Western HSR Alliance Launches
Last month we looked at the emerging HSR plan from a coalition of planning groups in Denver, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Reno and Las Vegas. Yesterday this group officially launched as the Western High Speed Rail Alliance. From the press release:
Included in the alliance are the following planning agencies: The Denver Regional Council of Governments (the greater Denver area), the Maricopa Association of Governments (the greater Phoenix Area), Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (Las Vegas, Nevada), the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (Reno, Nevada), and the Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, Utah).
The WHSRA is prepared to request $50 million from the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act that Congress is expected to consider next year….
Included in a national plan The Western High Speed Rail Alliance envisions a Denver to Los Angeles corridor via a high-speed rail network with regional “hubs” in Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver and Phoenix as well as linkages from Denver to Salt Lake City to Reno and ultimately connection to San Francisco, CA.
WHSRA’s argument is that HSR is best suited for connecting destinations of no more than 500 miles’ distance, where there is already heavy traffic on the air route. They have a pretty strong case for that for some of the routes, one of which includes California, as the Arizona Republic argued:
Major Western cities, including Phoenix, were left off the map in federal plans for high-speed rail. Now, five of them are refusing to be overlooked. How preposterous. Air-travel figures show the Phoenix-Los Angeles route, for instance, should be a prime candidate for rail: It’s the nation’s third-busiest short-haul connection (less than 500 miles)….
More and more, bullet trains are a hallmark of nimble 21st-century economies. Security concerns have made air travel cumbersome and time-consuming for short hops between cities a few hundred miles apart. The central location of most train stations adds to the competitive advantage. The pressure to reduce pollution, including greenhouse gases, also favors trains, which have lower emissions than planes per passenger mile traveled.
News flash to myopic federal planners: The West has huge urban centers. Put on some glasses and add them to the high-speed rail map.
It’s a pretty strong case for HSR, coming from a place where you might not expect. The Arizona Republic’s editorial clearly “gets” the importance and value of HSR. The more voices like theirs come out in favor of HSR, the better off we are.
That holds true for the Western HSR Alliance’s proposal as well. In my post from November, I said that while these routes were valuable and deserved HSR, they shouldn’t be the nation’s highest HSR priority. I stand by that. But there is another reason to welcome the launch of the WHSRA, and that is political.
Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona all have important members of the House and the US Senate, including Republicans. If pressure from these states – especially from business – is generated in support of HSR, then it’s possible that even notorious train hater John McCain could be convinced of HSR’s importance.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need a national HSR strategy and implementation plan that resembles the Interstate Highway System. And that system required some horse-trading and political deal-making in order to pass the Congress in 1956, after Senate Republicans had held it up prior to losing the 1954 elections.
If we are to get significant, stable, and long-term funding for HSR, then we are going to need to have something to offer states like these. In that sense I welcome the formation of WHSRA and wish them success in building widespread political support in their states for HSR. We need all the help we can get to make HSR, whether it’s in California or not, a success.
UPDATE: Meant to add that WHSRA has been floating the possibility of including a Reno-Sacramento route in their plans.
I hope this doesn’t happen with rail. The Interstates were a boondoggle and an anti-city policy, spending vast sums of money on getting people out of cities but not on letting them get around within cities. They created a system that couldn’t pay for itself and that forced state governments to spend ever-increasing sums of money on roads, despite the 90/10 match. From the start, only rural and intercity roads were eligible for federal aid, so that by the 1940s urban roads were in worse shape than rural roads. A similar thing is now happening with rail – the emerging good transit movement cares much more about exurban light rail and HSR than about urban rail transit.
I can see a future in which LA-LV-SLC is justified – for example, if oil goes to $300/barrel territory, and train speeds increase to 400-450 km/h. But Reno-SLC and Phoenix-LV are never going to be anything more than prestige lines, like Diridon Station but several orders of magnitude costlier. If Phoenix grows to a metropolis of 6 million and Vegas to 4 million, it will still be more cost-effective to route Phoenix-LV trains through the Coachella Valley and Cajon Pass.
HSRforCali Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
The big differnce between high-speed rail and the interstate system is that HSR systems actually turn a profit. This can be used to help fund urban rail systems or extend existing lines, so I don’t see how this would cut funding for existing lines.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Current HSR systems turn a profit; future ones may not. It’s easier to turn a profit out of a line connecting Paris and Lyon than out of a line connecting SLC and Reno. Even then, it takes many years to pay back construction costs, on the order of 20 years. So yes, it will strain local governments to cough up the funds.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
HSR doesn’t pay for itself just because the trains are fast. It does so because it only gets built in corridors with sufficient population – or reasonably anticipated population growth – to deliver the requisite ridership levels.
Note that France dragged its feet on the construction of the TGV Est line because it was considered marginal. Political lobbying from provincial cities alone didn’t make much of a difference. It took pressure from the EU to open up cross-border routes into Germany and Luxembourg to create a viable business case.
Japan is now investing in extending the shinkansen network to Sapporo (pop. 1.9 million) in multiple stages. The most expensive component, the Seikan tunnel, was completed back in 1988 but remains underutilized at this moment. Until a few years ago, the price of oil and feasible trains speeds weren’t high enough yet to justify building the other bits, it made more sense to fly. Even now, I wouldn’t be surprised if operating subsidies will prove necessary. The population density of Hokkaido and northern Honshu is far below that in most other parts of the country: Aomori and Hakodate each have around 300k residents, Otaru about 140k. All of the other towns that will get stations have fewer than 20k.
trainsintokyo Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Actually, the extension from Shin-Hakodate to Sapporo, as well as two other shinkansen extensions, are under review. The Transport Minister is saying that funds won’t be provided to lines that have little hope of becoming profitable. Mind you, the head of the DPJ, Ichiro Ozawa, is making noises in the opposite direction.
We’ll see what happens — but even in Japan, new railway lines are not inviolable.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Transportation’s purpose is not to “pay for itself” but to provide for efficient movement of people and goods, enabling sustainable long-term economic growth.
The problem with the Interstates is we assumed they could and should be a replacement for intercity rail. Perhaps it would have made sense to use the Interstates primarily for trucking and continue to invest in passenger rail for moving people over these distances. Had we continued to invest in passenger rail after the 1950s, we could well have attained HSR around the time the Shinkansens opened (1964) and produced faster speeds for intercity travel than a car could, leaving longer distances (across the continent, for example) to the airlines.
We’re basically having to spend billions to undo the bad decisions made during the second half of the 20th century, when we deluded ourselves into thinking cheap oil was a permanent fact of life. Without providing a more sustainable form of intercity transportation, one that isn’t dependent on fossil fuels, the economic damage will be far, far greater than the cost of building a national HSR network.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Transportation’s purpose is to serve a transportation need. There’s no transportation need between Reno and SLC, at least not one that’s significant enough to build HSR with multiple mountain crossings. Electrifying the existing line and running tilting EMUs, sure, but not a 350 km/h line with multi-km tunnels. Save the money on all of those marginal HSR lines and build inner-city rail. The Subway to the Sea is cost-effective; so is building a subway under Geary. High-speed trains to nowhere, not so much.
At normal mountain-heavy HSR costs, say the same as those of California, Reno-SLC would come at $30 billion. I don’t think it’s a wise use of money. Do you?
Chris Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
What significant mountain passes would Reno-SLC pass? I’m not saying that it’s a line in need of HSR, but I’ve ridden Amtrak across there, and it’s amazingly flat for pretty much the entire route – a few hills here and there, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it could be built without a single tunnel. The mountains are to the east of SLC and the west of Reno.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
We did build HSR back in the 60s. Metroliners were ( and are ) faster than the Shinkansen circa 1969. . . and yes there are still Metroliners in revenue service, not on the Northeast Corridor as far as I know but some of them are still around.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
The Metroliners weren’t faster than the Shinkansen. Their top speed was 200 km/h, versus 210 for the Shinkansen. Their average speed was 130 km/h on super-express runs and 122 km/h on usual runs. The Shinkansen’s first trains averaged 129, but the Hikari express trains (which made the stops the Nozomi makes today), introduced by 1965, averaged 170.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I’ll try to find a reference. 164 in tests, 150 for a very short while, in revenue service. They would pop the circuit breakers in the substations and were downrated to 125.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
In other words, they ran at 200 km/h. That they were tested at higher speeds but couldn’t maintain them for long in revenue service doesn’t increase their top speed. The Shinkansen was tested at 256 in 1963; it ran at 210.
