Transportation

High-Speed Rail Could Face Uphill Battle

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

By Audrey Dutton     

 

WASHINGTON — Congressional appropriators will be hard-pressed to provide more funding for high-speed rail for fiscal 2011 unless there is clear evidence that the $10.5 billion lawmakers approved for the sector has been used by state and local governments, a congressional staffer said yesterday at a rail industry meeting here.

 

“This year is going to be pretty tough,” said Sylvia Garcia, a staff member of the House Appropriations transportation, housing, and urban development subcommittee.

 

Garcia warned that the size of the overall budget, much less the transportation portion, is still uncertain. Congress has not yet voted on a budget resolution. If or when that happens, it may decide to either freeze or decrease spending in fiscal 2011, she said.

 

Full story at: http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/119_339/high_speed_rail-1012003-1.html

 

As a big Bond Hill supporter, I'm okay with Fairfax. It has similar benefits though it is still too far from the West Side.

But they're both still on a completely separate rail line than what goes to Union Terminal.  If they were ultimately planning for a Boathouse or Sawyer Point station, then Bond Hill, Fairfax, or Lunken would be ok as a temporary location.  That doesn't seem to be in the cards though.  So again, they'd spend many millions of dollars to upgrade a very lightly used freight line that won't benefit from the work, and that money is wasted when an approach is ultimately made down the Mill Creek Valley. 

I'd add that I'm not a big fan of CUT as the primary station.

^ How do you think the train should ultimately get to Downtown?

I think all this talk about "bullet trains" etc. is crazy.  Look at the China numbers.  A TRILLION dollars for rail? Even if we had the $ which we don't as a nation (China has all our $, that is why they can afford high speed rail) we would never do it.  How about just 1950 rail? 85 mph average speed would be fine and we could do it with Talgo trains and existing, upgraded right of way.  People would fall over themselves to get on a 85 mph average speed train that ran on time.  Where is Mussolini when you need him?  Why are we tying to sell people something that is never going to happen (eastern corridor maybe but eve there I doubt it). 

I support the Bond Hill station but there is some merit to Portune's argument for the eastern line.  I believe he thinks that investing in this line allows the City and state to investigate and construct a solution to the CUT accessibility problem.  Once CUT becomes the main destination, the rail line can be used for the Eastern Corridor rail line with little expense to bring the tracks up to standards and possibly use the RTC.  Although I can't remember if the RTC can support commuter rail sized trains.

Someone on the poll suggested turning City Hall into the station.  That would be a great location, but is that even anywhere near feasible? 

 

EDIT: I just looked at a map of it and that would involve tearing down the skyscraper at 9th and Central Ave, taking right of way from the freeway and building a new city hall.  Nevermind, dumb idea.

Except that the Eastern Corridor (which is somewhat farcical to begin with) exists entirely outside the scope of a Bond Hill or Fairfax 3-C routing.  The Eastern Corridor consists of the I&O Oasis (Former Pennsylvania/Little Miami Railroad) line from the Montgomery Inn Boathouse through Columbia-Tusculum and Linwood to Clare Yard (below Mariemont), then the NS Cincinnati District, Lake Division (former Norfolk & Western Peavine to Portsmouth) from Clare through Newtown and along Round Bottom Road to Milford.  All of that is south of Fairfax.  The tracks that would need to be upgraded for a Bond Hill or Fairfax station are on the I&O Oasis tracks that were originally the Pennsylvania's Richmond Division along Red Bank Road north through the I-71/Ridge interchange and Pleasant Ridge to Golf Manor, Amberly Village, and Reading.  That's not part of the Eastern Corridor, and as far as I can tell was never used for commuting in the first place. 

Before China built the 220-mph rail link between Beijing and Shanghai, it already had very frequent train service covering the 800 miles in about 9 hours. Top speed was 125 mph.

 

That is the evolution I keep referring to around here. It's learning to crawl, then walk, then run.

 

Some suggest we should have 220-mph trains between New York City and Chicago via Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo and Fort Wayne, with branches to Detroit and Baltimore/Washington. We don't yet have hourly 100-mph trains that would put New York and Chicago within 10 hours of each other, or the high-density urban centers they would foster,  or the mix of regional, suburban and urban rail systems to serve as collectors/feeders.

