, so high speed will stay about 40 years behind the rest of the world. Yeay America!

by Jasper on Jul 10, 2012 9:16 am • link • report

When is maglev going to arrive at Union Station?

by selxic on Jul 10, 2012 9:17 am • link • report

The Amtrak plan for HSR is absurdly expensive. That's not itself a bad thing, but considering that it's also unnecessarily expensive, it's rather depressing:

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/northeast-corridor-hsr-90-cheaper/

by Alex B. on Jul 10, 2012 9:25 am • link • report

@Charlie: Yes, .04 is one drink -- if you weigh 95 pounds.

by Rob on Jul 10, 2012 9:26 am • link • report

I can't imagine what a setback it would be if Romney wins the presidency. Like in Maryland, when Gov. Elrich came in and kneecapped Glendening's Purple Line push in favor of the inter-county connecter boondoggle. Good news for now at least on high speed rail.

by Thayer-D on Jul 10, 2012 9:27 am • link • report

The Cafritz project is definitely a step in the right direction for Northern Prince George's. Yeah it's surrounded by hundreds and hundreds of acres of older sfhs, but how is that different from any other centralized town center in the DC suburbs.

One absolute must for this project is the construction of the bridge over the MARC/CSX tracks which will greatly improve access to the Metro/MARC station, especially for motorists (yes it's a fairy tale to imagine every resident will be living car free).

by King Terrapin on Jul 10, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

Advocates of HSR in the NE corridor should be screaming from the rooftops to stop the current HSR plan in Cali because it is already setting itself up to be a mismanaged, over-priced, over-sold (too many stops to achieve high-speed), under-utilized project for traditional opposition.

by Fitz on Jul 10, 2012 9:56 am • link • report

It would be nice if the bright and shiny things Prince George's anticipates is metro accessible.

But I guess this really is for those who live in that area. I am willing to make the trek to Wegman's for obvious reasons. Whole Foods? No thanks.

by HogWash on Jul 10, 2012 10:01 am • link • report

I wonder if this whole Foods will have metal detectors at the door.

by PG Rez on Jul 10, 2012 10:10 am • link • report

It's slightly inaccurate when people say things like "Amtrak will upgrade the Northeast Corridor to high speed rail," when in truth the NEC is already HSR. The trains on the NEC may not be as fast as some trains in Europe and Japan, but that doesn't mean it's not HSR.

The DOT definition of HSR (imo the most accurate one) is 125mph+ top speed. The FRA's definition places it even lower at 110mph+. Regular intercity Regional trains on the Northeast Corridor hit 125mph, and the Acela Express travels at up to 135mph in northeast MD and central NJ and 150mph in RI and MA. Most intercity/commuter trains are hard-pressed to hit 70mph.

So, really it should be called higher speed rail.

by King Terrapin on Jul 10, 2012 10:11 am • link • report

RE: http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/northeast-corridor-hsr-90-cheaper/

He's severely underestimating the severity of the bottleneck at NY Penn Station. If just one train gets off-schedule (or worse, stuck in the tunnel), the entire NEC can be affected for hours afterward. Similarly, both Amtrak and NJT already have quite a few existing routes that they'd like to run out of NYP.

The largest city in the US needs more than a two-track connection to the national passenger rail network.

Also, Amtrak's Gateway project is not a rebrand of ARC, as many (including this guy) are asserting. The devil's in the details, and the new plan is much, much better (albeit still not perfect).

by andrew on Jul 10, 2012 10:11 am • link • report

@Fritz, have you read the plans and skimmed any of the numerous documents on the CA HSR website? Too many stops to achieve high speed?? For one, all the stations in the central valley the last I saw were to be designed for 4 tracks with 2 center pass through tracks for express LA to SF trains. The station stops are all major population centers which will serve a large catchment area.

Advocates of HSR in the NE and Midwest should be supporting the CA HSR project because it will eventually lead to HSR elsewhere. The CA HSR project is expensive, but the price tag is in year of expenditure dollars which drives up the stated price when it is a 20 year project.

by AlanF on Jul 10, 2012 10:15 am • link • report

Andrew,

I don't think he's underestimating the NYP bottleneck at all, merely noting that a great many of the issues could be solved by better coordination amongst different agencies.

Want to free up capacity at NYP? Then force NJ Transit and LIRR to play nice together and interline some of their services. Yes, that would require some serious power system changes, but given the scope of the improvements otherwise, why not do that?

That said, the NYP improvements and the new Hudson River tunnels are indeed necessary. However, I think the bigger critique he's offering is the plan's call for massive new tunnels and underground center city stations in DC, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. Those are all massively expensive and their respective existing stations don't have the same sort of capacity constraints as in New York.

by Alex B. on Jul 10, 2012 10:20 am • link • report

With so many stops - not to mention crowded areas around tracks - I wonder how practical high speed rail would be for the NEC. For an express train from DC to NYC, perhaps. It's already easier and almost as quick to take the train between NYC and DC. How much better does it have to be and should this be a priority?

I think a better, more comfortable ride is a higher priority. Great strides have been made with outlets at most seats, etc.

