High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

These distances are not acceptable for someone on foot. Well established precedent tells us that almost nobody is willing to walk over 1/2mile from a transit stop to/from their destination, and studies centric to Florida actually peg the distance at more like 1/4mile... As you can see, the proposed HSR location would involve walking distances considerably beyond that.

So my original point remains, the OCCC is not within walking distance of the proposed station. I'm sure there will be a shuttle set up, but with this kind of distance, they could just as well do a monorail up to Universal and down to Sea World. Or better yet, move the station down closer to I-4, in behind the Rosen Centre.

A long range plan that creates an overall urban environment along I-Drive will compliment the High Speed Rail station just fine. You are right, a lot of people probably would not lug themselves to the OCCC from this stop, so shuttles to the OCCC and adjacent hotels are likely to do the trick. While this is touted as the OCCC stop, it is a stop in the tourism corridor along I-Drive, which is much more than the convention center. Like I mentioned in a previous post, a future light rail line that extends from Sand Lake will make a direct connection at the terminal, making this whole conversation obsolete.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

Additionally, this station is like 6 minutes from the airport station and Disney station, where much of the traffic will come from. Both of those stations also require fairly long walking, which means the quick turnaround makes people even less willing to walk when they get off at this station. (and vice versa).

Have you seen the Disney stations plans yet? I don't believe they've been released but experience tells me that Disney will not build a train station that does not seamlessly link to their attractions.

The airport hub is anything but anti-urban, so unless people are against walking altogether, this couldn't be more convenient for travelers, more so than we have in Boston at Logan Airport, which requires a bus ride to the trains (and it still gains ridership).

[SnyderBock]

DENVER AND THE WEST
Study connecting dots for high-speed rail
By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post

POSTED: 03/30/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

A study of possible high-speed, intercity rail for Colorado has found that lines between Fort Collins and Pueblo and between Denver International Airport and Eagle County have the best "operating and cost-benefit results" of the options evaluated.

The full system carries a $21.1 billion price tag, but Harry Dale, chairman of the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority, which produced the study, said the rail system would probably be built in phases.

The study, which is available at rockymountainrail.org, said the most feasible option for intercity rail in Colorado assumes passengers would pay fares averaging about 35 cents a mile, with one-way trips from downtown Denver to Vail in the Interstate 70 corridor and from Denver to Pueblo in the Interstate 25 corridor, each costing about $40.

"In the I-25 corridor, this option produces travel times much faster (90-100 mph average speeds) than the automobile," according to the study's executive summary.
"There is sufficient demand to support trains every 15 to 30 minutes throughout the day," the document says. "In the I-70 corridor, while train speeds are lower due to the severe curve and grade limitations, travel times (60-70 mph average speeds) are still competitive with travel by automobile."
The feasibility study, which took 18 months to complete and cost $1.4 million, said the DIA-Eagle/Fort Collins-Pueblo rail network could carry up to 35 million passengers a year by 2035, generating more than $750 million in fare revenue.

The Colorado Department of Transportation participated in the study and CDOT will continue to analyze the state's prospects for constructing high-speed rail...


Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14782251#ixzz0jegUH3c1

Study Documents available here:
-Executive Summary (1MB)
-High Speed Rail Feasibility Study Business Plan - Appendices (4MB)
-High Speed Rail Feasibility Study Business Plan (24MB)

[M II A II R II K]

Want High Speed Rail to Fail? Don't Fund Local Transit


04.08.10

Ted Rosenbaum

Read More: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/elev...l-transit.html

On March 18, the Illinois State Senate approved the formation of a High Speed Rail Commission for Illinois. While the bill still has to be passed by the State House and signed by Gov. Quinn, the bipartisan vote in the Senate seems to make its eventual passage a foregone conclusion. This is great news for a number of reasons. One of the biggest in my view is the proscription for studying and designing truly high-speed trains, that is, trains that top out over 200 mph. Let's be completely clear: current rail travel between Chicago and St. Louis, even when the enhancements funded by the US Department of Transportation's $1.13 billion stimulus infusion earlier this year are complete, will only speed trains up to 110 mph. That's not high speed rail, and the ridership levels on the current line flounder because of it. Really, that's regional rail at a regional scale that's too large for the train to gain any market share.

