Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
Don't get too excited just yet, but this story from the Washington Times is bound to make those of you who travel between D.C. and New York City on a regular basis salivate. The federal government plans to announce it is seeking contractors to build a new $30 billion to $40 billion high-speed rail line between Washington and New York that would be used exclusively by passenger trains. Now, Congress still has to vote to fund such a project, so this is clearly many, many years away. But if it does eventually happen, the bottom line would be that you could get from D.C. to NYC on Amtrak in under two hours. The very idea gives us goosebumps.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
We went to the Macy's at 12th & G this morning for the Black Friday morning specials. There was a sh
[more]
Perfect public works progress:
Expensive.
Needed.
Will return rewards for decades to come.
I wish.
Great, maybe now my jackass new yorker coworkers will spend more of their time back in the motherland.
Perfect public works progress:
Not if Amtrak is running it.
I think it's great that the gov't finally seems to be taking a deeper interest in this. However, I'll believe it when they start construction.
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but there will probably be decades of funding arguments, lawsuits from people trying to prevent tracks from coming near their homes, and Senator Grassley literally throwing his body in front of the train on the Tracks of Progress.
Also, I'm just wondering how much it will cost to ride this super train. DC to NYC on Amtrak is already about $75 each way. I'll stick to my 4.5 hour bus ride I think.
or DC to New York in 45 minutes - take a plane!
I'll just file that up there with the Baltimore Washington Maglev Project: http://www.bwmaglev.com/
or DC to New York in 45 minutes - take a plane!
Great if you visiting JFK airport! But if you want to be in Manhattan, add another 30-45 minutes...
Wait, didn't Amtrak build one already that took 2 hours? But after cracking in the rails or what not due to weather/poor engineering, the Acela train's speed was reduced to only shave off about 30 minutes of trip time? It used to go so fast, I had to really hold on while walking in the cars...and I couldn't look outside without getting a little nauseated. The trick was to focus your eyes far away...
That could be very usefull, not just for the travelers, but the economy needs PI projects right now.
Mark your calendars. Monkeyrotica will go down on everyone in this thread when this becomes reality. No lie, G.I. Seriously. I'll cradle the balls, stroke the shaft, work the pipe, and swallow the gravy.
$40 billion is a low-end guestimate. High-speed trains like the Tokyo Bullet need a dedicated rail line. The freight rail shite AMTRAK uses now won't cut it.
Yea i have no idea how they would solve issues like getting through baltimore, or a bunch of other engineering issues. Seeing how the THE project has gone in NYC i'm not holding my breath on this one. It would be nice however to see a high-speed rail network start to take shape in this country. Now are there any indications weather this would just be regular high speed rail or Maglev?
This is my THE project reference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Hudson_Express_Tunnel
Compared with Europe or Japan, the east coast should have had a a real high-speed rail system years ago that would have benefited the economy, environment, and transit times.
If this were to happen, it would be a welcome change. I'll be first on the train!
--I agree with MikeB, let someone other than Amtrak run it.
Amtrak blows.
What a joke. They could give me $5 billion to spend on crap and they would get more value.
"Wait, didn't Amtrak build one already that took 2 hours? But after cracking in the rails or what not due to weather/poor engineering, the Acela train's speed was reduced to only shave off about 30 minutes of trip time?"
Unfortunately, Amtrak doesn't own the tracks, and requires way too much cooperation from the freight rail companies that do own the tracks to operate at peak speed for very long. (Cooperation as in scheduling and as in maintaining the quality of the tracks.) I don't care who runs the trains, but the federal government needs to own and maintain the rails.
I don't think the U.S. needs a truly national high speed rail network -- the number of people who would take the train from the east to west coasts is too small to support the investment. But we could easily use a series of smaller high speed rail networks around the country -- D.C. to Boston, in the midwest connecting Chicago to a bunch of cities, in Florida, in Texas, and on the west coast.
HaHaHaHaHa. Yeah, right!!! The Moon Shuttle will be up and running light years before this baby gets off the ground.
Great if you visiting JFK airport! But if you want to be in Manhattan, add another 30-45 minutes...
