# ALL HSR Funding Cut From 2011 Budget (400M recalled from 2010)



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 11, 2011)

High-Speed Rail Funding Gets $1.5 Billion Slashed Annually



> The current level of funding was $2.5 billion-a-year. The cuts secured under the budget deal reached on Friday night brings the annual rail dollars down to $1 billion, though administration officials stressed that none of the lost funds would come from existing projects that have received grants.


Huffington Post...

-------------------------

Here is the most recent update from NARP...



> Congress will be eliminating all high-speed rail investment from the 2011 budget, and will actually take back $400 million in FY2010 high-speed money. That adds up to a total of $2.9 billion in cuts to the popular program. The hits don’t stop there—Congress will chop $128 million from Amtrak’s budget for capital improvements and debt service, and $502 million from New Starts transit funding (as compared to last year’s budget).


----------



## Ryan (Apr 12, 2011)

It looks like its even worse:

http://transportationnation.org/2011/04/12/high-speed-rail-gutted-in-spending-deal/



> Details of the nearly six-month spending deal that kept the government from shutting down came out overnight. They contain a whopping $2.9 billion cut for high-speed rail projects. Keep in mind the one-week spending bill used to buy time for the bill-writers on Capitol Hill cut another $1.5 billion from the program immediately.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 12, 2011)

Actually, according to a story from Yahoo, the cuts are really more just spin.



> And just last Friday, Congress approved Obama's $1 billion request for high-speed rail grants — crediting itself with $1.5 billion in savings relative to last year.


It would seem that President Obama only requested $1B for HSR this year, which is what he got.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 12, 2011)

Thanks, Alan - pretty ridiculous bookkeeping there that allows both sides to claim victory.


----------



## afigg (Apr 12, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Actually, according to a story from Yahoo, the cuts are really more just spin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, it is worse than that. The language that is showing up in the House bill cuts all $2.5 billion of HSIPR funding for FY11 and rescinds $400 million from the FY10 funds. So, if the interpretation is correct, there will be only $2 billion of the Florida HSIPR funds for the FRA to re-allocate and zero funding in FY11. The question is whether this is the House staff adding in language and amounts that were not part of the deal agreed to last Friday and the Senate will balk on it.

According to this sheet, http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/41211Finalprogramcuts.pdf, Amtrak's capital and debt service funding are cut $78 million from FY10 levels. Not a terrible cut, but not the $150 to $300 million more that Amtrak was going to get in the earlier versions of the House and Senate FY11 appropriations bill.


----------



## Eric S (Apr 12, 2011)

afigg said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, according to a story from Yahoo, the cuts are really more just spin.
> ...


Yes, it appears *afigg* is correct, and that the House bill completely eliminates HSR funding for FY11. It also reduces transit funding by $991 million. Here is the summary of the FY11 Continuing Resolution (that will fund the government for the rest of FY11 [through Sep 2011]): http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/41211SummaryFinalFY2011CR.pdf.


----------



## stntylr (Apr 12, 2011)

I'm actually not too upset about losing the HSR money since it looks like California wants to suck it all up into their bondoogle.

Really how much is that going to end up costing. Already at 50 billion the train would have to make a billion dollars a year profit to pay off it's investment in 50 years.

I think transit money is much more important with gas prices getting higher and demand for mass transit increasing.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 12, 2011)

stntylr said:


> I'm actually not too upset about losing the HSR money since it looks like California wants to suck it all up into their bondoogle. Really how much is that going to end up costing. Already at 50 billion the train would have to make a billion dollars a year profit to pay off it's investment in 50 years. I think transit money is much more important with gas prices getting higher and demand for mass transit increasing.


I support California's HSR initiatives as they seem to have both the demand and the will to see it through. Besides, fifty billion dollars is a tiny little fraction of a trillion dollar budget. China is spending _five hundred billion_ on HSR over the next five years or so. Of course they didn't perpetually squander their infrastructure money by sending an armed force that costs more than _all others combined_ into every nook and cranny all over the globe. If you want to talk about boondoggles then start with the ones that are actually bankrupting us. California's HSR initiative is chump change in the bigger picture.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 12, 2011)

daxomni said:


> stntylr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm actually not too upset about losing the HSR money since it looks like California wants to suck it all up into their bondoogle. Really how much is that going to end up costing. Already at 50 billion the train would have to make a billion dollars a year profit to pay off it's investment in 50 years. I think transit money is much more important with gas prices getting higher and demand for mass transit increasing.
> ...


