High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[202_Cyclist]

Are they going to cut highway funding too?

Nope-- don't you know, the billions of dollars we spend on highways each year is the perfect result of the free market and the hours people spend stuck in congestion is the ultimate manifestation of freedom.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Basic game theory says that no state will commit to billions on an HSR line that will only take people as far as the state line, without a firm (hopefully binding) commitment from adjacent states. Otherwise, they've just sank a massive piece of the state budget into something worthless.

In the 1950s, that firm commitment was virtually assured, because the Federal government was paying for 90% of new highway construction. At those prices, what state wouldn't be building new highways?

You're correct that the most densely-populated areas had to satisfy the need for highways as soon as possible, even before the 1956 Interstate Highway Act, leading to the use of tolls. However, you can't directly compare this to HSR. Nobody has yet found a business plan that allow for both capital and operating costs of HSR to be funded through user fees (tickets). It might be possible on a very long time-scale, but at some point the system would need another capital investment to keep operating properly.

Which is why I pointed out that the presence of neighboring networks (TGV, ICE)--and probably the Eurostar's entrance into Belgium--were catalysts of the Benelux HSR development. The Northeast has no such catalyst. So while NE HSR makes sense in a theoretical sort of way, more likely what's going to happen is that one of the states with a viable corridor entirely (or almost-entirely) within state lines will have to take the initiative and built an intrastate line. New York and Pennsylvania are really the only two states able to do this. But even then, it would be likely that Acela + HSR would operate as a status quo in the Northeast until such time as greater network connections would be put in place. Bottom line? Developing Chicago-St. Louis as the East Coast demonstrator line would indirectly lead to NE HSR in 15-20 years or so, according to current trends, as other Midwestern cities want what CHI-StL have, and create a network large enough to spread to Buffalo and Pittsburgh, which in turn prompts NY and PA cross-state efforts, which triggers the latent need for fast connections already in the Northeast.

The way around this chain of events is, of course, to have NE HSR federally managed. So, in the end, stressing the need for HSR in the NE is a perfect strategy for Republicans to delay its introduction in the eastern half of the U.S., due to the very fragmented political nature of the megalopolis meaning that it will only really be able to get its $hit together under the really heavy types of federal mandates and commitments the Repubs are determined not to provide. The source, thus, cannot be in the Northeast.

Originally Posted by mhays

I'm always suspicious of claims that things can be done at a fraction of the assumed price. Occasionally it's because there's a great new idea. But typically it's because the person claiming it (perhaps a rogue engineer) is overlooking major technical challenges and political realities.

In the case of putting HSR through any city, let alone several cities at once, the technical challenges are a wide unknown. Feasibility studies lightly graze the surface. Some additional work would occur in analyzing potential routes before the EIS process, which presumably would include some soil analysis and other testing in key spots. When a preferred route is chosen, then the real site analysis and design work would start, involving literally millions of man-hours. Only then can the project be understood in more than a rudimentary way.

True. But the current studies propose a $10-15 billion tunnel through the core of Philadelphia, which, if you know something about current rail infrastructure in the city, is about $9.75-14.75 billion more than you really need to spend for any physical reason. Also the proposal prevents an effective hookup between the NEC and Keystone Corridor in any meaningful way in the city center. Philadelphia already has an excellent intercity rail station, and adequate (though improvable) junction, and one major tight curve that really needs straightening (Frankford Jct.), which is provided with a perfect public ROW (Erie and Torresdale Aves.) for said straightening almost right alongside. So really all we need to do for HSR within the confines of Philadelphia County would be to a) tension the catenary, b) provide a viaduct-type bypass of Frankford Jct., and c) rejigger the way the tracks are laid out to provide a two-track HSR main and a two-track regional main on a ROW that's already laid out for four-track operation.

The real reason Amtrak wants to avoid 30th St. is to avoid interaction with SEPTA, an agency well-known among Philadelphians for being a bunch of clusterf*cks who can't cooperate with any other line operator, despite the fact that no less than three of its lines require cooperation with Amtrak already, and several others are also active freight lines. The general clusterf*ckery of SEPTA is well recorded...I would suggest an overhaul of the agency would be a more useful and less expensive solution than a ten-mile long bored tunnel under the city core. Unfortunately, that's well beyond Amtrak's ken.