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 10, 2012 10:23 am • link • report

@andrew, I find that pedestrianobservations article to be seriously ignorant of the issues for the NEC and how it works. Not just the need for new tunnels under the Hudson. Upgrade the New Haven Line to 240 km/hr speeds? Not without building a new New Haven Line along the coast over a new much straighter ROW through some seriously expensive and settled real estate. The article is so far off-base, it is barely worth mentioning.

by AlanF on Jul 10, 2012 10:31 am • link • report

That's right, AlanF. There are a lot of logistical obstacles to improving our beloved NEC.

And I'll note that attitudes like that demonstrated by NJ Gov Christie on investing in the rail infrastructure are HUGE impediments to better rail service in the NEC.

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 10, 2012 10:34 am • link • report

Then force NJ Transit and LIRR to play nice together and interline some of their services.

Wait, what?

Long Island is to the east of NYC, and New Jersey is to the West. The fact that they don't share trackage isn't part of any grand conspiracy.

If you want an alternative to building another heavy rail tunnel into NYC, you could look at proposals such as the 7 Subway extension, or extending the PATH to Grand Central and Secaucus. However, both of these are basically dead in the water, since Gateway/ARC would solve both local and national transportation problems in a single project, while the 7/PATH would exclusively benefit local commuters.

by andrew on Jul 10, 2012 10:44 am • link • report

@AlanF

Did you click on the links to the other articles that outline specific NEC projects that would be needed to increase speeds?

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/plan-b-for-hsr/

by Alex B. on Jul 10, 2012 10:50 am • link • report

This link is from 2005, so unless performance has dramatically increased then I don't think it's reasonable to describe Acela in the NEC as high-speed rail.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/04/24/national/20050424acela_graphic1.html

by Fitz on Jul 10, 2012 10:58 am • link • report

@Alex B: The Amtrak plan for HSR is absurdly expensive. That's not itself a bad thing, but considering that it's also unnecessarily expensive, it's rather depressing

Price: $150 billion, to cut the Washington-Boston travel time from 7 to 3.5 hours. My god that is a lot of money. And considering that after such improvement, it will still be slower than an airplane, why do it?

by goldfish on Jul 10, 2012 11:07 am • link • report

@andrew
Long Island is to the east of NYC, and New Jersey is to the West. The fact that they don't share trackage isn't part of any grand conspiracy.

The point is that these two transit agencies should be encouraged to upgrade so they can through-run trains - e.g. from LI through Manhattan and into NJ. This would generate a lot of efficiency and decrease the crowding at Penn Station that comes from trains having to turn around and go back where they came from rather than running through.

by MLD on Jul 10, 2012 11:07 am • link • report

For too long - perhaps still - Amtrak confused everybody by calling the regular, non-reserved train, ACELA NE regional. Why they put the word 'acela' onto that train, I do not know. I felt really sorry for the conductor who got a lot of abuse for that bright [not!] idea.

I'll say this: the tracks between Ricmond and Newport News are much smoother than they used to be. They used to be very rough.

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 10, 2012 11:08 am • link • report

Goldfish: that $150 billion is about a third of what we've spent in Afghanistan.

Rail is vastly more energy efficient than air and can also accommodate freight.

Rail also is less affected by the weather, one reason why Russia and the rest of Europe continue to embrace rail.

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 10, 2012 11:10 am • link • report

For the $68B price tag for CA HSR, they could build an extensive subway system in LA that rivals WMATA or BART. That would seem to be a much higher returning investment as it would likely result in far more TOD than HSR.

Building HSR to connect the far-out exurbs of LA and SF to the cities doesn't seem like smart growth.

by Falls Church on Jul 10, 2012 11:16 am • link • report

"Price: $150 billion, to cut the Washington-Boston travel time from 7 to 3.5 hours. My god that is a lot of money. And considering that after such improvement, it will still be slower than an airplane, why do it?"

The travel times from DC to NYC and from NYC to Boston would be faster than by air. If there is a way to lower the DC to NYC time, and NYC to Boston time, without also lowering the DC to Boston time, I'd be curious.

"Building HSR to connect the far-out exurbs of LA and SF to the cities doesn't seem like smart growth."

I'm pretty sure the goal is to link LA and SF with each other (and the exurbs of LA with SF, and exurbs of SF with LA, and eventually SD with SF) You could do a long haul commuter rail much cheaper. Whether the investment in LA-SF is justified is another question, but this was not designed as a commuter system, AFAICT.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 11:22 am • link • report

@goldfish

You're also ignoring the fact that a flight from DC-BOS only goes to those two places, while high-speed rail goes to a bunch of places in-between.

Also, 3.5 hours is pretty competitive with air considering it's only an hour longer AND that's 3.5 hours of uninterrupted productive time for business-people, rather than time interrupted by packing up to get on the plane, waiting to be able to use electronics, packing up to land, etc. And you can use your 3/4G connection or wifi on that train the whole time.

by MLD on Jul 10, 2012 11:23 am • link • report

Andrew:

Long Island is to the east of NYC, and New Jersey is to the West. The fact that they don't share trackage isn't part of any grand conspiracy.