 

Every nation that has true high-speed rail has developed all those things FIRST. Without them, building high-speed rail in most American travel markets would be like building an eight-lane highway with HOV lanes in Wyoming. You might eventually draw the supportive land uses, collectors/feeders and the traffic to warrant it, but I sure hope you're real patient with the light traffic and huge upfront costs. Either way, it's going to take a long time, so why not scale up to it and get something useful sooner rather than later?

I think a temporary Bond Hill location would give Cincinnatians some guarantees that an eventual connection to CUT would actually be made, because you have already built the line half-way there from Sharonville. If you put the station way out on the east side, not only is it less central, but those guarantees of eventually getting to CUT vanish.

Cincinnati hosts EACC high-speed rail conference

By Jake Mecklenborg, UrbanCincy | May 6, 2010

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/05/cincinnati-hosts-eacc-high-speed-rail-conference/

 

The 2010 Urban and Regional Public Transportation Conference, held May 5 at The Westin Hotel and sponsored by the European-American Chamber of Commerce, featured presentations by over a dozen industry experts including a keynote speech by John D. Porcari, Deputy Secretary of Transportation of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

 

“America’s rail infrastructure is in shambles”, said Porcari, whose department is shifting policy away from a decades-old process that considered road or rail projects individually but could not easily approve multi-modal projects.

 

In working to rebuild “the squandered investments of our grandparents”, Porcari described a profound turnaround in federal transportation policy from one that encouraged sprawl to one that will promote walkable smart growth. He promised that America’s new generation of passenger trains will not be assembled here from components manufactured overseas, but rather be “100% American” in order to “capture every piece of the high speed rail value chain”.

 

Although the announced policy changes portend an increased opportunity for federal assistance for local rail transit projects, Porcari stressed that in the short term those places with their “act together” will be first to benefit from these changes.

 

Speaking on the matter of the $400 3C’s grant, Matt Dietrich, Executive Director of the Ohio Rail Development Commission, remarked that early in the planning of the 3C’s line, Amtrak offered to sell Ohio a variety of retired and surplus locomotives and passenger cars for $10-$15 million. But after grants were awarded to projects in other regions, that equipment has been directed elsewhere, and Ohio has now budgeted $175 million – almost half of the 3C’s grant – for new passenger trains.

 

The constricted budget means grant funds are presently unavailable for construction of a track connection to Cincinnati Union Terminal. A permanent suburban station is planned for Sharonville and a temporary terminal station is planned for Cincinnati in Bond Hill.

 

Cleveland’s station will be located on that city’s lakefront, with a convenient connection to its Waterfront light rail line. Both Dayton and Columbus will have stations located in their respective downtowns.

 

Dietrich also discussed plans for a station at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, possibly within walking distance of the National Museum of the United States Air Force. The base is the state’s largest single-site employer and the museum is, aside from King’s Island and Cedar Point, the state’s most popular tourist attraction.

 

The conference also featured speakers from France, Spain, Germany, and England, each of whom discussed not only the technical aspects of their high speed trains, but also how their networks are funded and administered.

 

Tom Stables, Senior Vice President of Commercial Development for First Group, discussed how England awards franchises to approximately a dozen different companies who for periods of seven to ten years operate the county’s various commuter and intercity train lines.

 

Juergen Wilder, representing industry giant Siemens, described how a ticketing and revenue sharing agreement was achieved with Lufthansa after a high speed rail line extended to Frankfurt’s airport drew significant patronage away from the airline. In the face of competition from passenger rail, Wilder suggested that American carriers might seek similar arrangements or even bid to operate the country’s envisioned high speed rail lines.

 

Herve Le Caignec, representing SNCF, the company that operates the French TGV network, discussed attempts at private-public partnerships in the construction of new TGV lines. He also offered evidence of the TGV’s staggering success – every day trains seating 750 to 1,100 passengers leave the French capital bound for Lyon and Marseilles every five minutes and do not just sell out individually, but all trains – more than 300 of them — often sell out each weekend as Parisians escape their drizzle and migrate en masse to the Mediterranean coast.

I think a temporary Bond Hill location would give Cincinnatians some guarantees that an eventual connection to CUT would actually be made, because you have already built the line half-way there from Sharonville.  If you put the station way out on the east side, not only is it less central, but those guarantees of eventually getting to CUT vanish.

