Status of High-speed Rail in US--some good, much bad

[BTinSF]

Two interesting articles in national US publications today (probably not a coincidence). I thought it was worth posting both and offering a chance to discuss developments from various perspectives around the country.

The first was in today's USA Today:

High-speed rail service derailed
Updated 11/3/2006 12:21 AM ET
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Denny Spicher, a risk management consultant, wants to love the new high-speed electric train that started this week between here and Philadelphia. After his first ride Wednesday, however, he reluctantly reports that the train rode a lot like the rickety old diesel trains he's ridden for years on the 102-mile route.

"Don't get me wrong. I welcome the new service. But I couldn't see a major difference. It's not quite there yet," says Spicher, 52, a Dauphin, Pa., resident.

When it comes to high-speed rail, "are we there yet?" is a question worth asking. Other than the new service here and the Acela train line between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston, high-speed passenger rail service isn't scheduled to arrive anywhere else in the country for a very long time.

Amtrak introduced the new high-speed rail line this week, amid little fanfare. The Keystone Service will increase maximum speeds between Harrisburg and Philadelphia from 90 mph to 110 mph and cut 15 to 30 minutes off a two-hour trip. The service costs as little as $20 each way.

The train will connect to the heavily traveled high-speed line between Washington, New York and Boston. The Acela train, introduced in December 2000, reaches speeds as high as 150 mph in parts of New England and 135 mph elsewhere on the route.

The Philadelphia-to-Harrisburg route became a high-speed route for practical reasons. It's the only rail line other than the Acela that is wired for electric trains, which reach high speeds more efficiently than diesel engines.

Kiran Mudambi, 20, of Mountain View, Calif., took the train Thursday to interview for the medical student program at Pennsylvania State University. By flying into Philadelphia, instead of Harrisburg, and taking the train to his final destination, he saved $250.

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/11/03/rail-large.jpg

"Quite a bit for a college student," he says.

'Balanced transportation'

Amtrak, which receives about $1.3 billion a year in federal money, spent $145 million upgrading the track and rail switches. The federal government paid $58 million of the cost, Pennsylvania borrowed $14.5 million for its share, and Amtrak paid the rest.

Pennsylvania also pays $6.8 million a year to subsidize the cost of operating the Keystone route, in service since 1834.

"It's part of Gov. (Ed) Rendell's vision of a balanced transportation system," says Rich Kirkpatrick, press secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. "Pennsylvania has stepped up to the plate to make this high-speed service viable."

High-speed rail got attention in the 1990s when the federal government started designating high-speed rail corridors around the country. Today, there are 11 designated high-speed rail corridors through 28 states.

Actual development of high-speed routes has slowed to a crawl or gone completely dormant. For example, Florida voters approved a high-speed rail project in 2000, then repealed it in 2004.

In other key proposals:

•The California High-Speed Rail Authority, established in 1996, wants to bring European-style high-speed trains — with speeds exceeding 200 mph — from San Diego to Sacramento. In 2004 and 2006, the state decided against asking voters for funding. A proposal to borrow $10 billion could be on the 2008 ballot.

•The Southeast corridor, created in 1992, is supposed to bring high-speed passenger rail to Atlanta, Jacksonville, Raleigh, N.C., Washington and other cities.

"The problem is there's no federal money, other than some planning dollars," North Carolina transportation planner David Foster says. It will cost $5.5 million per mile — or $2.5 billion — just to upgrade the 450-mile Charlotte-to-Washington line, he says.

•The Midwest corridor, centered in Chicago, has been getting more trains, but none that travel at high speeds. Last Monday, Amtrak doubled the number of trains running downstate out of Chicago, using $24 million in state money to add service. But the trains don't go faster than 79 mph.

"All we do is talk, talk, talk," says Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, a private group.

Harnish says Illinois could start high-speed rail service quickly by purchasing available rail-switching technology. "It would cost peanuts — so cheap it's embarrassing," he says.

Matt Vanover of the Illinois Department of Transportation says the state is waiting for a report on a train-control system under development. He also says details need to be worked out with Amtrak, Union Pacific, the federal government and Chicago.

Will the public get on board?

High-speed rail service in the USA is going nowhere because it doesn't make economic sense, says William Garrison, co-author of the book Tomorrow's Transportation and a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley.

"What passenger rail lacks isn't money. It's riders," he says. "These high-speed rail proposals are big boondoggles. We're reluctant to subsidize high-speed rail for good reason: There's not a market for it."

John Spychalski, a transportation expert and professor at Penn State, says the problem is lack of political will. "People didn't bat an eyelash when we decided to build the interstate system in 1956."

He says high-speed passenger rail has technical, as well as financial problems. Railroad tracks in the USA are almost all privately owned by freight companies that run slower, heavier trains. "They aren't too keen on operating a 125-mph passenger train when they're running heavy freight trains at 30 to 70 mph," Spychalski says.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-02-rail_x.htm


The second article was in today's Wall Street Journal:

Amtrak Is Switching Tracks
In a High-Speed Bid to Survive,
States Are Asked to Pitch In More
By DANIEL MACHALABA
November 3, 2006; Page B4
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Beyond the Northeast, where Amtrak's Acela trains reach speeds of 150 miles per hour, America's passenger trains rarely leave the slow lane. But that is changing as Amtrak encourages states to upgrade railroad tracks for faster trains -- and helps to foot the bill.