[M II A II R II K]

VISION: The Future Is Becoming More Clear -- Abandon Sprawl, Intensify Use of High Speed Rail and Return to Urban Life, Like the US Was in the '20s


January 22, 2011

By Scott Thill

Read More: http://www.alternet.org/environment/...0s?page=entire

Crippled by economic depression and environmental catastrophe, the American dream is dead in the water. And with peak oil hot on its hyperconsuming heels, America is looking for solutions, and it may have found a good one in the form of an ambitious national high-speed rail network that would connect its metropoles and mid-size cities together in green solidarity. Better late than never.

- "In the '20s, the American way of life looked just like Paris," U.S. High-Speed Rail Association (USHSRA) president Andy Kunz told AlterNet by phone in a wide-ranging interview. "Everyone was living in big cities, riding street trains, no one had cars," he added. "But the oil and auto industries, working hand-in-hand with the government, converted the country away from that system. America wasn't born with the system we had now. So the American dream as we know it is somewhat of a myth.

- Right now, USHSRA's projected rail network envisions functional regional high-speed networks in California, the Pacific Northwest, Northeast and Great Lakes region by 2015, and then a complete national system by 2030. But there's no time to waste. "If everyone sat down and took a good look at what the military's report means for our nation and its economy, they'd be in emergency mode, searching for a transportation infrastructure no longer dependent on oil," explained Kunz. "A national rail system powered by electricity, wind and solar is going to be the only thing that will make a massive difference. You could have transportation forever."

- "International high-speed rail projects are cash positive," Rachel Wall, spokesperson for California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), explained to AlterNet by phone. "And that's what we're looking forward to in California. There are going to be a lot of communities touched by this project when it is fully realized." The plan is simple: Connect over 25 cities like Los Angeles, San Diego and Anaheim to northern cities like San Francisco, San Jose and Sacramento with electrically powered trains traveling 200-plus miles an hour, kiss goodbye the excess pollution from commuter cars and planes, create thousands of jobs and alleviate citizen suffering and lethal emissions.

- "We're not building an Amtrak," Wall said. "We're competing with airlines like JetBlue and Southwest, although both have said that the high-speed rail will allow them to have more long-distance flights, which is economically better for them. Our travel time from Los Angeles to San Francisco is going to be two hours and 40 minutes, with stops. Anyone who has traveled that route knows that driving or flying takes longer. And instead of polluting the route, we're working with 22 agencies to make sure we can put energy back into the grid."

- "It's quite obvious that over half of the U.S. military overseas is guarding oil pipelines, refineries and shipping lanes, all to guarantee a flow of fuel to American SUVs," Kunz explained. "How much longer can we sustain that? It's draining our wealth, we're killing people right and left. We've got two contradictory, unsustainable systems: sprawl and war. So it's not a matter of whether people want to change or not. They're going to change. The only choice is whether they do it voluntarily, or kicking and screaming."

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

So while NE HSR makes sense in a theoretical sort of way, more likely what's going to happen is that one of the states with a viable corridor entirely (or almost-entirely) within state lines will have to take the initiative and built an intrastate line. New York and Pennsylvania are really the only two states able to do this.

I would argue more in favor of DC-Baltimore. Such a line would be short, have high ridership, and both Maryland and DC governments would be on board. Plus, it would actually form a part of the replacement NEC - it wouldn't be a spur like the NY or Penna lines would be.

They keep trying to push a maglev for this corridor. I'm hesitant about that - but if the technology can be developed to within a reasonable cost, then building a maglev would immediately catapult the US to the forefront of innovation in transportation. China's already got one, of course, but it's only a slightly longer version of the airport people-movers that existed previously.

On a related note, I wonder if it might be cheaper to build a traditional railroad in a vacuum tube.

Bottom line? Developing Chicago-St. Louis as the East Coast demonstrator line would indirectly lead to NE HSR in 15-20 years or so, according to current trends, as other Midwestern cities want what CHI-StL have, and create a network large enough to spread to Buffalo and Pittsburgh, which in turn prompts NY and PA cross-state efforts, which triggers the latent need for fast connections already in the Northeast.

You're referring to the nebulous 220mph Chi-StL line, right? The current 110mph project is a laughing stock compared to the Acela that the eastern seaboard's already got.

[JDRCRASH]

^ Is there such a thing as at-grade maglev?

[Beta_Magellan]

Yes—the maglevs Japan Railways have been testing for the past few decades are essentially superconducting luges:



And of course you can always build a transrapid-style maglev close to the ground, I suppose.

I’m curious why Maryland would be so active in pushing Maglev—is it related to the research at ODU nearby, or does Maryland not really see itself as part of the NEC as a whole?

[JDRCRASH]

Oh, okay. I asked because there's that plan for a Las Vegas-Anaheim maglev train:

[202_Cyclist]

Rants by idiots like this make me want to get a stiff drink.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CSFHjelz44

I'd ask Mr. Beck how profitable the Beltway, I-95, or any other highway has been for residents of a particular state. Glenn Beck says nobody rides trains, except Amtrak had record ridership this past year (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-0...heast-corridor)-- I know he can't let facts get in the way of his rabid Ann Rand-ideology. This assbag also notes that Amtrak receives subsidies, I'd ask him about the $5B in subsidies airlines received after 9/11.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Rants by idiots like this make me want to get a stiff drink.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CSFHjelz44

I'd ask Mr. Beck how profitable the Beltway, I-95, or any other highway has been for residents of a particular state. Glenn Beck says nobody rides trains, except Amtrak had record ridership this past year (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-0...heast-corridor)-- I know he can't let facts get in the way of his rabid Ann Rand-ideology. This assbag also notes that Amtrak receives subsidies, I'd ask him about the $5B in subsidies airlines received after 9/11.

Yea, I like generally Glenn Beck (let's not debate about that though), but I found his rant against high speed rail completely ridiculous. Reason why people don't ride Amtrak is cause Amtrak is slow and sucks.

Transportation is one area that I don't mind the government spending money. The interstates didn't shove us into economic success without a big ass monetary infusion...

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

Yes—the maglevs Japan Railways have been testing for the past few decades are essentially superconducting luges:
...

Are there any major cities a significant elevation above a not-too-far-away second major city? That'd be cool - 100% gravity-powered one-way ...

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

VISION: The Future Is Becoming More Clear -- Abandon Sprawl, Intensify Use of High Speed Rail and Return to Urban Life, Like the US Was in the '20s


January 22, 2011

By Scott Thill

Read More: http://www.alternet.org/environment/...0s?page=entire

Amen! Brother

[bobdreamz]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Rants by idiots like this make me want to get a stiff drink.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CSFHjelz44

I'd ask Mr. Beck how profitable the Beltway, I-95, or any other highway has been for residents of a particular state. Glenn Beck says nobody rides trains, except Amtrak had record ridership this past year (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-0...heast-corridor)-- I know he can't let facts get in the way of his rabid Ann Rand-ideology. This assbag also notes that Amtrak receives subsidies, I'd ask him about the $5B in subsidies airlines received after 9/11.

Well that's 2 minutes & 25 seconds of your life that you wasted on the Pillsbury Dough Boy of abject stupidity!

[afiggatt]

Originally Posted by tredici

Yea, I like generally Glenn Beck (let's not debate about that though), but I found his rant against high speed rail completely ridiculous. Reason why people don't ride Amtrak is cause Amtrak is slow and sucks.

Transportation is one area that I don't mind the government spending money. The interstates didn't shove us into economic success without a big ass monetary infusion...

So, no one rides Amtrak - well besides the 28.7 million who did in FY 2010? Which was a record, although just barely ahead of the FY2008 record. I took Amtrak round-trip from DC to New York City 2 days ago and the train was completely full on the Northeast Regional leaving Penn Station NYC in the late afternoon. Yep, I guess no one was on the trains...

