Atlanta - Birmingham - Dallas High Speed Rail

Renewed talks about high speed rail in Birmingham: WBRC.com

...
Ideally, the I-20X high speed rail corridor would run from Atlanta - through Birmingham, Mississippi, Louisiana and end in Dallas, Texas. If this high speed rail happens, it could get you to Atlanta in less than a hour.

Birmingham Councilor Clinton Woods says places like Florida have been working on projects like this. He’s talked to them about their projects and plans to present their information at a public conference in Birmingham next month.
...
The conference is March 19 at the BJCC - tentatively 9 am to 1 pm. Councilor Woods says more information will be released in the coming days, but if you have questions you can contact his office.

Yeah, but is Alabama, Georgia or others gonna pay for it?

CarterB wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:13 pm Yeah, but is Alabama, Georgia or others gonna pay for it?

Nope, but they are hoping that Brightline (or equivalent) will....
(they won't)

And what population centers with enough ridership generation would they serve??
Atlanta, Birmingham, NOLA, Dallas/Ft.Worth.....Doesn't seem to me at all viable.

CarterB wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:43 pm And what population centers with enough ridership generation would they serve??
Atlanta, Birmingham, NOLA, Dallas/Ft.Worth.....Doesn't seem to me at all viable.

No New Orleans. If it’s like the other proposals for this corridor, the route diverges from the Crescent Corridor at or near Meridian, MS and hits Jackson, cuts across the top of Louisiana hitting Monroe and Shreveport, then continues in a straight line through Longview, TX to Dallas.

Amtrak has floated the idea as a second section for the Crescent, but no word on whether it’s populous enough for true HSR.

Bob Roberts wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:27 pm

CarterB wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:13 pm Yeah, but is Alabama, Georgia or others gonna pay for it?

Nope, but they are hoping that Brightline (or equivalent) will....
(they won't)

*Private Railroad Support Intensifies*

Also this project would still provide much needed service between Atlanta and Birmingham, as well as other cities near the region.

Atlanta to Dallas proposals have existed for some time, usually as an extension of the Crescent over existing slow freight rail corridors. That would not be high speed.
Again, I think it is important to remind everyone what effects market share most between airlines and passenger trains - elapse times. NYC to D.C. Acela elapse times is around 2 hours and 45 minutes, earns around a 75% market share. NYC to Boston Acela elapse times is around 3 hours and 30 minutes, earns around 50% market share. A difference of just 45 minutes and less than 10 miles traveled makes a 25% change to market share. To be really competitive, around 3 hours is where passenger trains starts to lose market share to passenger planes, around 3.5 hours is where passenger planes have a larger market share than passenger trains. Take that curve slightly further, around 4 hours is when passenger planes should have 75% market share. At 6 hours and 15 minutes, the D.C. to Boston Acela trains earn around ??????% market share. I used ???? in the previous sentence because Amtrak does not publish that data point with pride, therefore should we assume it is very, very low?

It's 781 highway miles between Atlanta and Dallas along I-20. Averaging 100 mph, that is around 7 hours and 45 minutes of elapse time. Averaging 125 mph, that is around 6 hours and 15 minutes. To actually travel 781 miles in 3 hours for a 75% market share, the train would have to average 260 mph (faster than a HSR train could ever achieve). To travel 781 miles in 3.5 hours for a 50% market share, the train would have to average 223 mph (around the maximum speeds a HSR train could achieve). No train in the world with multiple immediate stations average the maximum speed the train can do.

Sorry, a HSR train between Dallas and Atlanta is just as unlikely as a HSR train between NYC and Chicago. There is a time component effected by distance and speeds that determines market share. 781 miles is just too long in both distance and time for HSR trains to compete profitably with planes.

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:36 amSorry, a HSR train between Dallas and Atlanta is just as unlikely as a HSR train between NYC and Chicago. There is a time component effected by distance and speeds that determines market share. 781 miles is just too long in both distance and time for HSR trains to compete profitably with planes.

Exactly right. It doesn’t mean “don’t build HSR from NYC to Chicago,” but it does mean that you’re mostly going to get intermediate travelers. I doubt this single councilman has the sway to either entice a private company or create a government mandate to invest the billions needed, especially considering there isn’t a Birmingham-Montgomery-Mobile corridor or any commuter rail OR light rail in the state.

