Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by electricron

Do you really believe Amtrak would not stop these high speed trains at large and small cities between? Get real, Amtrak's Acela trains don't fly past many train stations.
Assuming they build the route through Pittsburgh, I can see HSR station stops at (1)Newark, (2)Trenton, (3)Philadelphia, (4)Lancaster, (5)Harrisburg, (6)Altoona, (7)Pittsburgh, (8)Youngstown, (9)Cleveland, (10)Sandusky, (11)Toledo, (12)Fort Wayne, (13)South Bend, and possibly (14)Gary.
That easily can be 30 to 45 minutes of delays. Let's just assume 30 minutes.
Taking a 200 mph train over lets say 800 miles. At full speed over the entire
distance, it'll take 4 hours. Adding 30 minutes for 2 minute stops at each intermediate station, it'll take 4.5 hours.
Some math:
800 miles / 200 mph = 4 hours
800 miles / 4.5 hours = 177 mph
Lets now assume each stop at intermediate stations take 4 minutes, twice as long.
800 miles / 5 hours = 160 mph.
......

You can stop with your "math" after this last part. As I said before my point would be predicated on a new dedicatedHSR line going approximately 200mph hour (similar to the new Wuhan-Guangzhou line) so this talk about pulling over for passings and mantience is largely a non-sequitur.

As far as the stops I agree entirely with the locations but disagree that all trains would stop at all locations all the time similarly to how all ICE "Sprinter" express trains which have fewer intermediate stops (perhaps only Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland included).

If the politics or finances don't add up then they don't add up. Those are both much more involved and behind the scenes then we are privy to. I am thinking about the logistics and potential ridership threshold of the route itself. If one can provide Loop-Midtown service in approximately five hours I am reasonably optimistic one could attract the ridership. If it can only be done in say between six or seven then my point is most probably moot.

[VivaLFuego]

One also has to consider that the Wuhan-Guangzhou line, if converted to American dollars and then inflated to take into account local construction costs (union labor + Buy America materials provisions), and the lack of U.S. government ability to steamroll any public opposition (literally) if necessary, would probably cost in the $40 billion range. That's a lot to spend considering anyone can quickly and affordably already get between Chicago and New York relatively easily - travel volume isn't so high that existing air capacity is maxed out with no opportunity to add more, thus driving ticket prices up prohibitively.

Even with their long city-to-city distances, the sheer number of people in China gives a further economic advantage of highly scalable high capacity intercity transport system. The fact that the US already has such an impressive highway and air travel system limits the locations where HSR could work in the near term. Once our country has 400 million, 500 million people... well then the game changes, so it makes sense to plan for that, but not necessarily to build to it yet since any rail systems built now would have to rebuilt by then anyway.

I may seem anti-rail. For the record, I'd like to see the NEC upgraded in the near future to something in the 200mph range with more high-speed segments. I'm still not convinced that a 200+ mph service in California should be anything other than a long range plan (i.e. gradually purchase and reserve ROW) at this point. How much does it cost to fly from the Bay Area to LA or SD? And LA/SD are close enough that a 110mph service would be plenty fast enough.

[electricron]

I don't wish to burst so many expectations, but lets take another look at the Wuhan–Guangzhou High-Speed Railway, considered the fastest trains in the world today.

Per Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan–G...-Speed_Railway
the line is 968 km (601 miles) in length, with CHC-2 and CHC-3 high speed trains capable of covering that distance in 3 hours. Sounds impressive, with maximum speeds of 350 km/h (217 mph) and averaging 313 km/h (194 mph).

The line is part of the future 2100 km (1,305 miles) long Beijing-Guangzhou High-Speed Railway, while the Beijing-Shijiazhuang and Shijiazhuang-Wuhan sections are still under construction and expected to be opened in 2012.

At the 313 km/h average speed, and without the likely prolonged stops at Wuhan and Shijiazhuang, it'll take around 6 hours and 45 minutes to travel 2100 km from Beijing to Guangzhou.

Just to put things into perspective, per Amtrak timetables, since.......
Chicago to Seattle is 2205 miles
Chicago to Oakland is 2438 miles
Chicago to Los Angeles is 2256 miles
San Diego to Vancouver, BC is 1662 miles
At the same average speed of 194 mph, assuming one route is built for maximum speeds the entire way, it'll take........
Chicago to Seattle around 11 hours and 25 minutes
Chicago to Oakland around hours 12 hours and 35 minutes
Chicago to Los Angeles around 11 hours and 40 minutes
San Diego to Vancouver, BC around 8 hours and 35 minutes
........ to make the trip.