This "profit" arguement gets yanked out for anything on rails. Have yet to see anybody pull it out when Podunk wants a new runway, or LAX or SFO, or any othere airport, for that matter. It is always about "cost benefit anaylysis" congestion costs, etc., etc., all of which are essentially unquantifiable and nobody is writing checks to pay these. Give it a rest.

If a similar cost-benefit analysis was done for Calif HSR or any of the other realistic rail projects out there, the results would blow most of the highway and airport schemes out of the water. Let's name a few: Reduces petroleum consumption, and with it imports, which also improves our miserable balance of payments situation. We could quit right there and justify the system. We can go from there to reduced traffic congestion, reduced air pollution, reduced airport congestion, etc.


----------



## stntylr (Apr 12, 2011)

I'm not in favor of the federal money that gets spent on small town airports. It's pure pork but I do believe that a runway at LAX will service a whole lot more passengers that a HSR line will.

I used to be a big fan of HSR but over the last year looking into the huge amount of money being spent I'm not so excited. Maybe it's because I know that Texas isn't going to get any real money. (which is the state's own fault)

Now days I think regional commuter trains would be a much better investment. Lone Star Rail has an estimated cost of around 2 billion dollars but that sounds better than the 20 billion a HSR line from San Antionio to Dallas would cost and who know how much it would cost to build the Texas triangle.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 12, 2011)

stntylr said:


> I'm not in favor of the federal money that gets spent on small town airports. It's pure pork but I do believe that a runway at LAX will service a whole lot more passengers that a HSR line will.


The evidence contradicts you, sorry!

If Amtrak currently owns 70% of the air/rail market between NY & DC, one runway isn't going to shift the balance of power.


----------



## jis (Apr 13, 2011)

stntylr said:


> I'm not in favor of the federal money that gets spent on small town airports. It's pure pork but I do believe that a runway at LAX will service a whole lot more passengers that a HSR line will.


Just a runway in LAX is not going to create capacity in the sky, which is also congested in SOCAL. That will require next gen ATC system, which is of course being conveniently ignored while computing these numbers and figuring out cost benefit. Removing a significant portion of the SFO - LAX air traffic would eliminate the need for the additional runway and leave extra capacity open for use on other more needy corridors like international and longer distance domestic. Similarly removing LAX - SAN flights by diversion to HSR would release capacity for use in other domestic corridors from both airports.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 13, 2011)

stntylr said:


> I'm not in favor of the federal money that gets spent on small town airports. It's pure pork but I do believe that a runway at LAX will service a whole lot more passengers that a HSR line will.
> 
> I used to be a big fan of HSR but over the last year looking into the huge amount of money being spent I'm not so excited. Maybe it's because I know that Texas isn't going to get any real money. (which is the state's own fault)
> 
> Now days I think regional commuter trains would be a much better investment. Lone Star Rail has an estimated cost of around 2 billion dollars but that sounds better than the 20 billion a HSR line from San Antionio to Dallas would cost and who know how much it would cost to build the Texas triangle.


San Antonio to Dallas would be the most expensive leg of the triangle, by far. It would also probably have very good ridership because of Austin and Waco. The other legs would be significangly cheaper, particularly Houston San Antonia (which should hit Austin on its way and there join Dal-SA) as it is the shortest in distance.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 13, 2011)

Ok, I'm going to trot out my "two minds" view: On the one hand, I think that HSR definitely has a place, etc. On the other hand...look, can anyone here even _dream_ of what $50 billion dumped into railroads across the country upgrading track to Class 6 and 7, getting different routes around the 79 MPH speed limit, and simply running more trains on those routes could do, even spread over two decades? That's the problem I'm seeing in any cost-benefit analysis of "true" HSR: You have to pour so much money into it before you get anything out of it that for the cost of the Orlampa line you could've subsidized a _really_ nice railroad network in Florida for _decades_,* not to mention probably paying for some decent upgrades or track purchases throughout the state.

*Assuming that the Florida network lost as much as the CA lines do per year ($58.3 million), you could have dropped $400 million on equipment and track upgrades and had the remaining $2 billion cover operations until *2045*...or put a billion into capital work and _still_ run the system for a quarter century on those figures. Good grief, how many trains per day could you run between the "big four" cities in Florida for that much?