If you want an alternative to building another heavy rail tunnel into NYC, you could look at proposals such as the 7 Subway extension, or extending the PATH to Grand Central and Secaucus. However, both of these are basically dead in the water, since Gateway/ARC would solve both local and national transportation problems in a single project, while the 7/PATH would exclusively benefit local commuters.

Who alleged a conspiracy? I know why they're historically separate operations. The point is that if you combined them to offer through-routed service, you could more efficiently use the existing platforms at NYP without spending billions on more of them. Yes, you'd still want more tunnel capacity, but you wouldn't need the massive station improvements.

In short, don't confuse the tunnel capacity with the station capacity. The real constraints there are different.

Goldfish:

My god that is a lot of money. And considering that after such improvement, it will still be slower than an airplane, why do it?

What? No, it would not be slower than an airplane. The plan would offer DC Union Station to New York Penn Station in 94 minutes. Try doing a cab from Union Station to DCA, getting through security, a flight to, say, LGA and a cab to Midtown Manhattan in under 2 hours.

Plus, the other advantage of rail is, you know, intermediate stops.

by Alex B. on Jul 10, 2012 11:23 am • link • report

I'm pretty sure the goal is to link LA and SF with each other

If that's the goal, is TOD only expected at one station in LA and one station in SF? That seems like a ridiculous price tag for essentially two stations worth of TOD.

One has to assume that the goal is to also create TOD at the stations in-between LA and SF but if you add too many stations, then you slow down the rail times. So, I'm not sure how the economics of HSR is supposed to work unless it's significantly cheaper per passenger mile than flying (which I don't believe it is).

The return from heavy rail like the Silver Line or the NYC 2nd Ave subway line is pretty clear. How are you supposed to figure the return on HSR? HSR makes sense in dense corridors like the NEC or in Europe but the LA-SF corridor is very sprawling...not dense.

by Falls Church on Jul 10, 2012 11:30 am • link • report

@alex - is the only reason for Moynihan station to create capacity for turnaround trains? Seems to me total embark and debark at NYP impacts platform usage, plus there are going to be issues with circulation in the station aside from the platforms. I don't know enough of the day to day ops at NYP to know whats crowded now, but it seems reasonable that with forecasted growth, NYP would need substantial recapitalization even without needs for additional platform capacity. .

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 11:34 am • link • report

A friend of mine from DC recently spent a little over a week in Los Angeles. She said the subway is lovely and that at peek rush hour she seemed to be the only one using it.

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 10, 2012 11:35 am • link • report

CA HSR is going to connect like 30 million people between LA, SF, San Diego, Sacramento and smaller metro areas in between. All of the areas have decent to great (for the US) public transit and all those areas are also working on public transit extensions.

This is going to be a huge success. People in CA ride trains already.

Let's not forget the huge improvements to the Caltrain system included. Electricification will reduce expenses, speed up the trains, increase capacity etc.

Wonderful news!

by H Street Landlord on Jul 10, 2012 11:42 am • link • report

@AWalker

Sure, NYP needs more and better vertical circulation, and it needs more and better internal circulation space. However, that's different from other projects like ARC that involved a massive deep cavern station and the Penn South concept that would add a bunch more tracks rather than investing in using the ones that exist more efficiently.

So, yes - NYP needs improvements. I'm not saying it doesn't. But my point is that there's a huge difference between those kinds of improvements and some of the stuff that was proposed in the Amtrak vision plan.

by Alex B. on Jul 10, 2012 11:46 am • link • report

The goal of Ca HSR is to enable continued growth of the LA and SF metros, without the massive cost of increasing capacity on congested highways and at congested airports. Its not to create local TOD.

Also, there intermediate stations will have bypass tracks, so there will be LA-SF express trains as well as locals serving Fresno, etc. And of course those are historically independent cities, not simply commuter locations.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 11:47 am • link • report

@Captain Hills
Rail might be less affected by the weather, but can still be affected quite severely. As our recent derailment has shown, you cannot run trains fast in very hot weather. It is also easier to open an airport after a blizzard then it is to open a rail line. (Of course there are pros to rail too - it is barely affected by rain or the dreaded wintry mix.) Freight is important but it has virtually nothing to do with this plan.

@Alex B.
The people who would benefit from HSR are already using the Acela. If it were even faster, they could increase the prices even more but I don't see it increasing ridership very much. It is hard to see how they would ever get back the 12 (!) figure investment. I don't care how fast the train is, I'm not going to cross the Potomac during rush hour to get to or from Union Station if there is another reasonably priced option.

by movement on Jul 10, 2012 11:48 am • link • report

" I'm not going to cross the Potomac during rush hour to get to or from Union Station if there is another reasonably priced option"

clearly usage of intercity modes is impacted by local transportation options. its not going to make as much sense for someone in Crystal City or Sterling to use rail as it does for someone in NoMa - of course that works both ways. I'm pretty sure demand forecasts reflect employment and residence patterns at a fairly localized level.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 11:54 am • link • report

@MLD: And you can use your 3/4G connection or wifi on that train the whole time.

Airlines are introducing wifi on flights. Air Alaska has it.