A true HSR line would serve a market with similar demographics to the outstanding Paris-Lyon TGV line. It would serve more than 3 million riders annually and help grow the regional economy. The next step will be to integrate the planned Milwaukee-to-Madison HSR line into a full Midwest Line running from St. Louis through Chicago and Milwaukee to the Twin Cities in Minnesota.

There are, however two fundamental problems with a high speed rail proposal like the Chicago-St. Louis line, though both are entirely solvable. The first, of course, is the price tag: on the order of $12 billion to fully build out the line. Whether it's through a Public-Private Partnership (hopefully more artfully executed than the Chicago parking meter debacle,) taxes, bonds, or some combination of all three, the people of Illinois--and Chicago in particular--will have to decide if we have the will to bear a cost that may take a generation to be repaid. I believe there is, or at least should be.*

The second, more fundamental problem is what all these people will do when they arrive in Chicago--and especially how they will get there. Part of the case for HSR is that, unlike an airport, it can bring people directly to the center of the city. They'll arrive at Union Station ready to work, ready to spend, ready to enjoy and add to Chicago's vibrant city life. At least, that's the idea. But that supposes that everything they want to do in and around Chicago is accessible without a car. Put bluntly, Chicago must be a livable city, or else high-speed rail will fail. The CTA and Metra must meet their--and our--needs. Walkable, mixed-use development around stations means that whether people are coming to Chicago to re-unite with their friends and family or seal a business deal, they won't need a car. Dense, beautiful architecture will keep them coming back. Otherwise, all these people will take the high-speed line to its proposed terminus at O'Hare, rent a car, and add to our congestion and pollution more than our economy.

[SnyderBock]

So is this article saying a Saint Louis to Chicago true HSR (200 mph) train would only carry 3 million passenger per year?

I find that interesting, because in the feasibility study I just posted for the proposed Colorado HSR (200+ mph) system, they came up with these numbers using accepted projection calculations:

"The feasibility study, which took 18 months to complete and cost $1.4 million, said the DIA-Eagle/Fort Collins-Pueblo rail network could carry up to 35 million passengers a year by 2035, generating more than $750 million in fare revenue."

Okay, so more than 60% of that ridership will be generated by tourism (and specifically the ski resorts), but Saint Louis and Chicago are no tourist destination slouches themselves. 3 million per year -- in comparison -- seems very low. Am I right here, was this article way off? The 110 mph train should be able to generate 3 million passengers per year. The 200+ mph train more than triple. 12+ million per year seems far more in reason.

[mhays]

The numbers do sound low for Chicago-SL. And Colorado's numbers sound much too high.

Even "accepted" projections are pretty much educated-yet-wild guesses. Particularly in a new context, and particularly when you're projecting decades out. It sounds like Colorado's numbers were put together by partisans.

[Busy Bee]

35,000,000/year = ~100,000 daily ridership, ~5,500 hourly ridership w/ 18 hour operation.

Possible?

[Jasonhouse]

^It's for the whole network after it's built out though. That isn't that much really.

Btw, it's interesting that Colorado is basically proposing to use HSR as an extended commuter rail system.

[Gordo]

^I dunno, seems pretty high to me. California is projecting 39.9 million to 54.6 million riders by 2030 (depending on fares) for the entire California system, which is a significant amount larger (several times) than the Colorado system in every conceivable way (length, population centers, tourists, etc):

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/im...%20Revenue.pdf

[BrennanW]

I'm not sure. I spend a lot of time in the Denver area, and on a Friday afternoon- saturday morning, the only place anyone seems to be is on the roads heading out into the mountains. Additionally, IS-25 from Denver to Colorado Springs is horribly crowded with traffic. While I would wish any form of commuter rail be built between the two cities and tourist areas, A higher-speed service would certainly be preferrable.

[Busy Bee]

I'm not saying those numbers aren't possible—just striking.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

Btw, it's interesting that Colorado is basically proposing to use HSR as an extended commuter rail system.

That's what I was thinking.

[BrennanW]

If this ever happens, Denver Union Station will have to be expaned. Again.

Maybe we'll see another terminus constructed adjacent to an LRT connection to downtown on the south side somewhere, like Littleton.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

^It's for the whole network after it's built out though. That isn't that much really.

Btw, it's interesting that Colorado is basically proposing to use HSR as an extended commuter rail system.

