HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2010, 6:49 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Is the U.S. turning a corner on high-speed rail?


http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/0...XuWW&wom=false

Quote:
- Despite these promises from the government, high-speed rail comes with its share of opponents, who say it is too expensive and won't save energy. Some even question if it will ever be built.

- "Even in a strong economy, building high-speed rail makes little sense, offering minimal reductions in travel times at exorbitant costs," said Ronald Utt, who is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan senior research fellow for the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. "For instance, one has to wonder what exactly motivated the review team to endorse the proposed $1.1 billion investment in the Kansas City-St. Louis-Chicago route, which would allow customers to reach their destinations 10 percent faster than they could by driving between Chicago and St. Louis," said Utt.

- Utt said the $1.25 billion federal investment in a $3.2 billion project to build a high-speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa would reduce travel time between the two cities to less than one hour, compared to about 90 minutes by car. He said other projects have similar travel time differences. Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow with the CATO Institute, said it is far more cost-effective to save energy by encouraging people to drive more fuel-efficient cars than to build and operate high-speed rail.

- "Passenger rail service, especially services at higher and high speeds, will require new safety rules, constant public capital investment and operating subsidies, and balance with freight rail service and the rest of the national transportation system -- and currently only some of these elements are in place," according to a GAO report.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 5:32 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
High-Speed Rail Stalls: Freight Carriers Balk at Sharing Tracks With the Faster...

High-Speed Rail Stalls: Freight Carriers Balk at Sharing Tracks With the Faster Passenger Service

By JENNIFER LEVITZ
Wall Street Journal
9/21/2010

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...0598.html.html

"Opposition from freight railroads is threatening the Obama administration's multibillion-dollar push to make high-speed passenger trains an integral part of the U.S. transportation network.

The standoff demonstrates the difficulties of introducing new passenger service to a rail network that is at least 90% owned by freight railroads and outfitted for slower trains.

To save time and money, government officials want new high-speed rail routes to operate on the vast system of train corridors that already crisscross the U.S., unlike European and Asian countries that have built dedicated tracks for high-speed rail.

.But Norfolk Southern Corp., Union Pacific Corp. and other railroad companies are balking at sharing their tracks or rights-of-way with trains that would run between 90 and 200-plus miles an hour. They argue that mixing high-speed passenger trains with slower freight trains would create safety risks, prevent future expansion and cause congestion..."


Image courtesy of the Wall Street Journal
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 9:58 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
Quote:
"But Norfolk Southern Corp., Union Pacific Corp. and other railroad companies are balking at sharing their tracks or rights-of-way with trains that would run between 90 and 200-plus miles an hour. They argue that mixing high-speed passenger trains with slower freight trains would create safety risks, prevent future expansion and cause congestion..."
It's amazing how inaccurate so many of these media pieces are. Someone needs to get it through to these people that passenger service operating over shared freight owned tracks would, in the vast majority of places top out at a reasonable, but not true HSR speed, of 110mph. In other words no freight railroad is going to invest in tracks above Class VI, nor allow speeds above Class VI designation.

See more about track classes at Wiki.


As far as the balking over sharing their ROW, I think the government needs to remind the railroads of their history, i.e. government assisted land condemnation/acquisition and monopoly of rail routes, and crack some skulls over allowing dual uses. If an act of congress is what it takes, then if it can be done, so be it. Steel Interstate is what needs to be pursued agressively. BTW, if anyone here has not read Waiting On A Train yet, it is a very rewarding must, especially when discussing these freight RR cooperation issues.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 11:07 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Much of the public money is improving rail infrastructure for freight too, as well as commuter rail in some cases like my own region. It's building grade separations, new sidings, retaining walls, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 12:36 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
There does need to be separate infrastructure for passenger rail vs. freight rail though. In an ideal world I don't think that point would be in dispute.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 1:08 AM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
I think using existing rail for high-speed is like the worst plan ever, that anyone has ever proposed. Clearly no one in the White House knows anything about transit, they frankly don’t care allotting a measly 8 billion dollars to high-speed in the stimulus package.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 1:34 AM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Much of the public money is improving rail infrastructure for freight too, as well as commuter rail in some cases like my own region. It's building grade separations, new sidings, retaining walls, etc.
Thank you.. .. There is sheer laziness by the journalist on this issue..or intentional misleading by the Cato Institute and other. . NOBODY is proposing 220mph on freight rails.

The beauty of the MWRRI plan is that freight lines get big time upgrades. The BNSF did not complain when they accepted 17mil to upgrade track-age in Iowa that was sinking into the earth. Certainly the 2x a day Amtrak California Zephyr did not have a weight issue. The siding additions and double tracking on the UP line from Springfield to Alton will be used by freight. And Illinois is allocating 37 mil of state funds to add sidings and new by pass track and a rail/road grade separation in Galesburg.

