# Which Project Will See the Best Results?



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 29, 2010)

Well home states aside I think the project that will see the most benefit is the Virginia service-- it has proven successful in its current form. I think though that the Ohio project has the lowest price tag for the amount of work they are aiming to do.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 29, 2010)

In the short term I voted for the Virginia/DC route since they have aproven track record and the new Lynchburg line is doing gangbuster business! Over time, I'd predict that the Ohio, the Florida and the Chicago schemes will do very well since the people are there, the need is there and once the word gets around they will grow progressivly!

My state didnt get any of the real money but it's the politicians fault down this way, and as someone said with the RedLine fiasco here in Austin it's no wonder they dont trust rail projects!

Hope this is just the start of HSR and rail improvements, as the old saying went: "give 'em what they want and they'll turn out!" (ie vote for you!) :lol:


----------



## savoirfaire (Jan 31, 2010)

Even though I hope to stop using it on a regular basis, I voted for the Empire service NYC-ALB-BUF. These are well patronized trains that could use the improvements to make them have better on-time service (especially for that part of the LSL which is chronically late). Its a nice and quick run to Albany, but beyond there it can feel like you are crawling some days.

-Sav


----------



## GAT (Jan 31, 2010)

I would vote for California. San Francisco - Anaheim/LA. Downtown to downtown in less than three hours for a presently projected O/W fare of $100 - $120. Fantastic compared to the miserable flying alternatives. This will be true HSR - 220mph.


----------



## battalion51 (Jan 31, 2010)

As odd as it sounds, I voted for the 3C corridor. This is one of the few projects that will connect cities that currently are not connected. There are very few projects that will link communities that do not have some kind of rail connection, so why not give a nod to the project that adds to the route map?


----------



## leemell (Jan 31, 2010)

George said:


> I would vote for California. San Francisco - Anaheim/LA. Downtown to downtown in less than three hours for a presently projected O/W fare of $100 - $120. Fantastic compared to the miserable flying alternatives. This will be true HSR - 220mph.


I voted for CA as well. If you add the $2.3B to the matching funds required and the $10B that was passed by the voters in 2006, you get nearly $15B which is about enough to get all the way in construction which CA HSR is now estimating may start late this year. In addition the CA corridor is second busiest in the country and nearly maxed out in air traffic.


----------



## birdy (Feb 1, 2010)

I vote for Charlotte Virginia, not living anywhere near any of the projects.


----------



## DaveKCMO (Feb 3, 2010)

even though missouri is my home state and a grant winner, i also voted for 3C because it's NEW service. hopefully their governor sticks around long enough to see the project through.

my second choice would have been madison because that project will like create several great spin-offs (milwaukee-madison commuter rail, KRM commuter rail, and a milwaukee streetcar, high-speed service to MSP).

third choice is florida, solely for the political implications (special session, GOP gov/legislature, aging population, private sector involvement).


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 4, 2010)

I voted for the Florida corridor because it is the best and soonest prospect to have a true (electrified, separate right-of-way, 150mph or more) high-speed rail corridor up and running. Short as it is, it likely will be completed Tampa-Orlando on the presently-available money, unlike California. Florida, or Orlando to be specific, is an excellent place to expose people from other parts of the country to a working HSR line, who then can say back home "why don't we have that here?" 

*All* the approved projects are worthwhile public investments, and as a Chicagoan I am happy about the Midwest projects and the Chicago-St. Louis improvements in particular. I also have faith that the California project will come to fruition. But for the combination of the most trains running the fastest the soonest, the Tampa-Orlando line is it.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Feb 4, 2010)

leemell said:


> George said:
> 
> 
> > I would vote for California. San Francisco - Anaheim/LA. Downtown to downtown in less than three hours for a presently projected O/W fare of $100 - $120. Fantastic compared to the miserable flying alternatives. This will be true HSR - 220mph.
> ...


I voted for California not because I'm expecting a completed route soon, but because the first segment likely to be completed will likely be the Central Valley portion, IMBY.

Getting it to L.A. or San Francisco requires expensive viaducts and tunnels, and those are longer-term.

Here in the Central Valley most of the ROW is going to be adjacent to the existing UP line, we've been told.

Modesto to Bakersfield in 90 minutes, woo-hoo!


----------



## leemell (Feb 4, 2010)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > George said:
> ...


CA HSR now says that they may start construction before the end of this year due to the Federal money.


----------



## acelafan (Feb 4, 2010)

I vote for Ohio - it has fairly dense population density but no current service. I'm optimistic a new route will be popular for the 400M.

Even though I live in Florida, I'm not convinced the Orlando-Tampa corridor is the best use of money since the cities are relatively close. Maybe if they shut down I-4 to one lane a lot of people will migrate to the train. I would have liked Miami to Orlando instead, but of course that would require Mega Bucks and probably many more studies. Regardless, I hope the service is successful and that all these projects build momentum for improved passenger rail.


----------



## saxman (Feb 26, 2010)

I voted for the CHI to Madison and MSP line. Maybe I'm biased but based off the success of the Hiawatha service, adding Madison to the mix, ridership will skyrocket. Madison is a large college town and not to mention the state capitol. I'm willing to bet the farebox will come close to meeting operating costs as well. I hope they can improve the Madison to Portage line as well soon, so they can have the Empire Builder serve Madison as well.

The only thing I don't like is the idea that the train might only serve the airport in Madison. Based on many Madisonites comments, not many of them like that idea.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 26, 2010)

saxman said:


> The only thing I don't like is the idea that the train might only serve the airport in Madison. Based on many Madisonites comments, not many of them like that idea.


It's not like adding a second station on the west side of the tight, nearly 180 degree curve at the north end of the isthmus later would be impossible, though.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 26, 2010)

John Bredin said:


> I voted for the Florida corridor because it is the best and soonest prospect to have a true (electrified, separate right-of-way, 150mph or more) high-speed rail corridor up and running. Short as it is, it likely will be completed Tampa-Orlando on the presently-available money, unlike California. Florida, or Orlando to be specific, is an excellent place to expose people from other parts of the country to a working HSR line, who then can say back home "why don't we have that here?"


Tampa-Orlando is about 85 highway miles. Ashland to Franconia/Springfield in Virginia is 84 track miles on the present alignment. That might lead one to wonder if there's any good reason Virginia shouldn't be able to build a new 150+ MPH alignment from Ashland to Franconia/Springfield if Florida can make Tampa-Orlando HSR happen, although I suspect Virginia may have somewhat more challenging terrain.

I do think 85 miles may be too short to be especially useful by itself. Even at 250 MPH, a train would take about 20 minutes to cover that, not counting all of the time waiting for the train after arriving at the station early enough to not miss the train (if it's a train requiring reservations), the time going through the slow parts of the alignment into the downtown, etc, and those bits of overhead will rapidly cut into the 65 minutes a 20 minute train ride might save over 85 minutes of driving at 60 MPH. Then there's also the overhead of traveling to the part of the city where you actually wanted to go if you weren't going to the downtown, and if there are limited mass transit options, the overhead of dealing with not having brought your automobile with you.

I think successful high speed commuter rail, in order to truly enable daily commutes that would be completely impractical by either 65 MPH automobile or airplane, is going to need somewhat longer routes.

On the other hand, this segment has a lot of potential to be a useful part of a larger high speed rail network.


----------

