American High Speed Rail--challenges and prospects

[Nexis]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

Nexis ............ what's your final total?

The 2030 list is set in stone for the most part , the rest of the stuff is in between.....i would have to add things up...

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3868843.story

Midwest bullet train network to cost $83.6 billion, study says
But the potential benefits from a 220-mph system are far greater than those from a cheaper one, report adds

By Jon Hilkevitch, Tribune reporter
8:34 p.m. CDT, April 27, 2011

A Midwest network of bullet trains that could travel at 220 mph and higher would cost $83.6 billion, but the benefits would be far greater than those from a less expensive system of trains topping out at 150 mph, according to a study to be released on Thursday.

The study, commissioned by the Midwest High Speed Rail Association and Siemens Corp., argues that going slower than 220 mph makes little sense, both in terms of construction costs and the ability to deliver passengers to their destinations quickly.

Building a passenger rail network topping out at 150 mph, which is still faster than the 110-mph maximum speed in the current high-speed rail plans for Illinois and nearby states, would cost $74.7 billion, according to the study, prepared by the Economic Development Research Group Inc. and AECOM, which designs transportation systems.

The price tag for a 220-mph network might be out of reach, with some members of Congress trying to gut the Obama administration's plan to invest billions of taxpayer dollars in high-speed rail as a way to expand employment and the nation's transportation options.

All of the plans for high-speed rail envision Chicago as the hub of a Midwestern network. The rail association's study recommends corridors to Minneapolis/St. Paul, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Detroit/Cleveland. Trains would operate at 220 mph on dedicated track with no grade crossings.

Travel times would be three hours or less between Chicago and the farthest points of the network — up to 450 miles away — the study said.

The cost of a 220-mph network versus a 150-mph one is 12 percent higher, but that would be offset by higher ridership and increased annual revenues, the study concluded.

"The Midwest has been working on an upgrade plan for Amtrak services. But there should also be a plan beyond that — true high speed — in which rail becomes a game-changer," said Armin Kick, director of high-speed rail development at Siemens.

"When you get trip times down to two or three hours, that allows for much more exchange between cities, and it becomes an economic driver. You really cannot achieve that with the plans being pursued now," Kick said.

The Illinois Department of Transportation, prodded by the rail association, agreed to conduct a preliminary study on the feasibility of building a bullet train network. But IDOT has failed to get a grant from the Federal Railroad Administration for the study.

IDOT officials did not address the findings of the rail association's study. But agency spokesman Josh Kauffman said ongoing construction on the 110-mph Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor "represents the beginnings of a system to connect the Midwest region," and that Gov. Pat Quinn supports "the longer-term vision of higher-speed trains where feasible."

The association's study estimated 43 million riders a year from 13 cities and metro areas on the system, based on offering 25 daily departures on each of the corridors. User-generated revenue was estimated at more than $2.2 billion a year.

The proposed 220-mph system would produce $13.8 billion in new business sales a year and 104,000 permanent new jobs when it is in full operation, the study estimated.

Seeking to justify the $83.6 billion capital cost of building a 220-mph system, the study said, "It is important to consider that very large investments in airports and freeways would be needed to accommodate all of this travel by air or auto.''

Building the bullet train network would "avoid the need for very large expenditures in modes that already have demonstrated that they are at or near the physical limits needed to expand their capacity," the study said.

..

[mgk920]

This meshes with what I've been saying all along, anything less will be uncompetitive with airlines on those major corridor routes and if you are going to do rail, you have to do it right or it will only be a waste of money.

The 'restored/enhanced' speed proposals being talked about and built here in the Midwest today are fine for lesser routes (ie, to serve Madison or Wisconsin's Fox River Valley), but for major city pairs (Chicago - MSP, STL, DET and so on), anything less than true, non-stop, 350 km/h high speed will be a total waste.

Now, to find the money and overcome NIMBY to build these....

Mike

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by milquetoast;76693883
[LEFT

Taxing drivers for HSR is like the usual punishment we've heard before.[/LEFT]

Punish those people who are established in favor of the new and unproven.

Like adding an HOV lane on a busy freeway

to curb drivership while promoting the usual, boring Hybrid philosophy.

