High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[Nexis4Jersey]

I had a Rail Gasm....nom nom nom...can't wait foam over those...

[M II A II R II K]

Train’s arrival heralds higher-speed rail

Read More: http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci...her-speed-rail

A locomotive sliced through a celebratory banner Friday morning to mark completion of a $72 million rail upgrade that allows passengers and freight to move more quickly through Vermont. The higher-speed rail project covered nearly 200 miles of track from St. Albans near the Canadian border to Vernon in the state’s southeastern tip.

- That stretch eventually will link to improved rails running through Massachusetts and Connecticut, where higher-speed renovations are under way. Officials envision a much faster railway linking the population centers of New York, Boston and Montreal. "This is a great day for Vermont," said U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt. "More is yet to come."

- Paul Lundberg, RailAmerica chief operating officer, called the Vermont upgrades "a magnificent public-private partnership." He added that "this wouldn’t have happened without the vision of the state of Vermont." The result, Shumlin said, is that Vermont is improving rail travel by "making it faster, making it more ridable and making it more affordable."

- Amtrak’s Vermonter train now will be able to carry passengers at speeds up to 79 mph, slicing 30 minutes from its scheduled running time. Also, freight trains will be both faster and heavier due to a pending increase in rail-car capacity from the current 263,000 pounds to 286,000 pounds. John Giles, RailAmerica president and chief executive officer, said track north of St. Albans must be improved for that weight change to take effect.

Many officials rode in on the train from White River Junction. Upon arrival, they threw out some big numbers to illustrate the scope of the rail renovation, which they said was completed "on time and on budget":

* 190 miles of new, continuously welded track.

* 130,000 new railroad ties.

* 52 upgraded crossings.

* More than 50 bridges repaired.

* $52.7 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

.....

Rail advocates look at funding options for potential local Amtrak service

Read More: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/artic...nclick_check=1

.....

The East Texas Corridor Council (ETCC), a regional organization dedicated to securing high-speed rail service for the Interstate 20 and Interstate 69 corridors, provided local and state officials from Louisiana and Texas a glimpse of the potential service with a private train ride Tuesday along a portion of the proposed route.

- The stop is one of a few being considered in an ongoing joint study to increase passenger rail efficiency in the Arkansas-Louisiana-Texas region. The council’s short-term plan for new Amtrak service between the two cities would utilize the same Union Pacific rail lines used by the existing service through East Texas, the Texas Eagle. That service currently transports Shreveport-Bossier City area residents to Dallas-Fort Worth via a bus that connects to its Longview, Texas, station. The long-term plan calls for the service to eventually have double tracks along the stretch so passenger and freight traffic can travel simultaneously.

.....

[202_Cyclist]

Nope, nobody rides the train in the United States. Almost every year this past decade, Amtrak sets ridership records and Republicans still call it 'Soviet-style rail' and Mitt Romney wants to defund not just Big Bird but passenger rail as well.

Amtrak: We Broke Another Ridership Record, 49% Growth Since 2000


Image courtesy of Transportation Nation.

By Alex Goldmark
10/10/2012
Transportation Nation

"For the ninth time in ten years, Amtrak has broken a ridership record. The national rail network carried 31.2 million passengers in the twelve months before September 30, 2012. This news comes smack in the heat of an election season where nationally subsidized services like passenger rail and public television have become campaign issues.

The news: ridership grew by 3.5 percent in 2012, giving Amtrak its highest number of passenger trips since the company began operations in 1971. As the chart above shows, Amtrak ridership has grown steadily–a total of 49 percent since 2000.

Ticket revenue increased 6 percent, accounting for $2 billion of a roughly $4 billion budget. That revenue comes in about $100 million above projections in the 2012 budget (PDF). The government chipped in a $466 million operating subsidy, according to the Federal Railroad Administration. The federal government also allocated an additional $952 million for capital expenses..."

http://transportationnation.org/2012...th-since-2000/

[Busy Bee]

Anyone else catch that Dan Rather Reports on Hdnet on high speed rail?

[M II A II R II K]

Illinois Amtrak Train Set To Hit 110 Mph In Test Run


10/19/12

By JASON KEYSER

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1986330.html

For the first time on a key Midwestern route between Chicago and St. Louis, an Amtrak passenger train topped 110 mph Friday, ripping through fog-shrouded farm fields and blowing past cars on a parallel highway.

- The test run on a special train packed with journalists, politicians and transportation officials was a milestone in President Barack Obama's vision of bringing high-speed rail to the United States and transforming the way Americans travel. It also was a welcome morale booster for high-speed rail advocates who have watched conservatives in Congress put the brakes on spending for fast train projects they view as expensive boondoggles.

- The silver five-car, two-engine train held the high speeds for about five minutes along a 15-mile stretch of track between the central Illinois cities of Dwight and Pontiac before braking back below its usual top speed of 79 mph. Paying passengers on the route will start experiencing the faster speed on that short segment by Thanksgiving. Most of the route will get the higher speed by 2015. The goal was to hit 110 mph, and for a moment the speedometer that officials were watching ticked up to 111. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn pumped his fist in the air and gave a thumbs-up. He and the other dignitaries cheered, shook hands and congratulated one another.

.....

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Nope, nobody rides the train in the United States. Almost every year this past decade, Amtrak sets ridership records and Republicans still call it 'Soviet-style rail' and Mitt Romney wants to defund not just Big Bird but passenger rail as well.

Amtrak had 31 million passengers in FY 2012.
Latest FAA report
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...20Forecast.pdf
This year’s forecast predicts that the industry will grow from 731 million passengers in 2011 to 1.2 billion in 2032.

Some very basic math:
731 - 31 = 700
731 / 31 = 23.58

Yes, there were 2,358% more airline passengers than Amtrak passengers this past year.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by electricron

Amtrak had 31 million passengers in FY 2012.
Latest FAA report
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...20Forecast.pdf
This year’s forecast predicts that the industry will grow from 731 million passengers in 2011 to 1.2 billion in 2032.

Some very basic math:
731 - 31 = 700
731 / 31 = 23.58

Yes, there were 2,358% more airline passengers than Amtrak passengers this past year.

I am very familiar with the FAA's annual forecast. Approximately 30% of the 731M passengers are connecting passengers, so they are essentially double-counted (i.e. if you're going from LAX to Boston via O'Hare, LAX - ORD counts as one enplanement and ORD - BOS counts as another enplanement). This significantly inflates the number of passengers compared to other modes.

Second, many of the 731M annual passengers have part or all of their trip on a regional airline. This overcounts the number of aviation passengers compared to rail. A passenger might go from Tucson to Phoenix on a regional airline and and then connect at Phoenix to Seattle on a mainline incumbent airline. Again, this counts as two enplanements. One the otherhand, if someone took Metro North from Westchester Co. to Penn Station and then Amtrak from NYC to DC, this is one intercity passenger rail trip and not two boardings like you'd have with the aviation passenger.

Finally, FAA's annual budget is approximately $15B each year, with about 30% of that coming from the general fund. Amtrak's annual budget from the federal government is about $1B per year.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

I am very familiar with the FAA's annual forecast. Approximately 30% of the 731M passengers are connecting passengers, so they are essentially double-counted (i.e. if you're going from LAX to Boston via O'Hare, LAX - ORD counts as one enplanement and ORD - BOS counts as another enplanement). This significantly inflates the number of passengers compared to other modes.

Second, many of the 731M annual passengers have part or all of their trip on a regional airline. This overcounts the number of aviation passengers compared to rail. A passenger might go from Tucson to Phoenix on a regional airline and and then connect at Phoenix to Seattle on a mainline incumbent airline. Again, this counts as two enplanements. One the otherhand, if someone took Metro North from Westchester Co. to Penn Station and then Amtrak from NYC to DC, this is one intercity passenger rail trip and not two boardings like you'd have with the aviation passenger.

Finally, FAA's annual budget is approximately $15B each year, with about 30% of that coming from the general fund. Amtrak's annual budget from the federal government is about $1B per year.

Assuming you are correct, lets take 30% off the 731 million passengers to account for connections and the resulting over count. That's still 511.7 million passengers.
More math:
731 x 0.7 = 511.7
511 / 31 = 16.48
Now 1648% more passengers.

Using your numbers $1 Billion for Amtrak and $15 Billion for FAA, it appears the FAA is under funded. Airlines get 16.48 times more passengers, but only get 15 times more money.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by electricron

Assuming you are correct, lets take 30% off the 731 million passengers to account for connections and the resulting over count. That's still 511.7 million passengers.
More math:
731 x 0.7 = 511.7
511 / 31 = 16.48
Now 1648% more passengers.

Using your numbers $1 Billion for Amtrak and $15 Billion for FAA, it appears the FAA is under funded. Airlines get 16.48 times more passengers, but only get 15 times more money.

As I've said above, you're doing 'War of the modes' and comparing commercial aviation passengers vs Amtrak passengers, then you should also properly include regional commuter rail in this. A passenger with an hour flight from Akron OH to Reagan National is counted as one passenger but a passenger who takes an hour trip from Fredericksburg, VA, to DC on VRE isn't counted as an intercity rail passenger. A better count is to compare the total number of intercity rail passengers (whether on Amtrak or the various commuter rail) with aviation passengers.

[202_Cyclist]

Let's not forget as well that in 2010, more federal money was spent on highways in one year than has been spent on Amtrak during its forty year history combined. Decade after decade after decade of favoring one mode over another will affect travel patterns.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

As I've said above, you're doing 'War of the modes' and comparing commercial aviation passengers vs Amtrak passengers, then you should also properly include regional commuter rail in this. A passenger with an hour flight from Akron OH to Reagan National is counted as one passenger but a passenger who takes an hour trip from Fredericksburg, VA, to DC on VRE isn't counted as an intercity rail passenger. A better count is to compare the total number of intercity rail passengers (whether on Amtrak or the various commuter rail) with aviation passengers.

Since when has Amtrak subsidize commuter rail passengers? Since when do airlines provide commuter air services (Brooklyn to Manhattan)? Let's keep this discussion to intercity passengers because that's what both services do.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by electricron

Since when has Amtrak subsidize commuter rail passengers? Since when do airlines provide commuter air services (Brooklyn to Manhattan)? Let's keep this discussion to intercity passengers because that's what both services do.

If we're counting all commercial aviation passengers vs. intercity rail passengers, then it is fair to include people commuting from Westchester to NYC on Metro North or Fredericksburg to DC on VRE if we're also going to count the short-hop 40 minute flights such as Albany-LaGuardia or Harrisburgh -DCA.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by electricron

Since when has Amtrak subsidize commuter rail passengers? Since when do airlines provide commuter air services (Brooklyn to Manhattan)? Let's keep this discussion to intercity passengers because that's what both services do.

The short-haul 45 minute flights on the 50-seat regional jets or turboprops could roughly be thought of as similar to serving a commuter rail function if we are trying to compare rail vs. aviation passengers. I also wasn't talking about Brooklyn to Manhattan and never said such a thing. I am talking about commutes such as New Haven - Manhattan or Fredericksburg - DC, 50 to 70 mile commutes that would be ignored looking at a comparison using Amtrak's 31M annual passengers vs the 530M annual origin/destination commercial aviation passengers.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

The short-haul 45 minute flights on the 50-seat regional jets or turboprops could roughly be thought of as similar to serving a commuter rail function if we are trying to compare rail vs. aviation passengers. I also wasn't talking about Brooklyn to Manhattan and never said such a thing. I am talking about commutes such as New Haven - Manhattan or Fredericksburg - DC, 50 to 70 mile commutes that would be ignored looking at a comparison using Amtrak's 31M annual passengers vs the 530M annual origin/destination commercial aviation passengers.

Are you suggesting Amtrak trains don't stop in New Haven and Fredericksburg?

While I'm sure commuter rail agencies at these towns attract far more passengers than Amtrak, it's a fact they don't receive any Federal subsidies. So, when it comes to costs for the Federal taxpayer, they and their riders shouldn't count at the Federal level. If we want to account for them as well, let's add their costs on top of the Federal $1 Billion Amtrak subsidy. It just wouldn't be fair to include their ridership without including their costs.

I provided the Federal subsidies, and the Amtrak and FAA ridership figures.
I'll let you find all the costs and ridership for all the commuter, light rail, and metro rail agencies in America.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Google let me edit my HSR...map...

Trunk lines or High Speed lines up to 220mph+ , Between 125-220mph
Northeast Corridor , Upgraded to 220mph
Keystone Corridor , upgraded to 125mph
Knowledge Corridor , upgraded to 125mph
Hudson Xpress , upgraded to 160mph
Wilmington NEC Bypass , Proposed , speeds up to 165mph
Inland NEC option , Proposed , Speeds up to 220mph
Center City Tunnel , Proposed , Speeds up 145mph
Downtown Baltimore Tunnel , Proposed , Speeds up to 145mph
Long Island Northeast Corridor , Proposed , Speeds up to 150mph
The Montrealer Express , Proposed , Speeds up to 150mph
The New Yorker Express , Proposed , Speeds up to 190mph

Intercity or Feeder lines , Speeds between 75-125mph
The Eastern Express , Proposed , Speeds up to 125mph
North - South Tunnel , Proposed , speeds up to 80mph
Milford Branch , Proposed , Speeds up to 90mph
Berkshire Express , Proposed , Speeds up to 135mph
Lehigh Express , Proposed , Speeds up to 125mph
Downstate Corridor , Proposed , Speeds up to 125mph
Lackawanna Express , Proposed , Speeds up to 100mph
Northwest Express , Proposed , Speeds up to 125mph

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid...1899,26.784668

[Nexis4Jersey]

• Video Link

[202_Cyclist]

Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9 poll: I-4 voters wanted high-speed rail

By Aaron Sharockman
Tampa Bay Times
Sunday, October 28, 2012

"A majority of I-4 corridor voters did not like Florida Gov. Rick Scott's decision to cancel plans for a high-speed rail line that would have linked Tampa and Orlando, according to a new Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9/Central Florida 13 poll.

Fifty-one percent said Scott should not have rejected $2.4 billion in federal money to construct the rail line, compared to 39 percent who supported Scott's decision and 10 percent who were unsure.

Scott said the project would cost state taxpayers too much over the long term..."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/transpo...cle1258458.ece

[northbay]

Good. Hopefully that means he won't be reelected!

[electricron]

Originally Posted by northbay

Good. Hopefully that means he won't be reelected!

While I'll admit that $2.4 Billion for constructing the Tampa to Orlando high speed rail was coming from the Feds, who knows how much money the State would have had to chip in eventually to run and maintain those trains? Tampa to Orlando is around 80 miles.
Meanwhile, FEC is proposing 240 miles of higher speed rail for the 230-240 miles between Orlando and Miami. FEC plans to build, run, and maintain these trains without State subsidies.

Without trying to suggest which train will eventually be better 20 to 30 years hence, the cost differential between the two trains are enormous. $2.4 Billion over 80 miles is $300 Million per mile, while $1.2 Billion over 230 miles is $5 Million per mile. Even if you take in consideration that FHSR was laying double tracks for a total of 160 miles, it's still $150 Million per mile of track. Also, take in consideration that FEC has suggested they'll be laying around 300 miles of new track for their All Aboard Florida project, not 230 miles of track.

Again, the cost differential is significantly different between laying tracks for a 110 to 125 mph vs 180-200 mph trains. Is it really worth the additional expense to have much faster trains?

[JordanL]

What's the status of the PNW corridor?

Washington approved a bunch of money for it, but ODOT and WDOT were talking about building a new alignment for a 150+mph service between Vancouver, BC and Eugene, OR.