High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA) - Page 14

WilliamTheArtist · #**261** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 2:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

From what I can find, it seems the Oklahoma HSR program was defeated. Now they are pushing a $26 million plan to upgrade freight rail tracks from Oklahoma City to Tulsa and from Oklahoma City to Wichita, KS to allow for conventional passenger rail service.
Source: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_n...r-rail-service

Being a state which votes 60% conservative, it is no surprise that they are taking the path conservatives always try to direct these HSR programs into. Conservatives know that if they can "compromise" down from HSR to conventional rail, that the cost will be reduced to a smaller amount (less to loose) and the riderships will be so low (because it's so slow and infrequent), that the annual subsidized will be high enough that they can in later years use that as ammunition to cancel the service altogether.

At that point, it would likely take 20 years before people forget about this big failed boondoggle, before they would ever consider another rail project in their state again.

This is the conservative blueprint to defeat rail projects nationwide, not just in the near future, but for the next 20+ years. They want a scaled back rail project to get built, so they can make it fail, so they can prove to voters they were right all along and progressives were incorrect about rail being a good investment.

The real reason we went after the funding for this bridge imo is not so that it could be used for HSR (at least not anytime in the near future) but so that it could be used for commuter rail.

Tulsa is working on a plan to implement commuter rail and a trolley line. There is about 1 mile right in the downtown area that will be the most expensive hurdle to cross in order to get any rail plans going. You get that first segment, with those expensive bridges built for example, and the rest is easy breezy. The lines are already there going right from the downtown core passing all kinds of high priority targets in downtown, then past some great redevelopment areas the city happens to own, and on to several fast growing suburbs. But in the current fiscal/political climate it was figured that having the city alone finance that first part (including the bridge above) would be very difficult and unlikely. So getting the state and federal government to pay for it as intercity rail/possible HSR was brilliant imo.

I actually believe like you that it would be a complete waste of money to build the slow, passenger rail to OKC. But if we can use that idea of the rail between OKC and Tulsa as a round about way to get funding for that first segment IN Tulsa that we can then use for commuter rail within Tulsa county... then hey, whatever works.

Its interesting that the numbers and potential is there for the commuter rail plans we have in Tulsa, but getting funding to help with that from the state or federal gov. is, well, not gonna happen. But if ya want funding for a fantasy HSR system that wouldnt as likely work,,, well hey, we got money for ya. And the most frustrating thing about it is, that if you really wanted to optimize the usage of any rail system between the cities, you would first want to build up your connected, pedestrian friendly/mass transit friendly developments within the city anyway? At least that would seem logical to me. Nothing like getting off the train in a city and then feeling stranded in the middle of no where not being able to get anywhere in the city.

Beta_Magellan · #**262** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 7:23 PM**

Something I really fear is that the commuter rail+streetcar combination might have the same effect on urban transit as slow intercity rail on HSR. With commuter rail you have an infrequently-running line entirely on existing rails, meaning its speed is dependent on the route, condition of the tracks, and business of the line. Similarly, a lot of these planned circulator streetcars have pretty high headways for urban transit (fifteen minutes), and their routes are short enough that the streetcar’s main competition is walking, especially since we don’t give trams their own lanes in this country. Furthermore, the success of commuter rail and streetcars is dependent on how strong the downtown is, and if Tulsa is like any other midsized sunbelt city it’s not that strong and transit won’t automatically strengthen it. Commuter rail and streetcars just get attention because they’re the cheapest options that still run on rails, not because they’re the best transportation choices for each city.

For all the complaints on the last page about the northeast already having too much infrastructure, the reason it scored so highly was because so much of what the America 2050 plan was looking for—high urban density with good transit connections. Bosh-Wash bears a much closer resemblance to other first-world which have HSR than the rest of the United States, so of course it scored higher. Los Angeles, Dallas and Houston may be investing in transit, but they’re hardly comparable to New York, DC and Boston. You could get around this by treating HSR stations more like mini-airports, placing them in areas with optimal auto access with lots of parking (isn’t this kind of what Florida is doing). Then, of course, you miss out on HSR’s main benefit—being able to drive you right into a dense downtown.

The big issue with the Am2050 report, though, is that they don’t mention how much anything would cost. Factor that in and the NEC would probably look less attractive.

JDRCRASH · #**263** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

For all the complaints on the last page about the northeast already having too much infrastructure, the reason it scored so highly was because so much of what the America 2050 plan was looking for—high urban density with good transit connections. Bosh-Wash bears a much closer resemblance to other first-world which have HSR than the rest of the United States, so of course it scored higher. Los Angeles, Dallas and Houston may be investing in transit, but they’re hardly comparable to New York, DC and Boston.