Spokker Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“A similar thing is now happening with rail – the emerging good transit movement cares much more about exurban light rail and HSR than about urban rail transit.”
Here, here.
The proposed Foothill Extension in Los Angeles is a prime example of a terrible light rail project being flung into the suburbs. The San Gabriel Valley actually tried to hold Measure R hostage for that piece of shit.
Joey Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I think we’ve forgotten what commuter rail is here in the U.S.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Well, the “good transit movement” has been pretty strongly opposed to the Foothill Extension, and prefers to fund the Subway to the Sea and other important things. It was SGV politicians who held Measure R hostage for it.
I don’t think we should hold transit advocates responsible for what idiotic suburban politicians demand.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I’m not attacking transit advocates here – I’m attacking local boosters who think that if anyone put rail in any area with over 1,500 people per square kilometer, the terrorists would win.
Spokker Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Well, that too.
I think this is a good thing as well.
Only point that I am worried about is diluting the pot to much for the HSR funds.
If the “small” amount of money(small compared to what we really need invested) gets chopped up over many different projects then we will have nothing to show for it over all.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
The only way to get HSR built is to focus on growing the pie instead of fretting about the size of your slice of what’s already on the table.
The setup of the US Senate gives disproportionate clout to sparsely populated states, including those in interior West. Ergo, those states will need to be offered a reasonable dollar volume for transportation projects that are cost-effective in their geography. It would be a mistake to focus too narrowly on the HSR mode, especially on full-fat express HSR. It simply isn’t appropriate in all situations.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
But there are plenty of projects that are cost-effective in those geographies. Phoenix would get a second light rail trunk line (and not suburban extensions to the first line, which is what it’s building now), and eventually a subway and HSR to LA; Denver would get money for more light rail lines, maybe a single subway line, and tilting DMU intercity lines to Cheyenne, Pueblo, and Boulder; Salt Lake City would get more local rail money, plus a commuter line to Provo; Las Vegas would get a real transit system rather than a tourist monorail. There’s no need to drop money on railroads to nowhere just because they superficially resemble CAHSR.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I’m perfectly fine with throwing some money at local transit and at commuter/regional rail in those states if in return their congressional delegations support increased HSR funds for projects in the federally designated corridors.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Note, however, that under the DoT framework, they can get a 110mph Emerging HSR corridor and the federal government has still “funded HSR in [StateX].” At the very least they get upgraded signal and track on the access and egress to town that can also be used by a local stopping train, or the rail-corridor segment of a Rapid Streetcar.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I don’t think it’s cost-effective to build rapid streetcars over the Continental Divide and through the Nevada desert. Do you?
Express HSR corridors work best between large cities if there are also sizable cities along the route that are not already well served by airlines. Trains can easily stop along the way.
Las Vegas has already been added to the federal definition of the California corridor and would benefit greatly from HSR, provided it’s a plain old spur off the network CHSRA is already planning, built without a dime of funding from the state of California. Same technology, same top speed. Direct service, no transfer nonsense in the High Desert.
An LA-Phoenix line along the I-10 corridor would only make sense if accompanied by a strategic plan to turn Blythe into a town of ~500k inhabitants by the middle of the century. It’s currently a small agricultural community based on water drawn from the Colorado river. A route via Yuma would be a major detour.
Phoenix-Tucson might make sense as an emerging HSR corridor (top speed <125mph), but only if Tucson can solve its long-term water supply problems.
As for the other routes this alliance is proposing, there just aren't enough sizable towns in-between the anchor cities to deliver the ridership needed to justify capital-intensive dedicated HSR lines. Central Colorado and eastern Utah have a bunch of great ski towns, but running tracks through the Rockies would involve a lot of extremely expensive tunneling. On the other hand, the distances between the anchor cities are probably too large for trains to compete effectively against planes at just 124mph, the maximum speed at which FRA still permits grade crossings.
By all means, look into spending money on local rail and/or bus transit between these cities’ airports and their downtown areas. If airport capacity is constrained, look into operating large jets even on medium distance routes (cp. domestic flights in Japan based on 747s). If regional airports are constrained by winter weather, invest in better de-icing and ILS equipment. Also, increase R&D grants for efficient turboprop engines and for making algal oil cheaper to produce and convert into jet fuel.
What’s needed is a comprehensive national passenger transportation strategy, not a narrow focus on any one technology. There does need to be regional equity in transportation funding, but one size does not fit all. Let’s get HSR up and running in several of the already-designated corridors before adding a bunch of new ones.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I basically agree with all of this, and think that the WHSRA’s focus on connecting endpoints is unfortunate. I also continue to believe that these corridors are of a much lower priority than the currently identified federal HSR corridors, along with several others. Still, if WHSRA can help swing some more Senators on our side without skewing the process of choosing which corridors deserve funding on the merit of the project, I think it their new organization is something to embrace.
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Did they include anything about improving commuter rail services to their listed endpoints? I’m asking this for purely selfish reasons, as I might be moving to Fort Collins in August, and would be working and studying in Denver. There’s no rail service at all between the two, which, given the insane congestion on the freeways, seems kind of stupid to me. I don’t want to drive that hell every day.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I don’t know about that. I’m assuming a Denver-SLC HSR alignment would follow I-25 north and I-80 west, and could include a stop at Fort Collins. There’s also been discussions happening for years and years about some sort of Front Range passenger rail service, from Cheyenne to Pueblo, but WHSRA isn’t necessarily including that in their proposal.
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Just from what I’ve been reading, it looks like they would have no problem getting a LOT of passengers to ride even a train that maxed out at 79 mph in the Fort Collins-Longmont-Boulder-Denver corridor.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Yeah, but look at the map this alliance has drawn up. It doesn’t even include that corridor, just Denver-SLC.
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
But that would most likely be the easiest way to build that route, without massive tunnelling. Check the directions from Salt Lake City to Denver on Google Maps. The shortest route is across from Salt Lake City to Cheyenne, WY and then south to Denver through Fort Collins.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
If the really useful section is Fort Collins-Denver, why build SLC-Fort Collins as well? Wyoming isn’t exactly the most densely populated state in the nation, is it?
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
True, true. I’ll agree with that. And then they should just use 125 mph trains, even if they connect to Cheyenne. Is the Talgo XXI going to be FRA compliant?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
And we think of Salt Lake City as a big metropolis. Metro area has just over a million people. Think San Jose. . . 400 miles away from any other population center.
Rafael Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:18 am
The Talgo XXI is FRA compliant. However, that doesn’t mean the existing tracks will permit speeds of 124mph and in any case, all the grade crossings along the way would need to be upgraded (thouhg not necessarily fully separated).
The basis for any decision should be cost per rider over the next 30 years. If there’s too little demand (because of low population/population density), look at other opportunities for investing the same sum in transportation – or indeed, other – infrastructure that delivers more bang for buck.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
For passenger rail, its hard to see. Cheyenne isn’t that big, but also not that far from Ft. Collins, … and I’ve driven from somewhere in the plains of Eastern Colorado to the outskirts of Cheyenne – its can’t be hard country to upgrade a rail corridor to 110mph. But Salt Lake City? There’s plenty of nothing in the middle of that corridor – not like Chicago / St. Louis where there are medium cities at regular intervals all along the route.
Of course, for long-distance freight transport, you got to go through the middle of nowhere to get there, and an upgrade of STRACNET for 100mph Rapid Electric Freight Rail would not require the passenger demand to justify the upgrade – it’d just have to justify the investment in rolling stock, stations, and station access and egress.
Avery Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
RTD is building the Northwest Corridor up to longmont, but its on an active freight track, DMU trains, and there’s a chance it won’t even be finished now due to the budget. They didn’t even budget enough to begin with to even choose diesel locomotive hauled trainsets, and electrification was out of the question with double stack freight. I think if CDOT helped out, they could move the freight to eastern CO (their plan) and make the front range passenger rail work. Only problem then is the fact that the Denver Union Station is being build with no ability for future expansion with such a system…
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Front Range On Track is a non-profit trying to get commuter rail between Fort Collins and Denver. Their plan is to connect Fort Collins to the FasTracks system in Thornton.
http://www.frontrangeontrack.org/index.html
Walter Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
This is absolutely the right idea. CO needs this more than an express train to Utah.
