HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #781  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2009, 6:42 PM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
It's sounds like a pet project which got a lot of pull because it was in New York.The senators from Colorado aren't pulling their fair share of weight, pushing for the I-70/Front Range HSR corridor. Are they even pushing for this? Do they pull the strings in Washington that the Senators from New York are pulling?

I also read that in the future, it may be possible to have additional HSR corridors, if a compelling argument was made and local government moved along on the project far enough on it's own to show it was not a pipe dream, if you will.

I think there is little chance all these projects get built. Most of them aren't even half as far along in studies as the Front Range HSR corridor. The Front Range was a shoe in for that 11th corridor designation.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #782  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 4:12 AM
diablo234's Avatar
diablo234 diablo234 is offline
giggity giggity goo
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Houston, USA/San Juan, ARG
Posts: 159
Some of the HSR corridors being planned are less populated than the Front Range Corridor. Take the Birmingham to New Orleans line for instance. It is very sparsely populated in that area yet somehow congress decided it is worthy of having HSR even though the population density is low.

Last edited by diablo234; Feb 16, 2009 at 5:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #783  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 4:15 AM
Strange Meat's Avatar
Strange Meat Strange Meat is offline
I like this much better
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: 5280
Posts: 8,614
The ski traffic was awful today. A train would be so awesome.

And not the Ski Train. Winter Park blows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #784  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 4:47 AM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
have all 11 been designated or is there still one available? i wonder if the NE line counts as a new corridor (since its existing).

and WHY 11? kind of an odd number...i know that CDOT applied for having 25/70 considered as one corridor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #785  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 6:03 AM
diablo234's Avatar
diablo234 diablo234 is offline
giggity giggity goo
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Houston, USA/San Juan, ARG
Posts: 159
I don't know. They do already have high speed service however since the track is in horrible condition the trains do not run at 150mph as it is advertised. The designation could send more money to improve those sections of track.

In any case since I-70 traffic is not really that bad unless it is a weekend or if there is a snowstorm, they should just stick with the I-25 corridor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #786  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 7:27 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,614
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
have all 11 been designated or is there still one available? i wonder if the NE line counts as a new corridor (since its existing).

and WHY 11? kind of an odd number...i know that CDOT applied for having 25/70 considered as one corridor.


Let's count them, east to west:
1. Northern New England
2. Northeast Corridor
3. Empire
4. Keystone
5. Southeast
6. Florida
7. Gulf Coast
8. Chicago Hub
9. South Central
10. California
11. Pacific Northwest

Looks like to me all 11 corridors have been identified.

But I have no idea there was a limitation to just 11 corridors.

The Chicago Hub corridors, because the cities as so close together, seems to be happy with 110 mph trains.
Source http://www.allaboardohio.org/cms/index.php
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #787  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 7:42 AM
cadetwhite's Avatar
cadetwhite cadetwhite is offline
Mile High Metropolis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Denver / Boulder
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by diablo234 View Post
I don't know. They do already have high speed service however since the track is in horrible condition the trains do not run at 150mph as it is advertised. The designation could send more money to improve those sections of track.

In any case since I-70 traffic is not really that bad unless it is a weekend or if there is a snowstorm, they should just stick with the I-25 corridor.
That line is not yet a dedicated high speed corridor, there has to be a seperate line for it to go full speed and right now it's sharing the tracks with low speed comuter rail and freight.

Last edited by cadetwhite; Feb 16, 2009 at 7:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #788  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 7:49 AM
cadetwhite's Avatar
cadetwhite cadetwhite is offline
Mile High Metropolis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Denver / Boulder
Posts: 278
That map really pisses me off though! Just look at the huge gap of service in the middle of the nation! Not only do all of us living here get no high speed service in between our cities, but also there is no way to get from the east to the west, or visa versa, using high speed rail. It seems so ridiculous that there was no consideration for this entire region!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #789  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 12:02 PM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
Look how Georgia, S. Carolina and N. Carolina get two parallel HSR corridors. Chicago gets 6 HSR corridors. Dallas to Little Rock? There's not much population there. Wouldn't that money be better spent connecting Dallas to Houston?
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #790  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 1:19 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is online now
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,443
I tend to agree, SnyderBock. This is a simple case of who's Congressperson is more powerful then someone else's!