Again, this thinking would make BoshWash a black hole for investment. Meaning that the status quo wouldn't end.

Believe me, there is VERY high economic potential for the "SanSan" (SF-SD) corridor if transit options are increased here. The fact that California will reach 60 Million people or more (most of them in the megalopolis I described) by 2040 should tell you that it needs a MUCH greater lion's share in funding than it does now.

mhays · #**264** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 1:54 AM**

I support California getting true HSR, but I don't believe that 60 million figure at all. My guess would be about 4 million per decade, or perhaps a little over 50 million by 2040.

California's past growth has caused pressures that will make future growth harder -- costlier land, heavy traffic, etc. The same is true to a lesser extent here in the Seattle area.

BevoLJ · #**265** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 2:16 AM**

If there is anywhere in the nation that should get HSR it should be Cali. The North East just doesn't need it, California from San Fran to San Diego needs it a lot more.

As much as I would love to see something in the Texas Triangle, the politics in Texas it just is never going to happen. At least not anytime soon. And to be honest, it isn't like we really need it. It is more something I think would be cool, and than something we need. It would be much better for California than Texas.

philvia · #**266** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 2:58 AM**

Why again doesn't the NE need HSR?

mhays · #**267** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 4:23 AM**

It does need it. But, even more than California, it would take an astonishing amount of money to make it comprehensive, and other regions deserve funding too.

I say we should put tens of billions per year into developing rail. Say, 4-5% the amount the military and wars are getting right now. Along with some local participation, in a couple decades we'd have a good system in each of the regions being discussed.

electricron · #**268** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

It does need it. But, even more than California, it would take an astonishing amount of money to make it comprehensive, and other regions deserve funding too.
I say we should put tens of billions per year into developing rail. Say, 4-5% the amount the military and wars are getting right now. Along with some local participation, in a couple decades we'd have a good system in each of the regions being discussed.

At least California, not the US government or Amtrak, performed all the required studies to qualify for Federal funding, from economic impacts to environmental impacts, which included selecting the local preferred route. California has performed or is in the process to perform all the prerequisites, so has Florida, but the Northeast Corridor hasn't.

What the States in the Northeast have done are studies for piecemeal improvements to the existing corridor. For example, the Hudson River tunnel recently abandoned by New Jersey. It might have survived if it were apart of a brand new HSR corridor. But its cost was too high, for some, as just an improvement for the existing corridor.

I ask is it fair to ask California and Florida to perform these studies, determine if it's worth government funds from all levels, then ask the Feds for their share, but not ask the States in the Northeast to do the same?

Political think tanks reports, like this recent Rail 2050 report, would never qualify as an official study for the FRA; all it has accomplished is identify what they want, with little to no data.

Read this critique of that report, especially the last two paragraphs.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/
"The fundamental problem with the report is that it has no context: The study lays down a number of parameters for comparison, such as regional population, transit connectivity, and the like, but it does not have any empirical data to show the relatively importance of these criteria in real-world high-speed rail networks. In other words, the authors have set about comparing corridors in a manner that may — or, just as likely, may not — have anything to do with actual ridership.
In the future, such a study should be backed by evidence about the importance of each of these criteria based on ridership on other countries’ systems. It would also be beneficial to include cost evaluations — for instance, if a New York-Boston line would attract twice as many riders per mile as one between Tampa and Orlando, the America 2050 report implies that the former is a better deal than the latter. But what if the Florida line cost less than half as much per mile as the Northeastern one?"

Nexis4Jersey · #**269** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 5:30 PM**

The Northeast only needs a New NEC , but we do need plenty of Intercity Rails and Restored Regional Rail. I added up all the proposed / planned miles of Intercity / Regional Rail and its about 19,400 miles. It's all doable most lines are cheap to restore.....most states have set 2050 as a goal for completing there restoration plans. The Problem is the trunk lines haven't been upgraded and the chokepoint's have been ignored...for the time being. NJT , MARC , and LIRR are moving there system around to reduce congestion and in my opinion have a good long term plan. Septa , MBTA , MNRR seem to have decent plans to prevent this or there overhauling there systems before they get very congested. Do i think all 19,400 miles will be built no , but i beleave about 80% of it will be rebuilt. Most of these restored lines will reduce or eliminate the need for HSR. Out of the 19,400 miles , about 5,000 will be Electrified. So don't worry about HSR not coming to the NE....other great things will come.

philvia · #**270** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 7:29 PM**

and how does regional rail eliminate the need for HSR?

hammersklavier · #**271** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 8:04 PM**

It does not. The US Northeast is the most populous region anywhere in the developed world (China included) lacking an interurban HSR line, or at the very least ongoing construction work thereon. Nor does it help that no coordinating agency has been established with the goal of providing such a line, which in our political climate would be the absolute first step in bringing together one.