 

That doesn't make sense, because Bond Hill is not on the way to CUT.  Evendale (Mill Junction) is the split point between the NS/Big Four line to CUT and the I&O Oasis/PRR Richmond Division to Bond Hill and the rest of the east side.  The locations south of Sharonville/Evendale that are on the way to CUT are Lockland, Hartwell, Carthage, Elmwood Place, St. Bernard, and Winton Place (excuse me, Spring Grove Village *sigh*).  A Bond Hill Station would require upgrading almost five miles of I&O's Oasis line, assuming the station would be located near Cincinnati Gardens and Langdon Farm Road.  But again, that's five miles on a rail line that doesn't go to CUT. 

 

I understand the desire to get the station as close to downtown as possible, but I'd rather see the money saved for the 4th main track and upgrades to the NS/Big Four rather than throwing it away on a lightly used freight branch line that has little value for any future passenger use.  That puts the logical location for a temporary station back up at Sharonville, even though it is discouragingly far from downtown.  Still, Fairfax and Bond Hill are not all that much better.  I actually think the value of a Sharonville station is that it could stay in use after the final downtown station is opened.  Sharonville is a perfect location for a secondary station to draw riders from the heavily built up northern suburbs along I-275 who would balk at having to trudge downtown just to go north again. 

 

The money spent on track improvements and a temporary station in Bond Hill, Fairfax, or Lunken would be completely wasted when CUT is reached.  Even if a temporary station at Sharonville is closed, you're not out any track upgrades, just the station itself. 

Is there any possibility of putting the temporary station at Carthage or Elmwood Place? Has this even been discussed?

^Well put.  Sometimes it's more important to take a little time so long as it is done right.  Also, a station around Kemper Road near 275 offhandedly strikes me as the best bet.

Is there any possibility of putting the temporary station at Carthage or Elmwood Place? Has this even been discussed?

 

That's a good question.  The main reason for pushing the I&O Oasis routing is that it deflects the passenger trains away from the worst congestion in the Mill Creek Valley.  Things really start to bog down in and just south of Sharon Yard.  Going five miles down the NS/Big Four line from Mill Junction gets you to into Elmwood Place, but the railroad is pretty hemmed in there.  Also, the upgrades required to push passenger trains towards CUT would take a lot more investment than they would to go down the I&O line.  A third track might be required for instance, versus signal upgrades and track rehabilitation.  Still, if they could get to Carthage with a Paddock Road station, where there's already old industrial sidings, and even a roughed-in bridge for a third track over Paddock Road itself, that would be great. 

County weighs in on Ohio rail stop

By Jessica Brown • [email protected] • May 12, 2010

 

Cincinnati City Council wants the local station for an Ohio passenger rail system to be built in Bond Hill.

 

But Wednesday, Hamilton County commissioners said not so fast.

 

The three-member commission passed a resolution 2-1 that urges the state to use "objective criteria" in deciding where to put the local station - a resolution aimed at making sure the state doesn't go forward with the Bond Hill site without fully vetting other possibilities. One of the three commissioners, Todd Portune, has been pushing for the station to be built in Fairfax.

 

Commissioner David Pepper voted with fellow Democrat Portune in favor of the resolution after rewording it to avoid stating a site preference. He stressed at Wednesday's meeting that he hopes engineering studies and expert advice will drive the site-selection process, not politics.

 

more: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100512/NEWS0108/5130363/County+weighs+in+on+Ohio+rail+stop

 

Accompanied by this online poll:

 

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Officials are debating where to put a temporary station for the 3C intercity passenger rail, to be used until the preferred location, Union Terminal, is ready. Where should it go?

 

Bond Hill

(107) 15.18%

Lunken Airport

(137) 19.43%

Fairfax

(123) 17.45%

Sawyer Point

(338) 47.94%

Total Votes: 705

Already posted on the previous page:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,18328.3330.html

 

But it's interesting that Sawyer Point leads the poll of alternative sites, given the reported local opposition.

Where is Sawyer Point???

Where is Sawyer Point???

 

Middle of the picture, but they're talking about putting the station in the parking lot of the Montgomery Inn next to Sawyer Point.

