Passenger

I'd love to see the details on the various corridors.

Chicago - Saint Louis ($445M):  This corridor would take less than $300M for 110 mph service infrastructure improvements over 70% of the the corridor.  Tilt equipment would eliminate the need for curve easement or speed recovery from restrictions.

Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M):   I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor.  This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch.  Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland?  Not be much curve easement would be needed.  The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned.

Limited service from Chicago could be extended to Pittsburgh and Buffalo from Chicago.  110 mph would be practical for most of the route to Buffalo while speed restrictions for frequent curvature could be reduced with tilt trains on the existing line to Pittsburgh.

A Fort Wayne - Columbus branch offers the most direct route to this major market from Chicago.  A high speed connection would be needed west and south of Upper Sandusky for a 110 mph route.  This aids a secondary route to Pittsburgh as well, serving Mansfield, Canton, and other cities in route.

Detroit - Pittsburgh, Detroit - Columbus, and Detroit - Dayton - Cincinati services should be added.  This would provide missing connections for the "3-C" Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati corridor that is not included in the network for reasons unknown by me.  

Chicago - Detroit ($873M incl Grand Rapids & Port Huron):  From Kalamazoo eastward, 90 mph would be the practical limit with tilt equipment without extensive and costly curve easement.  The only 110 mph potential would be Indiana Harbor (East Chicago, IN) - Kalamazoo, MI with few intermediate restrictions.

Chicago - Cincinnati ($606M):  The more appropriate primary corridor to Lexington, KY would seem to be by way of Louisville rather than through Cincinnati.  More utilization of the Chicago - Indianapolis segment would be possible with the branch to Louisville that could seve a number of small intermediate cities.  A Louisville branch would facilitate a round trip to Nashville, TN as well.

While restoring the Big Four Indianapolis - Cincinnati line may achieve faster overall time, it is the most costly and misses better on-line traffic potential.  Tilt trains would minimize the time lost for a stretch of restrictive curvature on the existing Cardinal route; but Hamilton and Miami University in Oxford would generate additional ridership.  I don't think the speed matters as much as the additional markets.

An Indianapolis - Terre Haute - Evansville branch also seems feasible and offers the possibility of limited extended service to Memphis.

Chicago - Carbondale ($232M):  This line could be upgraded for 110 mph for about the same amount of money as for 90 mph.  Curve easement is not an issue.  Improving the speed would better facilitate a Chicago - Memphis round trip. 

Other possibilities would be for a branch to Paducah, KY and Memphis using either the Edgewood Cutoff or the longer BNSF route from Centralia via Marion,IL.

A branch from Centralia to Saint Louis would offer service from Eastern Illinois.

Chicago - Twin Cities ($1,638M incl Green Bay):  The plan fails to include a more populous route through Rochester, MN by way of the MDW and UP between Winona and Saint Paul.  If it's about the river line being more direct, what about the detour for Madison?  As it is, sustained 110 mph service along the proposed route cannot be realized without tilt trains or extensive costly curve easement for much of the route.  The average speed for the route through Rochester could be improved to allow more sustained 80-90 mph running with tilt equipment.  Upgrading the Rochester route would facilitate a possible Twin Cities - Des Moines - Kansas City train; however, there is little population south of Des Moines.

Limited corridor services also should be exended to Moorehead, MN or Grand Forks, ND, and to Duluth, MN.

Your negativity, like my pessimism, seems as well-founded on long experience seeing projects of all kinds.  Chicago has had more than a fair share of monumental cost overruns, most lately Millennium Park and the Loop Airport Terminal.  So far, $150-200M of transit money has been spent on an office tower around and above the Loop Airport Terminal; but there is no tunnel connection between CTA lines, or maybe even the 1-block tunnel, much less tracks and signals.

HarveyK400:

Your negativity, like my pessimism, seems as well-founded on long experience seeing projects of all kinds.  Chicago has had more than a fair share of monumental cost overruns, most lately Millennium Park and the Loop Airport Terminal.  So far, $150-200M of transit money has been spent on an office tower around and above the Loop Airport Terminal; but there is no tunnel connection between CTA lines, or maybe even the 1-block tunnel, much less tracks and signals.

 

 

For that matter, whatever happened to Chicago's infamous Crosstown Fund that was suppposedly left over after a new experessway paralleling Cicero Avenue never got built?  Seems in the Nineties it was turning up occasionally (bad penny, anyone?) only to vanish from practical application in times of these drearily similar budget "crises" at CTA. 

 

HarveyK400:

Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M):   I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor.  This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch.  Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland?  Not be much curve easement would be needed.  The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned.

Could it be that the cost includes aquiring the ROW in this case (rather than being a tenant)?

