[Octavian]

I hesitate to start another HSR thread. If the moderators want to merge it into another thread that's fine by me.

How much does the HSR system in your neck of the woods cost (international systems welcome)? Please provide a location, description of your project (distances involved, a link to their website), estimated ridership, distance and a price tag ($$$ please). Is your system profitable on an operating basis? Market share vs. air and auto if you have it (Amtrak market share along the NE corridor is misleading because it excludes auto).

Project: Rocky Mountain Rail Authority (rockymountainrail.org)
Location: Colorado (neighboring states)
Description: I-25 and I-70 corridors in Colorado.
Ridership: ?
Distance: ?
Price: ?
Profit Yes/No: ?
Market Share: ?

[SnyderBock]

Estimated cost is >$10 billion
Here are the corridors being considered for HSR:
http://www.rmrastudy.net/Rail_Feasibility_Study_files/studyarea.png

The study is examining the feasibility of high-speed rail service in two primary corridors: the I-25 corridor along Colorado’s Front Range from Wyoming to New Mexico, and the I-70 mountain corridor from Denver to Grand Junction. Five secondary corridors will also be examined, linking the I-70 corridor to Central City, Winter Park, Breckenridge, Aspen, and Steamboat Springs and Craig.

[mhays]

^^ I imagine that what the Colorado feasibility study will find is that those routes off to distant lightly populated points make no sense. Those routes would be nice, but much of the system wouldn't be justified. My guess is "feasible" will mean something along the lines of a core route like Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, and another from DIA to Vail.

The federally-recognized HSR routes go from big city to big city for a reason. And with moderate distances for a reason. Big cities have year-round demand and the simple volume of people you need. As the distance rises the size requirements for those cities increases. I don't believe Denver is close enough to any other major city to make it work, at least by the standards of the recognized list.

[Octavian]

^^ I imagine that what the Colorado feasibility study will find is that those routes off to distant lightly populated points make no sense. Those routes would be nice, but much of the system wouldn't be justified. My guess is "feasible" will mean something along the lines of a core route like Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, and another from DIA to Vail.

The federally-recognized HSR routes go from big city to big city for a reason. And with moderate distances for a reason. Big cities have year-round demand and the simple volume of people you need. As the distance rises the size requirements for those cities increases. I don't believe Denver is close enough to any other major city to make it work, at least by the standards of the recognized list.

My guess is you're right.

[Swede]

Here's a basic system for Scandinavia:

Red: 360+ km/h
Green: 250 km/h

http://i42.tinypic.com/wtc38h.jpg

Cost: A few billion €
Time: 30-60 years (based on how anti-railways our governments are)
Distance: quite far, but many of the Big Cities on the lines are at about HSR's distance sweetspot from eachother.
Marketshare: HIGH
Profit: YES
Ridership: high
Bonus: the non-HSR tracks are at capacity on many of these lines today. We need the HSR not just for HSR but for freeing up capacity on the non-HSR tracks.

[hammersklavier]

^^ I imagine that what the Colorado feasibility study will find is that those routes off to distant lightly populated points make no sense. Those routes would be nice, but much of the system wouldn't be justified. My guess is "feasible" will mean something along the lines of a core route like Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, and another from DIA to Vail.

The federally-recognized HSR routes go from big city to big city for a reason. And with moderate distances for a reason. Big cities have year-round demand and the simple volume of people you need. As the distance rises the size requirements for those cities increases. I don't believe Denver is close enough to any other major city to make it work, at least by the standards of the recognized list.
As far as SnyderBlock's map is concerned, the south side of the system is eventually supposed to go to Albuquerque and Amarillo(?); the north side connects the largest cities in Colorado and Wyoming. However, since Cheyenne is easily among the smallest largest cities in the United States (pop. 20,000, I believe?) first-phase expansion there doesn't make much sense, unless Cheyenne is looking at this HSR as a growth engine.
I would also think that the Denver HSR heading west to Grand Jct. is supposed to go all the way to the Salt Lake area...hardly a remote little hole-in-the-woods.
Limiting the lines to Greeley, Colorado Springs, and Vail would make that system not HSR but rather straight-up commuter rail.