Amtrak began running express trains Monday between Harrisburg, Pa., and Philadelphia that shave 30 minutes from what was a two-hour trip. Trains on the 104-mile route now hit 110 mph, following a $145 million overhaul funded equally by Pennsylvania and the nation's passenger railroad. Train experts say thousands of additional miles could become fast-train corridors -- and more standard-speed trains could start running -- if such federal-state partnerships spread across the U.S.


"This is the face and future of Amtrak," Alexander Kummant, who became Amtrak president and chief executive in September, said recently at a train depot in Champaign, Ill., between Chicago and Carbondale, Ill., where a new train started running this week, funded by the state of Illinois.

Amtrak's encouragement of high-speed train service -- despite costing roughly $1 million a mile -- offers a glimpse of the railroad's wider survival strategy. Amtrak, which has never made a profit, depends on federal grants of about $1.3 billion a year to stay in business. Last year the Bush administration sought to cut off its federal funding and force the railroad into bankruptcy. Congress voted to maintain the subsidies and keep the railroad running, but political pressure remains on the railroad to cut operating costs.

Instead of fixating on financial black holes like long-distance trains, railroad officials are looking to score smaller victories. Even modest successes are likely to give Amtrak more time to deal with problems ranging from aging train cars to costly union work rules.

The speedier passenger trains still are slow compared with supersleek trains in Europe and Asia that glide along at nearly 200 mph. And no one is betting the tens of billions of dollars in funding needed to build just one dedicated European-style route will emerge anytime soon.

Still, "there is a lot we can do at 80 mph to 100 mph," said Mr. Kummant, 46 years old, who previously held executive positions at Union Pacific Corp. and other industrial companies. Those speeds are a big improvement over the 79 mph speed limit on most U.S. rail lines, which was put in place more than 50 years ago after a string of crashes involving trains moving at higher speeds.

Operating faster trains typically requires upgrades to track and signals, and a system to avoid interference with slower trains.

Amtrak says its faster trains are ideally suited for short hauls between cities. Meanwhile, clogged roads, high gasoline prices and security-snared airports are giving state governments new interest in pumping millions into alternative transportation modes. The $145 million price tag in Pennsylvania was about the same as the cost of a major highway interchange, said Allen Biehler, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. A few other states have established partnerships with Amtrak, led by California, which spends more than $70 million a year on its system of intercity passenger trains operated by Amtrak.

In an interview, Mr. Kummant acknowledged he doesn't know exactly how Amtrak and various state governments will pay for future upgrades. Potential funding sources include state tax revenue and bond offerings. Some states are pushing for matching funds similar to those offered by the federal government on highways and local transit.

Mr. Kummant said he doesn't plan to tear apart Amtrak's national network of long-distance trains, but will consider changes in some routes and services.


Amtrak's financial contribution to the fast-train partnerships has varied, partly because the railroad doesn't have the money to spend, and in many cases doesn't own the tracks. In Pennsylvania, Amtrak owns the track and provided locomotives, cars and half of track-rebuilding costs, using funds from its federal grant. In Illinois, Amtrak is providing technology assistance and has operated test trains, for which it was reimbursed by the state. Illinois doubled its passenger train budget this year to $25 million from $12 million, aiming to double the number of state-supported Amtrak trains it runs.

There still are plenty of kinks. Fast trains sometimes are slowed down by freight trains that get in their way. Amtrak also has sparred with Canadian National Railway Co. over access to the railroad's tracks in Illinois. Canadian National said the additional passenger trains could disrupt its operations, but the railroad backed down after Amtrak threatened a lawsuit and Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) accused Canadian National of reneging on a commitment to allow additional trains to use its tracks.

An effort involving Amtrak, the state of Illinois, the freight-railroad industry, equipment makers and federal safety regulators to develop a sophisticated signal system for 110-mph trains on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor has run into problems. The system has failed to provide reliable information about train locations, and Illinois officials say they may have to replace the technology to run faster trains. Trains continue to travel the route at speeds up to 79 mph.

Sticker shock may keep the speedier service from reaching routes where it could have the biggest impact; it would cost more than $1 billion to create a bypass around a 40-mile stretch of track between Chicago and Detroit that is clogged by freight trains, said Richard Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, a rail advocacy group.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/NA-AK965_AMTRAK_20061102204042.gif

Write to Daniel Machalaba at daniel.machalaba@wsj.com1

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116251876517712146.html

[NYonward]

Thanks for posting this...beat me to it.

High-speed rail service in the USA is going nowhere because it doesn't make economic sense, says William Garrison, co-author of the book Tomorrow's Transportation and a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley.

"What passenger rail lacks isn't money. It's riders," he says. "These high-speed rail proposals are big boondoggles. We're reluctant to subsidize high-speed rail for good reason: There's not a market for it."

Baloney. The Acela is a money maker. High speed rail works in inter-city connections that are medium distance apart. Boston-NYC-DC is the prime (and only, unfortunately) example of this. SF-LA-SD would be an excellent addition to this...we'll just have to wait.

