The terrain between Cincinnati and Louisville is relentlessly undulatings

 

As long as this is "fantasy" we can put terrain concerns aside.  As I said above, the Europeans overcome their terrain concerns.  They are just willing to spend money to overcome them where we are not (unless, of course, it's a highway, then we WILL spend the money).  It's expensive, but doable.   The same goes for urban obstacles such as those mentioned in Cincy by jmecklenborg.

 

Regarding Cleveland-- as far as freight goes, Cleveland is within ~500 miles of about 1/2 of the population of North America.  That makes it an excellent location for a freight hub. 

Exactly. The same applies to Pittsburgh-Philly. Interstates are built thru difficult areas, so can high speed rail. Also, some areas will be slower, no question. You won't be going 185 mph in a lot of places. That's just the top speed.

Uncle Rando-  Re:  the new map, what do you think of Cleveland-Buffalo-Boston (basically an upgrade of the Lakeshore Limited route?)

Uncle Rando-  Re:  the new map, what do you think of Cleveland-Buffalo-Boston (basically an upgrade of the Lakeshore Limited route?)

 

There is nothing wrong with that route except it is about a mirror of the Cleveland - Pitt - Philly - NYC - Boston route that I drew on.  The route I suggested would hit a greater population, and would use better existing tracks.  With the route you talk about you are only gaining Buffalo into the equation for that whole route...and save a little time.

What's my idea high-speed rail network?

 

One that exists in the USA.

Come on KJP...I know you have thought about it before.  Share your thoughts with us...throw down a quick map of your routes/corridors.  I would love to hear your insights!

OK, here's one I did a while ago (I even posted in on UO about a year or two ago). It uses a "trunk line" to reduce construction costs to about $100 billion yet produces many city-pair travel markets. The trunk line and the red branches would be engineered for 200-mph IC3 or LGV technologies. The blue lines would be diesel or hybrid powered trains would operate at anywhere from 79 to 125 mph.

 

 

As for running true high-speed trains through the Alleghenies, consider these images from Europe...

 

 

 

 

A 205-mph IC3 on the new Koln-Frankfurt line...

 

 

 

Man..those European images look FANTASTIC!  I could only dream that one day we have passenger rail like this in the states.

I'd love to see and ride that Euro stuff. One of these days...I'll go there...I might not come back~!!! :wink:

There is nothing wrong with that route except it is about a mirror of the Cleveland - Pitt - Philly - NYC - Boston route that I drew on.  The route I suggested would hit a greater population, and would use better existing tracks.  With the route you talk about you are only gaining Buffalo into the equation for that whole route...and save a little time.

 

Well, I was also thinking Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, and possibly Toronto (split off at Buffalo.)  That's more population than central PA, and the tracks run along flat lake plains and rivers the whole way.  In my opinion, it would be good to have both lines.

anything that gets me from cleveland to chicago in less time than Amtrak's 7 hours.

If you augment this system with the freight component then cleveland become the midwest hub,and chicago becomes the access hub to the west.

Generaly speaking the system would be 60% supported by the rail freight carriers.

:-o :-D

If  you've wondered why a bill like the current US Senate Bill-294 is important to the development of passenger rail here in Ohio, consider the testimony delivered recently by a good friend of mine, Gene Skoropowski, the Managing Director of the California Capital Corridors commuter rail system.  Consider also what California has accomplished as a whole with their redevelopment of passenger rail was done entirely on their own dime and, as Gene points out, in one of the most perceived auto-dependent states in our nation.

 

Note that he references Ohio.

 

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission

February 21 & 22, 2007

Los Angeles, California

Field Hearing

 

Submitted Testimony of

Eugene K. Skoropowski

Managing Director

Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA)

Oakland, California

February 21, 2007

 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Commission today.  My name is Eugene K. Skoropowski and I am the Managing Director of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) based in Oakland, California.  I have been in this position for nearly eight years, and I have nearly forty years experience in railroad construction, operations, and maintenance.  Virtually all of my railroad experience is in the provision of passenger rail service. 

 

The CCJPA is a special purposes district covering 8 counties in Northern California.  The member agencies are six transit districts stretching over a 170 mile long major rail corridor owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and interconnecting three major metropolitan areas: San Jose, Oakland/San Francisco, and Sacramento.  The purpose of the CCJPA is the management, improvement and expansion of intercity passenger rail service along this route.  Today, I will address all three California intercity rail services.

 

The Capitol Corridor is one of three state-supported intercity passenger rail corridors.  The three are the Pacific Surfliner route in Southern and Central California, connecting San Diego-Los Angeles-Santa Barbara- San Luis Obispo; the Capitol Corridor just mentioned; and the San Joaquin route, connecting our Central Valley from Bakersfield to Fresno-Modesto-Stockton to Sacramento and Oakland. This intra-state intercity passenger network is operated by Amtrak and includes dedicated connecting buses that extend service coverage to virtually all parts of California, urban, suburban and rural.  This integrated network connects to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, and has provided our people, and people who visit here with a real travel choice in moving around our state.

