In addition (4.00 / 2)

I would say that I believe that the top 5-6 (and maybe top 7) corridors I ranked will all definitely get substantial stimulus money. After that it gets a bit dicey and all that may be left is amounts in the single millions for EIS and studies. The others just aren't that far along IMO.

---

by: adamterando @ Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 01:57:05 AM UTC

I am confused (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for this diary. I was reading this post by BruceMcF (a great blogger, especially if you're interested in transportation issues):

http://midnight-populist.blogs...

He says you have to be part of a "federally designated corridor" to get any of the $8 billion high-speed rail money, and Las Vegas isn't on one of those corridors (there are maps in his post). Do you know anything about this?

I keep reading that the SoCal/Las Vegas Maglev is going to be funded with stimulus money.  

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:08:56 AM UTC

Yes BruceMcF is great! (0.00 / 0)

My understanding is the maglev lines will qualify for funds because they are federally designated high speed projects. It's a slightly different categorization from a high speed corridor but it's a distinction without a difference in terms of getting federal funding. The DOT says they are technology neutral in terms of doling out the funds, steel wheels or maglev are both ok.

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:13:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More info (0.00 / 0)

In the Amtrak reauthorization bill last year I believe there was specific money put in there for maglev.

And here's the relevant portion from the meeting notes in Dec. 2008 that I also think shows that maglev will be eligible for these funds:

Is there any connection between the maglev NOFA and the recent request for expression of interest in high speed rail (HSR) in designated corridors?.....

The HSR process is also technology neutral, so it does not preclude a maglev project morphing into a HSR project....

LINK

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:23:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There was $45 million to study maglev (4.00 / 1)

And once those studies show how uneconomical it is, it'll die.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:35:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Probably (4.00 / 1)

But again....Reid wants it. And Bush is not in office anymore. And it's easier to build maglev in the desert than in an urbanized area. We shall see.

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:39:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Boondoggle (4.00 / 1)

Maglev costs so much that the Chinese ran out of money building the world's only operating line from the Shanghai Airport to not-exactly-nowhere but definitely not into the heart of Shanghai. Meanwhile the Germans looked at the numbers and decided to pass on the route between Hamburg and Berlin, that country's two biggest cities, its capital and main port, no go. Likewise a proposed line to link the center of Munich with the nearby airport is off the table. And that unfortunate acident on the test track when 23 people were killed...

The maglev technology is something only the Pentagon and Popular Mechanics fans could love -- it costs billions to build, how many billions we just don't know, but count on cost over-runs in the many billions.

And the job can be done by off-the-shelf technology: The TGV and successors speed from all corners of France carrying huge numbers of passengers. They had to build double-decker cars to meet the demand on the main routes. And after two decades of adding one or two new lines at a time, the French stimulus program will help to pay for four new routes to be built in the next few years. The German InterCityExpress trains and Japan's Bullet trains likewise are proven technology, with a known cost estimate.

Worst of all, maglev trains can't switch over to regular rail -- while TGV and the others can and do. So TGV trains fly over the countryside at more than  200 mph, then switch to regular rails on 150-year-old right of way to reach the stations in the heart of Paris. Heading out of Paris they will again fly across the countryside on the special high-speed sections, but then one train will switch off to a regular line to one small city, while the next train switches in another direction to still another small city, using regular rail to reach the less populous destinations. So the steel-wheel-on-rail high speed trains do not require a 100% new infrastructure, because they are fully compatible with our existing system, and can simply overlay what we have in place.

---

by: Woody @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 07:17:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well you should attend one of the public hearings and make your case heard then! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 15:30:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CA and NEC are first in line (4.00 / 2)

The NEC's projects are pretty clearly identified, and here in California our HSR project will be ready to "turn dirt" in 2010. Completion of the SF-LA project is slated for 2018.

A few words on Vegas. Maglev will never happen. The cost will be too high to justify on this route, which I would argue is of a much lower priority than the others. Conventional steel wheel HSR, branching off from the LA-SF line at Mojave, is a far better solution.

For a very good ranking, made based on a series of statistical factors, visit The Transport Politic. And for more info on California HSR more generally, visit my California High Speed Rail Blog.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:17:40 AM UTC

Well like I said (4.00 / 1)

the first few I believe will all get funds. It just depends on how much. The first five especially all have projects that are ready to go tomorrow if the money's there, mainly because they've already been working on HSR for years.

As far as maglev, sometimes politics trumps engineering. Harry Reid wants this and the last reauthorization bill for Amtrak put in new money for maglev for the first time in about 4 years. I'm not saying the Las Vegas maglev line is going to get 1 bn from the stimulus package, but I do think it will get some money.  

