tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post1587199222252870607..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Western Rail Alliance Proposes HSR Routes, Including LA-PhoenixRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-27404279354220685692009-11-11T15:07:27.773-08:002009-11-11T15:07:27.773-08:00A stop at Blythe might be useful for LA-Phoenix se...A stop at Blythe might be useful for LA-Phoenix service, but most trains wouldn't stop there - the ridership is too low. The only way it could become a major stop is if developers forced the operator to overserve it to subsidize their speculation.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-46776780960294020522009-11-11T12:11:54.433-08:002009-11-11T12:11:54.433-08:00Adirondacker12800 said "I'm sure Bruce Mc...Adirondacker12800 said "<i>I'm sure Bruce McF can do the same thing for the Midwest. Connect Chicago (ten times SLC ) with lots of places that are SLC sized, that have ROW that's nice and flat and in use for trains....</i>"<br /><br />Don't have to, its already been designed - that's the Midwest Hub and Ohio Hub.<br /><br />When not used as a front-runner for an Express High Speed Rail corridor, 110mph Emerging Higher Speed Rail corridors (for later upgrade to 125mph Regional Higher Speed Rail corridors) are an ideal way to connection 100k+ and 50K+ cities to 1m+ cities and 5m+ cities, and 1m+ cities to each other, when they lie within 300 miles of each other with intervening population centers in the 50mile ~ 150 mile range.<br /><br />When electrified and upgraded to separate Rapid Rail track (and max speed raised to 125mph), a crossing Express High Speed Rail corridor can just junction with a Regional Higher Speed Rail corridor and the trains continue from one to the other to provide direct Express HSR services in far more cities than the Express High Speed Rail corridor itself goes.<br /><br />So if, for instance, the only cost effective way to get a 220mph corridor from Denver to SLC is via Cheyenne (and looking at the terrain, that is quite plausible - just one bit of viaduct and/or tunnels immediately west of SLC) ... that does not mean no service on the I-70 corridor. What it means is a Regional HSR corridor that connects western CO to Denver, and can be later considered for extending NW to SLC.<br /><br />The Front Range and I-70 corridors being studied by the <a href="http://rockymountainrail.org/index.html" rel="nofollow">Rocky Mountain Rail Authority</a> seem to be 110mph or 125mph systems.<br /><br />In the current $50/barrel ~ $200/barrel crude oil price range, LA/Phoenix is definitely a second or third tier 220mph corridor, but with the distance and the lack of much intervening population once you get past the inland CA sprawl, it seems like a 220mph corridor is more plausible than a 110mph corridor. And since extending the California HSR system to San Diego is a higher priority, the obvious approach is to look for a useful junction with the LA/SD corridor.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-64564411059615982582009-11-11T04:54:39.432-08:002009-11-11T04:54:39.432-08:00i vote for andy's map.i vote for andy's map.無名 - wu minghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01078479850722724885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-18191867781892709472009-11-11T03:24:00.869-08:002009-11-11T03:24:00.869-08:00The LA-PHX route is almost too easy to not conside...The LA-PHX route is almost too easy to not consider, particularly because getting into Phoenix via the freight rail corridor through Avondale and along Buckeye Rd. would involve only negligible interactions with residential neighborhoods. It would be HSR on the cheap, and would draw instant demand as well as allow Phoenix to hold off on resolving the thorny problems at Sky Harbor. Going east out of Downtown to get to Tucson or other cities would prove to be far more difficult, but coming in from LA would be, in terms of availability of appropriate ROW and lack of opposed adjacent properties and stakeholders, be remarkably easy. (Some of that track is in terrible condition, but they would need to put in new track regardless for high-speed service, so I suppose its current poor level of maintenance wouldn't be determinative).<br /><br />Having said that, I would stop at least in either Yuma or Blythe, depending on where you crossed the California border. Still, only 1 intermediate station between PHX and Palm Springs isn't bad.<br /><br />Of course, your bigger problem would be getting it through the perpetually dysfunctional teabagger AZ legislature.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14186947428645370594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-77294273441087589352009-11-11T00:41:03.463-08:002009-11-11T00:41:03.463-08:00my map is the right one.my map is the right one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-37697415619105943582009-11-10T22:03:37.355-08:002009-11-10T22:03:37.355-08:00Andy, the French projects are built on top of high...Andy, the French projects are built on top of highways - they don't encounter any population centers they need to do noise mitigation with. The entire point of TGV-style construction is to avoid urban areas entirely. Outside the urban areas, France isn't very dense.