However (and forgive me if this seems wrong, I’m not from Colorado), what jumps out at me is that these trains don’t go to Denver or Boulder. From the proposed route on that website, Boulder (metro area almost 300,000) is entirely unserved and downtown Denver (where people would actually want to go) would require two train rides on two systems, which probably wouldn’t attract many commuters. Isn’t that a problem?
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Fine, just remember that what these Senators care about is bringing federal dollars into their districts. They probably couldn’t care less if they’re spent on trains or other modes of transportation. HSR just happens to be the flavor of the month in Washington, so that’s what they’re latching onto.
I’m not advocating these states be foibled off with scraps. I’m advocating that their fair share of national transportation funding be put to the use that’s most appropriate in their particular situations.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
And I’m saying that provides us an opportunity that we should seek to exploit. I’m all for giving these states some reasonable level of HSR funds if in turn their Senators will vote to create a stable, significant, and long-term funding source for a national HSR network. If the price of doing that is HSR over the Bonneville Salt Flats from Reno to SLC, a low priority corridor if ever there was one, I’m willing to pay it.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
“If the price of doing that …”
Your premise doesn’t make any sense. Congressional horsetrading on transportation is about dollars = jobs = votes, not specific modes of transportation.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Huh? It makes a great deal of sense, given that HSR is the big shiny object everyone’s fired up about. I think most of us would agree that some sort of improved intercity rail on these corridors is of some value, even if it’s not 220mph, and even if the priority is fairly low on the scale. But that may not be what generates the votes in the Senate.
That’s not to say we should abandon non-HSR, far from it. But the mode of transportation is making all the difference here. These lobbying orgs didn’t emerge for faster Amtrak long-distance corridors. They emerged for HSR. And that will count for quite a lot on Capitol Hill. So we have to deal with that reality, while not letting HSR become the only thing that gets funds.
If WHSRA succeeds in getting the votes of Western Senators for, say, a new Transportation Bill that funds all kinds of rail, and funds it in a stable, significant, and long-term way, I think that would have to be described as an enormous victory. And if that victory were to mean HSR along the I-80 corridor, again, I could live with it.
HSR is the open door that can let us push through a wide range of passenger rail projects, the rising tide that lifts all boats.
Rafael Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:26 am
This is my point exactly: these Western states want in on the HSR action not because they need it but because they perceive it as the next big pork barrel. That’s wasteful, the same dollar amount spent differently can deliver more bang for buck in their particular case. The national funding framework should encompass transportation infrastructure as a whole, with some states opting to invest their share in HSR, others investing in local transit and others still in more efficient aviation.
It’s a fallacy to believe California HSR will only get federal dollars for its HSR project if everyone else gets funding for theirs. Quite the contrary, if the price of funding HSR where it makes sense were throwing vast sums out of the window where it doesn’t, that would simply mean no-one gets HSR because the total price tag is out of whack.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Given the way the US Senate currently operates, it’s not at all a fallacy. Already the price tags are more than the Senate is willing to contemplate – look at the fate of the House’s $4 billion for HSR, whittled down to $2.5 billion by the Senate (which wanted to cut it further).
It may be that we have to agree to disagree here, but I’m not seeing how we’ll ever generate the political support in the Senate for stable long-term funding for a national HSR plan without giving some HSR pork to some of these states. I’m not at all saying we shouldn’t have a national plan with tiered levels of passenger rail service, of course we should. But I’m willing to live with a little inefficiency in how that gets implemented if that’s the price of getting it approved.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 11:19 am
You are mis-stating the premise here – not that California HSR will only get federal dollars for its HSR project if EVERYONE gets funding for EVERY project they PROPOSE, but rather California HSR will only get federal dollars for the project if almost EVERYONE who is pushing for funding gets SOME funding for SOME project that they get to call HSR.
Since the cost for an Emerging HSR corridor will run from 10% to 20% the cost of the California system per route mile, there is no conflict between that political reality and Express HSR systems garnering much greater funding per route mile. And since Emerging HSR primarily supports 100mile to 300mile trips rather the 200mile to 500mile trips that justify Express HSR, the number of sensible Emerging HSR corridors that can be funded makes it a quite workable logrolls. Add the $9b in state bond authority, which no other single state will even attempt to match, and California has additional political clout to ensure that California’s slice of the pie is sufficient for4 an Express HSR system.
Longer term there is the precedent effect, so that if a state wants to take the step up to an Express HSR system, there is a precedent set for a health federal:state match and adequate funding levels to allow an Express HSR system to be built.
And there’s no doubt that there are a number of corridors where an Emerging HSR corridor is a sound investment in its own right … Chicago / St. Louis for example was listed by Subsidy Scope as having 80% operating recover ratio at Amtrak speeds, even though for daytrips there is only a small part of the route that offers under 3hr trips to both St. Louis and Chicago. As an Emerging HSR corridor, half the corridor will be within 3 hours of both, and as a Regional HSR corridor, they are within three hours of each other. The Triple-C is similar – it was closed down when Columbus was a city of 300K, but now its a city of 1m+, and at 110mph the corridor is under two hours or less from Columbus to both Cleveland and Cincinnati, and if upgraded to a Regional HSR corridor, Cleveland and Cincinnati are within three hours of each other.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Bruce, the plan for said Emerging HSR corridor is 4-hour service, not 3-hour.
However, Chicago-St. Louis has the advantage that the ROW is almost perfectly straight, which makes it a good candidate for incremental upgrades: concrete ties, multi-tracking, electrification, canting, grade separations, etc. Only a small segment near St. Louis would require brand new track.
PeakVT Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
WHSRA is focused on the endpoints because there really isn’t much besides the endpoints. (The orange dots on that map represent cities between 132k and 200k.)
I agree they should be welcomed. But the funding priorities can’t be completely upended.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Agreed. Definitely not saying the funding priorities should be upended.
aaron Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 10:58 am
For what it’s worth, I would love to see some numbers about LA-PHX. I’m not an engineer but from what I know about the route I tend to think it could be one of the cheapest HSR lines, mile-for-mile. The route is a Whole Lot of Nothing once you get east of LA, and a lot of the LA groundwork will be laid by CA HSR. Glom onto that west of Ontario and the hardest part of the line will be from Ontario out of LA – after that it’s smooth sailing through what is essentially vast, flat nothingness (you could probably roll a bowling ball from Phoenix and LA without much effort, there isn’t a mountain to speak of). The route into Phoenix is 100% free of NIMBY’s – even the last half mile downtown is industrial usages and then the tracks back up to a bunch of County offices. Convince Phoenix to rehab Union Station and you will probably have the cheapest HSR line ever to be built in the US. It’s too easy to ignore. Land takings would be minimal, the route to Phoenix is already very straight as it is, the ROW through West Phoenix is downright spacious.
(note: extending to Tucson is probably not as easy due to passing through wealthier residential neighborhoods and I believe at least one Indian reservation before you even get south of Pecos Road).
Don’t disregard a PHX line out of hand, particularly if it can be run as part of CAHSR. I doubt too many people would take trains from PHX to SF, but PHX-LA, Anaheim, San Diego, Palm Springs etc. would be extraordinarily popular.
Of course, all of the above basically means that a PHX line wouldn’t be a viable project to plan until there was a CA HSR line to either glom onto or one in planning to sync with.
PeakVT Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I don’t think anyone is dismissing the LA-PHX line out of hand – just all of the others! See the map I linked to above. Also, how flat the route is depends on which way it goes. Via I-10 there would be a pretty good grade coming out of Indio to Chirico Summit, and then a easier one out of the Colorado River valley. But if it goes via Yuma it would be very flat.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I agree completely. I think the relatively low cost of “extensions” to existing systems through cheap, flat land shifts the calculations significantly in favor of building them.
However, ridership is still a huge question. CHSRA’s projected “trips” are mostly short regional trips culled from existing auto traffic. Diversion from end-end flights is relatively small (by trip number, it’s a larger proportion by passenger-miles). A line from Phoenix to LA wouldn’t have the short trips to fill out the ridership numbers. Palm Springs is pretty much the only thing in between the inland empire and Phoenix.
I think someone mentioned the Eurostar as an example of a line that was predominantly diverting flight traffic where ridership was lower than projected.
John Mccain will never support hsr, never. I can’t say here what I think about that guy but I have a lot of choice words for him and I ever met him I’d said them right to his tired crusty has been face.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 10:09 am
@Alon Levy
Later to the table…. but here anyway.