@Alex B and the rest: we all know that due to airport security etc. it is faster to take the train from Washington to NYC. Since already trains have the advantage, why upgrade?

Playing devil's advocate: we could spend that sort of money (and there is no denying that this is quite a lot) to increase the speed of interstate travel along the East Coast, which would also improve freight transit.

I am looking for a comparison, bang-for-our-buck justification. Certainly to spend $150 billion, one needs to be carried out.

by goldfish on Jul 10, 2012 12:08 pm • link • report

"@Alex B and the rest: we all know that due to airport security etc. it is faster to take the train from Washington to NYC. Since already trains have the advantage, why upgrade?"

so you think the only reason to spend on rail is if rail currently is slower than air, and after will be faster?

Whiles its true that for any given trip the choice is binary, thats not the case for trips viewed overall. People are in different situations in terms of access to the stations/airports, they have different utility functions in terms of time/money/amenities/ride quality, etc So there will always be some people on the margin at any time difference. The ridership projections are supposed to reflect that. For Amtraks estimated ridership projections, you can look at their PDF. They expect a substantial shift from road AND air as the speeds get higher. Maybe at some point we can get a detailed ridership forecast and analyze that.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 12:14 pm • link • report

"Playing devil's advocate: we could spend that sort of money (and there is no denying that this is quite a lot) to increase the speed of interstate travel along the East Coast, which would also improve freight transit."

There's already a considerable amount being spent on Interstate 95 (I assume thats what you are referring to) including recently completed projects in Delaware (at the tolls), additional HOV lanes Md NE of Baltimore, and currently UC expansion to the NJ Turnpike. As you attempt to increase capacity further, the incremental costs of adding capacity, esp at bottlenecks, can increase.

It would be worth examining, but its not clear you can add the same amount of capacity as this for the same price.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 12:18 pm • link • report

@AWitC: passenger capacity is different from total capacity. The roads also carry freight.

What is missing in your musings is cost. Again, this is $150 billion, which enough build the silver line expansion 30 times over. With this much $, we could probably build an entirely new highway parallel to I-95.

by goldfish on Jul 10, 2012 12:23 pm • link • report

Falls Church wrote:
The return from heavy rail like the Silver Line or the NYC 2nd Ave subway line is pretty clear. How are you supposed to figure the return on HSR? HSR makes sense in dense corridors like the NEC or in Europe but the LA-SF corridor is very sprawling...not dense.

And what makes the first phase of Cali's HSR an easy target for opposition is that it runs from Merced to Bakersfield. Sprawl to sprawl. Plus the price tag keeps going up as the project becomes more defined, and construction hasn't even started yet.

Under certain conditions a HSR between LA and SF might be a good idea, but as things stand now I don't see how this project will be a net gain for supporters of HSR.

by Fitz on Jul 10, 2012 12:30 pm • link • report

by shifting passengers from road to rail, you leave more highway capacity for trucks. Plus, IIUC, to some degree the rail improvements will increase rail freight capacity on the corridor.

as for a new highway, boston to DC, for $150 billion, I don't know. You'd need not just the new pavement, but lots of new river crossings, and of course you'd be doing this through existing communities. But I would enjoy seeing someone spec it out and estimate costs.

If you are looking for an alt to this I suspect the best bang for the buck one might be to make better use of existing highway capacity, by establishing HOV3 or HOV 4 lanes the length of I95. That could make intercity bus much more competitive.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 12:31 pm • link • report

Who alleged a conspiracy? I know why they're historically separate operations. The point is that if you combined them to offer through-routed service, you could more efficiently use the existing platforms at NYP without spending billions on more of them. Yes, you'd still want more tunnel capacity, but you wouldn't need the massive station improvements.

Well, you'd still need some station improvements. Not every track into NYP can actually access the East River tunnels (and some can do it more easily than others). Also, any delays on the NJ side would propagate into Long Island, and you've still got the issue that any through-running trains would necessarily be off-peak going once you pass through NYP. Not many people would ride it.

NJT already uses a railyard in Queens to store trains during the day, so there is already some non-revenue through-running. It indeed would be nice to add some revenue service to the mix, although it's doubtful that it'd be used all that much.

LIRR through-running also has the added problem of the fact that the LIRR exclusively uses high-level platforms and 750V third-rail for power transmission, while NJT still has lots of low-level platforms, and uses overhead 25kV AC power transmission. Fixing any of those things would be a lot of work for very little benefit.

Metro North actually runs a special train to Secaucus via Penn Station during Giants Stadium events. They're looking to expand service into NYP once LIRR reduces its presence there, so that could also potentially be an option in the future, especially since NJT already has a history of cooperation with MNR (and uses very similar equipment).

by andrew on Jul 10, 2012 12:41 pm • link • report

Andrew, thank you for that informative post. I couldn't remember which use what kind of power and platform heights, etc.

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 10, 2012 12:45 pm • link • report

@ King Terrapin:The DOT definition of HSR (imo the most accurate one) is 125mph+ top speed.

Top speed is not a good indicator of HSR. Average speed is. If I remember correctly, Acela goes 80mph on average. That's barely HSR.