<br /><br />The station costs are only a small fraction of overall costs. SNCF breaks down the projected cost of HSR on I-35 as follows:<br /> Land acquisition - 6%<br /> Infrastructure - 60%<br /> System - 20%<br /> Stations and buildings - 4%<br /> Rolling stock - 10%<br />Infrastructure includes tracks, grade separations, and electrification; system includes maintenance facilities and, I think, signals. Both scale linearly with length regardless of how many stations there are in the middle or how urbanized the area is. Even for tunnel-heavy construction, such as in Italy, costs are about six times as high per route-km - and LV-SLC isn't competing with tunnel-heavy construction, but with tunnel-free lines like Albany-Buffalo or Indianapolis-Louisville.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-25950278176517384892009-11-10T21:23:49.190-08:002009-11-10T21:23:49.190-08:001/20th the ridership and yet costs 1/20th the pric...<em>1/20th the ridership and yet costs 1/20th the price, aren't the projects basically equal?</em><br /><br />It's gonna be really cheap to build railroad across flat land that almost free when it's not actually free. ( Federal or state owned land which there is a lot of of in Utah and Nevada). But Salt Lake City is essentially 400 miles from anyplace not in metro Salt Lake City. 400 miles of really cheap track adds up. Nice round numbers at 10 million a mile for two electrified tracks it's 4 billion dollars to get from Las Vegas to SLC. . . the problem with connecting the far flung West is that it's far flung. Even cheap track cost alot when you have to build hundreds of miles of it.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-58111929677394929622009-11-10T19:47:27.460-08:002009-11-10T19:47:27.460-08:00@Adirondacker: I'm going to let this drop afte...@Adirondacker: I'm going to let this drop after this post, because apparently people still don't understand my whole point, but I'll try once again:<br /><br />I'm not saying that there are other lines that aren't more important, or that these connections are going to be heavily trafficked. All I'm doing is postulating that maybe, perhaps, given the geography and the reduced expenses of running a line through nothing with no stations along it, that perhaps PERHAPS, there is a business case to be made for connecting the far flung parts of the american west.<br /><br />If it covers it's operations and maintenance costs while getting 1/20th the ridership and yet costs 1/20th the price, aren't the projects basically equal?<br /><br />Putting in anything to the towns you list, while certain to get higher ridership, are also certain to cost far more.<br /><br />Not every route is the NEC, and not every route needs to be. That's all I'm saying.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-61532780469095659062009-11-10T18:41:39.481-08:002009-11-10T18:41:39.481-08:00It's lots of fun to fantasize about a four hou...It's lots of fun to fantasize about a four hour train ride between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City. There's a lot of nothing between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas with lots of slightly denser nothing between Las Vegas and the exurbs of Los Angeles. <br /><br />Las Vegas was growing at an astounding rate and will probably do so in the future. Plan corridors now so that they can be used sometime off in the far future. But before they start connecting Salt Lake City with anything other than track shared with freight lets think about connecting Binghampton NY ( quarter of the size of metro Salt Lake City ) with Scranton Wilkes Barre ( half the size of SLC ) with Easton/Allentown/Bethlehem ( three quarters of the size of SLC ) with Philadelphia ( 5 times the size of SLC ) Or with New York City ( 20 times the size of Salt Lake City ) or Baltimore ( twice the size of SLC ) or Washington DC ( 5 times the size of Salt Lake City ) Or maybe laying third and four tracks between Buffalo ( a bit bigger than SLC ) with Toronto ( 4 times bigger than SLC ) or Cleveland ( a bit bigger than SLC ) or with Rochester ( again about the same size as SLC ) with Syracuse ( half of SLC ) and Albany ( three quarters SLC ) Maybe connect Albany to Montreal and Boston. Throw in Harrford ( SLC sized ) and New Haven ( SLC sized ).....<br /><br />I'm sure Bruce McF can do the same thing for the Midwest. Connect Chicago ( ten times SLC ) with lots of places that are SLC sized, that have ROW that's nice and flat and in use for trains....Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-80209446554947313162009-11-10T16:26:00.392-08:002009-11-10T16:26:00.392-08:00Note that before Express HSR would reach a point o...Note that before Express HSR would reach a point of any of those routes except possible LA/PHX starting serious planning, we would if we were serious about national security be establishing transcontinental 100mph Rapid Electric Freight Rail paths ...