General US High Speed Rail Discussion

What would it take to put in a 20 to 30(?) mile HSR demonstration route in the US... that is brand new, has no previous baggage, breaks all convention, is passenger-only (express allowed), and electrified... so North Americans could experience in the US what could be?

A good few billion dollars, actually in the eleven-figure range rather than the ten-figure.

And if Amtrak can't get it, how much less would HSR in general...? SNCF in France is basically the same kind of railroad as Amtrak, and they get their TGVs.

Max it would be possible in Florida but a certain politician is trying to stop the HSR line.

Florida would be "possible" with a few billion dollars, as Irish Chieftain suggested. Otherwise, it's a "dream scheme" that has a high potential for failure! If that happens, then kiss the idea of high speed rail in Florida good-bye for our lifetimes!

P.S. I've been pushing the concept of high speed rail in Florida for over 25 years.

P.P.S. It's not just one polititian trying to stop the HSR project in Florida. I wish that it was that simple!

ACLfan

It amazes me that everyone thinks/assumes that we have to build the equivalent of superhighways/interstates in order to have high speed rail in this country.

Some may not know it, but there is a major sub-contractor lobby attached to the major HSR manufacturers that are insisting that HSR be infrastructure heavy. Just as they have done by boosting up the price of highway construction to astronomical levels that nobody challenges or refuses to pay; so also do they intend to do to HSR to line their pockets. (Hey Bomb, get with us...we'll make you absolutely filthy, evil rich!)

It is abundantly obvious that this is exactly what is happening with the Fluor-Bombardier team in Florida. It's the only thing that explains the massively higher than estimated costs to construct the line even with JetTrain technology initially being used. They're sqeezing the Florida cash cow by the teats until she screams!

This insistence on building a concrete slab roadway and attaching tracks to it is just absolutely mind-boggling. Does no one recognize that 150 mph service with ribbon-rail, concrete crossties and conventional ballast laid on GRADED GROUND is already a reality!

HELLO!!!!! Has anyone heard of the Northeast Corridor between New Haven, CT and Boston, MA???!!!!!!!

>>We know about it, and there's but 18 miles of 149-mph running (if the GPS is to be believed). Not enough to make a difference in trip times.<<

Nevertheless, it IS there and it DOES exist and it IS possible. (And useful for example purposes, I might add.)

I didn't know that about grades. That's GOOD news! Kinda makes tunnels unnecessary. Just think, we can give people a Go Fast! train ride and a roller coaster experience at the same time!

Nevertheless, it IS there and it DOES exist and it IS possible

However, I'm sure you will agree that when no investment occurs, less is possible. $2.8 billion is the sum that Congress welched on when it came to the Acela project (originally an even $5 billion; only $2.2 billion was given). It may be that far more stretches of 150-mph running may exist today if that did not occur, mostly on the former Pennsylvania RR.

I didn't know that about grades. That's GOOD news!

IIRC, grades of four percent and steeper are common on LGVs. Opens up the possibilities a little wider, to be sure...

Looking back at the original question, how could you justify such a short line as a demonstration? Twenty miles can't really connect a pair of significant destinations. This can't just be a theme park ride-- even at a bargain-basement price of $10 million/mile, this is still a $200M project.

I suppose if you were creating a new destination out of thin air, such as say... the infamous 4th New York airport, and selling a HSR connection to Penn Station as part of the package... that might work. Then again, you're no longer selling a $200 million rail package but a multibillion dollar airport, of which rail is a small though essential part.

As for what the smallest practicable link for such an HSR project might be without creating a new destination, in addition to track length I'd base my decision on at least the following criteria (feel free to pick these apart or add to them):

1. Rail does an excellent job of delivering large numbers of people to a single point, often a point that is closer to the center of the city than any airport. But the "center of the city" has to mean something. Walking out of a train station to find yourself in the center of LA or Houston is practically meaningless-- you'd rent a car as fast as you can to fight your way through the city to get to wherever your business is. Make sure one of your endpoints is a major older city with dense corridors of growth-- for the sake of the demonstration line, limit yourself to New York or Chicago.

2. This new connection will make obsolete the existing rail services. Telling taxpayers that this new service will effectively junk the current infrastructure that their money had paid for is a tough sell. The link should connect a significant city-pair that has limited train service at present.

3. Even heeding previous discussions re: grades in HSR, climbing hills is still more expensive-- try for something flattish (so, much as I like PGH-HAR connecting to NYP, it's probably out)

4. The link will inevtably require some kind of co-operation at the state level, so the link should probably go through no more than two states.

5. The link should suggest obvious possibilities for extension.

I like Chicago-Indianapolis. It's ~180 miles long, goes from a large city to Chicago, Amtrak's current once-daily service takes an anemic five hours, it's mostly level (I think? I am not a surveyor), and suggests extension to both Columbus and Cincinatti. Potentially tying in Columbus is a particular bonus, as it's the largest US city not served by any Amtrak train.