Look, I want to see funding for railroads as much as anyone, but for the cost of a "shiny" HSR system (of the 150-220 MPH variety) in one part of the country you could be running a much larger system of Class 6/7 routes which would serve more people...not to mention that you could probably re-expand service to a number of areas that got dropped over the years in the process. This isn't to speak ill of the CA project...but given a sum of funding for rail improvements, I see investments either buying out trackage in crowded corridor, adding back double/triple tracks, or getting those tracks up to Class 6/7 in places like the Midwest or along the A-line.


----------



## jis (Apr 13, 2011)

Anderson said:


> *Assuming that the Florida network lost as much as the CA lines do per year ($58.3 million), you could have dropped $400 million on equipment and track upgrades and had the remaining $2 billion cover operations until *2045*...or put a billion into capital work and _still_ run the system for a quarter century on those figures. Good grief, how many trains per day could you run between the "big four" cities in Florida for that much?


Anderson, the following is not directed at you but something that struck me while reading part of your post....

<rant>

Taking it along those lines you could also do absolutely nothing to the tracks and run the trains at whatever speed the track will bear making sure that they run slow enough so that the tracks require minimal maintenance and cars need minimal care and feeding and run as many trains as the equipment will bear using say $150 million of equipment, for 40 years.

Facetiously speaking, taking the same approach on highways we could have saved huge amounts of money and built them two lane undivided and had no problem keeping the highway trust fund solvent for many more years, and not had a petroleum shortage problem nor need to import any. And of course if we had never invented the airplane life would be so much simpler too  You get the point? And of course one consequence of that would also be that the US would not then have been the greatest country in the world - a beacon of hope and freedom for all either.

What irks me is that this sort of "no can do" attitude seems to pervade this country of late not just about rail but about everything. We seem to spend more time cogitating over why something major should not be done, than on how something could be achieved. Fortunately we made it to the Moon before this malaise set in. All this of course, except when it comes to charging into some hapless country or the other, half way around the world, to teach them how to live their lives, whether they want our unsolicited advice on the matter or not :-/

Maybe this is inevitable when the demography in the country as a whole is in general aging and the fact that us old fogies who don't see any future for ourselves are overwhelming the youthful spirit of the country. These "no can do" attitudes are that of a tired old country which finds itself nowhere to go but downwards. It is not the talk of a youthful country with a "can do" attitude. Maybe unfortunately I chose the wrong country to move to. 

</rant>


----------



## stntylr (Apr 13, 2011)

George Harris said:


> stntylr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not in favor of the federal money that gets spent on small town airports. It's pure pork but I do believe that a runway at LAX will service a whole lot more passengers that a HSR line will.
> ...


Having a HSR line from Houston connect to the Dallas-San Antonio line is basically the Texas T-bone except the T-bone joins up in Temple. From what I have read (and I don't have the source ready ) is that the T-bone is out of favor with the FRA and is one of the reasons Texas doesn't have any HSR money.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 13, 2011)

jis said:


> Maybe this is inevitable when the demography in the country as a whole is in general aging and the fact that us old fogies who don't see any future for ourselves are overwhelming the youthful spirit of the country. These "no can do" attitudes are that of a tired old country which finds itself nowhere to go but downwards. It is not the talk of a youthful country with a "can do" attitude. Maybe unfortunately I chose the wrong country to move to.


I guess that would depend on what you hoped to find here. America gained much of our power and influence through chance. Now our luck is finally running out. Just like every empire that ever came before us. Maybe you didn't pick the wrong country so much as the wrong time. Maybe we simply picked the wrong form of government. It's easy to claim exceptionalism when times are very good. It's only when things start to get much worse that you find out if you're truly exceptional or not.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 13, 2011)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > *Assuming that the Florida network lost as much as the CA lines do per year ($58.3 million), you could have dropped $400 million on equipment and track upgrades and had the remaining $2 billion cover operations until *2045*...or put a billion into capital work and _still_ run the system for a quarter century on those figures. Good grief, how many trains per day could you run between the "big four" cities in Florida for that much?
> ...


I don't like being a downer, but I'm looking at a set of policies that flip in and out of favor that I support and trying to think up ways to make things happen. To work with your analogy, we'd eventually go to four-lane and six-lane "surface streets" in high-traffic areas (on the VA Peninsula, the analogy would be sticking with Route 60 from Williamsburg to Richmond rather than putting in I-64). Eventually, the highways _would_ go in...but mainly in areas where you've got a lot of traffic to support it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 13, 2011)

Government for the people by the people. The people are dumb. Why would the government be intelligent?