 

I like the former Pennsylvania Railroad station site -- between the Riverfront Plaza shopping center and Sawyer Point at the foot of the L&N Railroad bridge (Purple People Bridge). But I doubt those wanting to keep the parking for the Amphitheater would like it.

Plus a huge number of retirements (ie: thousands) are forecast in the next few years, so the Wright-Patt human resources department is going to stay busy trying to recruit new people. There is a possibility many may need to commute from as far away as Columbus and Cincinnati....

 

Wright-Patt to gain 1,200 jobs

Military, civilian additions come from realignment, defense priorities.

By John Nolan, Staff Writer

9:34 PM Wednesday, May 12, 2010

 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base will gain about 1,200 jobs, including 953 civilian positions, during the coming fiscal year as a result of President Obama’s defense priorities and a national realignment approved in 2005.

 

The tally includes a gain of 279 military positions and a loss of 32 Air Force Reserve part-time “drill” military authorizations. The loss of the drill jobs is due mostly to the Air Force’s plan to retire the 445th Airlift Wing’s 10 C-5 Galaxy transport planes during the next two years and replace them with eight newer C-17 transport aircraft.

 

Driving the changes are the 2005 base realignment and closure decisions that will move research programs to Wright-Patterson from other bases by Sept. 15, 2011, and the government’s effort to expand its acquisition work force, largely by converting contractor jobs to federal civil service positions. Many of the job shifts were previously announced, while others are new.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/business/wright-patt-to-gain-1-200-jobs-703392.html

Already posted on the previous page:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,18328.3330.html

 

But it's interesting that Sawyer Point leads the poll of alternative sites, given the reported local opposition.

It's obviously a great site, since it's basically downtown. The problem is the amount of money (and therefore influence) the NIMBYs in that neck of the woods hold.

 

There should probably be a big pitch to overrule them, but that doesn't seem to have much momentum, currently. Given the situation with CUT, they're kind of ruining the whole project, as it relates to Cincy.

I think a temporary Bond Hill location would give Cincinnatians some guarantees that an eventual connection to CUT would actually be made, because you have already built the line half-way there from Sharonville.  If you put the station way out on the east side, not only is it less central, but those guarantees of eventually getting to CUT vanish.

 

That doesn't make sense, because Bond Hill is not on the way to CUT.  Evendale (Mill Junction) is the split point between the NS/Big Four line to CUT and the I&O Oasis/PRR Richmond Division to Bond Hill and the rest of the east side.  The locations south of Sharonville/Evendale that are on the way to CUT are Lockland, Hartwell, Carthage, Elmwood Place, St. Bernard, and Winton Place (excuse me, Spring Grove Village *sigh*).  A Bond Hill Station would require upgrading almost five miles of I&O's Oasis line, assuming the station would be located near Cincinnati Gardens and Langdon Farm Road.  But again, that's five miles on a rail line that doesn't go to CUT.

 

The proposed Bond Hill station location is actually very near the tracks that go to CUT.  I've attached a map below that shows my understanding of where the location would be.

 

There would be minimal investment made on track not going to CUT.  Of the options presented, I'm not aware of one that gets us a more direct investment towards CUT than this.

Berry Yard huh?  I hope you're right, though only so long as they actually get there via the right tracks.  On the following map, they could (should) take the blue route, but it's entirely possible that they plan to take a red/green routing to try to avoid congestion, and because there isn't a direct track connection from Berry Yard to the north. 

 

 

Not that they couldn't build that connection, but there's a pretty solid wall of industrial buildings in the way.  There's actually more than enough room for a station directly along the line in St. Bernard, but I guess because it is St. Bernard, it's a political hot potato. 

Where is CUT in relation to this potential stop?

Down the blue line about 6 miles along I-75

I hear they are looking at some new temporary station alternatives for Cincinnati.

Is there any reason not to go to Sawyer Point besides Columbia-Tusculum/Mt. Adams NIMBYs?

^ The fact that you'd have to spend a boatload of money to rehab the entire Oasis Line to get there. 3C service on that line would also likely preclude it from being used for future light rail service.

Not necessarily.  Because whatever improvments are made to the Oasis improves the corridor for both freight and possibly future light rail.  Don't forget that at some point the 3C trains will shift to CUT and when that happens, the Oasis Line is open for other uses like light rail.

