dakotafred schlimm One would think at least Cincy - Columbus - Cleveland would be a natural corridor. Sure enough. However, the plan was for service too slow and infrequent to compete with the four-lanes. This kind of passenger rail struck out 50 years ago already. Gov. Kasich wisely declined to sign his state up for the ongoing subsidies it would have required.
schlimm One would think at least Cincy - Columbus - Cleveland would be a natural corridor.
One would think at least Cincy - Columbus - Cleveland would be a natural corridor.
And yet the surrrounding states of IN, MI, & PA see fit to support corridor trains, and MI and IL have saw fit to invest in track to bring the speeds up to 110mph. Kasich was trying to make a political statement.
It was a start, it would have started with four RTs daily. Kasich's claims were only half true.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Philly Amtrak Fan MidlandMike BaltACD dakotafred This will continue to expand as demand dictates. What's STUPID is the idea that it's applicable to wherever politicians are willing to dump money, as Obama was on routes like Cincinnati-Cleveland. Before everyone gets in a tizzyfit - I graduated HS & College in Ohio and have worked extensively in many areas of the state including Cleveland and Cincinnati. The surrounding states of Indiana, Michigan and Penn. all have state supported corridor trains. Why is Ohio so rail resistant? (I also went to college in Ohio) Why should the state have to support trains? There's many states in the US that don't pay a dime towards train service but get Amtrak train service from federal funds. Ohio is the 7th most populous state in the country and almost all service going through the state is during the graveyard shift. Cleveland and Cincinnati only have graveyard shift service. There's plenty of other states with much less population than Ohio and much better service. Who wants to go to Ohio? Who wants to go to North Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia? The problem is Congress dictates how the federal funding is spent. The Cardinal is a lousy long route which is a slower Lake Shore Limited/Capitol Limited and the only unique major markets it serves (Indy and Cincy) are served at lousy times. Yet when Amtrak wants to cancel it, West Virginia's senator demands they bring it back. So instead Amtrak has to cancel a more popular and financially successful train just to keep running it. If it weren't for Byrd, the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers would still be running today.
MidlandMike BaltACD dakotafred This will continue to expand as demand dictates. What's STUPID is the idea that it's applicable to wherever politicians are willing to dump money, as Obama was on routes like Cincinnati-Cleveland. Before everyone gets in a tizzyfit - I graduated HS & College in Ohio and have worked extensively in many areas of the state including Cleveland and Cincinnati. The surrounding states of Indiana, Michigan and Penn. all have state supported corridor trains. Why is Ohio so rail resistant? (I also went to college in Ohio)
BaltACD dakotafred This will continue to expand as demand dictates. What's STUPID is the idea that it's applicable to wherever politicians are willing to dump money, as Obama was on routes like Cincinnati-Cleveland. Before everyone gets in a tizzyfit - I graduated HS & College in Ohio and have worked extensively in many areas of the state including Cleveland and Cincinnati. The surrounding states of Indiana, Michigan and Penn. all have state supported corridor trains. Why is Ohio so rail resistant? (I also went to college in Ohio)
dakotafred This will continue to expand as demand dictates. What's STUPID is the idea that it's applicable to wherever politicians are willing to dump money, as Obama was on routes like Cincinnati-Cleveland.
Before everyone gets in a tizzyfit - I graduated HS & College in Ohio and have worked extensively in many areas of the state including Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Ain't politics grand!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CMStPnP Philly Amtrak Fan There's many states in the US that don't pay a dime towards train service but get Amtrak train service from federal funds. Your absolutely correct the Federal Funds are picked/harvested yearly from the Federal Funds tree, growing in the back yard of the Capitol. No taxpayer involvement whatsoever from the states. It's just the bountiful harvest from the tree. I hope you meant to say is why should the state pay additional money for Amtrak service. Also, Senator Byrd is no longer in the Senate and no longer among the living. His support of the Cardinal was only part of the story, Amtrak wanted to keep it as well........which is why we still have it along with the Sunset limited. It's interesting that Amtrak has successfully made the argument that passenger trains that only run three times a week or less are bound to lose more money than those that run daily. Yet when the private railroad firms were running the trains it was not unheard of........for them to introduce a new train and only run it weekly, then three times a week before making it a daily run. You have to wonder what has changed since then.
