Studies.Ok, so stimulus plan passed. It included $8 bln for high speed trains.Any idea where exactly will they go?
Ok, so stimulus plan passed. It included $8 bln for high speed trains.
:lol:Studies.Ok, so stimulus plan passed. It included $8 bln for high speed trains.Any idea where exactly will they go?
Makes sense to me. Need already looked at, maybe even some planning. Would cut out any delay for studies. And no LA-Vegas mag-lev.Here are places I would like to see the money spent (and *actually built !* ) :
See link: U. S. Federal Railroad Administration designated "High Speed" passenger rail corridors
To wit: Midwest High Speed Rail project, Florida High Speed Rail, Southeast High Speed Rail, 3-C Rail project in OH, Pacific Northwest HSR, CA HSR, TX, and rail service between Saint Paul and Milwaukee through Madison, WI.
That's what I just heard reported on CNN this evening. A high-tech "mag-lev" train running been Las Vegas and Anaheim. Its development and installation will use up the entire passenger rail allocation (if not even more)."Republicans regard the provision as a barely disguised earmark for a proposed magnetic-levitation rail line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, in California, championed by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)."
Well, as noted, Reid is the Senate Majority Leader. That means he automatically gets the biggest piece of the pie, ah, piece of pork. And the expenditure has already been passed. No additional approval or voting is needed, unless the Mag-Lev project has to come back for even more money.I would like to think that Our Elected Representatives would not tolerate one individual getting some $ 8 billion rail line while the rest of the nation has to make do. I mean, Reid will have to get their votes in the future, and he would be smart to spread the spending around.
The particular Boston to Montreal alignment they've choosen is one I kind of hope never gets built. Instead, I'd like to see them simply build 220 MPH or faster track from Boston to New York City, and from New York City to Montreal via Albany, and then run trains that go directly from Boston to Albany without the detour through Manhattan itself. (For customs reasons, it may be easiest for the New York City to Albany to Montreal trains to be the ones that actually cross the border, and let people from other cities change trains in Albany.)Here are places I would like to see the money spent (and *actually built !* ) :
See link: U. S. Federal Railroad Administration designated "High Speed" passenger rail corridors
To wit: Midwest High Speed Rail project, Florida High Speed Rail, Southeast High Speed Rail, 3-C Rail project in OH, Pacific Northwest HSR, CA HSR, TX, and rail service between Saint Paul and Milwaukee through Madison, WI.
Really? Then he must have gotten most of any budget outlays over the last 2 years.Well, as noted, Reid is the Senate Majority Leader. That means he automatically gets the biggest piece of the pie, ah, piece of pork. And the expenditure has already been passed. No additional approval or voting is needed, unless the Mag-Lev project has to come back for even more money.I would like to think that Our Elected Representatives would not tolerate one individual getting some $ 8 billion rail line while the rest of the nation has to make do. I mean, Reid will have to get their votes in the future, and he would be smart to spread the spending around.
Don't worry, there is lots of other "pork" in the Stimulus bill to make the other major Democratic Senators happy.
That page includes the comment:
That seems to imply that they think at-grade crossings are a viable concept. That limits speed to 110 MPH under current US regulations, half the speed of some real high speed rail systems in other parts of the world.Designation allows a corridor to receive specially targeted funding for highway-rail grade crossing safety improvements,
This a a phony non-story dreamed up by Republicans. There is not ONE WORD in the stimulus bill about any train going to or from Las Vegas. Further, it's the DOT that has authority to award the grants on a competitive basis. And, last time I checked, the Secretary of Transportation was a Republican."Republicans regard the provision as a barely disguised earmark for a proposed magnetic-levitation rail line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, in California, championed by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). But Democrats said 11 proposed high-rail corridors throughout the country would all have to compete for the money. "Quote from Washington Post.
Alright...we can do that...except I insist north of Albany the tracks cut over to VT and come up the eastern edge of Lake Champlain with a stop in Burlington ! It would serve many more than it would stopping in Plattsburgh, which is about a quarter the size of the greater Burlington area. Plus I'd get to watch high speed trains zip past my office a few times a day (assuming they used the current VRS right of way)!The particular Boston to Montreal alignment they've choosen is one I kind of hope never gets built. Instead, I'd like to see them simply build 220 MPH or faster track from Boston to New York City, and from New York City to Montreal via Albany, and then run trains that go directly from Boston to Albany without the detour through Manhattan itself. (For customs reasons, it may be easiest for the New York City to Albany to Montreal trains to be the ones that actually cross the border, and let people from other cities change trains in Albany.)Here are places I would like to see the money spent (and *actually built !* ) :
See link: U. S. Federal Railroad Administration designated "High Speed" passenger rail corridors
To wit: Midwest High Speed Rail project, Florida High Speed Rail, Southeast High Speed Rail, 3-C Rail project in OH, Pacific Northwest HSR, CA HSR, TX, and rail service between Saint Paul and Milwaukee through Madison, WI.