<br /><br />... and while they would not allow for supporting passenger services that would compete with air travel under anything like present jet kerosene costs ...<br /><br />... they would be a substantial improvement over Amtrak-grade long distance service for connecting the smaller population centers along the corridors to the main metro areas.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-60650175021383648912009-11-10T15:56:28.674-08:002009-11-10T15:56:28.674-08:00@Alon and El Paso/Juarez is not a "mid size c...@Alon and El Paso/Juarez is not a "mid size city" there's over 2 million people between the two. The line from Tucson isn't just about connecting Juarez to Tucson, it's about connecting Phoenix to Juarez.<br /><br />And who cares about the border? Put the station on the El Paso side.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-90202055173088083422009-11-10T15:51:04.405-08:002009-11-10T15:51:04.405-08:00"Nowhere in the first world does HSR cost $15..."Nowhere in the first world does HSR cost $15 million per mile nowadays."<br /><br />Nowhere in the first world has anyone tried to drag HSR over something like the Mojave desert. You can't compare dragging lines through France, or even texas, to the vast expanse of nothingness that is the high desert of california, nevada and phoenix.<br /><br />And the SNCF costs include multiple stations. Since there's nothing in between palm springs and phoenix, you're only talking about stations in palm springs, and phoenix.<br /><br />The tucson-juarez (el paso) would be a "connector" in that there need be no stations built at all. Tucson-Phoenix would already be built, and Santa Fe-Juarez (el paso) would already be built, so you're just talking about track. No stations at all. Similar with the Santa Fe-Pueblo link. No need to build any stations along there whatsoever, and the Fort Collins-Pueblo line would already exist, complete with a station in Pueblo. No new stations.<br /><br />So we're really only talking about track costs. Rolling Stock costs would be directly proportional to demand, so low ridership lines would have low rolling stock acquisition costs.<br /><br />Sure the lines are "underperforming", but relative to what? The NEC needs HSR, but cost wise, what is that going to take? All I'm saying is that you can't just look at ridership as the biggest metric, you have to look at cost to build it, and these lines would be relatively cheap to build, so they would only need a relatively small number of passengers to have similar benefit.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-86427940219379740102009-11-10T15:37:56.754-08:002009-11-10T15:37:56.754-08:00Nowhere in the first world does HSR cost $15 milli...Nowhere in the first world does HSR cost $15 million per mile nowadays. In France, when the lines follow existing highways and are tunnel-free, construction costs are €11 million per km, which works out to $25 million per mile. Elsewhere, construction costs are higher, because of tunnels or more expensive technology such as slab track.<br /><br />For reference, SNCF predicts a $12.4 billion construction cost for a 300-mile Texas route, for an average of $41 million per mile, not including rolling stock.<br /><br />The problem with some of the routes on your map is that they're low-performing. The route from Tucson to Juarez is more than 500 km long and connects a midsize city to a small one; on top of it, it involves a border crossing, which reduces traffic. The I-25 and I-15 suffer from the same problems. You really don't want to build 700 kilometers' worth of rail just for the LV-SLC and LA-SLC markets - it's just not worth it. Save the money for New York-Chicago service.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-30052239253119047912009-11-10T13:50:25.423-08:002009-11-10T13:50:25.423-08:00@Alon, I think you could avoid major mountain rang...@Alon, I think you could avoid major mountain ranges on most of the routes, really only SLC-Cheyenne and Pueblo-Santa Fe would require major mountain crossings. I'm not saying there's no tunneling, but I don't think we're in european price ranges. The chinese number is for urban/suburban/farmland combined. I think the $15m/mile for farmland HSR construction is probably a fair guess even with tunnels, considering there's very few stations, grade separations, and NIMBYs.<br /><br /><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=p&hl=en&msa=0&ll=36.066862,-111.225586&spn=17.232881,18.193359&z=6&msid=108000796876199278774.0004780aa5d1114a23de1" rel="nofollow">Here's a quick map</a> of a potential western network including a sort of "Mojave Triangle", linking the DX line with a LA-Phoenix line hugging the 10 freeway. That would allow you to hook up Laughlin/Bullhead and Havasu, while cutting the line length in half.<br /><br />A few of the lines are already proposed, such as the CAHSR system, the Colorado line, the Desert Xpress, and the Santa Fe-Juarez line. Once those are built, the connections would be even more attractive from a cost basis.