Obama to unveil HSR plan Thursday

[jc653]

Reuters reports this morning:

U.S. readies plans for high-speed rail development
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is expected to unveil its plans on Thursday for accelerating development of high-speed rail, a concept that in the past has had mixed political support and little public funding.
 
"It will be broad and strategic," Karen Rae, acting head of the Federal Railroad Administration, told Reuters in an interview on Tuesday about the initiative described by officials as President Barack Obama's top transportation priority.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE53D78C20090414

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNew...E53D78C20090414
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE53D78C20090414


Any guesses on where the $8B in stimulus and $5B in the budget over the next five years will go? This hardly seems like enough money to fund major projects on all 10 designated HSR corridors plus the NEC.

 

[WICT106]

What may happen is that one or two projects will be chosen as tests, and, once those are up and under construction, the next set of projects will be named during the next budget period. Some projects, such as the Midwest HSR and the NC portion of the SEHSR, are much farther along than the TX and Gulf Coast HSR. If I were making the selections, I think I would be strongly inclined to pick the projects that were "Tier 2 - ready to go" by Amtrak some years ago.

 

[MattW]

I guarantee none of it will find its way to Georgia. shirley franklin might open her big mouth again and whine about the noise or something.

 

[printman2000]

I have seen some map where is connects Houston with New Orleans. It is very dumb, in my opinion, not to connect Houston and DFW. Cannot tell you how many people I know who make that flight at least weekly.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

What may happen is that one or two projects will be chosen as tests, and, once those are up and under construction, the next set of projects will be named during the next budget period. Some projects, such as the Midwest HSR and the NC portion of the SEHSR, are much farther along than the TX and Gulf Coast HSR. If I were making the selections, I think I would be strongly inclined to pick the projects that were "Tier 2 - ready to go" by Amtrak some years ago.

Are there any ``high speed'' projects that were ready to go years ago that even manage to go as fast as the Northeast Regional, which I thought wasn't considered high speed?

 

[Spokker]

I think that when the Obama administration says high speed rail, they mean American standards for high speed rail. An incremental upgrade of our nation's rail network isn't a bad thing.

Even if true high speed rail fails to get off the ground an incremental upgrade to 110 or 125 MPH is an incredible improvement. It's not only about increasing top speeds, but average speeds as well.

 

[Long Train Runnin']

I just hope he doesnt say "MEG-LEV' I just don't see that as the answer plus there are to tracks

 

[birdy]

I figure they wouldn't be making a grand announcement if it were some kind of incremental type projects. I also do not think they would pick one project for full funding to the exclusion of other good projects.

In this case, the logical thing to do corresponds with the political thing to do. Pick out four or so sensible projects for two years of funding and go back to the well for funding to finish. Its not likely the home state senators would kill funding for the projects underway in their own back yards. More likely, log rolling would start by the senators who feel left out, and president Obama would be more than pleased to support their projects as well.

The rail-straightening projects should get funded too. They are dirt cheap relatively speaking, are quickly implemented for stimulus purposes and they make great consolation prizes.

There's plenty of money for all of this. We can pay for a pretty robust $90 billion dollar program over the next ten years just by not passing Senator Kyl's plan to raise the estate tax deduction to $10 million. If we don't spend it all on the NEC, that would be enough to build 7 or 8 of these lines plus a big part of the California system. Of course, that would be pretty rough on Paris Hilton types, but there is always a trade-off on these things.

 

[JC653]

Looks like we are getting a general strategy, not specific projects:

DWIGHT, Ill. -- The Obama administration on Thursday will outline how it plans to spend $8 billion in stimulus funds on high-speed passenger-rail service, a new federal commitment that has rail advocates and states jockeying for a piece of the pie.
Administration officials won't name winners or losers on Thursday, but they will provide the first look at their strategy and give states a better sense of how they can qualify for funding.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123984482505323489.html

 

[BuzzKillington]

Its front page on CNN.com again...

 

[volkris]

I figure they wouldn't be making a grand announcement if it were some kind of incremental type projects. I also do not think they would pick one project for full funding to the exclusion of other good projects.

My understanding is that this isn't a real announcement but rather an analysis that was required by the stimulus legislation.

They're just meeting a deadline.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I figure they wouldn't be making a grand announcement if it were some kind of incremental type projects. I also do not think they would pick one project for full funding to the exclusion of other good projects.
In this case, the logical thing to do corresponds with the political thing to do. Pick out four or so sensible projects for two years of funding and go back to the well for funding to finish. Its not likely the home state senators would kill funding for the projects underway in their own back yards. More likely, log rolling would start by the senators who feel left out, and president Obama would be more than pleased to support their projects as well.

