Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Fair question. Of course any high speed rail network would not be built overnight, more than likely it would follow the example of the interstate highway system and take a few decades to finish. If we took a couple of billion dollars from the airports and highways that DOT is already spending: $4 billion a year over 20 years would total $80 billion. With this $80 billion, we could build 4,000 miles of a designated passenger only double tracked electrified high speed rail network. While we would have to electrify some existing track in the cities , when we hit the countryside we could build on new right of way. The Texas Trans Texas Corridors, a fifty year plan by the Texas DOT, set the price of new double tracked electrified high speed rail at $20 million per mile at FY2000 dollars. These numbers are not cooked. 4,000 miles would connect the northeast corridor already built to Miami and to Chicago, and build a line to Texas from Chicago and from Atlanta, not to mention a line from Chicago to Atlanta. None of these legs of a parralegram would be more than 900 miles in length. If a train could average 150 mph including stops, 900 miles could be done in 6 hours. If a train only averaged 120 mph, the same 900 miles would take less than 8 hours. States that would be included would be Massachusettes, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Deleware, Maryland, DC, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Just about everybody living east of the Mississippi River would be living within a couple of hours drive to a high speed rail line, whether by bus, car, or even a slow local train that individual states might fund. There would be no need to have sleepers unless Amtrak wanted to run trains at night. There would be no need to have two lines going down the eastern seaboard, or for that matter from the northeast corridor to the midwest. Well, at least from the start. That might change as we expand the system at a later date. Obviously, this would be the starter plan, but I would support expanding the system to Minneapolis and Denver from Chicago, possibly a short line from Toledo to Detroit, and from Toronto and Montreal to New York City, not to mention eventually extending from Texas to Mexico City. I would even support possibly one transcontinental line to LA from Denver that went south to Alberuerque and then west along I-25 and I-40. Notice that these extras don't add up to 4,000 miles, and could be constructed in a second 20 year plan. If people want to ride a train through the 37 tunnels west of Denver, they can ride the slow ski train already in operation. Why should Amtrak operate a transcontinental there when a local already exists? Connecting the four largest popluation centers: NY (NE corridor), Chicago (Midwest), Dallas/Houston(Texas), and Atlanta/Orlando/Miami(Georgia/Florida) should be the initial starter network. I would support an Oakland to Los Angeles high speed train too. One thing is for certain, taking a couple of billion dollars away from airport and highways won't affect traffic or airports much in the long run.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag