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.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
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.
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
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
Thursday, May 10, 2012
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.
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
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
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Building a Non - Oil Based Transportation System
The basis for the proposal in the 2008 "Transport Revolutions - Moving People and Freight Without Oil" by Richard Gilbert and Anthony Perl for an electrically powered transportation system is oil scarcity and peak oil.
Electricity can be created without relying upon oil.
For persons who doubt the arguments for peak oil; competition for the scarce resource of oil has caused and is causing warfare and turmoil.
A non - oil based transportation system would make troublesome countries and their people not troublesome. They would no longer be important. Making the oil in a troublesome territory unimportant should be a national goal.
While the emphasis of this blog has been to electrify and rebuild the existing railroad infrastructure from semi - speed to higher speed capability; Gilbert and Perl advocate for a non - oil based transportation for the highway mode as well. That would be accomplished with electrical grid connected vehicles (GCV) in one or another of various configurations.
Gilbert and Perl suggest that to launch the revolution for a complete non - oil based transportation requires the termination of all highway and airport expansion plans and programmes. (The spelling of "programmes" is the English practice Gilbert and Perl adopted.)
As they explain, "The skill and effort needed to remove existing policies and dismantle established programmes is far from trivial. Lack of focus on policy termination has undermined many efforts by leaders - across the spectrum of political orientation - to change the direction of U.S. policy. These efforts include, for example, the Carter administration's agenda of government leadership in energy conservation of the late 1970s and the Reagan administration's goal of replacing Social Security pensions with private alternatives in the 1980s. Failures to terminate existing policies have undermined the key priorities of more than these presidents. One analyst noted that the political dynamics of terminating established public policies differ fundamentally from those involved in creating new policies because '...distinctive coalitions generally form on both sides... and that termination contests are usually more bitter and harder to win than most policy adoption contests.'"
"Policy termination." What a useful phrase. It describes in two words the current conflict in the political process. Improved and / or new policy and/ or adjusted policy often requires "policy termination." Gilbert and Perl provide ideas as to how to engage in "policy termination" specific to creating a transport revolution as follows:
" A clear principle would thus be useful for justifying the end of programmes that support oil-powered mobility in the U.S. The logic is that of no loner digging once the determination to get out of a hole has been reached. Many of the previous efforts in the U.S. to cultivate energy-efficient transport alternatives - including local public transport and intercity rail passenger improvements - have been undermined by simultaneous additions to road and airport capacity, usually paid for with earmarked trust funds from fuel and other taxes. Such an approach to transport development, which some portray as 'balanced' spending, is analogous to applying a car's accelerator and brake at the same time. The result undermines the performance of both systems and eventually destroys the engine. The onset of the next transport revolutions should be most noticeable for what stops happening, namely the expansion of highways and airports. A scan of the U.S. federal budget suggests the magnitude of resources that could then become available following such redeployment."
"US DOT's budget proposal anticipates spending $37 billion in 2008 to reduce the congestion of America's roads, rails and airways. Such funding would build upon decades of similar spending aimed at adding more air and road infrastructure to move ever-expanding volumes of cars and planes. Once oil depletion is recognized as a constraint on future growth of driving and flying, spending such large amounts on expanding capacity could be seen as wasteful and counterproductive, even amid the pleas against termination by those who gain great benefits from continuing such efforts."
".....one could expect at least $50 billion a year to be reallocated to developing the infrastructure and accelerating the diffusion of electric traction in America's road and rail network. This could include conversion of many airports into 'travelports' (multimodal transprt hubs) that connect the remaining international and long-distance flights to electric road and rail feeders... Other airports and sections of urban highway infrastructure could be decommissioned, as much as military installations are still being decommissioned after the Cold War."
"This spending transition would create fierce opposition from interests that see themselves as economic loses from such changes. Government will have to anticipate such opposition, defusing it with incentives for change and compensation for losses. The incentives will be generated by the $50 billion in annual spending that will go into electrification and expansion of rail corridors, major road networks in metropolitan areas and massive expansion of traditional and 'advanced' public transit systems. Existing producers of electric-powered transport will reap a windfall from this bonanza, as will firms that rush to join this sector by adding traction and related technology to their product lines." (See pages 281 and 282 of "Transport Revolutions - Moving People and Freight Without Oil")
Funding as recommended by Gilbert and Perl together with a temporary, small tariff and specific investment incentives could achieve building a non - oil transportation system in record time.
