Colorado HSR / Passenger Rail Corridor Studies

General discussion of passenger rail proposals and systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: gprimr1, mtuandrew

Nasadowsk
Posts: 3996
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:45 pm

Re: Colorado Feasability Study Complete

Post by Nasadowsk » Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:57 am

Average speeds of 90 to 100 are a nice goal for an existing, conventional rail line. For new build HSR, I'd expect 220mph design speed, top speed better than 186mph, and average speed well over 120.

21 billion? Even on the NEC, that ought to be a good long new build section. Maybe a good tunneling through the really slow Bronx portion, plus some bypassing of the nasty curves on the New haven and the Shore lines. Everyone bashes Metro-North, but the Amtrak section up to New Rochelle is argueably slower....

jtr1962
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Flushing, NY

Re: Colorado Feasability Study Complete

Post by jtr1962 » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:49 pm

Nasadowsk wrote: 21 billion? Even on the NEC, that ought to be a good long new build section. Maybe a good tunneling through the really slow Bronx portion, plus some bypassing of the nasty curves on the New haven and the Shore lines. Everyone bashes Metro-North, but the Amtrak section up to New Rochelle is argueably slower....
$21 billion would probably get you a brand new 220 mph HSR tunnel all the way from Penn Station to New Haven. That alone would knock close to an hour off the existing NYP-Boston running times. There might even be enough left to bring much of the line north of NH to 220 mph standard, getting the overall NYP-Boston running times not much over 1.5 hours.
Average speeds of 90 to 100 are a nice goal for an existing, conventional rail line. For new build HSR, I'd expect 220mph design speed, top speed better than 186mph, and average speed well over 120.
I agree here. Given the money this project would cost, either go for 220 mph ( with the alignment able to deal with 250 mph should HSR technology improve further ), or don't build it at all. And with a brand new alignment there shouldn't be any slower sections, so average speeds of 160 to 180 mph should be the goal.

cloudship
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: New England

Re: Colorado Feasability Study Complete

Post by cloudship » Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:23 pm

But relatively speaking, there ARE ways getting around the Northeast corridor. We just saw this spring what happens when a rock slide (which are frequent in the area) takes out the highway. Not withstanding much of this proposal seems stuck on following I-70 directly, a train would be an almost vital link for those communities in the mountains. Had a train route been available it may have saved many, many people a lot of headaches.

The resorts bring in ridership and dollars which are needed to make it self sufficient, but the real need (unfortunately not expressed) is as an additional transportation route. The Denver area is growing and pushing up against the mountains. This opens up areas beyond the pass to real growth. I think poor consideration was paid to the economic incentives here - perhaps the planners had simply spent to long in the famous traffic jams leading to the ski areas and this took all their attention, but there are many people who live in those areas too and need a way to get to Denver. If they focus not on making the cheapest route but the most logical route, this could be a significant safety valve for those days when the pass is closed due to bad weather.

jtr1962
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Flushing, NY

Re: Colorado Feasability Study Complete

Post by jtr1962 » Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:41 pm

cloudship wrote:But relatively speaking, there ARE ways getting around the Northeast corridor. We just saw this spring what happens when a rock slide (which are frequent in the area) takes out the highway. Not withstanding much of this proposal seems stuck on following I-70 directly, a train would be an almost vital link for those communities in the mountains. Had a train route been available it may have saved many, many people a lot of headaches.
I'll agree that the idea of an alternate route here is a good one. The thing which bothers me is for all this money spent, it won't even be real HSR, but more or less a fast conventional route. The general public finally is starting to be sold on the idea of rail travel. but it's mostly HSR which catches their fancy. They would be a bit disappointed to see a route with 90-100 mph average speeds for the amount of money being spent. Frankly, so would I. Now if the costs were $5 billion instead of $21 billion, I would feel it was a worthwhile project. I know the geology here is unforgiving, but if you're going to spend $21 billion, then how much more, if any, will it cost to make this a true HSR route? Perhaps just optimizing the alignment a bit might be all that's needed.

Jeff Smith
Site Admin
Posts: 8479
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: Colorado HSR

Post by Jeff Smith » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:16 pm

I'm going to fold this in here, although I don't know if this is part of the original study: Denver Post

It doesn't seem to be as this is a new study; however, I think it's safe to put it in here.
High-speed rail options for I-70 corridor on display Thursday in Golden

JEFFERSON COUNTY — Anyone interested in getting a glimpse of the ideas being floated for high-speed rail between Jefferson County and the Eagle County Airport can do so Thursday.
All the proposals being considered by the Colorado Department of Transportation under the agency's Advanced Guideway System Feasibility Study will be on display from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds, Exhibit Hall 3, 15200 W. Sixth Ave., in Golden.
CDOT began soliciting proposals to relieve the congestion along the I-70 mountain corridor in September. But even before then, more than 150 companies from around the world submitted ideas, according to CDOT.


Read more: High-speed rail options for I-70 corridor on display Thursday in Golden - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... z2FXCqddvM
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator/Co-Owner

kaitoku
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: Sapporo, Japan

Re: Colorado HSR Feasability Studies

Post by kaitoku » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:25 pm

The whole project proposal(s) seems a bit confusing, as there are actually two different corridors- the I-70 corridor which bores through the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains to the Western Slope (terribly expensive and possibly beyond the scope of the nation at this moment, as it doesn't link two large population centers with year round demand) and the I-25 corridor which would link the Denver Metro Area with other Colorado cities further south (Colorado Springs and Pueblo), with a possible extension into New Mexico. This I-25 corridor project IMO is more viable if less glamorous, as a higher speed line (90~110mph top speeds). I just don't think true HSR (above 150mph) is viable outside of California, Texas, the NEC and possibly the midwest.