Please don't suggest that most of these double digit elapse times will be competitive with flying.

How about some central and eastern Amtrak routes?
Chicago to San Antonio is 1305 miles
Chicago to New Orleans is 926 miles
Chicago to New York is 959 miles
Chicago to Washington is 780 miles
New York to New Orleans is 1377 miles
New York to Miami is 1389 miles
Time to travel is:
Chicago to San Antonio is around 6 hours and 45 minutes
Chicago to New Orleans is around 4 hours and 45 minutes
Chicago to New York is around 5 hours
Chicago to Washington is around 4 hours
New York to New Orleans is around 7 hours and 5 minutes
New York to Miami is around hours 7 hours and 10 minutes

At least these a single digit numbers in hours elapse.

Totaling up the milage for all the routes in this list may surprise some, the eastern total is 6,736 miles, the western total is 8,561 miles, the grand total is 15,297 miles.

The updated cost estimate for the San Francisco-to-Anaheim initial high-speed rail system in current year dollars is $35.7 billion (around 420 miles) and $85 Million per mile. Assuming California is correct and the railroads can build high speed rail around $85 Million per mile, we could spend at a minimum of $1,300 Billion to make all Amtrak long distance trains and NE Corridor trains very, very fast (max 200+ mph). The distance between New York and D.C. was included for both the Crescent, and Silver trains routes, so that should account for the NE corridor up to Boston too.

The Feds have been spending around $60 Billion a year for all transportation projects these last 10 years. At the present rate of taxation, and if the Feds gave ALL transportation funds to HSR, leaving nothing for highways, light rail and commuter rail trains, and bus services, it'll take 22 years to build a national high speed rail system much like what Amtrak runs today. If half the transportation funds are devoted exclusively to high speed rail, it'll take 44 years. If a third of the transportation funds are devoted exclusively to high speed rail, it'll take 66 years.

Don't you think we should be looking at building a smaller high speed rail system in the short term? Whatever we build has to be sustainable....I don't think we can afford a national HSR grid.....

Dreamers never look at budgets, what a shame.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by electricron

... we could spend at a minimum of $1,300 Billion to make all Amtrak long distance trains and NE Corridor trains very, very fast (max 200+ mph). ...
Dreamers never look at budgets, what a shame.

Apparently, accountants aren't nearly creative enough, despite the negative reputation ...

$1,300 billion is 1% (ONE percent) of a 10-year Federal budget. We don't lack the money - we lack the will.

[ardecila]

Yea... or 10% of a one-year budget. That's a huge chunk, when you look at the costs imposed by healthcare, social security, defense, and debt service. Everything else that government does takes a backseat to those four, cost-wise. Also notice that, even with the US government's current lopsided spending, no single area gets a trillion dollars or more. Of course, with the healthcare bill, the HHS percentage of the total will likely get even higher.

If you spread it over a decade, then you need $130 billion per year. Doable, perhaps - that's about what Labor got in '09, which is mostly unemployment insurance, I imagine. Of course, you could just send that money to Transportation and use it to put people to work... but then you'd be helping far less people.


federalbudget.com

Honestly, I'm curious why the stimulus isn't reflected by a blip in Transportation's funding. There was all this talk of additional money for shovel-ready projects, but it doesn't seem like a whole lot of money.

Note: the chart comes from a conservative website. I trust that the data is accurate, but since it's being employed for political purposes, there may be some level of bias.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by emathias

Apparently, accountants aren't nearly creative enough, despite the negative reputation ...

$1,300 billion is 1% (ONE percent) of a 10-year Federal budget. We don't lack the money - we lack the will.

Ha. Up until about the end of 2008, a normal baseline Federal budget was in the $2.5-2.8Trn range, meaning not so long ago, $1.3tn would have been... well, a lot. Half of a single year budget and thus actually 5% of a 10-year budget. Funny how quickly expectations of "normal" change.

Granted, if we keep up the current budget, the entire structure of the economy and the political landscape changes, since a VAT will be necessary to pay for it (can't raise the marginal income tax enough).

So no, I reject the notion that somehow $1.3 trillion is within the realm of comprehension for a construction project anytime soon.

