Comments on: More on the Federal High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:58:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anon256 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/#comment-43635 Anon256 Mon, 10 May 2010 23:08:55 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1967#comment-43635 Well, why is it so expensive? Well, why is it so expensive?

]]> By: dejv http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/#comment-43629 dejv Mon, 10 May 2010 21:45:23 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1967#comment-43629 Some article mentioned they preferred disused GCML ROW for part of route - that would make a lot of sense since the ROW has minimum radii of 1 mile, so takings for faster curves should be minimal. Some article mentioned they preferred disused GCML ROW for part of route – that would make a lot of sense since the ROW has minimum radii of 1 mile, so takings for faster curves should be minimal.

]]> By: Alon Levy http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/#comment-43612 Alon Levy Mon, 10 May 2010 17:21:52 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1967#comment-43612 Britain has plenty of freeways. The M1 and M6 rights of way can get you from London almost all the way to Manchester. They're not always straight, but the sections where significant takings would be required aren't that long or expensive. It's more expensive than sticking to existing ROW, but it's not $100 million/km expensive. I actually had to do a computation like this for the sections of the Northeast Corridor that have to carve ROW through the suburbs; it's about $40 million/km in the favored quarter. And the areas where HS2 would need takings are not favored quarters. Britain has plenty of freeways. The M1 and M6 rights of way can get you from London almost all the way to Manchester. They’re not always straight, but the sections where significant takings would be required aren’t that long or expensive. It’s more expensive than sticking to existing ROW, but it’s not $100 million/km expensive.

I actually had to do a computation like this for the sections of the Northeast Corridor that have to carve ROW through the suburbs; it’s about $40 million/km in the favored quarter. And the areas where HS2 would need takings are not favored quarters.

]]> By: Ocean Railroader http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/#comment-43598 Ocean Railroader Mon, 10 May 2010 15:30:25 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1967#comment-43598 It sounds like the reason why the Britain high speed rail might be so expensive is it might be the land buying costs to buy up land for the high speed rail line consdering that all the land in England already is built up and very expensive. The high speed rail projects would most likely be cheaper pur mile in that we can run them along interstates or buy up open land between cities while in England it is one sold town of buildings. It sounds like the reason why the Britain high speed rail might be so expensive is it might be the land buying costs to buy up land for the high speed rail line consdering that all the land in England already is built up and very expensive. The high speed rail projects would most likely be cheaper pur mile in that we can run them along interstates or buy up open land between cities while in England it is one sold town of buildings.

]]> By: Alon Levy http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/#comment-43554 Alon Levy Mon, 10 May 2010 05:31:16 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1967#comment-43554 Yes, I know... that on-surface HSR in Britain is as expensive as nearly 100% tunneled HSR in Italy should tell you how messed up it is. Yes, I know… that on-surface HSR in Britain is as expensive as nearly 100% tunneled HSR in Italy should tell you how messed up it is.

]]> By: dejv http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/#comment-43502 dejv Sun, 09 May 2010 10:44:07 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1967#comment-43502 The per-km projected cost of HS2 is roguhly the same as recently finished AV/AC Bologna-Firenze that's essentially a tunnel-chain under mountains (73.8 out of 78.5 km is in tunnels). The per-km projected cost of HS2 is roguhly the same as recently finished AV/AC Bologna-Firenze that’s essentially a tunnel-chain under mountains (73.8 out of 78.5 km is in tunnels).

]]> By: Alon Levy http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/#comment-43481 Alon Levy Sat, 08 May 2010 21:49:47 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1967#comment-43481 $8 billion = $8,000 million. Globally. The UK-US distinction is that in the US a billion means 10^9, whereas in the UK it used to mean 10^12. Before you trot out High-Speed 2, you should note that it's extraordinarily expensive. Its projected per-km cost is more than twice the projected per-km cost of tunnel-heavy California HSR and four times the per-km cost of the even tunnel-heavier airport HSR in Norway. $8 billion = $8,000 million. Globally. The UK-US distinction is that in the US a billion means 10^9, whereas in the UK it used to mean 10^12.

Before you trot out High-Speed 2, you should note that it’s extraordinarily expensive. Its projected per-km cost is more than twice the projected per-km cost of tunnel-heavy California HSR and four times the per-km cost of the even tunnel-heavier airport HSR in Norway.

]]> By: Airport Lounge http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/#comment-43467 Airport Lounge Sat, 08 May 2010 16:29:32 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1967#comment-43467 $8 billion isn't going to go very far (especially if it is $800m, not $8000m - I'm never sure how many zeros you include in your number in the US, but in the UK we have 3!). In the UK the first 120 miles of the high speed rail project between London and the West Midlands will cost between £15.8bn and £17.4bn according to official figures. On that basis $8bn (even assuming it is $8000m) would get you around 40 miles ! $8 billion isn’t going to go very far (especially if it is $800m, not $8000m – I’m never sure how many zeros you include in your number in the US, but in the UK we have 3!). In the UK the first 120 miles of the high speed rail project between London and the West Midlands will cost between £15.8bn and £17.4bn according to official figures. On that basis $8bn (even assuming it is $8000m) would get you around 40 miles !

