Aaaah...I forgot teh topic was new and expensive HSR! I'm on board for a traditional train line running Chi/Stl/Mem/Nola...
jrathert wrote:Isn't flying more time efficient for most routes anyway? I just figured they didn't see enough potential ridership from Memphis. Long term, I envision Memphis and STL serving as three spoke mini-hubs:
STL to Chi, STL to KC (and OK line), STL to Mem
Memphis to STL, Mem to New Orleans, Mem to Little Rock (and Texas)
Flying is more time efficient over long distances. A train from STL to CHI would likely be quicker with the stuff you go through before the plane takes off. Even for travel distances that are slightly more time efficient, the cost would likely be less than a plane ride. Then factor in that trains are significantly more comfortable, and you might see a higher ridership. Being a tall guy that doesn't fit well in plane seats and dislikes the loudness of the plane, a train is a much better option to go to say KC or CHI.
- 2,386
^Completely agreed. I took the Amtrak to Chi from STL and back for the first time over the holidays and the experience is much, much more enjoyable than flying (minus the time difference, of course). I am 6'3, and the train is infinitely more comfortable. Additionally, you can utilize phones, computers, etc. in a way that is MUCH easier than flying. I can only imagine a nice bar-car on an HSR line from here to Chicago! I would never take a plane for that route again. Blues vs blackhawks, cards cubs, rams bears, and possibly a future soccer team vs. Fire match-up. How cool would the commuters to those games be! Talk about ultimate easy day trips.
Also to note, my trains were PACKED both ways. I would have to think that this would make StL a much more attractive city to many people if it ever comes to fruition. The ease of travel to Chicago would be a huge selling point IMO.
Also to note, my trains were PACKED both ways. I would have to think that this would make StL a much more attractive city to many people if it ever comes to fruition. The ease of travel to Chicago would be a huge selling point IMO.
newstl2020 wrote:^Completely agreed. I took the Amtrak to Chi from STL and back for the first time over the holidays and the experience is much, much more enjoyable than flying (minus the time difference, of course). I am 6'3, and the train is infinitely more comfortable. Additionally, you can utilize phones, computers, etc. in a way that is MUCH easier than flying. I can only imagine a nice bar-car on an HSR line from here to Chicago! I would never take a plane for that route again. Blues vs blackhawks, cards cubs, rams bears, and possibly a future soccer team vs. Fire match-up. How cool would the commuters to those games be! Talk about ultimate easy day trips.
Also to note, my trains were PACKED both ways. I would have to think that this would make StL a much more attractive city to many people if it ever comes to fruition. The ease of travel to Chicago would be a huge selling point IMO.
In my experience the KC to STL line is normally pretty full too.
Quick story...I was on a KC to STL ride and we had to pull over due to tornado activity. We were stopped for an hour, yet everyone was having a good time. The food and drink car was a hit. People socialized and seemed to have a great time. Kids were running around (noting terrible) and strangers were keeping an eye out for them, while the parents relaxed a bit (they didn't neglect their responsibilities). Overall, what could have been a terrible experience was pretty positive and enjoyable.
Just got back from a presentation by Robert Yaro about High-Speed Rail in America.
For some bio...http://www.rpa.org/staff/robert-d-yaro.html
Info on the study...http://www.america2050.org/
Quick rundown of the presentation (in notes form)...
~Presentation based on a report made by AMERICA 2050, that was released two weeks ago.
~Analysis for HSR corridors based on population and employments centers, along with existing infrastructure.
~Yaro suggests that we have run out of infrastructure capacity. We are also less than 2% of our GDP on infrastructure, whereas China and India average about 6-8%. (an aside...we have an Infrastructure Report card of D for the nation ).http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
~Mega-region infrastructure development and planning becoming an international standard. Europe and China are among the leaders...the US, not so much.
~HSR is most viable and suitable for corridors ranging from 300-600mi. These distances are too large for automobiles and too small for planes from time and cost standpoints.
~China using HSR to guide growth from coasts to the interior of the country.
Economic Benefits
1. Increases Connectivity and Productivity
2. Cities gain more access to workforce and housing
3. Helps in the creation and prosperity of specialized industries through agglomeration of economies, thus improving international competitiveness.
4. Serve as focal points for future development.
5. Better/ more efficient infrastructure
6. Transformative effects...time, cost and space saved.
Additional points...
~HSR helps under-performing cities in regards to the above notes.
~Growth expected to be in line with that brought about by the interstate system
~National infrastructure strategies necessary
~HSR not a standalone economic tool
~HSR benefits are "one-way streets" when used only with park n' rides...edge city stops don't work (cites England examples), we need to connect to the city centers.
Where it works best...