[electricron]

If you check that graph closely, you'll discover where the Feds are stealing from to fund Labor more.
Look just right next to Labor------- Education-------

[Busy Bee]

Robbing Peter to pay Paul

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by electricron

If you check that graph closely, you'll discover where the Feds are stealing from to fund Labor more.
Look just right next to Labor------- Education-------

Wow, we hear about the sad state of education in this country, but it is striking that education is literally the only category (that's big enough to be legible at least) that saw its budget decrease each of the last 4 years... including 2009. Go Obama.

[left of center]

that defense spending really needs to be put under control. we spend as much on defense as the rest of the world COMBINED. end all major foreign wars and watch that budget fall by half. imagine the possibilities of spending that extra 350 billion dollars a year on infrastructure

[VivaLFuego]

edit: nevermind, don't want to take this topic even farther OT into political neverland

[emathias]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Ha. Up until about the end of 2008, a normal baseline Federal budget was in the $2.5-2.8Trn range, meaning not so long ago, $1.3tn would have been... well, a lot. Half of a single year budget and thus actually 5% of a 10-year budget. Funny how quickly expectations of "normal" change.

Granted, if we keep up the current budget, the entire structure of the economy and the political landscape changes, since a VAT will be necessary to pay for it (can't raise the marginal income tax enough).

So no, I reject the notion that somehow $1.3 trillion is within the realm of comprehension for a construction project anytime soon.

Yikes, my mistake, I was thinking budget but my brain was feeding me GDP numbers. Still, I think funding rail could happen if there was a will.

1) We don't actually need $1.3 trillion worth of track. The official corridors plus the NE corridor (numbers at the bottom) come to 9,480 miles (at most, since I was rounding up and using roads mileage - HSR track should be straighter in many cases). Adding in a few other immediately logical additions like Cleveland to Pittsburgh-135, Cleveland to Buffalo-195, Dallas to Houston-240, Jacksonville to Orlando-140, and you're up to 10,190 miles which, at the posters suggested $85 million/mile is just over $866 billion - let's budget for some kick-ass stations in the major cities (states can pay for smaller city stations themselves as their portion) and say $900 billion - for a system that's slated to take 20 years to build out. That's $45 billion/year, which averaged out is less than half of what Americans spend on car insurance. FYI, car insurance rates in the U.S. have risen nearly as fast as medical expenses over the past 30 years.

Still a big number, but then it really is in the 1.5% range for a "normal" budget and much more palatable. After that we could start filling in blanks to create more long-haul routing options if people really want them. 20 years also gives you the chance to encourage zoning in the served areas that will promote the kind of development that will maximize demand, and to link in local transit to spur even more demand for the HSR.


Mileages:
Vancouver, B.C. to Eugene, OR: 425 mi
Sacramento to San Diego via coast: 655 mi
Sacramento to LA via inland: 390 mi
LA to Las Vegas: 260 mi
Minneapolis to Chicago via Milwaukee: 435 mi
Kansas City to Chicago via St Louis: 545 mi
Cleveland to Chicago: 345 mi
Detroit to Chicago: 280 mi
Louisville to Chicago: 300 mi
Cleveland to Indianapolis via Cincinatti: 360 mi
Tulsa to San Antonio: 590 mi
Dallas to Little Rock: 315 mi
Houston to Mobile: 485 mi
New Orleans to Raleigh: 895 mi
Atlanta to Jacksonville: 330 mi
Savannah to Raleigh: 320 mi
Tampa to Miami via Orlando: 310 mi
Raleigh to Portland, ME: 850 mi
Pittsburg to Philly: 300 mi
Buffalo to Boston: 465 mi
Montreal to Boston: 320 mi
Albany to New York: 160 mi
Springfield to New Haven: 65 mi
Richmond to Hampton Roads: 80 mi

[Busy Bee]

At the conference of mayors, LaHood was invited to speak and when asked about HSR long term funding, he really stressed the necessity for public-private partnerships to form to get these projects fully funded and shovel in ground. So I guess thats just a reminder that there has got to be major private players step up with real plans, real money and real commitments to make progress happen. If we are waiting for the government to fund everything through the fed budget, your gonna be waiting another hundred years to see a high speed national buildout.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

At the conference of mayors, LaHood was invited to speak and when asked about HSR long term funding, he really stressed the necessity for public-private partnerships to form to get these projects fully funded and shovel in ground. So I guess thats just a reminder that there has got to be major private players step up with real plans, real money and real commitments to make progress happen. If we are waiting for the government to fund everything through the fed budget, your gonna be waiting another hundred years to see a high speed national buildout.