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #791  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 3:27 PM
PLANSIT's Avatar
PLANSIT PLANSIT is offline
ColoRADo
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadetwhite View Post
That map really pisses me off though! Just look at the huge gap of service in the middle of the nation! Not only do all of us living here get no high speed service in between our cities, but also there is no way to get from the east to the west, or visa versa, using high speed rail. It seems so ridiculous that there was no consideration for this entire region!
You first must build a regional system, then when feasible, build a transcontinental line. It would be terribly expensive to build through the Rockies to bridge the gap, something that's hard to justify at this time. Obviously, in the future, a link will be needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #792  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 5:22 PM
Strange Meat's Avatar
Strange Meat Strange Meat is offline
I like this much better
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: 5280
Posts: 8,614
I think a front range HSR would make sense. Build it now, then, when you want a national expansion, just connect San Diego/LA via Las Vegas or Phoenix to ABQ and then OKC as well as maybe KC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #793  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2009, 6:58 PM
Octavian Octavian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,023
Since we're on this topic, you might enjoy this. A look at another region contemplating high speed rail (the Midwest, from the Urbanophile).

Quote:
Sunday, February 15, 2009

Chicago: Reconnecting the Hinterland, Part 1B - High Speed Rail

The first installment in my series on ideas for reconnecting Chicago with its natural expanded region in the Midwest focused on what could be enabled by linking Milwaukee and Indianapolis to Chicago via high speed rail. This makes it a good time to talk about Midwest high speed rail generally.

There's been a lot of talk in recent years about the idea of creating a Midwest high speed rail network. The federal government has already designated a system of Midwest rail corridors. There's a lobbying organization pushing it called the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. A host of environmental groups support it. I even had a (successful) mini-effort to get Louisville included in the Midwest network.

High speed rail is an area, like transit generally, where it is almost impossible to get information that does not come from some type of policy advocacy point of view. Consider the MWHSRA. I like these guys and am on their list, but they are a lobbying group for high speed rail. I think it is fair to say you're never going to get a discouraging word about rail out of them. Their job is to gin up reasons to do rail. Unlike with local rail transit systems, where there is often significant opposition rooted in tax policy, I don't see a lot of organized opposition to high speed rail. But there seems to be a lot of indifference and dismissiveness on the part of many. "We're not Europe" seems to be the easiest way to sum it up.

I think there could be a case for high speed rail, but I think the arguments in favor of it have been way too simplistic to date. The benefits seem to be assumed rather than demonstrated. It is treated as a self evident good backed up by only rather generic arguments and appeals. I think we've got to get beyond this, and start asking the hard questions. Because it's not just about running trains, it's about what it can do for us.

Richard Florida's Atlantic Monthly piece has been causing quite a stir. I'll start there by repeating his statements on high speed rail from the companion interview:

"There are the fast trains along the Boston/New York/Washington corridor that have allowed Washington, in effect, to become a commuter suburb of greater New York. But how about a place like Detroit? If Detroit were better connected to Chicago, one could imagine Detroit having a better reason for existing."

Could we? I'm having trouble imaging it. Better connections to Chicago by rail will give Detroit a reason to exist? I wish Florida had helped imagine it for us. Who is going to ride those trains back and forth? Is it new trips or displaced air/auto travel? Why are they going back and forth? How many of them will there be? What is this going to enable us to do that we couldn't do before?

Those are the questions we need to answer. The rationale in Europe is often about replacing air on short distance, high density travel corridors with rail for environmental reasons. It isn't about giving Paris and London, or Madrid and Barcelona, reasons to exist. But the problem with the Midwest is that far too much of it is slowly dying economically and hasn't adapted to the global economy. How does rail help with that? What is going to be different after we build the network?

At the risk of sounding Rumsfeldian, I'll say that there are two broad categories of benefits:
  • Benefits we know about that we can reasonably expect to achieve if we execute right. There's no guarantee, but at least we've got a plausible business case.
  • Benefits we don't know about yet. This is based on the idea of emergent properties of a new transport infrastructure. We've seen this before with, for example, the internet. We can't predict what new things it will be leveraged for, but we know it is a disruptive technology.
I think we've got to hang our hat on the first point. There may in fact be benefits we can't anticipate. But that sword cuts both ways. Again, we've seen this movie before. The interstate highway system had benefits beyond what we ever dreamed for it. But it came with a lot of downside too. Similarly, the internet has generated huge benefits for some, but has also been an enabler of offshoring that put a lot of people out of work. I think it's fair to say that whatever good things come out of rail, there will probably be some nasty surprises we didn't anticipate.

