High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[ardecila]

Ah, interesting... Figures that some people would distort economic principles to push their own agenda.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Ah, interesting... Figures that some people would distort economic principles to push their own agenda.

I don't know...how can something be "real and precious" and not just an "abstract tool" when it is, in fact, just a piece of paper. And one we can print more or less of pretty much at will. To me, that is sort of the definition of an "abstract concept" - something that only has meaning/value because we give it meaning/value. And because it is abstract, its value is subject to a number of variables. Which is exactly why we've basically printed billions in funny money (QE1 and QE2, to say nothing of the stimulus) and we've seen almost zero new inflation as a result. If that's not "abstract," what is? It's downright counter-intuitive. But it's reality. Macroeconomics just doesn't work at all like a household budget.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Ah, interesting... Figures that some people would distort economic principles to push their own agenda.

In Cruikshank’s case, I think it’s more a lack of understanding combined with the fact that he’s basically an unpaid PR person for the authority—from what I understand, the CAHSR blog grew out of the progressive blogosphere so he tries to justify the projects to his peers (and himself) by using terminology and arguments that he thinks will appeal to them, not technical arguments about rail or things connected to actual economic policy and research (though I think Alon Levy and Matt Yglesias came out of that milieu as well, so it’s not all bad).

[M II A II R II K]

‘Higher-speed' trains to precede true high-speed rail in U.S.


Jul. 13, 2012

By Paul Nussbaum

Read More: http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...mpid=138890509

Can you have a European- or Japanese-style high-speed rail experience, even if the train is creeping along at less than 150 miles an hour? Yes, say international manufacturers who are touting the prospects of smooth, quiet, luxurious rides for American passengers, even though it will be many years, even decades, before 220-m.p.h. bullet trains show up in the United States.

- "Higher-speed" trains with many of the same aerodynamic features and interior amenities of France's TGV or Japan's Shinkansen may be the American stepping-stone to true high-speed rail, as the United States looks for affordable improvements to its old-fashioned, slow passenger rail network. Foreign-based high-speed train-builders, such as Alstom (France), Siemens (Germany), and Talgo (Spain), have opened American factories to make modern trains that can run on conventional tracks in the United States, with hopes of eventually winning high-speed contracts, as well. Many of the manufacturers are in Philadelphia this week, showing their wares at the eighth World Congress on High-Speed Rail.

- "It's a whole different comfort level than anything in the U.S. now," said Robillard, citing first-class, business-class, and coach-class sections; smoother rides; and lighter-weight construction, as well as plush interiors. "It's such a step up from what you have today that it really is a game-changer." Siemens' main American factory is in Sacramento, Calif., where the company now builds light-rail vehicles for U.S. transit agencies, as well as 70 new 125-m.p.h. electric locomotives for Amtrak to use on the Northeast Corridor, starting next year. The company has purchased 28 acres adjacent to the factory to accommodate possible high-speed construction. Alstom has a train factory in Hornell, N.Y., that makes and refurbishes railcars, including an ongoing project to rebuild PATCO's 120-car commuter rail fleet. It could also be the home of future high-speed train construction. "We're taking the incremental approach," said Alstom spokesman Timothy Brown. "You have to get out of the all-or-nothing mode."

.....

[M II A II R II K]

Opportunity Cost of Inaction PDF: http://www.apta.com/resources/report...f-Inaction.pdf

Studies by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the European Union (EU), the International Union of Railroads (UIC), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and others, suggest that the actual cost of building and/or improving rail lines is significantly less than the cost per mile of alternatives.

In fact, in many corridors, passenger rail is the only feasible option for adding capacity, given the practical constraints facing aviation and highway expansion.

Passenger rail will benefit public transportation—regional HPPR networks will amplify the agglomeration economies associated with public transportation. Though not specifically enumerated in this paper, we anticipate these impacts will significantly increase net benefits.

The regional opportunity costs are also substantial. Not building HSR in California would cost the state $8.2 billion in foregone benefits over 40 years. The Midwest would forego $11.7 billion over 40 years. The Northeast Corridor would forego $5.5 billion over 40 years. The Pacific Northwest would forego $1.1 billion over 40 years.

This report provides clear evidence that maintaining the status quo will be an increasingly expensive proposition for American taxpayers.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Am I seriously the only liberal who thinks it's a bad thing when the government throws billions of dollars behind some boondoggle? The goal of any government program should be to achieve the greatest benefits for the lowest cost, while fending off those politicians who are trying to bring home the bacon (i.e. avoiding bridges to nowhere).

Every successful HSR system in the world was built on top of a successful conventional-rail system. Germany hasn't even really built dedicated HSR lines; they just upgrade the legacy systems by eliminating the slowest segments. Having a strong conventional-rail system means you have a populace that's used to riding passenger trains and supports big, expensive investments in new technology like HSR. Republican politicians don't oppose rail for the hell of it. Republican voters don't see the point, so neither do the politicians. It's time we changed that.