----------



## rrdude (Apr 13, 2011)

jis said:


> stntylr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not in favor of the federal money that gets spent on small town airports. It's pure pork but I do believe that a runway at LAX will service a whole lot more passengers that a HSR line will.
> ...


*JUST IMAGINE* what it would do to the the capacity "problems" if Amtrak had 40-50-60-70% of the market between those two cities, (like they do between NYP-WAS or NYP-BOS), one could make the same argument for LAX-SFO (EMY) if true HSR were running between the city pairs.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 13, 2011)

rrdude said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > stntylr said:
> ...


The thing that also needs saying is that, if you decide to build a new runway at LAX:

1. WHERE do you put it? Extra land around there ain't cheap.

2. you have to buy out building rights in the approach area.

3. You have to increase road, terminal, parking capacity, etc.

By this time you have probably spent at the very least sufficient money to build the high speed line from LA to as far as Bakersfield where it could connect with teh existing Amtrak-California trains. But then. you would have to buy a lot more rail cars to haul the people, as well.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 14, 2011)

George Harris said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Well, why don't we rephrase the debate slightly: HSR is a nice objective, but right now you have one daily train from Los Angeles to San Francisco (I'm discounting the San Joaquin setup...that involves two bus transfers, and the one to get to Bakersfield is two hours)...and even that involves a transfer to a bus at EMY. If you could find some way to "get" a rail line through direct from LAX-San Francisco, I think you'd have a good "base" market, but the problem is going to be jamming the trains through on a route other than the slower coast line.

In this context, let's not forget that a fair share of the BOS-NYP/NYP-WAS traffic rides on the Regionals and not the Acelas...but I think if you could get a stable, multiple-daily operation that involved at most a crosstown bus to get across the bay, and run that at 110-125 MPH up the valley (and make sure that you acquire the land for the alignment to be able to run at 150-160 in the process)? That would be a key intermediate step. The main thing I would want to see is how the market looks once you get rid of the bus connection to Bakersfield. In plain English, I do not pay for a train ticket so I can sit on a long-distance bus, and I know I'm not the only one who holds this view.


----------



## jis (Apr 14, 2011)

Anderson said:


> In this context, let's not forget that a fair share of the BOS-NYP/NYP-WAS traffic rides on the Regionals and not the Acelas...but I think if you could get a stable, multiple-daily operation that involved at most a crosstown bus to get across the bay, and run that at 110-125 MPH up the valley (and make sure that you acquire the land for the alignment to be able to run at 150-160 in the process)? That would be a key intermediate step. The main thing I would want to see is how the market looks once you get rid of the bus connection to Bakersfield. In plain English, I do not pay for a train ticket so I can sit on a long-distance bus, and I know I'm not the only one who holds this view.


It is almost certainly the case that a 110/125 mph SFO - LAX service will make only a very minor insignificant dent in the demand for SFO - LAX (and in general San Fran area to LA Basin) flights, so it will have very small effect if any, towards reducing or eliminating the need for additional capacity at one or more LA Basin airports and SOCAL airspace. So all in all it is a formula for spending even more money in the long run since it will lead to building at least additional runways at airports and enhancing airspace capacity, and then at some future far out date maybe an HSR. It is a more or less lose - lose proposition IMHO in the long run at least as far as relieving congestion in the airspace in SOCAL and Bay Area is concerned. Which means saving money on air capacity expansion could not be used as an argument for funding such a project.

On the NEC precisely that is one of the significant the argument that favors investment on the NEC. Due to the nature and lay of the land and density of high population concentration cities along the corridor even a 125 - 150 mph setup makes sense and demonstrably works. Notice that the turning point on NEC happened only after reliable 125 mph and 125+ mph service became available. And even then Washington to New Haven or Boston to Wilmington (equivalent distance roughly of San Fran to LA) doesn't quite work at current speeds and travel times.

As experience even in the NEC shows, puddle jumpers continue to operate as connecting flights from long hauls to local little airports on the corridor. The traffic that moves to rail is the local O/D. Unless you are able to relieve the most significant local O/D segments, there will be no relief to air congestion.