Again, to follow-up on a previous post, we have to be careful not to decontextualize the solution. Rail has worked in places like Europe and Asia, but the conditions in the United States are very different. What's more, Europe and Asia have had very different policy objectives and implementation approaches than what we've seen in the United States. Are those transplantable here? Certainly they would not appeal to large segments of the American community. No doubt many people would like to see us adopt more Euro-like policies. That's totally legitimate. But let's be clear on the basis of the debate. It's a debate about policy and values, not about technology. And indeed often the debate over things like high speed rail is really just a proxy battle for deeper conflicts of values that we don't want to talk about openly. It's always easier to try to justify our position based on purportedly technical criteria rather than to make our case for why our goals and objectives are good in and of themselves. That, however, is the discussion that we need to have. Even looking purely technically, is it reasonable to assumed the same results for our system as for Europe's when the operating characteristics and technology are proposed to be radically different? It seems dubious.

I think I've put my own cards on the table. To me, the goal is economic growth for our cities, and helping them to achieve success and broad based prosperity in a 21st century economy that will be very different from the 20th. I do support goals like improving the environment and having a more sustainable society. But I also fundamentally believe that people tend to act in their own self-interest, that only a limited number of people are going to ride trains or do anything else simply because it is "the right thing to do" and that people are going to choose their mode of transportation based on the optimum blend of price, end to end journey time, and quality of experience that fits their needs. So we should look to justify rail based on tangible economic benefits we hope to achieve, sustainable competitive advantage we can create with it, and solid mobility based reasons people will ride it.

I think it's going to take a lot of hard thinking and serious research to get there. I did try to offer two examples of where rail would accomplish this with regards to linking Chicago to Milwaukee and Indianapolis - the labor force benefits and the sub-division of labor benefits. Both of these potentially offer sustainable competitive advantage. That's possibly the lever that is most important. It's not just whether or not you can convince someone to take a train instead of a plane or auto. It's about what you can do with rail that you could never do before - things that other cities and regions can't match.

Let's take a look at the Midwest high speed rail map:


You see here a vast network envisioned. High speed trains, slow speed trains, bus, local transit, street cars, regional rail, national rail, overnight rail - the MWHSRA is in favor of all of them. Immediately you see the political nature of such a construct and the key challenge to ever implementing something that achieves real benefits. Amtrak survives today because it maximizes the number of states and Congressional districts in which it offers service. You see the same logic at work here. Every state and every region within every state would receive some type of service. Parochial interests of little real significance - such as a high speed rail line from Chicago to the small southern Illinois city of Carbondale - are included as part of a throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks strategy.
It's a long piece, you can read the rest here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #794  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2009, 8:30 PM
Mulligan's Avatar
Mulligan Mulligan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 364
Another article for you guys:
Obama plots huge railroad expansion

Railroads made Chicago, and now a Chicago-rich White House wants to return the favor: remaking rail with a huge new federal investment in high-speed passenger trains.

The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail, most of which was added in the final closed-door bargaining at the instigation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

It’s a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years.

Yet for all the high stakes, the pieces didn’t fall into place until the end of deliberations on the recovery bill. And the way in which they did is revealing of the often late-breaking decisions — and politics — that shaped the final package.

As a candidate for president, Obama spoke of high-speed rail as part of his vision of “rebuilding America.” Campaigning in Indiana, he talked of revitalizing the Midwest by connecting cities with faster rail service to relieve congestion and improve energy conservation.

“The time is right now for us to start thinking about high-speed rail as an alternative to air transportation connecting all these cities,” he said. “And think about what a great project that would be in terms of rebuilding America.”

But the administration never emphasized high-speed rail when the House Appropriations Committee was writing its bill in January, so no money was included. The first real request came only days before the Senate Appropriations panel marked up, and the committee had to scramble to find room for $2 billion — in part by cutting other Obama priorities.

Last week, Emanuel greatly upped the ante, asking House-Senate negotiators for $10 billion for high-speed rail — far more than either bill provided.

“I put it in there for the president,” Emanuel said in an interview. “The president wanted to have a signature issue in the bill, his commitment for the future.”

Emanuel himself was excited by the idea, but the decision to wager so much on high-speed rail reflected the fact that other candidates for a signature Obama issue were fading.

Moderate Senate Republicans, whose votes were needed, were resisting the president’s school construction initiative. Modernizing the nation’s electric grid, another White House favorite, seemed to have lost some of its cachet.

High-speed rail sailed through with surprisingly little attention paid to the president’s role.