@ goldfish:$150 billion, to cut the Washington-Boston travel time from 7 to 3.5 hours. My god that is a lot of money. And considering that after such improvement, it will still be slower than an airplane, why do it?

Because airplanes do not stop in between DC and Boston. DC-Philly will be faster. DC-NY. Philly-Boston. All of them in one swoop. We only need to keep the TSA out of stations.

With this much $, we could probably build an entirely new highway parallel to I-95.

And where are you gonna put that highway? Have you factored in the massive cost of eminent domain you'll have to do?

by Jasper on Jul 10, 2012 12:45 pm • link • report

When is maglev going to arrive at Union Station?

This will be part of the Marshall Plan-style effort the Chinese will engage in to rebuild our tattered infrastructure in the years following the Great Sino-American Conflagration of 2083.

by oboe on Jul 10, 2012 12:56 pm • link • report

@Jasper: I repeat: $150 billion. Compare this price to what is probably considered the zenith of boondoggles, the big dig, which cost a mere $15 billion. To upgrade HSR will cost 10x as much.

You can do a lot with $150 billion, and to spend this quantity of money to improve travel times for a relatively few number of people MUST be justified.

by goldfish on Jul 10, 2012 1:01 pm • link • report

goldfish, I see your point, but I don't think it's really valid to compare the two cases. Let's face it a whole lot more people - and travelers - will benefit from upgrading the rail system.

As I said earlier, I'm not sure high speed rail is worth it in the NEC, but there are some serious improvements that need to be made and can be made. It's a far better investment with a wider net of beneficiaries than The Big Dig.

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 10, 2012 1:07 pm • link • report

Is anyone suggesting that 150 billion be committed before detailed analysis of ridership, alternatives, etc? Its a VISION statement.

Like I said, I would love to see where you put the additional highway on the NEC. Since you have great respect for the needs of existing communities, I'm sure you will find a route that does not impact any.

I am curious if there has been any discussion of HOV3 or HOV4 on I95. As an occasional Bolt Bus rider, who has gotten stuck in the congestion while riding the bus, I would think that would be something with significant bang for the buck.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 1:11 pm • link • report

The goal of Ca HSR is to enable continued growth of the LA and SF metros, without the massive cost of increasing capacity on congested highways and at congested airports.

Is lack of transpo capacity *between* SF and LA constraining either city's growth? I would think the far bigger constraint would be lack of capacity *within* SF and LA (i.e., lack of intracity transpo rather than intercity transpo). Likewise, the greatest highway congestion is for trips within the city/suburbs. The couple of times I've driven between LA and SF, I didn't think congestion was that bad between the cities, especially when compared to congestion within the cities.

Also, for this kind of money you could easily add some gates to the airports. The bigger problem is congestion in the air but the FAA's Next Gen project will greatly add capacity to the air. However, the Next Gen project is being slowed down due to lack of funding because it's "too costly". I believe Next Gen for the entire country will only cost $20B while HSR just for CA will cost $68B.

This is going to be a huge success. People in CA ride trains already.

A friend of mine from DC recently spent a little over a week in Los Angeles. She said the subway is lovely and that at peek rush hour she seemed to be the only one using it.

I don't think HSR will automatically be a huge success. There is obviously work to be done to make LA's subway more successful before moving onto HSR. What makes trains successful is not the raw numbers of people who live within driving distance of the stations (which admittedly is large in the San Diego - SF corridor) but the number of people walking/biking distance to stations. CA needs to do a lot more work encouraging TOD for trains to be successful. The Northeast already has loads of TOD, that's why trains are successful here. And, it's much easier to get TOD from subways than from HSR.

by Falls Church on Jul 10, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report

The LA transit system just opened a new light rail line last month. They are working on the biggest transit roll out in the whole country right now. That is a fact.

SF is doing a huge BART extension to San Jose and I mentioned the large benefits from electricification earlier.

Both Sacramento and San Diego are working on rail extensions right now.

What do you have to back up your assertions?

by H Street Landlord on Jul 10, 2012 1:28 pm • link • report

AWitC: Like I said, I would love to see where you put the additional highway on the NEC. Since you have great respect for the needs of existing communities, I'm sure you will find a route that does not impact any.

Again, consider the big dig. For the low-low price of only $15 billion, the entire transportation system of downtown Boston was fully redesigned and rebuilt, without signficant land-takings. This could be replicated in every city along the I-95 corridor: DC, Baltimore, NYC, New Haven, and Hartford, a total of 5 cities, for $75 billion, and not take significant new urban right of way. This would leave $75 billion for the intercity highways.

I think for $150 billion, we could indeed build a new highway between DC and Boston.

by goldfish on Jul 10, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report

Sure, you could add some airport gates. You won't be able to easily add runways, however. Likewise, none of that is cheap, either.

