California Legislature OKs State HSR Effort

 California legislature OKs state HSR effort  From RAILWAY AGE 7/6/12

THIS is a 220 mph system!!

California High-Speed Rail Authority Statement on Passage of SB 1029

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California High-Speed Rail Authority Board Chair Dan Richard today issued the following statement regarding the Legislature’s passage of Senate Bill 1029 which appropriates federal grant funds and Prop 1A funds for California High-Speed Rail:

            “Today’s vote to commence high-speed rail construction, like all major public policy decisions, is the result of hard work and collaborative effort.  Credit must go to Governor Brown whose courage and steadfast leadership has improved the High-Speed Rail Authority’s plans and operations,” said California High-Speed Rail Authority Chair Dan Richard.  “We also express deep gratitude to Assembly Speaker John Perez and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg for passing this measure through their houses. The Legislature’s action sets in motion a Statewide Rail Modernization Plan for California.  Not only will California be the first state in the nation to build a high-speed rail system to connect our urban centers, we will also modernize and improve rail systems at the local and regional level.  This plan will improve mobility for commuters and travelers alike, reduce emissions, and put thousands of people to work while enhancing our economic competitiveness,” said Richard.

Link to Senate Bill 1029: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1001-1050/sb_1029_bill_20120703_amended_asm_v98.pdf

888 365 0122 • san.francisco_san.jose@hsr.ca.gov 

www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov

Keystone West High Speed Rail Study

Here is the outline for a recent (5/22/12) briefing by PennDOT as to the status for the Keystone West High Speed Rail Study:

Initial Work Order (1) and study initiated late Spring 2011.
     *  Initial work included prepartion of Worplan for FRA and approval.

Following Workplan approval, began development of Legislative Briefing Packet, website, and
Prior Studies Report.
     *  Legislative briefing packet distributed June 2011, a copy has been sent to Brent Sullivan.
     *  Developed link on "Plan the Keystone" website to update public on KWHSR efforts    
         (www.planthekeystone.com).
     *  Prior Studies effort included assessment of more than a dozen studies completed over last
         20 years to gather useful data.

Reached out to Amtrak and NS with initial meetings in 2011: April 25th and June 30th.

Drawing in large part on data drawn from Prior Stuies Report, updated with  current census data, etc., 
prepared "Project Purpose, Needs and Goals Report." Report concluded:
     *  Improved corridor mobility and access is supportable goal.
     *  Service and travel time disparities between Keystone West and Keystone East corridors merit
         attention and long term gap closure.
     *  Corridor has an extensive array of travel generators that bode well for market development.
     *  Phased improvements are necessary to support rail network connectivity (PA and beyond).
     *  Community and economic development can be bolstered through improved corridor access
         and travel alternatives.
     *  Transportation system redundancy is strategically important for the corridor and the Common-
         wealth.
     *  Pennsylvania's socio-demographics underscore need for a more multimodal approach to
         transportation planning and system development.
     *  Envionmental benefits of rail passenger transportation justify reasonable efforts to promote
         this mode.
     * A focus on improving existing  transportation assets is a pragmatic approach in an era of
        severe fiscal constraint.
     *  Freight-passenger challenges demand innovative methods and institutional cooperation.
     *  Pennsylvania must be prepared and be able to adapt to change (Marcellus Shale, technology,
         etc.)

Overall goals for the study include:
     *  Increase passenger train speeds and reduce travel times.
     *  Incrementally increase service frequency with ultimate goal of 8 round trips daily.
     *  Improve access and connectivity.
     *  Improve passenger rail amenities to complement other improvements.
     *  Establish effective institutional partnerships.

Based on identified needs and goals, began an analysis of alternative concepts to increase frequency and improve travel times along the corridor. Resulted in 4 alternative concepts described in Conceptual Alternative Paper:
     * Concept 1 - Operational improvements along the existing corridor and between Amtrak and NS
         and minimal infrastructures improvements generally within existing ROW. (Cost $0.5B).
     *  Concept 2 - Operational improvements with modest infrastructure improvements at key loca-
         tions along the corridor - includes new track and curve straightening at key locations.
         (Cost $1.0B).
     *  Concept 3 - Operational improvement along with major infrastructure improvements including
         an additional track the entire length of the corridor to provide for separated passenger service.
         ( Cost $1.5B).
     *  Concept 4 - New passenger only high speed rail line between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh,
         generally following the Pennsylvania Turnpike or other major transportation corridor. (Cost
         $6.3B).


Report recommended further evaluation and assessment of Concepts 2 and 3 based on cost and potential for service improvement along corridor.

Initial work also included development of GIS base-mapping oc corridor showing key resources and constraints based on available secondary source data and a preliminary operations model to help support evaluation of alternative concepts.

Work Order 2 initiated November 2011 - primary focus is the Preliminary Service Development Plan (PSDP) and further exploration of Alternative Concepts 2 and 3 to build the "Menu of Options" for the final feasibility study.

Not unlike the Department's "Decade of Investment," our goal is to identify  decade (or some other timeframe to be determined) of improvements that can be implemented over time along the corridor that individually and collectively lead to meeting the goals discussed above.

Work Order 2 tasks expected to be completed in 3 - 4 months - includes update to legislative briefing packet and distribution, update to Plan the Keystone website, advancing  the PSDP through refinement of conceptual engineering, operational analysis and demand estimating, meeting with business and community leader in Altoona and initial efforts to outline the final Feasibility Report.

Work Order 3 (anticipated late Spring / Summer 2012) will provide for final assessment of alternatives, further enhancements to the PSDP, development of feasibility Report and outreach to legislative and community / public interests.

Current Issues of Concern:
NS resistance to any increase in passenger service along the corridor.

Potential loss of funding for Pennsylvania due to PRIIA 209 cost allocations.

1920's HSR PROPOSAL PRR

In the Spring 1999 of a periodical called THE KEYSTONE published by the Pennsylvania Railroad Historical and Technical Society an article appeared describing the "Samuel Rea Line." Samuel Rea retired from being the President of the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1925. His most famous engineering achievement was the construction of the Penn Station and tunnels at New York City completed in 1910. The article indicated that preliminary surveys for a railroad capable of 90 mph were supervised by Samuel Rea for the PRR Board in 1926. The dedicated passenger line was to leave the existing 90 mph mainline at Fort Wayne, Indiana and be built across Ohio and Pennsylvania connecting with the PRR mainline at Lewistown, Pennsylvania. It would have lessened the PRR distance from Chicago to New York City by 100 miles.

In an attempt to learn more about the basis for the article, an attempt was made to contact its author without success. Contact with the Hagley Museum at Wilmington, Delaware, and the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, Strasburg, Pennsylvania; major repositories for Pennsylvania Railroad archives, came up empty. The absence of more information about the basis for the article is probably due to a a fire at Philadelphia's Broad Street Station in 1943. Substantial volumes of PRR records stored there were destroyed in the fire.

The route across Pennsylvania would have required 22 tunnels. The longest tunnel would have been north of Altoona and south of Tyrone. That west to east tunnel would have been 29,400 feet or 5.57 miles long. Steam locomotives would have had their fires banked and the passenger trains hauled through the long tunnel by electric locomotives. It would have taken a civil engineer of the caliber of the Samuel Rea to have have supervised such a preliminary survey.

 

The yellow line represents the proposed Samuel Rea Line noted as SRL. The PRR mainline is shown in blue. The Conemaugh line from the Northside of Pittsburgh to Bolivar, Pennsylvania is shown in dark red / brown. Northwest of Pittsburgh, near Rochester, Pennsylvania a dotted line shows a new connection from the mainline to a place called Ogle for a connection with the Samuel Rea Line. Northeast of Pittsburgh near Kiski Junction across the Allegheny River from Freeport a dotted line shows where a proposed connection with the Connemaugh Division would have been made at a place called Godfrey, Pennsylvania. All tunnel locations have their length in feet indicated.

Was the equipment operated by the PRR in 1926 capable of 90 mph operation? Yes. Was their larger passenger locomotive, the K4 type, capable of sustained 90 mph operation? Yes. Was the smaller PRR passenger locomotive, the E6 type, capable of faster operation? Yes - 115 mph.

 

The Samuel Rea Line is shown in yellow.  The Allegheny summit would have been attained to the west of a large 14,750 foot tunnel that would have been built between Alburn and St. Lawrence, Pennsylvania. The mainline is in blue. The Conemaugh division is in dark red / brown.

 

The west portal of the 5.57 mile tunnel proposed for the Samuel Rea Line in yellow would have been near Frugality, Pennsylvania. Connection with the PRR mainline would have been made at the west portal of the 9200 foot tunnel through Brush mountain between Tyrone to the north and Altoona to the south. Other connections to the PRR mainline would have been made in the vicinity of Spruce Creek, Pennsylvania.

Had the Samuel Rea Line been built, it would not have had a grade exceeding 0.6 per cent. It would likely have been easily upgraded for 125 mph operation either by diesel locomotives or electric locomotives. 