The same Maine and Pennsylvania Republican moderates who had criticized Obama’s school construction initiative were more accepting of the rail funds, since the Northeast corridor has a major stake in more improvements. To help pay for the added cost, a business tax break — providing a five-year carry back for net operating losses — was narrowed to keep the focus more on smaller firms with receipts of less than $15 million.

At the same time, conservative Republicans seemed almost blind to Obama’s role. Instead, in their campaign to find pork barrel projects in the stimulus bill, they painted the whole funding as a scheme by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on behalf of Las Vegas interests seeking a rail link to Los Angeles. “Sin City to Tomorrow Land” was one description.

Here is Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.) explaining her vote against the bill Friday despite the benefits to her home state: “Michigan is a state of about 10 million people, and we are the hardest hit, as I said, by this economy. And yet we are expected to get approximately $7 billion from this bill. And apparently the Senate majority leader has earmarked $8 billion for a rail system from Las Vegas to Los Angeles? You have got to be kidding. You have got to be kidding.”

In fact, there’s little evidence that Reid had a decisive role, although he was happy to see his name mentioned for the sake of voters at home.

“It’s amazing. I’m stunned,” he said in an interview Friday, hours before the bill passed Congress. “I’m glad I get the credit in Nevada, but this is Obama’s No. 1 priority. This is his legacy issue out of this bill, because we need these high-speed corridors. ... I’ll take credit but frankly didn’t have much to do with it other than carry forward with what Obama wanted.”

Big hurdles remain. Critics already argue that the money is misplaced in a stimulus bill since it will be hard to spend quickly. Much depends on winning the cooperation of Class 1 freight lines that control many of the rights of way outside the Northeast.

But it is a landmark transportation investment with regional effects in almost every corner of the nation. Just last October, former President George W. Bush signed a bill authorizing up to $1.5 billion for high-speed rail through 2013. Obama’s commitment in the same period will be eight times that.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is given 60 days to come up with a strategic plan for the funds. The combination of large capital upfront — followed by annual appropriations — fits the prototype for the infrastructure bank once considered for, but never included in, the recovery bill.

“High-speed rail is the infrastructure bank,” said Emanuel, and the legislation gives LaHood discretion to assign “priority to projects that support the development of intercity high-speed rail service.”

There is some precedent. At the height of the New Deal, FDR’s Public Works Administration played a role in persuading the Pennsylvania Railroad to complete the electrification of its Washington-New York line and finish Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station. Today, the government could make capital investments that both benefit freight operations and facilitate high-speed passenger service. With the drop in freight traffic, the railroads might be more cooperative, although they are sure to want some liability protection for accidents.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18924.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #795  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2009, 9:10 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
its certainly interesting, but it's painful realizing that Front Range is not the 11th corridor...we will see nothing from this $8BB?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #796  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2009, 9:19 PM
Octavian Octavian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
its certainly interesting, but it's painful realizing that Front Range is not the 11th corridor...we will see nothing from this $8BB?
Probably not, but it's possible. After RMRA completes their study, if they recommend high speed rail for the state, the proposal will go to a ballot initiative (2010 at the earliest). Then there would be several years of studies (like Fastracks) before anything gets built. The big obstacles in my view are the economy and the cost overruns on Fastracks.

It will take some time for the Department of Transportation to figure out how it wants to spend this money. And I imagine there aren't enough rail projects in the country ready to spend a cumulative $8 billion. This part of the bill is unlikely to be spent in the "2 year time frame" hyped by the bill. Most will be spent on the back end.

I'm just speculating now, but if the RMRA finishes quickly, Colorado might be able to use part of these funds for an EIS. From Colorado's perspective, an EIS funded by federal tax dollars beginning in 2009 or 2010 (even before state funding for the project is secured) would be ideal, because if voters approve the project, construction can get underway more quickly (like the Fastracks West Corridor), and if not, the state has not really used any money. As a federal taxpayer (especially one from another state), I'd be none to happy about this, especially since an EIS doesn't really qualify as "stimulus." But I see how this approach could be appealing to the state.

Last edited by Octavian; Feb 18, 2009 at 4:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #797  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2009, 3:56 AM
Octavian Octavian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,023
I agree with this guy. No way RTD gets a 0.4 cent tax increase in this economy. Is it time to accept a scaled back program? How does this affect what RTD is able to do in the future? We'll know in about a month.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/20...my-a-stumbling-block-for-rtd/?printer=1/

Quote:
CIRULI: Economy a stumbling block for RTD

By Floyd Ciruli, Special to the Rocky

Friday, February 13, 2009

Buoyed by reports of public support, the Regional Transportation District is said to be considering going back to the ballot for another tax hike for funds to complete the stalled FasTracks. However, there are good reasons to believe that, this time, voters might tell RTD "Not so fast."