A 110/125 mph railroad with a straight run would relieve local O/D between SFO area and SAC, and arguably between LA Basin and SAN, but not between LA Basin and the Bay Area. And the number of people who actually fly from the Bay area or LA Basin to individual valley towns is far outweighed by traffic from the Bay Area to the LA basin and San Diego.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 14, 2011)

jis,

The points are taken. Of course, you now have me running through lines of thinking on the LAX-SFO market involving "using prices to manage demand" (i.e. cap off the number of seats/flights and start pushing prices upwards). If you assume a "hard limit" on airspace capacity, sooner or later airline prices _should_ rise to both compensate _and_ give the airlines a much-needed "money route".

The other thing would be to forcibly prioritize that limited airspace for longer-haul flights and for connections primarily offering through-ticketing. In short, if you have 100 slots in the LA area currently split 50 short-haul (that is, either intrastate or to Nevada or Arizona), 25 LD Domestic, and 25 LD International and demand rises on the longer distance routes, start pressuring airlines to drop the short-haul flights so you could go to 40-30-30 or even 30-35-35. Note that I don't know about the air traffic models in the region...but if the capacity squeeze got bad enough, I can see a respectable argument for even an outright "kill" on certain intrastate air routes (LA-SD and SF-Sacramento) and planning rail services to allow someone to take the train to the airport to make that connection.


----------



## ACVitale (Apr 14, 2011)

Just a quick FYI....

For the earlier references pointing to Chinas HSR. As of today China announced it is slowing its HSR system down as it costs too much for maint and energy costs.

They will still be fast but, not as fast. That will make it cheaper to operate/maintain and allow them to lower prices to appeal to the masses as the HSR was not drawing enough ridership...

Very interesting


----------



## Anderson (Apr 15, 2011)

ACVitale said:


> Just a quick FYI....
> 
> For the earlier references pointing to Chinas HSR. As of today China announced it is slowing its HSR system down as it costs too much for maint and energy costs.
> 
> ...


Not terribly shocking...I read an article sometime back about people complaining that they were cutting the "normal speed" trains and forcing them to choose between high speed travel and no travel at all. Of course, I think part of the culprit is energy price issues and part is inflation.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 15, 2011)

Without going back and doing quotes, here are a few comments and responses. Those following the thread will know to what.

Concerning the cutting of ordinary trains where high speed lines go into service: Remember that China's economy is still very much a top-down "Command" economy instead of the bottom-up "Demand" economy where service demands can only be skewed by government intervention, not determined by it. The change of services was commanded, but when done the demand was not there. At least the powers that be did wake up to some of the reality, as follows:

China's huge population is still mostly very poor. For most of the people except business and party elites, price is far more important than speed in determining trip choices. So, even in the areas where the high speed service exists, the high speed train's market is probably only a few percents of the travel market.

Concerning Calif HSR: The target speed is 220 mph operating speed with an alignment that will permit 250 mph ultimately for as much of the alignment as can be achieved. It has been fairly conclusively determined that when end to end rail trip time gets under 3 hours, the air service demand drops drastically. The 220 mph maximum speed is necessary for this to happen. If an alignment between Bakersfield and about Burbank was built that would permit 70 to 90 mph, an end to end all rail, except crossing San Francisco Bay, trip time of about 8 hours could be achieved. This is reasonably close to realistic end to end times if driving. Even at these speeds, a one seat ride should result in a huge increase in the rail share. However, to build a 90 mph alignment across the Tehachapi area would not be significantly cheaper than the 220 mph alignment. So, might as well build the higher speed line.

If you choose to build a 110 to 125 mph railroad, for much of the route it will be little to no cheaper than building a 250 mph railroad.. You will still need 100% grade separations, and many of the other thing you would need for anything going above 90 mph.


----------



## jis (Apr 15, 2011)

I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that the issue of what is the optimum operating speed for HSR has been studied quite a bit for various energy price and traffic profiles, and in general around 200mph - 220mph seems to be the sweet spot. Beyond that energy prices and maintenance costs apparently start overwhelming everything else, said another way it becomes difficult to recover those costs through higher riderships and fares. Initially China had chosen to ignore these studies and gone ahead to fame and glory. Eventually optimum operating points become important when one is talking about running a huge operation with no infinite trough of money to feed from.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 15, 2011)

jis said:


> I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that the issue of what is the optimum operating speed for HSR has been studied quite a bit for various energy price and traffic profiles, and in general around 200mph - 220mph seems to be the sweet spot. Beyond that energy prices and maintenance costs apparently start overwhelming everything else, said another way it becomes difficult to recover those costs through higher riderships and fares. Initially China had chosen to ignore these studies and gone ahead to fame and glory. Eventually optimum operating points become important when one is talking about running a huge operation with no infinite trough of money to feed from.


I think it might be able to run one or two trains at those higher speeds as "super express" trains with a limited market (and probably requiring some _nice_ onboard service to boot), but as an overall operating system? Not happening. You could probably manage it for a nonstop Shanghai-Beijing express or on one or two other routes that would have a substantial market for that, but my guess is that you'd basically need to be able to run it as the HSR equivalent of an All Pullman.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 17, 2011)

jis said:


> I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that the issue of what is the optimum operating speed for HSR has been studied quite a bit for various energy price and traffic profiles, and in general around 200mph - 220mph seems to be the sweet spot. Beyond that energy prices and maintenance costs apparently start overwhelming everything else, said another way it becomes difficult to recover those costs through higher riderships and fares. Initially China had chosen to ignore these studies and gone ahead to fame and glory. Eventually optimum operating points become important when one is talking about running a huge operation with no infinite trough of money to feed from.


This logic has been used for years. The only thing that has changed over the years is the number. 40 years ago the magic number was around 125 mph. Who knows where it will be in another 40 years.


----------



## jis (Apr 18, 2011)

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that the issue of what is the optimum operating speed for HSR has been studied quite a bit for various energy price and traffic profiles, and in general around 200mph - 220mph seems to be the sweet spot. Beyond that energy prices and maintenance costs apparently start overwhelming everything else, said another way it becomes difficult to recover those costs through higher riderships and fares. Initially China had chosen to ignore these studies and gone ahead to fame and glory. Eventually optimum operating points become important when one is talking about running a huge operation with no infinite trough of money to feed from.
> ...


Considering that it might take us 40 years tog et funding to actually build anything you do have a point. 

Though in terms of Physics one thing that is not going to change is coefficient of friction and fluid dynamics involved. Until now the limitations were mostly due to beliefs about what can be done in the catenary to pantograph and rail wheel interface. I am assuming that this will be a non issue. It never was an issue of energy cost in that consideration anyway. There is possibly a point where even after taking the energy cost of climbing to flying altitude , it becomes cheaper to fly because of the much lower energy loss at the much lower pressures up at 35K feet than on the ground. I don;t know. Just wondering. OTOH, if burning carbon fuels of any sort for anything becomes cost prohibitive, then of course electrified rail will have a a huge leg up on anything else, irrespective of the energy cost, as long as it is less than the net cost of carbon fuel burning.

But again, you do make a valid observation.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 18, 2011)

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that the issue of what is the optimum operating speed for HSR has been studied quite a bit for various energy price and traffic profiles, and in general around 200mph - 220mph seems to be the sweet spot. Beyond that energy prices and maintenance costs apparently start overwhelming everything else, said another way it becomes difficult to recover those costs through higher riderships and fares. Initially China had chosen to ignore these studies and gone ahead to fame and glory. Eventually optimum operating points become important when one is talking about running a huge operation with no infinite trough of money to feed from.
> ...


There's always going to be a "sweet spot" at some point, and it'll always be moving. I think the spot with cars moved for a while...and of course, it likely depends on the system being used (as I understand it, diesels peak out at 110-125 before wear, tear, and fuel consumption become issues). "Standard" HSR might well have a sweet spot at 220 MPH. Maglevs? No clue.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 19, 2011)

Maglevs have no practical limits because the basic concept is inherently impractical. Practical and maglev should never be used in a sentence parsed any way other than the one you are reading.


----------



## j653 (Apr 25, 2011)

Is it possible that HSR funding was cut from the 2011 budget because the Obama administration is counting on funding it via the 2011 multi-year surface transportation act? Just a thought--I have nothing to back this up.


----------



## jis (Apr 25, 2011)

j653 said:


> Is it possible that HSR funding was cut from the 2011 budget because the Obama administration is counting on funding it via the 2011 multi-year surface transportation act? Just a thought--I have nothing to back this up.


No. That is not the case. Multi year STA only does authorization, not appropriation. You can't spend money that has not been appropriated, no matter how much authorization has been done. The way the financial process works, appropriations have to be done annually through the budget bills.


----------