Electricity can be created without relying upon oil.
For persons who doubt the arguments for peak oil; competition for the scarce resource of oil has caused and is causing warfare and turmoil.
A non - oil based transportation system would make troublesome countries and their people not troublesome. They would no longer be important. Making the oil in a troublesome territory unimportant should be a national goal.
While the emphasis of this blog has been to electrify and rebuild the existing railroad infrastructure from semi - speed to higher speed capability; Gilbert and Perl advocate for a non - oil based transportation for the highway mode as well. That would be accomplished with electrical grid connected vehicles (GCV) in one or another of various configurations.
Gilbert and Perl suggest that to launch the revolution for a complete non - oil based transportation requires the termination of all highway and airport expansion plans and programmes. (The spelling of "programmes" is the English practice Gilbert and Perl adopted.)
As they explain, "The skill and effort needed to remove existing policies and dismantle established programmes is far from trivial. Lack of focus on policy termination has undermined many efforts by leaders - across the spectrum of political orientation - to change the direction of U.S. policy. These efforts include, for example, the Carter administration's agenda of government leadership in energy conservation of the late 1970s and the Reagan administration's goal of replacing Social Security pensions with private alternatives in the 1980s. Failures to terminate existing policies have undermined the key priorities of more than these presidents. One analyst noted that the political dynamics of terminating established public policies differ fundamentally from those involved in creating new policies because '...distinctive coalitions generally form on both sides... and that termination contests are usually more bitter and harder to win than most policy adoption contests.'"
"Policy termination." What a useful phrase. It describes in two words the current conflict in the political process. Improved and / or new policy and/ or adjusted policy often requires "policy termination." Gilbert and Perl provide ideas as to how to engage in "policy termination" specific to creating a transport revolution as follows:
" A clear principle would thus be useful for justifying the end of programmes that support oil-powered mobility in the U.S. The logic is that of no loner digging once the determination to get out of a hole has been reached. Many of the previous efforts in the U.S. to cultivate energy-efficient transport alternatives - including local public transport and intercity rail passenger improvements - have been undermined by simultaneous additions to road and airport capacity, usually paid for with earmarked trust funds from fuel and other taxes. Such an approach to transport development, which some portray as 'balanced' spending, is analogous to applying a car's accelerator and brake at the same time. The result undermines the performance of both systems and eventually destroys the engine. The onset of the next transport revolutions should be most noticeable for what stops happening, namely the expansion of highways and airports. A scan of the U.S. federal budget suggests the magnitude of resources that could then become available following such redeployment."
"US DOT's budget proposal anticipates spending $37 billion in 2008 to reduce the congestion of America's roads, rails and airways. Such funding would build upon decades of similar spending aimed at adding more air and road infrastructure to move ever-expanding volumes of cars and planes. Once oil depletion is recognized as a constraint on future growth of driving and flying, spending such large amounts on expanding capacity could be seen as wasteful and counterproductive, even amid the pleas against termination by those who gain great benefits from continuing such efforts."
".....one could expect at least $50 billion a year to be reallocated to developing the infrastructure and accelerating the diffusion of electric traction in America's road and rail network. This could include conversion of many airports into 'travelports' (multimodal transprt hubs) that connect the remaining international and long-distance flights to electric road and rail feeders... Other airports and sections of urban highway infrastructure could be decommissioned, as much as military installations are still being decommissioned after the Cold War."
"This spending transition would create fierce opposition from interests that see themselves as economic loses from such changes. Government will have to anticipate such opposition, defusing it with incentives for change and compensation for losses. The incentives will be generated by the $50 billion in annual spending that will go into electrification and expansion of rail corridors, major road networks in metropolitan areas and massive expansion of traditional and 'advanced' public transit systems. Existing producers of electric-powered transport will reap a windfall from this bonanza, as will firms that rush to join this sector by adding traction and related technology to their product lines." (See pages 281 and 282 of "Transport Revolutions - Moving People and Freight Without Oil")
Funding as recommended by Gilbert and Perl together with a temporary, small tariff and specific investment incentives could achieve building a non - oil transportation system in record time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