Philly Amtrak Fan There's many states in the US that don't pay a dime towards train service but get Amtrak train service from federal funds.
Your absolutely correct the Federal Funds are picked/harvested yearly from the Federal Funds tree, growing in the back yard of the Capitol. No taxpayer involvement whatsoever from the states. It's just the bountiful harvest from the tree.
I hope you meant to say is why should the state pay additional money for Amtrak service. Also, Senator Byrd is no longer in the Senate and no longer among the living. His support of the Cardinal was only part of the story, Amtrak wanted to keep it as well........which is why we still have it along with the Sunset limited.
It's interesting that Amtrak has successfully made the argument that passenger trains that only run three times a week or less are bound to lose more money than those that run daily. Yet when the private railroad firms were running the trains it was not unheard of........for them to introduce a new train and only run it weekly, then three times a week before making it a daily run. You have to wonder what has changed since then.
Not only did Amtrak want to cancel the Cardinal, they actually did for a short period of time in 1981 before it was reinstated "as a result of congressional action".
http://www.westvirginiarailplan.com/Libraries/project_information/WV_SRP_-_Intercity_Service_Review.sflb.ashx
It's clear Byrd was the one who shoved it down Amtrak's throats. He even admitted so.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/07/us/amtrak-cuts-face-tough-battle-in-congress.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/03/business/where-the-budget-cutters-didn-t-want-to-cut.html?pagewanted=all
So when 1995/2005 rolled around, guess what wasn't cut even though it should've been?
Philly Amtrak FanThere's many states in the US that don't pay a dime towards train service but get Amtrak train service from federal funds.
MidlandMike BaltACD dakotafred This will continue to expand as demand dictates. What's STUPID is the idea that it's applicable to wherever politicians are willing to dump money, as Obama was on routes like Cincinnati-Cleveland. Truthfully - who wants to go to Ohio? Before everyone gets in a tizzyfit - I graduated HS & College in Ohio and have worked extensively in many areas of the state including Cleveland and Cincinnati. The surrounding states of Indiana, Michigan and Penn. all have state supported corridor trains. Why is Ohio so rail resistant? (I also went to college in Ohio)
BaltACD dakotafred This will continue to expand as demand dictates. What's STUPID is the idea that it's applicable to wherever politicians are willing to dump money, as Obama was on routes like Cincinnati-Cleveland. Truthfully - who wants to go to Ohio? Before everyone gets in a tizzyfit - I graduated HS & College in Ohio and have worked extensively in many areas of the state including Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Truthfully - who wants to go to Ohio?
The surrounding states of Indiana, Michigan and Penn. all have state supported corridor trains. Why is Ohio so rail resistant? (I also went to college in Ohio)
dakotafredThis will continue to expand as demand dictates. What's STUPID is the idea that it's applicable to wherever politicians are willing to dump money, as Obama was on routes like Cincinnati-Cleveland.
HSR as such is a chimera. It is an empty goal in and of itself. HIGHER speed rail is already a big success in corridors where it makes sense: the Northeast, Pacific Northwest, Southern California, Chicago in several directions. Florida will soon be on-line.
This will continue to expand as demand dictates. What's STUPID is the idea that it's applicable to wherever politicians are willing to dump money, as Obama was on routes like Cincinnati-Cleveland.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR BaltACD MidlandMike alphas, good point about the low price of gas in the U.S. The gas tax, which has not kept up with the cost of the highway system, is essentially subsidizing driving (and I believe is also subsidizing some transit). With the relatively low price of gas (with respect to CPI) this would have been the right time to raise the gas tax to a cost covering level, however, voters have grown to expect low gas taxes, and legislators are not eager to disappoint them. Part of the shift in politics becoming a long term career for those elected rather than a 'portion' of their working years devoted to public service. Can't be expected to raise taxes if you have to go to the voters in November and explain why! I call BS on that last part, it's not that they have to explain to voters in November why they had to raise taxes, it's more that none of them have the cajones to explain to voters in November why they had to raise taxes. It's like grabbing a bull by the horns, just do it and tell the TRUTH, but that is impossible for 99% of our elected Federal government.
BaltACD MidlandMike alphas, good point about the low price of gas in the U.S. The gas tax, which has not kept up with the cost of the highway system, is essentially subsidizing driving (and I believe is also subsidizing some transit). With the relatively low price of gas (with respect to CPI) this would have been the right time to raise the gas tax to a cost covering level, however, voters have grown to expect low gas taxes, and legislators are not eager to disappoint them. Part of the shift in politics becoming a long term career for those elected rather than a 'portion' of their working years devoted to public service. Can't be expected to raise taxes if you have to go to the voters in November and explain why!
MidlandMike alphas, good point about the low price of gas in the U.S. The gas tax, which has not kept up with the cost of the highway system, is essentially subsidizing driving (and I believe is also subsidizing some transit). With the relatively low price of gas (with respect to CPI) this would have been the right time to raise the gas tax to a cost covering level, however, voters have grown to expect low gas taxes, and legislators are not eager to disappoint them.
alphas, good point about the low price of gas in the U.S. The gas tax, which has not kept up with the cost of the highway system, is essentially subsidizing driving (and I believe is also subsidizing some transit). With the relatively low price of gas (with respect to CPI) this would have been the right time to raise the gas tax to a cost covering level, however, voters have grown to expect low gas taxes, and legislators are not eager to disappoint them.
Part of the shift in politics becoming a long term career for those elected rather than a 'portion' of their working years devoted to public service. Can't be expected to raise taxes if you have to go to the voters in November and explain why!
I call BS on that last part, it's not that they have to explain to voters in November why they had to raise taxes, it's more that none of them have the cajones to explain to voters in November why they had to raise taxes. It's like grabbing a bull by the horns, just do it and tell the TRUTH, but that is impossible for 99% of our elected Federal government.
With the House being up for election every two years - they are ALWAYS in campaign mode. Campagin mode is telling people the things they want to hear, even if that is far from reality and the truth.
alphasGiven the population and size of China, their miles of interstate roads is still way behind the US. By the way, is Tibet included in China's figures?
Tibet is included, as it is part of China.
[from World Bank] China sq. km = 9,388,211.
USA (including HI and AK)sq. km = 9,147,420.
Comparing individual states to a foreign country is not really statiscally valid for the purpose of comparing population density by country. You can compare individual states vs. similar in foreign countries. But that still may not be a good indicator--PA for example has very low population in most of the approximately northern half of the state (above I-80) as much of it is state game lands and forests. Only if you can identify individual corridors within the US and compare them to similar in the foreign countries would there be a meaningful comparison.
Given the population and size of China, their miles of interstate roads is still way behind the US. By the way, is Tibet included in China's figures?
There is one factor that doesn't get mentioned enough when comparing the US to the developed foreign countries with true HS rail--the low cost of gasoline in the US compared to the other countries.
Build it and they will want it.
HSR (true HSR of 150+ for sustained distances) is something that the general population doesn't understand and therefore thinks it is a waste of money because they have never seen or used it. If the Brightline project makes it to operation, it could be the trigger for acceptance of HSR. HSR can never exist on the rights of way of today's freight carriers - freight & HSR are mutually exclusive on the same track and have too many liability issues if operated in the same right of way corridor. Constructing a HSR line has to be more concerned with line curvature than it does with grade - power can overcome grade, excessive curvature limits speed.
Nothing will be accomplished until the general population comes to the belief that HSR is a worthwhile project.