I can name 5 grade crossings that will go. (4 on the NEC in CT) and 1 on the RFP line to Richmond. I think getting rid of grade crossing is a good thing.That page includes the comment:
That seems to imply that they think at-grade crossings are a viable concept. That limits speed to 110 MPH under current US regulations, half the speed of some real high speed rail systems in other parts of the world.Designation allows a corridor to receive specially targeted funding for highway-rail grade crossing safety improvements,
(And remember, Interstate Highways are fully grade separated, and we have far more miles of them than designated potential 110 MPH rail corridors.)
It will never happen because the they become pet projects. Even If you build a line from NY-CHI everyone will want a stop if they are between. The US political process never works on this type of project.What would make the most sense to me would be one or two complete high speed corridors in high-traffic areas. Rather than "spreading the wealth" around the country - which would in one sense be more fair to everyone - perhaps Amtrak should build one or two "flagship" high-speed lines. For example, NY-Chicago: a dedicated, 150+ MPH passenger line, free of freight delays, problems with old equipment, and the other problems that currently plague Amtrak. If they could get that right, it would show the whole country what high speed rail could look like - a new vision of "Amtrak 2.0" for a new millennium.
What I'd like to see there is: build HSR from Albany to Montreal, and don't worry about where Burlington is when building that alignment. Take the existing track that runs south of Burlington within a few miles of Lake Champlain, follow it south to where Lake Champlain is relatively narrow, and build a new track heading west to connect to the Albany to Montreal alignment. Upgrade the existing Burlington track to the same extent that the NEC has seen upgrades for pretend high speed.Alright...we can do that...except I insist north of Albany the tracks cut over to VT and come up the eastern edge of Lake Champlain with a stop in Burlington ! It would serve many more than it would stopping in Plattsburgh, which is about a quarter the size of the greater Burlington area. Plus I'd get to watch high speed trains zip past my office a few times a day (assuming they used the current VRS right of way)!
The way to make the NYP to CHI line work is to build spurs off of it to places like Toledo / Detroit, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Cleveland, etc. Run only one NYP to CHI train an hour, and use the other 19 or so slots each hour on that track to run trains between other city pairs. (And of course, also run a CHI to NYP train on the track right next to it.)It will never happen because the they become pet projects. Even If you build a line from NY-CHI everyone will want a stop if they are between. The US political process never works on this type of project.What would make the most sense to me would be one or two complete high speed corridors in high-traffic areas. Rather than "spreading the wealth" around the country - which would in one sense be more fair to everyone - perhaps Amtrak should build one or two "flagship" high-speed lines. For example, NY-Chicago: a dedicated, 150+ MPH passenger line, free of freight delays, problems with old equipment, and the other problems that currently plague Amtrak. If they could get that right, it would show the whole country what high speed rail could look like - a new vision of "Amtrak 2.0" for a new millennium.
If you want lots of frequencies per day, those frequencies are going to be easier to justify if the tracks support 220 MPH than if the tracks support 59 MPH, since the key is attracting lots of passengers, and the typical American doesn't think of 59 MPH as competive with the airplane.Let me articulate more:I think the funding would be best spent upon upgrading track to a higher standard, upgrading equipment to see if it is possible to operate at a higher standard. Part of the reasons why the trains do not serve places like Phoenix, AZ, Des Moines IA, and Madison, WI, are that several segments of the tracks around those areas are not up to FRA Class 3 standards (59 mph pass. speed limit). They must be fixed up and then maintained to a standard which allows for FRA Class 5 (90 mph speed limits), if not better. This should also be done in such a fashion so as to create a network, with multiple frequencies per day in each direction.
Let me articulate more:I think the funding would be best spent upon upgrading track to a higher standard, upgrading equipment to see if it is possible to operate at a higher standard. Part of the reasons why the trains do not serve places like Phoenix, AZ, Des Moines IA, and Madison, WI, are that several segments of the tracks around those areas are not up to FRA Class 3 standards (59 mph pass. speed limit). They must be fixed up and then maintained to a standard which allows for FRA Class 5 (90 mph speed limits), if not better. This should also be done in such a fashion so as to create a network, with multiple frequencies per day in each direction.
While upgrading the lines, money should be spent in straightening out curves on the rail lines. In several locations, this will involve use of Eminent Domain powers, as land may have to be condemned in order to build a straighter route alignment.
Upgrade the signals systems, to meet the FRA standards that allow for speeds in excess of 80 mph. That means installing and then maintaining ATC, ATS, Cab Signals, or PTC.
Improve and maintain equipment so as to allow for a higher standard of operation or performance.
Split the Florida bound trains at Jacksonville, like what was done in the past, except that the Miami bound trains would travel via the FEC (which I would also upgrade and maintain at FRA Class 6 standards, allowing for 110 mph speed limits). Maintain the Jacksonville - Tampa track via the A-line and Orlando to FRA Class 6 standards as well.
It is not at all clear whether Amtrak will be the operator of the California HSR system. There does not seem to be any clear argument at this point that they wouldn't choose, say, the fine folks who run Metrolink.i've not seen it specified anywhere, but i assume that commuter rail lines would not directly benefit from HSR stimulus money? obviously it would indirectly benefit if it shared tracks in a designated HSR corridor.
the reason i ask is that someone tried to tell me that the HSR funding was not for amtrak. while technically true, i can't think of any other HSR operator that would benefit from the funding in the period the stimulus money is required to be spent (between now and 2012).
Enter your email address to join: