High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[mhays]

Calling Denver dense and/or a transit-heavy city, now or anytime soon, is a stretch. If the wildest dreams of Fastracks and DRCOG come true, it'll still be behind many US cities of similar size in density and transit use. To say nothing of similar sized cities in Canada and other continents.

Colorado's projections seem wildly unrealistic, the sort of numbers advocates would come up with. I'll trust the federally-funded studies more. Even then, it's common for "official" studies to be off by an entire multiple even when construction is underway, let alone years before that.

I suspect front range service would be popular, on a moderate scale given the lack of a second big city. On existing rails and existing stations (if decent ones exist) it might be fairly cheap and easy. With new rails and new stations, the cost and disruption (tracks are a barrier) would be a lot to ask voters, but if it means better speeds then maybe it would draw in the millions per year. The mountain line I don't believe at all, not because it would be nice to have, but because I don't believe the ridership guesses or even close, and I doubt the voters would approve billions in construction subsidies.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

...
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 Paris-Lyon region is ~15 million today. The map shown of the HSR project under discussion as entirely within the state of Colorado, which currently has a population of 5 million people, today. The region covered by the rails would be slightly under 5 million, since it most, but not all, of the state's population. That's three times, without massaging any numbers via counts for regions not under discussion, and without massaging the timescale.

State projections for Colorado are just over 7 million for 2030 - I'm really not sure where your 9 million number comes from. If you want to use it, fine, but you have to define it or we have nothing to discuss.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

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.

For their sizes? There is no town in Colorado that has densities even close to those of central Paris or central Lyon or even of most of the towns in between (although I don't have data on most of the small towns in France or Colorado). I challenge you to cite any evidence that I'm wrong on the major cities' density.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

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.

That may or may not be true. Tourists also don't like lugging their equipment across several modes of transportation.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

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.

Last I heard they lost funding. Also, figures for density claim, please. How much of the population of Denver will actually be able to access HSR via transit in a reasonable amount of time?

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

...
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.
...

YOu might be surprised how many people fly into Paris but explore the rest of France only using Paris as a jumping-off point.

If you're convinced that skiers and HSR are such a great combo, why don't you check out how Milan or Lyon or Zurich use rail to deliver skiers to the Alps ...

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by emathias

State projections for Colorado are just over 7 million for 2030 - I'm really not sure where your 9 million number comes from. If you want to use it, fine, but you have to define it or we have nothing to discuss.

The HSR system proposes 110 mph DMU feeder lines to extend from Fort Collins to Cheyenne, WY (~120,000 2035 projected pop.) and also south from Pueblo to Santa Fe-Albuquerque, NM (~1,200,000 projected CSA 2035 pop.). Colorado's projected 2035 population is 7,798,107 according to the Colorado Demographer's Office. This adds up to a projected 2035 corridor population of 9,118,107 people.

Originally Posted by emathias

For their sizes? There is no town in Colorado that has densities even close to those of central Paris or central Lyon or even of most of the towns in between (although I don't have data on most of the small towns in France or Colorado). I challenge you to cite any evidence that I'm wrong on the major cities' density.

Colorado mountain resort towns are land restricted by the mountains. They tend to have tightly nestled city centers and resort villages. The resident population is all which is counted in census density reports. Packed into hotels, the tourist populations create an "inflated density effect." As a result, the region behaves as though it had greater population density than it really does and one which leans more favorably towards passenger rail than typical American cities and towns of these sizes.

Originally Posted by emathias

That may or may not be true. Tourists also don't like lugging their equipment across several modes of transportation.

Tourists don't like lugging their equipment across several modes of transit? I'm sure you can cite sources for this fact, since you are making me do the same for you. How do you think tourists are doing it now, in Colorado? They fly in, they transfer to a bus or a rental car. They lug their equipment with them. How would it be less covenant to fly into Denver International, load your equipment on a HSR train and an hour or two latter be dropped off at your ski resort? Currently that trip would take you 3-5 hours.

Originally Posted by emathias

Last I heard they lost funding. Also, figures for density claim, please. How much of the population of Denver will actually be able to access HSR via transit in a reasonable amount of time?

Denver has not lost any funding for is FasTracks mass transit plan. Because of the recession, there is a budget gap which needs to be addressed.

• The 12.1 mile, ~$700 million West Corridor Light Rail Line is under construction
• The ~$500 million, Denver Union Station Multi-model transit hub redevelopment is under construction
• The 23.6 mile, ~$1.3 billion East Corridor EMU line to Denver International Airport begins construction in 2011
• The 11.2 mile, ~$600 Gold Corridor EMU line begins construction in 2012
• The budget funding gap is being resolved and the other FasTracks elements will be completed by 2019, if funding issue is resolved. If the budget gap is not solved, those other lines will be constructed most likely by 2035 (which is when HSR would open). One way or the other, Denver's full system build-out will have most the important elements complete by 2017, possibly all of it by 2019 and worst case everything built by ~2035 in time for HSR.

Originally Posted by emathias

If you're convinced that skiers and HSR are such a great combo, why don't you check out how Milan or Lyon or Zurich use rail to deliver skiers to the Alps ...

I looked into this and it seems passenger trains to deliver tourists to ski resorts is extremely popular in both Europe and Japan. So yes, I see how they use rail to deliver skiers to the Alps, just as Colorado plans to use rail to deliver skiers to the Rockies.

[M II A II R II K]

Could High Speed Rail Stall Completely in the U.S.?


May 12th, 2010

Melissa Lafsky



Read More: http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010...ely-in-the-us/

The answer, unfortunately, is yes. We say “unfortunately” since billions have already been pumped into turning the U.S. into a modern rail nation, and the collapse of HSR projects would be an enormous loss to the nation, both in concrete dollars and in the opportunity cost of going another half-century with no national system of mass transit. Over at Progressive Fix, Mark Reutter writes:

Unless the White House acts forcefully and decisively to advance its transportation agenda in Congress, the president’s vision for high-speed rail may get sidetracked by the looming federal deficit.

That’s the growing perception on Capitol Hill as Congress grapples with an infrastructure program that could cost between $22 million and $132 million a mile if developed along the lines of 200-mile-per-hour bullet trains now running in Europe and Asia.

Unlike the health care debate, President Obama has been conspicuously unengaged from the details of how to move his high-speed-rail (HSR) plan from a one-off award program using Recovery Act stimulus funds to a dedicated multi-year program akin to the scope and ambition of the Interstate Highway System.

And it gets worse: Following the much-ballyhooed $8 billion that the government allotted to states as part of the stimulus bill, it doesn’t look like there’s much more federal money after that. In 2010, Congress authorized $2.5 billion for HSR projects — and for 2011, it’s a mere $1 billion. And given the shambles condition of most states’ budgets, it’s highly unlikely that state governments will be able to write big checks to HSR projects in the next 2 to 5 years.

[mhays]

Maybe, but there's tremendous value in doing the incremental improvements with non-HS rail that are getting funded.

[M II A II R II K]

Japan Starts to Shop Its Bullet Train Technology


May 11, 2010

By HIROKO TABUCHI

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/bu...l/12train.html

The experimental MLX01 maglev is the world’s fastest train. But it is confined to a 12-mile track. And like the train itself, its technology has been trapped in Japan. Now, though, Japan wants to begin exporting its expertise in high-speed rail. On Tuesday, the Central Japan Railway Company took the visiting United States transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, on a test run — a 312-mile-an-hour tryout for the lucrative economic stimulus contracts that the United States plans to award to update and expand its rail network. “Very fast,” Mr. LaHood said after stepping off the maglev at a track nestled here in mountains west of Tokyo. “We’re right at the start of an opportunity for America to be connected with high-speed, intercity rail,” he said.

- In recent months, top Japanese government officials, including the transport minister, Seiji Maehara, have traveled to the United States angling for a piece of the $13 billion that the Obama administration has pledged for the development of 11 high-speed rail lines throughout the country. Of particular interest to the Japanese has been a planned $1.25 billion, 84-mile high-speed link between Tampa and Orlando — the first leg of a corridor that state officials hope will eventually reach Miami. Twenty-two companies are bidding for the contract, and Washington is set to announce a winner this year.

- If Japan does not start selling maglev trains overseas, it risks losing its technological edge, Mr. Ieda warned. “There is a limit to developing technology in a laboratory,” he said. “To truly advance technology, you need experience, new and challenging projects, and economies of scale.” The high costs have meant that JR Central, struggling with a decline in passenger traffic, is not set to open its own maglev line anytime soon.

- Meanwhile, the Obama administration wants to make sure that any foreign companies that supply high-speed rail works also bring jobs to the United States. “The only thing that we ask of manufacturers is, come to America, find facilities to build this equipment in America and hire American workers,” Mr. LaHood said Tuesday.

Ray LaHood, the United States transportation secretary, was in Japan on Tuesday for a test run of the experimental MLX01 maglev train, the fastest in the world.