Primary Factors
~Close to core
-Near dense population
-Near employment centers
Secondary Factors
~In congested areas, both auto and air traffic
~In employment areas focused on service industries. Not so helpful for basic industrial manufacturing and some other blue collar industries.
More additional thoughts...
~Tough to get the ROW requirements in CA
~FL corridor had residents shoot down light-rail proposal..thus hard to get federal funds.
Cost for the Obama/FRA proposal could cost 20 billion per year for the next 25 years if to be completed with in suggested timeline. Boost to GDP could be +60 Trillion annually.
~HSR speeds range from 175-220 mph.
~Want and believe they will find private investments potentially reaching 20-30% of costs.
~Need HSR system to connect to other trans. modes, especially airports.
Ridership
~Amtrak - 13 million riders in 2009
~Amtrak projects 23 million riders by 2030 (AECOM working on plan with Amtrak)
~HSR by 2030 conservative estimate: 48 million
~HSR by 2030 high-end estimate: 55 million
Closing
~The interstate system improved our economy five fold by the end of the Cold War.
~ City Centers are the catalysts for ingenuity.
For some bio...http://www.rpa.org/staff/robert-d-yaro.html
Info on the study...http://www.america2050.org/
Quick rundown of the presentation (in notes form)...
~Presentation based on a report made by AMERICA 2050, that was released two weeks ago.
~Analysis for HSR corridors based on population and employments centers, along with existing infrastructure.
~Yaro suggests that we have run out of infrastructure capacity. We are also less than 2% of our GDP on infrastructure, whereas China and India average about 6-8%. (an aside...we have an Infrastructure Report card of D for the nation ).http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
~Mega-region infrastructure development and planning becoming an international standard. Europe and China are among the leaders...the US, not so much.
~HSR is most viable and suitable for corridors ranging from 300-600mi. These distances are too large for automobiles and too small for planes from time and cost standpoints.
~China using HSR to guide growth from coasts to the interior of the country.
Economic Benefits
1. Increases Connectivity and Productivity
2. Cities gain more access to workforce and housing
3. Helps in the creation and prosperity of specialized industries through agglomeration of economies, thus improving international competitiveness.
4. Serve as focal points for future development.
5. Better/ more efficient infrastructure
6. Transformative effects...time, cost and space saved.
Additional points...
~HSR helps under-performing cities in regards to the above notes.
~Growth expected to be in line with that brought about by the interstate system
~National infrastructure strategies necessary
~HSR not a standalone economic tool
~HSR benefits are "one-way streets" when used only with park n' rides...edge city stops don't work (cites England examples), we need to connect to the city centers.
Where it works best...
Primary Factors
~Close to core
-Near dense population
-Near employment centers
Secondary Factors
~In congested areas, both auto and air traffic
~In employment areas focused on service industries. Not so helpful for basic industrial manufacturing and some other blue collar industries.
More additional thoughts...
~Tough to get the ROW requirements in CA
~FL corridor had residents shoot down light-rail proposal..thus hard to get federal funds.
Cost for the Obama/FRA proposal could cost 20 billion per year for the next 25 years if to be completed with in suggested timeline. Boost to GDP could be +60 Trillion annually.
~HSR speeds range from 175-220 mph.
~Want and believe they will find private investments potentially reaching 20-30% of costs.
~Need HSR system to connect to other trans. modes, especially airports.
Ridership
~Amtrak - 13 million riders in 2009
~Amtrak projects 23 million riders by 2030 (AECOM working on plan with Amtrak)
~HSR by 2030 conservative estimate: 48 million
~HSR by 2030 high-end estimate: 55 million
Closing
~The interstate system improved our economy five fold by the end of the Cold War.
~ City Centers are the catalysts for ingenuity.
pat wrote:^ So there was no mention of other rail corridors besides CA and FL?
There was discussion touching on all of the corridors, but just a brief few comments. I put the CA and FL comments, because they were where there are significant challenges moving forward. The line from Milwaukee is also subject to some issues, as the Mayor, I believe thats what Yaro claimed, has shot down the proposed line to Chicago.
Also, the White House budget was supposed to be announced today and Yaro said we would see how much is expected to go to HSR. I don't have those figures though.
- 1,610
zun1026 wrote:pat wrote:^ So there was no mention of other rail corridors besides CA and FL?
There was discussion touching on all of the corridors, but just a brief few comments. I put the CA and FL comments, because they were where there are significant challenges moving forward. The line from Milwaukee is also subject to some issues, as the Mayor, I believe thats what Yaro claimed, has shot down the proposed line to Chicago.
Also, the White House budget was supposed to be announced today and Yaro said we would see how much is expected to go to HSR. I don't have those figures though.