It's a helluva lot.

Ridership for Paris-Lyon, one of the most successful high-speed routes in the world, serving an area with three times the population of Colorado, with cities with dense cores that are ideal feeders for HSR, and both of which generate far more tourism than Colorado is approximately 30 million/year after being in existence for nearly 30 years. The idea that Colorado, with lower population, less tourism and cities designed in a way that does not compliment HSR thinks they could generate 35 million rides a year after being in existence for less than 20 years is utterly absurd, ridiculous and should throw doubt on the capabilities of the planners to adhere to reality.

[pesto]

emathias: glad to see someone finally spoke up directly.

I do like the concept of HSR as a commuter line, however, especially in huge cities. LA could use a non-stop or 1 stop from Ventura, Palmdale, Riverside, Irvine (each 40 or more miles away) to DT. The gain in time would allow commuters to connect MTA and get to, say, LAX or the Westside without spending half the day getting there.

[SnyderBock]

It's not a bias or exaggerated feasibility study. Make sure you review the data carefully. You make the claims that the Paris-Lyons region has three times the population. According to Wikipedia, the Paris-Lyon greater economic region has a combined population of ~15 million people. The Colorado HSR ridership projections are based on 2035 population estimates of a Front Range Mega-Corridor regional population of ~9 million people. That's not three times the population.

The population of the city of Lyon is 472,305. Together with its suburbs and satellite towns, Lyon forms the second-largest metropolitan area in France after that of Paris, with the population of its urban area estimated to be 1,348,832 (Insee, 1999) and that of its metropolitan area 1,748,271 (2006). Its urban region (Urban Community of Lyon), represents half of the Rhône-Alpes région population with three million inhabitants.[1]

The city of Paris, within its administrative limits largely unchanged since 1860, has an estimated population of 2,203,817 (January 2006),[5] but the Paris aire urbaine (or metropolitan area) has a population of 11,769,433 (January 2006),[4]

You also claim that the Paris-Lyons region is far more dense and appropriate for passenger rail. Well Colorado's mountain resort and town's are land restricted and thus typically very dense for their sizes. Add to that that these destinations serve millions of ski tourists each year. Tourists which would rather not rent a car and drive for several hours on hazardous mountain roads to get there. Add that factor and projected ridership jumps.

Also consider that Denver is very urban and dense for an American city of it's size and is constructing the most extensive mass transit system for an American city of it's size. Then consider the other urban population centers along the Front Range, such as dense and urban Boulder and the rapidly growing urban/eco-friendly/progressive city of Fort Collins. To the south you have a sprawling mess in Colorado Springs, but it draws million of tourists a year in it's own right and has massive government and military instillations which will be drawn to the HSR service from Colorado Springs to Denver International Airport. And it's civilians which will be drawn both to Denver International Airport and Colorado's mountain resorts.

So yes, I'm sure Paris draws more tourists than Colorado. but for the most part, those Parisian tourist arrive at their destination (Paris). In Colorado, tourists arrive at Denver and then have to get to their destinations by other means. Millions of these annual tourists will almost certainly opt to take the HSR train to their resort destination. This leads to a much higher ridership potential for such a line, than any typical system in place at current.

And what this was all really about was the Chicago-Saint Louis line only attracting ~3 million riders per year. I thought this was very low. But after further thought, I realize that most of the riders will either be local Chicago residents traveling to Saint Louis or local Saint Louis residents traveling to Chicago.

You won't have people flying from all over the world to Chicago to get on the HSR train and take it to Saint Louis or visa-versa. The Colorado HSR study was a poor comparison (it was simply what I was most familiar with). Colorado is a rapidly growing mega-corridor region served by only one major city and airport (Denver) and it has scattered and somewhat far flung world class resorts and tourist attractions which can only be accessed via Denver, followed by a transfer to another mode of transit. These are very unique circumstances which inflate projected riderships greatly. Perhaps 3 million per year for Chicago-Saint Louis is not too far off, after all.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Tourists which would rather not rent a car and drive for several hours on hazardous mountain roads to get there. Add that factor and projected ridership jumps.

