High Speed Rail Study (Colorado Springs: costs, airport, ticket)

[Mike from back east]

Found an article today "Why Railroads Will Make Us Richer" which posits that some measure of the success seen in parts of this country share the common trait of having "good" rail passenger service in dense urban regions, especially the northeast corridor. "Good" is a relative term, nothing here comes close to the "good" rail service in Western Europe. Key point was "access" to thriving markets.

The above article links to this one, where the main case is made, to include some good charts and maps.

Though the study deals with "high speed" rail, our area still makes it into the "mega-region" category and may yet score some funds for rail service of some sort, hopefully along the I-70 and I-25 corridors.

[Mike from back east]

New article on this issue; TX, NM, and CO will team up to apply for Federal funds. Rare to see a GOP Governor get together with DEM governors, but to me this is a good sign....a rail pax corridor from El Paso, TX to Denver. IMO, needs to go up to Cheyenne, WY, too.

[ChromeTree]

I don't see this being a good market for that kind of train. It is the same things as putting a bus route on Powers Blvd. Is someone going to drive to Walmart then thing they should take the bus to King Soopers? Colorado Springs and Ft. Collins are only an hour from Denver. Those people will probably opt to drive (if they have cars, which almost everyone does). That is the problem. In north eastern cities, people can walk out of their houses, get on a bus, then take it to the High Speed Rail. I lived in Pittsburgh for 4 years, never had a car, never missed having one. Could go everywhere from the airport, to the malls, to where my friend's boat was docked; all on my $35/month bus pass. Had no auto insurance, and never bought gas, had no repairs. If I really needed a car, I could take the bus to Hertz. So, I am a huge fan of public transportation... But if a train does not leave for Denver every 20 minutes, or if it's over $25 r/t; I am not taking it. (unless it goes to DIA and saves me from parking fees, or I-25 becomes a toll road)High speed rail belongs in the east from Chicago to Boston to Miami. Here, they need to get people used to a car-free life, before they think of building an expensive train.

[Fullback32]

Originally Posted by ChromeTree

(unless it goes to DIA and saves me from parking fees, or I-25 becomes a toll road)

That would be nice. I usually fly out of COS (and pay the extra to do so - usually,not always, but usually) simply because I don't want to be bothered with driving to DIA, having to park the car and drive back when I get home. If there was a high speed train between here and DIA, I might fly out of Denver.

[Josseppie]

Today there was a high speed train proposal in the Pueblo Chieftain! I wonder if Colorado will have stops only in the 3 cities listed or if it will eventually include other cities.

"It’s too early to say where all of the stops on the proposed route would be, said Udall’s spokeswoman, Marissa Padilla. Colorado stops are expected to at least include Pueblo, Colorado Springs and Denver."

The link: http://www.chieftain.com/articles/20...a849399585.txt

[jazzlover]

As regulars know on this forum, I am a strident supporter of passenger rail service. That said, I do not think "high-speed" rail is practical and studying it is a waste of money. High-speed rail is not what we need, but rather what is sorely needed is a revived "conventional" rail passenger network.

The impracticality of an expensive high-speed rail network is best explained using this analogy. Imagine if someone proposed building 11 high-speed automobile corridors in the United States. The roads would be capable of sustaining vehicle speeds of 150-250 mph--BUT they could only be accessed at a select few points along their routes--AND no others roads besides them would be built. Make no sense? Well, a high-speed network proposed by the latest bozos in Washington is just as senseless.