Amtrak ridership was up 6.6% for the first 2 months of the Fiscal year 2011 (October to November 2010). The ridership is up by a surprising amount in the major mid-west corridors, despite the comparatively slow speed of those corridors (which will get faster once the Chicago CREATE, Chicago-St. Louis, Indiana Gateway, and Chi-Detroit projects are done). If Amtrak can keep up the ridership increase, and with gas prices above $3/gallon that is likely, Amtrak should have over 30 million passengers in FY2010. Respectable numbers, given the number of places that don't have Amtrak service.

As for Glen Beck, the less said, the better. Someday he will say or do something so extreme and cross the line that even Fox will have to suspend or fire him. When that happens, The Daily Show writers will probably go into mourning for a time.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

VISION: The Future Is Becoming More Clear -- Abandon Sprawl, Intensify Use of High Speed Rail and Return to Urban Life, Like the US Was in the '20s


January 22, 2011

By Scott Thill

Read More: http://www.alternet.org/environment/...0s?page=entire

That article puts tears in my eyes, and a smile on my face.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

VISION: The Future Is Becoming More Clear -- Abandon Sprawl, Intensify Use of High Speed Rail and Return to Urban Life, Like the US Was in the '20s

Although I don’t go much for nostalgic references, I like Vaclav Smil’s case for energy conservation more (from Energy at the Crossroads, talking more about global energy use growth but also somewhat relevant here):

This leads to an obvious question: would the billions of today’s poor people be distressed when a generation from now they experience the quality of life that was enjoyed by people in Lyon or Kyoto in the 1960s? Their life expectancies were above 70 years and infant mortalities were below 20/1,000 births. And, in addition to being globally recognized epitomes of sophisticated culture, enviable cuisine, and admirable style, the two countries were also highly innovative. Their trains were, and remain, the best embodiment of this innovative drive. In 1964 Japan introduced its remarkable shinkansen (literally ‘new trunk line’ but better known as the bullet train) that has operated ever since without a single accident and injury carrying 130 million people a year at speeds originally exceeding 200 and new even 300 km/hour and with delays averaging a mere 36 s/train. And in France in the 1960s the state railway corporation (SNCD), stimulated by the Japanese example, launched its high-speed train program that produced train de grand vitesse, Europe’s fastest means of land transport.

[…]

But I will ask any European reader born before 1950 or shortly afterwards and hence having good recollection of the 1960s, this simple question: what was so unbearable about life in that decade? What is so precious that we have gained since that time through our increased energy use that we seem to be willing to contemplate a return to those levels of fuel and consumption? How fascinating it would be to collect a truly representative sample of honest answers!

[electricron]

VISION: The Future Is Becoming More Clear -- Abandon Sprawl, Intensify Use of High Speed Rail and Return to Urban Life, Like the US Was in the '20s

Can the author really be that serious?
Per http://www.agclassroom.org/

After the Civil War 53% of America's labor force were farmers.
Total population: 38,558,371; farm population: 18,373,000 (est.); farmers 53% of labor force; Number of farms: 2,660,000; average acres: 153

Prior to WWI 32% of America's in the labor force were farmers. 1910
Total population: 91,972,266; farm population: 32,077,000 (est.); farmers 31% of labor force; Number of farms: 6,366,000; average acres: 138

After WWI 27% of America's labor force were farmers. 1920
Total population: 105,710,620; farm population: 31,614,269; farmers 27% of labor force; Number of farms: 6,454,000; average acres: 148

Before the Great Depression 21% of America's labor force were farmers. 1930
Total population: 122,775,046; farm population: 30,455,350; farmers 21% of labor force; Number of farms: 6,295,000; average acres: 157; irrigated acres: 14,633,252

Prior to WWII 18% of America's labor force were farmers. 1940
Total population: 131,820,000; farm population: 30,840,000; farmers 18% of labor force; Number of farms: 6,102,000; average acres: 175; irrigated acres: 17,942,968

After WWII 12% of America's labor force were farmers. 1950
Total population: 151,132,000; farm population: 25,058,000; farmers 12.2% of labor force; Number of farms: 5,388,000; average acres: 216; irrigated acres: 25,634,869

Today, around 2% of America's labor force are farmers. 1990 Last data from source.
Total population: 261,423,000; farm population: 2,987,552; farmers 2.6% of labor force; Number of farms: 2,143,150; average acres: 461; irrigated acres: 49,404,000

Prior to WWI through the end of WWII, the farm population remain relatively steady around 30 million as the nation's population rose from 90 Million to 151 Million.