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-69684544210192211162009-11-10T13:03:22.654-08:002009-11-10T13:03:22.654-08:00also think of this, if hsr becomes a normal part...also think of this, if hsr becomes a normal part of the transport system and planning over the next 50 years it will get less expensive, ( yes more expensive per inflation but) less expensive in that we will have contractors./ comapnies who build high speed rail - that will be what they do "ACME RAILCO*" and "ABC RAil*" and "USRAILCORP*" who wil have the equipment labor and engineering to build hsr as their specialty. and yay! a whole new industry to employ folks! And these companies will locate in places such as nevada where its cheap to do business. and when its time to build, NevadaDOT will bid out the project to one of these companies. it will become as common and as affordable as building new highway by passes. especially when everything is pretty much standardized like the catenary poles which are manufactured at the CATCO plant in winnemucca.<br />( i have a vivid imagination)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-24243419870169014102009-11-10T12:54:07.169-08:002009-11-10T12:54:07.169-08:00On my western map I connected large cities with c...On my western map I connected large cities with cities that are know for being sort of "mini growth burst" cities. we'll call them MGBs. Yes I making stuff up... but places such as hnderson, lake havasu, st george, the coachella valley, and all the smaller towns in nevada, are all places that have experienced signifant bursts of housing contraction during boom times. These are the affordable places where new arrivals wil settle and or where former city folks will move to when the new arrivals fill up their cities ( so called white flight) so these are places that will abosrb a lot of gorwth in the next 20-50 years. thus my reason for including on my HSR west map, because if we plan to connect them together, with hsr , those cities can do a different kind of "ground up" planning. Just as happened in the ;ate 1800s wherever the railroad goes, the people will go. now look agagin at mey map and think about past growth patterns and imagine how cities will grow and you'll see that the routes go right to where future growth will happen as describe above. My whole life experience in cali has been shaped by watching my surroundings change in the "california way" for the past 45 years. I know just how things go and If I extrapalate out - for another 40 years. my map is the <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=106369591048698553426.00047800357140f849817&t=h&z=5" rel="nofollow">accurate one.</a> trust me I know this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-60068055543180494942009-11-10T12:23:41.947-08:002009-11-10T12:23:41.947-08:00It's hard to double-track the existing Califor...It's hard to double-track the existing California Zephyr line, since the Moffat Tunnel is single-track. Crossing the Continental Divide at grade in Colorado is a non-started - the mountains are too steep, and even with the curve radii that were acceptable a hundred years ago, they had to build a tunnel.<br /><br />Those Western routes, with some flat exceptions like LA-Phoenix, involve major mountain crossings, requiring long tunnels. So overall construction costs should be at the same level as in California, i.e. $35 million per route-km, rather than at the same level as in France, i.e. $15 million. In either case, Chinese costs are unachievable without Chinese wages and Chinese safety standards.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-2431814520796330972009-11-10T11:22:19.200-08:002009-11-10T11:22:19.200-08:00@Ari: your article on the myth of the 400 mile HSR...@Ari: your <a href="http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2009/08/interregional-high-speed-rail-myth-of.html" rel="nofollow">article on the myth of the 400 mile HSR cap</a> also supports connecting large sections of the west, even if they're beyond traditional HSR distances, and especially if the lines are cheap to buildUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-53317411772683467362009-11-10T11:00:47.130-08:002009-11-10T11:00:47.130-08:00@Ari: agreed on all points. I think we need to be ...@Ari: agreed on all points. I think we need to be looking at cost of the lines themselves. At $15m/mile, a line from LAUS to Phoenix would be about $5B. That changes the calculations on what sort of "social benefit" you need to justify the initial public investment in the infrastructure, and as stated before, you don't need to have Paris-Lyon level traffic to make a profit on operations.<br /><br />For example, if the LA-Vegas line is already built, then there's already a station in Vegas, which makes the SLC line cheaper. If you're going to build a HSR link from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs (as is planned), then dragging a line up to Cheyenne and over to SLC is going to be relatively inexpensive, as you'll only really need to build one station (cheyenne), and like you said it's pretty much flat except for the mountains near SLC.<br /><br />The american west is really it's own sort of unique problem. Ridership on these lines would be far less than what we see other places, but the cost of building them would also be much smaller. Connecting Tucson to Phoenix to Vegas to SLC to Denver to Albuquerque and back to Tucson doesn't make any kind of sense at traditional HSR line prices, but it might at "drag the line through the desert" prices.<br /><br />Electrification really becomes the main cost, and a coordinated project to build those new HVDC "smart grid" lines alongside the tracks could allow you to share the costs, making the project even more attractive.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-15596494126844034772009-11-10T09:44:31.717-08:002009-11-10T09:44:31.717-08:00@Andy,