There are very few lines in this country that will be SUSTAINABLE in 30 years, if at all.

.

At $5-6 a gallon, HSR will dry up

because at $5-6 a gallon Obama and Democrats won't be there.

[/COLOR][/B]

We already tax gasoline and that tax was intended to build and maintain the interstate highway system. That system is already fully built out and states are now being asked to spend more for repairs and maintenance so an additional bump in fuel taxes could be fully devoted to building HSR. I don't see the "punishment" in taxing fuel a small fraction of the market prices we are paying now. And those prices will not be dropping by much in the immediate future and will rise in the long term to very high levels. Blame Wall Street speculators for punishing drivers with high fuel costs, if you like.

As for Obama, he has singled out $58 billion for developing HSR in his upcoming budget. That will likely be carved way back so by the time the deficit issues have been resolved to Congress' satisfaction, Obama will either be out of office by voters or by the end of his second term. The next few presidents will be dealing with the real costs of building HSR. The issue is not going away just because the public mood for spending anything has currently soured.

[diablo234]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

We already tax gasoline and that tax was intended to build and maintain the interstate highway system. That system is already fully built out and states are now being asked to spend more for repairs and maintenance so an additional bump in fuel taxes could be fully devoted to building HSR. I don't see the "punishment" in taxing fuel a small fraction of the market prices we are paying now. And those prices will not be dropping by much in the immediate future and will rise in the long term to very high levels. Blame Wall Street speculators for punishing drivers with high fuel costs, if you like.

As for Obama, he has singled out $58 billion for developing HSR in his upcoming budget. That will likely be carved way back so by the time the deficit issues have been resolved to Congress' satisfaction, Obama will either be out of office by voters or by the end of his second term. The next few presidents will be dealing with the real costs of building HSR. The issue is not going away just because the public mood for spending anything has currently soured.

+1

If the public is that concerned about gas prices then they might as well just run out and buy a Chevy Volt as gasoline prices will not be decreasing anytime soon due to demand from China and other newly industrialized countries. If anything the gas taxes need to be raised to meet the demands of highway maintaince since the current gas tax value has decreased because of inflation and more fuel efficient cars.

[desertpunk]

Philly.com

Monday, May 9, 2011
US rail $ will speed trains to Phila, Hbg, after Fla. says no

"The U.S. government awarded $795 million to increase rail speeds between Boston and Washington," as the feds re-allocated "$2 billion in high-speed rail grants that Florida rejected in February," says Bloomberg here.

Transportation Department release here. Highlights:

- "$450 million to boost capacity, reliability, and speed in one of the most heavily-traveled sections of the Northeast Corridor, creating a 24-mile segment of track capable of supporting train speeds up to 160-mph" between NYC and Philadelphia in 3-5 years.

- "$22 million for engineering and environmental work to replace the century-old Susquehanna River Bridge" that links Philadelphia to Washington and Baltimore.

- "$40 million to rebuild an interlocking near Harrisburg on the Keystone Corridor, saving travelers time and improving passenger train schedule reliability."

The NYC-Philly improvements would cut the fastest NY-Philly train trip to under an hour, increasing Center City's attraction as a cheap home base to people who work in New York, or go there frequently, but prefer Philadelphia's lower rents and housing values.

Amtrak lost $1.3 billion last year, but that's due mostly to unprofitable Western trains: "The Acela Express line that runs between Boston and Washington had revenue that exceeded operating expenses by 42 percent."

Besides the Northeastern grants, Midwestern states got $404 million to link Chicago and Detroit more quickly, and California got $300 million to move trains faster from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Plus over $300 million for US-built locomotives and cars for the Midwestern and California routes.

The Northeast, Midwest and California benefited, in part, because Republican governors in other states don't like trains.

GOP Gov. Rick Scott gave back $2.4 billion last year that Florida had been awarded to set up high-speed trains between Orlando and Tampa; Scott feared the state would face higher future costs. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker gave back another $810 million - then asked the US railroad bureaucracy for $150 million, which was turned down.

[desertpunk]

Bloomberg

U.S. Northeast Wins Biggest Part of Florida’s Rejected Fast-Train Grants
By Lisa Caruso - May 9, 2011

The U.S. government awarded $795 million to increase rail speeds between Boston and Washington, the largest share of the more than $2 billion in high-speed rail grants that Florida rejected in February.