A national strategy focused on regions first, has sense. A strategy based on a national model…. has little.
Focus should be upon networks serving smaller regions…. and being practical for serving trips in the 300-500 mile range. Or, there abouts.
A network focused on national corridors, with the intent to serve cross country travelers…. does not make sense.
I am gratified to see that most here seem agreeable to that.
That said, once regional networks are developed, either in plans or in operation, I see no reason why discussion could not include linking regions…. assuming an emphasis on practical corridors (ridership/cost/etc).
I vote for phx-lax via psp first.
They also should have gone den-abq-phx (front range/southwest) not den-slc and you can drop rno-slc altogther.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
WHSRA had been talking to folks in Albuquerque, but I don’t know what happened to that. They do have the RailRunner service, which links Belen to Santa Fe – a regional/commuter service of course, not intercity HSR.
jimsf Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Easier to get around the mountains that way too. Den Slc would have to go north on the route through wyoming.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I made a map of a mythical western desert HSR system
Purely hypothetical, though it’s similar to the proposal from WHSRA. I’ve gone ahead and added a SLC-Reno line, with a link down to Carson city.
One of the things I think is incredibly important to remember is: Connecting Salt Lake City to Vegas isn’t just about getting people from SLC to the Mirage. It’s a little under 700 miles. With 220mph trains averaging around 180mph (entirely doable), Salt Lake to Los Angeles could be done in under 4 hours.
That’s a far more compelling proposition than a gambling and hookers train for wayward mormons.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
SLC to LA is a marginal proposition, even if it could be done in 4 hours. The problem with HSR is that unlike with air travel, the infrastructure costs scale with distance. The cost of LV-SLC would be on the order of $15 billion. Ridership would never justify those costs, because not that many people want to get from LA to SLC or from SLC to LA. Rail may capture a very high market share on this city pair, but the market itself is small.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I think you’re probably right, but “never” is a long time, especially when your population graphs look like this.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Even at an SLC population of 4 million, LA-SLC wouldn’t be cost-effective because the two cities are far away from each other and do not have a large travel market relative to population. This isn’t LA-SF or New York-Boston we’re talking about here.
For those routes where it doesn’t make sense to upgrade to full Express HSR, would it make sense to maybe resurrect Bombardier’s JetTrain and even avoid electrification costs? It has the advantage that it can mix with freight trains. Then pay for electrification down the line.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Gas turbines are horribly inefficient in part load. Unless that thing could actually run near top speed for very long stretches, it would be a real fuel guzzler.
The Talgo XXI uses conventional diesels, is FRA compliant and has a top speed of 125mph in commercial operations. If you have a business case for running faster than that, you probably have one for electrification up front.
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Which is why the JetTrain uses a lightweight diesel for idling and moving the train out of the station. Then it spools up the turbine engine. The turbine engine is extremely lightweight. The diesel plus the turbine engine are a lot lighter than a regular rail diesel engine, which makes for a much lighter locomotive overall.
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
And if you think about it, for the straight desert runs where there are no stops for over a hundred miles, it might be cost-effective.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
No, because the cost of laying the tracks through northern Nevada will be out of whack with the transportation value the system delivers. There just aren’t that many people that need to travel between SLC and Reno. Let’s not get lost in the tumbleweeds here.
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Oh, I wasn’t recommending Reno-SLC. I don’t see that many Mormons travelling to Sin City Minor. SLC-Denver, though, may be more useful.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
But it’s nearly 600 miles. 600 miles of 200 MPH tracks isn’t going to be cheap. To connect a metro area of 1 million with a metro area of 2.5 million. A very rough comparison would be connecting metro Sacramento with metro Bakersfield over twice the distance . . . without Fresno or Modesto or Stockton or Merced or … along the way.
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Oh, you mean it would be like building CAHSR along I-5 and over the Grapevine?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Yes, exactly, except that San Francisco is larger than SLC and Denver combined, and that’s without counting San Jose.
Chris Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Well, to be fair, the SLC CSA is 1.8 million, and the Denver CSA is over three million, and with the isolation of both places, CSA is a more accurate representation of the how the metro area functions than in other places.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The cost of electrification, proper signaling, and tilting EMUs is much, much lower than the cost of increasing train speeds. High speed trains require dedicated tracks, not shared with slower freight trains, and built to far more stringent track geometry standards than on the legacy network. For example, railroad ties have to be made of concrete for trains to run at high speed, whereas outside the NEC, American railroad ties are made of wood. If you build all that extra infrastructure, you might as well electrify and avoid the fuel costs.
Joey Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I’ve seen plenty of concrete ties, even in California. While they are probably required for HSR, in other applications, they’re just newer technology.
Joey Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
here
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
The photo you link to is from Denmark.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
There’s lots of concrete rail ties in CA, one of the two caltrain tracks are concrete ties, there’s a mix of concrete and wood all over the LA area. You can see them on google maps satellite view. I don’t know if anyone is using wood anymore for new or refurbished track. Logs are just too expensive.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Or I could be completely wrong about nobody using wood anymore, according to Joey’s link.
Joey Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
That’s a Wikipedia page, not a photo.
Next time you find yourself up north, check out this new thrill.
you know ill bet people would pay to use this as regular travel too.
trying to drag phx and NV into the 21 century is a bad idea. this is nothing more then an a way to sink the project. until phx and nv shows they can put something on the ballot and pass it then we should stay far away from anything that has to do whit a joint phx nv project..
most stations in good weather cali should be like this totally funtional one in france to save $$ wouldnt it seem that if it works there then it would work here. We have to keep costs down.
Joey Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Platforms need to be covered. Ever tried waiting in the rain?
Rafael Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Covered platforms are preferable, but HSR trains run on time. Unless you have an awkward connection, you can time your arrival to minimize wait time.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
This is obviously one of those small-city stations where the TGV doesn’t stop and its tracks are out of reach. In these stations, both ends of the platform are uncovered. When it’s raining, people just board the train from the covered part of the platform and walk inside the train for a vacant seat.
I’ve never seen an uncovered TGV platform.
I must say that waiting for a local train while watching TGVs wheez by is quite pleasant, and much less noisy than you might think.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Then why aren’t these platforms covered? Doesn’t it rain in france? or are the french just tougher than americans?
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
by the way in the video, the tgv did stop at that station.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
also there has been some questioning of the platforms at ttc, but if you see here, the hsr platform looks exaclty like a typical bart station and the lack of open and airy architecture doesn’t seem to phase them one bit.
I only point it out because I need to remind folks that we have to build this in fiscally responsible way.
The nimbys and deniers are claiming the project will go over budget, and of course, it will. But being frugal with station architecture and other frivolities can help offset the cost over runs in the more important areas. 24 stations x 500 million in unnecessarily pretty architecture per station is 12 billion extra dollars.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
basic
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
How can you defend the TBT in one sentence and then call for fiscal responsibility and architectural pragmatism in the next?
How does the funicular railroad to the rooftop park on the TBT fit into that?
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
again, except for the train box funding, that is a city project that has nothing to do with the hsr budget.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
THE TRANSBAY TERMINAL IS NOT PART OF PROP 1A.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
all the bells and whistles of the transbay terminal have to do with city planning, transit, and developers wishes and their willingness to pay. If in fact fresno and other want to build extravagant stations with such embellishments then I have no problem with fresno, working with developers, to build whatever they want.
what Im saying again, is that these stations should not come out of Prop 1a’s limited funds so that prop 1a and its bond money can be spent on making sure we actually have train running and stay on budget while doing so. billions of prop 1a dollars are not whats building tbt. ok???
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
The TBT’s exorbitantly expensive train box and the 3-track DTX are absolutely coming out of the HSR funds. A simple, austere train box without the TBT on top of it wouldn’t cost half a billion dollars. A two-track tunnel, which is all that would be needed if the TBT didn’t have a messed up station throat, would cost significantly less than the $2.5b it’s projected to cost.
