High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[mhays]

That's true in any city's newspaper comments. Everywhere I look, it's mostly talk radio listeners and shut-ins.

[M II A II R II K]

High-speed train would create equivalent of 50,000 one-year construction jobs


July 23, 2010

By Richard N. Velotta

Read More: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010...ent-50000-con/

When the DesertXpress high-speed train is built, there would be up to 700 permanent jobs at an operations and maintenance facility — in Victorville, Calif. Tom Stone, president of DesertXpress Enterprises LLC, told representatives of the Associated General Contractors at a lunch Thursday that building the privately funded, $4 billion traditional high-speed rail system would create 50,000 person-year construction jobs over the four-year design and construction period expected to begin late this year.

Translated, 50,000 person-year jobs is the equivalent of 50,000 people working for a full year. The statistic illustrates the vast number and diverse types of jobs — planners, architects, draftsmen, engineers, construction workers, electricians and other specialists — that will be created over the course of the project.

But the bulk of the permanent operations jobs would be in Victorville, the southern terminus of 185-mile double-track system. Stone said the decision to build the primary maintenance facility, which would include an operations control center, a train-washing facility, repair shop, parts storage, track storage, meeting rooms and administrative offices, was based on the availability of a 200 acre-plus, narrow piece of land in California.

A model of a proposed Las Vegas station is displayed during a news conference for the DesertXpress high-speed rail project Thursday, March 25, 2010.

[M II A II R II K]

Expert says high-speed rail to D.C. would run at $1B surplus


July 22, 2010

By Debbie Messina



Read More: http://hamptonroads.com/node/562980

A railroad consultant predicts that high-speed trains between Hampton Roads and Washington would not only be popular, but also highly profitable - operating at surpluses of up to $1 billion over the 30-year life of the project. Local transportation officials, however, are highly skeptical. Alex Metcalf, president of Transportation Economics & Management Systems Inc., said the preliminary results of his study surprised even him, generating double the ridership that he'd expected.

"Like most people, I'd never heard of the Hampton Roads -Washington rail corridor - it has no profile outside of Virginia," said Metcalf, whose business is in Frederick, Md. He said his projections show it's as economically strong as the main rail corridors planned in Florida and Ohio, both of which won millions of dollars in federal stimulus money this year. He said it's one of the top 200-mile high-speed rail corridors in the country, with the potential for 4 million riders in 2025. The corridor, with trains running to both South Hampton Roads and the Peninsula, could cost between $3 billion and $6 billion to develop and would generate an operating surplus of $500 million on the Peninsula and nearly $1 billion in South Hampton Roads by 2025.

Those numbers are based on trains running at 150 mph on the Southside and 110 mph on the Peninsula. The trip to Washington would take 2 hours from Norfolk and 2 hours, 22 minutes from Newport News, he said.

Slower trains, at 79 mph, would lose money and higher-speed trains, starting at 90 mph, would yield smaller profits, he concluded. Metcalf presented his findings Wednesday to the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, which paid him $167,000 to develop a Preliminary Vision Plan for high-speed rail. The organization is considering extending Metcalf's contract to more fully develop his findings. "I see a pot but not the roast," Del. Glenn Oder of Newport News said, questioning how Metcalf arrived at his findings. "How are we making these quantum leaps without meat on the bones? " Del. John Cosgrove of Chesapeake said: "It's an awfully happy presentation, but a lot of us are thinking how in the world did they come to those conclusions."

[202_Cyclist]

This is even more remarkable when you consider this growth in Amtrak ridership is occurring at the same time, as noted in another thread, intercity bus travel between DC – New York - Boston has also increased significantly. Certainly some of the bus travel is induced demand with the very low ticket prices but some has also come at the expense of Amtrak ridership in the Northeast corridor.

Amtrak Ridership Increases

By JOSH MITCHELL
Wall Street Journal
8/12/2010

WASHINGTON—Amtrak is on pace to serve a record number of riders this year, and the railroad is embarking on a multibillion-dollar plan to replace its aging fleet of trains.

Amtrack could eclipse the record 28.7 million riders it posted in fiscal 2008 if the current trends of higher airfare, rising gasoline prices and economic recovery continue.

"We have momentum," Amtrak Chief Executive Joe Boardman said Wednesday.

Rail ridership rose 9.8% in July, a busy month for vacation travel, and is up 6.1% for the fiscal year that began in October. Revenue increased 8.6% to $1.45 billion year over year, buoyed by higher ticket prices and increased demand.