The rail-straightening projects should get funded too. They are dirt cheap relatively speaking, are quickly implemented for stimulus purposes and they make great consolation prizes.

There's plenty of money for all of this. We can pay for a pretty robust $90 billion dollar program over the next ten years just by not passing Senator Kyl's plan to raise the estate tax deduction to $10 million. If we don't spend it all on the NEC, that would be enough to build 7 or 8 of these lines plus a big part of the California system. Of course, that would be pretty rough on Paris Hilton types, but there is always a trade-off on these things.

From CNN:

Each of the corridors identified by the president's report are between 100 and 600 miles long. The blueprint envisions some trains traveling at top speeds of over 150 mph.
Federal grants would also be directed toward separate individual rail projects that are deemed "ready to go," with preliminary engineering and environmental work already completed.

So, not all true HSR.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Even if true high speed rail fails to get off the ground an incremental upgrade to 110 or 125 MPH is an incredible improvement. It's not only about increasing top speeds, but average speeds as well.

The problem is that the typical 110 MPH project is much more willing to go below the top speed on a curve than a typical 220 MPH project, so a typical project with a top speed of 220 MPH may well have an average speed of something like quadruple the average speed of a typical ``110 MPH'' project.

 

[Long Train Runnin']

Even if true high speed rail fails to get off the ground an incremental upgrade to 110 or 125 MPH is an incredible improvement. It's not only about increasing top speeds, but average speeds as well.

The problem is that the typical 110 MPH project is much more willing to go below the top speed on a curve than a typical 220 MPH project, so a typical project with a top speed of 220 MPH may well have an average speed of something like quadruple the average speed of a typical ``110 MPH'' project.

Right but a 220 MPH project would be quadruple the cost and you wouldn't see service for at least a decade.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Right but a 220 MPH project would be quadruple the cost and you wouldn't see service for at least a decade.

The cost difference is probably a lot more than a factor of four between a 220 MPH for most of the miles project and 110 MPH for a few of the miles project.

However, a 350 MPH project is probably going to be a lot less than 50% more expensive than a 220 MPH project, and I suspect the 350 MPH project will have a better cost/benefit ratio than the 220 MPH project.

A 220 MPH or 350 MPH project is going to attract a lot more passengers who would otherwise take airplanes than a 110 MPH project, though. If we're trying to reduce carbon emissions and petroleum consumption by a certain amount, and perhaps reduce airport congestion and intercity travel delays, there may be an argument that the higher speed projects are going to make far more progress there.

As for not seeing service for a decade, there's no way to get the majority of the passengers who would take a 220 MPH train instead of an airplane to take the train instead of the plane in less than that decade anyway, so why does it matter so much? We can still get this done in time for the 220 MPH train to be available for the majority of your lifetime.

 

[Tony]

including California, the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, the Southeast, the Gulf Coast, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York and New England.

Let's see...

• Southwest (aka California)
  
• Northwest
  
• Midwest
  
• Southeast
  
• Northeast (aka NY and NE)
  
• Mid Atlantic (aka PA)
  
• Gulf Coast
  

OK, where will there not be even a hint of getting a piece of the HSR pie? Hawaii and Alaska?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

OK, where will there not be even a hint of getting a piece of the HSR pie? Hawaii and Alaska?

HSR tends to be an intercity thing. Oahu is basically all either populated or steep mountains; there's nowhere to run a train through an unpopulated couple of hundred miles on Oahu. You can drive around almost the entire perimeter of the island in a couple of hours. And the rest of Hawaii is probably not anywhere densely populated enough to justify the costs of an HSR project anytime soon, though the Big Island might be big enough in land area to justify a HSR project.

Much of Alaska doesn't even have intercity roads.

 

[wayman]

Right but a 220 MPH project would be quadruple the cost and you wouldn't see service for at least a decade.

The cost difference is probably a lot more than a factor of four between a 220 MPH for most of the miles project and 110 MPH for a few of the miles project.

However, a 350 MPH project is probably going to be a lot less than 50% more expensive than a 220 MPH project, and I suspect the 350 MPH project will have a better cost/benefit ratio than the 220 MPH project.

A 220 MPH or 350 MPH project is going to attract a lot more passengers who would otherwise take airplanes than a 110 MPH project, though. If we're trying to reduce carbon emissions and petroleum consumption by a certain amount, and perhaps reduce airport congestion and intercity travel delays, there may be an argument that the higher speed projects are going to make far more progress there.