[M II A II R II K]

High-Speed Rail Will Spur Growth in Hub Cities, Says Mayors Report


June 14, 2010

By GAYATHRI VAIDYANATHAN

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06...ies-65815.html

Billions of dollars of new business and tens of thousands of jobs will flow to four hub cities -- Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando and Albany, N.Y. -- where plans for major high-speed rail networks are located, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Their report, released in Oklahoma City today, is the first attempt to put numbers on the widely held belief that high-speed rail can stimulate local economies and act as a driver of growth. The Obama administration has invested $8 billion in federal stimulus money to create 13 high-speed rail corridors.

The benefits of traveling between 110 and 220 miles per hour will mean better connectivity, shorter travel times and new development around train stations, according to the report. The changes will create 150,000 new jobs and some $19 billion in new businesses by 2035. "In these difficult economic times, these economic development and jobs creation numbers are huge for central Florida," said Buddy Dyer, mayor of Orlando.

The rail network will spur tourism, give businesses a wider pool of workers to choose from and help grow technology clusters in cities, said Steve Fitzroy, director of operations for the Economic Development Research Group, which conducted the study, during a phone interview. "It is a game changer with how people envision the city; people see the city in new ways," Fitzroy said.

Albany, which is a political center in New York but not well-connected to the metropolitan area, will be pulled into New York City's economic core, said Fitzroy. A high-speed rail link connecting Albany to New York City, Syracuse and places as far off as Montreal have been proposed at various points by state legislators.

[M II A II R II K]

What Would It Take to Fully Invest in the Northeast Corridor?


June 17th, 2010

By Yonah Freemark



Read More: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...east-corridor/

UPenn Reports: http://studio.design.upenn.edu/hsr/node/81

If you thought California’s more than forty billion dollar plan to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles with high-speed rail was an unreasonably large investment, you’ll be doubled-over by what a University of Pennsylvania student group has proposed for the Northeast Corridor: a $98.1 billion spending spree that would transform America’s most productive region by speeding commutes between Boston and Washington to just 3h15. The plan advocates the construction of new rail tunnels through downtown Philadelphia and Baltimore, a bypass around Wilmington, and, get this, a twenty-mile tunnel under the Long Island Sound from Ronkonkoma to New Haven. Trains would average 155 mph on the trip. These investments, the students suggest, would be enough to triple ridership on the intercity rail network by 2040. I wouldn’t doubt it.

The problem, of course, is that while the plan is well-documented, beautifully illustrated, and, I’m sure, technically feasible, it stands absolutely no chance of being realized, bar some unforeseen willingness on the part of the U.S. government to drop tens of billions on one program and a multi-state agreement binding the Northeast region’s taxpayers to the construction of the world’s single biggest infrastructure project. I would love to see such ease of transportation between these cities, but in the next twenty years, the most we’re likely to get is Amtrak’s current ten billion dollar plan to speed trains from 6h30 between the extremities of the corridor to 5h30. This in spite of the fact that the Northeast Corridor, with the nation’s highest densities and highest potential train ridership, is theoretically perfect for high-speed rail. But there are two fundamental obstacles to a significantly improved Northeast Corridor: financial limitations and differences in political interest.

Though the Northeast is an incredibly rich region, it has no capacity to raise sufficient funds to pay for an investment on the scale of what the Penn Studio has suggested. Not only are all the states in a fiscally difficult situation today, but they are underfunding their existing roads, transit, and intercity rail systems. Because the Northeast has some of the nation’s oldest infrastructure, it also has the most pressing maintenance needs. If the region were to suddenly benefit from a massive increase in tax revenues, that money should probably first be spent on making sure the subways and highways are working as they should, no small task. Just as important, the U.S. government, despite its decision to allocate $10.5 billion thus far to the high-speed rail development program, is handicapped by the fact that it must spread the money across the country. If the Northeast deserves a federal contribution of $50 billion for its high-speed program, the rest of the country will demand another $200 billion for their own needs. Where, exactly, will that money come from? The two-year period in which the U.S. government appeared to be guided by a Keynesian impulse to stimulate the economy through infrastructure creation has come to a definite, and probably premature, end.

[JDRCRASH]

^

What's the max speed the trains would go?

[scalziand]

^ I can't see that flying if it's anything other than a tunnel through downtown Philly.

[M II A II R II K]

Amtrak considers new N.E. tunnel


June 17, 2010

By Michael Bolden



Read More: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dr-...ne_tunnel.html

Amtrak is studying whether there's a need to build a second rail tunnel to handle a growing number of passengers between New Jersey and New York City. Amtrak's master plan for the Northeast Corridor says ridership between Washington and Boston is expected to double by 2030, and the plan says the new tunnel is expected to provide only "some" relief.