As for my neck of the woods:
The Keystone Corridor, turning the former Pennsy main from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh into an HSR route.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/ResourceImages/Keystone.jpg
Courtesy Uncle Sam (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fra.dot.gov/ResourceImages/corridor_ne.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/printcontent/652&usg=__952D2jp0095kdUB0_3rEtEl2USc=&h=383&w=512&sz=39&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=La-Mfq9kyzjEjM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkeystone%2Bcorridor%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG)
Cost: Around a billion $, $145 mil on the eastern half, nobody knows on the western half.
Distance: About 300 miles.
Market Share: Growing. Keystone Service trains on the eastern half of the corridor have seen increases in passenger loads every year since their introduction. A true HSR train to Pittsburgh (about 3 hrs travel time vs 5 hrs on the Turnpike) would likely see prevalent market share, same as Acela.
Profit: Don't bank on it.
Ridership: High by American standards (and therefore mediocre by European standards).
Bonus: Half the line was built out by the Pennsy. The other half is a heavy-duty Class I freight main that is going to need the necessary ROW upgrades to allow HSR (like rebuilding the Gallitzin tunnels) soon anyway. The line also includes Horseshoe Curve and connects to the Northeast Corridor. There has been substantial HSR rebuilding on the eastern half (but none on the western half) and so Keystone is well ahead of the Empire Corridor.

[JDRCRASH]

The California High Speed Rail will cost at least $40 Billion.

[Octavian]

As far as SnyderBlock's map is concerned, the south side of the system is eventually supposed to go to Albuquerque and Amarillo(?); the north side connects the largest cities in Colorado and Wyoming. However, since Cheyenne is easily among the smallest largest cities in the United States (pop. 20,000, I believe?) first-phase expansion there doesn't make much sense, unless Cheyenne is looking at this HSR as a growth engine.
I would also think that the Denver HSR heading west to Grand Jct. is supposed to go all the way to the Salt Lake area...hardly a remote little hole-in-the-woods.
Limiting the lines to Greeley, Colorado Springs, and Vail would make that system not HSR but rather straight-up commuter rail.

Denver to Salt Lake is too far for HSR.

The distance between Denver and Salt Lake (through Grand Junction) is 536 miles (a nine hour drive). HSR between those two cities would not be faster. Under the best case scenario, Denver to Vail is 2 hours. The limiting factor is not the technology, its the terrain. You need low grades and gentle curves, neither of which is possible between those two cities. Planes have a clear advantage.

[mhays]

Connecting to Cheyenne borders on ludicrous. Why on earth? Even as a growth engine...at what point would the population multiply by 10 to make it sensible?

As Octavian says, Salt Lake is too small and too far, and the mountain terrain would add hugely to the construction cost and/or the train speed.

This will sound like I'm rooting for home, and though I am, it's still a good point in terms of "gotta beat this to move forward in line": The Vancouver-Seattle-Portland route involves three sizeable cities that are a grand total of (guessing) 320 miles all in a row. Each is reasonably dense, centralized, and transit-oriented. There are other cities like Bellingham, Tacoma, and Olympia along the way, plus Salem and Eugene south of Portland but not too far. Despite tough topography in some places, and expensive land for any new ROW, the region has dramatic advantages for HSR. (Along with a state and local willingness to help pay for things, which we also have.)

[The Chemist]

The centrepiece of China's massive HSR building project is the Shanghai-Beijing line, currently under construction and scheduled to be totally complete as early as 2012.

Cost Estimates range from US$12 billion to US$31 billion
Distance 1318km - the longest single HSR line in the world, from Beijing South Railway Station to Shanghai Hongqiao Railway Station
Speed 350km/h - travel time between Shanghai and Beijing cut from 10h to 4.5h
RIdership Expected to be around 220,000 per day. This will also free up capacity on the existing non-HSR Beijing to Shanghai railroad, which is currently at full capacity.
Profit Unknown, but given the high ridership I'd say it could be possible
Marketshare This line passes through cities that account for 25% of China's population, so I'd expect the marketshare will be very high.