CHSRA's projection is that the project will "alleviate the need to spend more than $100 billion to build 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of new freeway, five airport runways, and 90 departure gates."

by Alex B. on Jul 10, 2012 1:30 pm • link • report

@Alex B: alleviate the need to spend more than $100 billion to build 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of new freeway, five airport runways, and 90 departure gates.

spend $150 billion to save $100 billion?

by goldfish on Jul 10, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report

"This could be replicated in every city along the I-95 corridor: DC, Baltimore, NYC, New Haven, and Hartford, a total of 5 cities, for $75 billion, and not take significant new urban right of way. This would leave $75 billion for the intercity highways"

where will you put the highway BETWEEN the cities? I don't think open corridors are that easy to find in NJ, in Delaware, or even in NE maryland. You spend 75 billion and you haven't even begun to address the issues beyond those five cities.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report

"spend $150 billion to save $100 billion?"

the current cost estimate for Calif HSR is 68 billion, IIUC. Plus in addition to the 100 billion there are benefits to the users, and there are reduced air pollutants and GHG's.

Are you confusing the Ca HSR (which is now partly funded) with the NEC vision document?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 1:40 pm • link • report

@AwitC: I don't think open corridors are that easy to find in NJ, in Delaware, or even in NE maryland.

Hey, this is just idle speculation, and I do not pretend that I have all the answers. Nevertheless, I think you would be amazed at how much suburban and rural property you can buy for $75 billion. Not that we would have to -- we could probably improve the existing corridor.

by goldfish on Jul 10, 2012 1:45 pm • link • report

@goldfish
spend $150 billion to save $100 billion?

Well that's only one set of benefits. So you haven't included emissions savings from HSR, benefits to HSR users (time saved, consumer surplus, etc), the economic development impact, increased economic efficiency, induced economic benefits of construction jobs, etc.

by MLD on Jul 10, 2012 1:46 pm • link • report

I've seen estimates as high as $98.5 billion.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-19/california-high-speed-rail-suffers-setback-as-officials-quit.html

by Fitz on Jul 10, 2012 1:51 pm • link • report

"Hey, this is just idle speculation, and I do not pretend that I have all the answers. Nevertheless, I think you would be amazed at how much suburban and rural property you can buy for $75 billion."

sure you can buy houses and tear them down - but you impact the quality of life of folks whose houses are NOT purchased. Kind of how when you build a 9 story hi rise, you impact the quality of life of people in adjacent properties. personally I would rather live a block from a 9 story hi rise than a block from an interstate highway. Since you care about existing communities, I assume your project will address not just land acquisition costs, but full community impacts.

" Not that we would have to -- we could probably improve the existing corridor"

As I said above, we are already doing that.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 1:54 pm • link • report

AWitC: but you impact the quality of life of folks whose houses are NOT purchased

There will be land takings for the NE HSR, as well. The document suggests avoiding the NIMBY areas until last.

by goldfish on Jul 10, 2012 1:58 pm • link • report

@Fitz
The $65.4 billion and $98.5 billion are the same number, just 2010 dollars vs year-of-expenditure dollars.

See page 130: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/302/c7912c84-0180-4ded-b27e-d8e6aab2a9a1.pdf

If you calculate cost vs benefits you use the single-year (lower) number to measure against since you can't inflate benefits out that way. Hypothetical road construction costs can only be estimated in single-year dollars because there is no construction schedule.

by MLD on Jul 10, 2012 1:59 pm • link • report

MLD, thanks for clearing that up.

by Fitz on Jul 10, 2012 2:00 pm • link • report

It's too late to build a parallel Interstate from DC to Boston...between suburban sprawl and rural/community opposition to freeways that WERE proposed, that ship sailed a long time ago.

by Froggie on Jul 10, 2012 2:01 pm • link • report

"There will be land takings for the NE HSR, as well. The document suggests avoiding the NIMBY areas until last."

but a highway of the same capacity will be wider, and will have a larger community impact (if its possible at all). At least some of the HSR will be in existing ROW, but none of your proposed new highway would be, IIUC.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 2:05 pm • link • report

@ goldfish:I repeat: $150 billion.

I am not gonna repeat myself, but let me repeat a perspective of someone else above. G$150 is about 15% of the money that was spent in Iraq. If the US can afford such luxurities, surely, it can afford a decent rail line for itself?

by Jasper on Jul 10, 2012 2:07 pm • link • report

There will be land takings for the NE HSR, as well. The document suggests avoiding the NIMBY areas until last.

So, you're equating a few land takings for NE HSR to straighten a few curves to the takings required of cutting an entirely new Interstate right of way?

by Alex B. on Jul 10, 2012 2:12 pm • link • report

@Jasper -- you can always make the argument "If we can put a man on the moon (or eradicate communism, or prop up a puppet government in Iraq, etc.) we should be able to do X (which has nothing to do with putting a man on the moon, or propping up a puppet government in Iraq) that doesn't cost as much. This is not a justification when there are alternatives to X that may be more effective and/or cheaper.

by goldfish on Jul 10, 2012 2:14 pm • link • report

@MLD and Fitz- are you sure you guys aren't talking about this - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-31/california-said-to-trim-30-billion-from-high-speed-rail-cost.html

The price tag was dropped dramatically around this time due to using, for instance, caltrain commuter rail tracks to avoid expensive (and time consuming) eminent domain to create additional ROW. Instead the trains will run the current ROW. Recall that Palo Alto and neighboring towns have some of the most expensive real estate prices in the country and highly educated populaces ready to fight over this (they have been largely placated with the new plan, though). I believe similar savings were achieved near LA.