John Spychalski, a transportation expert and professor at Penn State, says the problem is lack of political will. "People didn't bat an eyelash when we decided to build the interstate system in 1956."

Exactly. Its all about political will. With gas prices likely never coming down, airline ticket prices creeping ever upward, rail is a viable alternative. It has a terrible image, but perceptions can be changed with leaders who make it a priority.

[ajfroggie]

Baloney. The Acela is a money maker. High speed rail works in inter-city connections that are medium distance apart. Boston-NYC-DC is the prime (and only, unfortunately) example of this. SF-LA-SD would be an excellent addition to this...we'll just have to wait.

Acela is a money maker because it has the population and traffic congestion to support it. Except for your suggested SF-LA-SD corridor, there probably aren't any other corridors in the nation that would support such...

[NYonward]

Acela is a money maker because it has the population and traffic congestion to support it. Except for your suggested SF-LA-SD corridor, there probably aren't any other corridors in the nation that would support such...

There are others. The USA Today article mentions Atlanta-Raleigh-DC which continually grows every year. Florida and Seattle-Portland in a decade or two will have the mass to support high speed rail as well.

[the urban politician]

In the end, it will be up to individual states and their ability (and willingness) to cooporate with one another to fund these systems. I have no faith in our oil-lobbied Federal Govt whatsoever on this issue.

[northbay]

^ i agree, or on ANY issue for that matter

[PDXPaul]

I think the investment across the country in mass transit is a positive sign. It produces a more condusive environment to intercity train travel. Also the increased focus on city cores, another positive trend. Train travel is harder to make profitable in a suburban, freeway focused environment.

[The Cheat]

I don't understand why Illinois is pursuing a new "sophisticated" signal system (NAJPTC) when there's already an existing cab signal system that's been in use for over 75 years, which Amtrak, NJ Transit, SEPTA, and MARC all use. The freight train companies Norfolk Southern, CSX, and Conrail Shared Assets also have locomotives equipped with the same system, since it's a requirement for running freights on the NEC.

[apbest]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d3/High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations_53kb.png/800px-High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations_53kb.png

[J. Will]

I think part of the problem is the location of the stations in some cities. The "Minneapolis" station for example is not in downtown Minneapolis, but in St. Paul (and even then not downtown). There are numerous other examples.

[BTinSF]

I think part of the problem is the location of the stations in some cities. The "Minneapolis" station for example is not in downtown Minneapolis, but in St. Paul (and even then not downtown). There are numerous other examples.

In some of those cases, though, that can be remedied--even if doing so is expensive. For example, AMTRAK doesn't even go to San Francisco at the moment. It goes to Emeryville on the east side of the Bay and busses people across the Bay bridge into the city. But if the high speed rail gets built, it will go up the Peninsula to a new downtown SF terminal (much talk about that all over SSP).

[J. Will]

In some cities though it would require entirely new rail ROWs, which is all but impossible in most dense built-up areas in this day and age.

[The Cheat]

Typically you would have new ROW only in the suburban and rural areas between cities, and use existing trackage in urban areas. This is how most HSR lines in Europe work.

Anyway, I would favor an incremental approach instead of trying to build the most expensive option all at once.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Ridership will increase if the train service is faster, frequent, affordable and better than driving a car. Partly it is the chicken and the egg syndrome. Politicians won't want to spend the money if there's no riders. While there won't be riders if you don't spend enough money to make the service enticing enough. One of Amtrak's few successes is the Downeaster (Portland to Boston). It is now one of Amtrak's top performing routes with ridership increasing in the double digits. I think if this route goes to a higher speed and more frequent service, ridership will subsequently increase even more. At this stage, I think Amtrak should concentrate on the Northeast whose population is used to riding trains. The vast distances in the west, south and midwest are hurdles to make cost-effective.

[bcp]

that map is such a joke....texarkana and littlerock? jax NOT connected to Orlando? pittsburgh not connected to cincy? nothing in denver's front range or to mountains? looks as if this map was put together by the airline industry.

[ajfroggie]

I think part of the problem is the location of the stations in some cities. The "Minneapolis" station for example is not in downtown Minneapolis, but in St. Paul (and even then not downtown). There are numerous other examples.

The "Minneapolis/St Paul" station, based on previously done studies, will be in one of two locations: the Minneapolis/St Paul International Airport, or at a renovated Union Station in downtown St Paul...

At this stage, I think Amtrak should concentrate on the Northeast whose population is used to riding trains. The vast distances in the west, south and midwest are hurdles to make cost-effective.

Given increasing delays at both MSP and O'Hare, a Twin Cities-Chicago line may prove worthwhile, especially if it can beat the roughly 7-8 hour drive that exists...

[the urban politician]

An opinion posted in this week's Crains:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?article_id=26834&postDate=2006-11-11
By Howard A. Learner

Post-election chance to pull together regional rail support
Nationally, while the public voted for change last week, Midwest voters re-elected four pragmatic governors in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Combining those second-term governors with the Democratic takeovers of the Senate and House — and going into the 2008 national elections with pivotal Midwest electoral votes at stake — provides a potent force for cooperative regional solutions to pressing problems.