Rail travel has benefited, according to Amtrak, because airlines raised their fares. Though the average price of gasoline, currently $2.78 a gallon, remains well below its $4 peak, gas prices have ticked up since last fall...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...2392.html.html

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

This is even more remarkable when you consider this growth in Amtrak ridership is occurring at the same time, as noted in another thread, intercity bus travel between DC – New York - Boston has also increased significantly. Certainly some of the bus travel is induced demand with the very low ticket prices but some has also come at the expense of Amtrak ridership in the Northeast corridor.

I also believe that most of the increases has come at the expense of airlines.
Why did the WSJ forget to mention that?

[202_Cyclist]

electricron

I also believe that most of the increases has come at the expense of airlines.
Why did the WSJ forget to mention that?

It couldn't possibly be that like Reason Foundation Inc. and Cato, the WSJ like other conservative media outlets, doesn't want to acknowledge the success of rail and has a stake in continuing the auto/avitaion/oil status quo with transportation?

[M II A II R II K]

Is the U.S. turning a corner on high-speed rail?


http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/0...XuWW&wom=false

- Despite these promises from the government, high-speed rail comes with its share of opponents, who say it is too expensive and won't save energy. Some even question if it will ever be built.

- "Even in a strong economy, building high-speed rail makes little sense, offering minimal reductions in travel times at exorbitant costs," said Ronald Utt, who is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan senior research fellow for the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. "For instance, one has to wonder what exactly motivated the review team to endorse the proposed $1.1 billion investment in the Kansas City-St. Louis-Chicago route, which would allow customers to reach their destinations 10 percent faster than they could by driving between Chicago and St. Louis," said Utt.

- Utt said the $1.25 billion federal investment in a $3.2 billion project to build a high-speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa would reduce travel time between the two cities to less than one hour, compared to about 90 minutes by car. He said other projects have similar travel time differences. Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow with the CATO Institute, said it is far more cost-effective to save energy by encouraging people to drive more fuel-efficient cars than to build and operate high-speed rail.

- "Passenger rail service, especially services at higher and high speeds, will require new safety rules, constant public capital investment and operating subsidies, and balance with freight rail service and the rest of the national transportation system -- and currently only some of these elements are in place," according to a GAO report.

[202_Cyclist]

High-Speed Rail Stalls: Freight Carriers Balk at Sharing Tracks With the Faster Passenger Service

By JENNIFER LEVITZ
Wall Street Journal
9/21/2010

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...0598.html.html

"Opposition from freight railroads is threatening the Obama administration's multibillion-dollar push to make high-speed passenger trains an integral part of the U.S. transportation network.

The standoff demonstrates the difficulties of introducing new passenger service to a rail network that is at least 90% owned by freight railroads and outfitted for slower trains.

To save time and money, government officials want new high-speed rail routes to operate on the vast system of train corridors that already crisscross the U.S., unlike European and Asian countries that have built dedicated tracks for high-speed rail.

.But Norfolk Southern Corp., Union Pacific Corp. and other railroad companies are balking at sharing their tracks or rights-of-way with trains that would run between 90 and 200-plus miles an hour. They argue that mixing high-speed passenger trains with slower freight trains would create safety risks, prevent future expansion and cause congestion..."


Image courtesy of the Wall Street Journal

[M II A II R II K]

Phila. rail expert named to head Amtrak's high-speed unit


Read More: http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...peed_unit.html

As Amtrak seeks to create and expand high-speed passenger train operations in the United States, the company on Thursday named Philadelphia rail expert Albrecht "Al" Engel to head its new high-speed rail department.

Amtrak's increased focus on fast trains comes as the Obama administration is pushing for a national network of true high-speed rail lines, with trains that operate at 155 m.p.h. or faster.

The administration this year gave $8 billion in stimulus funds to jump-start high-speed rail projects on 13 corridors in 31 states. It has promised $5 billion more over the next five years. Congressional advocates of high-speed rails are seeking $50 million over the next six years.

Foreign rail companies from France, Germany, Japan, China, Spain, and Canada see the United States as a potentially lucrative market for their high-speed trains because the United States has no high-speed manufacturers and Amtrak is the only long-distance passenger rail operator.