If 3C went to Sawyer Point, it may be unnecessary to switch to CUT for the foreseeable future. Sawyer Point is significantly closer to Fountain Square than CUT. And I would imagine it is much cheaper.

 

I guess losing the track for light rail is a legitimate concern, but it also may supply the motivation to go ahead with the fourth main to CUT. Meanwhile, you get the track improvements.

 

If we can't make it to downtown right away, and we can't figure out a way not to upgrade lots of track which doesn't directly help get us to CUT, my vote goes to Sharonville being the temporary endpoint. However, Sawyer Point looks like the best solution to me, ATM. Ending in Sharonville indefinitely would seriously suck, and it would damage public sentiment for the project.

^

 

I doubt that it makes any difference whether Sawyer Point is closer to Fountain Square than CUT is. Neither location is walkable to the center of the city if you've got luggage. A cab or bus would be required in either case.

 

For me, it kind of fundamental. We need to do this right. And to me, that means putting all our efforts and resources into getting the permanent station built at CUT.

 

I don't think it's just the NIMBY's on Riverside Drive who oppose Sawyer Point. There are lots of people who live all over the region who know that CUT is our train station, and they logically want to see all inter-city service concentrated there.

 

  What kind of operation was expected for reversing the train at Cincinnati? A loop? Wye? Run the locomotive to the other end of the train? Push-pull? Controls at both ends? Berry Yard might not be a bad option from an operations point of view.

^nah, Sharonville is the best option to minimize construction / reconstruction of new infrastructure. That's only one factor, of course.

 

  What kind of operation was expected for reversing the train at Cincinnati? A loop? Wye? Run the locomotive to the other end of the train? Push-pull? Controls at both ends? Berry Yard might not be a bad option from an operations point of view.

 

Probably either push-pull or self-propelled rail cars.

 

Push-pull (skip ahead to the 30-second mark)...

 

Self-propelled/diesel-multiple unit...

^

Can't imagine these vehicles passing through Cincinnati's East End within a few feet of homes on their way to Sawyer Point. I mean, look at the separation and fencing-off you see in the first frame of the two videos. They would be totally out-of-scale with the urban fabric there.

 

If we can't make it to downtown right away, and we can't figure out a way not to upgrade lots of track which doesn't directly help get us to CUT, my vote goes to Sharonville being the temporary endpoint. However, Sawyer Point looks like the best solution to me, ATM. Ending in Sharonville indefinitely would seriously suck, and it would damage public sentiment for the project.

 

Let's all keep in mind that whatever site or sites are decided upon by the city/county, it still has to clear an evironmental assessment to detetmine if it is a site that works well in both the natural and built environment.

 

I'm reading in the Cincy media all manner of conjecture and quotes about the merits of one site over another and that it is entirely a local decision.  It is up to a point, but it still has to pass muster (so to speak) under the federally-required environmental process.  It applies as much to CUT as it would toward Lunken, Bond Hill, Fairfax or any other site.

^

Can't imagine these vehicles passing through Cincinnati's East End within a few feet of homes on their way to Sawyer Point. I mean, look at the separation and fencing-off you see in the first frame of the two videos. They would be totally out-of-scale with the urban fabric there.

 

Maybe this scene from the same line (Pacific Surfliner) shot in the first video will help. This is at the close-quarters of the Carlsbad Village station, served by Coaster commuter trains. Amtrak sails through the initimate surroundings at 90 mph....

 

 

But this view is more the kind of speed that 3C trains would be operating at near the Cincinnati station , regardless of where it is. Also please note the extent of development around the San Diego station. When I was last in San Diego in the 1980s, before the State of California and Amtrak began their big expansion of train services, none of these buildings existed. In fact, the station area was a dump....

 

 

 

OK, one more. Note the San Diego Trolley, the surrounding development, and of course the nice-looking ladies riding the train to LA today...

 

CUT is the best option available without having to significantly construct/re-construct infrastructure in the city.

 

With CUT, you are involving the construction of the fourth main, which is very costly and requires a lot of significant construction. Sharonville, really nothing sans a station and a siding.

With CUT, you are involving the construction of the fourth main, which is very costly and requires a lot of significant construction. Sharonville, really nothing sans a station and a siding.

 

True. But the port authority is proceeding with the fourth main project with or without 3C on the basis of freight needs and future traffic growth.