 

This statewide passenger rail system did not ‘just happen’.  The voters of California in 1990 approved propositions that established the intercity passenger rail program, and authorized billions of dollars to build it.  To date, the State has invested more than $1.7 billion of its own capital funds to build this system, and it has take 15 years to build it.  California has ‘delivered’ what the voters mandated.  Last November (2006), California voters approved an additional $400 million to continue to expand this intercity passenger rail program.

 

The results are quite ‘eye-opening’.  In 1990, California had only a handful of Amtrak trains, almost all longer distance national network trains tying our state to the rest of the country.  Today, three of Amtrak’s top five busiest routes are in California.  After the busy Northeast Corridor, the Pacific Surfliner is the nation’s second busiest Amtrak route, the Capitol Corridor is the third busiest, and the San Joaquin route is fifth busiest, and soon could overtake New York’s Empire Corridor as the fourth busiest.

 

Although it is not recognized in Washington, or in most other parts of the country, California now generates 20% of all the riders on the Amtrak system.  This has happened not because Washington or Amtrak provided a funding source to help us to build what we have, but because Californians decided for themselves at the ballot box that intercity passenger rail was a worthwhile investment, and that intercity passenger rail must become an integrated part of our state’s transportation system.  I know from contacts with our sister states all across the country, that sentiments are the same in almost every state. 

 

California’s intercity passenger rail network has continued to grow, year after year, because of the availability of capital funding.  California owns its own fleet of passenger cars and locomotives.  We operate the cleanest diesels available.  We have a constructive working relationship with the private, host railroads over which our services operate, primarily Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF Railway.  We have made significant investments for the provision of our passenger services, and the freight railroads and California’s ports have also benefited from these public capital investments.

 

To sustain this intercity rail program, the state provides $75 million per year in operating support for these three Amtrak-operated services.  This operating support has not increased in the last 6 years, yet passenger use of all three services has skyrocketed.  In the case of the Capitol Corridor, the state provided funding support in 2001 to increase our frequency from 14 to 18 daily trains.  We currently operate 32 daily trains on our trunk between Sacramento and Oakland, the same frequency as the much-touted Northeast Corridor between Boston and New York, with 14 trains extending to/from San Jose.  The increase from 18 to 32 trains has been self-financed from passenger revenue growth.  This was only able to be done, however, because of the initial; capital investments made by the state. 

 

Our state has established a goal of achieving 50% farebox recovery from passengers of the annual operating costs of our intercity service, and all three services are now accomplishing that goal, and the share borne by the riders is increasing annually as ridership and revenue continue to grow.  There were 463,000 riders on the Capitol Corridor in 1998.  Today there are more than 1,302,000.   We have also implemented many unique-to-California travel ‘assists’ to riders to provide flexible travel options, by partnering with our state’s regional transit operators.  In Southern California, the Metrolink-Amtrak Rail-to-Rail flexible ticketing program allows riders to use multiple services on a single ticket.  In Northern California, the Transit Transfer program allows passengers on our Amtrak-operated trains to connect ‘free’ to local transit operations.

 

Clearly, California has ‘delivered’ what the voters mandated back in 1990, and what the voters reaffirmed last November.  However, even California cannot continue to make 100% of the capital investments in passenger rail ourselves.  We need a federal partner for these capital investments, the same way that we have a federal funding ‘partner’ for our highways, public transit, waterways & ports, airports and air traffic control systems, etc.  The only component of our nation’s transportation system that has no federal matching program for capital investment is intercity passenger rail service.  An excellent report on this issue was prepared and published by AASHTO in 2002, but has received far too little recognition, and no action.

 

If there is any message I want to deliver to you today, it is to please work to establish a federal capital matching program for states to develop, expand, and improve intercity passenger rail.  It is our belief that such a federal matching program, on a par with highways (an 80% federal share and 20% state/local share) will generate nationwide development of this form of travel choice for our country.  California and our sister states are just waiting for Washington to act on this, as the people are supportive, from coast-to-coast.  Just look at the systems of transport already developed largely because of federal matching programs for them.

 

I do ask, that in setting up a federal matching program, please to not penalize California and our sister states that have ‘gone it alone’ and invested 100% state dollars in successful intercity passenger rail systems.  We did it because our voters said they wanted it, even though there was no federal matching program.  Please allow us credit as ‘state match’, for the federal capital share we would need to match once a federal funding program is in place.

 

And please, do not let the ‘nay-sayers’ tell you that Americans will not ride trains.  If here in California, the automobile capital of the planet, we can entice drivers out of their cars and onto trains, think of what can happen in Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia and all across America, and possibly even in Texas.

 

The President has called for reducing our dependence on oil.  The scientists say we are polluting the air, mostly with auto exhaust, and this is accelerating climate change on our planet.  Intercity passenger rail can provide a travel option that does not exist for many Americans, and it is a travel option that is environmentally responsible, improves mobility and helps reduce our oil consumption. 

 

If I can digress for a moment, I’d like to give you real-world examples from two Capitol Corridor riders that underscore the importance of our intercity passenger rail services.  Robert Conheim, from Auburn, California, stated that before he started taking the Capitol Corridor train regularly in 2001 to Sacramento, he drove.  He racked up 30,000 miles per year on his car just making this regular trip.  Since 2001, riding the train, he chalks up barely 3,000 miles per year on his car IN TOTAL.  If we are to heed the President’s call for reducing our oil dependency, passenger trains are one sure-fire way to do it.

 

Anne Lawrence, a professor at San Jose State University showed up unannounced one day at my office bearing a large gift.  She said, “you don’t know me, but what you have done has saved my job and my sanity.  You added an additional morning train to San Jose that allows me to give up driving on Interstate 880.”  (I-880 is the main artery from Oakland to San Jose, and is known for its trucks and hopeless congestion during weekday peak travel periods).  She presented our office with an assortment of coffee for our staff as a ‘thank you’ for simply doing what we have been charged to do.  This illustrates how important passenger rail is and can be to the quality of life of our people.

 

Washington folks need to understand how much intercity passenger rail service means to the people of this country, and how supportive they are of its expansion and improvement.  I hope I have conveyed some of that understanding to you today, based on our actual experience here in California.  Thank you.  I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

 

Testimony to be delivered today on the bill that would greatly enable the Ohio Hub Plan to move from concept to reality.

 

S.294, The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007

 

Testimony of Frank J. Busalacchi

Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Chair, States for Passenger Rail Coalition

to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure,

Safety and Security of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

 

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

 

 

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Smith and distinguished Senators, my name is Frank Busalacchi.  I am Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Chair of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition. 

 

I am also a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. The National Commission is working to construct a new 50-year vision for the nation’s transportation system.  We are in the midst of our deliberations and my comments do not represent the views of the National Commission.  Every Commissioner is working to keep an open mind on all issues. 

 

I appreciate this opportunity to share my comments on passenger rail issues and Senate Bill 294.  This bill is an important first step in creating a passenger rail program to meet the mobility needs of the public.

 

 

Wisconsin passenger rail initiatives

 

Let me begin by focusing on Wisconsin.  As Secretary of Wisconsin DOT, I know firsthand that the American public is clamoring for expansion of passenger rail services. 

 

Our state provides financial support to Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service, which operates in the busy Milwaukee to Chicago corridor.  Since 1989, we have committed almost $100 million in capital and operating support for existing and future Amtrak service in Wisconsin.  This includes annual operating support, new or renovated stations, rail corridor acquisition, crossing improvements, and planning studies.

 

• Wisconsin has worked in partnership with the state of Illinois to provide annual operating support for Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service.  Our state provided approximately $6.5 million last year.  Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has proposed another $500,000 in his 2007-09 biennial budget to add a car to each train, since many of the trains are so popular they now have standing-room only for a 90-minute trip.

 

• Our state has also undertaken three major station development projects for Hiawatha Service customers.  In 2005, we opened a new passenger rail station at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport.  In 2006, the village of Sturtevant replaced a 100-year-old station with a brand new facility.  Later this year, we will finish a $16 million renovation of the downtown Milwaukee station. This public-private partnership will provide a new multimodal facility for Amtrak trains and Greyhound buses, along with commercial development opportunities.

 

• Wisconsin has also invested funds to look to the future. Our state has conducted an environmental assessment of a project to expand service from Milwaukee to Madison and has received a federal Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). We have invested funds to purchase and preserve a portion of the rail corridor for this future extension.

 

The public has responded to all of these investments.  Last year, Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service carried 588,000 passengers – a 48 percent increase in just five years.

 

Now, the public wants more.  With Amtrak providing excellent service from Chicago to Milwaukee and with engineering plans on the shelf and ready to go, the demand is strong to expand service another 90 miles to Madison. 

 

Madison is ripe for passenger rail service.  It is the state capital, home to the University of Wisconsin, and it boasts a metro population of 450,000 that is highly supportive of alternative transportation options.

 

Wisconsin is also looking to this service as a way to provide energy efficient transportation that can help reduce our nation’s dependency on foreign oil. Intercity passenger rail uses 17 to 18 percent less energy per passenger mile than commercial air travel or personal auto travel, according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

 

Wisconsin has already committed $48 million in bonding authority towards this service.  Governor Doyle has proposed increasing this to a total of $80 million in state bonding authority as a 20 percent match toward future federal funds for the Madison extension. Unfortunately, no program exists to provide federal funding, and Wisconsin simply cannot undertake these projects on its own.

 

 

National passenger rail initiatives

 

Wisconsin is not alone in this predicament.  The States for Passenger Rail Coalition represents 28 states that support intercity rail service around the country. Many states share Wisconsin’s experience and frustration regarding passenger rail service.

 

Virtually all of Amtrak’s ridership gains over the past several years have come through state-sponsored services. 

 

• Fourteen states provide annual operating support for Amtrak intercity corridor services.

 

• These state-supported services account for 35 percent of Amtrak’s daily ridership and about half of all passenger trains in the system.

 

• State-supported services such as Pennsylvania’s Keystone Service, Illinois’ Chicago to St. Louis trains, the Downeaster in Maine, and Oklahoma’s Heartland Flyer have joined Wisconsin’s Hiawatha Service in realizing double-digit percentage increases in ridership.

 

• A GAO  report from this past November notes that total ridership on the state-supported corridor routes increased by 18 percent from 2002 through 2005, while ridership growth on other parts of the system remained relatively flat.

 

From Washington to Florida, from New York to California and everywhere in between, states have committed hundreds of millions of dollars for short-term, incremental improvements that have fueled the growth in Amtrak ridership. States have completed environmental analyses, put plans on the shelf, and have passengers ready to board the trains. Around the nation, 35 states have developed intercity passenger rail plans.

 

 

The support for S294

 

What’s missing is a strong federal partner to make it happen.  That’s why I am grateful to Senator Lautenberg for introducing S294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007.

 

This legislation will stabilize Amtrak with necessary operating funds for the next six years. The bill provides $6.3 billion for Amtrak to implement capital projects, including those on the Northeast Corridor.  It also lays the basic framework for Amtrak to work in partnership with the states on an 80/20 federal-state share to implement regional capital projects.

 

Both the Wisconsin DOT and the States for Passenger Rail Coalition endorse S294 as an initial step to bring fast, reliable and energy-efficient passenger rail service to a public that is demanding mobility options.

 

 

The needs beyond S294

 

While S294 is a good start, it does not contain the funding necessary to meet states’ needs around the country. Of the $6.3 billion in capital funds, state-sponsored projects are eligible to receive only $1.4 billion.  Under provisions of the bill, the most available to fund a single project in a given year is about $400 million. Wisconsin’s Milwaukee to Madison project will require $400 million alone. 

 

A recent AASHTO  report identified $17 billion of needs in the near term for rail capital projects across the nation, including $10.4 billion of needs for state-based corridors.

 

• In all, the AASHTO report identified nearly $60 billion in needed passenger rail capital investment over the next 20 years in the country, including for basic Amtrak system needs.

 

• The November GAO report reiterated that the state-supported services are the most time and cost competitive for passengers, but these corridors face capacity constraints and long-term funding issues for capital needs.

 

Therefore, as the Senate moves ahead on S294, I respectfully ask this committee to continue its efforts to provide a dedicated passenger rail capital program to fund the nation’s rail needs.  The federal government provides this support for highways – it is needed for passenger rail as well.  S294 includes provisions that could make it happen – stabilization of Amtrak, support for the Northeast Corridor, and the beginnings of an 80/20 capital investment program for state initiatives.

 

The States for Passenger Rail Coalition (SPRC) is willing to work with the Senate and the House to help craft legislation that will fully support the needs of our nation.

 

• SPRC supports HR-1631, the Railroad Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (RIDE-21) that provides $12 billion in tax credit bonding authority for states to use on corridor projects.

 

• SPRC also supported past legislation, including S1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005, the predecessor to S294, though the $1.4 billion in this bill for state corridor grants did not fully address the national needs.

 

• SPRC members call for balance in the federal transportation funding programs.  Only 4 percent of federal transportation dollars are dedicated to rail programs, yet rail provides incredible potential to carry millions of passengers on energy-efficient and time-competitive services in corridors of national significance. 

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, I want to again thank Chairman Lautenberg and the S-294 co-sponsors for recognizing what we in the states have seen first-hand – the demand for fast, efficient train service by our citizens.  Working together, the states and the federal government can provide the mobility options that intercity rail can bring to our citizens. 

 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I appreciate your attention and look forward to answering your questions. 

 

Just get me a nice intracontinental high-speed rail system.

And if you can, please put in some decent intrastate systems too, so I can spare myself the 3 hour lockup on the freeways each day. -_-

^maybe you shouldn't have lived 3 hours from your job.

^maybe you shouldn't have lived 3 hours from your job.

 

Reread post please.

 

In LOCKED traffic.  Meaning, traffic jams and too many cars on the freeway.  Thanks to those delays it took 3 hours.  Sure I also took other routes, but a lot of them were just as clogged as the freeways.

^maybe you shouldn't have lived 3 hours from your job.

 

Reread post please.

 

In LOCKED traffic.  Meaning, traffic jams and too many cars on the freeway.  Thanks to those delays it took 3 hours.  Sure I also took other routes, but a lot of them were just as clogged as the freeways.

 

maybe you shouldn't have lived a 3 hours commute from your job

 

you're just splitting hairs now.

 

A 205-mph IC3 on the new Koln-Frankfurt line...

 

 

I was on that very train about a year ago. They have a speedometer in each passenger compartment. The one I was on said it went up to 201-mph. I didn't know it maxed out at 205. I kinda feel let down. We were 4-mph away from top speed! C'mon! Why not bury the needle?  :-D

The entire SB 294 hearing can be viewed via the following link:

 

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=1821

Great catch tt342998 !!!  But for some reason, it won't open.  It does, however, provide the text for all of the testimony.

I'll be riding Koln-Frankfurt in May -- first on the old line down the Rhine valley, then coming back on the new line shown earlier. I'll also be riding on Eurostar and Thalys. I suspect I will enjoy the rides....

Witnesses at this hearing included:

 

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell,

FRA Administrator Joseph Boardman,

Amtrak CEO Alex Kummant,

Wisconsin DOT Secretary Frank Busalacchi, and

Oregon DOT Rail Administrator Kelly Taylor.