And don't forget another 45-60 minutes for arriving early and security. Oh, and for like 1/4 of your trips add another 20-30 minutes for flight delays since JFK is like the least on-time airport in the country.
But JonboyDC has a point. California is building its own high speed rail, between Los Angeles and San Francisco (the voters just approved a $19 billion bond issue). There will probably be an L.A. to Las Vegas link as well. But for longer distances, I doubt it makes much sense.
I love the idea of high-speed from DC to NYC (city center to city center without the hassle of airports), but I'm guessing this one's years away, will go way over budget and will be poorly run.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Acela was ever 2 hours. Aside from the track sharing issue, it uses existing rail that can't accommodate real high-speed trains. You know, the kind that give Tom Cruise the ability to out-jump explosions.
DC to NYC on Amtrak is now $103 and higher, or $72 if you find an "off-peak" train. I've been taking boltbus or chinatown bus since the beginning of the year due to all the price hikes on amtrak.
This is not a wise use of resources. Air travel is quicker and we don't need to subsidize this. Carriers already have efficient service from NYC to DC. Makes no sense at all.
Why waste resources when you already have a technology that is better, faster AND CHEAPER to boot with direct access to the mass transit lines to JFK Airport.
Complete waste of money. Could have first class airplane service with all the frills for a much lower cost than this train because of construction costs and the like.
Why are humans always proposing things that don't make any intellectual sense.
With the NY delegation and with Biden and his son being head of Amtrak, I see this as definitely passing muster because I can name off hand so many people who would use this.
The issue here I gather is that there is no DIRECT JFK access to Manhattan. I would rather they did a high speed line from JFK Airport to Manhattan for the last leg instead of from NYC to DC.
JFK to DC is 45 minutes and we have to spend billions just cause of access from JFK to Manhattan? This sounds rediculous and a waste of tax payer resources. If we did high speed do it from JFK to Manhattan, which would make more sense, then one can get to anywhere an airplane can go, not just DC.
Recall the second decree of Tenacious D:
The second decree: no more pollution, no more car exhaust, or ocean dumpage. From now on, we will travel in tubes!
I'd totally love to rock the commute like a hamster.
yeah....a new rail line....and where is it going to be placed? even if the funding and determination was there, it would still take about 100 years to acquire all the land, fight all the lawsuits that would result, and construct all the tunnels and bridges necessary. it's laughable that people are even reporting this or suggesting it. our government and transportation industry missed its chance in the 20th century. too bad they destroyed all that old infrastructure to accommodate the almighty automobile
mtauser: a quick Kayak search just told me that the cheapest way to get DC-NYC would be Dulles to JFK for 159 round trip. You say it takes 45 minutes, but you have to tack on at least an hour in each city to actually GET to the city from the airport, plus being at the airport an hour and a half before takeoff, and let's say 30 minutes for boarding, deplaning; another 20 for possible delays.
That adds up to around 4 hours...and anyone who's gone from downtown DC to downtown NY via Dulles and JFK knows that's a super-conservative estimate.
City center to city center on Amtrak is 3.5 hours. It's also much better for the environment, which you apparently don't find important at all.
Two words: Peak Oil.
Might as well start building the train lines now, because kerosene-burning airplanes are going to get expensive in a few decades.
Complete waste of money. Could have first class airplane service with all the frills for a much lower cost than this train because of construction costs and the like.
What's the average lifespan of a short-haul airplane? What are the maintenance costs and down time? Compare that to heavy rail cars and tracks. You spend more up front, but rail systems last longer and have fewer breakdowns.
As for "peak oil," that's a whole different debate. People like to toss that term around, but ask anyone in the petrochemical business and they'll tell you that NOBODY knows how much oil there is underground. Without that baseline, you can't really determine when supply will peak. We'll run out eventually, but we should be conserving oil because wasting resources is stupid, not because there's some phantom "peak" floating on the horizon.
And when we do eventually hit peak oil, we'll still have PLENTY of sperm whales with lots of blubber to harvest.
Heh. "Sperm." Heh. "Blubber." Heh.
Besides, who the hell wants to go to NYC? If you want hiptards, tourists, and $h!tty pizza, look no further than the Dupont/Adams Morgan/U-Street corridor (the vibrant and trendy DAM-U community).