State coalition asks Congress for passenger rail funds   

Friday, May 14, 2010 

 

The States for Passenger Rail Coalition has sent Congress a request for 2011 funding that includes a $2.5 billion appropriation for grants under the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program, the same level sought for 2010, plus $1 billion for “next generation” intercity passenger rail equipment development.

 

“The states are ready to step up to the plate in partnership with the federal government to create a better intercity passenger rail program than ever before,” said the coalition, an alliance of state departments of transportation that was established in 2000.

 

Full story at: http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/state-coalition-asks-congress-for-new-billions-for-passenger-rail.html

Before China built the 220-mph rail link between Beijing and Shanghai, it already had very frequent train service covering the 800 miles in about 9 hours. Top speed was 125 mph.

 

That is the evolution I keep referring to around here. It's learning to crawl, then walk, then run.

 

Some suggest we should have 220-mph trains between New York City and Chicago via Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo and Fort Wayne, with branches to Detroit and Baltimore/Washington. We don't yet have hourly 100-mph trains that would put New York and Chicago within 10 hours of each other, or the high-density urban centers they would foster, or the mix of regional, suburban and urban rail systems to serve as collectors/feeders.

 

Every nation that has true high-speed rail has developed all those things FIRST. Without them, building high-speed rail in most American travel markets would be like building an eight-lane highway with HOV lanes in Wyoming. You might eventually draw the supportive land uses, collectors/feeders and the traffic to warrant it, but I sure hope you're real patient with the light traffic and huge upfront costs. Either way, it's going to take a long time, so why not scale up to it and get something useful sooner rather than later?

 

I would hate to disagree with KJP when it comes to anything to do with trains but I will do so here.  I think China is different than the US when it comes to commandering right of way.  As I understand it, true bullet style HSR would need new grade separated right of way.  Of course the cost as I said above is astronomical.  But, beside the cost here, the government has to negotiate with private land owners, etc. In Chicom Land, the Secretariat draws a line on a map a la Stalin and it is done.

 

Every nation that has HSR now is or was at one time either a command and control economy or had a King!  Obtaining right of was was/is no big deal. 

I don't understand how demand could exist for low-speed rail but not high-speed rail in the same place and time, nor do I understand how demand for high-speed rail can be measured by a market's response to low-speed rail.  That's like saying a new airline must first succeed with Ford Trimotors, in 2010, before it can use jets.  I can't think of any other real-world parallel to this incremental concept.  Perhaps Chevy-Pontiac-Olds-Buick-Cadillac, but that's no good in 2010 either. 

 

I just don't see much justification for purchasing technology and infrastructure that is not state-of-the-art.  Ohio is not a third world country, and it's not a child, and we have no need to appreciate slow trains before we deserve fast ones.  Right now, at this moment, Ohio deserves transit technology that is on par with China's.

Every nation that has HSR now is or was at one time either a command and control economy or had a King! Obtaining right of was was/is no big deal.

 

That is true with China but not with Europe. You are unaware of the battles (yes, some involved legal or physical fighting) that Europe has had with landowners and various interests over land acquisition. In some cases rail lines had to be built below farms in France or Germany to appease farmers. Some communities opposed high-speed lines coming through their towns, so the tracks were routed around or under them. And here's the biggest fight of all. For five years and counting, the Turin HSR tunnel under the Alps has been blocked by protesters...

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article744690.ece

 

I don't understand how demand could exist for low-speed rail but not high-speed rail in the same place and time, nor do I understand how demand for high-speed rail can be measured by a market's response to low-speed rail.

 

I'm sorry to hear you don't understand it. Just because there may be demand for or a benefit from something doesn't mean it gets provided, at least right away. Perhaps if you looked at the evolutionary steps other places have taken to build the financial, political, cultural and urban-support capacity for high-speed rail, you might feel differently.

The part where I'm still confused is why all these support systems are necessary for high speed rail, but low speed rail is expected to flourish without them.  It seems to me that the more desirable product or service would require less support, not more support, than the less desirable product or service. 

 

And I don't get why this incremental requirement is so steadfast for rail development yet so counterintuitive in other contexts.  You don't use a hammer when you need a nailgun... well, you could, but there's no requirement that you do so unless you're in 6th grade shop class.  When you go to buy an ATV they don't put you on a tricycle, ever, and when you go to a gun store they don't make you buy a revolver before you can have a semi-auto.