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:27:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem is (4.00 / 2)

The cost of maglev is truly enormous, and so far all they have in terms of planning is $45 million in study money Reid secured last year. They're not in a position to get anything other than additional study money out of the $8 billion.

I'm not opposed to maglev in concept, but the cost factor is simply prohibitive. I do not understand why Reid insists on backing it alone, as opposed to a conventional steel wheel project that can easily and affordably achieve 200 mph. But then this is the same guy who repeatedly gets pantsed by the Republican minority in the Senate, so maybe I should adjust my expectations accordingly.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:37:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree they won't get anything other than more study money (0.00 / 0)

That's why I place them further down the list. But I also think projects 8-14 are also not likely to get much more than study money from the stimulus bill because they are just much further behind than the top projects.  

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:40:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maglev Freight Question (0.00 / 0)

Robert,

There's been a lot of interest in maglev for goods movement out of the ports down here.  Do you have an independent fix on the economics of that?  Propsals range considerably in the distances they're talking about.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:44:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Awkward or worse (0.00 / 0)

How would that work? Take the container off the ship. Put it on a flatcar of a maglev train to somewhere. When you get somewhere, maglev dead-ends. So you take the containers off the maglev train and put them on a flatbed car of a conventional train. Not very fast or efficient, if you'd asked me (I'm not Robert).

Maglev is incompatible with the existing rail infrastructure, because its train cars can't move on rail. So every maglev passenger line would require all passengers for points beyond to get off and change trains. This would bring the fun experience of airport hub terminals to rail. Imagine if maglev were built D.C. to Baltimore. If you were in Baltimore and wanted to go to Richmond, maglev would be useless. If you were in D.C. and wanted to go to Philly, you'd change trains in Baltimore? -- or stick with a one-ticket, one-ride conventional train?

---

by: Woody @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 07:27:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Woody said. (4.00 / 1)

Maglev isn't ready for prime-time, and may never be. Conventional steel-wheel HSR can achieve very high speeds - the French tested a train in 2007 that broke 300mph on the same tracks they run the TGV over.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:28:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the ranking (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the great info, Adam. Is there a place I can go to find out about the work that is ready to go for the SF to LA route?

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)

---

by: Mark Wallace @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:35:02 AM UTC

Why yes (0.00 / 0)

Yes there is.

California High Speed Rail Authority

California High Speed Rail Blog (which I publish) - today's post discusses what projects can begin construction between now and 2011.

Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog - focuses on the Peninsula section, between SF and San Jose. Lots of detailed stuff on engineering and construction.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:39:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The CA HSR page is great (0.00 / 0)

I love the trip time maps and the promotional videos. Good stuff.

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:41:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's you? (0.00 / 0)

I had no idea.  I've used that blog for HSR information the past several months.  (I don't actually have it bookmarked, but it comes up with Google search very quickly.)  Great Job!

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:17:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As it happens. . . (4.00 / 2)

I'm trying to get from Boston to Albany tomorrow on Amtrak. A 189 mile trip-the first leg of the Lakeshore Limited is scheduled to take 5 hours and 40 minutes. This includes a  stretch, between Pittsfield, MA, and Albany which requires 1 hour and 59 minutes to traverse 39 miles.  

Since I can almost ride my bike that fast we're not talking about HSR here. I'll take 19th century levels of service.

Any word on whether this gets addressed in the package?

---

by: John Halle @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:57:56 AM UTC

Well, Maybe (4.00 / 1)

You're just supposed to be thankful you'll be traveling fast enough the Injuns don't catch up with the engines.

It's Raygun technology.  All those resources that could have created a real 21st century transportation technology wasted on Star Wars instead.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:07:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes I've heard about that bottleneck (0.00 / 0)

let me see what I can dig up.

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:08:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A couple of things (4.00 / 2)

1. New York got a grant to improve the Albany station track and signals (2.5 million total for project). This is supposed to improve speed and on-time performance around this station.

2. I'm not seeing anything specific from MA about this line right now. All I see in terms of their stimulus wants for passenger rail (shovel ready project) is a "Return of Vermonter to Conn River Line". Of course, that was before 8 bn was put in for HSR. So maybe that will change things.

3. New York does have a request for a Double Track Albany to Schenectady project (60 million). That probably won't help you that much though because I read that the freight back-ups are from Albany to Boston.

LINK

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:41:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Albany-Boston (0.00 / 0)

Not sure if anyone's still monitoring this thread, but I made the trip-via NYC.  Twice the distance took about the same time as the direct route.

The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get.  That is, a problem which makes a relatively major corridor effectively useless and which would probably take a tiny investment to correct doesn't seem to be on the docket for the stim funds-while all sorts of massively expensive schemes (some of which will turn out to be boondoggles) are getting the green light.