[Busy Bee]

Reading the comments on a newspaper site is a form of torture. You really start to believe that everybody but you and a few of your friends are nothing but ignorant shallow naysaying morons that you're forced to live next to. I find it hard to believe that the amount of intense disbelief and lack of enthusiasm amongst a large part of the public has nothing to do with the 'believe nothing from liberals' hate speech coming from the anti-intellectual, anti-thought, anti-progress, anti everything Right, the new platform of the American buffoon.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Reading the comments on a newspaper site is a form of torture. You really start to believe that everybody but you and a few of your friends are nothing but ignorant shallow naysaying morons that you're forced to live next to. I find it hard to believe that the amount of intense disbelief and lack of enthusiasm amongst a large part of the public has nothing to do with the 'believe nothing from liberals' hate speech coming from the anti-intellectual, anti-thought, anti-progress, anti everything Right, the new platform of the American buffoon.

Wonderful... another stereotypical comment about Republicans... Well, even though I'm "anti-intellectual, anti-thought, anti-progress, anti everything," I'll voice my opinion. It's true, it doesn't matter what any article is about, SOMEONE will find something negative to say.

And it's not just conservatives, it's liberals too.

Either way, you just have to realize that a majority of the people in the community are open minded and willing to consider things like high speed rail, it's just the absent minded minority, that somehow feels this inexplicable, and irresistible desire to speak up and say stupid stuff.

You could post an article about Obama making some patriotic speech and you would still have Republicans saying something negative, eventually they'll say something about something that doesn't even pertain to the article comes up and before you know it the entire comment section is about how much they love Reagan.

You could post an article about Bush saying something about the maybe the virtues of alternative fuels and green technology and you would still have Democrats saying something negative, again eventually they'll say something about something that doesn't even pertain to the article and before you know it the entire comment section is about how glad they are for Obamacare.

All of those comment sections are completely ridiculous and can turn the most heartwarming and positive article into some monstrosity of a scandal.

It's best to just take the article as you want to take it and not even read comments. I'm noticed a HUGE reduction in my stress level since I stopped reading where the article ends.

[Busy Bee]

Well said, thanks for the advice. I've been trying to resist reading the comments for the same reasons as well.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Well said, thanks for the advice. I've been trying to resist reading the comments for the same reasons as well.

I appreciate your understanding

[SnyderBock]

My theory is that 999 out of every 1000 of us, are wrong about pretty much everything we think and believe. If I happen to be one of those 999, then this comment might be wrong. That might actually be a paradox, if you think about it enough.

[JDRCRASH]

I'd rather see the maglev built, because DesertXpress is considering the Palmdale extension as a separate project.

[OhioGuy]

The CNN website's "Quick vote" poll currently asks:

"Should the U.S. government invest more in high-speed rail?"

So far, the results of this unscientific poll are:
Yes - 78% (1015)
No - 22% (288)

[202_Cyclist]

Officials: Slow Go for High-Speed New England Rail

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
7/29/10


"HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- An ambitious intercity rail system in New England is intended to reduce air traffic congestion, get cars off the highways and spur economic development. But high-speed trains will be slow in coming, transportation officials said Thursday.

A Connecticut transportation official told about 100 people at a meeting Thursday that the rail system from New Haven, Conn., to Hartford, Springfield, Mass., into Vermont and eventually reaching Montreal will not be high-speed -- defined as 110 mph -- in the congested and crowded Northeast.

''You should not worry about trains speeding through Hartford,'' said Tom Maziarz, chief of planning at the Connecticut Department of Transportation.

Trains now reach about 40 mph on average, said Dave Stahnke, of engineering firm Wilbur Smith Associates.

That should rise to 60 mph with better tracks -- short of high-speed service but still fast when accounting for slowing at crossings and stopping and restarting at train stations...."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010...gewanted=print

[JDRCRASH]

60 Mph is still almost half that of what is considered "High-Speed Rail". It might as well be Commuter Rail service.

[Nexis4Jersey]

We consider an intercity or commuter line , politicians brand it a HSR line. But in the future it will be electrified and possibly upgraded for HSR Speeds.

[mhays]

True high speed would be great. But basic reliable service that averages even 40 or 50 mph would be popular too, assuming it's between major cities in a certain range of distance. At 150 miles, a 50 mph average would roughly equal a flight if your trip is from downtown to downtown, which is the case for a lot of business travelers and tourists. That might even beat cars assuming heavy traffic.

Even a 40 mph average can fill up, using my own region as an example. A lot of people find the train easier, even if it takes slightly longer.