The part where I'm still confused is why all these support systems are necessary for high speed rail, but low speed rail is expected to flourish without them.  It seems to me that the more desirable product or service would require less support, not more support, than the less desirable product or service. 

 

And I don't get why this incremental requirement is so steadfast for rail development yet so counterintuitive in other contexts.  You don't use a hammer when you need a nailgun... well, you could, but there's no requirement that you do so unless you're in 6th grade shop class.  When you go to buy an ATV they don't put you on a tricycle, ever, and when you go to a gun store they don't make you buy a revolver before you can have a semi-auto.

 

OK, let me try to explain it another way.

 

Although high-speed rail would be preferable, the up-front cost is prohibitive.  The costs for start-up service are orders of magnitude lower, even though the speeds won't be as desirable.  That significantly higher cost of high speed rail can only be justified (politically, to the masses; I suspect that most of UrbanOhio readers are already convinced) after they have SOME experience with rail travel, and we have the stations and at least some connecting service in place. 

 

Given the horrible state of Amtrak's scope and frequency, the new efforts to develop rail are essentially a new product that most Americans have never experienced.  Focus groups have said that some people want more and better rail travel, but the masses are just clueless about this new product.  There is a lot of concern about cost, so we have to start with the low-cost option, introduce the new product and see how much they like it.  If not, it will die.  But experience in other states implies that it will be popular once people have an opportunity to try it.  You may disagree, but this is the rationale -- do you understand?

 

The start-up service will have a slow average speed at first, but it will increase over time.  We'll probably see 100mph top speeds within five years of initial start-up, and it's only when we want top speeds above 150mph that we'll have to build dedicated right-of-way.  By that time, people will have a lot more experience with rail travel and can make an informed decision about whether to spend the money to make the jump to "true" high speed rail. (although a rail fan, I don't see the value in "true" high speed rail)

 

The automobile provides an example of incremental development.  We didn't go out and build the interstates and put a gas station on every corner at the same time that we built the first cars and even through mass-production in the 1910s.  Roads were improved over time, and the speeds that could be traveled along those roads increased slowly as well, as did the services at the roadsides -- diners, hotels, rest areas, signage, etc.

OK, since you seem to like metaphors, let me provide some...

 

The basic one is you have to learn to crawl before you can walk, and learn to walk before you can run.

 

Another: you don't make plans for graduating from college while you're still learning to use crayons in kindergarten.

 

Even though waterlines and sanitary sewers are preferable to well water, septic tanks and leech beds, you build the latter things for the increasing numbers of homes in the countryside until there's enough density to support the preferred investment.

 

Cable television is more prevalent in cities and suburbs whereas satellite television is more common in rural areas. Its not because one is superior to the other, but because it's not cost effective to string cable in such low-density environments.

 

Consider that, to make the huge investment ($10 million to $50 million per mile) of a high-speed line cost effective, it needs to carry many thousands of riders per day. The Frankfurt-Cologne InterCity Express carries 25,000 per day. Eurostar carries more than 30,000 daily. The Paris-Lyon TGV line carries nearly 55,000 people per day. There are only 10,000 daily intercity trips in the 3C Corridor, of which the 3C trains are projected to attract about 12-15 percent of that market, not including induced travel.

 

And it's not just between 3C that we lack that extent of travel. Between most city pairs in America, we don't even have that level of intercity travel. Granted, the high-speed trains created a lot of new travel (the Paris-Marseilles TGV reportedly carries 18,000 trips per day while a comparable corridor, Chicago-St. Louis, has about 15,000 intercity trips per day among ALL modes). But Europe has had the support systems from which to develop that ridership.... densely developed city centers (see below), the extensive network of connecting light-rail, subways, regional buses, regional trains and intercity trains to feeder passengers to the high-speed systems. It's hard to explain how extensive their transit systems are. You literally have to see it to believe it. It's the same deal in the Asian Pacific Rim.

