Passenger

It's about time that the Americans invest in an interstate high speed rail system. But the eight billion of dollars US is not enough to finance,paying and building an interstate high speed rail system for passengers. And this is not a real high speed rail system like Europeans and Asians people have it. Plus,the US high speed rail plan which these future high speed trains will be running on conventional and existing tracks and share the railroad tracks to freight trains except California that they plan to build a true high speed rail system like Europeans and Asian people have it.

Canada plans to study and building an high speed rail system too in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor to connect Quebec City-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto and Windsor in the Quebec and Ontario provinces.

This project exist only in study and it was never realized and Canada talked about this project to put on these rails since the 80's about twenty-five years ago.

There another high speed project in Canada and he's the second.The Edmonton-Calgary corridor is in project too.

In my opinion,Canada,United States and Mexico countries must investing in high speed rail in their territories from coast to coast.

Raily Yours

Ten years ago politicians spent money for public goods and we talked about the cost of a project.  Today, however, our politicians do not do that, they make "investments".  The word is rapidly changing meanings.

That said, I think much of the money will go toward projects that raise the average speed of existing routes rather than HSR as the Japanese or Europeans understand the term. 

Dakguy201:

Ten years ago politicians spent money for public goods and we talked about the cost of a project.  Today, however, our politicians do not do that, they make "investments".  The word is rapidly changing meanings.

That said, I think much of the money will go toward projects that raise the average speed of existing routes rather than HSR as the Japanese or Europeans understand the term. 

Having flown quite a bit over the Eastern half of the country I find it amazing that there seems to be corridors already designed that could be used for HSR....High Tension Electrical power lines have many direct routes across vast distances that could be enhanced for HSR, as well has having a ready supply of power to be utilized if the HSR line is built as electrically operated.

HIGH SPEED RAIL...a hot, glamorous, sexy term.  But what does it mean?  To whom?  Just to be able to run a train hundreds of miles an hour may not be in the best inerest of the passenger.  It is a system that has promise, I agree.  But it has to be designed, implimented, and marketed within its abilities and not up to the expectations of the masses.

henry6:

HIGH SPEED RAIL...a hot, glamorous, sexy term.  But what does it mean?  To whom?  Just to be able to run a train hundreds of miles an hour may not be in the best inerest of the passenger.  It is a system that has promise, I agree.  But it has to be designed, implimented, and marketed within its abilities and not up to the expectations of the masses.

 I agree with henry6. IMHO it might be misplaced patriotism if federal disbursements to HSR insist that such a train be domestically designed and engineered (I am not talking about where they would be built), and that every HST route run hundreds or miles with few or no stops.

Once again, I think it's a mug's game to insist on the ability to jump in speed on from, say, fresh HST on or closely parallel to the old SP lines through the Imperial Valley or closer to the coast.  We probably would need new track, new route, and lots of eminent domain no matter what.  Don't expect the ability to jump up to cruising speed anytime soon.  The French TGV can cruise at above 350 kph (roughly 210 mph) speeds and as we know, has demonstrated the ability to cruise even faster.  But if you care to dig up the videos someone posted a monhth or two about the TGV, you'll notice that ony in one segment does the TGV get to strut its stuff and run at the flat-out cruising rate.  A lot of the route, the train operates more or less at  "rapide" speed, which is impressive in its own way but not world-class. 

Doesn't anyone remember that when the Interstate Highways were being built ca. 1960 - 1975, when the superhighway sections were in segments, that most states tried to get a good flow of traffic from the old federal highways where no Interstate was (yet) available and of course, route back to I-whatever whenever possible? - a.s.

I think that the 8 billion dollars in the cited bill is no more than smoke and mirror politics.  It wouldn't even fund the Federally-mandated environmental impact studies on potential rights-of-way for a nationwide system.  If concentrated in one area, it might be possible to extend the BosWash corridor toward either New Orleans or Florida, but probably wouldn't be enough to get all the way to either end point.

