CSSHEGEWISCH schlimm Building another high speed corridor outside the northeast would have demonstrated modern passenger railroading and gotten the public beyond the NEC enthusiastic for the possibilities for a real passenger rail service. LD trains interest few beyond a small segment of the population. That's being tried in California, and look where it's been going.
schlimm Building another high speed corridor outside the northeast would have demonstrated modern passenger railroading and gotten the public beyond the NEC enthusiastic for the possibilities for a real passenger rail service. LD trains interest few beyond a small segment of the population.
Building another high speed corridor outside the northeast would have demonstrated modern passenger railroading and gotten the public beyond the NEC enthusiastic for the possibilities for a real passenger rail service. LD trains interest few beyond a small segment of the population.
That's being tried in California, and look where it's been going.
An interesting experiment - or a soap opera. It's hard to tell which!
I suspect the CAHSR is going to wind up sort of half built and not very effective. I'll bet they spent about 1/3 of the total and wind up with some nice, straight high speed track in the Central Valley hosting hourly, 110 mph San Joaquins.
I don't know why they didn't start by building the HSR route from LA to Bakersfield. That link gets them the most bang for the buck and makes the existing trains much more useful (actual, competitive LA to SF trains) while they improve the rest of the route. They'd build a lot more enthusiasm among the public that way.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
OK -- I've been around this argument before. If a TGV type train service is proposed, critics will label it a "billion dollar boondoggle," and a "rip-off that no one will ride." Proposed a conventional yet faster speed train service and critics will complain that it isn't a TGV type bullet train. I've experieced this sort of criticism here in Wisconsin. Some folks will pan it and oppose it no matter what -- they'll simply change the objections.
schlimm http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22%7D Critics say the mistake was putting the money into existing Amtrak (110 mph limit) services, rather than directly into projects.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22%7D
Critics say the mistake was putting the money into existing Amtrak (110 mph limit) services, rather than directly into projects.
The problem is the money was sprinkled and not really invested. The money was available on a "come and get it" basis. There was no real goal behind the spending and it was spread out rather thinly.
The lead time and regulations surrounding these kinds of projects tend to hurt their viability.
There is no "magic" speed. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. 79 mph might be a perfectly high enough speed some places. High speed links in an established network is how the Europeans are going about it. It seems to be a good model to follow.
Beefing up local mobility along proposed routes might be a better place to start.
I am flabergasted that the New York Times would print an article stating the obvious, the Emperor never had any clothes. What is the world coming to?!
Mac
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
So build high speed trains without upgrading or enhancing the conventional trains necessary to support them. Oh my, how American.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.