Two Hours, no way. Two will be the number of hours early you will be required to check in, so the Transportation Security Administration goons can cattle prod you, make you remove your nipple rings, and shoes, and generally work hard to ruin your trip.
"...so the Transportation Security Administration goons can cattle prod you, make you remove your nipple rings..."
Great balls of fire! Is this free or does it cost something?
I can't comment to the cost benefit ratio of a new rail line, but i don't think using Dulles to JFK as an example of flying's inefficiency is relevant. Anyone who has business in either DC or NYC would take one of the Us Airways or Delta shuttles from National (10 minutes from downtown) to LaGuardia (15-20 minutes to midtown) and charge it to the client.
US Airways shuttle flies every hour starting on the hour from 7am to 9pm weekdays.
Wake me when we can finally get from New York to Paris in 90 minutes.
As much of a rail advocate that I am, I don't see the wisdom in this. How about HSR in an area that doesn't currently have any rail service, instead of upgrading what is already the best in the nation.
Let's also take into consideration the quality of the time spent. The last time I took the train to NYC, I arrived at Union Station 15 minutes before departure, sat down, opened up my computer, and had a good 3 hours of solid, uninterrupted work time in a comfortable space. (A regular seat on Amtrak is the size of a First Class seat on a plane.) If I'd taken the plane, it still would have been about 3.5 hours of travel time, but most of that would have been spent getting in and out of cabs, security lines, "you can't use your computer during takeoff and landing," etc. Any bus driver will tell you, it's not the length of the journey that gets to people, it's the number of transfers and waiting time.
Plus, when I felt like a cup of coffee I got up and bought one, rather than waiting for someone to come around with a cart like a four-year-old waiting for a snack. Bonus!
How about HSR in an area that doesn't currently have any rail service, instead of upgrading what is already the best in the nation.
I don't follow. If an area has no rail service to begin with, why give HSR? If there was demand for a Bismarck-to-Sturgis Clipper, wouldn't it already exist? Amtrak's Boston-to-DC corridor is one of it's few profitable commuter lines; their long-haul and Red State lines are money losers. Regional rail is where the money's at. People have been commuting from Connecticut to Manhattan since before WWII. That's unlikely to change any time soon.
For those on a budget and no client to stick with the bill, it's hard to beat the bus. For less than $20, you can usually get a seat on Megabus or Boltbus. They're clean, comfortable and the patrons seem to maintain an acceptable level of personal hygiene, to wit: no smelly drifters. Mostly 20-30-somethings and student types. I've not tried the more down-market "Chinatown" operators--I've heard some horror stories.
I usually fly from National to JFK. It's about $250. The main kicker is the waiting on the tarmac at National to leave because of weather, traffic, Morlock sightings, etc. And the same thing when leaving JFK. So some flights can be a total of an hour or so from terminal to terminal; others can be 3 or more hours in bad weather.
I took the non-Acela train a few weeks ago. It was 3.5 hours, no delays, no turbulence, no tiny seats. In bad weather, the train makes way more sense than flying.
If they finally built regional high-speed trains, that would be great. Same thing if they built flying cars. I prefer a lower-tech solution to regional transportation issues: catapults, slingshots, and for long-distance commuters, trebuchets.
You say it takes 45 minutes, but you have to tack on at least an hour in each city to actually GET to the city from the airport, plus being at the airport an hour and a half before takeoff, and let's say 30 minutes for boarding, deplaning; another 20 for possible delays.
dont forget time it takes to get to Union Station (roughly 20 - 30 minutes depending on method of transportation) and delays when stopping at various stations, not having a seat, hailing a taxi when you're done, still having to arrive early just incase. Oh and delays in shitty weather conditions.
Don't forget to tack on another 20 minutes waiting for the homeless guy to get out of the one useable toilet stall in Union Station. And another 10 minutes spraying down the seat with Febreeze, Lysol, and bleach.
Every time I apply for a National Science Foundation grant to study high-speed intracity trebuchet transit, I find that an unholy alliance of General Motors, Blackwater LLC, and Ak-Sar-Ben have beaten me to the punch and claimed all the transity study monies. But they'll be sorry. All shall be revealed in my hardhitting investigative f**k-umentary, "Who Killed the Electric Trebuchet?"