During the 1920's between 1/4 to 1/5 of America's population lived on farms, about as far away from an urban lifestyle one can have. After WWII during the latter half of the 20th century, the farm population declined significantly from 25 million to 2 million. Today, less than 2% of America's labor force are farmers.

Where did all those farmers go? To foreign urbanize cities or more tolerable suburbs? Where would you move to if you were raised on a farm?

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by afiggatt

So, no one rides Amtrak - well besides the 28.7 million who did in FY 2010? Which was a record, although just barely ahead of the FY2008 record. I took Amtrak round-trip from DC to New York City 2 days ago and the train was completely full on the Northeast Regional leaving Penn Station NYC in the late afternoon. Yep, I guess no one was on the trains...

Amtrak ridership was up 6.6% for the first 2 months of the Fiscal year 2011 (October to November 2010). The ridership is up by a surprising amount in the major mid-west corridors, despite the comparatively slow speed of those corridors (which will get faster once the Chicago CREATE, Chicago-St. Louis, Indiana Gateway, and Chi-Detroit projects are done). If Amtrak can keep up the ridership increase, and with gas prices above $3/gallon that is likely, Amtrak should have over 30 million passengers in FY2010. Respectable numbers, given the number of places that don't have Amtrak service.

As for Glen Beck, the less said, the better. Someday he will say or do something so extreme and cross the line that even Fox will have to suspend or fire him. When that happens, The Daily Show writers will probably go into mourning for a time.

You speak as if I believe that Amtrak is a lost cause... which I do not. If Amtrak got as much traffic in the Chicago area as the Crescent Route does in Tuscaloosa (which is slowly but surely increasing), you would probably just say no one rides it, too.

What I mean is that more people don't ride it because it's slow and from what I hear, isn't very nice. It's quite inconvenient too... I've explored the possibilities of taking maybe a day trip to Atlanta, Birmingham, or New Orleans via Amtrak before. While it's quite cost effective, the arrival and departure times don't fit in with any kind of schedule.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by tredici

Reason why people don't ride Amtrak is cause Amtrak is slow and sucks.

Ahhh! The correlation between affection for Glen Beck's pathological incoherence and the inability to write an English sentence.

[202_Cyclist]

Rep. Mica held a field hearing on high speed rail yesterday, “Developing True High-Speed Rail to the Northeast Corridor: Stop Sitting on Our Federal Assets.” The House Transportation & Infrastructure Website has links to all of the written testimony: http://transportation.house.gov/hear...px?NewsID=1035

Developing True High-Speed Rail to the Northeast Corridor: Stop Sitting on Our Federal Assets

Grand Central Terminal, Northeast Balcony — New York, New York
January 27, 2011

Field hearing of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
Grand Central Terminal
Northeast Balcony
87 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017

Background InformationDeveloping High-Speed Rail for Northeast Corridor Focus of Congressional Hearing
Statements of Chairman Mica & Chairman Shuster from Hearing on Northeast Corridor High-Speed Rail

Witness Testimonies
The Honorable Michael Bloomberg
The Honorable Ed Rendell
Mr. Thomas Hart
Ms. Petra Todorovich
Mr. Perry Offutt
Mr. Robert Scardelletti

[jtk1519]

Originally Posted by afiggatt

So, no one rides Amtrak - well besides the 28.7 million who did in FY 2010?

No flame intended, but is that supposed to be an impressive figure? 28.7 million riders on 21,000 miles worth of routes = just 1,367 annual riders per mile. That's 78,630 riders per day for the entire system.