Sorry, but your city beautification project is, in fact, costing the project money.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
no it isnt. the chsra would have to pay for that part no matter what. the tbt project is being funded by other means.
remember how you all want to put the hsr on some other street? well if you did, it wouldnt stop tbt from being built and funded exaclty the way we are doing ot now.
you’re just jealous cuz you dont have a funicular.
the tbt i being funded by a variety of sources.
area circulation will be paid for with the city’s discretionary share of its gas tax revenue that will be diverted
other improvements come from “brownfield” funding
another source will be local mello roos
also, part of the city’s share of sales tax revenue, distributed to us by the mtc will go towards it
the affordable housing element will come in part from established housing funds.
and this is the way that other cities will have to do their stations and surrounding development as well. They will have to come up with plans.
but the 40 billion from prop 1a is not gonna be used to buy fancy crap for frenso beyond what is needed.
and lets get real, if chsr really decided not to use tbt, and build their own totally separate station at a different location, they would have to fund the full cost of that station, plus pay the city for the land, plus pay the city for all the necessary infrastructure improvements to the neighborhood, which currently, will instead be funded by other sources.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“you’re just jealous cuz you dont have a funicular.”
Oh but we do!
Peter Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Maybe it was covered to the left of the view of the camera. Many covered stations aren’t covered the entire length of the platform.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
The price tag is 40 billion for cali hsr. okay?
so for 40 billlion we have to acquire row, lay track, install signaling, purchase trainsets, dig tunnels, very many, very expensive tunnels and do it all for 40 billion dollars. Where in that 40 billion is there any money for extravagant architecture?
frankly I dont see how they can build the tunnels alone for 40 billion. and what is gonna happen when they run out of money? how are they gonna finish the project? go back to the taxpayers and ask for more? how well do you think that will go over?
No. there will be no wasteful froo froo ecoutremant. You will build a train that runs and you will stay on budget, and if local municipalities want to add bangles and bobbles to their particular station they can work that out on their own with their own plan.
There are no extra billions for “signature” architecture in prop 1A
Joey Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Calm down. Besides, how much can a BASIC shelter really cost?
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“you’re just jealous cuz you dont have a funicular.”
Oh but we do!
oh yeah I went on that before. its cute and all, or course we have this but you can’t have everything now can you. Its ok you can always visit. ( dress in layers and bring your amex)
again all Im saying is;
I want this project to stay on budget otherwise we wind up with a train to nowhere or a bunch of cathedral sized stations with no train in them.
does any one here actually believe that we can build this for 40 billion, and include cathedrals?
also, the tbt funding is covered here and there isn’t one mention of prop 1a money.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
many people don’t know about our old school subway station either… reminds me of th ones in paris or boston.
Chris Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Outfitting the peninsula to handle one freight train a day will cost more than nearly all of the stations combined. Cut freight from the peninsula if you want to save money and not toss it into the wind.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Chris Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Outfitting the peninsula to handle one freight train a day will cost more than nearly all of the stations combined. Cut freight from the peninsula if you want to save money and not toss it into the wind.
how so? theres four tracks with or without the freight.
Joey Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
You don’t need to cut freight. Just limit the types of freight train that can be run.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
bonds can pay for this
but developers and locals will have to pay if they want this thats all Im saying…you know?
Chris Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
“how so? theres four tracks with or without the freight.”
Joey is correct – it’s all about the type of freight allowed. If we continue to allow heavy freight as exists now, we’ll have to spend a couple billion more on grade separations, because heavy freight can’t handle the same grade changes that HSR and Caltrain EMUs could handle. If we’re going to continue to allow freight, it should be light freight (lower axle loads), so that we don’t spend billions more just so that UP doesn’t have to change a thing. That’s a ridiculous waste of money.
Rafael Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
The new Caltrain tracks can be built to support the weight of heavy freight trains. The incremental cost of limiting gradients to 1% isn’t zero but it’s probably not $2 billion, either. The most significant impact is reduced freedom to change track elevations. That may yet prove particularly problematic at freight spur turnoffs, because the main line may not be at grade there.
Note that while HSR and Caltrain EMUs will be able to deal with 3.5% gradients, passengers may find frequent elevation changes uncomfortable – especially at 125mph. Technology isn’t the only constraint.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Rafael, correct me if I’m wrong, but won’t it be enough to build the transition curves with ample vertical curve radius to prevent discomfort?
Rafael Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
The document you refer to dates back to 2005 and is obsolete. It envisaged only Caltrain service, but the construction of the train box and DTX tunnel was scoped into a phase II because PCJPB couldn’t secure full funding for it.
As I understand it, the new plan is for the HSR project to pay for 100% of the train box and DTX tunnel, with Caltrain getting use of the tunnel and 2 of the 6 platforms as part of the payment in kind for letting HSR use the PCJPB right of way down to San Jose. CHSRA is none too happy with being stuck with the very large bill, especially since the station location and access tunnel were designed to meet Caltrain’s needs, with HSR merely an afterthought.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
yes and again my point is not about train boxes and caltrain extensions. my point is about the train stations themselves – basic covered at grade rail platforms at intermediate cities versus billion dollar delusions of grandeur. and again, tbt, the concourses, bus levels, park, funicular, signature tower, retail mall, housing element, none of that is part of prop 1a. its been put together locally by raising funds locally as well as diverting other funds allocated to sf, as well as selling property etc.
and lets get real. if hsr didn’t pay for caltrains dtx and didnt pay for tbt’s train box
then hsr would have to acquire row through SF, ( how much do you suppose we’d charge for that) build their own tunnel to downtown, and build not just a trainbox, but a whole station with no help from local funding and that would cost way more assuming the city would even let them do it.
Rafael Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Well, you’re the one who claimed that the entire TTC project, which includes the access tunnel, would be built without any HSR funds at all. Closer to the truth is that the city of SF is spending all of its money on the extra-fancy bits above ground and sticking CHSRA with the much larger bill for the bits below ground, even though those are suboptimal for HSR. I disagree with CHSRA that platform count is the issue. To my mind it’s the choice of site, the tight curve radii and the design of the station throat with the long three-track tunnel section that requires very expensive excavation techniques. CHSRA simply isn’t getting enough value out of the TTC for $2.8 billion.
That’s why they’re studying the Beale/Main alternative for an underground station not directly under but near the bus terminal.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
No I never said “entire” my position has always been the the prop 1z budget should cover the necessary bits of each station, and any additional fanciness be paid for by those who want it and in tbt’s case, 1a will pay for a tunnel whether its the caltrain hsr tunnel, or a separate tunnel and the platforms whether its tbt platforms or other platforms under beale, and in the case of tbt, they get the rest covered, but in a separate location they have to build the all the bits of the station, plus pay for all the impacts to the neighborhood whereas with tbt, others will be paying for the impacts.
so they don’t come out ahead doing their own thing and again, try to imagine this, chsra disses tjpa and the city, then come back to city hall to ask for permission to access another location, with more tunnels etc. I know this city hall, this planning commission mayors office and board of supes will not cooperate. chsra can push around menlo park and thats fine with me, but if they think they are gonna do it to sf they will find themselves terminating in brisbane.
sf will have the train in the tbt. period. its really not open for debate.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Jim, Kopp said that TBT is up for debate, which means it’s up for debate. Nothing you say matters. Nothing Robert says matters, or Clem, or Rafael, or me, or Richard, or Spokker, or anyone else who’s not a member of the CHSRA board.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:37 am
yes but I know sf, and I’m pretty confident that sf politicians, who want the train in the tbt, will get their way. As long as that’s what they want.
hsr at grade on ballast thru stations at speed is whisper quiet!
another perfectly fine simple station and note the nice unobtrusive catenary you hardy know the train is there.
omg Ilove her she’s hired!
i wonder how viable it was to build all those interstate highways through the middle of freaking nowhere. how valuable will having electrified rail between all the major urban centers(such as they are) of the west when we really start to slam into peak oil. driving and flying will get absurdly uneconomical, and that’s liable to drive most of the road freight onto the already-burdened rails.
political positioning with western senator pork aside, there’s a medium-term strategic argument to be made for spending the scratch to connect the west while we still have the abundant and cheap liquid fuel and intact economy to do so. granted, it shouldn’t be done at the expense of the CA and other existing HSR corridors, but the cost may be cheaper than inaction on the west, in the long run.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:08 am
I’d actually been reading about the politics of the interstate highways in 1955-56, specifically as they related to the I-70 link between Denver and Utah, here. It makes the point that support for the 1956 act was conditioned on certain states getting routes that hadn’t already been justified in the initial plans, such as I-70 between I-15 and Denver, which serves a lot of empty land (as well as helping spur the growth of Colorado ski resorts).