 

I wonder what Boardman had to say? 

Boardman's comments are posted at:

 

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1821&Witness_ID=4596

I'll be riding Koln-Frankfurt in May -- first on the old line down the Rhine valley, then coming back on the new line shown earlier. I'll also be riding on Eurostar and Thalys. I suspect I will enjoy the rides....

 

I suspect I will enjoy your pictures

^you will KJP.  That's for sure.  I've only ever ridden on Italy's system which isn't as fast as France or Germany's, but the ride is still smooth, comfortable and fast. 

 

Visiting Europe, however, ruined me.  The vibrant, walkable city centers, easy to use public transit, being able to so easily get around without a car.  So much of America imprisons you in a car it makes me want to scream sometimes. 

 

A couple of years ago, I was in Lourdes, France (for reasons beyond my control, I didn't ride any trains, there, unfortunately).  The one thing I noticed the most was a complete lack of a the constant low-level din of traffic noise in the background that I've heard all my life in the US no matter where I've lived (which has always been in Ohio).  Car traffic was so light (comparatively) in the city it was unbelievable. 

 

Of course this isn't true everywhere in Europe, (Rome, for example is the noisiest city in Europe and it certainly lives up to that reputation) but Lourdes, even with the hordes of tourists (of which I was one), was, well, quiet.

 

 

 

Sorry, you will need Real Player to play the senate hearing.  Below is a link to the audio/video archives.  At the bottom of the page is a link to download the player (it is free to download and free to use).  While the testimony is great, the Q & A session that follows the witness testimony is very interesting to hear.

 

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.AudioVideo

^just scanned through quickly, nothing noteworthy.  He dissed much of the bill and parroted the Administration line about how Amtrak has drifted from its mandate to be a for-profit corporation, etc, etc.  ad nauseum.  They are so clueless.  No common carrier passenger system is profitable when all costs are considered.  Amtrak has costs like infrastructure, maintenance-of-way employees, police officers, etc that no other common-carrier passenger company has and they expect them to make a profit? 

 

I could go on, but won't...

I realize that the Europeans have more of a critical mass for their rail system, but is their rail profitable?  It's sort of apples to oranges because of the way we've decided to build our cities and highways, but I'm still curious.

Don't know about profitability, but Europeans generally view rail service as an entitlement and the obligation of government to make sure the systems work well.  But the biggest advantage that much of Europe had is that they got an almost entirely new rail infrastructure post-1945.... courtesy of the U.S. Army Air Corps and the RAF Bomber Command.

 

We, on the other hand, still function with a rail infrastructure that dates back to the first railroads in North America.  Even our own Civil War only destroyed that portion that lay South of the Mason-Dixon Line, and that was rapidly replaced after the war. 

 

It's not a bad system of rail corridors, but the biggest problem is that the system has atrophied, especially over the last 30 years.  Much of this was due to economic forces within the rail industry.  But the shrinkage has been especially dramatic in Ohio.  In 1968, Ohio had over 9,800 miles of active rail lines and we ranked 5th in the United States in that category.  Today we are still ranked 5th, but with barely 6,000 miles of active track.

 

The shrinkage has come at precisely the time that demand for moving both people and freight has boomed.  You wanna talk critical mass.... we've got it and the need to do something about it is right now.

As much as we love to love the European rail system, it's the passenger system that's worth envying. By comparison, Europeans envy our freight rail system which is one of, if not the world's best. Just today I got a copy of a speech comparing Europe's freight rail system to ours. It's amazing what we take for granted.

It doesn't matter if the trains make money, when was the last time I-75 made a dollar, it is a money pit to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, and if the counter argument is well I-75 spurs economic development, then the trains get to add that benefit as well.

 

Highways are free goods, free goods hurt free markets.

^ That was the direction that I was heading.  If passenger rail isn't profitable in Europe, then it probably will never be profitable here.  What we're left with is questions like those from the Senate panel who will keep cutting Amtrak's funding until it becomes profitable.  It's a downward spiral of logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUVsJ3MjoP4

 

Not to poop too much on the party, but this video illustrates what I've been talking about, that these trains must crawl out of the cities on existing tracks, sacraficing huge amounts of time that could be avoided by building stations in outer locations.  Any fantasy high speed alignment can't ignore these issues without becoming totally useless. 

 

 

However, this video illustrates what's possible for flat areas like the midwest (I believe this video is from a speed trial, but nevertheless 200mph is pretty damn fast):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih3-2v3FA_M

 

This video however illustrates just how difficult it would be for high speed rail to traverse Pennsylvania.  Sure, a more or less perfectly straight and virtually level route could be built with scores of cuts, tunnels, and bridges, but where between 100 and 200mph average speed does the greatest cost/benefit lie?  And where would a Pittsburgh station be located?  Downtown Pittburgh would be as tough to reach with high speed rail as SF or New York City. 

 

Another stumble I found was the Cincinnati > Dayton > Toledo > Detroit alignment, which is only about 25 miles longer than Cincinnati > Columbus > Toledo > Detroit.  At 200mph that goes by in just 10 minutes.  Bypassing Dayton denies them the easy service to Toledo and Detroit but saves about 130 miles of track. 

 

 

 

 

So let's ban cigarette smoking in public places, but not deal with pollutants from SUVs and other vehicles. America -- what a country!

Not running HSR into cities is like not putting aqueducts into farms in arid regions. A high-density mode like HSR needs the population density of core cities and the convenience of easily connecting to hubs of local transportation. Without this direct access, high-speed would offer no convenience or speed advantage over flying to airports outside of European cities.

 

Even so, "crawling" into city centers is a relative term. I'll be able to report on this more accurately in a couple of months, but I've watched videos taken from the cab of high-speed trains, and once they clear the throat trackage at stations, they seem to accelerate to more than 100 mph in a couple of miles from the main station. Many conventional rail lines in Europe routinely accommodate 100+ mph trains. That's the benefit of steel-wheel/steel-rail HSR -- it can penetrate urban centers on existing tracks, or where only a first phase or two of HSR route has been built, the high-speed train can revert back to conventional tracks to reach their final destinations. In the case of the TGV system, a small portion of it is on new, dedicated HSR right of way. The rest uses existing routes where the cruising speeds are 100-140 mph.

 

Normally, I respect your knowledge, JM. But putting a city's only HSR station on the outskirts of that city is a lousy idea. I'm surprised to hear such comments from you.

Another stumble I found was the Cincinnati > Dayton > Toledo > Detroit alignment, which is only about 25 miles longer than Cincinnati > Columbus > Toledo > Detroit.  At 200mph that goes by in just 10 minutes.  Bypassing Dayton denies them the easy service to Toledo and Detroit but saves about 130 miles of track.

 

I agree with what KJP said, you seem to be VERY knowledgeable on this topic...and to say that it is more productive to have stations on the outskirts on cities is surprising to hear from you.

 

I would also argue that it would be a MAJOR mistake to build HSR from Cincy to Detroit and not include Dayton.  Now if there is some kind of line that connects both Cincy and Dayton then fine, but there HAS to be some kind of passenger rail connection between the two.  I'm hoping that is what your saying, connect with the CCC line, but not with another.  Dayton surely does not need to be a hub, just needs to be connected with Cincy and Cbus.

Here are a couple regional ideas I had after thinking more about the I-75 Cincinnati > Detroit line.  I combined the Cincy > Dayton and Cincy > Columbus routes into one route and then Dayton and Columbus share the same trackage north to Toledo/Detroit with a major junction near Springfield.  This situation only adds 10 miles to Cincy > Dayton which adds only 3~ minutes at 200mph.  I suppose there could be both Cincinnati > Detroit trains that stop at Dayton and some which blow past it south of I-675, saving 20~ minutes.  This idea eliminates 80 or so miles of track by removing the Cincinnati > Columbus line but it also makes Columbus the terminus of the Detroit run instead of a midpoint.   

 

 

 

This graphic makes the argument for a Cincinnati > Louisville run across southeast Indiana, assuming lines are built from Indianapolis to Louisville and Cincinnati.  With a 30 mile link the train would at the very least be competitive time-wise with an I-71 route if not faster, and obviously 30 miles of track across flat corn fields is much less expensive than 80 through the hills of Kentucky.  From my arm chair I'm guessing that a line through Kentucky couldn't average more than 100mph whereas the Indiana route could run at top speed the entire time.   

 

BTW red shows the slow-running approaches to the cities and obviously an approach to Cincinnati is a toss-up since there are a half dozen equally problematic ones to choose from. 

 

 

Lastly I'm not proposing suburban stations for all cities, just Pittsburgh and Cincinnati.  There's no way for speeds over 40mph within 10~ miles of either downtown, entering or exiting.  So in both cases for through trains there's a 15-20 mile slow zone without major tunnels and viaducts.  I have ridden the TGV, it definitely does not get going faster than 40mph on its 10~ mile run between downtown Paris and Charles de Gaul Airport.  The train gets to top speed quite quickly out of the airport since the line actually swings well north and east of Paris before turning south for Lyon.  Also the approach to Lyon is pretty slow and the station is well away from the city center, sort of like Cincinnati Union Terminal.  There's also a 10~ minute stopover there for a crew change or whatever it is that goes on there.  The TGV network runs on many unimproved branches at under 100mph, there is certainly little high speed running south of Lyon and many local stops toward the Spanish border.         

 

 

 

 

^ That was the direction that I was heading.  If passenger rail isn't profitable in Europe, then it probably will never be profitable here.  What we're left with is questions like those from the Senate panel who will keep cutting Amtrak's funding until it becomes profitable.  It's a downward spiral of logic.

 

Some of the mainlines earn an above-the-rail profit-- the TGV type stuff-- but these same mainlines rely on an extensive network of money-losing regional and feeder routes to feed passengers into them.  As a whole, none of the EU rail systems earn a profit either. 

 

David Gunn testified in Congress that no passenger rail system in the world earns a profit, but as usual, nobody listened to him.  Look at what they are doing now-- tinkering around with the food service to try to save money.  Food service was never a profit center for the privately run passenger trains.  It was a way to entice passengers. 