Amtrak won $450 million, the U.S. Department of Transportation said in an e-mail statement today. The national passenger rail service got money to increase capacity and improve trip times between Philadelphia and New York. These funds will allow Amtrak to start bringing trains that can run 220 miles per hour to the Northeast Corridor.

“Amtrak made money last year, ridership was up last year - - they’re providing a good service,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. The investment in infrastructure and equipment “will make Amtrak a better system.”

While Amtrak’s net loss widened to $1.31 billion for the year ended September 2010, the Acela Express line that runs between Boston and Washington had revenue that exceeded operating expenses by 42 percent.

Trains between New York and Philadelphia will run as fast as 160 mph, Al Engel, Amtrak’s vice president for high-speed rail, said in an interview. Speeds on that segment will increase in three to five years, LaHood said on MSNBC today.

The U.S. expects Amtrak’s ridership to rise this year, LaHood said on Bloomberg Television today.

High-speed rail projects will create thousands of U.S. jobs, LaHood said.

Midwest, California

Midwestern states got $404.1 million and California won $300 million toward the 800-mile line it plans to build from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The department allocated $336.2 million for California and the Midwest to buy American-built rail cars and locomotives.

“I’m encouraged by those awards,” Thomas Hart, vice president for government affairs and general counsel for the Washington-based U.S. High Speed Rail Association, said in a telephone interview. “The Northeast Corridor had been lagging but now it is their turn” for significant funding.

He also praised the award of $196.5 million to Michigan to bring trains that can run 110 mph between Chicago and Detroit, reducing trip times by half an hour.

The grant “will bring jobs, it will bring innovation to the depressed Michigan market, and it will feed into the Chicago hub that will be the centerpiece” for high-speed rail service in the Midwest, he said.

Orlando to Tampa

Twenty-four states, the District of Columbia and Amtrak submitted more than 90 applications by April 4 for a share of the high-speed rail grants Florida rejected.

Republican Governor Rick Scott returned the $2.4 billion Florida had been awarded to build a new high-speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa.

The April 15 budget deal between Congress and President Barack Obama to fund the government through September 30 cut $400 million from the rail account, leaving the Transportation Department with $2 billion to redistribute.

Congress and President Barack Obama have been debating his plan to connect 80 percent of the U.S. population to fast trains within 25 years. The high-speed rail program has received $10.1 billion since its creation in 2009. Obama wants to spend another $53 billion over the next six years, while Republicans in Congress are trying to eliminate the program.

Wisconsin, which returned $810 million last fall after Republican Scott Walker was elected governor, had sought $150 million to improve an existing line between Chicago and Milwaukee. It got nothing.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lisa Caruso in Washington at lcaruso7@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Bernie Kohn in Washington at bkohn2@bloomberg.net.

[Lordpenguinton]

I don't understand when people say crap like the "hybrid phylosophy"? So you love driving a vehicle that uses gasoline, and gasoline prices keep going up, and will continue till the day it finally runs out. This could take hundreds of years, but that just means it will be that much more expensive then it is now. So why wouldn't you want a vehicle that is as fuel efficient as possible? You could say screw global warming it doesn't exist, but why wouldn't you want a vehicle that gets say 40 to 50 mpg versus one that gets 25? You guys hate paying taxes at all costs, to me it seems like you all would love hybrids. Maybe if only Boehner drove one, and liked trains, then the world would be a better place

[TampaMike]

Just like many energy saving technology today, it may be more expensive in the short-term but for the long-term, they pay off. Same with hybrid vehicles. And gas prices are never going to go back down to $3 and will likely go past $4 within the year, so why stick with a gas-guzzler?

I'm just hoping some people are keeping track that no conservative candidates or politicians ride the taxpayer-funded streetcar down here for the presidential debate or GOP convention. Be strange to see a conservative riding something they oppose. It would be like seeing a Republican congressman having a relationship with a male...... crazy, huh?

[Nexis]

I have to redo that list that i put up on the last page , a few projects have been killed or put on hold and a few projects have started construction....