The disinformation is maddening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 1:36 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 3,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
I think using existing rail for high-speed is like the worst plan ever, that anyone has ever proposed. Clearly no one in the White House knows anything about transit, they frankly don’t care allotting a measly 8 billion dollars to high-speed in the stimulus package.
They should use Interstate ROW , which goes city to city thats all you really need anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 3:10 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs View Post
The disinformation is maddening.
Not exactly. The state-led planning efforts in the Midwest have always been informed and assisted by the freight railroads, who will most certainly benefit from the track renewal and signaling upgrades. As you might expect, the "high-speed" service that will begin after the upgrades are complete is a little yawn-inducing.

However, the high-speed rail planning in other parts of the country, and attempts by the Obama-led FRA to impose restrictions on freight operations within HSR corridors, have indeed rubbed the railroads the wrong way.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 3:50 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
There does need to be separate infrastructure for passenger rail vs. freight rail though. In an ideal world I don't think that point would be in dispute.
You live in a city with plenty of existing rail ROWs. Seattle has very little rail ROW. Amtrak and Sounder (commuter rail) have to kowtow to BNRR for every additional train. The worst section is that there's only one N-S route in the north half of the city of Seattle. To add another ROW we'd pretty much need to tunnel, at a cost of many billions. Which, btw, I support fully.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2010, 4:18 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Phila. rail expert named to head Amtrak's high-speed unit


Read More: http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...peed_unit.html

Quote:
As Amtrak seeks to create and expand high-speed passenger train operations in the United States, the company on Thursday named Philadelphia rail expert Albrecht "Al" Engel to head its new high-speed rail department.

Amtrak's increased focus on fast trains comes as the Obama administration is pushing for a national network of true high-speed rail lines, with trains that operate at 155 m.p.h. or faster.

The administration this year gave $8 billion in stimulus funds to jump-start high-speed rail projects on 13 corridors in 31 states. It has promised $5 billion more over the next five years. Congressional advocates of high-speed rails are seeking $50 million over the next six years.

Foreign rail companies from France, Germany, Japan, China, Spain, and Canada see the United States as a potentially lucrative market for their high-speed trains because the United States has no high-speed manufacturers and Amtrak is the only long-distance passenger rail operator.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2010, 6:02 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
There we go, put a German in charge
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2010, 3:43 PM
FastFerrari82's Avatar
FastFerrari82 FastFerrari82 is offline
Let's Eat!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: From Texas - 210
Posts: 274
So why no Dallas to Houston? With all the uber-rich that live in both cities Im sure they would pay. Another thing is, who is gonna govern security? Government? State? City? Independent contractors? Will they have the same security, checkpoints, technology ect. as the airports? Didnt read all the previous replies but any info would help me understand. Really hope the US can make this happen and not scale back. Fingers crossed!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2010, 5:51 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
^Dallas-Houston would be part of a Texas led effort tentatively called the "T-Bone."

Info here.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2010, 1:41 PM
FastFerrari82's Avatar
FastFerrari82 FastFerrari82 is offline
Let's Eat!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: From Texas - 210
Posts: 274
^^^^@busybee

Sounds good and all, but why no line from Dallas to Houston? I think that is an important line. Its like not having a Detriot to Chicago/San Franciso to L.A. Great cities need to be connected right? Thats what the big picture is. Cut down on car dependency,shorten commute while giving a 3rd option to people. Thanks for the article though. So you got any info on security?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2010, 2:15 PM
Xerxesjc28 Xerxesjc28 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5
Hope you guys don't mind some negative stories (face smacking hard to read).

It looks like the GOP, even if they can't stop things through the federal government, will try to stop HSR (or any rail really) at any cost, Wisconsin is probably the prime example of what we are to expect from the GOP.
_________________________________________________________________
Republican Wave Could Spell Trouble for High-Speed Rail Projects from Coast to Coast

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...oast-to-coast/

» With governorships up for grabs in most of the nation’s states, local support for more spending on infrastructure could be eliminated.


Intent on demonstrating their resistance to virtually all of President Obama’s policy objectives, Republicans nationwide have staked out an anti-rail position that they hope will stand out as the fiscally reasonable choice when they present themselves in this fall’s elections. Though the current Democratic administration will remain in power at least until early 2013, shifting control of Congress and potential power changes at the state level could dramatically reduce the ability of the Department of Transportation to advance its plans for the development of intercity rail.

Current polling suggests that Republicans are likely to do well in November across the country. The GOP has been leading the charge against high-speed rail since the program was first announced in February 2009.

Most problematic are the governorships, up for grabs in 37 of 50 states this year. Though the majority of recent spending on new intercity rail projects has originated at the federal government, the U.S. DOT is now requiring that state applicants agree to fund at least 20% of construction costs in order to receive a federal contribution. States will also be responsible for most operations expenses.