If that's still too long, maybe the 80 miles from Madison to Milwaukee? This breaks criterion 1 above, but a quick-and-dirty electrification ($2M/mile) of the existing Milwaukee-Chicago line would still allow a high-speed Madison-Chicago service. Plus, it's all in one state, linking the state's largest city to its capital (hint: this gets the attention of state lawmakers, many of whom make this trip often).

So that's my take. Let me know what's wrong with it.

$200 million is peanuts nowadays; not even enough there for a short light-rail project. You'll have to start thinking in 2004 dollars...

OK, let's try and keep the cost issue in perspective. In terms of overall costs, perhaps the major cost category is land acquisition and repair/replacement costs for existing infastructure. Then, you start the calculator running on the actual physical facilities (land preparation, roadbed and track construction, operating facilities construction, equipment purchases, etc.). Before you know it, you have run through some very large costs!

I have no doubt that some cost estimates are greatly inflated! However, true to custom, everyone involved wants to provide themselves with some form of cost contingency $$ to cover the unexpected (and possible goof-ups on their cost estimations).

ACLfan

The $10 million/mile figure comes from page 88 of the FRA's commercial feasibility study High Speed Ground Transportation for America, which suggests a cost of $10-45 million/mile for new HSR lines. Granted the report is now seven years old, but add 20% for inflation and it's still cheap.

Even if we use the max figure, $45M/mi for a 20 mile system, it's under a billion. Still cheaper than many LRT systems-- but they go somewhere. I still can't imagine a 20-mile HSR system that actually connects two destinations in a meaningful way-- which would be a pretty lousy demonstration, if you ask me.

A "demonstration" project is usually a small-scale version of a larger overall project. In rare cases, a 20-mile project could be both an initial demonstration and subsequently, a "standard" project.
Example: A 20-mile demonstration project between Orlando, FL International Airport and Walt Disney World could evolve into a standard project. Or, it could be the first (demonstration) phase of a Tampa - Orlando - Miami high speed rail project.

In Florida, however, this entire discussion could be moot, as a sufficient # of registered voters signed for a referendum regarding high speed rail to be placed on the November ballot. The referendum calls for a halt on the use of public $$ in the construction of high speed rail projects in Florida. If it passes, then high speed rail is dead in Florida.

ACLfan

One Word MONEY and lots of it.

AmtrakFan

Champlain Division wrote:This insistence on building a concrete slab roadway and attaching tracks to it is just absolutely mind-boggling. Does no one recognize that 150 mph service with ribbon-rail, concrete crossties and conventional ballast laid on GRADED GROUND is already a reality! :(

HELLO!!!!! Has anyone heard of the Northeast Corridor between New Haven, CT and Boston, MA???!!!!!!!

That will work up to 150mph, but no more. For anything approaching european speeds (186 to 220) and above, you're going to have to go for track that is truely rigid and not subject to the whims of geotech problems. You can't hold 186mph track together with duck tape and chewing gum, it WILL come apart. HSR lines demand more preparation than merely laying concrete ties and CWR, you also need electrification (lets face it, JetTrain has finally died), high speed signalling, grade separation, and such. Building a HSR line in such a shotgun manner would be tantamount to cutting your own throat with a dull knife, the railroad won't fold immediately, but the operating costs to keep the poorly built track in order would quickly mount.

With regards to grades on HSR lines, the French LGVs have steep grades, but that's because the cars weigh 30 tons apiece and the ride sucks (think bus-like). For HSR as it will no doubt exist in this country, we need to allow for heavier cars and a more comfortable ride. If we are indeed to have overnight trains running at high speeds between major population centers, we don't want people getting sea-sick on all the hills. I'd like to see america copy something like the early german Neu Bau Strecke (New Built Lines) that their ICEs utilize. For the most part they are dead flat with many bridges and tunnels, and long sweeping curves. Prior to the introduction of the ICE 1s their Class 120 electric locos plied the routes with trains going as fast as 140mph, today ICE 3s do 186mph on these lines. In addition, it's generally respected that German trains are more comfortable than their French counterparts, partly due to the hill issue on their respective high speed networks.

In my humble opinion, I think the US should persue a nationwide policy of electrification of all passenger railroads as well as major freight trunks with tax credits for railroads that do so. We also need to improve intracity transit, so that people don't arrive at a destination train station and say "now what?". You can't throw an HSR system into a vacuum and hope it will work, the HSR has to be merely one leg of a transit SYSTEM designed to get you from your door to the other door with a minimum of time and walking expended. Europe has all this, they never lost their trams to NCL, nor their extensive regional train network to a highway network and airlines, as such HSR can work fairly easily. In the US we need some way to get people out of their car, and the best way to do that is to obviate the need for them, you catch a bus, van (possibly operated by the railroad) or taxi to the nearest station (hopefully no more than 10 miles in suburban areas, figure out to 50 miles from the city), ride a regional (or commuter, either works) train to the main station, have through-ticketing, through baggage, and timed transfers, and the same thing at the other end. Eventually HSR would work it's way into people's travel habits. If it could be marketed as being cheaper than the airlines, you might catch vacationers. If the convenience of not wasting time sleeping while standing still in a hotel, or the convenience of having all your electronic devices available all the time could be pointed out, business travelers might be wooed.