 

At this point, the only way Amtrak can trim operating costs is if we invest in the infrastructure to raise average speeds and eliminate freight interference.  This would significantly reduce running times and save crew costs, money and hotel rooms Amtrak has to pay for missed connections, etc.  But what does Congress care about?  Food service.  It's like a doctor telling a patient:  what's causing your headaches is a brain tumor.  Take aspirin.

 

 

The newer TGV services like the Atlantique and the line to Marseille, plus the Eurostar/Thalys seemed to have learned from the experience from the first TGV to Lyons. The newer lines appear to enter new trackage must sooner after leaving central Paris. Even so, the running time from Paris to Lyons was fast enough to cause airlines to virtually abandon serving this market.

 

BTW, I have the early 1980s plan for Ohio high speed rail showing how the lines would enter and leave cities like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh (I need to scan its maps someday). Cincinnati was to be accessed by putting the HSR tracks on an elevated right of way past Queensgate Yard to enter CUT. And Pittsburgh is actually pretty easy -- the plan was to use the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie right of way. The P&LE is relatively straight, and was mostly four tracks coming into Pittsburgh along the Ohio River with numerous small and large rail yards that no longer exist. Today, the P&LE (now CSX) has 1-2 main tracks left.

More news on the progress of U.S. Senate Bill 294:

 

Bush administration fights Amtrak funding

Despite White House resistance, senators vow to pass bill providing $3.2 billion a year for system  

 

By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY, Washington bureau

First published: Wednesday, February 28, 2007

 

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration on Tuesday blasted a plan by a group of rail-riding senators to overhaul Amtrak and give the passenger railroad an annual subsidy of $3.2 billion to repair aging lines and start new service.

 

Joseph Boardman, administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, told a Senate Commerce Committee panel that the administration has serious reservations about the proposal and that the federal government must stop subsidizing Amtrak.

 

Giving the railroad more money undermines the incentive for the railroad to become more efficient and businesslike, Boardman told the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security.

 

Read more at:

 

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=567254&category=BUSINESS&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=2/28/2007

 

 

Joseph Boardman, administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, told a Senate Commerce Committee panel that the administration has serious reservations about the proposal and that the federal government must stop subsidizing Amtrak.

 

Giving the railroad more money undermines the incentive for the railroad to become more efficient and businesslike, Boardman told the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security.

 

 

That is the most ridiculous and baseless statement I've ever heard. But it's what I've come to expect from the Bush Administration and the neo-con fringe: profitability through bugdetary amputation.

 

But here is a more reasoned point of view:

 

Utica (NY) Observer-Dispatch

Op-Ed

GET RAIL SERVICE ON TRACK

 

http://www.uticaod.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070226/NEWS05/702260302/1013

 

Gov. Eliot Spitzer has selected Daniel Gundersen to head up a new Empire State Development Corporation effort to look at some creative concepts for reviving Upstate's economic fortunes.

 

The use of the rail system to efficiently move people in an environmentally friendly manner to and through our economic centers has obvious appeal.

 

Rail travel across Upstate New York consists of Amtrak's "Empire Corridor" trains playing cat and mouse with the daily parade of CSX freight trains on their "Chicago Mainline" here in New York. The CSX route is among the nation's busiest freight corridors, funneling valuable freight traffic to Northeastern markets.

 

This freight traffic congestion makes existing Amtrak service along the route through Utica unreliable and expansion of service or faster trains impossible in the future.

 

At one time, the route was a mode-separated railroad with freight and passenger trains on separate tracks to allow for the faster running passenger trains such as the legendary New York to Chicago Twentieth Century Limited. The passenger-only tracks were removed around the time the New York State Thruway was opened, and passenger trains and freight trains have shared the same tracks ever since.

 

If the "Empire Corridor" is to serve as an effective passenger line, the dedicated passenger tracks will have to be put back. Fortunately the CSX right of way remains available for this option provided a funding mechanism and political will come together to invest in the rail passenger system as part of our economic development agenda.

 

Political players in Washington and now Albany are talking of the need to develop comprehensive public policies that are sensitive to the needs of our wounded planet. Recent announcements from the scientific community conference in Paris on global warming also highlighted the need for — and a new found willingness by — governments to take action on carbon emissions. Strategic rail projects (like the Empire Corridor) offer the opportunity to meet these environmental objectives and connect our snappy new Upstate economic centers (cities like Utica) with some snappy new rail service.

 

New federal legislation is once again moving forward to allow state-sponsored rail corridors to apply for funding with the federal government paying 80 percent of the cost of new capital projects. The realigned Congress appears much more likely to actually fund these corridors in view of increasing public sentiment to address our environmental agenda of hope.

 

Let's hope Gundersen and his group seize the opportunity to use the rail system as a connecting network for New Yorkers as part of their revitalization efforts. Should federal rail corridor legislation move forward in Washington with an 80 percent federal participation rate, expect to see an explosion of projects being proposed. Numerous states have already grasped the basic concept of the use of inter-city passenger trains in economic development plans; New York, to date, has not.

 

Ben Gottfried is the Susquehanna Region Coordinator for the Empire State Passengers Association, a New York based passenger rail advocacy group.