Totally agree, of course, about the need to have electrified rail between the urban centers before peak oil makes its full force felt. Yet another reason why I think we in California should welcome the emergence of WHSRA and wish them well in their efforts to lobby their Senators to support HSR funding.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
The official story is that Eisenhower after his experiences on the Lincoln Highway and after seeing the Autobahns in Germany was determined to improve the defense of the country by knitting us all together with a network of high speed highways.
It’s also been theorized that they were deeply worried about a depression in the mid 50s and saw a gigantic public works project as a way to bolster employment.
Or the yokels in places like Wyoming realized that the railroad wasn’t going to get them to Denver and Chicago anymore and figured out a way to get other people to pay for highways like they were building in the Northeast, Midwest and California.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
No, other people had been paying for highways since day 1. The highway movement was opposed to tolling, and the people in charge of highway departments did all they could to torpedo toll roads like the Pennsylvania Turnpike. In the 1920s and 30s user fees covered only about half of highway construction costs and no maintenance costs. The highway boosters did everything they could to redefine everything vaguely related to roads as a user fee whose proceeds should go only to road construction – for example, fees for police inspections of gas trucks.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Of course they had. It’s just that they saw things like the turnpikes back East and the Freeways uin California and wanted them for themselves. They never could have financed them with reasonable tolls or with gasoline taxes in places like Wyoming or Idaho. So they wrapped up “We want the NJ Turnpike without those pesky tolls” in a nice patriotic wrapper of national defense. And gladly took the gas tax money from gas burned on the toll roads. Toll roads aren’t eligible for Federal aid…
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
You’re still getting the history wrong. The free roads came first. The good roads movement opposed the construction of the Northeastern and Western turnpikes, too; in Colorado, it almost revolted over the construction of the Denver-Boulder turnpike. The Interstate system wasn’t about people in unpopulated states trying to copy toll roads without the tolls; it was the logical end of the ever-expanding set of federal standards for federal-aid highways.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Like the current push for HSR, the Interstate project was the product of a number of factors coming together at the right moment. National defense was a credible and bulletproof way to sell the project, but more often than not it was a cover for the commercial reasons to build interstate freeways. Reasons such as: bringing tourists to various destinations, enabling the growth of the trucking industry (freeing industries from dependence on freight rail, a long-desired goal of many people dating back to the Long Depression of the late 1800s), creating a market for automobiles and related products, supporting the growth of urban sprawl. Among other things.
wu ming Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 7:07 am
one reason i’ve never seen mentioned but often wondered is the eisenhower admin’s desire to make sure that a rail strike or a general strike couldn’t shut down cross-country transportation, especially given the interstate system’s role as nuclear warhead/military transport system.
Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. What they’re asking for is money for a study. If FRA has any brains it’ll insist the baseline for such a study would be 110 mph MAS, sealed corridor along existing RoW.
Rafael upthread makes the good point that there’s an awful lot of grade crossings in that part of the country. What’s worse is that it’s very difficult to close any of them because the next nearest crossing is miles away. If you’re going to run more than 110 mph, you’d need to grade separate them all. The FRA documents don’t say that, they say for 111 -125 mph it’s enough to have barriers, but it turns out that adequate barriers don’t currently exist.
Anything above 150 mph is going to need new track. New track across the desert: low RoW acquisition costs, right? But the cities that you’re connecting have bad sprawl; acquiring RoW through that sprawl is likely to get costly.
And the sprawl affects ridership. If you have to get in your car and drive 30 miles just to get to the station, maybe you’ll drive the whole way. It’s not as if there’ll be parking problems at your destination. If ridership only justifies a few trains a day, there’s no justification even for electrification, let alone a lot of new track.
So I would expect the study to come back saying if you want to do something labeled HSR, then the best way of doing it is 110 mph sealed corridor mostly along existing RoW with maybe a few short new segments, probably between Las Vegas and Phoenix where existing RoW doesn’t connect them well. Single digit billions, maybe.
Rafael Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“adequate barriers don’t exist”
Yeah, they do. They’re called vehicle arresting barriers (VABs) and consist of deployable metal nets. They’re attached to coiled-up metal bands on either side, these have to run through a series of rollers as the vehicle drags on the net. The associated plastic deformation dissipates most of the energy. By the time the bands are fully deployed, the remaining kinetic energy is dissipated by a safe level of deformation of the vehicle. The bands have to replaced after each incident and the vehicle may be a total loss, but its occupants will survive and rail traffic will not be impeded.
The one downside is that VABs need some room to do their work, so they need to be installed 20-30 feet away from the tracks. For a simple rural cross-road, that may be ok but it’s awkward in urban settings or if there’s a frontage road.
Example implementation with videos.
jim Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
FRA. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines. November 2009. p.12:
“However, presently marketed barrier gates do not address heavier motor vehicles and would therefore not be suitable without modification for protection of a rail line carrying trains above 110 mph.”
MAny cities were worried that the interstates would take business out of town, they wanted the roads to go right through town to make sure shoppers would see everything.
Then later the bypasses and loops were added out of necessity.
And of course, the railroads were pretty porky too, I mean the land give aways etc….
What I don’t get it why americans have to throw a fit every time somebody blinks.
I mean modern living requires infrastructure and spending.
Has anyone heard of this new train called the Las Vegas Express? It’s supposed to begin revenue service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas on 12/31/2010, one year from now.
Link to website: http://www.vegasxpress.com/
Peter Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Looks fake to me. Like the airline that was selling tickets from LA to Honolulu a few years ago. They had no gates, no personnel, and no planes, just a website.
Peter Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Probably just a scam to get your email address.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
crap I sent them mine. lol
HSRforCali Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I did too! Oh well, fingers crossed it’s a serious proposal.
Peter Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
They are also advertising themselves on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California-Nevada_Interstate_Maglev#Alternative_projects. Does anyone know how to label something as obvious advertising on Wikipedia?
Rafael Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem
Peter Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
HTML coding is a mystery to me.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Looks like a plan to run a train over existing freight rail lines from Fullerton to Vegas. Theoretically there’s nothing to stop them from making their own an agreement with UPRR to do this.
Peter Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Yeah, but given that this website is the sole reference to it, I think it highly unlikely.
HSRforCali Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
It seems like it should just go into Union Station instead of ending in Fullerton.
Rafael Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
I suspect this company – if it’s even real at all – might use the BNSF ROW between San Bernardino and Fullerton. There’s not enough capacity through the Hobart Yard to expand Metrolink service, never mind extend this XTrain to LA Union Station. Trackage rights from UPRR would be needed between Barstow and Las Vegas. The company would also need to leverage existing stations that belong to Amtrak and Metrolink, including whatever parking lot currently exists at Fullerton.
Plus, there’s the Desert Tortoise, which was instrumental in getting Amtrak’s Desert Wind canceled. The Talgo equipment used for that now plies the Cascades route.
So we should believe it when we see it, and not before.
In any case, I think that a LA – Phoenix – Tucson line is the most reasonable one; it could be an extension of the planned CA HSR system.
The others seem like long shots to me, it must be said. The populations may be too low to justify the infrastructure needed for 200+-mph trains, while 110-120-mph trains may be too slow for those routes to compete with air travel.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I really believe that too, phx to la should be the the next priority. you have to consider the kinds of people who live where. reno people are not the least bit interested in being a part of this. reno is populated mainly by people who couldn’t hack it in cali and a rag tag bunch of assorted losers.
Salt lake city, the only people desperate to get out of town over there are the stranded gays. poor things, I feel like sending them some southwest tickets or something.
Denver would be more interested in connecting itself to its northern and souther front range burbs and perhaps down to ABQ/SAF
but LAX-PSP-TUS-PHX would be very useful and very popular as there is a fairly strong psychologic connection between la and phoenix.
these two would be 3rd and 4th after ca hsr and dx,
Peter Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“there is a fairly strong psychologic connection between la and phoenix”
Yes, both are big fans of massive suburban sprawl.
lpetrich Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Lots of Californians visit Reno to gamble there, and Salt Lake City may be a bit more cosmopolitan and less provincial than you seem to think — big cities are often like that.