The proper way forward for rail in America is to run the ball and gain four or five yards at a time, not to shoot for some Hail Mary. (See? I just made a football analogy - it isn't hard to talk to most conservatives.) We need to focus on incremental improvements and gradually claim a larger budget for rail as the small improvements begin to build political support.

I know Beta_Magellan already provided a thorough response. I would like to build on one of the things he talked about.

IMO, I think your attitude towards the current incarnation of the GOP is naive. (The party is so radicalized that, in 2012, no self-described conservative would approvingly talk about "communal" responsibilities, regardless of "an overall framework of thrift and responsibility.") To reiterate the point about the Tea Party: Aside from defense, Medicare/Social Security in their current forms, and certain subsidies, the leadership of the GOP has actively opposed all government spending. This is a far cry from the kind of pragmatic skepticism to which you (rightly! rationally!) subscribe. It's a kneejerk reaction, and no amount of compromise/logic/persuasion/messaging has been able to faze them. Their constituents are people like my widowed aunt in Wisconsin who, having never really worked in her life (and therefore never contributed to the Social Security coffers), would likely be impoverished without Medicare and SS, but who nevertheless rails against taxes and redistributionist programs without even a hint of irony.

If these people refuse to acknowledge a direct, obvious relationship—that their precious Social Security/Medicare is the biggest redistributionist program of all—then there is simply no way they will entertain arguments about the more indirect relationships between, for example, car traffic (from which they likely suffer) and public transit. IMO, it's much worse than entitlement and the self-interest that Beta_Magellan mentions: It's epistemic closure, a result of the destructive, populist impulses of a fearful, change-averse subset of the hoi polloi fueled by GOP elites (pundits and their politico tools).

Because of this, there is no equivalence between Democrats and Republicans on rail/mass transit (or a variety of other issues). Democrats may have made mistakes during this process, but those pale in comparison to the GOP's obstructionism. It's disingenuous to suggest that they are alone (or even half) responsible for the lack of government funds/support.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I know Beta_Magellan already provided a thorough response. I would like to build on one of the things he talked about.

IMO, I think your attitude towards the current incarnation of the GOP is naive. (The party is so radicalized that, in 2012, no self-described conservative would approvingly talk about "communal" responsibilities, regardless of "an overall framework of thrift and responsibility.") To reiterate the point about the Tea Party: Aside from defense, Medicare/Social Security in their current forms, and certain subsidies, the leadership of the GOP has actively opposed all government spending. This is a far cry from the kind of pragmatic skepticism to which you (rightly! rationally!) subscribe. It's a kneejerk reaction, and no amount of compromise/logic/persuasion/messaging has been able to faze them. Their constituents are people like my widowed aunt in Wisconsin who, having never really worked in her life (and therefore never contributed to the Social Security coffers), would likely be impoverished without Medicare and SS, but who nevertheless rails against taxes and redistributionist programs without even a hint of irony.

If these people refuse to acknowledge a direct, obvious relationship—that their precious Social Security/Medicare is the biggest redistributionist program of all—then there is simply no way they will entertain arguments about the more indirect relationships between, for example, car traffic (from which they likely suffer) and public transit. IMO, it's much worse than entitlement and the self-interest that Beta_Magellan mentions: It's epistemic closure, a result of the destructive, populist impulses of a fearful, change-averse subset of the hoi polloi fueled by GOP elites (pundits and their politico tools).

Because of this, there is no equivalence between Democrats and Republicans on rail/mass transit (or a variety of other issues). Democrats may have made mistakes during this process, but those pale in comparison to the GOP's obstructionism. It's disingenuous to suggest that they are alone (or even half) responsible for the lack of government funds/support.

VERY WELL PUT.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

The party is so radicalized that, in 2012, no self-described conservative would approvingly talk about "communal" responsibilities, regardless of "an overall framework of thrift and responsibility."

Sadly, conservative =/= Republican.

Because of this, there is no equivalence between Democrats and Republicans on rail/mass transit (or a variety of other issues). Democrats may have made mistakes during this process, but those pale in comparison to the GOP's obstructionism. It's disingenuous to suggest that they are alone (or even half) responsible for the lack of government funds/support.

My experience talking with (admittedly, suburban Chicago) Republican voters is that they are misinformed about
-levels of subsidy
-levels of inefficiency and waste
-the relationship of project construction costs to the value society derives, as evidenced by Republicans' willingness to support multi-billion-dollar highways
-ridership levels/ridership potential
-true causes of common rail/transit issues

I've gotten several people to soften their stance on Amtrak/transit simply in conversation. Issues of equity are trickier, since almost everybody will vote (indirectly) for the policies they think benefit them the most - it's tough to get wealthy suburban Republicans to support transit for poor areas.