Amtrak has stated that they are interested in operating this route and that it would "pay for itself" assuming trains could be timed to connect the Crescent, City of New Orleans, and Texas Eagle. Apparently the railroads are also supportive since the Meridian Speedway is significantly underutilized. While it wouldn't be true high speed rail, it could be one of the fastest long distance corridors in the Amtrak system with minimal investment. With a more substantial federal grant, true high speed service could be easily done for most of the route. Since it would mostly connect stations already served by Amtrak, the only significant expense would be new stations in Shreveport, Monroe, and possibly Ruston and Vicksburg, which is fortunate since LA has a governor who is supportive of passenger rail.

I’d be highly surprised if this route paid for itself!

As for stations:
-Meridian is fine
-Jackson needs a platform reopened and possibly a switch added
-Vicksburg and Monroe need new stations
-Ruston needs a station reopened
-Shreveport needs a new station (one that can serve both this train and a future train to New Orleans)
-Marshall is fine

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:06 am I’d be highly surprised if this route paid for itself!

As for stations:
-Meridian is fine
-Jackson needs a platform reopened and possibly a switch added
-Vicksburg and Monroe need new stations
-Ruston needs a station reopened
-Shreveport needs a new station (one that can serve both this train and a future train to New Orleans)
-Marshall is fine

Plus:
Atlanta is completely incapable of serving as a termination point for a new service (in terms of station capacity, platform availability, equipment servicing and track capacity west of town).

None of this is intended to say that Atlanta can't be improved, but this train would be an awfully unlikely catalyst to make Atlanta finally decide to invest in intercity rail. (No one in Atlanta 'want's' to go to Birmingham -- but that is not true of the reverse trip)

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:41 pm

CarterB wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:43 pm And what population centers with enough ridership generation would they serve??
Atlanta, Birmingham, NOLA, Dallas/Ft.Worth.....Doesn't seem to me at all viable.

No New Orleans. If it’s like the other proposals for this corridor, the route diverges from the Crescent Corridor at or near Meridian, MS and hits Jackson, cuts across the top of Louisiana hitting Monroe and Shreveport, then continues in a straight line through Longview, TX to Dallas.

Amtrak has floated the idea as a second section for the Crescent, but no word on whether it’s populous enough for true HSR.

Here is a link to the latest TXDOT feasibility study summary I'd read for the I-20 corridor, which included a rail alternate study.
ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/dal/i20-east-corridor/meeting-061114.pdf
"The Texas Department of Transportation contracted with the National Railroad Passenger Rail Corporation (Amtrak) in November 2012 to conduct a feasibility and financial evaluation of adding two round trip passenger trains between Fort Worth and Shreveport/Bossier City, LA . Study was funded through a federal congressional appropriation at a cost of $140,000. The study looked at two scenarios
Scenario 1 – One roundtrip train per day departing Fort Worth ITC at 8:55 AM and returning from Shreveport at 5:45 PM
Scenario 2 – Two roundtrip trains per day with two trains departing Fort Worth at 8:55 AM and 5:45 PM and two trains departing Shreveport at 6:30 AM and 5:45 PM.
Station stops at Fort Worth, Centre Point, Dallas, Forney, Wills Point, Mineola, Longview, Mineola and Shreveport/Bossier City, LA.
Determined operation and infrastructure cost and ridership and revenue estimates.
1 Round Trip
94,000 passengers yearly
$1,327,000 revenues
$9,959,000 operations cost
$8,268,000 yearly subsidy
$67,300,000 capital costs
2 Round Trips
124,000 passengers yearly
$1,750,000 revenues
$15,298,000 operations cost
$13,548,000 yearly subsidy
$89,400,000 capital costs
Short distance interstate Amtrak routes are required to be supported by the states in which they operate. Only long distance Amtrak routes like the Texas Eagle are supported solely by Amtrak. TxDOT currently supports the Heartland Flyer route equally with Oklahoma. TxDOT’s yearly subsidy for the Flyer Has gone from just under $2M to $3.6M since the enactment of PRIIA 209 legislation. TxDOT must request funding each legislative session to continue to support this service. TxDOT does not currently have a dedicated funding source for rail projects so a funding source would need to be found to make the infrastructure improvements identified in the report. In addition the infrastructure improvements would need to be reviewed and approved by Union Pacific Railroad."