 

 

 

I hope people in the Bush Administration don't have children. If they did, I would expect them to say "I will make my children healthy and strong adults through malnutrition, abuse and neglect."

And more... this piece from noted travel writer Arthur Frommer:

 

Feb. 19, 2007, 8:22AM

Pro-oil forces moving against Amtrak again

 

By ARTHUR FROMMER

King Features Syndicate

 

In the world of travel, never underestimate the power of the oil industry. It shapes the way we move about for both recreational and business purposes. And together with its allies in the car industry, it has long ago decided that we should not enjoy the full range of travel possibilities, including mass transit for vacation and holiday purposes.

 

In the late 1940s, companies controlled by General Motors bought up the major streetcar systems of Los Angeles and other California towns, and then put an end to what had been a nonpolluting, profitable and wholly unsubsidized method of popular transportation. In the early 2000s, its representatives in the Bush administration proposed to completely end funding for Amtrak. And this year, in the federal budget just presented to Congress, the administration has proposed to reduce by $100 million the rock-bottom appropriation for Amtrak that Congress voted for last year.

 

The figure proposed for fiscal year 2008 is $800 million -- for all of Amtrak in all the United States. (In a single highway-related, car-related "earmark" that then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert pushed through for a "Prairie Parkway" in his congressional district last year, the sum appropriated was $207 million.) To add insult to injury, the administration's budget proposes that Amtrak adopt a mechanism used by U.S. charities, a "matching grants" campaign that will enable it to receive an additional $100 million if local communities and states make a similar voluntary contribution to Amtrak.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/travel/frommer/4564017.html

I hope people in the Bush Administration don't have children. If they did, I would expect them to say "I will make my children healthy and strong adults through malnutrition, abuse and neglect."

 

I was never a fan of the "what doesn't kill the organization will only make it stronger" management philosophy.

So let's ban cigarette smoking in public places, but not deal with pollutants from SUVs and other vehicles. America -- what a country!

 

i think i've pulled this asinine argument before, but diesel exhaust is on the same great carcinogen list that Second hand smoke is..........

Union Terminal is beyond walking distance of Cincinnati's downtown and all but a few hundred residents and a few dozen low-rise warehouses, this is why its rebirth as a major rail terminal does nothing so far as activating downtown.  Passenger rail out of Cincinnati isn't going to draw any more riders just because of Union Terminal, and the terminal's parking garage has been overtaken by the various museums the building now houses, so that presents a serious problem, since a good chunk of rail riders will want to put their cars in long-term parking just like an airport. 

 

Also the concourse and 8 island platforms were demolished around 1972.  I believe Amtrak currently uses what's not much more than a typical yard track to load passengers out of the denuded back of the building.  Use of the building doesn't make sense for big-time passenger service if multiple 1,000ft. platforms have to be built elevated above the existing rail yard. CUT has the big advantage of being a through station with easy continuation across the river to Kentucky but if the vast majority of service is to the north, which I believe it would be, that's of little advantage (unless the Indianapolis route uses the Big Four tracks along the Ohio River out to the Indiana border, at which point CUT starts to make more sense). 

 

I'm still not sold on that Pittsburgh route from Youngstown, whatever that river is in Youngstown is pretty windy and wouldn't allow high speeds unless I'm looking at the wrong line.   

 

Now I really need to fix my scanner and scan the maps from the 1982 HSR tax hike proposal. The proposed HSR line would head southerly from near Campbell along the Mahoning River, tunnel into the south hillside and gently rise up out of the valley. The tunnel would have been several miles long. The HSR line would have cut across open country south-southeasterly until it reached the right of way of the Turnpike, then followed the Turnpike to near the Beaver Falls area.

 

But I came up with a different way of doing it that would keep to the Mahoning and Beaver river valleys, yet not have to meander its way down the valley. The secret is that the valley walls "step down" twice from the surrounding hills. The first "step down" is to a wide, flat plateau. The second "step down" is into a narrow valley through which the rail lines and rivers run. I would keep the HSR on the plateau -- something the freight railroads could do because to ascend/descend to/from it would require grades that freight trains couldn't handle. And, when the high-speed rail planning was being done in the late 1970s, tilt-train technology wasn't advanced enough for practical HSR applications. Today, it could allow fast running through such countryside.

maybe you shouldn't have lived a 3 hours commute from your job

 

you're just splitting hairs now.

 

whatever.  I'm not 3 hours away from the destination, road conditions / traffic sucks.

now are you STILL gonna say "don't live 3 hours from your job"?  or must i post it even simpler than that. -_-

 

Anyways I don't have time for your crap Pope.  Never did.  I'm just gonna drop it and continue with some of the better things in this thread.

 

I'm actually sold on most of the routes in the image.  I also think Dayton should not be skipped in a Cincy>Detroit line.  Perhaps, we could implement a triangle route of Cincy>Dayton>Columbus, rinse repeat. Or something larger, say Cincy>Indy>Dayton>Columbus>Louisville>Lexington, rinse-repeat. ;p

 

I'm also just curious as to why there is no 275/beltway route.  Maybe it is excessive, but I believe the alternative transit along the route should be considered. 

 

KJP and Jmeck, your thoughts?