So the lower number is the correct one.

by H Street Landlord on Jul 10, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report

So, you're equating a few land takings for NE HSR to straighten a few curves to the takings required of cutting an entirely new Interstate right of way?

A lot of the proposals involve an entirely new ROW between NYC and Boston. The current route isn't all that direct.

by andrew on Jul 10, 2012 2:33 pm • link • report

CHSRA's projection is that the project will "alleviate the need to spend more than $100 billion to build 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of new freeway, five airport runways, and 90 departure gates."

Agree that would be a good justification for CA HSR.

I looked at the 145 page CHRSA report you quoted, expecting to find a detailed analysis of how CA HSR will save $100B in alternatives. Instead, even though they had 145 pages to make their case, they provided no justification for the $100B. Literally, they just state it on page 109 in one sentence as part of the Alternative Analysis section that is all of two paragraphs. That's right...it's a 145 page report and they spend two paragraphs on the Alternatives Analysis:

http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/198/18a28048-f143-4855-b9b4-a9471e50b8ef.pdf

by Falls Church on Jul 10, 2012 4:00 pm • link • report

@ goldfish:there are alternatives to XHSR that may be more effective and/or cheaper.

Alternatives like...?

by Jasper on Jul 10, 2012 4:12 pm • link • report

@Alex B

"What? No, it would not be slower than an airplane. The plan would offer DC Union Station to New York Penn Station in 94 minutes. Try doing a cab from Union Station to DCA, getting through security, a flight to, say, LGA and a cab to Midtown Manhattan in under 2 hours."

You're under the assumption people are going to Manhattan what about people going to Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island or parts of Long Island outside of NYC

by kk on Jul 10, 2012 4:42 pm • link • report

"You're under the assumption people are going to Manhattan what about people going to Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island or parts of Long Island outside of NYC"

holy probit model, batman!

to simplify

you break travelers into groups ijk, where i is the universe of origins, j is destinations, and k is some set of demographic variables. For each grouping, for each modal option, there is time and cost factor. for each group, there is a PROBABILTY that each traveler, based on those factors, will choose one mode or the other. (note, even cutting this finally - say folks going from lower MoCo to North Brooklyn, older males with upper middle incomes - not ALL will necessarily choose one mode or the other) take the estimated number of travelers in each grouping to get the estimated number from that grouping taking that mode. Now sum over all the groupings. Voila, a ridership forecast. You will note, that saying mode X is faster than Mode Y is not a meaningful statement.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 5:02 pm • link • report

@FC

In a previous life I had the chance to read a more detailed document on the CA HSR justification, and I recall more detail on airport and highway congestion - that was back in the 1990s. I dont have the document handy.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 5:31 pm • link • report

Try doing a cab from Union Station to DCA, getting through security, a flight to, say, LGA and a cab to Midtown Manhattan in under 2 hours."

Done it many times. You have to get a bit lucky with traffic on both ends, have a knowledgeable cab driver in NY, have your boarding passes printed out, and most importantly, remember that with shuttle flights they hold the flight open until up to 5 minutes before takeoff.

It is easier to go the other way because of the Marine Air Terminal at LGA which is only for shuttle flights and thus has no security line. Also there is never a wait for a cab at the Marine Air Terminal, but the waits at both Penn Station and Union Station can be brutal.

The flight time itself is listed at like an hour, but you are in the air for less than 30 minutes. What really can kill you is a back-up to take off at LGA. When you land at LGA they even speed things along by opening the back stairs.

The kicker is that it is often cheaper for the flight then for the Acela. When you factor in the cabs, it comes out even.

As for the lack of wifi on the planes, I suspect that by the time Amtrak has true high speed rail in place (2040?) that will not be as much of an issue.

by dcdriver on Jul 10, 2012 6:01 pm • link • report

Falls church, perhaps this will help. It includes gates and runways at specific airports, improvements on specific highways, etc. Definitely more than two paragraphs.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/198/da526b95-2d46-4605-9a37-99cb4bb7cf44.pdf

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 10, 2012 7:34 pm • link • report

I'm dubious about dcdriver's experience. "Long taxi waits at Union Station" would have to figure into this 2 hours. Given that LGA has the worst on time performance of any US airport, I suspect that this mythical 2 hour trip would have to take place at 6 in the morning when auto traffic is light at both ends and flight delays have not yet accumulated. Also given that the shuttles are operated by the most incompetent legacy air carriers, USAir and Delta, I have even less faith in the calculation.

Perhaps the most significant value of train travel for a business traveler is the productivity. A trip broken up by security car rides, taxi drivers you're not sure are being honest, etc. is not productive time. I'm writing this on Amtrak, so I am intimately familiar with how much I can do in a large block of time and access to an electrical outlet.

by Rich on Jul 10, 2012 11:06 pm • link • report

@Jasper: Alternatives like...?

Air travel (argued here) and new roads (argued here, here, and here).

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by goldfish on Jul 11, 2012 9:13 am • link • report

@Alex B: So, you're equating a few land takings for NE HSR to straighten a few curves to the takings required of cutting an entirely new Interstate right of way?