Adam-or anyone else-do you know how one might go about exerting pressure on this or what kind of organizations are out there to do so?

---

by: John Halle @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 17:14:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's lots of transportation groups out there you can look at (0.00 / 0)

transportation or america for one there's a bunch, just google it.

The main thing I would do is start contacting your representatives (state and federal). Especially federal because the transportation reauthorization bill is coming up this year. THIS is where you'll get your line fixed.

Mike Capuano is on the transportation & infrastructure committee. He'd be a good one to contact. So would John Hall and Mike Acuri since they're both in that upstate region.  

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 03:20:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chicago to Milwaukee/Twin Cities -- rate up (0.00 / 0)

The planning is totally complete, mostly using old right-of-way from long gone railroads.  Because Jim Oberstar is chair of the House Transportation Committee, the planning money for this has been coming in over the years.  (Oberstar represents the 8th District -- Duluth).  Using other funds, there also will be a heavy rail commuter system out of Minneapolis to St. Cloud, and another one north to Duluth.  Part of the St. Cloud route,(Northstar) opened up last fall. Currently there is much controversy as the Mpls to Chicago route does not connect to Rochester, rather it follows the Mississippi.  Total distance with stops in Madison and Milwaukee is about 540 miles.    

---

by: Sara @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:38:11 AM UTC

It's already rated number 2!! :) (0.00 / 0)

The first 5 I believe will ALL get money. It's just a matter of how much for each one.

I've been following that Rochester controversy. Tim Walz is in quite a bind there isn't he?

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:46:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Other contenders (4.00 / 1)

Adam has got it right that the Chicago hub routes in the Midwest will -- and should -- get the second biggest chunk of the money.

But how to rank the several routes running out of Chicago is less clear. I'd bet that the Twin Cities route would fare better if your governor were not who and what he is. Likewise Indiana, where less than nothing is being done to support rail in the state.

On the other hand, Illinois and Michigan have both put serious money into the Amtrak lines that serve their states. The Detroit-Chicago route links the two largest urban areas outside the Northeast Corridor and California. And about a third of this route is actually owned by Amtrak, which has been upgrading the tracks, signaling, grade crossings, etc for a decade or so, whenever it could get a few millions here or there. So 100 miles or so from the Indiana shore to Kalamazoo is ready to run at 100 or 110 mph. From Kalamazoo to Detroit, the Norfolk Southern has been trying to sell or spin off the route. Maybe Amtrak could buy it cheap in these hard times.

Illinois has put a lot of work into the line Chicago-Springfield-St. Louis, raising train speeds on that route to the point where the trains compete with the planes from Springfield to Chicago. About a year ago the then President of Amtrak said that the line could be upgraded to 110 mph for about $2 billion.

The main problem is that Chicago has identified three separate chokepoints in the spaghetti plate of railroad lines through and around that city. And back in 2000 or so, it was estimated that untangling each one (new bridges, flyovers, etc.) would cost $250 million or so iirc. Oh, dear, drop a billion on Chicago and what will they say on hate radio! But if you don't fix this problem, every route out of ChicagoLand -- to Indianapolis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Toledo, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Des Moines, Omaha, Kansas City, etc -- will include a stretch where trains slow down to a crawl. Well, maybe there is double count here, if the Amtrak Prexy was including fixing one of the chokepoints in his $2 billion estimate for St Louis.

Figure $2 billion for Chicago-St. Louis and as much for the Detroit link, and already $4 billion is gone, little left for Minnesota -- and it won't seem like so much money was in the bill after all.

---

by: Woody @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 07:56:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Only thing I would add (0.00 / 0)

is that I think you can basically get the 100 mph service up and going on the Chicago to St. Louis line for about 500 million. There's really one main chokepoint by Joliet that needs a flyover (that one flyover they estimate to cost around 250 million). The rest of the track upgrades and what-not I think could be done for another 250-300 million. They've already put a lot of money into this line as you say.

Now what the twin cities have going for it are two things:
1. Wisconsin. As much as they probably hate to hear that, it's true. Doyle and Wisconsin have been huge in moving Amtrak service forward and they really want better, faster lines, to more places (i.e. Madison). That will help get the line finished since most of the route needs to go through WI.

2. A huge democratic (DFL actually) legislature and a much better transportation sec.  

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 15:36:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Los Vegas (4.00 / 1)

I agree with everyone that Mag Lev to Los Vegas would be really stupid.  It would be much, much better to connect Los Vegas to the high speed steel-on-steel grid that California is developing.