Yes, terrain has a huge impact on the cost...@Andy,<br /><br />Yes, terrain has a huge impact on the cost to build HSR lines. The only other variable which is close is built-up areas, especially if you need to condemn property (this is a bigger issue with legal fights). I believe the cost of HSR through the Central Valley in California is in th1 $15-$20m range per mile. So flat, straight portions through the desert might be significantly cheaper.<br /><br />And this, of course, plays in to the Salt Lake City to Denver chatter. If that is built in my lifetime, I'll be surprised. The only feasible option for really high speed rail is through Wyoming. From Cheyenne to Salt Lake is pretty flat until you hit the Wasatch Range. From Denver to Salt Lake is is almost continually mountainous and would require numerous costly tunnels and other such structures. Electrification of the current lines makes some sense through the mountains (allowing more frequent operation in tunnels and faster climbing speeds, as well as regenerative braking downhill), as does some double tracking. Building a high-speed corridor would not be cost effective.Arihttp://amateurplanner.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-65274463494952104172009-11-10T08:38:15.145-08:002009-11-10T08:38:15.145-08:00now that i think of it, the whole drive from flags...now that i think of it, the whole drive from flagstaff to LA i was thinking to myself "man, if only there was a way to go triple the speed across this desert." maglev would almost be worth it just to not have to look at the mojave's dull beige for as long.無名 - wu minghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01078479850722724885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-55540754095033375252009-11-10T08:09:32.165-08:002009-11-10T08:09:32.165-08:00A Phoenix to LA route makes perfect sense. Anyway ...A Phoenix to LA route makes perfect sense. Anyway to reduce the use of aircraft for these medium distances is a good thing as airliners are extremely dirty.owenandbenjaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09474307542498791351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-80714051807125869872009-11-10T07:56:56.752-08:002009-11-10T07:56:56.752-08:00A line from phoenix to la might not make sense at ...A line from phoenix to la might not make sense at $40-60 million per mile, but would it cost that much? With no stations in between, and only flat, cheap, sparsely populated desert to cover, we might be able to approach Chinese levels of HSR construction costs at about $7m/mile. The expensive part is getting a train from palm springs to laus, and that will already be More than halfway built. <br /><br />Since operational costs scale generally linearly, it's conceivable that the line could still cover it's operational costs even with only express service. A low up front investment from the public might be worth it.AndyDuncannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-74617962210035428462009-11-10T07:10:37.600-08:002009-11-10T07:10:37.600-08:00One of the big advantages of idneitfying routes ta...One of the big advantages of idneitfying routes taht won't be built for a decade or two is that you can include the plans *now*. That means protecting the right-of-way from devlopment, ensuring that sub-divisions are planned with access to rail stations, and generally making sure everyoen in the goverment and the public knows what the plan is.<br /><br />For a smaller-scale example, look at Calgary, Allberta. In the early 1980s, it identified where it intended all its LRT lines to go. All future development carefully left room for those lines, and so when they will be (or were) built, it was simple. They *planned*, and 25 years on, they are reaping the benefits.TomWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453251490705724225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-46855430961726633402009-11-10T06:00:32.950-08:002009-11-10T06:00:32.950-08:00Pulled the trigger early.
@Robert - the Las Vegas...Pulled the trigger early.<br /><br />@Robert - the Las Vegas-Phoenix route isn't all that great, but if the line is moved farther west it could go through or near Lake Havasu, Needles, and Bullhead/Laughlin. The population is somewhat higher, and tourism would boost the passenger potential.<br /><br />I have a number of HSR maps and area analyses <a href="http://peakvt.blogspot.com/search/label/Railroads" rel="nofollow">here</a> for those who are obses... er, intrigued by such things.PeakVThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com