As for not seeing service for a decade, there's no way to get the majority of the passengers who would take a 220 MPH train instead of an airplane to take the train instead of the plane in less than that decade anyway, so why does it matter so much? We can still get this done in time for the 220 MPH train to be available for the majority of your lifetime.

A decade is five sessions of Congress, enough time for the entire Senate to come up for re-election, and longer than a two-term Presidential Administration. The odds of a decade-long high-speed-rail project that doesn't even serve passengers until the decade is nearly over maintaining national funding over that period of time--especially when many districts and states aren't even served by it--is quite small. Better to get something up and running and demonstrating proof of concept before everyone decides it's a financial black hole and cuts all funding leaving a totally inoperable system and public opinion heavily against rail.

 

[jackal]

Much of Alaska doesn't even have intercity roads.

And people seem more than willing to take the LSR (low-speed rail) between Anchorage and Fairbanks.

There were 150 people (two jam-packed coaches) on the Aurora Winter Train I took in March. 150 people! That's more than are on many Amtrak trains! And this was winter...when the level of tourism is virtually nil!

In the summer, there can be seven full ARR coaches plus 10 pull-contractor (cruise line) coaches...sometimes there are upwards of 1,500 people on a train!

And this trip takes 12 hours to cover 350 miles!

Give me HSR to Juneau, though. Then I may be able to afford to get to my own government without paying $350 round-trip on Alaska Airlines...

 

[PetalumaLoco]

Obama outlines vision for high-speed rail network

President Barack Obama on Thursday outlined plans for a high-speed rail network he said would change the way Americans travel, drawing comparisons to the 1950s creation of the interstate highway system.

No mention of mag-lev.

 

[MattW]

Well at least some of those corridors traverse Georgia. Though because GA's government is so stupid, I wouldn't expect to see much of anything happen here for at least a decade or more.

 

[Ispolkom]

Even if true high speed rail fails to get off the ground an incremental upgrade to 110 or 125 MPH is an incredible improvement. It's not only about increasing top speeds, but average speeds as well.

The problem is that the typical 110 MPH project is much more willing to go below the top speed on a curve than a typical 220 MPH project, so a typical project with a top speed of 220 MPH may well have an average speed of something like quadruple the average speed of a typical ``110 MPH'' project.

Right but a 220 MPH project would be quadruple the cost and you wouldn't see service for at least a decade.

But you would have the advantage of having it done right. Or so suggests this article.

Me, I actually don't like traveling that fast. My main objection to flying has always been that you sit in a metal cylinder for a time, and then you are there. A fast train wouldn't help this.

I'll quickly admit that I am in the minority in this view.

 

[birdy]

Kinda vague as to whether they mean true HSR or rail-straightening. Maybe it depends on the level of local support and agitation.

I don't know why it would take 10 years to build 300 miles of line per project. The main slow down is money. The environmental and siting issues can be expedited. I am amazed at the broad level of support for this. Once a line goes operational anywhere, even for an intermediate station, I think the public demand for the service everywhere goes off the charts.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

Even if true high speed rail fails to get off the ground an incremental upgrade to 110 or 125 MPH is an incredible improvement. It's not only about increasing top speeds, but average speeds as well.

The problem is that the typical 110 MPH project is much more willing to go below the top speed on a curve than a typical 220 MPH project, so a typical project with a top speed of 220 MPH may well have an average speed of something like quadruple the average speed of a typical ``110 MPH'' project.

Right but a 220 MPH project would be quadruple the cost and you wouldn't see service for at least a decade.

But you would have the advantage of having it done right. Or so suggests this article.

Me, I actually don't like traveling that fast. My main objection to flying has always been that you sit in a metal cylinder for a time, and then you are there. A fast train wouldn't help this.

I'll quickly admit that I am in the minority in this view.

Oh contrare, I've been thinking the same thing. If we do get true high speed cross country rail I will miss the leisurely pace of today's LD trains. I take the train as part of my vacation, to relax. Kind of like taking a cruise, but with better scenery.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Oh contrare, I've been thinking the same thing. If we do get true high speed cross country rail I will miss the leisurely pace of today's LD trains. I take the train as part of my vacation, to relax. Kind of like taking a cruise, but with better scenery.

I think it's a long time before we'll see the portion of the Empire Builder west of Minneapolis / St Paul go much faster than it does today. You'll probably always have the option of taking an overnight train to Minneapolis and then boarding the Empire Builder.

I also suspect that if we can give a small town a several hour conventional speed train ride to get to a HSR network that actually provides good connections to places people want to go, that conventional speed train will suddenly have the potential for decent ridership that it can't get if all it connects to is an all-conventional-speed rail network.