It was just in 2004 that voters generously approved a hefty sales tax hike to support the ambitious build-out of light rail. But mounting costs have crippled the plan and now RTD is looking for salvation at the ballot box.

The public has supported adding transit to the metro transportation mix and the light-rail lines completed so far have proved popular. But public support for transportation in theory might not translate to the reality of another tax hike.

Although polls often show public willingness to raise sales taxes, a smart opposition campaign will challenge RTD management's credibility to deliver a rail program, even with millions more. RTD's track record hasn't been seriously challenged and it is vulnerable to the charge of promising too much in the 2004 election and delivering too little since.

A smart campaign that year sold the plan to voters, but after it passed, construction cost projections became unrealistic, even to RTD. While the estimates were recognized as unrealistic as early as 2005, the problem was exacerbated by commodity inflation in 2007 and 2008. The knockout blow was the collapse of sales tax revenue triggered by the recession in late 2008.

Many factors make a tax increase today a risky proposition and suggest a need for an alternative solution.

* Voters are reluctant to raise taxes when their incomes are declining and jobs are endangered. They said no to a host of state and local tax initiatives last fall just as the economy began its free fall. Today, things are much worse, and most knowledgeable observers believe it will continue to decline throughout 2009.

* More important, a tax increase in this recessionary period will have a negative economic impact. For each tenth-of-a-cent sales tax increase requested, approximately $40 million would be withdrawn from the retail and general economy and moved into government coffers - not to be spent until 2012 or later.

* Voters raised RTD's tax level and revenue 66 percent in 2004. Now the district is promoting another 40 percent increase. Its projections were off by 36 percent, or $2.1 billion short of the $7.9 billion it now claims to need. Without some change in management and an independent agency review, any campaigning for an increased sales tax would be heavily burdened by RTD's poor reputation for accurate projections.
What the public made clear by its voting and polling responses is that it wants the program it was promised, and it wants it sooner rather than later. The smart move for RTD would move the "shovel ready" projects forward and not request more money now.

If a regional sales tax increase is required, it should not be contemplated until beyond 2010 when the recession abates, and if a four-tenths-of-a-cent increase is proposed, it should be dedicated equally to transit and highways.

The multibillion-dollar investment of funds to transit at the same time that highway funding is being scuttled by the recession is creating a distortion between real on-the-ground transportation needs (automobiles and trucks will continue to make up 85 percent of the metro area's transportation system's trips) and funding.

Polling and recent elections show that metro voters are supportive of local highway transportation funding strategies. For example, Adams and Douglas counties have recently had successful sales tax extension elections for roads and transportation improvements, and improving transportation infrastructure was one of the elements in Denver's successful 2006 bond package.

This alternative funding plan would have the benefit of employing sound macroeconomic policy (i.e., not raising taxes during a recession), and striking a balance between needed highway and transit funding and good politics.

Floyd Ciruli, founder of Ciruli Associates, is a Denver-based pollster and political analyst for 9News and KOA Radio.

© Rocky Mountain News
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #798  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2009, 7:39 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,614
Lightbulb

Here's the All Aboard Ohio HSR plan:
http://www.allaboardohio.org/cms/index.php
Ohio Hub video
http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohi...n't%20Your%20Daddy's%20Train.mov

They're seriously considering building the Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati (3Cs) route first. They're implementing 110 mph trains on existing freight railroad routes. The entire plan is $4 Billion, but the 3 Cs is slightly over $1 Billion. A 50% share of $500 to $600 Million the $8 Billion "Stimulus Package" total could complete the funding they need.

A 110 mph train travels the entire route between Cleveland and Cincinnati in:
From Locomotion: overall time 3:15:01 (195 minutes)
From Train Schedule: 3:49 (229 minutes)
Slack Time Percentage: 17%

Which means the 110 mph can travel between Columbus and Cleveland, and Columbus and Cincinnati in less than the magical 2 hours (120 minutes).