As a seed, it might grow.  Just don't expect it to produce a useful result without a lot more fertilizer ($$$$.)

Chuck

  That's what it looks a real high speed rail system. It is the same system which as you need like interstate high speed rail system. Whatever is for the Southeast Corridor,The Florida Corridor,The Northeast Corridor,The California Corridor,etc,etc. And it also applies to Canada and Mexico.

An high speed rail like everybody else. An high speed rail to the European and Japanese style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANB-yZIJP6o&feature=related

I would be shocked if the bulk of the $8B didn't go to incremental improvments for 90-110 mph service along existing frt RR ROW.  The Midwest Initiative, Ohio Hub and VA/NC SEHSR projects fit this descripition.  Politics may decree the money be spread around a wider geography - FL and CA in particular.

If we do these, and they work well, then the ground will be laid for further imporvement, realignments, new ROW, etc. in the future.

$8B is a great chance at making a good start.  We better leaverage it hard and we better not blow it. 

You know, I could see a high speed rail line across places like NM, AZ, NV, etc. where there would be long...say 50 to 100 miles or more between station stops.  But how effective, effecient, and economical would be a 210 mph railroad when stopping every 10 to 40 miles?  Not sure the $$ are with it.  Nor the fuel economy, either.  Talk High Speed, but define High Speed and tell the people what the real expectations of its application will be.  Not just political drival or Hollywood Hype, but real wheel to the rail, dollar to the  bottom line truths and expectations.  Perhaps $10 million to improve route to 100 or 125 mph standards will do as well or more than $100 million on a 210 mph right of way.

220 mile an hour trains for California doesn't make any sense when the route they have selected between San Francisco and Los Angles will take an estimated 2hours 40 minutes. This does not beat the planes that presently fly between the two points.

Would it not make more sense to put in a 350 mph Maglev system. The argument they make for a conventional type train makes no sense either as nothing else is going to be running on the track anyway. With Maglev at 350 mph speeds the planes certainly could not compete. And Maglev would take no more space than conventional HSR , in fact probably less at it operates on elevated guideway. It certainly would create more jobs than the proposed HSR system would and could probably be built in far less time than the proposed HSR system.

Al - in - Stockton

passengerfan:

It certainly would create more jobs than the proposed HSR system would and could probably be built in far less time than the proposed HSR system.

I would think a powered, elevated track would take longer to engineer and build than a passive track plopped down after pushing dirt around for a while.  So how "far less time"?

Bonjour, Slytrain:

This latest storm that came up the Atlantic coast 03/02/09, what a mess!  Just in Boston, MA, there were 900 canceled flights!  This does not count the inbounds that had to be diverted.  Thank goodness this wasn't Easter weekend!  A show of hands please!  With regards to this past storm, how many think of global climate change as the cause?  A typical late winter storm?  Either way, can we in the USA and Canada afford to continue to have commerce and lives put in jeopardy because its snowing?

If the USA had an interstate railway system in place, all the commuter railroads from MBTA to VRE and beyond could have been carrying people between the major cities on the Atlantic; not to mention the cargo that gets delayed when the highways are in such bad shape.

With regards to Slytrain's post, the idea of a high speed rail link that at least connects Ottawa, to Washington D.C., to Mexico City has to be in consideration. This rail link will be fed by rail connections that end in the three capitals.  Unless, or course, the idea of having rail links for each time zone, linking the three countries makes more sense.

We all have to realize that the days of cheap fuel are over.  Flying from Montreal to New York, or Ottawa to Boston, the writing is on the wall!  But the existing railroads should not take advantage of this situation.  And, having a interstate railway system that is shared between USA, Canada, and Mexico prevents any one railroad company from controlling the market!  Let the tracks be open to all railroad companies, and let the market decide!  Maybe train travel can become competative to flying in North America, as long as governments are willing to fund train travel as much as governments have funded air travel, and highway travel.