I've actually been on the Shanghai mag lev.  It runs from the airport to ... well, someplace that isn't quite Shanghai.  They ran out of money.  It does reach a subway/light-rail station, so it isn't completely useless, but most people ride it for the experience, not because it is very useful.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:24:13 AM UTC

Visibility (4.00 / 3)

I mentioned this once under a quick hit, but I think it is worth repeating.  As important as Obama's other priorities on energy and health care are, most of them aren't in your face visible.  Finally bring high speed rail to the America is extremely visible.  I think HSR can become the poster project representing everything else, which is essential to maintaining a long lasting liberal majority.

[Oh, and yes, I know Las Vegas is with an A on the previous post.  I'm just stupid that way.]

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:46:04 AM UTC

Watch for airlines... (4.00 / 1)

Watch for the airline industry to weigh in, hard, against any of these routes and threaten that competition on profitable short routes will kill them.  That, along with always difficult financing is usually enough to kill high speed rail.  I hope this time is different.

---

by: howardpark @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 13:02:50 PM UTC

Yes, (0.00 / 0)

and we should answer, "at least we don't have to take our shoes off to ride a train."

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 14:40:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not yet ;) (0.00 / 0)

they only just started doing the immigration raids on greyhound ;)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:53:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes be watchful but... (0.00 / 0)

I would also wager that some airlines might see a benefit to reducing congestion by having to do these short-haul flights. The most profitable trips are the longest runs. As an example, the Acela corridor takes up a lot of the market for the DC to NYC and NYC to Boston trips. You don't really hear the airlines complaining about that because those regions are already so congested with flights that I think they're glad Acela is there to improve the overall efficiency of the system. That way, the airlines can schedule more long-distance (and profitable) flights into those airports.  

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 16:06:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You've got big engineering firms (4.00 / 1)

Airlines have screwed us in Britain. They've lobbied the government to fix the sums (based on unrealistically low prices for oil and the like) so high-speed rail isn't put in or upgraded to make most internal flights a waste of time. They've also managed to get the green light for expansion at Heathrow, when connecting our trains to the Eurostar network and boosting speeds up to the 200mph you get on the continent would be much more effective.

But we have very little heavy industry left. A lot of it fled in  the 1970s, Thatcher deliberately killed much of the rest and all but one train maker was finished off in 1995 after rail privatisation, when none of the franchises ordered new trains.

You have got that industry, and the rust belt can make itself heard. When the airlines lobby, the steel companies and the train makers have to lobby back.  

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 14:14:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maglev ain't all that bad, really (0.00 / 0)

Great job summarizing the potential HSR/maglev projects likely to be considered for stimulus funding.  Just a couple of quibbles, since I'm a die-hard maglev proponent:  Each of the maglev projects has a top speed between 265 mph (Pittsburgh and Baltimore-Washington) and 310 mph (Las Vegas to Primm).

Other points:

@ Woody: "Maglev costs so much that the Chinese ran out of money building the world's only operating line..." Not true.  The Shanghai line was determined by the construction schedule, which had to be complete by the time December, 2003 rolled around so the Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji and German Chancellor Schroeder could take the "maiden voyage."

Maglev technology - just like TGV - costs billions to build.  Estimates are for $40 billion or so in California, with unknown potential for overruns.

And the job will be a challenge for off-the-shelf technology: The TGV and other HSR trains simply can't handle rugged terrain as easily as maglev can, so there will be places where speed will be sacrificed and tracks will have to meander to accommodate the cant/turning radius constraints imposed by the wheel-on-rail technology.

Best of all, maglev trains can't switch over to regular rail -  while TGV and the others can and do...So the steel-wheel-on-rail high speed trains will be mixing in with commuter trains and freight trains on slow-speed infrastructure, because they are fully compatible with the existing system, and can simply overlay what we have in place.  So prepare for the world of scheduling delays imposed by freight operators and increased possibilities for derailments/toxic spills from non-HSR trains impacting HSR timetables.

---

by: larry2372 @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 13:51:36 PM UTC

thanks for the speed fixes (0.00 / 0)

I'll update.

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 15:39:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maglev ain't all that bad, part deux (0.00 / 0)

Forgot one final point:

@ Robert in Monterey:  The cost of maglev is not enormous, no matter how often people say those words.  Studies have been done around the U.S. in the past 10-15 years that consistently show capital cost numbers for maglev are in line with any large-scale transportation project, including commuter rail, highway and airport expansions.  The only people that think maglev costs are enormous are rail consultants who are jittery promoting specific corridors, such as the California HSR project, where maglev is a dirty word.  

---

by: larry2372 @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 13:59:59 PM UTC

May I just (0.00 / 0)

state my public support for Adam to become a regular frontpager?

Great work. Hopefully the MN-WI-CHI line gets funded. Would be very welcome for this Minnesotan.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:01:37 PM UTC

Dude! (0.00 / 0)

I ain't doin' NOTHIN till I get my dissertation done! :)

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:17:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]