http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/thu...-stimulus-day/
The Feds are announcing the recipients of the $8 billion to build America's first true HSR network on this coming Thursday, Jan 28...
The front runners are:
Florida, Illinois, California. Note that the Chicago-St. Louis line seems very likely. Will Detroit see HSR to Chicago? If Detroit misses the federal money on Thursday, when will it come, if ever?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gsgeorge
Michigan/Detroit won't get anything. Our representation in Washington has been horribly weak forever and it won;t change. Michigan reps do nothing for us [[hell, almost a decade in on a statewide depression and we are still a tax donor state)
This thread is a bit misleading.
1. Not a cent is going to "true" high-speed rail. All the dollars will go to upgrading existing low-speed diesel lines to medium-speed [[except for the NE corridor, which is electric and already high-speed in parts).
2. Like all federal appropriations, the money will be spread out across the nation, so no jurisdiction will get a big chunk. This means that the money, on it's own, will do very little in the short-term.
So if Michigan wins some cash [[I'm sure it will get some), the money will be used to eliminate grade crossings and the like on the main Detroit-Chicago route. It will result in very incremental improvements.
Some points of clarification:
1. The proposals submitted by the states have been reviewed by the Federal Railroad Administration, which is part of the Executive Branch. The money is part of the stimulus package passed last year, so the awards are free of legislative influence.
2. All monies awarded will go toward incremental improvements. Sure, it won't result in high-speed rail just yet, but these incremental improvements are necessary to progress toward a true high speed rail system. Such improvements will consist of elimination of grade crossing, upgrade of signaling systems, construction of passing sidings, new stations, and rolling stock. I wouldn't be shocked if some money went toward upgrading the electric caternary on the Northeast Corridor, which was installed in the 1930s by the Pennsylvania Railroad.
3. The states that have a clear plan and demonstrated cost-effectiveness will receive the money. In addition to California, which is ponying up tons of money for 200 mph rail service, Florida's Tampa-to-Orlando corridor, and Illinois's strong state-supported system, Detroit-to-Chicago is a good candidate. I'd also be shocked if Ohio didn't get money for the proposed NEW service in the "3C" Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati corridor.
I agree, the improvements will be incremental, but I would bet on a few detroit area improvements to be paid for through the ARRA HSR grants. A few that MDOT/SEMCOG have had their eyes on for some time include work to restore the West Detroit connection between the Canadian National and Conrail Shared Assets Operations. The new connection and associated interlocking improvements will shave up to 15 minutes off the trip between Dearborn and Detroit due to higher track speed, fewer interlockings and shortened travel length.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Lake
For those who didn't know, you can read through the applications and look at the attached maps here: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,...467---,00.html
Infrastructure is right. MDOT included the whole Wolverine route [[or at least to the state border as far as I can recall). However, it's clear they state the portion between Detroit and Ann Arbor is priority. There is a list in order of the projects along the route, first being the connection between Conrail and CN tracks, and then the rest of the Detroit-AA rail. That includes reinstalling the second main track where it was taken out, upgrading signalling and worn trackage and adding sidings. Then, everything else. Station upgrades and DET-Pontiac is included in there too. There was a note in there about acquiring tracks from Norfolk Southern that I wasn't aware of. I knew NS was looking to sell a while ago, but didn't know the state was looking to buy.
[quote=Gsgeorge;1
The Feds are announcing the recipients of the $8 billion to build America's first true HSR network on this coming Thursday, Jan 28...[/quote]
Yesterday, I read an article in the Windsor Star that they've issued a pre-bid notice for a second $400million larger Detroit-Windsor rail tunnel to accomodate larger double stacked railway cars and possibly HSR . So, if Detroit ever does get HSR connected to Chicago, Ottawa may be more inclined to subsidize another HSR link connecting from Detroit to Toronto..
http://www.windsorstar.com/cars/Rail...399/story.html
The companies behind a $400-million proposal to build a second Detroit River rail tunnel have issued a pre-bid notice — a call for companies to prove qualifications — to conduct the environmental assessment for the project.
Borealis Infrastructure and CP Rail, co-owners of the 100-year-old Windsor-Detroit rail tunnel, plan to build an adjacent tunnel to accommodate larger double-stacked railway cars and possibly high-speed cross-border passenger service.