Howard A. Learner
is the executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago.
One starting point: the region's transportation system, which no longer works very well.

Business air travelers' frustration with flight delays, security hassles and poor service is palpable. Highway congestion is getting worse: Travel times are maddeningly slow, wasteful and costly.

One solution: Jump-start the long-promised Midwest high-speed rail network connecting the 10 major cities within a 400-mile radius of Chicago and the mid-sized cities in between.

Modern, fast, comfortable, convenient trains operating at 100 to 125 mph can be time-competitive on a door-to-door basis. They can also pull together the regional economy and bolster the Midwest cities' business centers. Because trains pollute less than cars and airplanes on a per-passenger-mile basis, rail development can help alleviate our global warming problems. And you can get productive work done while on a train.

In the absence of federal support, Illinois and other states have stepped up to support improved rail service. The Illinois General Assembly's budget vote this year to expand rail service between Chicago, Springfield/St. Louis, Champaign/Carbondale and Quincy broke the ice for a next wave of upgraded rail service and capacity.


Advertisement


Related Article Topics | Related Industry News
Wisconsin is building new train stations in Milwaukee and at General Mitchell International Airport and plans a Madison-Milwaukee rail connection. Minnesota voters just amended the state constitution to funnel an extra $300 million a year into transportation projects.
When the Illinois congressional delegation last month challenged Canadian National Railway's withdrawal of access for expanded rail service, it underscored the bipartisan political support. Amtrak ridership in Illinois is growing at double-digit rates, and state transportation departments have committed to build a regional high-speed rail network.

But there is too little coordination across state lines and too little funding. States can't do it alone. That's not how high-speed rail is succeeding on the East Coast.

The public is clearly demanding that government do better. With travelers' frustration growing, it's time for the Midwest's governors to get together with the powerful congressional delegation to drum up the necessary financial support for high-speed rail development linking the Midwest's cities. Connect the rail lines to the airports, too. Let's make the region's interstate transportation system work much better.

[The Cheat]

You can see from the FRA (http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203) web site the descriptions of each corridor. This is what I have for the status of each:

Northeast Corridor: This 457-mile corridor from Boston to Washington is in a "state of good repair" but the average speed of 70 MPH isn't very impressive. Upgrades to interlockings, overhead catenary wire, and signals are needed to improve times.

Keystone Corridor: the 104-mile Philadelphia to Harrisburg was upgraded to 110 MPH in October 2006, with an average speed of 69 MPH, but the remainder of the 353-mile Philadelphia to Pittsburgh route is limited to 80 MPH and there are no plans to upgrade this section, which sees at least 50 freight trains a day. There are more track upgrades planned for the Philadelphia commuter area, but we will have to see how ridership (which was already increasing) turns out on the improved Keystone Service.

Empire Corridor: the 437-mile New York to Albany route has sections upgraded to 110 MPH and there is a planned express that would run New York to Albany in 2:10, averaging 65 MPH. The refurbishment of the Turboliner train sets was cancelled by NYS and the sets already done have been put in storage. Now, the state is looking for ways to improve the existing service.

California HSR: The latest study proposes an ambitious $33 billion plan to link Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacremento with a 220 MPH network, with LA-SF trains averaging 183 MPH, which would make it one of the fastest trains in the world (by average speed). The bond issue has been pushed back in 2004 and 2006, and the earliest a referendum could be held is 2008. It's an ambitious plan that's more revolutionary than evolutionary, but it would be great if the could pull it off.

Midwest HSR: The 284-mile Chicago-St. Louis route is testing a new NAJPTC system that would allow 110 MPH (and 74 MPH average speed). The 281-mile Chicago-Detroit route has been testing the ITCS system up to 95 MPH, and will have eventually 110 MPH service (74 MPH average). About 1/3 of the track mileage on this route is owned by Amtrak, so this makes it easier to upgrade tracks for HSR.

Pacific Northwest HSR: Eugene-Seattle (310 miles) and Seattle-Vancouver (156 miles) are being considered.

Texas HSR: a system to link Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio was cancelled.

Florida HSR: A plan with service for Orlando-Tampa (92 miles) and Miami-Orlando (264 miles) was voted for in 2000, and then voted to be repealed in 2004. The plans are indefinitely on hold.

Southeast HSR: There have been several studies on the many segments in this Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte route, but little in the way of construction.

. . .

There are really only four corridors (not including the NEC) that have seen some substantial work towards HSR: Keystone, Empire, Chicago-Detroit, and Chicago-St. Louis. All the others either never got beyond a study, or have been effectively cancelled.

[the urban politician]

Texas HSR: a system to link Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio was cancelled.


^ That's terrible. Why was it cancelled?

[pyropius]

:previous: There have been a few proposals. If this is the one that was cancelled in the early 90s, it was basically due to intense lobbying by Southwest. If this is the Texas T-Bone, then I didn't even know that had been cancelled.

[The Cheat]

I was only aware of the one that was cancelled after lobbying by Southwest Airlines. I'm not aware of any new proposals.