No, obviously I am not. But since roads carry freight and connect to far more destinations (compared to a single downtown terminal), they are more useful to more people, and so they are worth the added space.... ... ... ...

I do not want to argue the merits of high speed rail vs. air travel vs. new roads, because it has been discussed here many times. However, my point stands -- actually your point too -- that $150 billion is a tremendous amount of money to spend on this. It is so much that it could easily lead to a backlash. Alternatives should be examined.

by goldfish on Jul 11, 2012 9:22 am • link • report

Goldfish

we already have highways for folks for whom a rail line does not work, and by shifting more people to rail, we would free up more of that existing space for those for whom the highway is most valuable (and for trucks, btw). The question is what is the most cost effective way to create additional capacity - with density as great as we have, and volume as high at is on the NEC, an a priori belief that is rail seems reasonable.

Of course feasible alternatives should be explored, and costs compared. I merely note that the community impact of a brand new highway (or of major highway expansion) IF its even feasible, would be greater than for rail, and greater than the actual cash expenditure for land. Since in other discussions you have considered the rights of existing communities to be especially important vs "a greater good" I would merely expect you to be consistent when we compare modal alternatives in the NEC.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 11, 2012 9:44 am • link • report

@AWitC: we already have highways for folks for whom a rail line does not work, and by shifting more people to rail, we would free up more of that existing space for those for whom the highway is most valuable ...

I was under the impression that the Acela is not full. So why build more?

by goldfish on Jul 11, 2012 9:49 am • link • report

@goldfish
"I was under the impression that the Acela is not full."

Haha whoever told you that was a liar.

by King Terrapin on Jul 11, 2012 10:04 am • link • report

I was under the impression that the Acela is not full. So why build more?

I was under the impression that there's plenty of road capacity available at 2AM. Why should we build more when people aren't using the road to its full capacity?

by MLD on Jul 11, 2012 10:08 am • link • report

MLD, that's brilliant.

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 11, 2012 10:12 am • link • report

@Capt Hilts
It's a huge problem in Road-transit comparisons. People analyze one road segment in one direction at one time that is jammed (see various congestion reports) and say "WE NEED MORE" and then turn around and sum up a transit system as a whole and use that as evidence that "nobody's using it!" Mostly because there is currently no way to measure "congestion" on transit.

by MLD on Jul 11, 2012 10:21 am • link • report

@MLD: Mostly because there is currently no way to measure "congestion" on transit.

Yes there is: can you get a seat?

by goldfish on Jul 11, 2012 10:27 am • link • report

@goldfish

That's a personal analysis, not an analytic one like the various TTI/INRIX congestion reports do for roadways.

by MLD on Jul 11, 2012 10:39 am • link • report

@MLDz: the fraction of available seats is not a personal analysis. To the contrary, it is an easy and objective measure of how congested a transit system is.

by goldfish on Jul 11, 2012 11:13 am • link • report

Goldfish, it's a snapshot.

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 11, 2012 11:18 am • link • report

@Capt Hilts: integrate the data.

by goldfish on Jul 11, 2012 11:21 am • link • report

Any logical transportation operator is going to price to allow SOME empty seats, because not having seats available at the advertised price is bad customer service. Thats why, despite sophisticated revenue management, air carriers operate at less than 100% of seats filled. Ditto in real estate, and many other markets.

We don't do that with highways because we either do not price highways, or don't vary the price sufficiently.

Amtrak SHOULD adopt the kinds of revenue management used by airlines and bus companies like Bolt, to get CLOSER to 100% occupancy while better maximizing revenue. But you will still have empty seats (as you do on Bolt Bus). The notion that there is no need for new capacity when there is ANY empty seat represents a misunderstanding of pricing and business economics.

This leaves aside the fact that ridership will grow, and that faster speeds would mean higher share.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 11, 2012 11:26 am • link • report

bad customer service and/or bad revenue management

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 11, 2012 11:28 am • link • report

1. Building a new highway from DC to Boston. The ICC cost $2.56B for 14.06 miles of highway in a corridor that was already reserved for a highway. It involved very few takings per mile and had no major river crossings. Even so, it would cost $80B to build a similar highway from DC to Boston. Once you add in all the takings and crossings of major rivers like the Delaware, it won't even be close. I'm confident that a cost/benefit analysis will be carried out comparing this to other options and that it will show the HSR is cheaper than more highways. And moving cars off the highway will improve freight movement.

2. The people who would benefit from HSR are already using the Acela. - We're not talking about adding capacity to an existing service. We're talking about making an existing service better. And doing so will attract more customers as it increases the catchment area. Imagine there were teleportation terminals at Union Station and Penn Station. The fact that few people use Acela would be irrelevant, because people who wouldn't use Acela (like someone in Tyson's Corner) would suddenly find it the most appealing option and worth travelling to DC to use.

by David C on Jul 11, 2012 2:52 pm • link • report

This is the first time I've been to your website. Thnx for posting more information.

by Metal Fabrication Melbourne on Jul 13, 2012 2:23 pm • link • report