This is an important factor to remember in ridership projections to the ski resorts. This will be a train going through the rockies to ski resorts. I'm sure at a point there will be a storm big enough to close the train line, but I'm also sure that in any kind of snow, people will feel safer on rails with someone else driving than they will driving their own car on twisty mountain roads. That will be a huge factor driving ridership. It will also be something to market when the line opens: "take the train and cut your chances of getting snowed in by X%"

[BrennanW]

Let us not forget the Denver Ski Train, one of the few private "inter-city" passenger rail trains that used to exist. The train left Denver Union Station for Fraser/ Winter Park daily in-season to the ski resorts, and it operated profitably for many years until closing down for the 2009 season and not restarting due to the economy. I believe ridership had been down significantly. While a high speed train may greatly improve ridership, I have to think that high speed trains would still have to negotiate Moffat tunnel to get anywhere near a good ski resort (Winter Park.) Additionally, I believe a train through the mountains would be traveling along relatively winding railroad ROW, slowing it down even if it could tilt around curves, perhaps 110 to 150 mph, and slower through many areas.

There were plans to revive the ski train, but I think they fell through. Anyway, with DUS all torn up, there really is no space for such a large trainset in that station. At most three tracks were ever used, and DUS is down to two. Amtrak uses one and the other that used to be used for the Ski Train is now used to set out any private cars on the California Zypher. Soon, Amtrak will relocate to a "new" Amshack while the new station/ platform area is constructed, and they are expecting to be there for 3 years.

And as I said before, this new HSR plan, especially if it goes to Colorado Springs will require a new terminus. There is no way, unless it is reconstructed again, to get frequent HSR trains through a reconstructed, 8-platform DUS. I've seen Chicago's rail terminals- they are busy enough with fewer lines and 16 platforms. The Millennium Station has 8 tracks and there is no room at all for any new trains, and trains are mostly less frequent than the East Corridor. Now I'm sure the FasTracks people have this sorted out, but I'm saying if this new plan gains funding from the State and the feds, Denver will need a second rail terminal- I think something in Littleton or near the Denver Tech Center would be acceptable. A Littleton terminal would allow passengers to transfer to LRT to get to Downtown.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

This is an important factor to remember in ridership projections to the ski resorts. This will be a train going through the rockies to ski resorts. I'm sure at a point there will be a storm big enough to close the train line, but I'm also sure that in any kind of snow, people will feel safer on rails with someone else driving than they will driving their own car on twisty mountain roads. That will be a huge factor driving ridership. It will also be something to market when the line opens: "take the train and cut your chances of getting snowed in by X%"

I'd be really curious to see how they're planning to configure the insides of these trains. People have a LOT of stuff with them when they're going skiing/snowboarding, and a lot of it is big and awkward sized, making getting it into and out of certain places slow and difficult. If this train is going to be stopping several places, this could be a real problem - unless they're talking about baggage checking? Never heard of that on a HSR train, but perhaps that's what they're considering here.

[SnyderBock]

SkiTrain from Denver Union Station to Winter Park was highly successful, despite much slower speeds than the proposed HSR system. It was owned by local billionaire Philip Anschutz. He shut down the line after 69 years of continuous operation and sold the train to a Canadian company in 2008, because of high insurance costs and the fact he operated it at a loss as a gift to the community. Colorado's HSR feasibility study found any rail service at or below 110 mph max speed would result in operating losses and 150 mph+ max speeds would generate profit. There are no plans to make the SkiTrain high speed.

However, there was a solid plan in place to bring it back in time for the start of what would have been it's 70th consecutive year of operation. The train was owned and retrofitted and a deal had been stuck for AmTrak to manage and operate the private line. 13,000 tickets had been reserved and unfortunately AmTrak backed out of the plan at the 11th hour and derailed it's return.

Now Union Station is under construction and they are still building a platform for the SkiTrain. There will also be one other unused platform at the redeveloped Union Station and a reserved ROW for another future platform. but it is uncertain how the proposed HSR will integrate with Denver mass transit network and Union Station.

In fact, Colorado Department of Transportation was just awarded $1.4 million federal dollars to study how exactly to connect this proposed HSR with Denver's system and Union Station. We can speculate all we want, but this report getting underway now, is really what will answer all our questions. This study is expected to take a year or so to complete. In addition to that study, the other study recently awarded funding by the feds is to develop a Colorado HSR plan--which will be required before Colorado can be awarded any further funding. Both studies should be complete in another 12 to 18 months.