Winners of $8 billion for High-Speed Rail announced on Thursday

Long Lake · January-27-10, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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.

Wait a sec, this sounds all wrong.

If you are correct, and Tri-Rail carries a weekday ridership of 14,000, that is absolutely pathetic, and nowhere near the ridership of a 6-lane highway.

A 6-lane highway can carry 300,000, heck, even 400,000 vehicles on a weekday.
The average per-car occupancy used by most studies is 1.5 per car, but the number is usually higher in urban areas; usually around 1.75 per car.

But let's be conservative, and assume only 300,000 vehicles and 1.5 per car. That's 450,000 weekday passengers on a major metropolitan highway.

In contrast, Tri Rail ridership is horrible. A lonely country lane can carry the same weekday passenger load.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-27-10, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Long Lake

Wait a sec, this sounds all wrong.

If you are correct, and Tri-Rail carries a weekday ridership of 14,000, that is absolutely pathetic, and nowhere near the ridership of a 6-lane highway.

A 6-lane highway can carry 300,000, heck, even 400,000 vehicles on a weekday.
The average per-car occupancy used by most studies is 1.5 per car, but the number is usually higher in urban areas; usually around 1.75 per car.

But let's be conservative, and assume only 300,000 vehicles and 1.5 per car. That's 450,000 weekday passengers on a major metropolitan highway.

In contrast, Tri Rail ridership is horrible. A lonely country lane can carry the same weekday passenger load.

A freeway can carry, at most, 2000 cars per hour per lane. To reach a capacity of 300,000 vehicles, you would need to have six freeway lanes of traffic operating at maximum capacity for 24 hours a day.

Atlanta's 15-lane parking lot known as the Downtown Connector has one of the highest volumes in the nation where I-75 and I-85 merge, at 340,000 cars per day [[in 2005). SOURCE: American Automobile Association, Top Ten Commuter Hotspots, 2005.

Would you like to reconsider your assumptions?

**EL Jimbo** · January-27-10, 03:21 PM

Just as a point of reference. 696 just east of the 75 interchange carries about 220,000 cars a day or something to that effect.

Long Lake · January-27-10, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Would you like to reconsider your assumptions?

We are talking apples and oranges.

I am talking about total highway ridership. You are talking about tracking vehicles at a fixed point.

Yes, 300,000 vehicles at a fixed point is a lot of traffic, but a longer highway can carry many more passengers.

If you want to compare using your assumptions, then Tri Rail doesn't carry anything close to 14,000 passengers.

You would have to select a point on Tri-Rail's 60 mile route, and then count the number of passengers at that fixed point.

Given the decentralized nature of South Florida [[and the fact that Tri Rail doesn't serve downtown Miami and many other major job centers), I doubt you could more than 6 or 7 thousand passengers at a fixed point, if that.

The only realistic comparison, IMO, is to compare Tri Rail to a 60-mile stretch of road, which can, in a full weekday, carry far more passengers than at any fixed point.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-27-10, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Long Lake

We are talking apples and oranges.

I am talking about total highway ridership. You are talking about tracking vehicles at a fixed point.

Yes, 300,000 vehicles at a fixed point is a lot of traffic, but a longer highway can carry many more passengers.

If you want to compare using your assumptions, then Tri Rail doesn't carry anything close to 14,000 passengers.

You would have to select a point on Tri-Rail's 60 mile route, and then count the number of passengers at that fixed point.

Given the decentralized nature of South Florida [[and the fact that Tri Rail doesn't serve downtown Miami and many other major job centers), I doubt you could more than 6 or 7 thousand passengers at a fixed point, if that.

The only realistic comparison, IMO, is to compare Tri Rail to a 60-mile stretch of road, which can, in a full weekday, carry far more passengers than at any fixed point.

Do you propose that cars driving along a freeway morph into completely different cars as they travel along?

