General US High Speed Rail Discussion

I think that the CSX CEO is right about sharing tracks -- it won't work. It's the reason why the more heavily-used highways have more than one lane in each direction, to allow faster vehicles to pass slower ones more easily.

So I think that David Benton is right. A serious HSR effort requires building additional tracks. There's also the problem of coexistence with CSX and other existing-track owners. Will their trains easily cross the fast-train tracks? Will they get to use the fast-train ones as passing tracks and extra capacity when the passenger trains aren't running? Will their maintenance expenses and tax bills go up from the addition of tracks that they do not make much use of?

Fan Railer wrote:

FatNoah wrote:I don't see anything particularly shocking there. There's nothing in it for CSX, so why should they support it?

That's capitalism for ya *rolls eyes*..... and people wonder why progress is so hard to come by in the States nowadays.....

So why was Amtrak formed? Oh yeah,thats right, there was no money to be made in passenger rail. Amtrak still looses money paying discounted rates to the freight railroad. The CSX CEO is right, there is no profit in it. Even the high speed networks in Europe do not turn a profit.

The CEO is just stating something that we already know. You can't really have a safe highspeed network with grade crossings anyway. Better to build a new line, and find some funding mechanism to support it (such as a gas tax.)

That's capitalism for ya *rolls eyes*

That is true. As CEO, his obligation is to what's best for CSX and its shareholders. To do otherwise would be to jeopardize his job and face the inevitable lawsuits. In any case, if we want a truly successful rail system we will have to separate passenger rail from freight. Thinking longer term, it's unlikely that freight volumes will decrease, so track sharing will simply lead to increased delays for everyone.

Of course, there can be benefits to sharing tracks. On a smaller scale, (much-maligned) Pan Am Railways has gotten a lot of money to improve it's infrastructure courtesy of the Downeaster, which enjoys a good OTP.

$98.4 million to replace the Merrimack River Bridge in Haverhill

This one puzzles me. I understand the need to replace the bridge, but it's not going to reduce travel times much for anyone. Both the Downeaster and MBTA trains stop at the Haverhill station on the north side of the bridge. MBTA trains also stop at a station on the south side of the bridge as well.

So that's where the Pan Am name went. I remember flying in some Pan Am airliners long ago. That aside, is Pan Am a very busy railroad? If not, then it can easily tolerate some passenger trains -- not likely that there'd be many, however.

Fan Railer wrote:

FatNoah wrote:I don't see anything particularly shocking there. There's nothing in it for CSX, so why should they support it?

That's capitalism for ya *rolls eyes*..... and people wonder why progress is so hard to come by in the States nowadays.....

One point your missing, is what barriers has the goverment put up , to stop investment in HS rail. I am sure they are numerous. and I 100% agree with the CEO from CSX.

The MA application to replace the Merrimack River bridge is probably a long shot at getting selected given the $9 billion of applications I have found descriptions for so far. By identfying it as a project and putting the application together, it gets it into the funding queue for future consideration, but it does not sound as if it is that critical or much benefit to replace right now. The Maine application for $20.8 million to add double tracks and replace rails for the MBTA owned section in MA fro the Downeaster route may be more productive.

The Merrimack bridge replacement also looks like a project that should be eligible for FTA transit funding. The Portal Bridge North replacement project in NJ is also another project that should be able to get some FTA funding. A new bridge is just as vital to NJ Transit as it is to Amtrak to fix a choke point that causes delays for NJ Transit commuters and has to be replaced before the current swing bridge deteriates to the point where it need extensive emergency repairs or get hit by 40-50 mph slow orders.

Wonder what the rules are on having both FTA transit funds and FRA HSIPR funds be used to split the federal contribution to passenger rail projects near the cities that are critical to both commuter and intercity passenger services? The $2.43 billion would go a lot further if some of the $3 billion of FTA transit funding that was to go to the ARC project could be used to cover 1/2 of the $570 million for the Portal Bridge north replacement.

BTW, I have not found out what Minnesota submitted in the applications for the Florida funds. Has anyone seen information on that?

FatNoah wrote:

$98.4 million to replace the Merrimack River Bridge in Haverhill

This one puzzles me. I understand the need to replace the bridge, but it's not going to reduce travel times much for anyone. Both the Downeaster and MBTA trains stop at the Haverhill station on the north side of the bridge. MBTA trains also stop at a station on the south side of the bridge as well.