[SnyderBock]

As far as SnyderBlock's map is concerned, the south side of the system is eventually supposed to go to Albuquerque and Amarillo(?); the north side connects the largest cities in Colorado and Wyoming. However, since Cheyenne is easily among the smallest largest cities in the United States (pop. 20,000, I believe?) first-phase expansion there doesn't make much sense, unless Cheyenne is looking at this HSR as a growth engine.
I would also think that the Denver HSR heading west to Grand Jct. is supposed to go all the way to the Salt Lake area...hardly a remote little hole-in-the-woods.
Limiting the lines to Greeley, Colorado Springs, and Vail would make that system not HSR but rather straight-up commuter rail.

Connecting to Cheyenne borders on ludicrous. Why on earth? Even as a growth engine...at what point would the population multiply by 10 to make it sensible?

The reason it is proposed to go to Cheyenne is because there are actually ~100,000 people in Cheyenne, not 20,000 people and Wyoming wants to to go to Cheyenne and not just end in Fort Collins, Colorado. of course, this means Wyoming might help pay for it. It is likely that nothing would be built from Fort Collins north to Cheyenne, unless Wyoming pays for it all.

The service might well make sense for Wyoming, as there is a lot of business travel from Cheyenne to Denver and a lot of tourism travel from Denver to Cheyenne. But I wouldn't hold my breath on this segment. The map I posted in the STUDY AREA, not the proposed system.

There is also talk from Wyoming of them extending it to Larimee and Jackson Hole and even Montana is saying they might want it extended to them. So what I am actually seeing evolve, is probably a HSR line go no farther north than Fort Collins, but then some kind of more conventional passenger rail like New Mexico's rail Runner Express (~79mph), being built by Wyoming, Idaho (Boise) and Montana, to connect up with Colorado's HSR terminus in Fort Collins. The interesting note, Wyoming and Montana are proposing the passenger rail have a stop in Yellowstone, the Nation's most visited national park. ~12 million visitors a year, with no easy way to get there. Flying into Denver, then taking a HSR train for 90 miles north to Fort Collins in under 1 hour, then transferring to a conventional passenger rail for a scenic day long trip through the Wyoming Rockies to Yellowstone, might be a tourist favorite?

These proposals have solid local ridership (but not strong by any means), but they are highly enhanced by extraordinary tourist numbers. Accessibility to Colorado's World Class ski resorts (Aspen, Vail Breckenridge, etc,..) and possibly even Yellowstone in Wyoming has always been a challenge. Connecting them all to Denver and Denver International Airport (~50 million passengers a year), via passenger rail creates intriguing projected ridership numbers. However, only Colorado's proposed HSR to top ski resorts and larger front Range cities (Colorado Springs ~0.5 million, Ft. Collins ~0.24 million, Pueblo, !0.1 million people), projects to be profitable, fundable and feasible.

It was said by someone they thought HSR along I-70 would stop in Vail. However, it would definitely go through the continental divide, because the Eisenhower Tunnel is one of the main reasons this HSR is needed. The congestion there is immense. Widening the highway is projecting to cost as much or more than HSR. Eagle County Airport (airport for Aspen) is stated as the optional location of a terminus for a shorter line. However, the final stretch being proposed woudl take the HSR to Grand Junction, a city of over 100,000 people and which is booming economically.

So the proposed system is actually anchored with 100,000 population cities in the north (Cheyenne ~90k), South (Pueblo ~120k) and West (Grand Junction ~100k). In the middle is Denver (~2.8 million people), Denver International Airport (the airport people use from all these far flung cities on this system), Colorado Springs (~500k people), Fort Collins (~230k people) and of course dozens of highly visited ski resorts in the winter and a bustling summer tourism draw in Black Hawk-Central City casinos (~40 miles west of Denver) and protected lands such as Rocky Mountain National Park.

I see something getting built.

[mhays]

With the Eisenhower section, if the cost is huge for either rail or road, it seems "neither" is a fairly likely option.

As skeptical as I am of Cheyenne HSR, I'm much more skeptical of a link to Yellowstone or Boise (where I lived for 6.5 years). Those are massive distances for small numbers of people.