The tunnel would be built within 20 years and join the century-old Hudson River crossing and an $8.7 billion tunnel that NJ Transit plans to build by 2017. More than 1,000 trains arrive at New York's Penn Station from NJ Transit, Amtrak and the Long Island Rail Road each weekday. Recently, Maryland and 10 other states asked federal railroad officials to develop a plan to upgrade high-speed passenger rail service along the Northeast Corridor over the next four decades.

[Parkway]

The tunnel through Philadelphia alone would make the Big Dig look like a sandbox project. Even if they use parts of I-95 (which it looks like they do) they still want more than 4 miles of tunnels under dense existing neighborhoods, two subway lines and another interstate.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Birmingham Regional Planning Commission to Discuss High Speed Rail Options

The Birmingham RPC expects to do a feasibility study of a high speed rail line between Birmingham and Atlanta. A press conference is expected on Thursday to announce the study.

In January we received word that Alabama would be one of 9 states that would be receiving stimulus money as part of the countries first program of inter city high speed rail. Also in January, Alabama joined six other states in the Southeast on a commission devoted to developing high speed rail in the southeast. Those states are Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee.

[mwadswor]

http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/...le+Feedfetcher

Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Chris Matthews Says Stimulate With HSR

[202_Cyclist]

National Journal has a good discussion on its website about the economic benefits of high-speed rail, based on a recent paper published by the US Conference of Mayors.

Will High-Speed Rail Drive Business?

By Tom Madigan

NationalJournal.com
Tuesday, July 6, 2010



http://transportation.nationaljourna...drive-busi.php

Does a recent report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors touting the economic benefits of high-speed passenger rail put to rest questions about HSR's value as a business engine?

The report focused on four hub cities: Albany, N.Y.; Chicago; Los Angeles; and Orlando. Despite the differences of these hubs, the report found that high-speed rail networks had similar effects in all of them, including expanding markets; making business travel more efficient; and encouraging mixed-use development. Among its conclusions, the report argued for looking at these networks "in the broader context of a changing economy" that includes more long-distance tourism and business travel, and ever-wider markets and supply chains.

In 2035, the report says, high-speed rail networks around these four hubs could generate as much as $19 billion in new business.

What are your thoughts on the economic potential of high-speed rail? Will it generate the bang for the buck that the report says? Are there more cost-efficient ways to link cities?

[JDRCRASH]

LA could be a hub for routes to San Diego (possibly Tijuana), Phoenix, Las Vegas, Sacramento, and San Francisco.

[M II A II R II K]

Will High-Speed Rail Drive Business?


July 6, 2010

By Tom Madigan

Read More: http://transportation.nationaljourna...drive-busi.php

Report: http://www.usmayors.org/highspeedrail/

Does a recent report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors touting the economic benefits of high-speed passenger rail put to rest questions about HSR's value as a business engine?

The report focused on four hub cities: Albany, N.Y.; Chicago; Los Angeles; and Orlando. Despite the differences of these hubs, the report found that high-speed rail networks had similar effects in all of them, including expanding markets; making business travel more efficient; and encouraging mixed-use development. Among its conclusions, the report argued for looking at these networks "in the broader context of a changing economy" that includes more long-distance tourism and business travel, and ever-wider markets and supply chains.

In 2035, the report says, high-speed rail networks around these four hubs could generate as much as $19 billion in new business.

[202_Cyclist]

Tampa council endorses high-speed rail to airport

By NEIL JOHNSON
The Tampa Tribune
July 15, 2010


TAMPA - The Tampa City Council threw its support today behind adding a high-speed rail stop at Tampa International Airport.

At the urging of council member Mary Mulhern, the council agreed to consider a resolution at its next meeting supporting state efforts to snag a share of more than $2 billion in federal grant money that could be used to extend high-speed rail from downtown Tampa to the airport.

The idea got the full support of the other three members at the meeting.
Council Chairman Thomas Scott said the airport should have been part of the original high-speed rail plan.

Current plans for a high-speed rail route run along interstate highway medians from Orlando International Airport to downtown Tampa at the site of the old Morgan Street Jail near Interstate 275.

"You're putting the airport at a disadvantage," Scott said....

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jul...news-breaking/

[Busy Bee]

Good news. But this should have been the A#1 common sense plan from the beginning. A bit shocking that plans to link it to the airport were an 'afterthought.'

[202_Cyclist]

^If you read the comments posted to this article on the Tampa Tribune's website, you can't help but wonder which rocks these people crawled out from under.