It's also the Pan Am mainline and the single most congested mixed passenger + heavy freight span in all of New England. They're pivoting on the commuter rail + intercity + major freight angle upping the priority on this and being able to draw in funding from other sources like the FTA. If they don't get an award now the application is a tactical move for getting help through alternate means.

CSX CEO wrote:Ahem...give me subsidy.

Why do bank and energy CEO's appear to bite the hand that feeds them in the press? Because it works.

Obama's considering both more freight rail deregulation and huge passenger investment. CSX is working the system to make sure it gets the biggest available cut of subsidy with the smallest possible responsibility to regulation and other services its tracks support. This is how business gets done when government and shareholder interests blur. They're not going to cut passenger trains off their tracks...that would be foolish for the subsidy they'd be getting. They're framing the debate in "too big to fail" terms because that's worked spectacularly well for other conglomerates at having their cake and eating it too. If the message gains traction, watch BNSF, NS, and others start to pile on. If it doesn't, it'll quietly slip out of the news cycle with no harm.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:If the message gains traction, watch BNSF, NS, and others start to pile on. If it doesn't, it'll quietly slip out of the news cycle with no harm.

I've read several media articles over the years where the major Class 1 railroads have repeatedly suggested 90 mph as the maximum speeds on shared tracks.

Shared corridors also bring up problems, mainly how for the freight business to served customers on both sides of the corridor. Look at UTA's flyovers over UP tracks in rural Utah. Imagine the number of flyovers that would be required in the higher density east coast rail corridors. I'm not suggesting it would be impossible, just that it would be very expensive.

It's called being a slave to the Almighty Dollar.

I've seen a gradual change in companies over the last 30 years or so. Now it's all about the next quarter's numbers. Nothing about being a good corporate citizen, nothing about good relations unless it contributes to the bottom line.

It's how you end up with PanAm having rails in such terrible shape that they have to run trains SO slow that it almost killed people in Nashua because of how long an ambulance had to wait at a grade crossing. It's how you end up dumping dozens of tons of coal in a downtown area when you're going 5mph and your train flips.

It's how the manager of an insurance companies' mutual fund subsidiary has profits turn into losses, lays off several hundred and gets a bonus that would have paid for the laid off workers salaries and benefits FOR TWO YEARS. (Putnam Investments, my former employer)

It's a lack of vision.

The summary list for all the state and Amtrak applications that I have found so far. The only states remaining, except maybe for Minnesota, are likely to have only applied for study funding or not ready for primetime projects. The applications are for the $2.43 billion of Florida HSIPR funds: $1.63 in stimulus funds, $800 million in FY2010 funds which require a minimum of a 20% state or local match.

Amtrak: $1.3 billion for five NEC projects:
- $570 million for the Portal Bridge North replacement for Amtrak, NJ kicking in up to $150 million for $720 million total.
- $188 million for PE and EIS for Gateway project for 2 new tunnels under Hudson river with related infrastructure improvements
- $50 million for PE and EIS for Penn Station south facility.
- $450 million for upgrades between Philly and NYP for "Power, Signal, and Catenary and Track Improvements" for speed increases to 160 mph.
- $15 million for PE and EIS for Pelham Bay Bridge replacement and evaluate track upgrades for a 5 mile stretch south of the bride for higher speeds.

California: $3.7 billion for HSR, $382 million for the Surfliner, San Joaquin, Capital Corridor. Got to give them points for asking for more than is available.
- $1.44 billion with 20% state match for completing the backbone of Merced to Bakersfield.
- $960 million with 20% state match for construction north from Merced toward the Bay Area.
- $1.3 billion with 20% state match for construction south from Bakersfield to the Tehachapi Mountains.
- Caltrain: $382 million for more than 12 improvement projects for its Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor passenger rail lines.

CT: $227 million for New Haven to Springfield corridor

District of Columbia: ?

Georgia: $22.5 million for a $38 million dollar project to build a new station in Atlanta.

Illinois: $186.4 million funding with matching funds for a total of $248.5 million for Chicago to St. Louis corridor projects; $1 million for planning a station in East St. Louis.

Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin: $806 million in a joint inter-state application for rolling stock for all the Chicago hub corridor services and the River Runner; to buy 100 bi-levels and 31 locomotives, includes a 20% reserve.

Kansas: ?

Maine: $59.1 million total: $38.3 million for improvements to the Pan Am Railways tracks between Portland and Plaistow, NH to add double tracks, sidings curve modifications to reduce trip times by 10 minutes; $20.8 million to add double tracks and replace rail for the MBTA owned tracks in MA.

Maryland: $415 million total: $299 million for BWI Airport station & platform rebuild and 9 miles of 4th track, MD will provide $41 million in matching funds; $116 million for engineering and design study to replace Bush, Gunpowder, Susquehanna river bridges.

Massachusetts: $98.4 million to replace Merrimack River bridge in Haverhill for MBTA and Downeaster.

Michigan: $196.5 million for Kalamazoo to Dearborn section of the Chicago-Detroit corridor for upgrades to 110 mph, $5.2 million for Kalamazoo-Dearborn Deferred Maintenance Program that could begin this summer, $2.9 million for the West Detroit Connection Track Universal Crossover; $3.5 million for an intermodal station in Ann Arbor.

Minnesota: ?

Missouri: $937 million total: $337 million for current Kansas City to St. Louis corridor and St. Louis projects; $600 million for study, engineering, and ROW acquisition for KC to St. Louis HSR corridor.

NC: $624 million total: for a series of projects, but also includes $300 million to buy 140 miles of the CSX S-Line ROW from Petersburg VA to Cary, NC for the SE HSR corridor. $50 million for 75 miles of the abandoned S-Line, $250 million for 65 miles of the active part of the S-Line.

New Mexico: ?

Nevada: request for planning money for a western HSR network connecting Las Vegas to Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and LA.

NY: $517 million for 8 projects: $294.7 million for Harold interlocking 2 mile bypass route to avoid conflicts with LIRR, $49.8 million for phase 2 design of Moynihan station, $112 million for new signal system from Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie, $18.6 million for replacing 48 miles of Hudson signal system from Poughkeepsie and Albany, $35.4 for final phase 4th track construction at Rensselaer station, $4.1 million for track and platform upgrades at Schenectady station, $1.4 million for PE for Rochester intermodal station, $1.75 million for Niagara Falls high-speed rail and maintenance facility.

Oregon: $13.1 million total for 5 Cascades projects.

Pennsylvania: $248 million for Keystone East corridor: upgrade 5 interlocking segments with track, signal, catenary improvements to reduce Harrisburg to Philly trip times by 20 minutes, install high level platforms at 3 stations. $73.3 million in matching funds provided for $321.2 million total project.

Rhode Island: $31 million: $25 million for 3rd track at Kingston station for Acela and Amtrak bypass traffic, $6 million for studies including TF Green Airport station
South Carolina: ?

Texas: $43 million total: $18 million for PE and EIS for proposed Dallas/FW to Houston HSR line; $24.8 million for final design and construction of PTC for the Trinity Rail Express corridor.

Utah: requested funding for a study of high speed rail corridors in the Intermountain West.
Vermont: $80 million for Ethan Allen western corridor expansion.
WA: $120 million for Cascades corridor projects.
Wisconsin: $150 million for Chicago to Milwaukee Hiawatha service for new rolling stock and maintenance facility. Specifics are not clear.

Note: Virginia did not submit an application.

So how would you divide up $2.4 billion? In some cases, don't have to grant the full amount applied for a project.

There's a difference between "doesn't support" and "actively opposes."

For example, the proposed third track near Bergen, New York that's supposed to be the test bed for this. I'll reserve comment on how practical this idea is, since that's off point.

If CSX "doesn't support" they basically be silent. If they "actively oppose" that means roadblocks. I suspect it will be the latter.

Also, asking more than is available tactically sets up those projects for additional grants later. Few if any projects get awarded at the original request amount, but some get an IOU for chipping away at the difference the next time new funding surfaces. This list features a lot of jockeying for future IOU's.

I wouldnt think property aqquisition would provide many jobs or supplier stimulus . Unless CSx used the money on other projects . a necessary step i quess , but hardly a economy stimulus .