*to add: the Denver Post article mistakenly states that maglev has operation in Europe- actually it's Asia where it's in revenue operation- in Japan on a rapid transit line in Nagoya, and in S. Korea in Incheon. Also, a high speed maglev line is now being built by JR Central, as a relief route for the at-capacity Tokaido Shinkansen.

electricron
Posts: 4577
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Colorado HSR Feasability Studies

Post by electricron » Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:21 am

jstolberg wrote:http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14782251
The feasibility study, which took 18 months to complete and cost $1.4 million, said the DIA-Eagle/Fort Collins-Pueblo rail network could carry up to 35 million passengers a year by 2035, generating more than $750 million in fare revenue. DIA-Denver-Colorado Springs would be the first to be built at a cost of $3.32 billion with trains every 15 to 30 minutes traveling at average speeds of 90-100 mph.
Wow! The whole north-south HSR corridor collects $700 Million in fares while just the first leg, approximately one third of the route, is going to cost $3.32 Billion to build. If we add twice as much to the costs to reflect the whole corridor, we're fast approaching $10 Billion. Fares will only pay back 0.007% of the capital costs by 2035. That's not even 1% of 1%. No wonder we're going broke. ;)

The EGE
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the N Judah
Contact:

Re: Colorado HSR Feasability Studies

Post by The EGE » Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:49 am

Your math is wrong.

They're saying the possibility of $750 million per year on 35 million rides (i.e, average ticket price of about $22).

$750 million / $10 billion is 7%, not 0.007%. At that rate, the fares would cover the construction costs in just 15 years. (That of course ignores the unknown variable of operating costs).

It looks a tad more viable now, eh?

electricron
Posts: 4577
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Colorado HSR Feasability Studies

Post by electricron » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:13 am

I'll admit I misread and missed per year. Never-the-less.....

Amtrak, over the ENTIRE country, averages 30 Million rides a year. I find it hard to believe Colorado by itself can do more.
All RTD trains last year had 19 Million rides, I derived that number by taking average daily riders x 52 x 6 (assuming weekend riders was half weekday riders). There's no way Colorado HSR will have more riders than RTD.

Whenever you see the word "could" in a sentence, it's a possibility - not a likely probability. Earth could be hit by a large asteroid next week, next month, next year, next decade, next score, but what are the probabilities?

The EGE
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the N Judah
Contact:

Re: Colorado HSR Feasability Studies

Post by The EGE » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:23 pm

Traffic counts on I-25 in the Colorado Springs area are about 50,000 cars per direction per day - or about 35 million cars per year. I'll concede that 35 million rides per year on CHSR would then be unlikely. However, on a two-pronged system in 2035 (when population has grown and oil is no longer in the question as a fuel source) I would still believe it's within the correct order of magnitude.

jstolberg
Posts: 1303
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:17 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Colorado HSR Feasability Studies

Post by jstolberg » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:56 pm

A study completed in 2010 by the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority (RMRA) indicated a high-speed train providing service along the Front Range and out to Eagle County could attract as many as 7 or 8 million passengers per year, whose fares would help fund the operation and management of the system. But using what Riggs called a more open, transparent and ultimately accurate model to gather data, officials conducting the ICS study are finding actual ridership will likely be closer to 3 million per year.
http://www.summitdaily.com/news/6900616 ... p-colorado" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That leg has the highest construction cost and the lowest projected ridership. It also has the most political support with leaders insisting on electric propulsion.

The population density is much greater along I-25 between Ft. Collins and Colorado Springs and the ground is more level.

From 2007 to 2012, Colorado's oil production rose 90%.

NH2060
Posts: 1512
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Colorado HSR Feasability Studies

Post by NH2060 » Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:31 pm

Maglev anybody?
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/02/20/h ... ongestion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jeff Smith
Site Admin
Posts: 8479
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: Colorado HSR / Passenger Rail Corridor Studies

Post by Jeff Smith » Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:08 am

KDVR.com: Research group asks for Coloradans’ input on high-speed train connecting Denver to mountains
...
A high-speed train connecting Denver to mountain communities could shave hours off travel times, especially in the winter, when ski traffic can exacerbate Interstate 70's already crowded conditions.

In fact, traffic on I-70 has gotten so bad, the Federal Highway Administration has told the state of Colorado it must do something about it. The FHA said high-speed transit must be part of the solution. Some Coloradans agree.
...
A high-speed transit option is estimated to cost between $13 billion and $16 billion to build. It is currently unknown how the costs would be covered.
...
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator/Co-Owner

Jeff Smith
Site Admin
Posts: 8479
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: Colorado HSR / Passenger Rail Corridor Studies

Post by Jeff Smith » Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:11 am

Not sure if this authority is still active or not: http://www.rockymountainrail.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator/Co-Owner

Jeff Smith
Site Admin
Posts: 8479
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: Colorado HSR / Passenger Rail Corridor Studies

Post by Jeff Smith » Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:11 am

And one more proposal, I believe alluded to earlier in the topic: https://www.codot.gov/library/studies/s ... s/AGSstudy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator/Co-Owner

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - Passenger Rail”