New report evaluates HSR routes, including PGH's (Pittsburgh, Washington: buy, construction)

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Because gas will get more expensive and more and more people are taking transit. Like i said , HSR would best work in Eastern PA at the present time. Railways also create developments and revive old and failing cities.

What old and failing cities have been revived by railways?

I think HSR only works in high traffic areas for relatively short hops. DC-Baltimore-Philly-NYC-Boston for instance. I'm not sure there is enough demand in eastern PA, even between Harrisburg and Philly.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I don't think it is economically viable. How much to people want to travel around the state? We have cars for that and they are more flexible in getting us to a destination. I bet the ticket prices would make the car a better option too. Why go to Scranton other than to fulfill a desire to visit "The Office" city? If we want to exchange ideas, we have the internet.

Car trips are more expensive than people sometimes account for, particularly if you consider the value of the driver's time. High-speed passenger trains are also faster and a lot safer than cars, and better for the environment, and use less land, and so on.

As a rough rule of thumb, HSR starts becoming more economical than cars at trips of around 100 miles, assuming potential demand is high enough on the relevant route. As for potential demand, so far people are still moving themselves around quite a bit despite the Internet, and our population is predicted to keep growing.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

What old and failing cities have been revived by railways?

Note that we haven't really tried HSR in the U.S. yet--the Northeast Corridor is a very limited exception, and isn't really HSR. The relevant test cases are overseas, in places like Spain and France.

I think HSR only works in high traffic areas for relatively short hops. DC-Baltimore-Philly-NYC-Boston for instance. I'm not sure there is enough demand in eastern PA, even between Harrisburg and Philly.

Again, as a rough rule of thumb, HSR has proven economic from about 100 miles to about 600 miles, and if it is fast enough a bit more than that. As for volumes, you have to keep in mind you can aggregate routes. So basically you look to add up all the overlapping potential routes. Note you aren't just planning to displace car travel, but also short-hop airplane travel.

This report was taking a broad stab at doing that. But again, I think you might be surprised by how much people still travel, either by car or plane, even between relatively small destinations.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

What old and failing cities have been revived by railways?

I think HSR only works in high traffic areas for relatively short hops. DC-Baltimore-Philly-NYC-Boston for instance. I'm not sure there is enough demand in eastern PA, even between Harrisburg and Philly.

Yes , it seems to be happening in the smaller towns aswell as the larger cities. Were not talking about the whole city but sections near the Transit corridors or Railway Hub. Eastern PA needs to enhance its Railway it has a plan , but has lagged on it to the dis pleasement of the towns and cities with the old railways in them. It wouldn't be HSR it would be Intercity Rail with a top speed of 140mph. Eastern PA is growing fast and needs these corridors otherwise there will be some serious traffic issues in the future. The Demand is there , the $$$ kepts being put some were else. I made a map of all the proposed and planned lines in SEPA.

SE PA 2050 Rail / Inner Urban Transit Plans - Google Maps

[BrianTH]

By the way, in places like Central and Western PA, the promise of HSR is not so much that it will revitalize a lot of towns directly, because you can't have many stops and keep it fast. The promise is more to replace the dying sector of regional air service, which already requires heavy subsidies (and well-connected members of Congress), and is only going to get less economic as fuel prices increase and congestion in major airports gets worse.

[Blackbeauty212]

The Fact you could get from Downtown Pittsburgh to Center City Philadelphia in a matter of 3hrs via an "Acela" would be explosive growth for PA in terms of Business, you could esstentially live in one city and work in the other, and 4hrs to NYC from Pittsburgh would put the Burgh on so many radars its not funny....

It's this kind of Progressive thinking that lacks in Harrisburg

[pman]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

The Fact you could get from Downtown Pittsburgh to Center City Philadelphia in a matter of 3hrs via an "Acela" would be explosive growth for PA in terms of Business, you could esstentially live in one city and work in the other, and 4hrs to NYC from Pittsburgh would put the Burgh on so many radars its not funny....

It's this kind of Progressive thinking that lacks in Harrisburg

exactly. none of us know what the cost is, of course, since it's never been studied and this 2050 plan doesn't really consider it either. the distance is actually in the sweet spot for HSR. Harrisburg-Philly is actually a bit on the short end. in the long run I'd hope to see an express track added back and Keystone east service be the "regional" while the pittsburgh-philly trains run express. I don't know what the cost would be but it would likely be far less than the nec (which is good since the ridership/revenue would be lower). mind you, on top of gas, there are tolls.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

By the way, in places like Central and Western PA, the promise of HSR is not so much that it will revitalize a lot of towns directly, because you can't have many stops and keep it fast. The promise is more to replace the dying sector of regional air service, which already requires heavy subsidies (and well-connected members of Congress), and is only going to get less economic as fuel prices increase and congestion in major airports gets worse.

So HSR service won't require similar subsidies? And even trains need energy. There's no free lunch here.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

The Fact you could get from Downtown Pittsburgh to Center City Philadelphia in a matter of 3hrs via an "Acela" would be explosive growth for PA in terms of Business, you could esstentially live in one city and work in the other, and 4hrs to NYC from Pittsburgh would put the Burgh on so many radars its not funny....

It's this kind of Progressive thinking that lacks in Harrisburg

I think you guys are becoming way overly optimistic about its cost effectiveness. A commute like that will be too expensive unless the government wants to subsidize it and when you consider the bureaucratic costs of implementing a subsidy, it is even less cost efficient.

And hopefully, your destination is central Philly otherwise you'll have to take mass transit or some other form of transportation and that will add considerably more time to your trip. Not to mention that you'd have to get to the Pittsburgh station to begin with.

And I doubt the Pennsylvania terrain will allow a train to reach these 150+ mph speeds over long distances. Eastern PA maybe, but western and especially central PA will bring down the speed.

[BrianTH]

The expense of a new ROW will likely require more than just Pittsburgh as a western destination. But with a new ROW and true HSR, you could be talking about Philly to Chicago, New York to Cleveland, and on and on.

So HSR service won't require similar subsidies?

Well, yes and no. If you are already running HSR from Philly to Pittsburgh, the marginal cost of adding a stop somewhere within a couple hours drive of lots of Western-Central PA is pretty trivial (note you can have some trains skip that stop, depending on demand). You can't really do that with planes, meaning you can't just stop some of the Philly to Pittsburgh flights in between at a low marginal cost. Further, the marginal cost of adding a few additional passengers to high-speed trains is also low. On airplanes, where weight allowances and physical space come at a higher marginal cost, that is less true.

So if you were trying to justify the expense for this purpose alone, it would be huge and would indeed require enormous subsidies. But if you only attribute to them the marginal costs, then the subsidy, if any, is much lower.

And even trains need energy. There's no free lunch here.

Choosing a more efficient option isn't a free lunch, just a good idea.

In this case, planes burn a lot of fuel taking off and landing. They also require a lot of expensive infrastructure (both to build and maintain) for each take off/landing point. With trains, again the marginal costs in terms of energy and infrastructure of an additional stop are comparatively low, provided you are talking about adding a stop to an already existing line.