PETER MCCUE III I'm a bit late in joining the discussion, but I think a little review of history is in order. Our culture wasn't that much different from Europe's prior to the 1950s. Many of our larger cities had "streetcars" ("trams"in Europe), and the city dwellers were accustomed to using them, just as their European "cousins" were. Buses changed that with their flexible routes and lack of dependence on wires and tracks. Then came the Interstate Highway system and improved roads. (Let's not forget the reason for them and the requirements for at least one mile of straight and fairly level road every few miles--the "Cold War" and the fear of a nuclear attack, making the stretches of Interstate roads usable as emergency airfields.) The railroads were private companies competing with each other for both freight and passenger traffic. The U.S. Government and the State Governments poured money into the highways, but NOT to the railroads. (Tracks, roadbeds, crossings, and stations were not subsidized.) As the passenger traffic declined, the service got progressively worse, and vice versa.frequencies were cut, on board service and amenities were reduced, and the ssystem rapidly became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Enter Amtrak and its "inherited" antique equipment. The Government had no idea how to run a railroad, and it turned into something between a "toy" and a "political footbal". Schedules and routes kept changing almost on a whim. Congress didn't care and did little more than play games with the budget. Should Amtrak make a profit or be heavily subsidized? How much was the minimum we could spend and keep it running? Why should the Government even be involved in providing train service when it didn't provide airline, bus, or car service? And on the fighting and discussions went, even to the present day. Lately, the discussion of "High Speed Rail" has entered the picture and been bantied about. What constitutes "High Speed"? Some think the 79 mph of most long distance trains is fine. However, if you're going to compete with the highway speeds of 65 - 75 mph, you're going to have to change your thinking. I don't consider the current "goals" of 90 - 110 on a few routes to be either "High Speed" or much of an improvement. (Is an 11 mph increase in speed really much of an "improvement" for a train that stops every 15 - 45 minutes?) Neither do I consider speeds of 120 - 150 to actually constitute "High Speed". Well, the solution does NOT lie in trying to mix passenger trains running at 150 - 300 mph with freight trains running at 45 - 70 mph. As the freight consists have lengthened and the cars become heavier, the industry has found problems with rail and roadbed maintenance. These problems are NOT compatible with "High Speed Rail" operation. I see the only solution to be a separate rail system for "HSR" AND true High Speed rather than the anticipated 90 - 125 mph currently envisioned. Part of the solution also MUST BE a change of attitude of our Government,whether or not it becomes the operator. Rules and regulations need to be re-evaluated and the entire planning and "studies" process streamlined. A decision needs to be made regarding the Government running a transportation system, or that system being privatized, as it used to be. If the Government is going to run it, realistic budgets MUST be planned and approved to provide for operation, equipment replacement, expansion, and construction for Amtrak or any other entity. A suggestion was made to use the space between Interstate lanes for a right of way. That may work in some areas, and would certainly solve the problem with crossings, but take a good look at the supporting piers for overpasses the next time you're out in the country.There mey not be enough room in some areas to allow for a right of way between the highway lanes. Then there's also the problem of building stations and access to platforms. Either the stations are near a city with access to public transportation and adequate parking, or those facilities will need to be built as well. Unfortunately, I think the entire issue needs to be thought out anew from the beginning and done correctly from the start. Is the Government in or out? If out, then it MUST get the heck out of thee way and stay out of the way, while still providing every possible assistance--an aalmost impossible task for politicians and bureaucrats.
I'm a bit late in joining the discussion, but I think a little review of history is in order. Our culture wasn't that much different from Europe's prior to the 1950s. Many of our larger cities had "streetcars" ("trams"in Europe), and the city dwellers were accustomed to using them, just as their European "cousins" were. Buses changed that with their flexible routes and lack of dependence on wires and tracks. Then came the Interstate Highway system and improved roads. (Let's not forget the reason for them and the requirements for at least one mile of straight and fairly level road every few miles--the "Cold War" and the fear of a nuclear attack, making the stretches of Interstate roads usable as emergency airfields.)
The railroads were private companies competing with each other for both freight and passenger traffic. The U.S. Government and the State Governments poured money into the highways, but NOT to the railroads. (Tracks, roadbeds, crossings, and stations were not subsidized.) As the passenger traffic declined, the service got progressively worse, and vice versa.frequencies were cut, on board service and amenities were reduced, and the ssystem rapidly became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Enter Amtrak and its "inherited" antique equipment. The Government had no idea how to run a railroad, and it turned into something between a "toy" and a "political footbal". Schedules and routes kept changing almost on a whim. Congress didn't care and did little more than play games with the budget. Should Amtrak make a profit or be heavily subsidized? How much was the minimum we could spend and keep it running? Why should the Government even be involved in providing train service when it didn't provide airline, bus, or car service? And on the fighting and discussions went, even to the present day.
Lately, the discussion of "High Speed Rail" has entered the picture and been bantied about. What constitutes "High Speed"? Some think the 79 mph of most long distance trains is fine. However, if you're going to compete with the highway speeds of 65 - 75 mph, you're going to have to change your thinking. I don't consider the current "goals" of 90 - 110 on a few routes to be either "High Speed" or much of an improvement. (Is an 11 mph increase in speed really much of an "improvement" for a train that stops every 15 - 45 minutes?) Neither do I consider speeds of 120 - 150 to actually constitute "High Speed".
Well, the solution does NOT lie in trying to mix passenger trains running at 150 - 300 mph with freight trains running at 45 - 70 mph. As the freight consists have lengthened and the cars become heavier, the industry has found problems with rail and roadbed maintenance. These problems are NOT compatible with "High Speed Rail" operation. I see the only solution to be a separate rail system for "HSR" AND true High Speed rather than the anticipated 90 - 125 mph currently envisioned. Part of the solution also MUST BE a change of attitude of our Government,whether or not it becomes the operator. Rules and regulations need to be re-evaluated and the entire planning and "studies" process streamlined.
A decision needs to be made regarding the Government running a transportation system, or that system being privatized, as it used to be. If the Government is going to run it, realistic budgets MUST be planned and approved to provide for operation, equipment replacement, expansion, and construction for Amtrak or any other entity.
A suggestion was made to use the space between Interstate lanes for a right of way. That may work in some areas, and would certainly solve the problem with crossings, but take a good look at the supporting piers for overpasses the next time you're out in the country.There mey not be enough room in some areas to allow for a right of way between the highway lanes. Then there's also the problem of building stations and access to platforms. Either the stations are near a city with access to public transportation and adequate parking, or those facilities will need to be built as well.
Unfortunately, I think the entire issue needs to be thought out anew from the beginning and done correctly from the start. Is the Government in or out? If out, then it MUST get the heck out of thee way and stay out of the way, while still providing every possible assistance--an aalmost impossible task for politicians and bureaucrats.
Very thorough analysis!
Your analysis is basically correct, but there are minior errors. The movement to personal highway transportation started much earlier, possibly can be dated to Ford, the Model T, and the goal of every American wage-earner owning an auto, Henry Ford;s stated goal. Then entered GM and the idea of some personal choice in the auto's details. And its purchase of New York Railways, the larger of the Manhattan streetcar systems, in 1926 with conversion to bus started in 1935 and completed in 1936. And the erosion of patronage on interurban and branch-line railroads.
What will drive a move to high-speed railroads will be highway congestion, airport congestion, and the limited amount of land available for expansion of highways and airports. This is why commuter railroads are subsidized, and as population and transportion needs grow, it extends to intercity corridors as well.
Long distance, non-corridor trains are not part of this picture. Exceptions can be made, such as NY - Chicago and NY-Atlanta and NY-Florida , which might make it as end-to-end combinations of high-speed corridors
But I still see subsidized LDs at present levels worthwhile like libraries and swimming pools for cultlural and emergency and elderloy and handicapped mobility reasons.
Paul of CovingtonWe tend to get obsessed with the glory of having HSR just for the sake of saying we have it.
Maybe true for some. However, the real point of higher speeds is to make train travel competive with highways and even airlines. Higher speeds increases the competitive distance for a corridor by reducing the elapsed time. It also maximizes equipment usage.
Mentioning other countries is just to give examples of what can be done. The US is not so unique. We have many travelers, especially business types, whose numbers will grow. Airspace is limited and airports and security are overcrowded and unlikely to improve. On corridors of limited length, HSR provides a realistic alternative. A wise nations plans and builds for the future, including infrastructure needs. I, for one, do not see the wisdom of letting the US (passenger) transportation infrastructure become second rate over the next 20 years because it weakens us economically.
schlimm Article link
Article link
Interesting article and it was announced this month in the Dallas Business Journal that the Japanese Central Railway is now opening an office of technical advisors this month. Not sure where that office is going to be but I suspect in Dallas, TX. Japan Central Railway stated the office was to provide technical support and engineering for the upcomming Dallas to Houston HSR project. Really? Where is the funding for it? They still maintain that startup is 2021 or 2022 with construction starting next year (2017).
I am surprised the Japanese have taken the step of opening that office, they must be real confident it is going to move forwards. I wonder how confident they are of getting the whole system funded?
Also of interest Toyota of North America is moving it's North American HQ to a Dallas suburb and bringing a slew of other Japanese companies with it. Looks like coincidence to me but could also be related to the increasingly likelyhood Texas is going to have HSR based on the Japan model. JAL is also expanding flights to Japan from DFW airport. In the articles I have read about the Japanese interest in Dallas is they see it as an efficient hub for all of North America as most major cities in the United States can be reached from DFW in 2 hours or less.
Heck I am enjoying my rapidly rising home value which I only paid for new for $148k, it has almost doubled in market value since I built in 1999 and I am getting RE agents knocking on my door telling me they can sell it in a few weeks now. Looks like I picked the right area to buy a home in.
One last item TxDot submitted the EIS for 200+ mph service between Dallas and Fort Worth, tentatively to follow the UP RR alignment between the two cities. EIS is being looked at now by the Feds and is on the expedited path I suspect because they want to build the Dallas to Fort-Worth portion and have it open at generally the same time as Dallas to Houston.
NorthWest, you pretty much covered all my thoughts on this subject. I was going to talk more on the "last mile", but you expanded on it in your second post. As for as I know, the European and Asian cities already had extensive transit systems before developing HSR, as well as networks of normal speed rail. We need to make car-less transportation readily available before thinking about inter-city rail.
I also think we need to think more about "less-high speed rail." The big problem of land aquisition and use of eminent domain can be lessened by using interstate highway medians, many of which are wide enough to accomodate two sets of rails. Sure, there are curves which would not be suitable for HSR, but for the most part 100 MPH or even 120 MPH should be feasible, just slowing down for some of the more severe curves. We tend to get obsessed with the glory of having HSR just for the sake of saying we have it.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I didn't explain my view well as I was annoyed with the quality of the article. I am an advocate of HSR in workable corridors, and think that successful development would be a wonderful thing for the US. The problem is most advocacy, like this article, is based on the premise that because other nations are building HSR we should, too or we'll 'fall behind'. There's no focus on what problems we're trying to solve with HSR. As railfans we tend to get wrapped up in the 'inherent goodness' of trains rather than selling workable visions.
As for what I'd like to see, it is HSR development in workable corridors adapted to American conditions. Use land deals like JR to help finance the corridors as is being attempted in FL and TX. Have rental car pick-up in the stations to solve America's generally unique car-based decentralization last-mile problem like airports do, perhaps in an additional suburban stop. Maybe even offer 'le Shuttle' style car carrying services, and try to bring package transport back. Sell it in places where driving will become a slow headache with continued population growth. In general, make a case as to how HSR will solve America's problems, not China's or Europe's.
Paul Milenkovicbut I don't think he is quite that silly. It seems that what he said was rearranged by the brain of the reporter writing that article to sound stupid.
Likely. One sentence's syntax was scrambled.
On a different note, as usual, on this forum most focus on the negatives of HSR, ticking off a long list of why HSR makes no sense, especially here.
Population densities in Europe and Japan are higher than here, yes, but not so much higher if you look at certain states or compare those with China. If you could compare densities along likely HSR routes, the differences are even less. But I suppose the 'exceptionalism' argument is simpler than examining more closely.
A few examples:
New jersey: 467/km2; Massachusetts 331.3; CT 286; NY 161; FL 141; PA 110; IL 89.6. By region, the Mid-Atlantic is 161; New England 90. US as a whole 85.4.
Japan 870/km2; China 370; Germany is 228; France 306; Spain 238;
Expressways: China surpassed the US in 2011, now having an integrated network of about 76,000 miles of interstate-style roads; the US network is 46,876 miles; Germany and France combined have 32,238 miles of interstate-type highways.
