urbanSTL

From the NYT:

July 28, 2009, 6:57 am

Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?

By Edward L. Glaeser



Last Thursday, the House of Representatives voted another $4 billion for high-speed rail projects, on top of the $8 billion that was part of the stimulus package. President Obama has described a vision of “whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination.” The administration is imagining 10 high-speed rail networks scattered throughout America, not only in the Northeast, but in California, Texas, Florida and Wisconsin.

Link

The NYT had better be careful b4 members of this forum go apeshit on them!

Interesting article:



http://www.newsweek.com/id/213347



"High Speed Boondoggle: Why Obama's Bet on High Speed Rails is an Expensive Mistake"

I like that. How did you do that?



We seem to be reluctant to do anything anymore in this country unless we feel threatened externally. We built the interstate system only after Hitler started the Auto-bahn. And we put a man on the moon, primarily to beat the Russians.



I guess we don't feel threatened economically by Europe. Yet. If we did, we would have high speed trains and universal health care. Instead, we feel threatened by a bearded man living in the mountains of Afghanistan. So I assume we'll start a national cave project soon.

Grover wrote:I think the article needs some editing: http://www.stlurbanworkshop.com/2009/08 ... le-by.html

Yeah, except vehicle efficiency is increasing rapidly. The Nissan Fit gets the equivalent of 365 mpg. The amount of energy per passenger mile in vehicles is rising above that of trains. Cars are also more flexible. You can go anywhere in a car. Trains are point-point only.



And what is an "unsustainable" road? The total life-cycle energy inputs for rail are 2x higher than roads...



http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... il-travel/

“Most current decision-making relies on analysis at the tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production, infrastructure provision, and fuel production required for support,” wrote the authors. “We find that total life-cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions contribute an additional 63 percent for onroad, 155 percent for rail, and 31 percent for air systems,” relative to those vehicles’ tailpipe emissions.



Our government subsidizes trains, buses, car and air travel. I don't understand the point exactly.

High-speed rail works in Europe and Japan because cities (and countries) are so much closer together. Except for the East Coast, it's just not practical in America.

Grover wrote:^ I refuse to battle you quote for quote.

Yeah, I really don't have much of an opinion on this high speed rail stuff.

HSR funding requests for the most part are basic infrastructure projects as states tackle transportation policy in a piecemeal fashion. However, that wording doesn't work in politics so it comes out as HSR. Look at what Virginia and Maryland is proposing. It looks a lot like Missouri's request for HSR funding, essentially rail capacity and bridge/station improvements/replacements that benefit freight movement just as much as anything else. I Would rather see a rail infrastructure bank with consistent funding year to year. The stimulus will go quick and we will still have a backlog of projects that can make a significant difference even if the trains are going only 90 to 110 mph.



http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news ... ments.html



Maryland, Virginia, link fund requests to Amtrak, NEC



Two states operating regional rail service with Washington, D.C. as their hub have submitted requests for federal funding to provide upgraded infrastructure. Unlike many of their brethren, however, Maryland and Virginia, to differing degrees, are piggybacking many of their own needs onto those of Amtrak, owner and operator of the Northeast Corridor.



Maryland officials have submitted a request for $360 million in federal funds for upgrades on two lines used by its MARC regional passenger rail service—its Brunswick Line (owned by CSX Corp.) and its so-called Penn Line, part of Amtrak’s NEC

Mill204 wrote:

Framer wrote:High-speed rail works in Europe and Japan because cities (and countries) are so much closer together. Except for the East Coast, it's just not practical in America.

:-s That comment just makes my head hurt. #-o



Paris -> Lyon = 288 mi

Paris -> London = 288 mi

Paris -> Strasbourg = 302 mi

Madrid -> Barcelona = 393 mi



St. Louis -> Chicago = 298 mi

High speed needs cities a certain distance apart - too close (or too many stops) you can't take advantage of the high speed. Once you get above a certain distance airlines become more more feasible. The optimal range for HS trains is in the 200 - 400 mile range - which would work I-35 corridor east and along west coast -> AKA loose the idea off a true nation wide network...



