We all know that Japan and Europe are beating us in practically everything except for diabetes/obesity, carbon emissions and failing students, but something I personally cannot stand is that they're beating us in high-speed rails. So, suppose the following:
Someone has offered to lend our country $20 billion to build a high-speed railway. Something that all of you may notice is that this money is only going to heavily support one rail line. Here are the options:
A. Make the Adrionack line (New York City - Montreal) high-speed
B. Make the Empire State/Maple Leaf (New York - Buffalo - Toronto) high-speed
C. Build a high-speed line for California (San Diego - L.A. - Sacramento/San Francisco), noting that luckly, the Govenator has already approved of this plan
D. Build a high-speed line for the Texas Triangle (Houston - Austin - San Antonio - Dallas)
E. Build a high-speed line for Florida (Tampa - Miami - Orlando)
F. Make the Cascades line (Eugene - Portland - Seattle + Vancouver, BC) high-speed
G. Follow CSX's plan to make Washington D.C. - Miami "the corridor of the future"
H. Build awesome locomotives to gain our dignity and set a new speed record
I. Suggest something yourself: ____________________
J. Remain Americans, and do nothing
Please note that there are many more options. Remember that we're looking for the system that would be the most efficient, both profitable and evironmental.
I personally like C, as California is doing a lot with air pollution stuff and this would help it.
But really, it would be a miracle if the American People said something besides J.
Good question.
I would say that the most likely one to get started will be C, the California option. Choice D would probably get good ridership as there is a lot of traffic between these cities and their distances are such that highway driving gets to be too much.
Another possibilty is the routes in the Midwest going into Chicago. Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago, Chicago-St. Louis,or Chicago-Minneapolis. But here in the Midwest we're solid Americans and will stay with J.
Gregory
I'd probably pick C, too -- although I live on the east coast. But I've visited the area (and that's quite enough, thank you!). The problem is there to be solved, the traffic is most assuredly there, the people are very accepting of rail transit, and -- perhaps most important -- the local political will is there.
I'd love to see A -- I travel that way a good bit -- but there just isn't the traffic volume. The Adirondack is rarely full, and I87, which is the same route interstate, is one of the loneliest roads on the east coast once you get north of Saratoga. Besides, there's US customs in the way, which makes a joke out of high speed anything.
B might be a useful option, but the political will in New York State is lacking; the project for simply upgrading the trains on this line died because of political wrangling.
I would be a choice, too, with the area of choice being Detroit/Chicago/Milwaukee/St. Louis. Traffic is there, and the politics (except right in Chicago) aren't too bad. Not sure the public attitude is really there, though.
Since we're dreaming:
I: Upgrade a line from the Heartland to Florida, and provide overnight autotrain service.
Or
I: An 85mph average speed train four rounds a day on silky-smooth ROW Chicago to Indy, perhaps on the James Whitcomb Riley route. It must be safe, clean, reliable, with courteous service. Most of America respects something that just plain works.
Invest most of the $20B, and use the earnings to pay for the services long term, and finance future growth.
Not looking to set the world on fire; just serving some people's needs.
As a Californian, I'd have to say California.
As far as I know, California is the only state with a high speed rail plan in place and ready to go as soon as funding becomes available. California has also documented that the cost of adding equivalent capacity to existing highways and airports would cost 2-3 times as much. California has done its homework.
Regarding the Cascades, another good option, but the distances are shorter than in California so high speed is less essential. Washington's official goal is 125mph operation using existing Talgo equipment, which should be sufficient in that corridor.
I'd go with with option "I"...and suggest Chicago-Denver. Why? I think that HSR would be of great use in the longer distances we have in North America, as opposed to the shorter distances in Europe. In this case, the present California Zephyr leaves Chicago at 1:50pm and arrives in Denver about 20 hours later for an about 1100 mile run. Let's push the overall speed (including stops) to 150 MPH with HSR and the Chi-Den time drops to just under 7 1/2 hours. This makes Denver a short overnight trip and means the departure from Chicago can be pushed back to 11:00pm, effectively saving a day for people riding the CZ (and knocks a 60 hour trancontinental trip to 48). Raise the speed to 220 MPH and Denver is only 5 hours-a morning departure with midafternoon arrival. With connections to LA and Seattle/Portland (reinstating the Desert Wind and Pioneer), we would have "higher" speed train service to all three western destination cities. Putting our $20,000,000,000.00 into the common segment traversed by all three trains saves the problems of trying to put HSR through the Rocky Mountains and benefits all three services.