What is needed can be done for a fraction of the cost using the existing rail network. Use the example of El Paso to Wyoming. From El Paso to Albuquerque, there already exists a relatively lightly used rail freight corridor. Much of it could be upgraded to 70-90 mph speeds--and, in fact, passenger trains ran on that route at such speeds nearly 3/4's of century ago. From Albuquerque to Trinidad, the route would follow existing trackage now owned by the state of New Mexico, over which Amtrak currently runs. Train speeds on much of this line were as high as 90 MPH as recently as couple of years ago. From Trinidad to Denver, things become more complicated. This route hosts many slow coal trains on a daily basis. Upgrading to passenger service would require a) building a second and/or third track to accommodate passenger trains only--which could be done; or b) building a long-talked-about 100+ mile coal train "detour" line from east of Denver southward to connect with other lines near La Junta, which would effectively remove coal traffic from the line of a Trinidad-Denver passenger route. North of Denver, there already is trackage suitable for conventional rail all the way to Cheyenne--and beyond to Montana. Again, passenger trains once plied these rails at speeds of up to 90 MPH.

The biggest challenge for ANY type of passenger rail service will be terminal facilities. Denver, in its wisdom, basically emasculated Union Station as a viable passenger train terminal when it allowed urban re-development on the site of the yard tracks that served it. Union Station is effectively at the end of an inconvenient spur now--one that can require switching delays of 30 minutes to an hour or more for the two Amtrak trains that call there every day. To make it viable again as a rail passenger terminal might actually involve tearing down some of the yuppie condos, etc. built on the former yards and rebuilding track to the station area. Fortunately, Cheyenne, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo still have railroad stations--albeit converted to other uses--next to operating railroad tracks that could be potentially utilized for passenger train service.

On a broader note, the proponents of expensive high-speed rail projects--most of whom are pork-barrel politicians looking for a gaziilion dollar project for their district whether the damned thing is practical or not--point out that high-speed rather than conventional rail is needed to attract passengers away from their automobiles. That argument assumes that automobiles will remain viable as an affordable medium- to long-distance travel option for most Americans. That is a flawed argument because the auto is not likely to remain viable for that purpose for much longer. First, high energy costs will likely make fuel a prohibitively expensive proposition for most drivers. But, second, and more importantly, the country is simply not going to have either the money or resources to maintain the current highway system at any level to support either its extent or its current maintenance standards. Fortunately, conventional rail can be built and maintained for a fraction of the cost of highway maintenance--and it is 2 to 3 times more energy efficient.

In conclusion, we really need to get moving on a project to restore an EXTENSIVE conventional rail passenger network in this country--we had one back 3/4's of century ago--with technology much less advanced than today. High-speed rail is nothing more than some feel-good pork barrel bull**** that will do little to help us in the transportation crisis ahead. We don't need 11 trains to take a few select folks from a few select cities to another select city--we need a passenger train network that can take someone from a his or community to virtually any other community (via connections) in the country.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I do not think "high-speed" rail is practical

I think an East coast to West coast run would be very practical, like the high speed trains that connect only major cities in Europe. Then, feeder lines of standard rail to smaller cities and street car systems inside the city. Something of this sort is inevitable as the auto age dies a not so slow but horrible death.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

I think an East coast to West coast run would be very practical, like the high speed trains that connect only major cities in Europe. Then, feeder lines of standard rail to smaller cities and street car systems inside the city. Something of this sort is inevitable as the auto age dies a not so slow but horrible death.

The problem is cost. High-speed rail in Europe runs only a fraction of the distance that a high-speed coast-to-coast line in the US would require. Remember--on high-speed rail EVERY SINGLE road crossing must be grade-separated (overpass or underpass) on the line. Every one.

The second half of your statement is also missing from the US rail plan. High-speed rail is useless without the supporting connecting conventional passenger rail network, which this country no longer has. Even in Europe, what makes the rail network viable is not the high-speed lines, though they get a lot of publicity, but the fact that Europe has retained a robust conventional passenger rail network. Ironically, 70 years ago, the US passenger rail network was far better than Europe's--and served many more hundreds of thousands of square miles of territory--but we squandered it at the altar of the automobile.

[Josseppie]

I can only speak for my self but I would be more willing to use a train for semi long distances if it was high speed. That is why i like the idea of train corridors. Anything longer then that then it makes more sense to fly.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

Anything longer then that then it makes more sense to fly.

As energy costs go crazy, flying will be for big bucks flyers and government only. Rail is much cheaper per head.