I didn't invent the methodology for conducting traffic counts. The number reported for Tri-Rail is from their own data. Sue me. You, on the other hand, are just making shit up.

**ktkof09** · January-27-10, 05:49 PM

I don't think he's making anything up. It's difficult to compare ridership on a train system to a freeway unless, say there are only two two points of destination on that rail line. Once you start factoring all kinds of different stations with people getting on and off, it would be similar to taking whatever length of freeway and measuring every person entering or exiting the freeway. Then you'd have to simultaneously measuring the people who drove through without entering or exiting, and also subtract the people exiting who also entered to avoid double counting.

I think that would cover it... but of course that measurement is never taken because you'd have to be insane to attempt to do that. Therefore, they simply measure traffic at fixed points which is hard to compare with transit that counts total system ridership.

Long Lake · January-27-10, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

You, on the other hand, are just making shit up.

Riiight, I need to follow your rigorous and unbiased methodology of comparing 60 miles of rail to one inch of pavement, and then declaring that the two have an equivalent capacity.

**Baselinepunk** · January-27-10, 07:14 PM

C'mon .... big money ... big money ... no whammies .... no whammies ... STOP!

awwwwwwwww, shit.

**Infrastructure** · January-28-10, 12:36 AM

Per the Chicago Sun Times, it looks like we're getting $244 Million in Michigan. Its less than MDOT requested, but without seeing a project list, I think we're poised to get some significant track improvements and maybe some additional rolling stock? We'll know tomorrow.

**ktkof09** · January-28-10, 12:42 AM

WI got enough, jeez they got 10%.

http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2010/1...ee-and-madison

**Infrastructure** · January-28-10, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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.

You cleaned up on this prediction! All are getting significant sums of money,

**ASR89** · January-28-10, 01:04 AM

Here's the full report:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/docu...0Revisions.pdf

**Danny** · January-28-10, 10:15 AM

I hope Michigan gets it. We need it.

**Tig3rzhark** · January-28-10, 10:29 AM

I just got through reading what Michigan got. Too bad Detroit didn't get anything.

Est. Potential Description
Funding

$40 Million

Existing stations will be renovated in Troy and Battle Creek, MI, and a new station will be constructed in downtown Dearborn.

**Detroitnerd** · January-28-10, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

I just got through reading what Michigan got. Too bad Detroit didn't get anything.

Est. Potential Description
Funding

$40 Million

Existing stations will be renovated in Troy and Battle Creek, MI, and a new station will be constructed in downtown Dearborn.

Any chance that new station would be near Military, Mason or Monroe?

**Tig3rzhark** · January-28-10, 10:48 AM

I honestly don't know.

**bailey** · January-28-10, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

I just got through reading what Michigan got. Too bad Detroit didn't get anything.

Est. Potential Description
Funding

$40 Million

Existing stations will be renovated in Troy and Battle Creek, MI, and a new station will be constructed in downtown Dearborn.

Acela link to Toledo and Chicago here we come!

**DetroitPlanner** · January-28-10, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Any chance that new station would be near Military, Mason or Monroe?

The latest designs I've seen for the Dearborn Station has it across the tracks from Greefield Village. This way they can eliminate the flagstop that exists there for tour groups the disembark for GV. This was a while ago however.

**Detroitnerd** · January-28-10, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

I honestly don't know.

When they say a new station will be constructed in "downtown" Dearborn, I'm a little confused. Of course, the old station is on the east end of Dearborn, back behind all the civic buildings on Michigan Avenue -- hardly what you'd call downtown on that side of Dearborn. So I can only presume they'll build a brand-new station on the west side of Dearborn, where they've been aggressively trying to turn it into Royal Oak yuppieville.

**Infrastructure** · January-28-10, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Infrastructure

Per the Chicago Sun Times, it looks like we're getting $244 Million in Michigan. Its less than MDOT requested, but without seeing a project list, I think we're poised to get some significant track improvements and maybe some additional rolling stock? We'll know tomorrow.

Seeing the actual project list, in my opinion, detroit got jobbed. The only track improvements along the ENTIRE corridor are in Indiana and Illinois. The improvements vital to the Ann Arbor to Detroit Commuter Rail project did not recieve any funds. I don't see the point in investing in elaborate high speed stations if the track is still opperating well below 79 MPH. Seems backwards to me.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-28-10, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Long Lake

Riiight, I need to follow your rigorous and unbiased methodology of comparing 60 miles of rail to one inch of pavement, and then declaring that the two have an equivalent capacity.

If you really want to compare capacities of modes:

A high-speed rail line can handle 15 trains per hour per track, with up to 800 passengers on each train. That's 12000 people per hour.

A lane of freeway can handle 2000 cars per hour. Generously assuming a load occupancy factor of 1.5, that's 3000 people an hour.

**DetroitPlanner** · January-28-10, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

If you really want to compare capacities of modes:

A high-speed rail line can handle 15 trains per hour per track, with up to 800 passengers on each train. That's 12000 people per hour.

A lane of freeway can handle 2000 cars per hour. Generously assuming a load occupancy factor of 1.5, that's 3000 people an hour.

This is a very simplified assessment. There are impacts for freight that need to be considered. Passenger trains need time to stop, the more stations, the more stops. Likewise not all highways can do 2,000 cars/hour. Many are not grade separated and have signals. The width of lanes also impact speed.

No way will either mode ever hit these maximum capacities because frieght trains are much longer and slower, and 18 wheelers are bigger and need longer braking distances.

**Detroitnerd** · January-28-10, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

This is a very simplified assessment. There are impacts for freight that need to be considered. Passenger trains need time to stop, the more stations, the more stops. Likewise not all highways can do 2,000 cars/hour. Many are not grade separated and have signals. The width of lanes also impact speed.

No way will either mode ever hit these maximum capacities because frieght trains are much longer and slower, and 18 wheelers are bigger and need longer braking distances.

Ummm, we're talking about passenger rail. Of course, the way the national rail system is set up, you can't beat the freights on most lines. And that's just the way our auto-oriented planners love things ...

**ghettopalmetto** · January-28-10, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

This is a very simplified assessment. There are impacts for freight that need to be considered. Passenger trains need time to stop, the more stations, the more stops. Likewise not all highways can do 2,000 cars/hour. Many are not grade separated and have signals. The width of lanes also impact speed.

No way will either mode ever hit these maximum capacities because frieght trains are much longer and slower, and 18 wheelers are bigger and need longer braking distances.

I'm talking "capacity", not "what-if".

The highway capacity numbers are for roadways built to Interstate Highway Standards. The capacity cited in the Highway Design Manual [[AASHTO) is 2250, but does not account for trucks, which travel slower and require greater spacing. Obviously, if there's an accident or rain or The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, you're not going to reach capacity. That's a "what-if".

The capacity number I cited is for high-speed rail, which in Europe, China, and other nations far poorer than we are, has its own dedicated right-of-way. The ENTIRE IDEA behind this $8 billion down-payment on high-speed rail is to construct passing sidings and build track capacity to accommodate both the existing and future freight trains, while freeing up room for more passenger trains.

**DetroitPlanner** · January-28-10, 03:32 PM

You can't get around that we have mixed traffic on both our highways and rail systems. Not all highways are built to aashto standards and nor are they interstates. For example, Michigan Avenue in corktown is neither built to aashto standards nor is it an interstate, but it is a highway. We even have freeways like M-39 that are not built to interstate standards [[narrow lanes, short on/off ramps). This impacts capacity. The capacity for moving frieght on both is much lower than the capacity for moving cars.

Our system shares roads and rails. Even Amtrak's own rail in Michigan has frieght traffic.

Without moving frieght our region dies. This needs to be accomodated, particularly here where we are a manufacturing center and a major port into Canada.