P.S. The miles/times might be a bit off-I'm not at home and trying to work from memory.
This is really hard to answer because there are so many things to consider, but here goes.
My criteria are:
Travel time of about eight hours or less. Otherwise, air travel is more convenient. The main advantage of the train is city-center boarding because air travel costs about an hour or two hours on each end to get to and from the airplanes. On longer trips this advantage gets overcome by the airplane's speed.
Locations that have high density traffic between them and where highway travel is difficult.
Locations between which air travel is poor or expensive.
A reasonably flat route. I think it would be very hard to run high speed over the mountains - too many curves, and tunneling is very expensive.
A market having both business and tourist travelers.
Therefore, I boil it down to B and G. I think G would have the best chance for success, and I would extend it to New York. It doesn't meet the criterion of poor/expensive air travel, but the market is huge and driving on I-95 is very unpleasant and dangerous most of the time.
A comment on H. I don't think locomotives are an issue. The main technical issues for high speed rail are running gear and track/roadbed to get stability at speeds over 150 MPH.
I don't think CSX's current reputation puts them in a position to be part of high speed rail. I have seen the condition of their tracks around Washington, DC, and Northern Virginia. It's just plain terrible - a high percentage of rotten ties and loose spikes.
There are more "commuter" flights scheduled between Mpls/St.Paul and Chicago than between any other two metropolitan areas in the US, so it seems the market would be there for high-speed trains too. Currently the Empire Builder takes about 8-10 hours to make the trip, I would think highspeed trains could do it in much less time - it's only about 400 miles.
I read that in 1935 there were more scheduled trains between Mpls/St.Paul and Chicago than between any other metropolitan areas in the US (at least for trips of 100 mi or more) too. Quite a variety of trains you could make the trip on then: Empire Builder, Twin Zephyr, North Coast Limited, Hiawatha, 400...and some of them made the trip in only 6.5 hours!!
Chicago - Denver is great choice but modified to include Springfield, St. Louis, and Kansas City, because of frequent long delays over this corridor. Current trains are at full capacity at times.
conrailman wrote:Maybe Metronorth Railroad should take over the New York to Albany Route save Amtrak 100 plus Million a Year?
conrailman has got it and the Sox are rolling!
Gavriel609 wrote: B. Make the Empire State/Maple Leaf (New York - Buffalo - Toronto) high-speedC. Build a high-speed line for California (San Diego - L.A. - Sacramento/San Francisco), noting that luckly, the Govenator has already approved of this planD. Build a high-speed line for the Texas Triangle (Houston - Austin - San Antonio - Dallas)E. Build a high-speed line for Florida (Tampa - Miami - Orlando)G. Follow CSX's plan to make Washington D.C. - Miami "the corridor of the future"
Options B and G are extensions of the NEC. Well worth considering. Not to many physical obstacles and they can be overcome easily. Paying for the necessary land will be a major bottleneck I fear (forget the existing freight tracks, better build anew).
Option C is a good one if money is the remaing obstacle. From a technical point of view: both flatland and tunnel areas (not worth going over and around the mountains, loose too much time) so gaining experience with that.
D also seems a good one, lots of people and moving around too.
E should only be considered as part of G, maybe the beginning?
Mountains are very costly obstacles. Going over or around and you loose time, going through cost lots of money. Case in point: the new Gotthard base tunnel in Switzerland will cost something on the order of 6.5 billion dollars for just 57 km / 35 mi! So, sorry, but no Las Vegas - Los Angeles or Denver - west. Most of the existing freight network is also off limits. Apart from the troubles the freigth railroads will make there is the huge expense of updating the lines. It may well be cheaper to build new lines around towns and cities. Think of all the overpasses and underpasses that most be build, ditto sound barriers etc. Running parallel to some interstates may well be the only solution to some problems.
I My personela choice: midwest has lots of potential. Again, not many obstacles and high land prices may make it very expensive. Personal favourite in this scenario is Milwaukee - Chicago - Peoria - Springfield - St. Louis with "branch" to Quad Cities. Lots of possible extensions too (Minneapolis, Detroit/Canada, Indianapolis/Cincinnati, Cleveland, even Omaha and Kansas City), a network in the making that could well serve the greatest number of people in the greatest possible area.
Note: don't focus too much on pairs of cities that are far away from each other. Intermediate cities should be taken into account. This may actually tip the balance in favor of high speed.
