1 / 8

GDOT High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Studies

GDOT High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Studies. Presented By: David Millen Georgia Department of Transportation Thomaston District 3. Study Process. 1) The corridor from Columbus to boundary of MPO

pepper
Download Presentation

GDOT High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GDOT High-Speed Rail Planningand Feasibility Studies • Presented By: David Millen • Georgia Department of Transportation • Thomaston District 3

  2. Study Process • 1) The corridor from Columbus to boundary of MPO • A) Three rounds of stakeholder outreach to allow the public their chance to weigh in on the issue and project • 2) Study the feasibility in regards to: • A) Capital Costs • B) Operation and Maintenance Costs • C) Ridership and Revenue • D) Funding and Financing Opportunities

  3. Study Process • 3) Conducted high-level alternatives analysis to determine a representative or possible route for different technologies and speeds. This exercise will reach a number of possible routes for further analysis – it does not establish any final routes. Levels of technology to be explored: • A) Shared Use (79 to 110 mph) – utilizes existing freight rail ROW with improvements based on existing and future capacities • B) Dedicated Use (111 to 220 mph) / Hybrid High Performance (130 mph) – utilizes interstate ROW where possible, some areas of true Greenfield (new ROW) and existing freight rail ROW (this is usually the last mile(s)) • C) Other exotic technologies such as Maglev (220+ mph) – utilizes same representative route as Dedicated Use / Hybrid High Performance

  4. Study Process • 4) Estimated travel times, travel speeds (all dependent on number of stations on the route. More stations = slower speed and longer travel times) and locate potential station locations (within a mile of a point on the line) • 5) Evaluated the representative routes for feasibility using the criteria from above(2 a-d) • 6) Run two feasibilities analyses for all technologies: • A) Operating Ratio • B) Benefit-Cost Analysis (User and Non-User Benefits)

  5. Study Results of Previous Studies • These are resulting costs by the routes that were analyzed. These are high level estimates and will be further refined in the next level of study. • Capital Costs: • Atlanta-Birmingham: $16.8 – 54.4 million/mile • Jacksonville: $11.5 - $41.3 million/mile • Louisville: $25.3 – 100.5 (maglev) million/mile • Operation and Maintenance: • Birmingham: $45-$80 million/year • Jacksonville: $95 - $195 million/year • Louisville: $130 - $215 million/year

  6. Study Results of Previous Studies • Ridership and Revenue (over a 30-year period): • A) Birmingham: 37 million riders / $1.1 billion revenue • B) Jacksonville: 47 million riders / $2.7 billion revenue • C) Louisville: 102 million riders / $4.3 billion revenue • 4) Operating Ratios: • Birmingham: positive for all technologies • Jacksonville: positive for all technologies • Louisville: positive for all technologies

  7. Study Results of Previous Studies • 5) Benefit-Cost Ratios: • A) Birmingham: positive for Dedicated Use/ Hybrid High Performance • B) Jacksonville: positive for all technologies • C) Louisville: positive for Hybrid High Performance • 6) Overall Conclusion – all corridors are feasible from an operational standpoint and recommend that all three move to the next phase of the planning process.

  8. QUESTIONS?

More Related