If Republican-led state governments are unwilling to commit to spending their own dollars on these projects, they simply will not be built. Since intercity rail projects are long-term investments, even if the federal government has already agreed to sponsor some investments, the takeover of a governor’s mansion by an anti-rail Republican could mean putting a full-stop in infrastructure development. As New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s announcement last week of a work stoppage on the ARC tunnel project shows, this could affect even projects that have already entered the construction phase.

As the table below demonstrates, the current difficulties of Democratic candidates puts in doubt almost every project that has thus far been allocated significant capital funding from Washington. Current polling is based on analysis by political blog Campaign Diaries.


Where U.S. High-Speed Rail Projects Stand


State- Amount Received from US DOT (million $)- Current Polling- GOP Candidate Position on HSR -Dem Candidate Position on HSR

California- 2340- Tossup -Opposes- Supports
Florida -1250- Tossup -Opposes- Supports
Illinois -1240- Lean GOP- Supports -Supports
Wisconsin- 822- Lean GOP- Opposes- Supports
Washington- 590- n/a -n/a -n/a
North Carolina- 545 n/a- n/a- n/a
Ohio 400- Lean GOP- Opposes- Supports
New York 151- Strong Dem- Unclear- Supports
Virginia 75 -n/a -n/a -n/a
Massachusetts -70 -Lean Dem- Opposes -Supports

Most directly threatened are projects in Wisconsin and Ohio, where Republican candidates have been waging an all-out war on high-speed rail, calling it a major waste of taxpayer funds. In both states, Republicans have suggested that they would shut down projects because they do not want state taxes to be used to subsidize operations on relatively low-speed rail systems. And those individuals are poised to win in November.

In California and Florida, both of which are proposing full-scale true high-speed networks, GOP candidates have suggested that they too would disrupt completion of their respective projects. Meg Whitman, running as the Republican candidate in California, has said she “believes the state cannot afford the costs associated with high-speed rail due to our current fiscal crisis.” These races are currently rated as a tossup, just as likely to go Democratic as Republican. The current governors of California and Florida — both moderate Republicans — have been in recent years sponsors of rail investment, but they aren’t likely to pass on that view to their successors, even if they share political stripes.

In all four states, the Democratic candidate has been a proponent of increased intercity rail investment. States where Democratic candidates are expected to win — including New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut — can be expected to continue their promotion of local funding for rail. States in which there is no gubernatorial race this year, such as Missouri, North Carolina, Washington, and Virginia, are unlikely to diverge from their current pro-rail stances.

But states are just one part of the equation.

Just as problematic is the possibility of a shift of control in Congress, which must approve any federal government spending on rail programs. Though Democrats in power in the House of Representatives and the Senate have agreed to large contributions for the infrastructure effort, GOP Senators have thus far been unwilling to compromise on their distaste for government spending. Though the Senate is unlikely to shift hands, the almost certain decline in the current Democratic majority will mean further difficulties in getting new spending approved, such as President Obama’s proposed $50 billion down-payment in rail and highways.

The possibility that the majority in the House of Representatives could shift to the GOP column — more likely than a change in control of the Senate — is incredibly threatening to the agenda of promoting intercity rail as well, since the House must of course also approve any government spending.

For proponents of intercity rail development, election 2010 will not bring positive change.

______________________________________________________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2010, 2:33 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Under Meg's ideology, HSR would NEVER happen in California, because as long as there is the inane 2/3rds majority required to pass a state budget, we simply won't be able to afford anything, let alone HSR. And even if we were, the state would take those funds later anyway because of downturns in the economy resulting in less sales tax revenue (you get the picture). Any sane person would see this. But not to worry; I think it's looking more and more likely she'll get trounced. People are unsure what she stands for exactly, due to her poor voting record.

I swear people are so thick-headed.
__________________
Revelation 21:4

Last edited by JDRCRASH; Sep 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM. Reason: language
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2010, 4:43 PM
FastFerrari82's Avatar
FastFerrari82 FastFerrari82 is offline
Let's Eat!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: From Texas - 210
Posts: 274
Not sure about any other state. But I believe Texas could make it happen on our own without much assistance from the Fed. Im sure we would NEED help but, about 30% from the Fed might be enough. But I could be VERY WRONG. Ideas are already in the works.

http://www.thsrtc.com/
__________________
Texas...the Country in a Country!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2010, 4:50 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
hows your governor?

the question many states are facing is could it happen with resistance from the governor? my state is unfortunately in that category and in a big way.
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2010, 5:05 PM
sammyg sammyg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 374
This could actually be good, because if HSR has the benefits we think it does, the pro-rail governors will have a demonstrated success, and the non-rail states will have a clear example of why they need to vote in rail supporters in 2012.

Of course, a few pro-rail governors need to stay alive, hopefully in CA, FL and IL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:04 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.