My Euro
greetings,
Marc Immeker
PBenham wrote: conrailman wrote:Maybe Metronorth Railroad should take over the New York to Albany Route save Amtrak 100 plus Million a Year?conrailman has got it and the Sox are rolling!
I hate to rain on your parade but if the MTA enabling act was established in a fashion similar to that of the RTA in Illinois, it would require an Act of the General Assembly (or whatever you call New York's State Legislature) to get Metro North into Albany.
I'd go for a Midwest System.
The NorthWest leg Chicago-Milwaukee-StPaul. Branches to Madison & Green Bay.The NorthEast leg thru Gary-Kalamazoo-Detroit. Branches to Grand Rapids, Lansing, Flint,Toledo.
The SouthEast leg to Indianapolis. Branches to Cincinnatti & Louisville.The SouthWest leg to St Louis & Kansas City. Branches to Peoria, Decatur, etc.
The Chicago Rail Plan would be implemented so it dosen't take an hour to get from CUS to the city limits. O'Hare would get a decent passenger station with connections to the NW leg & Milwaukee Mitchel Field.
After that I'd look at a Mid South system
Atlanta-Memphis-Dallas.Atlanta-Mobile-New Orleans-Houston
Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Jacksonville
Gavriel609 wrote: We all know that Japan and Europe are beating us in practically everything except for diabetes/obesity, carbon emissions and failing students, but something I personally cannot stand is that they're beating us in high-speed rails. So, suppose the following:Someone has offered to lend our country $20 billion to build a high-speed railway. Something that all of you may notice is that this money is only going to heavily support one rail line. Here are the options:A. Make the Adrionack line (New York City - Montreal) high-speedB. Make the Empire State/Maple Leaf (New York - Buffalo - Toronto) high-speedC. Build a high-speed line for California (San Diego - L.A. - Sacramento/San Francisco), noting that luckly, the Govenator has already approved of this planD. Build a high-speed line for the Texas Triangle (Houston - Austin - San Antonio - Dallas)E. Build a high-speed line for Florida (Tampa - Miami - Orlando)F. Make the Cascades line (Eugene - Portland - Seattle + Vancouver, BC) high-speedG. Follow CSX's plan to make Washington D.C. - Miami "the corridor of the future"H. Build awesome locomotives to gain our dignity and set a new speed recordI. Suggest something yourself: ____________________J. Remain Americans, and do nothing Please note that there are many more options. Remember that we're looking for the system that would be the most efficient, both profitable and evironmental.
I would have to say D. There are so many people that are moving to the State of Texas, and for those who come fromt he North to go to the beaches and things like that would love the trains since they would not have to drive an extra 8 or 12 hours to get there. This would also open a lot of Jobs for those people that want to work on the railroads. Just to Tote my own horn Texas also has the #1 transit company in all the USA so the trains could take pointers since the transit company also operates its own high speed trains.
The need for high speed rail is obvious and there are a multitude of potential routes.
The basic barrier is lack of right of way that is free of grade crossings and uncluttered by freight movements. A few years ago the German ICE train was on display for CalTrans in Sacramento. One woman visitor asked ' where are the sleeping cars?' The German representative simply said there were none because with high speed operations there was no need for overnight accomodations. The ICE trainset could easily accomplish 125 to 150 mph service on existing right of way if given clearance and a few track upgrades.
The political barrier is the lobbying against such a proposal by the entire automobile establishment and the short-haul airlines who would have their monopoly punctured.
I would have to say the Los Angeles, CA to Las Vegas, NV run. If you have seen the traffic on I15 over a long weekend you would agree.
Dan
Well, it should start right near me and go directly to everyplace I might care to go. And, it should be free for me, but just expensive enough for everyone else, so I don't feel too crowded. ....and don't raise my taxes to build it, either. Raise everyone elses.
OK.. If that ain't happening, then, assuming you mean a "ground up" system ala ICE or TGV, then you start doing ridership studies between every metro area with 50,000 or more people or so. Then you build out so that you maximize your return on tax dollar spent.
My guess is that it this would probably start in the Northeast and spread west to Chicago and then south. The real benefit is from people making trips such as Dayton OH to Buffalo NY, or Harrisburg PA to Columbus OH, or Spartansburg SC to Richmond VA, or Lexington KY to Atlanta. Routes not efficiently served by airlines. Might also see a west coast network form, too.
Despite what others have said, I really think any links accross the west would be the hardest to justify. The lack of population centers between the major cities eliminates any advatage rail has over air.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: PBenham wrote: conrailman wrote:Maybe Metronorth Railroad should take over the New York to Albany Route save Amtrak 100 plus Million a Year?conrailman has got it and the Sox are rolling! I hate to rain on your parade but if the MTA enabling act was established in a fashion similar to that of the RTA in Illinois, it would require an Act of the General Assembly (or whatever you call New York's State Legislature) to get Metro North into Albany.
With that bunch, do not rule anything out. Amtrak is not high on the list of friends of the commissars of the NYSSR! If they can squeeze the money out of us, they'll do it. And Amtrak will happily leave the old NYC runs and that will make CSX and the Metro New York Pols VERY happy.
Now that this has been thought about a little bit, I will come to why I asked this question: The possibilites that we could have with high-speed rail is infinate, and money and attention are the only real barriers to it. If some money could just magically appear, we could do all of these options. But there is a possible source of money: Congress. If you and your district can get enough signatures, your district could try to petition for high-speed rail in your area. It's always been possible, there just needs to be a real strive for it.
The end.
Just about any 2 cities that are 500 - 600 miles apart. When you figure in the time to get to the city center from the airport and also figure in the 2 hour early arrival time required at the airport for security check-in and you have every reason to ride the train city center to city center.
California is in the unique position of possibly becoming the first state to institute a truly high speed rail network. As for routes.
How about building a magnetic levitation system above I-5 between Redding and Sacramento then above 99 between Sacramento and Bakersfield where once again the I-5 corridor would be the route of choice to Los Angeles and San Diego. A connecting line from San Francisco through San Jose and then connecting with 99 in the valley would serve all of California.
And why limit the magnetic trains to ten feet width when it would be possible for guideways to support twenty foot width trains that not only would whisk passengers throughout the state in the daytime hours but would be convertible to haul truck trailers at night eliminating the need for widening these highway corridors.
Many years ago Boeing built the 727QC (Quck Change that operated as passenger planes during the day and freighters at night. The passenger compartments rolled in and out in sections for this service. If all fright companies were required to utilize these trains at night it would certainly eliminate any future highway expansion and thus save the taxpayers untold millions. The Magnetic trains would be powered by electricity supplied by Nuclear power plants thus the entire operation would be green.
Using a magnetic levitation system elevated above the highways whose right of way the state already owns would save taxpayers further millions.
I am certain that passengers in their cars would take a second look everytime one of the elevated maglev trains passed them at 250 mph while they were doing 70 or less.
There is no reason for the maglev train cars to be restricted to 10 feet wide or even eighty feet in length.
Put high-speed rail passenger service where basic rights of way are already in place. This would avoid the need to condemn more land--always very expensive. Pass some federal statutes that would--(1) declare property taxation of real estate, tracks, signals, &c (all of which are technically real estate or improvements thereon) used for interstate passenger service an undue burden on commerce between the states and thus not constitutional; (2) declare that no one injured on a track carrying interstate railroad passengers could sue the railroad because such suits impeded interstate commerce; (3) declare that no one other than federal authority could put speed limits on interstate passenger trains; (4) amend or repeal the Railway Labor Act to make it practically the same as Taft-Hartley (except, perhaps, Taft-Hartley's right-to-work option for states); "permit" states or their local governments or agencies to fence railroad rights of way, construct grade crossing substitutes, police railroad rights of way to keep trespassers off; (5) use federal money to assist railroad passenger operations to signal high speed operations by the most practicable and economical methods given the characteristics of the right of way being signaled (train frequency being a major characteristic); (6) appropriate to passenger carrying railroads by subsidy or tax subsidy (deductions or credits) amounts proportionate to federal subsidies or tax subsidies given all other forms of transportation in interstate commerce; and (7) declare that instituting and keeping high speed railroad passenger service is so important to a healthy environment that no other environmental considerations trump it in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding. A modest appropriation to supplement state or local insurance schemes to compensate people who would otherwise try to sue interstate passenger railroads would perhaps encourage states and localities to protect their wayward citizens from their own follies.
I would test the newest Talgo equipment--good in Spain for about 200 m.p.h.--for use wherever a want of mostly long stretches of tangent track made extra fancy high speed equipment not economically feasible.
The operators of high speed passenger service should be people who have a real stake in making such service pay for itself.
Remember that Greyhound buses barrel down interstate highways at 75+ m.p.h. in some areas and that they have one-person crews.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.