What ever happened to “I think I can”?

The Conference of Mayors published a report in 2010 that analyzed the economic impact of a high-speed rail line between the state capital and New York City. The report, which did not include a cost-benefit analysis, found that train service running from NYC to Albany at 110 mph would create slightly more than 4,700 new, permanent jobs. By contrast, train service on the same route but traveling at 220 mph would generate exponentially more economic stimulus: over 21,000 new, permanent jobs.

­In addition to the connections HSR would foster and the indirect jobs it would help generate, HSR would create direct jobs in the railway sector, according to John Egan, a former commissioner of the DOT. And those jobs could materialize in New York State, Egan said, because the production capacity already exists. As of 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau ranked New York State as the third largest manufacturer of trains in the country. There also would be new and ongoing high-skilled jobs operating and maintaining the HSR system.

Technologically feasible?

In its rejection of true HSR, the DOT online briefing said that all this economic activity would come at too high a price. Corrado summarized her view of true HSR between New York and Albany as something that would be “spectacular” but not in keeping with Governor’s Cuomo’s focus on doing things that are “feasible.”

But prior reports commissioned by previous state officials detail other possibilities for true HSR from New York to Albany. Two studies, one published in 2006 and the other in 1995, both consider using an alternate route and assess the technological feasibility of building superfast electric and maglev train lines.

The 2006 report was overseen by Egan, then executive director of the Senate High Speed Rail Task Force. Egan’s idea was to install a maglev line up the New York State Thruway, which directly links New York City to Albany. This route avoids the challenges presented by the terrain and denser population along the existing rail line across the Hudson. According to Egan’s study, carried out with the engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff, this new path would accommodate trains that top 200 mph.

Asked about the Thruway option, Corrado flatly rejected its viability. She said the Thruway route was inappropriate topographically. “You would have the same kind of problems with elevation and curves that you have anywhere in the world,” she said.

Those weren’t the findings of the 1995 study, a document produced by the New York State Thruway Authority itself. John Shafer, executive director of the Thruway Authority at the time, oversaw the study. Prior to joining the Thruway authority in 1987, Shafer had worked at the DOT for almost 30 years, the last five of which as its chief engineer. He considered studying the feasibility of the Thruway as a route for HSR valuable because he thought the state should expand its transportation options.

“I’d ridden both the TGV” — the French high-speed electric train — “and the [German] maglev” that existed at the time, Shafer explained to Remapping Debate. “And I thought if ever we’re going to have a modern and up-to-date rail system in this country, it ought to be one of the two.” He had support for his vision from then-governor Mario Cuomo. “The governor and his staff were very forward thinking at the time,” he recalled.

The maglev train in Shafer’s study would have run on an elevated railway constructed with steel-reinforced concrete. Its pillars would have raised it, depending on local conditions, to between about 15 to 60 feet above the automobile traffic. The track, or guideway, would have been installed along the median and could travel either over or under highway overpasses. To achieve as straight a path as possible, at sharper bends the elevated track could crisscross the Thruway, creating a smoother line.

The study, conducted with the engineering firm Berger, Lehman Associates, considered a variety of maglev train models. The fastest would have had a maximum speed of 220 mph with an average speed of 170 mph. At that pace the maglev would deliver a rider from Albany to New York’s Grand Central Station in less than an hour.

“We were quite enthusiastic with the results of the study,” recalled Shafer, who now runs his own engineering firm. He explained that since much of the Thruway is relatively flat and straight it represents a good site. In addition, Shafer said, the state already owns the land, which is a significant advantage because acquiring property is often one of the most expensive facets of a rail project.

Too expensive?

Whether electric or maglev, there is no doubt that a true HSR system, even one built along the Thruway, would be significantly more expensive than an upgrade that yielded top speeds between 90 and 125 mph.

The DOT’s online breifing stated that the price of running the 220 mph HSR from New York City to Buffalo (using the existing tracks) was almost $40 billion. The breifing estimated the cost of the 160 mph option as only $4 billion less. (Corrado at the DOT said that it had neither a breakdown of the elements of these costs, nor a subtotal for the New York-to-Albany leg.)