[ajfroggie]

Empire Corridor: the 437-mile New York to Albany route has sections upgraded to 110 MPH and there is a planned express that would run New York to Albany in 2:10, averaging 65 MPH. The refurbishment of the Turboliner train sets was cancelled by NYS and the sets already done have been put in storage. Now, the state is looking for ways to improve the existing service.

Jumping in a few weeks late here, but some of the numbers here don't make sense.

New York (assuming Penn Station) to Albany is only in the range of about 150 miles. I just bought Amtrak tickets (my first time on Amtrak BTW), and my reservation information shows a 2h30m trip up and a 2h25m trip back. So it's already averaging around 60 MPH...

[Downtown Bolivar]

The Empire corridor stretched from Niagara Falls and Buffalo in western NY, east to Albany where it turns south to NYC. I think that the above info is a misprint.

[The Cheat]

It should be the "437-mile New York to Buffalo via Albany route".

[ajfroggie]

That's what I figured, but the times mentioned were from New York to Albany, and aren't really much faster than what already exists (based on my tickets).

[zilfondel]

Typically you would have new ROW only in the suburban and rural areas between cities, and use existing trackage in urban areas. This is how most HSR lines in Europe work.

Anyway, I would favor an incremental approach instead of trying to build the most expensive option all at once.

Or you connect the main trunk route through a tunnel under downtown, like they do in Berlin, Brussels, London, etc, etc, etc.

[Smiley Person]

I made some propaganda for California High Speed Rail as an entry for a local anime convention contest...

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/firstcultural/sac-valley/sacramento_web_01-02.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/firstcultural/sac-valley/sacramento_web_03-04.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/firstcultural/sac-valley/sacramento_web_05-06.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/firstcultural/sac-valley/sacramento_web_07-08.png

can anyone identify the two towers on the last page?

[foxmtbr]

^ Of course I can, but I'm not going to ruin anyone's fun. :D

[urban_encounter]

can anyone identify the two towers on the last page?



hmmm, are they in Fresno?


:D

[foxmtbr]

^ No, obviously Bakersfield!

[creamcityleo79]

^ No, obviously Bakersfield!

Oooh! I know...I know...BARSTOW!:D

[twoNeurons]

The girl has freakishly large hands.

[twoNeurons]

Or you connect the main trunk route through a tunnel under downtown, like they do in Berlin, Brussels, London, etc, etc, etc.

Berlin uses the S-Bahn stations and ROW. Or in other words, elevated.

[Owlhorn]

I love how we can never afford anything in the world's wealthiest nation. Also love how everything is unprofitable. Its time for the powers that be to start admitting why we can't afford things(because thesre are Southwest Airlines all over the country with their hands in pockets). Why is it hard to get alternative fuel vehicles in the US? Why do you think? Sickening how corporations run us. There's simply no good reason there shouldn't be high speed rail in Texas with as many flights Southwest flies between the Texas Triangle.

[crazyjoeda]

The girl has freakishly large hands.

lol
Man Hands.

[bmfarley]

can anyone identify the two towers on the last page?
Before I saw the question... I wondered if the left one was teh Omni Hotel in downtown San Diego. It's right next to Petco park, home of the Padres. However, I'm unsure of the Tea Club.

Comics like this one need to keep coming! For teh California high Speed Rail to get on track needs more people to be aware of it and willing to vote for it in November 2008.

[J Church]

Smiley, that's awesome. Check your PM.

[bmfarley]

I came across some interesting YouTube high speed train videos with music soundtracks... they inspied me to share with others here.

French TGV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8l9P6UKlis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8l9P6UKlis)

and

2 Dutch Trains traveling side by side
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-5vQqUX__M

[CTroyMathis]

Whoa Smiley, cool drawings.

[wxjay]

The Atlanta-Macon track is VERY MUCH needed. This would be the site of a commuter rail, which I believe is beyond due for Atlanta. I can only wish that even 1% of these high-speed rails will come to fruition.

[Chicago Shawn]

Or you connect the main trunk route through a tunnel under downtown, like they do in Berlin, Brussels, London, etc, etc, etc.

Yup, the city of Chicago already has plans for underground tunnels and a multi-level underground intermodal station.

http://www.dlkinc.com/images/Project_Pages_11_2005/wltc_240w.jpg

[BTinSF]

:previous: As does San Francisco:

http://bayrailalliance.org/images/dtx/dtx_map.jpg

http://bayrailalliance.org/images/dtx/tbay_bk_cvr.jpg

[LostInTheZone]

What do people think would be the next logical extension of electrified track on the Northeast Corridor? Around '99 they took it from New Haven to Boston, to introduce Acela, and just last year they reopened the Philly-Harrisburg line. If it was me, I'd extend it from DC to Richmond, or possibly NYC to Albany. I would love it if Amtrak could make it a mission to add a few hundred miles of electric, upgraded track every 5-10 years, and it's not at all unrealistic.

Is California HSR supposed to be built on existing rights of way, or totally new alignments? I realize any HSR will use both, but I think I'm asking more about the trunk lines.

[J Church]

Mostly existing right-of-way.

[ajfroggie]

I'd say go NYC-Albany first, then DC-Richmond.