The populations of the cities: Phoenix: 4.3m, Tucson: 1.0m, Las Vegas: 1.9m, Reno: 0.67m, Salt Lake City: 1.1m, Boise: 0.59m, Cheyenne: 0.081m, Denver: 2.5m, Albuquerque: 0.51m
Distances: Riverside – Phoenix: 323 mi, Phx – Tucson: 116 mi, Phx – Las Vegas: 294 mi, Phx – Salt Lake City: 659 mi, SLC – Reno: 518 mi, SLC – Boise: 346 mi, SLC – Cheyenne: 440 mi, Cheyenne – Denver: 103 mi, Denver – Albuquerque: 448 mi, Abq – Phx: 422 mi
Sacramento – Reno is only 132 mi, but it goes over the Sierra Nevada mountains, and Amtrak’s California Zephyr schedule is 5 hours eastward and 6 hours westward. Getting that down to 1 hour or so would require *massive* construction of a new right-of-way, complete with long stretches of viaduct, tunnel, or both.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
yeah, but project like that is 100 years away. the intermountain west would need hsr as it absorbs US growth, but the sunbelt will grow faster and as you can see on my AZ map the creation of an “Arizona T “ would serve the fast growing sunbelt state well on its own aside from connecting it to cali. meanwhile a regional project between cheyenne and ABQ vie denver boulder so springs etc would be very easy to do,and
even at 110mph it would be useful.
the spaces between reno and vegas, reno and salt lake and reno and denver though, will never sustain the amount of future growth to make it feasable in those places.
jim Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Plugging these numbers into a (very simple, spreadsheet-level) gravity model, I get practically no ridership Reno-Salt Lake or Denver-Salt Lake and not much ridership Salt Lake-Las Vegas. There’s a case for actual high speed Phoenix to LA and emerging high speed Las Vegas to Phoenix, Las Vegas to LA.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Is there a case for a dedicated Phoenix-LV cutoff, or just for running trains over Cajon Pass?
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 11:03 am
I can’t imagine the Cajon Pass route being competitive for a PHX-LAS trip. It’s almost twice as long that way as a direct route (550miles versus about 300 miles).
If the DX system gets built, and a PHX-LA line gets built, you could build the Mojave Triangle I mentioned before. You would be able to use the same stations and the same city approaches as the existing lines, and you would only need to build 180-ish miles of track instead of 300. The total trip length would be about 350 miles.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am
180 miles = $7.5 billion dollars.
Does the incremental revenue of shortening Phoenix-LV justify this cost?
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Dragging rail over the Cajon pass isn’t free. The DX system will most likely connect in Palmdale or Mojave. If you’re figuring that San Diego-Las Vegas is important enough to justify building a $3-$5b cajon connection, then you need to work that into your Phoenix-Riverside-LV prices as well. Dragging a line from needles to searchlight isn’t going to cost $40m/mile. $3-$4b is more likely if you skip the towns in between. It might cost $7.5 if you have to go into havasu and kingman.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Globally the average construction cost is $43 million per mile. SNCF assumes about $40 million per mile for construction in flat terrain along an Interstate ROW in Texas.
And the Cajon connection isn’t $3-5 billion. Tunnels are expensive, but not that expensive.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Globally nobody drags lines through empty desert. I think we can assume that the construction costs, with no stations, on flat desert, will be below average. DX is figuring on around $15m/mile.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
And the mojave desert makes texas look like manhattan.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
CHSRA lists the Bakersfield to Palmdale segment at $4b and the Palmdale-LA segment at $5b. Those segments are longer, but they have easier grades and require less tunneling than cajon. I don’t think $3-$5b is that far off for an ontario-victorville segment. That’s only $66-$100m/mile.
FWIW, they also list Merced-Fresno at $34m/mile. There’s no way that Needles-Searchlight is going to be $40m/mile.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Fresno-Merced has an existing ROW, which reduces scoping and engineering costs. And globally, people drag HSR through empty countryside all the time.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
SNCF, since you like their texas numbers, list the cost of the 350 mile system at $13.8b, or $39.5m/mile. Fully 60% of that is structures. Only 20% is track and related systems like OCS. 4% is stations, 10% rolling stock and 6% land ROW.
Thats for a system that needs to get into and out of the city centers of 6 cities.
We’re talking about a connection. No stations, no expensive runs through suburbia or the inner city, very few grade separations, very few if any tunnels, very few bridges (at least one, maybe no more than one). And you think it’s going to cost just as much per mile as the Texas system?
With half the structures cost (INCREDIBLY generous), no stations cost, half the land ROW acquisition costs and all of the rolling stock costs (would certainly be less), you’re still only talking $24.8m/mile.
I think that under $20m/mile is entirely doable. There’s nothing out there to build around. You’re talking a couple dozen grade separations on the entire thing, and most of those can be culverts.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Structures include things like grading. Viaducts will also be a big issue in the desert, because it’s not flat; the grades are gentle enough to make tunnel-free construction feasible, but there’s no way around crossing at least 2 mountain passes.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
As for the cost of Cajon, if you figure it’s similar to Tehachapi, it shouldn’t be too high. CHSRA estimates $4b for Palmdale-Bakersfield, a distance of 84 miles. If you interpret this as $40m per mile plus a tunnel premium, then the tunnel premium is $600m. The $5b of LA-Palmdale would give a higher premium, $2.7b, but it includes construction in an urban area and many grade separations, whereas the Cajon Pass alignment would be in exurban territory. So for the 40-mile Fontana-Victorville segment, about $2.5b should be a reasonable cost estimate. I’m not sure it’s worth the investment, either, but spending $2.5b on a 40-60 minute cutoff for close to 7 million people is surely more cost-effective than spending even $5b on a 90-minute cutoff for 4 million people.
jim Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Don’t get too hung up on construction costs. Maintenance costs are probably more important here. These lines (Phoenix to California, Las Vegas to California) are only marginal for HSR because their revenue/ridership estimates are not very high. If their operating costs get too high, then they’re going to require operating subsidies. Maintaining narrow tolerance track alignments in desert conditions may well push operating costs above revenue.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
“I’m not sure it’s worth the investment, either, but spending $2.5b on a 40-60 minute cutoff for close to 7 million people is surely more cost-effective than spending even $5b on a 90-minute cutoff for 4 million people.”
Well, I think your first number is still low and your second number is high, but even with those numbers, we’d need to know how many of those people are taking the train on that route, and how large of an effect that time would have. The ridership demand would be non-linear, and even if it was linear, cutting a trip time by 40% is going to have a larger effect on ridership than cutting a trip by 20%, especially if it brings that time into competition with other modes.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
The issue isn’t competition – both 3:10 and 1:40 on LV-Phoenix are sufficient for HSR to have a dominant share of the market. The question is what the total size of the market is. If it turns out to be like Eurostar, it won’t be successful.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 7:31 am
@ Andy Duncan -
comparing Ontario-Victorville times is beside the point, that city pair doesn’t generate a whole lot of traffic. A comparison of direct HSR service for LA-Vegas via Palmdale vs. LA-Vegas via Cajon Pass would be more informative. Same for Anaheim, San Francisco, Sacramento and San Diego.
For Inland Empire residents who live east of say, Ontario, and headed for Vegas, a DesertXpress station in Victorville may yet prove useful. If that system is expanded via connector in the High Desert, it could prompt a lot of people living further west to switch from planes and cars to trains, which means there would be less congestion on the freeways. Even if DX were to switch from Victorville to just a connector spur from Barstow to Mojave, IE residents would still benefit from this decongestion because driving to Barstow or even all the way to Vegas would be less of a hassle.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am
@Rafael: I think you completely missed the point of our discussion. Neither Alon no I are dense enough or bored enough to have a conversation about the commute times between Ontario and Victorville. The point of comparing those times is because that’s where the route is different along a San Diego-Las Vegas trip.
Either the Wye will be in Ontario (i-15 LA-SAN alignment 50-ish minute benefit vs Palmdale) or San Bernardino (i-215 alignment 40-ish minute benefit vs Palmdale), Alon thinks Fontana would be a good place for a wye, but I don’t see that happening. Most likely Ontario will be the eastern elbow to the LA-SAN line as it provides the fastest LA-SAN times of the two options that CHSRA is evaluating according to the draft scoping docs, which means that the Cajon pass will be 40-ish minutes faster for SAN-LV.
That benefit is reduced the further you move away from the wye. LAUS-LV would be about 10 minutes faster with a Cajon connection. For Norwalk/Fullerton and Anaheim, the difference would also be about 10 minutes (less if they put in a wye allowing express trains from Anaheim-LV, not currently on the CHSRA’s track plans, more if there are no express trains and you have to transfer at LAUS).