It would be quite a bit cheaper to us the NS Chicago Line and just plop down a third track, but that means you trade Fort Wayne for Elkhart and likely lose the bulk of the Columbus - Chicago traffic.

"HSR" means different things to different people.  Harvey K was using it to mean top speeds in the 110 mph range in the Midwest corridors in the above posting.  In the NE corridor, they use it to mean the 150 that the Acelas reach for a short portion of their run.  California seems to be referring to something over 200 for the LA/Bay area run.  We end up using the same words to describe a large variety of situations.

For most corridors I suspect improvements that get the average speed into the high two digits is the realisitic goal, and even then I'm not convinced that it can be done on tracks shared with the freights.

   

Dakguy201:

"HSR" means different things to different people.  Harvey K was using it to mean top speeds in the 110 mph range in the Midwest corridors in the above posting.  In the NE corridor, they use it to mean the 150 that the Acelas reach for a short portion of their run.  California seems to be referring to something over 200 for the LA/Bay area run.  We end up using the same words to describe a large variety of situations.

For most corridors I suspect improvements that get the average speed into the high two digits is the realisitic goal, and even then I'm not convinced that it can be done on tracks shared with the freights.

   

California's HSR system is designed to operate on its own Right of Way grade separated from any other traffic. Under the guise of expanding the San Francisco - San Jose Caltrans commuter rail system the state has been quietly acquiring the additional ROW necessary for the HSR between those two points. It will parallel Caltrans between San Francisco and San Jose with two tracks of its own. The major expenditures along that route will be fror grade separation. It is my understanding there will be a HSR Station at San Francisco, SFO and San Jose with Caltrans operating as a feeder for intermediate stations. Much of the land where the HSR crosses Pacheco Pass and Tehachapi is already state land. Not all trains will make all stops after San Jose in fact it is my understanding after Leaving San Jose there will be express HSR trains that will make no further stops until reaching LA and then on to Anahiem. I still feel that for the trackage and station at Anahiem Disney should pony up the money as he is the definite beneficiary.  California HSR regional trains will stop at some Valley stations but not all. The San Joaquins will continue to operate as feeders to the HSR system up and down the valley. These same regionals will make a stop at Palmdale before becoming express schedules for the balance of the trip to LA.  

When and if the extension from Merced to Sacramento gets built they will also have express trains that run from Sacramento to Stockton then onto LA. Other regional trains on the valley run will stop at Merced Fresno and Bakersfield with any intermediate traffic again being handled by the San Joaquins.

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago the ROW was originally estimated to cost 16 Billion. There have been several reports in recent days in the area newpapers that the costs for acquiring the necessary ROW now are at 8 Billion.

I for one believe that much of the Presidents Stimulus RR billions will find its way to California with speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi putting on a little pressure.

My understanding now is that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the California HSR is going to be a shortage of electrical power for the HSR operation. This has not been fully addressed yet.

Al - in - Stockton

Al - in - Stockton   

I think the former PRR line to Fort Wayne, IN is preferable as well - not that the NS main wouldn't be an acceptable alternative. 

• While the South Bend-Elkhart, IN SMSA, 316,000 pop, is not as large as Fort Wayne, 570,000 pop, a saving could be realized in future full grade separation for the shared right-of-way.
• As I wrote before, the route through Fort Wayne would provide a shorter route to Columbus, OH by way of a high speed connection near Upper Sandusky, OH that would merge at Delaware, OH with a high speed line between Cleveland, OH and Columbus.
• A secondary route for a round trip is afforded between Lima, OH and Cleveland sharing the Cleveland - Columbus line from Crestline.   The more costly alternative would be for a new Cleveland - Columbus high speed alignment through Mansfield and Akron.
  
• A second Chicago - Pittsburgh route is possible through Mansfield and Canton.  Much of the line west of Mansfield could be upgraded to 150 mph for significant stretches with full grade separation but without significant curve easement.  Tilt trains would improve speed for the many restrictive curves from Mansfield to Pittsburgh.  This route could tie into a Cleveland - Pittsburgh high speed line.
• Upgrading Chicago - Mansfield to 220 mph would require some new right of way for additional grade separation and curve easement in developed areas, incurring the costs of dislocation and segregated freight tracks as well as electrification for the entire route and branches to Toledo, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, and Pittsburgh.  Reducing running time of 4:22 hrs to ~2:30 with 220 mph service for Chicago - Cleveland would be significant, while reducing Toledo - Cleveland below ~1:30 would not make as much a difference.

Plopping down a third track is expensive, even with existing track beds and bridges; but $3.4M/mi? 

Now assuming a third track is added along the NS between Butler, IN and Cleveland and tracks are re-spaced to 20-ft centers, that might bring up the cost.  Much of the line had four tracks at one time. 