But of course France and Italy got their HSR before the Benelux anyway.*
__________________
*(Sigh) To explain this allusion, let us remember that the average population density of France and Italy = the Midwest. The average population density of the Benelux = the Northeast. The first true HSR lines in operation anywhere outside of Japan were the Florence-Rome "Direttissima" (1978) and LGV Sud-Est Paris-Lyon (1981); Eurostar service--the first HSR to service the Benelux (Brussels)--began in 1994, and the Thalys, the first service concentrating on the Benelux (Paris-Brussels-Amsterdam) began in 1996. Even today no HSR service actually reaches Luxembourg city (although the LGV Sud Paris-Strasbourg) comes/will come as close as Metz).

Busy Bee · #**272** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Nor does it help that no coordinating agency has been established with the goal of providing such a line...

Think of the HSR as a person, and think of uncoordinated, unsynchronized, myopic state governments as the noose. Now visualize the person hanging by the noose.

Due to state sovereignty and this startling lack of cooperation and coordination between state governments, I absolutely believe truly ambitious HSR development on a mega-regional or national scale will require the federal government as architect, a la the Interstate Highway program, and implemented as such, with the major difference being split financing (PPP).

Nexis4Jersey · #**273** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by philvia

and how does regional rail eliminate the need for HSR?

Well i mean't to say lines like the Keystone corridor , or Empire corridor...if you build a web of lines to hit the areas where the HSL will serve you can delay building it by a few years or decades. But a New HSL in my opinion should only come after the Govt addresses the Growing Pop in Eastern PA , Maryland , New Hampshire and Rhode Island...those states need more Regional / Intercity Railways to head off the growing congestion. Tapping into that commuter movement would be better , those are also cheaper lines to restore. Overall this region will need a HSR web , but it should come after we restore few more corridors in each state.

hammersklavier · #**274** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 9:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Think of the HSR as a person, and think of uncoordinated, unsynchronized, myopic state governments as the noose. Now visualize the person hanging by the noose.

Due to state sovereignty and this startling lack of cooperation and coordination between state governments, I absolutely believe truly ambitious HSR development on a mega-regional or national scale will require the federal government as architect, a la the Interstate Highway program, and implemented as such, with the major difference being split financing (PPP).

Not so much. Remember a lot of Northeast and Midwest highway infrastructure (think the Pennsylvania Turnpike, New York State Thruway, Garden State Expressway, etc.) was already in place, being built, or being contracted out by 1956. These were state-led state-funded projects which needed to pay for themselves (hence tolls). The Benelux, if you do a little research, is building its HSR network in a similar way. (Of course, the TEN-Ts greatly help focus investment projects and investment dollars.) But they have the aid of linking up existing networks (TGV, ICE)...what is needed in the Northeast is that catalyst, that initial point of investment. And somebody from above who can say "You can do it. And you can do it in $50b or less, too."

mhays · #**275** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 12:17 AM**

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.

ardecila · #**276** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 12:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Not so much. Remember a lot of Northeast and Midwest highway infrastructure (think the Pennsylvania Turnpike, New York State Thruway, Garden State Expressway, etc.) was already in place, being built, or being contracted out by 1956. These were state-led state-funded projects which needed to pay for themselves (hence tolls).

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.

Xing · #**277** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 1:58 AM**

What about the Chicago - St Louis line? That only goes about a mile into Missouri. The 110 MPH train is already under construction/upgrade. They're now pushing for a 220mph train.

http://www.idothsr.org/2010_const/

electricron · #**278** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 2:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xing

What about the Chicago - St Louis line? That only goes about a mile into Missouri. The 110 MPH train is already under construction/upgrade. They're now pushing for a 220mph train.

http://www.idothsr.org/2010_const/

The St. Louis train station is less than a mile west of MacArthur Bridge over the Mississippi River. Even at 20 mph, you'll be at that train station in 3 minutes.
Come on folks, what Missouri does will have a miniscule effect on any high speed rail corridor that's 284 miles long.

BVictor1 · #**279** Posted **Jan 20, 2011, 10:29 PM**

None of this is going to happen if the republicans get their way.

Today, they proposed a series of budget cuts including:

➢ Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings

➢ New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

➢ Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings

mfastx · #**280** Posted **Jan 20, 2011, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

None of this is going to happen if the republicans get their way.

Today, they proposed a series of budget cuts including:

➢ Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings

➢ New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

➢ Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings

Are they going to cut highway funding too?