New report evaluates HSR routes, including PGH's (Hanover, Penn: taxes, assess)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

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.

That is really a function of how much you want to spend on the ROW. Again, I would personally concede the necessary costs are unlikely to be justifiable if this line ends in Pittsburgh. But if it goes out to Chicago, then it may well be worth the cost for an expensive but fast ROW in Western PA. Pittsburgh in that sense would be the beneficiary of being in the right place for an East-West connection to pass through--which has happened before.

[pman]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

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

generally speaking HSR requires no annual subsidy, just an upfront capital subsidy.
as for ROW acquisition, it will likely be much less to purchase ROW than to build on it. I don't buy the "western pa won't allow it" since countried with much more challenging grades have already built HSR. as for destinations, that's really the point, you're taking high volume trips out of the equation, not satisfying every trip variable out there. it seems likely there'd be a harrisburg, lancaster, paoli, and philly stop on most trains (paoli serving as a convenient dropoff point for the western suburbs). if you look in the report, philly is the third most populous downtown (220k people within 2 mi of the station around the station (behind ny and san francisco) and I'd bet both cities have signficant growth in that area over the next generation. bear in mind ny is the likely terminus using existing nec tracks.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by pman

generally speaking HSR requires no annual subsidy, just an upfront capital subsidy.

I can't believe that because Amtrak gets federal subsidies. I think this system will be no different. Freight rail companies don't seem to be interested in pursuing passenger service.

as for ROW acquisition, it will likely be much less to purchase ROW than to build on it. I don't buy the "western pa won't allow it" since countried with much more challenging grades have already built HSR. as for destinations, that's really the point, you're taking high volume trips out of the equation, not satisfying every trip variable out there. it seems likely there'd be a harrisburg, lancaster, paoli, and philly stop on most trains (paoli serving as a convenient dropoff point for the western suburbs). if you look in the report, philly is the third most populous downtown (220k people within 2 mi of the station around the station (behind ny and san francisco) and I'd bet both cities have signficant growth in that area over the next generation. bear in mind ny is the likely terminus using existing nec tracks.

I haven't read up on HSR in Europe lately but I think the lines in France follow relatively flat routes and straight ones at that. For hilly areas the train must reduce speed significantly. The Alleghenies run northeast-southwest and I don't think there is a nice straight gap that cuts through them to get to the nice flat plains of the Midwest.

We had a passenger rail network good enough to demand rail terminal palaces but I really think the market today won't support it here. In Europe, it is very dense and compact and even so, I believe European governments still heavily subsidize the railroads.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I can't believe that because Amtrak gets federal subsidies. I think this system will be no different. Freight rail companies don't seem to be interested in pursuing passenger service.



I haven't read up on HSR in Europe lately but I think the lines in France follow relatively flat routes and straight ones at that. For hilly areas the train must reduce speed significantly. The Alleghenies run northeast-southwest and I don't think there is a nice straight gap that cuts through them to get to the nice flat plains of the Midwest.

We had a passenger rail network good enough to demand rail terminal palaces but I really think the market today won't support it here. In Europe, it is very dense and compact and even so, I believe European governments still heavily subsidize the railroads.

There are a few small Freight companies who want to get back into the biz of Passenger trains. A few systems should be up by the end of the decade here in the NE.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I can't believe that because Amtrak gets federal subsidies. I think this system will be no different.

The only part of Amtrak that bears any resemblance to HSR is Acela, and Acela is actually profitable on an operating basis.

In Europe, it is very dense and compact and even so, I believe European governments still heavily subsidize the railroads.

Europe isn't particularly more dense than the specific parts of the U.S. where we should build HSR. It doesn't matter how dense North Dakota is--that's not where the trains should go. This, of course, is part of the problem with Amtrak: for political reasons it runs service where it doesn't make sense. Then the same politicians complain about how inefficient it is.

In Europe, they have to subsidize construction of HSR, but then it typically operates at a profit. Of course we subsidize every mode of transportation in the U.S. in one way or another. Which is fine--so did the Romans, and smart countries have been doing so ever since.

[pman]

[quote=MathmanMathman;17487190] I can't believe that because Amtrak gets federal subsidies. I think this system will be no different. Freight rail companies don't seem to be interested in pursuing passenger service.