Admittingly, these are estimated costs for a slow Amtrak train/trains between Fort Worth and Shreveport, not Dallas to Atlanta.
If Texas does not have $67 million to $89 million available for inner city rail, what makes you think Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia do?

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:36 am Atlanta to Dallas proposals have existed for some time, usually as an extension of the Crescent over existing slow freight rail corridors. That would not be high speed.
Again, I think it is important to remind everyone what effects market share most between airlines and passenger trains - elapse times. NYC to D.C. Acela elapse times is around 2 hours and 45 minutes, earns around a 75% market share. NYC to Boston Acela elapse times is around 3 hours and 30 minutes, earns around 50% market share. A difference of just 45 minutes and less than 10 miles traveled makes a 25% change to market share. To be really competitive, around 3 hours is where passenger trains starts to lose market share to passenger planes, around 3.5 hours is where passenger planes have a larger market share than passenger trains. Take that curve slightly further, around 4 hours is when passenger planes should have 75% market share. At 6 hours and 15 minutes, the D.C. to Boston Acela trains earn around ??????% market share. I used ???? in the previous sentence because Amtrak does not publish that data point with pride, therefore should we assume it is very, very low?

It's 781 highway miles between Atlanta and Dallas along I-20. Averaging 100 mph, that is around 7 hours and 45 minutes of elapse time. Averaging 125 mph, that is around 6 hours and 15 minutes. To actually travel 781 miles in 3 hours for a 75% market share, the train would have to average 260 mph (faster than a HSR train could ever achieve). To travel 781 miles in 3.5 hours for a 50% market share, the train would have to average 223 mph (around the maximum speeds a HSR train could achieve). No train in the world with multiple immediate stations average the maximum speed the train can do.

Sorry, a HSR train between Dallas and Atlanta is just as unlikely as a HSR train between NYC and Chicago. There is a time component effected by distance and speeds that determines market share. 781 miles is just too long in both distance and time for HSR trains to compete profitably with planes.

A nice analysis, but I think it disproves itself.
No one argued "let's build a HSR between Boston and DC" because as you point out that's to far.
It was "Let's build a HSR between DC, Philly, NYP and BOS because the individual segments can support the traffic, and altogether they form one long line.

I don't think this HSR is saying that many folks would ride Atlanta-Dallas all the time, as much as major cities (such as Birmingham-Atlanta mentioned in the original post.)

As for NYC-Chicago, of course not, you build it NYC-ALB (already has far more market share than the airlines) and ALB-BUF, and BUF-TOL, etc.

You build the HSR where segments can support the traffic.

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:26 pm A nice analysis, but I think it disproves itself.
No one argued "let's build a HSR between Boston and DC" because as you point out that's to far.
It was "Let's build a HSR between DC, Philly, NYP and BOS because the individual segments can support the traffic, and altogether they form one long line.

I don't think this HSR is saying that many folks would ride Atlanta-Dallas all the time, as much as major cities (such as Birmingham-Atlanta mentioned in the original post.)

As for NYC-Chicago, of course not, you build it NYC-ALB (already has far more market share than the airlines) and ALB-BUF, and BUF-TOL, etc.

You build the HSR where segments can support the traffic.

Texas looked at building a passenger train between Fort Worth and Shreveport. Let's assume Georgia will soon look at building a passenger train Between Atlanta and Birmingham (or Montgomery). Texas decided it costs too much, I'm sure Georgia and Alabama will also.
Never-the-less, Shreveport to Birmingham will probably never be funded. Louisiana will certainly be more interested spending "any" potential train money connecting Baton Rouge to New Orleans, and Jackson already has a train to both New Orleans and Memphis, a new passenger train is not needed in Mississippi through Jackson. Additionally, Texas was looking at 79 mph maximum speeds trains, not 200 mph to Shreveport, in its study. I doubt Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana will be studying 200 mph maximum speed trains either.

We have to be honest with everyone here, and admit 79 mph maximum speeds passenger trains are not HSR trains.