[Abner]

Yeah, except perhaps for the Fort Collins - Colorado Springs route, all that stuff would be going through the second-least populated region in the contiguous states (after the Great Basin), across vast distances and challenging terrain, to connect cities that are not especially struggling with their existing infrastructure. I would say almost any other HSR system would come before this one. But hey, if those states want to pony up, I sure wouldn't stop them.

[202_Cyclist]

SynderBock:

The talk of HSR connecting these small population centers in the Mountain West is ridiculous.

"So the proposed system is actually anchored with 100,000 population cities in the north (Cheyenne ~90k), South (Pueblo ~120k) and West (Grand Junction ~100k). In the middle is Denver (~2.8 million people), Denver International Airport (the airport people use from all these far flung cities on this system), Colorado Springs (~500k people), Fort Collins (~230k people) and of course dozens of highly visited ski resorts in the winter and a bustling summer tourism draw in Black Hawk-Central City casinos (~40 miles west of Denver) and protected lands such as Rocky Mountain National Park."

Huge population densities are necessary for HSR to be feasible. CA has approximately 36M people and was forecasted to have 60M residents by mid-century (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/10/local/me-population10) Similarly, Richard Florida, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year, notes that 55M people live in the Boston-Washington corridor (http://www.creativeclass.com/rfcgdb/articles/The%20Rise%20of%20the%20Mega-Region%20-%20WSJ.pdf ) Elsewhere, you only see HSR where you have huge concentrations of people and very high population densities, such as Japan or Europe.

With the populations you provided for Cheyenne, Pueblo, Grand Juction, etc, you would be fortunate to get decent bus service but certainly not HSR.

[Octavian]

New slides from the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority.here (http://www.rockymountainrail.org/documents/RMRA_AltEvalWkshp_04.24.09_AM_Finalad.pdf) and here (http://www.rockymountainrail.org/documents/RMRA_AltEvalWkshp_04.24.09_PM_Final.pdf). A list of rail studies performed by this consultant here (http://000061h.webpreview.dsl.net/rail.htm).

Synopsis:

Five technologies are under study: Diesel 79 mph, Diesel 110, Maglev 125, Electric Locomotive 150, EMU 220 and Maglev 300.

Two alignments for each corridor are under study: I-25 using the CML, I-25 unconstrained, I-70 ROW (7% grade), and I-70 unconstrained (4% grade).

The study evaluates alternatives against Federal Railroad Administration economic criteria. The FRA criteria require an operating profit (no operational subsidy), and a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1. Benefits were defined as revenue, consumer surplus and resource savings. Costs included operating costs and capital costs. Much depends on your estimate of these variables.

Higher speeds generate more revenue and ridership. The 79 mph diesel alternative was eliminated because ridership is too low to cover operating costs (too many empty passenger miles). Maglev generates more ridership and more operating revenue, but its capital costs are enormous (over $30 billion for both corridors). Maglev 125 is eliminated from further consideration. The EMU 220 alternative best balances operating cost, capital cost, and ridership.

EMU 220 ridership estimates:

2015: 15.64 mil
2025: 20.69 mil
2035: 27.43 mil
2045: 35.52 mil

Market share for this alternative is estimated to be about 11%.

Ridership north of Ft. Collins, south of Pueblo or West of Avon (Grand Junction, Aspen, Glenwood Springs, Steamboat) does not justify service. Service to New Mexico was outside of the scope of the study. The corridors were truncated as follows:

DIA to Eagle Airport
Ft. Collins to Pueblo

Though nothing is decided in a feasibility study, the alternative recommended for detailed analysis is the EMU 220 for both the I-70 and I-25 corridors. The preferred alignments for EMU 220 service are along the I-70 alignment (the 7% grade alignment), and a new unconstrained alignment along I-25. West of Eagle Airport, it may also be possible to have diesel service on existing track using a 110 mph hour technology.

Revenue is maximized at approximately 20 to 30 cents a mile. Using the distance along I-70 alignment as an estimate, a ticket between DIA and Vail would cost between $25 and $36. Proposed train frequencies are 30 trains per day along I-70 and 24 per day along I-25.

