I could definitely see Harrisburg eventually having post-Acela HSR running along its current route, along the lines of the TGV. Even if there isn’t sufficient FRA reform, the fact that the Harrisburg line’s four-tracked might make things easier.
I’m not sure how easy it is to draw lessons from the northeast and apply them to the Midwest, though. The Keystone Service doesn’t just stop in Philadelphia—it also goes to New York (and offers the possibility of a transfer to Washington, DC). The northeast has several several major metros in a row and is much more continuously urbanized than the Midwest, which is much more rural and has a clear hub in Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standpoor
Those small trips add up though. Northeast regional trains move a lot of people compared to Acela trains on a per train basis. Illinois small towns added up have far higher ridership than St Louis. Even with introduction of 220 service, I do not think that the 110 mph Lincoln Service then becomes obsolete. It will be important to those that are going to intermediate cities or those unwilling to pay for air travel or the express service.
|
The Lincoln Service’s 2010 ridership was
572,424. The air market between St. Louis & Chicago in 2009 was
1,645,483—if HSR is able to get 1/3 of that market, that’s over 95% of the existing ridership of the Lincoln service—that’s not assuming any diverted car and rail trips, intermediate stops, or induced demand. Chicago-St. Louis is definitely a bigger market than downstate Illinois.
Quote:
110 mph is a necessary first step. It will help introduce the populace to better train travel, induce development in the core of cities, show doubters that train travel is a valid alternative and build up future support for the roll out of 220 or above service. I do not think 220 can even start construction before 2014 so that means a passenger start date around 2024. 110 can do all of this over the next twelve years and pave the way for 220 service in the minds of the public.
You can ignore Scott Walker all you want but he and others will always be there trying to stop HSR. I want 220 mph too but I would prefer 110 over nothing.
|
Remember, though, that Walker killed 110-mph service between Milwaukee and Madison, and that Kasich killed 3-C, which was originally to be 110-mph but was eventually dumbed down to 79.
Any rail project is going to be too expensive, so it has to have clearly demonstrable benefits. Cutting an hour or so from a five-or-six hour trip (what 90 to 110-mph rail means for definitely an improvement, but I just doubt that it’s enough to boost rail’s profile in the midwest. At best, it’s building rail up to standards a little better than they were in 1930’s and ’40’s, and American passenger rail ridership still managed to decline then. To demonstrate the potential of high speed rail in this country, we should focus on high speed rail.
I don’t have much of a problem with the current phase of Lincoln Service improvements—it brings definite benefits downstate and, when the Chicago segment gets completed, it will likely have benefits to freight and commuter flow as well. What I question is whether the next phase—a $3.2 billion dollar project that would include double-tracking the line—is worthwhile. If the Lincoln Service upgrades do lead to a capacity crunch, should we take that as a sign to start work on 220-mph HSR, or a sign to double-track the entire line? I fear the latter would only deliver marginal benefits.
Quote:
How much private money has gone into California HSR or Florida HSR to date. California HSR appears to me to be step 1. Pass referendum, step 2. , step 3. High speed rail. I will take the sure thing anytime.
|
None, yet, though California’s initial
Request for Expressions of Interest brought about a strong response, including from experienced companies such as Alstom and Skanska. And remember that the consortia vying to build the Florida project were willing to take on any construction risk and operating losses. While California’s process certainly isn’t moving as quickly as that in Illinois, it’s also a huge project with huge environmental impact statements to complete and a lot of funding to gather. It has to work in a market where land values have been pretty well distorted by Proposition 13, which also serves to make things more difficult. Finally, although it’s a phased project, the CAHSR group decided to prioritize the biggest market—SF to LA, which is also one of the most difficult due to topography plus length. That’s not saying that a Chicago hub project wouldn’t have its share of difficulties, but at least it could be done in phases rather than having to build, say, Minneapolis to Cincinnati all in one go.