VP Biden just said $53 billion, including the $8-8.5 billion already spent/promised from the stimulus package
I have no doubt a compromise betweeen Obama Admin and Congressman Mica on HSR will include private investment. It is the easiest way to gain political support on one end while addressing state concerns such as Florida and possible Texas in the future on the other. In that context, the two optimal corridors going forward is Florida and California for a number of reasons. I do think Congressman Mica has a good point, focus HSR resources on some select corridors that can get up and running instead of piecemeal across the country.
NEC is a beast itself. I think Mica will put some major support/federal dollars behind it if they can open the corridor to a private competitive operator. In other words, give a competitor a time slot competitive with Amtrak's Acela. The corridor already supports multiple levels of service and commuter trains. I think it is realistic that a private trainset can operate as well. Amtrak might not be happy but it might the only way they see polical support for their capital budget going forward.
As far as CHI-STL, I hope that support will continue to expand the 110 mph more frequent service city center to city center. The Stimuulus funds are strickly a Dwight to Alton investment. However, some desperately needed upgrades on both ends are left out. We need to get funding for urban corridor/ROW/grade separation improvements secured and the trainsets rolling 70, 80, 90 from the Missippippi Bridge to Alton instead of a clackety 30mph before going onto Chicago. That should be a priority for the metro region in mind. Once their, then tackle HSR which might have a much more favorable climate with some opeating corridors, higher oil prices while getting through a mindset that all cuts are good.
NEC is a beast itself. I think Mica will put some major support/federal dollars behind it if they can open the corridor to a private competitive operator. In other words, give a competitor a time slot competitive with Amtrak's Acela. The corridor already supports multiple levels of service and commuter trains. I think it is realistic that a private trainset can operate as well. Amtrak might not be happy but it might the only way they see polical support for their capital budget going forward.
As far as CHI-STL, I hope that support will continue to expand the 110 mph more frequent service city center to city center. The Stimuulus funds are strickly a Dwight to Alton investment. However, some desperately needed upgrades on both ends are left out. We need to get funding for urban corridor/ROW/grade separation improvements secured and the trainsets rolling 70, 80, 90 from the Missippippi Bridge to Alton instead of a clackety 30mph before going onto Chicago. That should be a priority for the metro region in mind. Once their, then tackle HSR which might have a much more favorable climate with some opeating corridors, higher oil prices while getting through a mindset that all cuts are good.
Forgive my ignorance, but is a 200mph HSR between here and Chicago out of the picture and why? Has the 110mph upgrade taken it off the table?
Just curious as to why there is no talk of it.
Just curious as to why there is no talk of it.
HSR between CHI-STL not taken off the table. However, it is a multi billion dollar project with several steps to be taken even before it can get to preliminary design, from route selection to Environmental Impact Studies.pat wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but is a 200mph HSR between here and Chicago out of the picture and why? Has the 110mph upgrade taken it off the table?
Just curious as to why there is no talk of it.
Instead, the original stimulus funds granted to date were for improving and increasing frequency of existing service to 110 mph between Dwight and Alton with new rail, rail infrascture and trainsets (higher speed trains). Items that could have been addressed much quicker on existing rail infrastructure. In other words, original grants totaling 10.5 billion, outside of FL and CA, were mostly about strengthening or expanding existing conventional rail service first. I don't believe that policy decision was not explained for well nor does tagging everything as HSR helped matters.
Haven't found many details yet, it will be interesting what the admin can secure at end of the day and what conditions they attach to the funding, etc.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/08/ ... cnn_latest
^^Simply put:
A. The $1.2 billion stimulus grant is going towards upgrading the existing tracks to accommodate 110 MPH trains. This will result in an hour less for the ride to Chicago.
B. Building a true 200 MPH dedicated HSR track between CHI and STL would cost an estimated $13 billion. No funds for this project are available at this time.
A. The $1.2 billion stimulus grant is going towards upgrading the existing tracks to accommodate 110 MPH trains. This will result in an hour less for the ride to Chicago.
B. Building a true 200 MPH dedicated HSR track between CHI and STL would cost an estimated $13 billion. No funds for this project are available at this time.
the count wrote:^^Simply put:
A. The $1.2 billion stimulus grant is going towards upgrading the existing tracks to accommodate 110 MPH trains. This will result in an hour less for the ride to Chicago.
B. Building a true 200 MPH dedicated HSR track between CHI and STL would cost an estimated $13 billion. No funds for this project are available at this time.
I think thats ok. Until STL boosts their transit options and connectivity, the HSR doesn't become near as useful as hoped.
- 712
To clarify, 2050 doesn't say anything about Chi-Memphis that I know of, but Midwest HSR (the Chicago Hubbers) do. The only possible reason for the existence of the line is Carbondale, but Carbondale is not within the Chicago sphere of influence. It has a lot more to do with that other large metro in the state, where SIUE is.