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I haven't read up on HSR in Europe lately but I think the lines in France follow relatively flat routes and straight ones at that. For hilly areas the train must reduce speed significantly. The Alleghenies run northeast-southwest and I don't think there is a nice straight gap that cuts through them to get to the nice flat plains of the Midwest.

that's not my understanding at all...not to mention the lines in spain and switzerland. grades aren't a particular problem. yes, the routes need to be straight. I don't think I ever implied it wouldn't be more costly than a country lane but with a large amount of state forest and lower value land than the northeast, acquisition costs should be much smaller. yes, some tunneling is going to be required as well as bridges (bridghes and an elevated structure will be required even on flat land, this is how they are building across china, you can't have 186 mph-220 mph trains with grade crossings. the alleghenies do vary in elevation depending on what part of the state you are in.

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

We had a passenger rail network good enough to demand rail terminal palaces but I really think the market today won't support it here. In Europe, it is very dense and compact and even so, I believe European governments still heavily subsidize the railroads.

so far, the market has been receptive to the acela service so much so they charge ridiculous prices unheard of even in europe.
in any event, even in the old days, passenger rail didn't pay for all the construction, it was incremental on top of freight...OTOH, highways were built with taxpayer money and future highways also need capital subsidies so I'm not sure why you're drawing a line. I can't say that subsidizing transportation is smart or not but subsidizing one mode over all others surely is not...especially if you're going to turn around and say one is unprofitable but never apply that to the others. the pennsyvlania turnpike was built with toll money, if roads were tolled, decisions would be different. currently it costs about $100-120 to drive across the state ($20 in tolls, rest in gas assuming $3.20/gal, 300 miles, 22 mpg. it takes 5-6 hours. do you not think that people would pay that much for a faster trip?remember, faster trains mean more trips with less equipment...and lower operating expenses (such as fewer labor hours for a given trip), higher demand, etc. passenger rail in most senses is like any other business, improvements in capital improve the bottom line.
without tax subsidies, would 80 have been built? and if it had, it most certainly would have been a toll road from the start.

[BrianTH]

The bottomline is that all three major intercity technologies--cars, trains, and airplanes--have proven to be the best technology for different purposes in many other countries.

So if one of those technologies is largely missing from the United States, we are doing something wrong, and it will (and already is) cost us in terms of congestion, energy efficiency, public health and safety, and so on. There are legitimate questions about how best to get there from here, but that's the big picture: right now we are a stool with only two legs.

[pman]

I'd also add that the current train does pretty well, filling its seats, despite being once a day and pretty slow so there is some demand there. I do think it's unlikely we'll get hsr right off the bat without incremental improvements to current service to "prove" demand.

[ctoocheck]

I don't think Switzerland has any proper HSR. There are up-to-300km/h (190mph) ICE lines that run across the more mountainous parts of Germany (I don't really know exactly how they compare with the Appalachians), though many lines go only to 160 km/h (100mph) (though those are planned to be upgraded I suppose). I'd like to see the ICE lines on a topo map but I can't seem to find one. Germans also seem to be more willing to build tunnelsö I remember lots of those, and don't think I ever saw huge cuts like the one on I79 just south of the Ohio River crossing.
Anyhow, I suppose with a cross-PA route you could use a high-speed train with HSR most of the time, with speed reductions along less flat stretches of track (as seems to be the case in Germany)


I also just did a little comparison of international HSR for fun: the Acela vs. the German ICE and French TGV. Here's what I came up with for fee/speed comparisons for routes that are each about 400mi.

CITY PAIR / TRAVEL TIME / PRICE
Boston-Washington Acela / 6:45 / $132-$235
Hamburg-Freiburg ICE / 6:00 - 6:30 / $175 (€130 normal price), $40-$95 (€30-70 "Sparangebot" if you book enough in advance; many Germans also buy BahnCards which save even more)
Paris-Marseille TGV / 3:15 / $75-$142 (most about $85)

I am amazed at the TGV speed. Apparently the Japanese Shinkansen takes about the same time between Tokyo and Hiroshima (also a bit over 400mi) but I couldn't find pricing.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

I am amazed at the TGV speed. Apparently the Japanese Shinkansen takes about the same time between Tokyo and Hiroshima (also a bit over 400mi) but I couldn't find pricing.

I remember the high-speed trains in Japan being expensive but it's from 13-14 years ago, plus only vague thought of "expensive" and can't compare to, say, Acela, which I may have also considered "expensive" at the time. We took some slower trains and in one case when we went to Mt Fuji a direct bus. My travel in Europe never got me onto the TGV either, though I have seen them. I did get through the Channel Tunnel once, but it was on a bus on the shuttle train, not the Eurostar.