University of Illinois to conduct the one year study, looking at financing, engineering, etc.
You know, what is the obsession with ultra HSR like 220 MPH?
The fact is that rail like that would take its own dedicated ROW. Translate: VERY expensive. Why not just use 110 mph trains on existing trackage?
Take Chicago to Champaign. How do you go from Chicago to Champaign? Drive, fly, or train. Driving and train take about the same amount of time, flying would actually probably take a little longer because of the time spent in security, etc.
Speed up the train to 110 mph, and you’ve just given people the fastest alternative to go between Chicago and Champaign. 220 mph is a nice dream, but if you want passenger trains to make money you just need to make them “better” than other modes of transportation - you don’t need to make them absolutely awesome because that may not be the most cost effective thing. Take the trains to 110 mph, and increase the frequency (another important thing) and I think you have a real winning possibility. Take the Hiawatha service - very attractive due to the high frequency.
Some Other competitive Midwest corridors that are underdeveloped or non-existing are Chicago - Indianapolis, St. Louis - Indianapolis, Indianapolis - Detroit, and St. Louis - Omaha. If you can get 110 mph rail on these with sufficient frequency you’ll be the fastest mode of transportation (comparitively speaking) and provide enough convenience for people to use the service.
True HSR can be effective when pitted against things like aircraft - but the distances have to be a lot greater than Chicago - Champaign, as even the current Chicago - Champaign train will beat an aircraft to champaign in terms of how much time it takes to travel.
The updated article (same link) makes it clear that this is a long-term idea, possibly taking 50 years to get a complete network. But it is a study, done by some of the top transportation academics in the US. Maybe they will conclude something more modest (110-150 mph) is a worthy goal.
“The Way to Prosper is to have a big vision” So saith Quinn. This mantra has been used by practically everyone who champions a project that the users are not likely to pay for. It is one of the reasons the U.S. has a $14.3 trillion federal government debt along with collective state debt of more than $2.4 trillion. If I remember correctly, Illinois has been chasing California as the most debt encrusted state in the nation.
The state would be better off starting with 110 mph trains to see if there is a market for them. If there is, then they could ramp up the speed to 150 mph, probably using most of the current infrastructure, without the massive outlays require for 220 mph trains.
I have been to Florida several times this year. The governor of the Sunshine State was correct in turning down the Tampa to Orlando high speed rail project. What is needed instead is effective commuter rail from St. Petersburg/Tampa along the coast to Fort Myers and perhaps Naples. The major highways along the coast are loaded with traffic, especially during the rush hours.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record:
Fast, frequent, and on time are the key to useful transportation options.
If you focus too much on the fast to the detriment of the other two, then you will be wasting money.
Five 110 MPH trains a day will always be more useful than one 220 MPH train a day.
There are a few high density corridors where true high speed rail makes sense, but there are many more people in corridors that need frequent on time service and stops will be too close together to allow true high speed trains to actually save much time.
Did anyone read the article? 1. It is a study. 2. It is looking far out into the future. 3. Illinois is preparing a 110 mph corridor currently. 4. The blind opposition to higher speeds appears cause people to overlook the realities. 5. Where has anyone concluded that HSR service would be only 1X per day vs. 5X day with slower service? Higher speeds mean more runs for a trainset, just as with jet vs. prop airplanes, hence greater utilization and greater efficiency. 6. Last I looked, Gov. Scott’s “wise” decision on FL HSR has contributed to his abysmal approval rating of 28%. 7. If these attitudes (new RoW’s cost too much) had been operative in the 50’s when the Interstate system was proposed, we’d still be driving on old US 30, 66, etc.
Yes, I read the article.
Governor Scott’s low standing in the polls is mostly of function of his removal of the punch bowl from the Florida party goers. Friends and family members in Florida never mentioned the decision to drop the Tampa to Orlando high speed rail project.
The vision for the Interstate Highway System was backed by a realistic plan to fund it. The act authorizing the building of the system also set-up the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which is the vehicle for funding all federal highways. The federal government jump started the fund with an infusion of monies from the general fund. By 2000 federal fees and fuel taxes had not only paid for the system but had run up a surplus of more than $10 billion, even after the Congress opted to divert a portion of the federal fuel taxes to mass transit and deficit reduction. However, by 2007, because the Congress had refused to raise the federal fuel tax, the HTF surplus was gone. Beginning that year the fund has required an infusion of monies from the general fund of $7.5 to $14 billion.
Visions of a better passenger ra
Depending on family and friends for anecdotal info is seldom representative, and in the case of Scott, wrong.
“However unlikely it is that a bastion of 19th century America lost Scott a huge amount of support from not only Democrats in Florida, but also Republicans, that is exactly what happened. In mid-February, Scott rejected $2.3 billion in federal funding that would have developed a high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando, citing price and ridership concerns. [12] Even after a veto-proof majority of the Florida Senate – which is 70 percent Republican – wrote a letter rebuking Scott and asking the Department of Transportation to reconsider the funding, he stood firm. Florida residents seemed particularly upset about Scott’s decision. A poll from the Tampa Bay Business Journal showed that 63 percent of respondents disagreed with him. [13]” (from SEOLawFirm.com)
[12] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html?_r=1
[13] http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/poll/results/45541
This study has not even started, yet you question the possibility of HSR based on funding TBD?
You seemed to miss this qualifying phrase at the bottom of the survey that you are referencing. “This survey is not a scientific sampling, but offers a quick view of what readers are thinking.” Moreover, it does not tell us who responded to the question and, perhaps most importantly, what they know about high speed rail or any other form of rail transport.
The New York Times article was published in February. A considerable amount of time has passed since then.
My views were shaped in part from friends and family; they are also the product of avid newspaper rea
The NYT article was merely a summary of his cutting HSR in FL. For a scientific poll, the current Quinnipiac polling shows Scott the most unpopular governor in the US, with approval 29% of voters to 57% disapproval:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1604
HSR was not polled. But the poll you disparage of over 1000 readers of a Tampa business journal (probably not liberal folks) showed strong disapproval for his cutting HSR. I’ll stack that against your anecdotal evidence any day. No one is saying HSR is the only or main reason for his rejection by Floridians. It is, however, one of a host of objections.
When the Interstate thinking first started, they didn’t have an immediate concrete plan for funding. That came as the concept was studied.
Why does the dedicated ROW have to be expensive??? Add HSR to Interstate ROW. Ideally elevated some in the median that exists in a vast majority of the highway ROW. It would still need some dedicated ROW but the cost greatly reduced by using ‘space’ already dedicated to transportation and not needing to be purchased.
Most places, interstate highways have vertical and horizontal curves too sharp for HSR. Elevated track is very expensive compared to track plopped on the ground.
I rural areas, securing ROW for HSR might not be to costly - though NIMBYS are everywhere, even in rural areas!
The costly part of HSR is securing ROW into urban areas. Unless the FRA can be convinced to change some regulations, we can’t do it like France and Germany where the high speed rural links attach to existing urban rail networks. This is the dead elephant in the room!
I’ll admit to not being a expert on FRA regs…but seems like a safe workable solution COULD be found if enough folks wanted it. But I don’t hink most folks feel the need for rail transportation…mush less HSR.
Dead elephant in the room, indeed! Don, you ought to copyright that expression.
Trying to think outside-the-box here (a turn of phrase with much higher mileage on it) about the connect-to-the-downtown problem.
Why should the HSR, say, at the L.A. end (I am using the California, not the Illinois HSR as my example) go to LAUPT? Could it not connect to a terminus of what they call their commuter network (is it Metralink, or is that the former S.P. gallery car San Francisco Peninsula thing?). In other words, to get to the L.A. downtown, you would change trains, even if it is only across a platform and even if your HSR ticket would be automatically honored on the other train?
For example, the one time I rode the Shinkansen from Osaka to get to Tokyo Narita International Airport, I took the
Paul, I agree with you that a “two-seat” or even “three-seat” solution might well be a good start, and/or a good compromise, that could get high-speed into operation faster, at lower cost, with fewer problems. Of course, I have heard that there are studies out there that show much higher utilization of “single-seat” solutions, but a compromise by definition can’t be ideal.
It’s interesting that you chose California as your example. On the one hand, the DesertExpress is proposing a (largely) privately-funded Las Vegas-to-Los Angeles area high-speed service, on totally new ROW, that would not actually come into LA, but terminate in rural Victorville, precisely to avoid the costs and problems involved in coming across (or going around) Cajon pass and into and through the densely-populated LA basin.
On the other hand, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has a serious political problem, in addition to the technical ones. The voter-passed enabling legislation required specific downtown terminii – Union Station in LA, and the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco – and a SF - LA travel time of under 3 hours IIRC. As impractical as it now appears these requirements might be, it is generally felt that to do anything else would require going back to the voters (or at least the Legislature) which, given the current financial and political environment, might result in the entire project being scrapped. So they just keep plugging away, without any (public) consideration of compromise solutions to the technical problems.
Another relevant example is in the Frankfurt, Germany area. Many ICE’s (the German bullet train) stop at the Frankfurt International Airport long distance station and also at the Frankfurt main station. In any case, trains run at a slower speed in the congested trackage approaching the latter and even in the suburbs, speed is somewhat lower than in the countryside, maybe about 90 mph, not certain. ICE trains operate at reduced speed on regular trackage around all the major German cities, but much faster than approaching terminal here, such as in Chicago, where they crawl for miles before reaching the station. If track approaches could be improved here, there would be no reason why our HSR’s, if there ever are any, could not use the central termini. Reductions in time wasted in approaching a terminal would greatly improve the overall time between major stations, even if top speeds were only in the 140-160 mph range, and save money.
No physical reason, only a HUGE paper one. The FRA crash-worthiness regs.
I was under the impression (probably mistakenly) from a Trains interview with a SNCF guy that PTC could alter those regulations by using crash prevention rather than crash-survivability as the criterion for rail safety.
An SNCF guy is not an FRA guy. I haven’t heard anything of the sort from the FRA or their superiors. Also note the working group developing new cars specs isn’t considering any change in the regs.
It SHOULD be considered, but I don’t see where there is any push at all in that direction.
Too bad. It could save a lot of weight, time, and money.