HSR makes sense as an alternative to roads and even air in shorter corridors up to 400-800 miles in length, depending on speed. Likely new or redeveloped RoWs are needed as except in approaches to major cities, freight lines are not compatible.
NorthWest NO NO NO! The rest of the world's focus is crash AVOIDANCE, not crash SURVIVABILITY! The heavier weight of US equipment is made that way so the passengers aren't completely crushed like they've been in the most recent head-on crashes in Europe. Those lighter front cars were largely obliterated!
NO NO NO! The rest of the world's focus is crash AVOIDANCE, not crash SURVIVABILITY! The heavier weight of US equipment is made that way so the passengers aren't completely crushed like they've been in the most recent head-on crashes in Europe. Those lighter front cars were largely obliterated!
Light weight worked so well in the recent Italian head on collision. [/sarcasm]
NorthWest "and it protects the vehicle more than it protects the people inside the train,whereas the rest of the world's focus is on keeping the train solid and absorbing the forces of the crash in order to protect the people inside the train." NO NO NO! The rest of the world's focus is crash AVOIDANCE, not crash SURVIVABILITY! The heavier weight of US equipment is made that way so the passengers aren't completely crushed like they've been in the most recent head-on crashes in Europe. Those lighter front cars were largely obliterated! If you have a car that is in any high-energy impact (where added weight is most useful), it isn't being used again, regardless of weight.
"and it protects the vehicle more than it protects the people inside the train,whereas the rest of the world's focus is on keeping the train solid and absorbing the forces of the crash in order to protect the people inside the train."
If you have a car that is in any high-energy impact (where added weight is most useful), it isn't being used again, regardless of weight.
Rick Harnish has said some arguably silly things in advocating for HSR (I used to get the MWHSRA newsletter), but I don't think he is quite that silly. It seems that what he said was rearranged by the brain of the reporter writing that article to sound stupid.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
A lot more typical apples-and-oranges comparisons that do more harm then good. The US doesn't have the population density of Europe, South Korea or Japan. It also doesn't lack a comprehensive road system like China, where HSR was cheaper than building motorways. I'd really like to see HSR suceed in the US, but it won't unless we acknowledge the differences in conditions that dictate how it will be successful here. What works there won't neccessarily work here.
First off, there's no mention of China's new construction versus the wide variety of predeccessor systems Amtrak has to deal with on the NEC.
Also, there is no comment on the politics of ARRA, where the money had to be spread around to pass the legislature. As nice as it would have been to dump it all on one project, politicians in other districts would have made that impossible. Incremental improvements are also useful in that they show what is possible with faster trains without the political and economic risks of full-scale new systems. I agree that Americans need a CAHSR or Texas Central to work before there is large-scale buy-in, but we shouldn't discount upgrading other services.
The big thing is that HSR only works where it is fast enough to overcome the disadvantages of the last mile: the time (and money) spent taking transit or renting a car. The fact that American driving is proportionately quicker and cheaper than the rest of the world is a big part of the lack of HSR development.
Harnish said these [models] are often "rigged" in favor of highways versus mass transit.
This seems a little strange, particularly since every project seems to go through several studies, years, and bundles of money before approval.
On the transit side, Harnish said the models assume that there won't be money to put into high-speed rail and that ridership won't increase that much. In addition, he said the FTA ridership models are all based on people going to work in the morning, yet that segment of riders is a very small percentage of trips.
In today's NewsWire, APTA says 60% of trips are commuters...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/07/20-transit-group-assails-gop-platform
And last, and most strange, crash standards:
But even if the Buy America rules were not in place, cars made in other countries don't meet American safety standards as set by the Federal Railroad Administration. Rail cars made in the U.S., Harnish said, are designed to protect automobile passengers in case of a crash rather than the rail passengers, the opposite of the way cars are designed in many other countries.
What? Building the trains heavier and thus increasing the forces in a grade crossing collision benefits the motorist how?
Also, no mention to the real reason for the standards: crash survivability, particularly at higher speeds. Santiago de Compostela worked out real well...
"Our regulations create a train that is really heavy, so it's much more likely to get into an accident," he said,
In what way?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.