Estimated travel time:

DIA to Vail: 2 hr 10 min
DIA to Downtown Denver: 13 min
Denver to Vail: 1 hr 57 min
Denver to Ft. Collins: 42 min
Denver to Colorado Springs: 44 min
Denver to Pueblo: 1 hr 11 min

Total cost is estimated to be $21.1 billion.

[SnyderBock]

That Colorado HSR report is interesting...

It looks like they are going to recommend using EMU 220mph tilting trains (ICE model) and a system which covers:
-Denver to Fort Collins in the north I-25 corridor
-Denver to Pueblo via Colorado Springs in the south I-25 corridor
-Denver to Denver International Airport in the east I-70 corridor
-Denver to Vail/Eagle County Airport in the west I-70 corridor

The report also suggests that diesel 110mph trains could be used to extend the system beyond the suggested routes--such as to Aspen, Grand Junction, Cheyenne and New Mexico. This would likely be a separate and future project.

The ICE type tilting 220mph EMU trains seem perfect for Colorado. They can handle up to 7% grades, instead of only 3-4% grades of other HSR types. The report also shows they are fast enough to attract enough ridership for an 11% operating headway. This profitability margin should attract private investment, such as a Public-Private-Partnership (PPP).

The I-70 Coalition supports a HSR advanced guideway system for the corridor. These are some of the members of teh I-70 coalition:
Counties:
Clear Creek, Eagle, Garfield, Gilpin, Grand, Jefferson, Pitkin and Summit.

Municipalities:
Aspen, Avon, Breckenridge, Carbondale, Dillon, Eagle, Empire, Fraser, Frisco, Georgetown, Glenwood Springs, Golden, Grand Lake, Gypsum, Idaho Springs, Leadville, Minturn, Montezuma, Red Cliff, Silverthorne, Silver Plume, Steamboat Springs, Vail, and Winter Park.

Private Sector Members:
Gart Companies, Intrawest Colorado, Summit County Chamber of Commerce, Vail Valley Partnership and Vail Resorts, Inc.

Other Members:
Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), and Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA).

In case you didn't know, some of those zip codes are the wealthiest in the nation. They have major political pull. Their resorts have over 12 million annual visitors, drawn from around the world. A simple $5 ski lift tax over 20 years could generate $1.2 billion. Plus the State of Colorado can generate up to $10 billion with a fuel tax. If the Feds match that--dollar for dollar--that would be $21.2 billion in funding. Enough to pay for it's construction and that's without a PPP.

Add the projected 11% operating overhead, the system could actually help pay for its self. Thus, an infusion of billions from a PPP group would be a likely revenue stream.

[combusean]

Arizona now has a proposal: $27 billion for a 90 mile solar rail corridor.

Discussed in our local transport thread at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4238731#post4238731


http://www.azstarnet.com/ss/2009/05/08/292000-1.jpg

High-speed solar train proposed as Tucson-Phoenix connection
Project, in idea stage, could cost $27B for 1st phase
By Mariana Alvarado
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 05.08.2009