I, personally, see more train travel in the future.  Why? (1) the price of fuel has gone up, what with local,state, and federal taxes per gallon/liter going up, and (2) tomorrows cars will be smaller and less comfortable to travel in for more than 3 hours.  People want to go skiing in the winter, down to a warm water beach in the summer.  Driving more than 150 miles (240 kilometers) is a thing of the past!  We need to get used to taking long trips by train.  We also need to have the passenger railroads [and commuter railroads] that exist right now begin offering these travel services so that people can start getting used to taking, for example; a beach train, a ski train, a christmas shopping train, a sports event train, a train to a local or federal state park, an election rally train, an outlet shopping train, a Disney train, etc..

Don't think the trains of the future (5 years from now) have to be as uncomfortable as todays trains are. I see bi-level trains moving people from Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Chicago, New York to places like Jacksonville, Savanna, Orlando, Tampa, Mobile, New Orleans.  I also see these trains averaging at least 75 mph (120 k/mh).  I see myself in about 8-10 years in the upper deck of a Disney bound train in a 3 seat per isle setup, with my seat as comfortable as a barcalounger or lazyboy recliner, with plenty of leg/head room, watching a movie with head phones.  If I want to get something to eat, I hit my "call" button, and an attendant comes over to take my order.  C'mon people!  Railroad travel can be this good, if not better.  We just have to start demanding our governments to change!  They do work for us, remember?

P.A.Talbot:

Bonjour, Slytrain:

This latest storm that came up the Atlantic coast 03/02/09, what a mess!  Just in Boston, MA, there were 900 canceled flights!  This does not count the inbounds that had to be diverted.  Thank goodness this wasn't Easter weekend!  A show of hands please!  With regards to this past storm, how many think of global climate change as the cause?  A typical late winter storm?  Either way, can we in the USA and Canada afford to continue to have commerce and lives put in jeopardy because its snowing?

If the USA had an interstate railway system in place, all the commuter railroads from MBTA to VRE and beyond could have been carrying people between the major cities on the Atlantic; not to mention the cargo that gets delayed when the highways are in such bad shape.

With regards to Slytrain's post, the idea of a high speed rail link that at least connects Ottawa, to Washington D.C., to Mexico City has to be in consideration. This rail link will be fed by rail connections that end in the three capitals.  Unless, or course, the idea of having rail links for each time zone, linking the three countries makes more sense.

We all have to realize that the days of cheap fuel are over.  Flying from Montreal to New York, or Ottawa to Boston, the writing is on the wall!  But the existing railroads should not take advantage of this situation.  And, having a interstate railway system that is shared between USA, Canada, and Mexico prevents any one railroad company from controlling the market!  Let the tracks be open to all railroad companies, and let the market decide!  Maybe train travel can become competative to flying in North America, as long as governments are willing to fund train travel as much as governments have funded air travel, and highway travel.

I, personally, see more train travel in the future.  Why? (1) the price of fuel has gone up, what with local,state, and federal taxes per gallon/liter going up, and (2) tomorrows cars will be smaller and less comfortable to travel in for more than 3 hours.  People want to go skiing in the winter, down to a warm water beach in the summer.  Driving more than 150 miles (240 kilometers) is a thing of the past!  We need to get used to taking long trips by train.  We also need to have the passenger railroads [and commuter railroads] that exist right now begin offering these travel services so that people can start getting used to taking, for example; a beach train, a ski train, a christmas shopping train, a sports event train, a train to a local or federal state park, an election rally train, an outlet shopping train, a Disney train, etc..

Don't think the trains of the future (5 years from now) have to be as uncomfortable as todays trains are. I see bi-level trains moving people from Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Chicago, New York to places like Jacksonville, Savanna, Orlando, Tampa, Mobile, New Orleans.  I also see these trains averaging at least 75 mph (120 k/mh).  I see myself in about 8-10 years in the upper deck of a Disney bound train in a 3 seat per isle setup, with my seat as comfortable as a barcalounger or lazyboy recliner, with plenty of leg/head room, watching a movie with head phones.  If I want to get something to eat, I hit my "call" button, and an attendant comes over to take my order.  C'mon people!  Railroad travel can be this good, if not better.  We just have to start demanding our governments to change!  They do work for us, remember?