Outside the Northeast Corridor and California, Milwaukee-Chicago is a good candidate for electrified track.

[pdxtex]

People would definitely ride a high speed route between Portland and Seattle. Good luck figuring out how to deal with Union Pacific though. A whole new cooridor would need to be constructed.

[CityKid]

This was a little bit old, but worth posting. I found this at groups.yahoo.com/groups/BATN:

Published Wednesdsay, January 10, 2007, by the Fresno Bee

More Valley water urged

Schwarzenegger makes pitch for new dams in his State of the State
speech.

By E.J. Schultz
Bee Capitol Bureau

SACRAMENTO -- Answering the pleas of Valley cities and farmers, Gov.
Schwarzenegger proposed a plan to increase the state's water supply
in his State of the State speech Tuesday.

The $6.5 billion proposal, which could include money for a San
Joaquin River reservoir, is part of a $43.3 billion borrowing plan
that also includes money for prisons, courts and schools.

In announcing the ambitious plan, the governor said he wants to
continue the construction boom launched last year through the
approval of $42.7 billion in public works bonds for roads, schools,
levees, parks and housing.

"We are a big state and we have big needs. And we have made a big
down payment. But the job is not finished," he said in his
speech. "We still have more roads to build, more schools to
construct, more universities to equip to keep up with the future."

[...]

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, praised the governor's plan to reduce
carbon levels in fuel.

The executive order, announced Tuesday, would reduce fuel carbon
levels by at least 10% by 2020 -- a goal that could bring a windfall
to the Valley's burgeoning ethanol industry.

But Florez was concerned about the omission of the high-speed rail
project. As envisioned, the rail line would cut through the Central
Valley, including Fresno, as it speeds across the state.

But Schwarzenegger administration officials said Tuesday that the
proposal was not a priority.

A $9.95 billion high-speed rail bond is scheduled to be taken up by
the voters in 2008.

Florez said it would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to
remove the bond and that he would fight such a move: "You can't say
you're for cleaning the air and then scuttle high-speed rail."

[bmfarley]

But Florez was concerned about the omission of the high-speed rail project. As envisioned, the rail line would cut through the Central Valley, including Fresno, as it speeds across the state.

But Schwarzenegger administration officials said Tuesday that the
proposal was not a priority.

A $9.95 billion high-speed rail bond is scheduled to be taken up by
the voters in 2008.

Florez said it would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to
remove the bond and that he would fight such a move: "You can't say
you're for cleaning the air and then scuttle high-speed rail."
Wow... I like reading that. I hope he does fight to keep it on the ballot. I hope the reporter is accurate too when saying that it would take a 2/3rds majority to remove it. I would have assumed 50%.

Regardless of the bond... the CHSRA remains in the budget (unsure of levels for FY08) and they are enabled to buy right-of-way. Also, I believe they are currently pursuing efforts to further design plans and environmental work.

I know the $10b bond seems like the golden grail to kick start this project to reality, but in the interim they appear to be moving forward with whatever funds they get to move this project into reality.

[BTinSF]

^^^I haven't seen any polls, but I'd say it's far from a sure thing that CA voters will approve HSR bonds.

[g-man435]

I live in Greenville, SC and my city is on a federal designated route and destination stop point for the southeast high speed rail corridor. Here is the website for it: http://www.sehsr.org/ They expect high speed rail to be here sometime between 2015-2020. Here is the latest info released from the SEHSR's website:

-Charlotte, NC to Macon, GA - Further Studies - Ongoing

1-10-07 Volpe study is underway. The Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina Departments of Transportation are continuing to evaluate the overall suitability and costs of developing high speed passenger train service between Charlotte, NC and Macon, GA.

GDOT is overseeing work by the Volpe Center to: 1) recommend rail top speeds and technologies that balance potential ridership and revenues with infrastructure and operating costs; 2) forecast ridership over at least a 25 yr. time horizon; 3) assess whether operating revenues might exceed operating costs and infrastructure maintenance costs; 4) compare this corridor's performance with similar rail corridors in other regions; and 5) determine other quantifiable economic impacts of high speed rail corridor investments.

[SacTownAndy]

More news from the CA capital today:


Bullet train plan may never leave station
By E.J. Schultz - Bee Capitol Bureau
Last Updated 12:05 am PST Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1

SACRAMENTO- The state's perpetually delayed high-speed rail project faces yet another funding setback. And this one could be fatal, dashing the dreams of bullet train enthusiasts, including many in California's Central Valley.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes slashing funding for the High Speed Rail Authority from $14 million to $1.2 million, leaving the group with enough just to keep its doors open. The Legislature has yet to vote on the governor's spending plan.

"There's really no public purpose for me and my staff to be in office unless you want to move forward with the project," said Mehdi Morshed, the authority's executive director, who wants the governor and lawmakers to approve $103 million for the project next year. "If you don't want to move forward with the project, then close it down and save yourself some money."

With his focus on road building, the governor also wants the Legislature to indefinitely delay a $9.95 billion rail bond slated for the 2008 ballot. That would clear the way for $29 billion in bonds the governor wants to put on the ballot to pay for courthouses, schools and dams -- the second phase of his "strategic growth plan" that would spend billions of dollars on roads but nothing on high-speed rail.