A Tucson company wants to send you someday on a sun-fueled ride from one end of the state to the other.
The idea of a high-speed train that runs on solar power is still in its early stage, but the project's creators are pitching the idea to area cities and potential investors.
The idea is to start a train system that connects Tucson and Phoenix in a first phase. In the future it would extend north to Grand Canyon and south to Nogales. The cost for the first phase alone is estimated at $27 billion.
It could start operating in 2018.
Retired civil engineer Bill Gaither and business partner Raymond Wright set up Solar Bullet LLC in Tucson in hopes of designing and building the 220 mph solar bullet train, which would run on four tracks.
The innermost two tracks would be reserved for nonstop travel from Tucson to Phoenix, going 116 miles in a half hour, said Gaither.
The other tracks would serve six intermediate stations in Chandler, Maricopa, Casa Grande, Eloy, Red Rock and Marana, extending the Phoenix-Tucson travel time to approximately 60 minutes, according to the project outline.
The rail could open up new opportunities for economic development in those cities, said Gaither. The train would require 110 megawatts of electricity and would operate with solar power generated from overhead panels. It would have a dedicated right-of-way.
Wright and Gaither met in 2008 during a Tucsonans for Sensible Transit meeting and worked together on the project. They are currently working independently.
Wright has recently consulted with the engineering department at the University of Arizona to propose the system for federal funding. He figures his timing is right, given President Obama's push for alternative energy transportation projects.
Gaither is looking to city officials at each of the intermediate stations and asking them to put up $5,000 toward the $35,000 needed for an economic and tax revenue analysis before the project moves forward. He is also organizing a workshop later this year for the intermediate cities.
A local transportation official said the solar-train idea may be worth further study but faces major obstacles.
"It's a really fascinating concept. The price tag is quite high," said Gary Hayes, executive director of the Pima Association of Governments and the Regional Transportation Authority.
Hayes said he's met the solar-train organizers to talk about the concept, including the possibility of local government support for the economic analysis.
He noted that a Tucson-Phoenix passenger train has been talked about for years, and the state Transportation Department is conducting a study of the concept under a U.S. grant.
But Hayes said arranging the billions in government funding likely needed for the train would be tough, especially since the Tucson-Phoenix route was not on a list of priority high-speed rail corridors released recently by the Obama administration.
"First and foremost, you'd have to get on that list and then go from there," Hayes said.
Still, he's not ready to dismiss the idea out of hand.
"I would characterize it as, if you're going to plan, plan big; if you're going to dream, dream big," Hayes said.

[SnyderBock]

Here are the latest population projections for Colorado's front Range. Of course, the HSR will run north and south, connecting all these cities to Denver, but it will also have a line run West connecting Denver to some top ski resorts such as Vail and the casino town of Black Hawk-Central City.

Interesting report here. Note Boulder's estimated 303,000 people is not being included in the projection for the Denver Metro Area. I do not believe Greeley's 200,000+ projection is included either. I do believe both are likely to be included in the Denver CMSA by 2025.

Bizjournals: Denver area to approach 3 million people by 2025 (http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/06/01/daily23.html)

The population of the Denver metro area will grow to nearly 3 million by the year 2025, according to a analysis by bizjournals.

The projected growth rate of Denver and its suburbs ranks 78th among 250 U.S. metropolitan areas studied by bizjournals.

Bizjournals forecasts that the Denver-Aurora metro area will grow 26.31 percent from its 2005 estimated population of 2,358,271 to a 2025 population of 2,978,712, an increase of 620,441 residents.

The report treats Boulder as a separate metro area. It ranks Boulder at 172nd out of 250 U.S. metros, with a 7.46 percent projected growth rate by 2025. The Boulder area is expected to grow from 282,115 residents in 2005 to 303,173 in 2025, bizjournals expects.

The bizjournals analysis ranks the Greeley area highest -- 17th -- among Colorado metro areas studied, with a predicted growth rate of 60.61 percent by 2025. The report says Greeley will grow from 226,354 residents to 363,539.

The Fort Collins area ranks 106th out of 250 U.S. metros, with a projected growth rate of 19.43 percent, from 275,570 residents in 2005 to 329,120 in 2025.

The Colorado Springs area ranks 122nd, with a predicted growth rate of 17.13 percent, from 588,718 to 689,584.

The bizjournals forecasts are based on U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/gen/U.S._Census_Bureau_7F0AACB69C974D319F8296DAA5E9CB42.html) population data and existing rates of growth.

And click here (http://www.bizjournals.com/edit_special/80.html]Click here[/URL] for the full bizjournals growth report on U.S. metro-area growth.

[URL="http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/255.html) for a chart showing Colorado cities' rankings.


Colorado Front Range Populated Corridor (2025 population estimate from North to South):

~110,000 -- Cheyenne
-
329,120 -- Fort Collins area
-
-
----------------- Greeley area -- 363,539
-
303,173 -- Boulder area
-
Denver area -- 2,978,712
-
-
689,584 -- Colorado Springs area
-
~200,000 -- Pueblo area

========================
Total = 4,974,128