[CF221]

Thanks to our very dear governor of Florida we won't be getting anything useful for a while.. I and many other people would much rather travel north in a train than in a car... I wish he could understand that. He's an idiot!

[Cal_Escapee]

Administration Unveils High-Speed Rail-Car Push
April 20, 2012, 11:21 p.m. ET

The U.S. government on Friday unveiled a fresh effort to kick-start its high-speed railroad project, unveiling a proposal to fund and build new passenger cars for the states that are progressing with the project.

The Department of Transportation said it was looking to buy around 130 new rail cars that would be operated in up to seven states that have signed up to pursue high-speed rail lines run by government-owned rail operator Amtrak, with two-thirds of them used in the Midwest and the rest in California.

The department plans to award the $551 million rail-car contract in October—initial bids are due next month—stipulating that all assembly, parts and materials have to be made in the U.S. . . . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...=ITP_pageone_2

[CNB30]

Originally Posted by mgk920

This meshes with what I've been saying all along, anything less will be uncompetitive with airlines on those major corridor routes and if you are going to do rail, you have to do it right or it will only be a waste of money.

The 'restored/enhanced' speed proposals being talked about and built here in the Midwest today are fine for lesser routes (ie, to serve Madison or Wisconsin's Fox River Valley), but for major city pairs (Chicago - MSP, STL, DET and so on), anything less than true, non-stop, 350 km/h high speed will be a total waste.

Now, to find the money and overcome NIMBY to build these....

Mike

Were already beginning to lean toward high speed trains. even since this thread was started, many cities have completed light rail systems.

[Cal_Escapee]

I have now counted at least 4 US HSR threads. Sometimes, when I post something in one of them, I can't even remember which one. Can't something be done to consolidate?

[Gadiri]

Amtrak et la Californie vont définir un matériel roulant américain à grande vitesse

24/01/2013


Le 17 janvier, Amtrak et la California High Speed Rail Authority se sont réunis à la gare de Washington (Union Station) pour définir une demande d’information en vue d’acquérir en commun des trains à grande vitesse. Ce partenariat a pour but de faire avancer à la fois la modernisation du Corridor Nord-Est (Boston - New York - Washington) et le développement d’un réseau de 800 km en Californie, tout en établissant une norme américaine de matériel roulant à grande vitesse (350 km/h), qui pourrait être « fabriqué et fourni localement, mais aussi produit pour le reste du monde ».


--------------

Amtrak California rolling stock will define American high speed

24/01/2013


January 17, Amtrak and the California High Speed ​​Rail Authority met in Washington Station (Union Station) to define an information request to acquire share high-speed trains. This partnership aims to advance both the modernization of the Northeast Corridor (Boston - New York - Washington) and the development of a network of 800 km in California, establishing a standard American high rolling speed (350 km / h), which could be "manufactured and supplied locally, but also produced for the world."

http://www.ville-rail-transports.com...grande-vitesse

[iloveinfrastructure]

a line we really need is Acela extesion to Raliegh-Greensboro-Charlotte-Spartanburg-Atlanta-Birmingham-New Orleans (branch from atlanta to jaksonville-orlando-tampa/miami think of all the Northeasters who go to florida

And Pittsburg-Cleaveland-Chicago would be good too.

[CNB30]

Not Just the Acela, but a 180 mph high speed train that can successfully compete with air travel.

Also, don't forget Richmond on that line

[Suburbanist]

Even with (true) high-speed trains, a Washington-New Orleans trip would still take several hours, thus being not competitive with flights.

[Cal_Escapee]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Even with (true) high-speed trains, a Washington-New Orleans trip would still take several hours, thus being not competitive with flights.

Have you taken a cab from the airport in NOLA to the French Quarter or CBD?

HSR downtown to downtown that takes only "several hours" would be a winner in my book. And that's always the key--there are US cities where it can take "several hours" to get to or from the airport. LA is one as is NYC.

[Mudhen419]

would be nice to have hsr in ohio.. cleveland especially.. (downtown connection, linked to the RTA rapid line which is connected to Hopkins Apt and the small executive strip near downtown along with downtown shopping, Indians, Cavs, and Browns stadiums and the new casino (all are within a few blocks walk if not connected by the local RTA