 

The metros in Europe got their densities not as walking cities (the pre-1850 walking cities of Europe each covered a very tiny land area and grew exponentially in land area since, yet they maintained their densities far better than American cities even in the post-war era because they kept their local, regional and intercity rail systems):

 

Athens Greece 5,400 people per square kilometer

Madrid Spain 5,200

London UK 5,100

Moscow Russia 4,900

Barcelona Spain 4,850

Warsaw Poland 4,300

Naples Italy 4,100

Katowice Poland 4,050

Leeds/Bradford 4,050

Manchester UK 4,000

Birmingham UK 3,800

Berlin Germany 3,750

Paris France 3,550

Vienna Austria 3,400

Glasgow UK 3,250

Donetsk Ukraine 3,100

Munich Germany 3,100

Stuttgart Germany 3,000

Dublin Ireland 2,950

Rome Italy 2,950

Essen/Düsseldorf Germany 2,800

Milan Italy 2,750

Stockholm Sweden 2,700

Turin Italy 2,700

Porto Portugal 2,650

Budapest Hungary 2,550

Lisbon Portugal 2,550

Rotterdam Netherlands 2,500

Cologne/Bonn Germany 2,400

Frankfurt Germany 2,300

Hamburg Germany 2,300

Brussels Belgium 2,200

Lille France 2,200

Helsinki Finland 2,100

New York USA 2,050

From: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

 

We need to rebuild America's urban densities with public transit, complete streets and intercity rail. Then the soil will be fertile enough to support the growth of high-speed rail. Until then, it will be like trying to grow a tree on a rock. It can be done, but it will require a mammoth level of TLC (ie: many times more annual operating subsidy than conventional rail).

 

I may resort to photographs or video if words don't sink in.

Posts: 8307

 

 

2015? Escuche mi fusil: No hay gasolina, mi amigo.

 

 

  Re: 3-C Corridor passenger rail project

Plus a huge number of retirements (ie: thousands) are forecast in the next few years, so the Wright-Patt human resources department is going to stay busy trying to recruit new people. There is a possibility many may need to commute from as far away as Columbus and Cincinnati....

 

Wright-Patt to gain 1,200 jobs

Military, civilian additions come from realignment, defense priorities.

By John Nolan, Staff Writer

9:34 PM Wednesday, May 12, 2010

 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base will gain about 1,200 jobs, including 953 civilian positions, during the coming fiscal year as a result of President Obama’s defense priorities and a national realignment approved in 2005.

 

The tally includes a gain of 279 military positions and a loss of 32 Air Force Reserve part-time “drill” military authorizations. The loss of the drill jobs is due mostly to the Air Force’s plan to retire the 445th Airlift Wing’s 10 C-5 Galaxy transport planes during the next two years and replace them with eight newer C-17 transport aircraft.

 

Driving the changes are the 2005 base realignment and closure decisions that will move research programs to Wright-Patterson from other bases by Sept. 15, 2011, and the government’s effort to expand its acquisition work force, largely by converting contractor jobs to federal civil service positions. Many of the job shifts were previously announced, while others are new.

 

Commuting from Cincy area would mean a three stage commute:

 

1.  Drive to station

2.  Take train

3.  Take shuttle bus to base.

 

The 3C station is not near the employment centers of the base.  To get from the station to the base (which is mostly to the east of the station) would require some sort of shuttle bus service.  I can see some resistance to this involved of a commute, but maybe it would be more palatble of we do see peak-oil induced gas price rises. 

 

 

 

Commuting from Cincy area would mean a three stage commute:

 

1. Drive to station

2. Take train

3. Take shuttle bus to base.

 

The 3C station is not near the employment centers of the base. To get from the station to the base (which is mostly to the east of the station) would require some sort of shuttle bus service. I can see some resistance to this involved of a commute, but maybe it would be more palatble of we do see peak-oil induced gas price rises.  

 

 

That's if everything stays the same in 2020 as it is today, notwithstanding peak oil.

 

Instead, I envision station-area developments putting more housing, offices and restaurants/retail within an easy walk of 3C stations. Riverside already is working with Forest City Enterprises on planning a 22-acre mixed-use development at the Riverside station. And Wright-Patt already has a numerous employee shuttles between their areas, parking lots and more so it wouldn't be a stretch for employees to use that to get to the train as they already do to reach where they park.

 

Meanwhile Sharonville's Chamber of Commerce has an active downtown revitalization plan in which the 3C trains figure heavily. I think housing and workplace options within walking distance of the station will increase there, too.