The idea, if I understand, of buying additional easement along the NS would entail substantial dislocation costs as well along much of the line that would make the $1B pale in comparison. Segregating tracks for 220 mph would require the additional easement for a fourth main track and a possible secondary track to serve local freight customers; but is that necessary at this stage for 110 mph service? 

Buying the former PRR (don't remember what the current short line is) should not be that much either, and relieve the freight operators of a considerable burden in serving customers.

Please don't shoot the messenger.  The Midwest Regional Rail System that I'm basing my comments on calls that high speed; and the stimulus bill includes improvements for that level of service as high speed.

Many have hope that a more receptive Administration will hasten very high speed, 220 mph service. 

I too think 70-80 mph overall average speeds would be a significant improvement, competitive with driving, and capable of attracting a significant increase in passengers.

oltmannd:

I think that one of the last Amtrak monthly reports I looked at had the Pacific Surfliners and Capitols pretty much covering their costs.  Whether this was before or after CA chipped in, I don't recall.

None of the short haul routes on Amtrak come close to poor performance of the LD trains.

I would like nothing better than to see something , somewhere, get built and cover it's costs in pretty short order.  That would turn 30 years of yapping on it's head!  It's really important to pick the right project and do a good job with it.

For FY 2008 the Pacific Surfliner trains lost $14.7 million or 6.1 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation.  The Capitols lost $14.2 million or 12.9 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation.  The statement payments are designed to cover the losses and make Amtrak whole.   

Only the NEC trains covered their operating costs.  They earned $369 million or 20.7 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation.  So far this year they are not doing as well, in large part because of the slowdown in the economy and the decrease in the cost of gasoline.  The Acela's are still covering their operating costs, but the regionals have slipped into negative territory.

Phoebe Vet:

Sam1:

What the government spends the military, education, social programs, etc. has nothing to do with what it should spend on promoting or operating a commercial activity like passenger rail.  The question is whether the spend is a good investment. 

Investing in a commercial activity (intercity passenger rail) that has a low probability of covering its operating costs, let alone its capital costs, is a poor business decision no matter what spin you put on it.

It is you who cited the huge national debt, even quoting the debt per taxpayer to support your argument that Amtrak is a terrible burden that we are leaving to our heirs.  I merely pointed out that Amtrak's portion of the deficit is infinitesimal, and is worth the investment.  Mass transit benefits society as a whole.  That is why every municipal bus system, light rail system, and subway system is subsidized by the political entity it serves.  A national rail system benefits the entire country and therefore is a proper use of federal tax dollars, no matter what spin YOU put on it. 

You failed to include my comments recognizing that the $8 billion slated for high speed rail is indeed small compared to the national debt or the annual federal operating budget and deficit.  However, it is more debt.  And one does not cure an addiction to debt by adding to it anymore than one cures alcoholism by giving a drunk just one more drink.

Amtrak is not a public transport system ala a municipal transport system.  The elimination of a public transit system in most cases would work a hardship on the many poor people who rely on it.  Amtrak is an intercity system, although some people use it to commute.  If it dried up and went a way, most users would have a viable alternative.  

Investing $8 billion of taxpayer money in high speed rail, or any other rail for that matter, should be a function of a demonstrated need for it.  The best way to determine whether there is a need for it is the market place.  If high speed rail was truly a good idea, investors would fall all over themselves to fund it. 

oltmannd:

Sam1:

 

The promoters of high speed rail put the best spin on their numbers.  I would not bet the farm that the projects will cover their operating costs.  I would like to see an independent audit of the projections, i.e. an audit conducted by one of the big four accounting firms, with the fees paid by an independent agency.

One of the promoters of the California High Speed Rail claims that a ticket from LAX to SFO will go for $55.  Really!  Amtrak cannot cover its total NEC costs with Acela fares of $155 between Washington and New York.  And its investment is less than 25 per cent of the announced investment in the California HSR project.  I would love to see the audited numbers for the California projections.

Having spent more than 20 years directing audits of just these sorts of projects, I am amply familiar with how people spin the numbers, most of which are based on estimates, to make their project sound viable.  

This is not a promoter's report. It is one done for the various state DOTs by expert consultants.  These generally use fairly standard ridership models.  Many times, these same models underestimate commuter and light rail traffic  (see Charlotte, Albequerque and lately Phoenix).

This particular study used Amtrak's highly inefficient current costs to figure train operation costs, but did figure that some newer ROW maintenance methods into that part of the cost.

Of course, there is a lot of uncertainty with any new venture with long lead times.  It is particularly hard to calibrate ridership models for new corridors because there haven't been any implemented anywhere!  Sensitivity to trip times, frequency and price are very well known, however.

(I'm surprised you didn't take the chance to show this an example of regionalism that's working.  Look at how many states pitched in to do the study....)