I really liked the idea of providing a "taxpayer receipt" that broke down where each taxpayer's money was going (this needs to be mailed by the IRS, not hosted on Barack's website and accompanied by propaganda for the Buffett Rule). Right now, the Federal budget is such a massive black hole that it's very easy to rail against it. The budget is supposedly "transparent", but it doesn't make a difference if the average person has no time to pore through endless websites and documents. And, in the end, communication between the parties and the public is all that matters. Republicans have mastered the art of communicating with voters (perception is reality) and Democrats have not. There are no excuses for this.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

‘Higher-speed' trains to precede true high-speed rail in U.S.


- "Higher-speed" trains with many of the same aerodynamic features and interior amenities of France's TGV or Japan's Shinkansen may be the American stepping-stone to true high-speed rail, as the United States looks for affordable improvements to its old-fashioned, slow passenger rail network. Foreign-based high-speed train-builders, such as Alstom (France), Siemens (Germany), and Talgo (Spain), have opened American factories to make modern trains that can run on conventional tracks in the United States, with hopes of eventually winning high-speed contracts, as well. Many of the manufacturers are in Philadelphia this week, showing their wares at the eighth World Congress on High-Speed Rail.

If Talgo is anything to go on, these trains won't be much different from what Amtrak's already running - just uglier. They certainly won't be lighter-weight or sleeker. On the crappy freight-battered tracks that Amtrak uses, heavy weight corresponds to ride quality, so a lighter weight train will probably have a more uncomfortable ride unless track maintenance is seriously stepped up.

Interior design can certainly be improved, but I doubt Amtrak has the budget for the premium interiors that DB and SNCF run on high-speed services. Then again, Acela has world-class interiors (and not much else). It's been mentioned that both California and the Midwestern states are buying diesel locomotives and coaches capable of 125mph travel; since Midwestern corridors tend to be flat and straight, I'm hoping the ones upgraded to 110mph can be upgraded again to 125mph with relatively small investment. It would be better even than the Acela, which is plagued by severe rail congestion and speed limits.

[M II A II R II K]

A defining factor would be what percentage of the trip would actually be traveling at that high speed. What use is a train capable of a high speed if it doesn't get enough of a chance to go that fast.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

A defining factor would be what percentage of the trip would actually be traveling at that high speed. What use is a train capable of a high speed if it doesn't get enough of a chance to go that fast.

All boils down to average speed. This is true for HSR, commuter lines, light rail, subways, buses etc.

Average speed in any steel rail system involves the ability for trains to pass one another while going in the same direction, quick egress at stations, number of road crossings (and their safety), turn radii, , and, operated vehicle acceleration and deceleration dynamics. In addition, ROW through metro-areas without deboarding, and how the stations interface with other rail lines affect average speed.

All this reminds of traveling cross country with kids in a car. If child X pees every hour, and, child Y every 90 minutes, how much faster must I travel between rest stops to attain an average speed of 60 mph on a freeway?

[M II A II R II K]

So long as it would be fast and comfortable enough to compete with short range trips by air and driving.

[202_Cyclist]

Washington to New York City in 60 minutes by train

By Catherine Ho
July 15, 2012
Washington Post

"A small privately owned Washington company is lobbying to develop a high-speed rail system that would take passengers from the District to Baltimore in 15 minutes and to New York in an hour.

The Northeast Maglev, a downtown D.C. firm with 30 employees, is working with Central Japan Railway Co. — which operates the Shinkansen bullet train in Japan — to develop a maglev network that would connect Washington and New York, with stops in Baltimore, Wilmington and Philadelphia, including BWI Airport, Philadelphia International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport. Eventually, the company wants to extend the line to Boston.

Trains that use maglev technology, or magnetic levitation, typically travel faster than traditional rail — Shanghai’s maglev train runs at an average of at least 139 miles per hour, compared to Acela Express that runs at an average 84 miles per hour. The only commercial maglev lines are in Aichi, Japan, and Shanghai. Maglev vehicles are suspended above the track and use magnetic propulsion..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...tmW_story.html

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

If Talgo is anything to go on, these trains won't be much different from what Amtrak's already running - just uglier. They certainly won't be lighter-weight or sleeker.

Couldn't agree more. I'm not a fan at all of Talgo ultra low deck bogie style coaches, let alone the grotesque cab cars FRA rules stick at the ends of them, i.e. Hiawatha.

Originally Posted by ardecila

It's been mentioned that both California and the Midwestern states are buying diesel locomotives and coaches capable of 125mph travel; since Midwestern corridors tend to be flat and straight, I'm hoping the ones upgraded to 110mph can be upgraded again to 125mph with relatively small investment.