Thank you, Macarthur Genius Grant.
At least Thousands Standing Around (TSA) hasn't moved in and completely ruined the rail travel experience (yet). Boarding the train is a relatively leisurely experience. No cattle calls, multiple ID checks, shoe removals and random wandings. Just a bored gate attendant looking cursorily at tickets. In places like Boston they don't even bother with that.
Nothing wrong with the Chinatown buses, I take two about every 3 months or so, and only have two issues: they stop in Baltimore making the trip 5 hours instead of 4, and traffic can push the trip up to 6 hours. But they don't have the constantly screaming kids of Greyhound or the tease of WiFi that is choked by everyone streaming video on Boltbus. So if we got HSR and it cost $20 (plus inflation after the 20 years it will take to build), that would be awesome.
Yay, I can get to a city that's actually fun in less time.
"Yay, I can get to a city that's actually fun in less time."
If you're lucky, you will be able to get a one-way ticket with their GTFO Special!
One of the areas that this makes sense in is Texas. A route between Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio.
It's a prime opportunity to build a real high speed line, since these are major cities separated by considerable distance.
But I fear that hatred for Bush may poison it.
Please, peoples, remember that not everyone in Texas is a jerk. All of the cities I mention above voted majority for Obama.
Nice strawman, monkey.. but one of the reasons that the long haul lines are losers is travel time. Increasing the speed of that service could do wonders (I would also argue that certain long-haul routes are simply not practical, but that's another subject). And no free-market handwaving bullshit.. just because there is demand for something does not mean that some entity will always come in and meet that demand.
HSR in a non-rail area may have gone a bit too far, but I think my original point stands. It is not a wise investment to significantly overhaul what is already the best rail infrastructure in the country. I don't see how this project really helps the guy commuting from New Haven. Hillman's Texas example seems like it would go a lot farther than redoing the NEC.
Hillman, Texas did have a High Speed Rail program in the works, until Southwest Airlines and scare-mongering by property owners killed it.
Politburo - You may be right, but I'll still reserve judgement until the Cali HSR version gets rolled out.
And when the Lompoc-to-Gila-Bend Express opens, that first ride is on me. But I gotta warn you, I get motion sickness.
A major reason there's little interest in rail outside the Northeast is because cities in the south and west have no in-city transit infrastructure (besides the bus, which is for the poor). Once you get to Boise by the magic HSR, you'd stuck at the train station. Under the circumstances, most people will still drive.
A better use for the money would be to build a dedicated shuttle terminal at National (like the Marine Air Terminal at LGA) and a rapid transit line from LGA into Midtown Manhattan.
By the way, I have arrived at the Marine Air Terminal 5 minutes before my flight many times and have never once (pre and post 9-11) missed my plane. DCA is not as quick due to not having its own terminal.
As for the rail line. You will need at least 2 new bridges (over the Susquehanna River in MD and the Delaware River at Trenton) and a new tunel into Manhattan.
In other words, dream on.
Air travel also has a bigger carbon footprint. It's good to have options.
http://www.mtamaryland.com/marc%20plan%20full.pdf
Pages 13-16
Maryland is already planning on expanding rail capacity to serve passanger traffic. Are other states? Maybe we should fund these projects instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. Increased capacity on the existing system could benefit all trains on that line, without the headaches from trying to clear new routes.
Well, if Amtrak is running this thing, it will FAIL. EVerything they touch turns to $h!t. Amtrak manages to combine the worst aspects of government bureaucracy and private enterprise. They need to axe their unprofitable long-haul routes and focus on their profitable Northeast lines. Otherwise, that $40 billion will become $120 billion and the commute will STILL suck. But at least senior management will get their COLAs.
You Amtrak haters are nuts. I do the DC-NY trip a couple times a month. Acela ALWAYS beats the shuttle.
90% on time rate
Not so bad on the time. I get there 15 min. before train leaves.
They have outlets for laptops
No airport gate rape.
Oh, and forget the whole privatize it thing. No commercial train system in world has privatized well (look at the UK). It will always take gov't money.