What the Feds want are partners, either local governments or private firms.
That's why I believe you'll see most of the stimulus funds for HSR go to States that have already dedicated new financial resources, like California, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Florida's legislature set up a means to do so, but didn't go so far to fund HSR. Texas hasn't even set up a means to finance HSR, but the Texas HSR projects has seen some private funding interests. The Northeast Corridor, except for major maintenance activities just to keep what they already have, is not going to see much for upgrading the Corridor's speeds significantly, mainly because most of the local States don't want to contribute much more than they are already which hasn't been sufficient to maintain what they have

[ardecila]

Dribs and drabs of information are leaking out to local news sources across the Midwest about who will get money and how much they will get. Of course, local journalists being who they are, they don't have a consistent story. Most of it is hearsay or recycled news...

We'll find out the real story later today when the official information is released by USDOT. Ray LaHood will supposedly be coming to Chicago to make an announcement today, in addition to Obama's appearance in Florida.

[jpIllInoIs]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...F?OpenDocument

Right now the report is that the Midwest will do quite well:
The grants include $1.1 billion for a Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor,
$244 million for a Chicago-to-Detroit corridor and
$810 million for work between Madison, Wis., and Milwaukee.
In Ohio, $400 million will pay for work between Cleveland and Cincinnati.

I also still expect Indiana to get some funding for the South of the Lake reroute and the Chi- Clev corridor, though it is not in this report.

And Iowa is only seeking 256 mil for the Chicago to Iowa City line. This is an extension of the Chicago -Quad Cities line which has advanced past planning and is in engineering phase. Iowa application clearly identifies this route as eventually extending to Des Moines and then Omaha. I gotta believe that this will get some funding, after all, the build up to the Iowa caucuses is only about 18 months away. This is not a high speed line, but the FRA and USDOT requirement allow for apps that are targeted to increase intercity rail travel options.

[jpIllInoIs]

http://fastlane.dot.gov/




It looks like the map has been updated with some dollar figures. As I suspected there is some allocation for Iowa and Missouri. The numbers are not clear but my guess is $87mil for Iowa and $31mil for Missouri.

[VivaLFuego]

http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2010/01/18/story1.html?b=1263790800^2737151&page=2

None of the Madison station locations sound particularly inspiring.

There are five potential sites for the station located in Madison. One option is to build the high-speed rail station near the Madison airport, which would then provide access to travelers who want to use the proposed commuter rail service for the Madison metropolitan area. The commuter rail line in Madison is still seeking federal funding.

Other possible sites for the Madison station include parcels on Pennsylvania Avenue near the Wisconsin & Southern railyard on Johnson Street, a station east of the Capitol along East Washington Avenue, a site on First Street and a site at Union Corner between Milwaukee and Winnebago streets.

It seems nearly incomprehensible not to plan a station somewhere near either the state government buildings, the University, or even both, particularly since rail trackage is available near them all (not sure about land availability but such a station is not the type of thing to cheap out on... better to use cheap finishes in a good location than build a Taj Mahal in the MOFN). How aboeut something near the intersection of US151 and Willamson? Or, better yet, near 151 and Washington to the SW, thus between downtown and the university?

As part of the same grant award to Wisconsin, travel time from Chicago to Madison would be 2:53, while Chicago to Milwaukee would be reduced from 1:29 to 1:27 (so that's 1:25 from Milwaukee to Madison). Upgrading the Chicago to Milwaukee corridor to 110mph will cut off another 20-25 minutes on that segment, meaning we're looking at an eventual travel time to Madison of around 2:30, about the same as driving in completely non-congested conditions albeit via a route serving many more intermediate origins and destinations (Chicago north shore, Racine, Milwaukee).

[electricron]

If Obama is successful with next year's Spending Freeze on discretionary programs, there's no way to seed much more money into High Speed Rail, without taking money from other programs.

And that's where the tack meets the hammer, transportation discretionary programs are usually hit first.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Well in theory transportation spending would be funded directly from gasoline taxes and totally separated from general revenues, but that distinction has blurred the last couple years after the highway fund started running a deficit and our ball-less representatives simply started diverting discretionary money rather than finally raise the gas tax.