Burbank is more or less the cutoff point, as Palmdale and Cajon would be about the same, give or take a couple minutes. For every station north of Burbank, Palmdale is the better option.
But the point wasn’t whether or not we should build Palmdale or Cajon, the point was if Palmdale (or mojave) get built, is there a business case for building Cajon also.
The business case for Cajon is marginally improved if the first connection is built between Mojave and Barstow instead of Palmdale-Victorville. The Mojave-Barstow connection would add another 5 minutes (15 miles at full speed) for people coming from any station south of Palmdale, but take off a full 20 minutes for people coming from any station north of Palmdale (60 miles at full speed).
Personally I think the Mojave connection should be built, and plans should be put in place to build the Cajon pass when demand is sufficient to build it. The problem is that the only reason DX is even being talked about is that they want to do it with private funds. Which brings us back to my original point:
Either the traffic on the Palmdale-LA section would be too crowded, or there would need to be high enough San Diego-LV demand. Alon rightly points out that the IE would also be pushing for that connection, since the Cajon route would save around 30, 40 and 50 minutes for people coming from Industry, Ontario and San Bernardino, depending on alignment.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 10:03 am
“Either the Wye will be in Ontario (i-15 LA-SAN alignment 50-ish minute benefit vs Palmdale) or San Bernardino (i-215 alignment 40-ish minute benefit vs Palmdale)”
Flip those: 40-ish minutes for Ontario wye, 50-ish minutes for San Bernardino wye.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The only way Cajon is getting built is if the Mojave-LAUS section is overcrowded and they need to divert vegas-bound trains over cajon, or if San Diego-LV demand is high enough to justify the 40-ish minutes the cajon line would save. A Palmdale or Mojave connection will serve the LA basin just fine.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
San Diego, and the Inland Empire. And it’s not 40-ish minutes – since the LA Basin is a gigantic slow zone, it’s closer to an hour.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
It’s 40 ish minutes. The run from ontario (where the cajon pass would likely split off) to palmdale is listed on the CHSRA site as 51 minutes. The run from Palmdale to Victoville is 50 miles and could be run at full speed (220mph, but let’s figure 186mph, or 16 minutes). The run from Ontario to victorville is 48 miles and would have to be run at a similar speed to the sylmar-palmdale section (between 100 and 150mph up that grade, so lets figure 110mph average, or 26 minutes.
Adding that up, the runtime from Ontario to Victorville via palmdale is 67 Minutes, while the run from Ontario to palmdale would be around 26 minutes. Or a difference of around 41 minutes. Give or take 5 minutes, but not 20.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“while the run from Ontario to victorville”
fixed.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
If the Cajon Pass alignment were built as a way of improving connectivity to the Inland Empire and San Diego, it would connect in Fontana, not Ontario, which would increase the difference by 26 miles of slow zone, i.e. about 13 minutes.
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Actually, it would probably run through San Bernardino (with a station)…
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Unless you want to build an express alignment via I-15 (I must admit – even the median looks wide enogh)
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Where do you get another 26 miles different if the wye is in Fontana? A wye in Ontario would be faster for everyone west of Ontario and only six miles longer than a wye in San Bernardino for people coming from San Diego.
Worst case scenario for a Palmdale alignment would be the line going up the 215 to San Bernadino before turning west towards LA. That’s eleven miles (ish) longer than the i-15 route, and it shortens a hypothetical cajon route from San Diego by 6 miles, while lengthening a LA-Cajon-Victorville route by about 11 miles.
So grand total, you’d be saving 16 miles from San Diego, and making the LA-LV line 11 miles longer than an Ontario wye.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
The Ontario-Fontana distance is 13 miles, not 26 – sorry. So it’s about 50 minutes, not 60.
dejv Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 9:42 am
> Sacramento – Reno is only 132 mi, but it goes over the Sierra Nevada mountains, …
This could be actually an advantage – if the mountain crossing would be done with base tunnel with flat approaches from both sides. This way the tunnel length is really big but it saves a lot of time and traction power and energy. If the track access charges will be reasonable for the freight RR’s, they will use it and eventually.
This is the principle behind NEAT and one part of it, the Lötschberg Base Tunnel already operates this way and carries 110 trains per day despite the 21km continuous single-track section.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
It costs a lot of money, though, and it has to be electrified. UP would only be interested if it were forced to electrify the rest of its network.
dejv Reply:
December 15th, 2009 at 4:05 am
It would take decades to build and another decades to pay back – big reasons not to do such things. But if traffic volumes over Sierra Nevada are big enough, such project would make sense.
Rafael Reply:
December 15th, 2009 at 5:22 am
There are various maps of rail freight intensity in the lower 48 on the internet, typically based on tonnage, e.g. this one for 2002:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/1999/chapter_2/images/figure_02_12.gif
Note the importance of coal transports out of Wyoming. The FRA’s preliminary National Rail Plan includes a map of a specific type of freight (intermodal flows) in 2006 (Sec1:20):
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlanPrelim10-15.pdf
Both suggest that Oakland-SLC is a major national freight corridor but not in the same league as LA-Chicago. In the absence of a major expansion of freight rail volume handled by the ports of Oakland and Richmond, there doesn’t appear to be a pressing need for increased capacity through the Sierras – much less a hugely expensive base tunnel. UPRR’s existing alternate route via Oroville isn’t running at capacity yet.
No-one is going to build a base tunnel just so visitors to the Lake Tahoe area can avoid driving there.
Joey Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Actually, I think 125MPH trains could maintain a decent share of traffic in the 200-300 mile range. They might have to be subsidized, though.
Joey Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Maybe more like 100-250 miles
If you have a background in transportation economics, you may find the following paper useful for evaluating the social value of specific HSR proposals in North America:
Ginés de Rus, The Economic Effects of High Speed Rail Investment, OECD Discussion Paper 2008-16 (revised Oct 2008)
Yonah Freemark of the Transport Politic reports that five new HSR track sections are entering commercial service this week: three connectors in Italy completing the 1000km backbone line between Turin and Solerno (including 79km of tunnels through the seismically active Apennines mountains) plus Brussels-Amsterdam and Brussels-Cologne.
Note that Yonah’s map only highlights segments of Europe’s intercity network that are rated at 250km/h (155mph) or above. The white lines refer to legacy track that may be rated at anywhere from 120km/h (e.g. Baltic states) to 200km/h (main lines in the UK, Switzerland, Portugal) to 230km/h (selected routes in Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway and elsewhere). Most of those in Western Europe are rated for at least 160-180km/h (100-112mph).
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Yes, and they do not shut down all of the mainline services when HSR corridors open – because they have a role to play as well an in integrated intercity transport network.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 11:54 am
The US would need mainline services to close down before we start talking about closing down mainline services. One Amtrak train a day wandering through doesn’t really count as “mainline service”
No one is talking about shuttering MBTA, SLE, Metro North, NJ Transit, SEPTA, MARC or VRE services. Or Metra, Caltrain or Metrolink services for that matter. Or even Front Runner or TriRail or…
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“The US would need mainline services to close down before we start talking about closing down mainline services.”
That’s what the best of the Emerging HSR corridors are, and for longer distances what Alan Drake’s proposal to electrify STRACNET would make possible … catching up to where Europe was in the 70′s.
Whereas the Express HSR is more catching up to what some parts of Europe had reached by the 80′s and 90′s.
But there are those who argue as if its a Windows upgrade – you can run one system on your computer or the other, not both. When the reality is more along the lines of horses for courses.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Electrification alone wouldn’t give the US mainlines to run good intercity trains on. There would also need to be investment in urban transit, non-compliant rolling stock, and ERTMS.
And no, emerging HSR isn’t where Europe was in the 1970s – it’s where both Europe and the US were in the 1930s. At the time, top speeds were 160 km/h on both steam and diesel lines, and one special train, Germany’s Berlin-Hamburg DMU express, averaged 130 km/h.
this a new ( updated?) rendering.
The “Looking Glass” element of the framing they are using is that the REASON they are not on the Federal Map is because the states involved didn’t DO ANYTHING to get onto the Federal Map.
That is, the Federal Map is based on a framework for getting designated, and then some states, alone or in collaboration, did the work to get designated, and others didn’t. But now that there seems like there may be Federal dollars and constituents asking, “why aren’t we in line for that money”, honesty would compel the answer, “because we laid down on the job”, so dishonesty rules the roost: “THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IGNORED US!!!”.