Well if I understand FRA rail classification, in order to make the leap from Class VI (110mph) to Class VII (125mph) would require more than closing some grade crossings, it would require all new strengthened track (lbs. per yard) which would make all the current work on the Chicago-St. Louis line a bit of a waste.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Couldn't agree more. I'm not a fan at all of Talgo ultra low deck bogie style coaches, let alone the grotesque cab cars FRA rules stick at the ends of them, i.e. Hiawatha.



Well if I understand FRA rail classification, in order to make the leap from Class VI (110mph) to Class VII (125mph) would require more than closing some grade crossings, it would require all new strengthened track (lbs. per yard) which would make all the current work on the Chicago-St. Louis line a bit of a waste.

I think UP put in 136lb rail (also the max that the TRT can handle). The NEC runs 136 and 140 these days IIRC, most of the super heavy PRR rail is gone.

The money spent trying to get to 125mph would be better spent double tracking the whole line for 110mph and adding more sidings/grade separation to at least double frequency.

[afiggatt]

Originally Posted by k1052

I think UP put in 136lb rail (also the max that the TRT can handle). The NEC runs 136 and 140 these days IIRC, most of the super heavy PRR rail is gone.

The money spent trying to get to 125mph would be better spent double tracking the whole line for 110mph and adding more sidings/grade separation to at least double frequency.

The NEC has 125 mph max speeds for the Regionals and 135 and 150 mph in some segments for the Acela.

Class 6 track is 110 mph, Class 7 is 125 mph. A quick search finds that class 6 & 7 have the same inspection frequency requirement. The primary difference between class 6 and 7 is tolerance for deviations and variations in the track spacing. Found a FRA compliance document for track classes 6 to 9 for those interested in the technical stuff.

There can be grade crossings for class 7 track, but they have to approved barrier and warning systems at the grade crossing. In practice, I suspect Amtrak would be reluctant to operate at 125 mph over the track segments with grade crossings. They may reserve the 110 to 125 mph speeds for the segments with no grade crossings or only private grade crossings with a locked gate. Property owner unlocks the gate to cross which sends a warning signal to the trains to stop before the crossing.

However, the freight companies are not going to agree to 125 mph speeds on the tracks they own and use for frieght traffic. To get above 90 or 110 mph, the tracks will have to be owned by Amtrak, the states, or new tracks built for high speed passenger trains.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by afiggatt

The NEC has 125 mph max speeds for the Regionals and 135 and 150 mph in some segments for the Acela.

Class 6 track is 110 mph, Class 7 is 125 mph. A quick search finds that class 6 & 7 have the same inspection frequency requirement. The primary difference between class 6 and 7 is tolerance for deviations and variations in the track spacing. Found a FRA compliance document for track classes 6 to 9 for those interested in the technical stuff.

There can be grade crossings for class 7 track, but they have to approved barrier and warning systems at the grade crossing. In practice, I suspect Amtrak would be reluctant to operate at 125 mph over the track segments with grade crossings. They may reserve the 110 to 125 mph speeds for the segments with no grade crossings or only private grade crossings with a locked gate. Property owner unlocks the gate to cross which sends a warning signal to the trains to stop before the crossing.

However, the freight companies are not going to agree to 125 mph speeds on the tracks they own and use for frieght traffic. To get above 90 or 110 mph, the tracks will have to be owned by Amtrak, the states, or new tracks built for high speed passenger trains.

Keeping the track geometry and gauge in line for 125 (on a route that gets pounded by heavy freight) would probably be much more expensive from a maintenance standpoint. Heavier rail would hold up better if you wanted to do 125 but the additional cost of having to go back and lay it without a TRT would be really high.

Once the whole route is double tracked enabling higher frequency all efforts should be on real HSR for the eastern routing.

[Busy Bee]

^Agreed. The UP could eventually function as a regional slower service, possibly up to 125mph and ideally electrified, while the real hope for true HSR lies in the SNCF/MHSRA proposal. There just needs to be urgent political will and educating the public towards consensus. Even if it is co-developed privately in an PPP, no company foreign or domestic is going to take the first step without a major capital commitment by the state and, yes, the federal government.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by afiggatt

However, the freight companies are not going to agree to 125 mph speeds on the tracks they own and use for frieght traffic. To get above 90 or 110 mph, the tracks will have to be owned by Amtrak, the states, or new tracks built for high speed passenger trains.

The Michigan line is a good candidate, then, apart from the curvy alignment. It doesn't look any worse than the Shore Line in CT.

[Nexis4Jersey]

All you need to do with Freight corridors , which many in the Midwest are wide and straight is add 2 tracks next to the line and upgrade the tracks and run trains of 125mph. Its as simple as that , of course Freight owners spit flames at that thought for some reason.