]]> By: Ocean Railroader http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/#comment-11191 Ocean Railroader Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:06:58 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1967#comment-11191 It costed me only $67 to travel from Richmond to Lancaster PA and around 7 hours with Amtrack as of now. During the great oil panic of 2008 airlines and driving were running out of control with run away rising prices on suit cases and fares. Amtrack during that time only had to rise prices 6% on some of their train routes but most of the routes didn't even change their prices. During the oil panic Amtrack broke record riderships to the point they ran out of passanger cars and trains. The railroad fare was $68 dollar from Richmond to Lancaster PA in 2007 and it's $67 from Richmond to Lancaster as of now. Amtrack currently could cut about three to four hours of this trip to Lancaster PA by adding two to four more trains from Harrsionburg to Philli and add more railroad tracks between Richmond and Washingtion and extened the eletric catenary to Richmond and Pitsburg and extending the catenary under current speeds would have knocked off two hours off of my 7 hour trip. On a lot of TV programs they say that Washingiton DC to Boston is were 60% of Amtrack's revenew comes in. If we have another oil panic in 2011 and we have some of these high speed rail lines in Amtrack will make some big profits. It costed me only $67 to travel from Richmond to Lancaster PA and around 7 hours with Amtrack as of now. During the great oil panic of 2008 airlines and driving were running out of control with run away rising prices on suit cases and fares. Amtrack during that time only had to rise prices 6% on some of their train routes but most of the routes didn’t even change their prices. During the oil panic Amtrack broke record riderships to the point they ran out of passanger cars and trains.

The railroad fare was $68 dollar from Richmond to Lancaster PA in 2007 and it’s $67 from Richmond to Lancaster as of now. Amtrack currently could cut about three to four hours of this trip to Lancaster PA by adding two to four more trains from Harrsionburg to Philli and add more railroad tracks between Richmond and Washingtion and extened the eletric catenary to Richmond and Pitsburg and extending the catenary under current speeds would have knocked off two hours off of my 7 hour trip. On a lot of TV programs they say that Washingiton DC to Boston is were 60% of Amtrack’s revenew comes in. If we have another oil panic in 2011 and we have some of these high speed rail lines in Amtrack will make some big profits.

]]> By: AlexB http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/17/more-on-the-federal-high-speed-rail-strategic-plan/#comment-1015 AlexB Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:57:55 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1967#comment-1015 Adam - I was trying to make a point about Amtrak and I think I misrepresented myself. I fully believe that train lines should be subsidized all over the country! However, Amtrak is constantly fighting for its very survival and doesn't have the resources to really re-construct the train system or build new lines. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Under Amtrak ownership and operation, I think the NEC is operating far below its potential. When you compare the proposed California High Speed Rail to the Acela service, for example, I think the inadequacies on the east coast become more clear. The proposed train trip from San Francisco to LA will cost $55, take 2 hours and 38 minutes, and be 438 miles long. Currently, a trip on the Acela from Boston to Washington DC costs $174 (minimum), takes 6 hours and 36 minutes, and is 440 miles long. Same distance, triple price, triple trip time. Combined Amtrak service along the NEC has a ridership of about 15 million a year and does a bit better than breaking even. The California line estimates 88-117 million a year in 2030 and will turn a billion dollar profit in the first year (in theory). Given that the cities along the NEC have such better connecting options and there are twice as many people along the corridor (more or less), the discrepancies in ridership, speed, and profit are pathetic. Maybe ME, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, MD & VA could create their own version of Amtrak with dedicated tax revenues. The new agency's purpose would be to build a TGV style line next to the NEC. Maybe they could allow a private company to operate and manage it. I don't know what the solution is. I just know the Acela is too slow and too expensive to be as helpful as it should be. Imagine Boston to Washington in 3 hours!! DC-New York in 1.5 hours!! It would drastically change the northeast, and I can't imagine Amtrak or the federal government that oversees Amtrak ever doing it. Adam -

I was trying to make a point about Amtrak and I think I misrepresented myself. I fully believe that train lines should be subsidized all over the country! However, Amtrak is constantly fighting for its very survival and doesn’t have the resources to really re-construct the train system or build new lines. I wish it did, but it doesn’t. Under Amtrak ownership and operation, I think the NEC is operating far below its potential.

When you compare the proposed California High Speed Rail to the Acela service, for example, I think the inadequacies on the east coast become more clear. The proposed train trip from San Francisco to LA will cost $55, take 2 hours and 38 minutes, and be 438 miles long. Currently, a trip on the Acela from Boston to Washington DC costs $174 (minimum), takes 6 hours and 36 minutes, and is 440 miles long. Same distance, triple price, triple trip time.

Combined Amtrak service along the NEC has a ridership of about 15 million a year and does a bit better than breaking even. The California line estimates 88-117 million a year in 2030 and will turn a billion dollar profit in the first year (in theory). Given that the cities along the NEC have such better connecting options and there are twice as many people along the corridor (more or less), the discrepancies in ridership, speed, and profit are pathetic.

Maybe ME, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, MD & VA could create their own version of Amtrak with dedicated tax revenues. The new agency’s purpose would be to build a TGV style line next to the NEC. Maybe they could allow a private company to operate and manage it. I don’t know what the solution is. I just know the Acela is too slow and too expensive to be as helpful as it should be. Imagine Boston to Washington in 3 hours!! DC-New York in 1.5 hours!! It would drastically change the northeast, and I can’t imagine Amtrak or the federal government that oversees Amtrak ever doing it.

]]>