From http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohi...ument_Rev_12_06_07/Executive_Summary.pdf
Cleveland–Columbus–Dayton–Cincinnati Results
The forecasts for the Cleveland–Columbus–Dayton–Cincinnati (3-C) Corridor produce the best operating results and a strong positive operating ratio. The 3-C corridor is an attractive travel market because it has large end-point populations and many intermediate cities along the route. The population density along the line provides a balanced directional passenger flow and creates the potential to keep seats filled for the entire trip. The average trip length of 130 miles is much shorter than the length of the corridor, implying high passenger turnover in Columbus, with the ability to fill the seats twice between the corridor’s end-point cities. These factors along with a high percentage of business travel, a lack of competitive air service, and the potential to serve multiple commuter markets boosts theprojected ridership as well as the corridor’s revenue yields. In all network options, the 3-C corridor has the highest projected load factors with the greatest revenue potential. The study concluded that this corridor should be implemented first and the results suggest that the 3-C may stand-alone only if it is interconnected with at least one additional corridor. This will ensure that the 3-C returns a positive operating ratio along with a positive cost benefit ratio.

Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati Capital Costs:
79 mph = $660,977
110 mph = $1,104,600

There are few short hop plane trips between the cities, therefore a slower speed train is very competitive in their markets. Also, the distances between major cities are far less than 200 miles, so faster trains are not needed to make the next city on the line in less than 2 hours. The slower 110 mph HSR train is much cheaper to build.

Most, if not all, of the Chicago Hub HSR corridors could work profitably with just 110 mph trains.

If 40% of that $8 Billion Surplus, ~$3 Billion, was spent on the Midwest HSR corridors, 110 mph trains could exist in many existing rail corridors within Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #799  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2009, 9:54 PM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
I consider 125mph+ to be High Dpeed Rail, 110mph is Medium Speed Rail. But it does appear Chicago is going to use 110mph trains in it's HSR network, so Ohio is probably looking to match technology to connect up with Chicago's future network.

Overall, 110mph service using upgraded existing rail is a great p[lace to start. The cost of this should be low enough to even consider connecting Kansas City to Denver (thus connecting Denver to Chicago's hub system). Chicago has a HSR corridor planned from Chicago to STL to KC, so an extension from KC to Denver over flat Kansas plains using upgraded existing rail should be practical at some point.

Some argue Chicago-Omaha-Denver, but there is less population there than Chicago-St. Louis-KC and there is no currently planned HSR corridor through Omaha, so it would be much more track upgrades and very costly. So I favor simply extending the proposed Chicago-STL-KC 110mph HSR to Denver over upgraded existing freight tracks.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #800  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2009, 5:03 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,614
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnyderBock View Post
I consider 125mph+ to be High Dpeed Rail, 110mph is Medium Speed Rail. But it does appear Chicago is going to use 110mph trains in it's HSR network, so Ohio is probably looking to match technology to connect up with Chicago's future network.

Overall, 110mph service using upgraded existing rail is a great p[lace to start. The cost of this should be low enough to even consider connecting Kansas City to Denver (thus connecting Denver to Chicago's hub system). Chicago has a HSR corridor planned from Chicago to STL to KC, so an extension from KC to Denver over flat Kansas plains using upgraded existing rail should be practical at some point.

Some argue Chicago-Omaha-Denver, but there is less population there than Chicago-St. Louis-KC and there is no currently planned HSR corridor through Omaha, so it would be much more track upgrades and very costly. So I favor simply extending the proposed Chicago-STL-KC 110mph HSR to Denver over upgraded existing freight tracks.
While 110 mph trains to Denver from Chicago will be faster than what exists today, it will not be competitive. Cities, like the State Capitols Springfield and Jefferson City, exist in the Midwest HSR corridors with very poor airports and airline services. There will be passengers taking the HSR trains to get to the airports to fly to LA or NYC. The short haul flights are the ones being cut by the airlines, not the mid and long range flights. Denver, has a huge airport, great service, and is much further away from large cities. KC to Denver is 602 miles per Google Maps. Assuming the 110 mph train goes full speed the entire distance, which it will not, it'll take ~6 hours to travel that far.

Compared with the 298 miles between St. Louis and Chicago, less than 3 hours travel, with cities like Springfield and Bloomington in between, which could also attract passengers from Decatur and Peoria. Between fair sized cities, there's just an hour travel.
That's not true with Denver. Between KC and Denver, you have Topeka, and 500+ miles of small towns. Between Denver and Kansas City, you will need 200 mph trains to get the travel time to 3 hours, where it can compete. With no large cities in between, you'll not have seats sold twice over a single run, so it'll be less profitable than the 110 mph trains in the MidWest where they hope to sell many of the seats twice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:42 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.