West Coast (including Cali/portland/Seattle/Vegas/phoenix) is one network and everywhere else is another network. Paramount is that we don't stop at every little town -> Metro areas of 1.5 Million with (1) stop in city center. Keep the existing amtrak stations as a feeder - Jefferson city, Hermann, Washington, Kirkwood feed into the big station downtown - then you hop on a train to Chicago. etc. The problem is politicians are going to want a stop in Jeff City Columbia on the KC -> STL line, and in Springfield and Peoria/Urbana on the STL -> Chi line. even with only a 10 minute stop this will keep the effectiveness of the system very low for regular usage.

tbspqr wrote:
High speed needs cities a certain distance apart - too close (or too many stops) you can't take advantage of the high speed. Once you get above a certain distance airlines become more more feasible. The optimal range for HS trains is in the 200 - 400 mile range - which would work I-35 corridor east and along west coast -> AKA loose the idea off a true nation wide network...



West Coast (including Cali/portland/Seattle/Vegas/phoenix) is one network and everywhere else is another network. Paramount is that we don't stop at every little town -> Metro areas of 1.5 Million with (1) stop in city center.

For comparison, in Japan, the JR Central Tokaido Line -- the most popular Shinkansen (bullet train) line -- runs from Osaka to Tokyo for a total of 343mi. That distance is for the entire line, which has as many as 15 stops in between those two cities (about every 20 miles or so) for a non-express train. On a non-express train, the 343 mile run is about 4 hours. On an express train, it's about 3 hours.



Many of the stops are for larger cities, but I can name at least one stop that has a population of < 200,000, although it isn't a stop for the express train.

"Here's how America Should Build Out a High-Speed Rail Network"



Sometimes it’s comforting to have a rigorous, numbers-based analysis tell you something you already pretty much know. In this case, most Americans understand that there are intercity corridors in this country that would be ideally suited for high speed rail investment. But the smart folks at America 2050 have done a great deal in advancing the national conversation by putting together a report (pdf) that ranks which potential HSR routes are the best candidates for investment–that is, which will have the greatest ridership demand.



The rankings are based on six factors: population, the size the local economy, distance between cities (with 250 miles being optimum), the quality of the local transit networks at each end, how bad the highway congestion is both cities (on the idea that this dissuades driving), and whether the cities are in a mega-region (more on that here).



More at link above...

The regional location initiative is focused on rail and ports as well as air, Stauder noted. In this regard, RCGA is actively supporting efforts to promote the multi-billion dollar high-speed rail line between St. Louis and Chicago. The line has been discussed for years but is finally moving closer to reality. Illinois already has committed $400 million to the project in their recently-enacted Capital Bill. The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has agreed to support $50 billion in high-speed rail funding over the next six years. President Barack Obama is also supporting the effort and included $8 billion in his stimulus package for high-speed rail. If fully funded, the ultimate St. Louis-Chicago line would run passenger trains at 220 mph, cutting the six-hour trip to just over two hours.



“It’s significant for us, and it’s the first piece of the Chicago Hub Network in the Midwest that would be put into place,” Stauder says. The St. Louis-Chicago high-speed rail project is the first leg of a 3,000-mile rail Chicago Hub Network system that would link eight Midwestern states to the Windy City. Priority links in the system are lines between Chicago and Detroit, and Chicago and Madison, Wis., Stauder says.



She says she is also encouraged by the Missouri Department of Transportation’s work on establishing better rail connections between Kansas City and St. Louis, which would strengthen Missouri’s position within the hub.



http://www.stlcommercemagazine.com/arch ... tives.html

CNN posted an article this morning that said President Obama and his staff will announce the awarding of $8 billion in high-speed rail funds during a town hall meeting in Tampa, Florida tomorrow. Several cabinet members and top administration officials will be in other cities to also announce the awarding of the funds.

See more here: http://tinyurl.com/ykulyj5

Where will the other $3 billion come from?

I think $2.5B for HSR made it into the FY2010 budget. Perhaps some of that will go to the StL-CHI line.