Midwest HSR should see Carbondale as better attaching to Chicago through St. Louis, better for Illinois and the country... and St. Louis.
But yeah, not a priority route.
Midwest HSR should see Carbondale as better attaching to Chicago through St. Louis, better for Illinois and the country... and St. Louis.
But yeah, not a priority route.
Looks like Obama putting a lot of money down on FY12 budget to get his rail funding as stated in an ENR website article.
http://enr.construction.com/policy/wash ... Budget.asp
Obama Budget Hikes Roads, Rails But Cuts Other Construction Programs
02/14/2011
By Tom Ichniowski
President Obama's $3.7-trillion fiscal 2012 budget proposal would freeze total non-security related discretionary funding, but within that overall freeze, calls for sharp increases in surface transportation accounts, to kick off a proposed $556-billion, six-year highway-transit-rail measure.
http://enr.construction.com/policy/wash ... Budget.asp
Obama Budget Hikes Roads, Rails But Cuts Other Construction Programs
02/14/2011
By Tom Ichniowski
President Obama's $3.7-trillion fiscal 2012 budget proposal would freeze total non-security related discretionary funding, but within that overall freeze, calls for sharp increases in surface transportation accounts, to kick off a proposed $556-billion, six-year highway-transit-rail measure.
Looks like California and Illinois are about to rake in more money for high-speed rail. Florida Governor Rick Scott just nixed $2 billion in federal funds for the state's high-speed rail project, thus following in the likes of Republican governors in Ohio and Wisconsin.
Florida’s Scott Rejects Tampa-Orlando High-Speed Rail Line - The New York Times
Florida’s Scott Rejects Tampa-Orlando High-Speed Rail Line - The New York Times
gary kreie wrote:Good. More for the rest of us.
My thoughts as well.
I have a less optimistic thought. This is a political play that makes him look good on the face while giving the tea party constituents a big win. Any funding given will not go towards another corridor. Simple put, it is now part of the budget reduction battle.zun1026 wrote:gary kreie wrote:Good. More for the rest of us.
My thoughts as well.
I think it speaks poorly of US transportation and politics at hand if a state like FL with an ideal HSR corridor, 90% of the funds in hand and a strong chance at remaining funds covered by a private public option can't get this off the ground. Even Congressman Mica understands this no-brainer.
The impact to the St Louis region. Political support for second tier corridors like CHI-STL will not get off the ground if we can't get HSR in CA, FL or Northeast. Regions with ideal population centers, ideal distances and congestion begging for options beyond another more expensive then the last lane mile addition. Transportation option that doesn't rely on a barrel of oil.
Here's IDOT's HSR site. It has a very in-depth video on how the Track Renewal Train (TRT) works from UP.
http://www.idothsr.org/
http://www.idothsr.org/
Other than that "in-depth video" that site is worthless.quincunx wrote:Here's IDOT's HSR site. It has a very in-depth video on how the Track Renewal Train (TRT) works from UP.
http://www.idothsr.org/
Dredger's got it right.dredger wrote: The impact to the St Louis region. Political support for second tier corridors like CHI-STL will not get off the ground if we can't get HSR in CA, FL or Northeast. Regions with ideal population centers, ideal distances and congestion begging for options beyond another more expensive then the last lane mile addition.
The Northeast, California and Florida corridors are all prime candidates for high speed rail. They very well qualify: The right short-to-medium distances combined with a high population density. A Chicago-St. Louis line could work but is not a slam-dunk. The distance between the two cities is on the high side and the population density on the low side for an HSR system. We're certainly not a primary corridor.
Don't get me wrong. I am a huge proponent of high speed rail and would like nothing more than to be able to sit down and relax on board an HSR train whisking me to Chicago in an hour or two. But I am also a realist. HSR is very, very expensive. We might be able to pull it off but we'll have to be very smart and creative to make it happen. Read more about HSR and the challenges for an STL-CHI line in my write-up HERE
^ At least Illinois is interested in studying 220 mph high-speed rail.
IDOT embraces the idea that a network of different but connecting rail services operating at up to both 110 miles per hour and 220 miles per hour may best serve the state’s travel and economic development needs. IDOT recently submitted a grant application to the Federal Railroad Administration for an Alternative Analysis and environmental studies for 220 miles per hour service–however, the application was not selected for funding.
I never said they were not interested. In fact, I highly commend the great state of Illinois for submitting this application.mill204 wrote:^ At least Illinois is interested in studying 220 mph high-speed rail.IDOT embraces the idea that a network of different but connecting rail services operating at up to both 110 miles per hour and 220 miles per hour may best serve the state’s travel and economic development needs. IDOT recently submitted a grant application to the Federal Railroad Administration for an Alternative Analysis and environmental studies for 220 miles per hour service–however, the application was not selected for funding.
(I still recommend you read the article.
)