The notice moves the project another step closer to reality.
“This is very good news,” said Coun. Bill Marra, one of city council's biggest supporters for the rail tunnel project. “The community might underestimate the significance around the pre-bid notice. But it indicates they have their financial requirements in a row and are looking at proceeding.” http://detroityes.com/mb/images/misc/progress.gif http://detroityes.com/mb/images/buttons/edit.gif
I think Longlake is right, the proposal is only to upgrade existing lines with higher-speed diesel locomotives. I don't believe it is for European-style electric high speed.
people critisize the US rail system and I have to agree but the country is so large that I think air travel is most efficient and rail service of any speed will only serve certain high traffic corridors.
Regarding Detroit-Chicago, I can't see that that would merit a major cash infusion. The other 'high speed' lines such as Chicago-St. Louis are part of rail lines that go to the west/southwest. Detroit to Chicago is a dead end service.
It would be nice if a line from Detroit to NYC woud be put back into operation so that Detroit would be on a route from Chicago to NYC, possibly Toronto, Buffalo, Rochester, etc.
Still if Michigan gets the $$$ for high-speed rail then cool.
Even back in the 30s and 40s, Detroit was more of a sidetrack off of the national rail net. Yes, NYC did have the train through Canada to Detroit, but most trains served Detroit by pullman drop-offs that moved into Detroit on secondary trains.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonite
Before Northwest made Detroit a hub, air service was the same way.
It sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Bear in mind that Detroit is planned to connect to the Ohio Hub network, so it's not as much of a dead-end as you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonite
Our cities, especially east of the Mississippi and on the Pacific Coast, aren't any further apart than they are in Europe. And Ohio, for example, has the population density of France. The rail system in this nation worked just fine, even at relatively low speeds, until we decided to start subsidizing the hell out of driving and flying. It'll work again.
We're beyond the second-guessing phase. Let's. Do. This.
For long distance, trans-continental flights, I think you are right. Rail can't compete. however, european style high speed rail would absolutely be competitive with regional air travel [[think Detroit-Chicago type flights).Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonite
I think we could do more for the environment by improving [[and possibly electrifying) the freight lines and restricting the long haul trucks to just moving containers from the inter-modal yard to the destination.Quote:
Originally Posted by EL Jimbo
Passenger rail is a big money loser in most 1st world countries.
According to Bloomberg News, 13 corridors reaching 31 [[of the 46 that have Amtrak service) will receive money. The announcement will be made in Tampa, so it looks like Florida is getting a cut for the Tampa-Orlanda corridor, the first leg in a line that would extend south to Miami in the future.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=akGmApx3GhMY
Detroit isn't a dead end. It would be the natural connection point for a U.S. and Canadian system.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptonite
I definitely agree with the first one, but I'm still not convinced that passenger rail doesn't have a place in the transportation system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
What sort of transportation system IS a money-maker?
For that matter, should the role of transportation be making money?
Yeah, can't remember the last time I-75 turned a profit......Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Rail freight makes pretty good money. Warren Buffet didn't buy BNSF to run it as a charity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Santa Fe [[along with C&O) tried to run good passenger trains right up until AMTRAK. The figured it was a part of their corporate image.
The passenger guy at Santa Fe said during the 60s that if they took every passenger who showed up at the counter in Chicago to buy a ticket to LA, refused his money, and just handed him a free airline ticket to LA, they would lose less money.
Prior to the creation of Amtrak, the freight railroads were required by Congress to provide passenger service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Freight rail in the United States uses the only transportation infrastructure on earth that isn't subsidized by a government authority. The fact that the freight railroads are still able to make a profit speaks to the efficiency of the mode.
I-75 was paid for by the fuel taxes on the folks driving on the roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
We have Tri-Rail here in Florida. It runs from just north of West Palm Beach down to the middle of Miami. It carries 3,600 people a day out of a regional population of over 3 million.
If you take the annual budget of Tri-Rail and subtract the money they receive for tickets and divide by the number of tickets sold, you realize that every time a $3.75 passenger sets foot on the train, the taxpayers cough up $101.00
For the record, I am a train enthusiast.