A few questions:  How do you propose to pay for all of this?  How do you propose to persuade the public to get out of their automobiles?  After all, the public wants their Hummer (or similar SUV) to get 40 mpg.  How do you propose to meet the staffing requirements of these trains without driving fares to the heavens? 

Lets face it...that is one hell of an ambitious project (the one P.A. Talbot describes above). One that none of us alive today, no matter what age, will ever see totally completed.  Doable only piecemeal over almost a hundred years with most marketable sections completed in some kind of priority order.  Staffing, unions, etc. have no place in the discussion at this time.  What is needed is a concrete concept and plan of what the project is, will do, how it will do it, and how it will get done.  Following that there should be about 25 or 30 years of discussion and debate, then engineering and environmental studies over another 10 or so years, then new technology will have been invented and the whole thing obsolete anyway!

passengerfan:

220 mile an hour trains for California doesn't make any sense when the route they have selected between San Francisco and Los Angles will take an estimated 2hours 40 minutes. This does not beat the planes that presently fly between the two points.

Would it not make more sense to put in a 350 mph Maglev system. The argument they make for a conventional type train makes no sense either as nothing else is going to be running on the track anyway. With Maglev at 350 mph speeds the planes certainly could not compete. And Maglev would take no more space than conventional HSR , in fact probably less at it operates on elevated guideway. It certainly would create more jobs than the proposed HSR system would and could probably be built in far less time than the proposed HSR system.

Al - in - Stockton

Al:  I'll take that question on. I do have my doubts that 2:40 will be attained but since you ask. I've been in the airline business for a long time. First LAX - The 10 mile population density around there does not support the SFO traffic. Most passengers that I've hauled come from much farther (granted unscientific survey). So I'll take a 1-1/4 hour average travel time. Travel time to a local RR station will probably be 1/2 hr then a 1/2 hr ride to HSR station. 1/4 hr wait time so its a wash. There is no way to know how long it takes to get into any LAX  terminal. If the parking is full then going to remote parking takes longer. I've taken 15 minutes (RR comparable) and I've taken 1-1/2 hours to get in terminal. Lax tTicket counter waits count on at least 1/2 hr and in bad weather times a 1 hr wait can occurr. Most asirline counters require 30 - 45 minutes before departure check in (domestic). 10 minutes usually all the time at AMTRAK. If quick ticketing no wait for either. Security waits 5 - 30 minutes and I always plan on 30 minutes. LAX walks to gates 10 - 20 minutes  rail 5 minutes. If not at gate 10 minutes before departure can loose seat and I've seen late passengers replaced.

Arriving or departing at San Jose enables worse case 1/2 - 1 hr connections to/ from CALTRAIN and all its stations. CALTRAIN SFO airport allows connections to all the long haul flights especially the Far East with a cross platform connection of 50 feet to inbound BART and connection to the airport. Downtown San Franscisco - a very concentrated area of both homes and business and good public transportation. The only advantage at SFO is the same BART connection. All in all I cannot complete airline trip in this 2:40 time frame. Also anyone in the San Joaquin valley cannot beat the probable 1 --3/4 times to SFO or LAX.

MAG LEV - Too expensive and has not been proved on any long distance runs. The Electrical requirements may be much more because I"ve not seen what is needed in respect to power supply. The number of substations required are in inverse proportion to the voltage the magnets require. I suspect that the amount of electrical equipment will be very high. Overhead 25Kv does not require substations but every 25 - 40 miles with auto transformers in between (a very mini substation). BUT the main problem is in the case of a major long term power failure the trains are stuck in a MAG LEV situation. At least with conventional HSR a diesel locomotive can be dispatched and rescue train(s). I'm thinking of an earthquake shutting down power plants. This may indicate the need for standby diesel electric generators to supply power to either type of system.