"In our plan that we put together, it didn't fit in," Schwarzenegger said in an interview last week. "It doesn't mean that it is not going to fit in in the future."

The electric-powered railroad would be similar to the bullet trains prevalent in Europe and other parts of the world.

Trains traveling up to 220 mph would speed the length of the state, zooming through the Central Valley with stops in Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, Stockton and Sacramento. An express trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles would take less than 2 1/2 hours.

Construction costs are estimated to approach $40 billion. But Morshed said the longer the state waits, the more expensive it will get.

Tracks dedicated to the system would, for the most part, be built next to existing tracks. More than 1,000 grade crossings -- where the railroad goes under or over roads -- are needed.

To build the crossings, the authority needs to secure rights of way. But that gets harder and more expensive each year, especially in high-growth areas like the Central Valley, where land is getting sucked up for other uses, Morshed said.

Next year, he said, $40 million is needed to start buying rights of way and $63 million for planning and engineering.

Though its future is in doubt, the authority is pushing forward. At a board meeting Monday, members authorized their staff to finalize three multiyear engineering contracts worth nearly $300 million.

Established in 1996, the authority has spent $30 million to plan the route and do environmental reviews, Morshed said. The authority's budget has $702,000 for salaries and benefits this year. Three full-time employees and one part-timer are on staff, with plans to hire three full-time staff members in the next month.

All that money would be wasted if the project were halted, board members said Monday.

"It would be an obscene extravagance if this investment of taxpayer money is simply ended," said board Chairman Quentin Kopp, a former state senator and San Mateo County judge.

To date, the Legislature has shown little zeal for the project. Rail bond ballot measures have been delayed twice, in 2004 and 2006. Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, said he would be hesitant to push for another delay.

"I did say to folks that are very committed to the high-speed rail that I would work with them to see to it that we put it on the 2008 ballot," he said recently. "I think that it's the right thing to do."

High-speed rail lacks the "very powerful old lobby" of developers, carmakers and airlines that have driven the infrastructure debate, said state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, a rail supporter whose mother, Fran Florez, sits on the nine-member rail authority board.

"Because people haven't seen (high-speed rail), touched it or ridden on it, most people, at least in the Legislature, they don't think it can be done," Florez said.

U.S. Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, who led the charge for rail while in the Legislature, said there is a misconception the project would benefit only the Valley. "This is far bigger than simply being a Valley train," he said. "This is a statewide, 700-mile system that would benefit over 80 percent of the state's population."

Consumer appetite could be growing. Intercity rail ridership, operated by Amtrak, jumped from 2.3 million in 1994-95 to 4.4 million in 2004-05, according to a report released Friday by the Legislative Analyst's Office.

The governor, though, has more immediate concerns.

"I feel that our roads are in such horrible shape -- the worst in the nation," he said. "We needed to fix the roads, we needed to expand the roads, we need to add lanes to our highways and freeways."

[zilfondel]

Just give up California! Give up! You'll be stuck with shitty-assed congestion socked freeways forever... until the Pacific Ocean swallows up the entire West Coast from your auto emissions!

Sorry, just being a bit pessemistic with the news. Personally, I dream of high speed rail networks all over the US, Cali in particular.

=(

[bmfarley]

Just give up California! Give up! You'll be stuck with shitty-assed congestion socked freeways forever... until the Pacific Ocean swallows up the entire West Coast from your auto emissions!

Sorry, just being a bit pessemistic with the news. Personally, I dream of high speed rail networks all over the US, Cali in particular.

=(
Thanks. Geology 101 will also tell ya that California will never fall into the ocean. :cheers:

Fwiw, the California forum has a very active thread going for California High Speed Rail... vs being lumped with all the others here.

[Neuman]

^I think he was referring to rising sea levels that will swallow up California from excessive CO2 in the atmosphere.... Or at least the low valleys of the state.... Not like Florida which will be completely covered in sea water with just a small rise in sea levels....:(

[LostInTheZone]

Thanks. Geology 101 will also tell ya that California will never fall into the ocean. :cheers:

Geology 101 does tell us that West LA will eventually slide up the fault line till it sits next to San Francisco, thereby eliminating most of the demand for a high speed train. Perhaps we should just wait for that?

[bmfarley]

Geology 101 does tell us that West LA will eventually slide up the fault line till it sits next to San Francisco, thereby eliminating most of the demand for a high speed train. Perhaps we should just wait for that?
The human race will probably be extinct by then due to frustrating congested roadways and air pollution. I don't think waiting is a realistic option. :tup:

[BTinSF]

:rant: Somehow, watching the difficulty of getting CA HSR back on the tracks made me feel, well, humiliated when I read THIS:

February 8, 2007

Vietnam Plans $33 Billion Rail To Link Key Cities
By NGUYEN PHAM MUOI
February 8, 2007

HANOI, Vietnam -- Vietnam has approved plans to build a $33 billion high-speed railway system that will link the northern capital of Hanoi with Ho Chi Minh City in the south, cutting travel time between the two cities to nearly a third in a move to boost economic development.