Those of you that grew up in the 1960's I'm sure remember the decline of passenger rail service. Little by little fewer trains ran, lines were dropped, and depots closed.
Around 1965 the US postal service stopped shipping mail via passenger rail which ended a huge revenue source. After that passenger service pretty much ended until Natrak [[later Amtrak) took over nearly all remaining routes. Even Amtrak has continually shrunk so that the Amtrak service offered now is not what it was in the early 70's.
I love rail travel myself but it is slow and for some reasons terribly expensive to operate. In Europe I always travel by rail and love the experience, but their rail service is run by the state and probably subsidized by ungodly taxes on gasoline. I don't expect Americans would want to pay $8/gallon of gas to have a thriving rail system.
Even if we did have substantial rail service I believe most Americans would still fly when they go a long distance. Why take 2 1/2 days from Detroit to LA when you can fly there for less and arrive in 3-4 hours.
Anyway, upgrading what little rail service we have won't hurt matters. If the feds want to throw a few million $ at Michigan for HS then so be it.
Facts:
1. The steep decline of the once-profitable passenger rail service in the US coincided with the Federal government's decision to pump ungodly sums of money into building the expressways.
2. The taxes which go to pay for some of the upkeep on I-75 come from every motorist who drives in Michigan whether they use I-75 or not, and that only pays a fraction of the cost. Continuing Federal subsidies pay much of the cost to operate our overbuilt freeway network, and deferred maintenance makes up much of the difference here in Michigan.
3. Comparing the roles of a good passenger rail system [[which we do not have now) and the airlines, certainly air travel will always cover trips like New York to Denver or Detroit to Portland or Atlanta to Minneapolis. It would be foolish to build a rail network to accommodate such things. But our skies are overcrowded and the airlines all lose money; a good rail network that could accommodate the 200 to 500 mile trips in regions where cities are at such distances would relieve the overcrowding and modernize our transportation so that it would at least begin to look like what the rest of the modernized world enjoys.
All this of course just IMVHO.
I think you have to think bigger than Detroit-Chicago type flights. That is nothing, its only a 4-5 hour drive. Driving is way more reasonable than flying [[unless you are going to the Loop, where parking out outrageous). If train service improves, it will defiantly be the best. But I think high-speed rail needs to connect regions as well, Chicago-Detroit/Windsor-Toronto-Montreal. So think of Montreal to Chicago flights. Or Chicago to New York flights. Vancouver to San Diego flights. With a true high-speed network, there would be much more competition on these types of flights, but LA to NYC would probably still be dominated by air.Quote:
Originally Posted by EL Jimbo
Does anybody really think this is going to work anyways? Meaning high speed rail in Michigan? It works in Europe wonderfully but I just can't see it taking hold here in the United States on a large scale. High speed rail or a Maglev system just seems like it has too many hurdles and red tape to jump through to ever be completed on a national scale.
I'm holding out hope for it but I'm honestly more hopeful for light rail starting down Woodward and eventually spanning out on different streets into the suburbs.
In 2008, Tri-Rail reported a weekday passenger average of 14,685 unlinked trips, or over 400% more of what you reported. If you assume that these are all round-trips [[given the operating characterisitics of commuter rail), this is the equivalent capacity of 6 lanes of freeway. Tri-Rail also reported an operating expense per passenger trip of $13.69, or 13.6% of the cost you cited. So, you've only inflated your own numbers by a factor of 29. Close enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/4077.pdf
I personally don't drive on most of the roadways in this country, nor does anyone else. Does that make them all a bad investment?
And I'd check your assumption that gas taxes cover the entire cost of roadway travel. If this were the case, would deferred maintenance even exist? If gas taxes alone were sufficient, you would think our roads would be in *better* shape as Vehicle Miles Traveled increased, right?
You might want to read the following book, by University of Michigan Professor Emeritus of Economics, Richard Porter:
Porter, Richard C., Economics at the Wheel: The Costs of Cars and Drivers, Academic Press: 1999. http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Whee...4612696&sr=8-1
For an engineer, you don't seem to have much diligence when it comes to numbers. I'm just sayin.