The proposed Samuel Rea line demonstrates that an actual High Speed Rail HSR across the Alleghenies would and require a substantial number of tunnels.

 

Coal Carloadings and Railroad Industry

As has been mentioned, one cost of coal is the amount of time in which a heavy, low powered train occupies a right of way. The slow speed affects operations for faster trains.

The railroad industry has been affected this year by reduced coal carloadings due to a mild winter. See May Issue 2012 of RAILWAY AGE Magazine, page one at:http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/sb/ra0512/#/2 and data at http://railfax.transmatch.com/. Carloadings are off 16 per cent year to year.

Where will the coal business be in the future? A strategic long term discussion was made by Gilbert and Perl in "Transport Revolutions - Moving People and Freight Without Oil."

There is a future probability for significantly less coal carloadings. It is peak coal which has arrived.

They noted, "Coal's availability is often assumed to be limitless or at least sufficient to allow expanded use for decades. For example, a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that consumption of coal in energy terms could rise by 348 per cent between 2000 and 2050 (i.e. 3 per cent per year). The IEA suggests that proven reserves of coal could allow for 164 years of consumption at current rates, compared with 64 years or natural gas and 42 years for oil.'

"Other sources suggest that mineable global coal resources are much smaller. These include a recent report by Germany's  Energy Watch Group that points to the unreliability of data on proven reserves of coal. The most extreme example given was that Germany itself, reported as having downgraded her proven hard coal reserves in 2004 by 99 per cent from 23 billion tons to 0.183 billion tons. Botswana and the UK have also downgraded reserves by more than 90 per cent during the last two decades. Only Australia - the major coal exporter  - and India have reported growing reserves. China - by far the major producers and user (39 per cent of the world consumption in 2006) - has reported exactly the same reserves of coal each year since 1992, even though subsequent consumption and loss through uncontrollable fires amount to a quarter of this total. The report suggests that China's coal production will peak in about 2015.'

'The U.S. is the second major consumer of coal and has by far the largest proven reserves (about 27 per cent of the world total). It uses less than 0.5 per cent of its reserves each year, but production of high quality hard coal (anthracite and bituminous coal) has already peaked - but the growth had been in less energy dense sub-bituminous and lignite coals. Production in energy terms reached a peak in 1998 and has since fallen by about 4 per cent. The report's authors suggest that U.S. production volumes could be further increased, but only until about 2025, when they will inevitably decline. Production in energy terms could  begin to increase again but would reach a maximum - before the volumetric peak - that would be no more than about 20 per cent above the current value . World volumetric production of coal would also peak in about 2025, with an earlier peak in energy terms." (See pages 138 and 139  of "Transport Revolutions - Moving People and Freight Without Oil.")

A major source of railroad industry revenue faces a decline. The nature of the transportation services provided by the railroad industry without coal carloadings would likely be well served by electrification. Electrification would enable faster operations and denser utilization of the scarce line haul railroad infrastructure.

Feds to California: Start HSR action by June

FYI.

Maybe the TRA Transportation Redevelopment AGency would be a better idea for getting the high speed railroad project underway?

Feds to California: Start HSR action by June

Paying for National Infrastructure on National Level

Mr. Stephen Stofka,  a Philadelphian, at his blog addressed "Paying for National Infrastructure on National Level. His comprehensive thoughts are at http://philadelphia2050.blogspot.com/2011/07/paying-for-infrastructure-at-national.html.

Mr Stofka recently graduated from Temple University with a Bachelors in Geography and Urban Studies. He notes on his blog the ability to undertake urban, site, environmental, and transportation planning, and is an expert in ArcGIS, Microsoft Office, PCs, and Macs, and am intermediate in Adobe Creative Suite. He has experience in web content development, most notably with http://hiddencityphila.org/author/Stofka/. His studies focused upon urban and transportation planning.

Looking at his analysis together with Gilbert's and Perl's recommendation to create a US "Transportation Redevelopment Agency" argues for a new way to approach land transportation in the country.

PT Equals TRA

As Gilbert and Perl explain, if a Federal "Transportation Redevelopment Agency" (TRA) were created to create a new non-oil based transportation system; the key is to plan for "policy termination." (PT).

An example of policy termination gone awry was the minting of Susan B. Anthony dollar coins. The simple goal to eliminate the cost of the dollar bill by conversion to a coin was a logical government cost savings. There were no plans for terminating the paper dollar other than creating the coin. Absent a policy termination plan, the coins were unused.

PT = TRA