The project, which will increase access to industrial and tourism areas across the narrow country, is the latest of Vietnam's moves to improve its infrastructure. Recently announced plans include an oil refinery, the country's third, and a container port east of Ho Chi Minh City in Vung Tao.

"This will be the biggest infrastructure project in Vietnam. It will greatly help to boost the economy," said Nguyen Dat Tuong, an official with the state-owned Vietnam Railway Corp. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung wants Vietnam Railway to complete the project in six years, said Mr. Tuong, who is responsible for the technical aspects. He said the Japanese government has agreed to fund 70% of the cost.

Foreign partners, lured by an economy that grew 8.2% last year, are contributing much of the financing for the infrastructure projects.

Singapore's PSA International is forming a joint venture with Saigon Port to build the Vung Tao port, which a person familiar with the matter said would be valued at around $300 million. The refinery is being financed by state-owned PetroVietnam through bonds and loans from state-owned banks.

The 1,630-kilometer north-south railway will cut travel time between Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to less than 10 hours from 32 hours now.

Mr. Tuong said officials from Vietnam and Japan will work together to finalize investment details this year, but about 30% of the funding will come from Hanoi's budget.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117087016746301126.html



I mean, Vietnam is supposed to be {{gulp}} "third world" and all. It's just not fair for them to do this when CA can't get it's act together. :wah: :wah:

[nbrindley]

I love how rail nay-sayers always say that passenger rail has never made any money. I'm sorry, but how much money have freeways made over the years?

[CityKid]

From groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN

Published Monday, February 12, 2007, by The Ledger (Lakeland, FL)

Governor Crist Could Resurrect High-Speed Rail Project

By Bill Rufty
bill.rufty@...

Former Gov. Jeb Bush's attempts to kill the high-speed rail project
for Florida <http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org> may have ended in
failure.

Gov. Charlie Crist is expected to consider filling the vacancies on
the Florida High Speed Rail Authority that Bush refused to appoint.
Toot toot.

Opponents have consistently accused the former governor of being aloof
and arrogant and his actions, at least in trying to kill the high
speed rail, might have tended to back up that claim.

Bush turned on a friend who had given him moral, financial and
tactical support in the years between his 1994 loss to Democratic Gov.
Lawton Chiles and his eventual victory in the race for governor in
1998 because of the high-speed rail issue.

C.C. "Doc'' Dockery of Lakeland had been an early and loyal supporter.

But Dockery did something Bush didn't like.

He spent $3 million of his own money to get an amendment on the ballot
in 2000 to mandate that the state build a high-speed rail system after
Bush ended an earlier bullet train project.

Fifty-three percent of the voters approved it.

Bush didn't like it and tried to stop it at every turn.

He appointed members to the High Speed Rail Authority he knew to be
opposed to the bullet train idea or who at least had not taken a
position.

Some turned in favor of the system once they were on the authority.

Bush said it would cost taxpayers enormous sums.

He had an outside group and the help from then-Chief Financial Officer
Tom Gallagher to get enough petition signatures to put the issue back
on the ballot.

The amendment to remove the mandate from the state constitution
passed in 2004.

The governor thought he had won.

He even wrote a letter suggesting that since that the amendment had
been removed, the authority should dissolve itself.

Well, they couldn't do that because the authority had been created by
the Legislature and not the executive branch -- separation of powers
and all that.

The Legislature never did dissolve the authority and the authority
members went about finishing up plans for the initial route from
Orlando to Tampa and then went into hibernation waiting for a new
governor.

Now about all that money; authority members said they only wanted
the $70-plus million annually that had been approved but never
appropriated in the DOT budget.

Fares would take care of the rest of the expenses, which would be up
to the private operator of the train system, they said.

The nine-member Florida High Speed Rail Authority is made up of
members appointed by the speaker of the House, the president of the
Senate and the governor.

When his appointees' terms ran out, Bush did not appoint replacements.

Now that Crist is in office with a decidedly different style, the
authority members and high-speed rail supporters say they see the
strong possibility he will bring the authority back to full strength
-- and they can again start the first leg of the rail system.

[ajfroggie]

I love how rail nay-sayers always say that passenger rail has never made any money. I'm sorry, but how much money have freeways made over the years?

About $1.50 for every dollar spent...give or take 20 cents. Freeways have been a catalyst for economic and industrial development...much moreso than rail transit.

Now if the Feds would plunk down some coinage for freight rail upgrades (which along some corridors would also indirectly help Amtrak), we'd really be in business.

[bmfarley]

About $1.50 for every dollar spent...give or take 20 cents. Freeways have been a catalyst for economic and industrial development...much moreso than rail transit.

Now if the Feds would plunk down some coinage for freight rail upgrades (which along some corridors would also indirectly help Amtrak), we'd really be in business.
I am not disagreeing with you about the return of investment on roadway construction.... afterall, it leads to a trickle down affect with additional funding being spent new parking structures, parking meters, shopping mall lots, drive thru burger joints and coffee houses, gas stations and the fuel they dispense.... aside from debating if all those things are good or bad, can you cite your source?

[ajfroggie]

I don't remember the specific number...it was posted somewhere on the US DOT or FHWA website relating to an overall Interstate benefit-cost ratio.