The $55 fare quote was made by the head of the California High Speed Rail Project on NPR.  He is a retired California high court judge.  I'd call him a promoter.

In most cases consultants are paid by the client.  They have a nasty habit of putting a more favorable spin on the outcomes than an independent auditor paid by an overseer without any stake in the outcome.  This is especially true if they see some additional business.  I spent more than 25 years dealing with consultants.  They seldom lie.  But they are quick to determine the sponsor's objectives, and they tend to put together the best scenarios to support them.  

People who have a viable commercial idea (vision) don't need to run to the government for funding. Venture capitalists will provide all the money required.  Equally important, promoters of a good deal have no problem with independent audits.  

Those who run to the government for funding know that their vision will never fly in the market place, and they are not keen for an independent audit of their financial estimates.

The California HSR project appears to be a good example of regionalism, but it will depend on how much money they get from the federal government.  If they limit their federal take to 20 per cent or less, I would think that it is a good regional project.  If they want 80 per cent of the funding to come from the federal government, it is not a good regional project.    

oltmannd:

HarveyK400:

Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M):   I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor.  This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch.  Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland?  Not be much curve easement would be needed.  The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned.

Could it be that the cost includes aquiring the ROW in this case (rather than being a tenant)?

It would be quite a bit cheaper to us the NS Chicago Line and just plop down a third track, but that means you trade Fort Wayne for Elkhart and likely lose the bulk of the Columbus - Chicago traffic.

 

Devil's in the details -- seen a cost breakdown?

RWM

Railway Man:

oltmannd:

HarveyK400:

Chicago - Cleveland ($1,187M):   I cannot fathom the high cost for this corridor.  This works out to $3.4M a mile, including the Toledo - Cleveland stretch.  Would this include a new additional track along side the existing NS tracks between Fort Wayne and Cleveland?  Not be much curve easement would be needed.  The map indicates that the former Wabash alignment would be used; but this line was abandonned.

Could it be that the cost includes aquiring the ROW in this case (rather than being a tenant)?

It would be quite a bit cheaper to us the NS Chicago Line and just plop down a third track, but that means you trade Fort Wayne for Elkhart and likely lose the bulk of the Columbus - Chicago traffic.

 

Devil's in the details -- seen a cost breakdown?

RWM

A study of alternatives would also be nice to see.

Way Off Topics for Sam1!

We visited our relatives in San Antonio this past week and went by your neighborhood.  Can you tell me which I-35 through Austin is supposed to be the "through" route, the upper deck or the lower one?  The signs are no help at all and the traffic was terrible.

You have mentioned many times your extensive career in the electric power industry.  Would you please give us a few opinions on how you think electric power should evolve in the United States?  It's not totally OT because electric power could be the future of RR power.  It would be nice to hear from an expert. 

Maybe another thread, like the "Trackside Lounge - Spring 09 Edition," would be appropriate for such a discussion.

  

 

 Phobe Vet, Sam1:     Regarding the comment "If high speed rail was truly a good idea, investors would fall all over themselves to fund it":  When discussing HSR as an investment, [Problem#1] compare right of ways to highways.  When in history did the market decide it needed an Interstate Highway System? Who ever invested in the IHS?  Who ever measured the return on investment of the IHS?  Many companies today, in my humble opinion, take the IHS and the state highways for granted, and are not concerned with the cost of highway maint.  Perhaps it's because the cost of IHS is shouldered by everyone who pays state, federal taxes and buys fuel at the pump.  Which probibly is the way to go regarding HSR, or as already mentioned, an Interstate Railway System (Administration). [Problem#2] I agree with the statement "Amtrak is not a public transport system ala a municipal transport system".  However, I do not agree to continue equating Amtrak with HSR. Amtrak, as we all know, currently is the only passenger railroad provider. This will change with the adoption on a governemnt controlled HSR system/IRSA.  Once all railroad companies and tax payers are funding IRSA, there will be other passenger railroads operating, because these companies will have track available to operate on...in other words, once the market sees a coast to coast HSR/IRSA system in place, we will see long distance, regional, and inter-city train service providers besides Amtrak.  As long as the sections of HSR that are under consideration now continue to be associated with Amtrak, or NS/CSX/UP/BNSF, the market will not be interested, due to the belief that the tracks are owned by these above mentioned railroads, and use to companies outside this group will be restricted.  [Problem#3] A distinction needs to be drawn between intercity/commuter rail travel, and long distance train travel.  The idea that there's only to be a few HSR ROW's in America is very short sighted.  America needs a system of HSR ROW's.  And as far as "how are we gonna pay for it" goes, all railroads and taxpayers will have to support this HSR/IRSA system, just like we support the Interstate and state highway system; through fed and state taxes, at the pump taxes, and driver/vehicle excise taxes.