oltmanndGot it! Thanks for the explanation. Agree that cars are not "evil", but some sort of gas tax increase in inevitable if only to keep the highways we have from crumbling to dust. The current tax is way down from 15 years ago after you adjust for inflation. Also, some sort of tax might be useful to push things along toward more efficient vehicles and less imported oil. It could also be fluctuated to stabilize prices during price shocks (Katrina, OPEC, you name it....)
Agreed. And a gasoline tax makes sense for all of those things. I'm just opposed to the idea of a nationwide tax to fund HSR. If it was a localized thing, I wouldn't oppose it either. Urban dwellers would certainly see benefits from HSR funded through a gasoline tax even if they didn't directly use the HSR. I just don't think it's fair to add a nationwide HSR gas tax because rural America will see no benefits from it whatsoever.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
It's going to come down to high taxes on gas and tolls on roadways, because they are not paying for themselves as well. We just can't keep putting more and more traffic on the highways and not expect their maintenance cost of go up.
Airlines have become to costly as well, and quit simply a hassle.
And you can't play the "why should a rancher pay for a system he won't use" card. How many interstates are there in this country? I driven on maybe 7 of them, also air transportation is heavily subsidized by the government with my taxes and I have never stepped foot in an airport.
If I can drive to Latrobe, catch a morning train to Pittsburgh, use mass transit, and then take an evening train back, that would be what I would be well spent tax money, and you know there are countless other scenarios like that in this country.
If high speed rail is highly developed and mass transit is extensive, then you can kiss goodbye to regional airlines, and there are people afraid of that. They rather strain are congested two modes of transportation instead of giving intercity travelers something they want and is NEEDED for us to continue to prosper.
You laugh at gas prices getting has high as they are in Europe but I don't see it so much further down the line for them to get that high here, because those highways and airlines are not cheap either, you need to take the stain off of them. When I look 50 years down the road either we will have and extensive high speed rail network or complete transportation breakdown.
High Speed rail is not to replace all of car travel or air travel but it will make it more convenient for quiet a few people that use them now.
BT CPSO 266It's going to come down to high taxes on gas and tolls on roadways, because they are not paying for themselves as well. We just can't keep putting more and more traffic on the highways and not expect their maintenance cost of go up.
I'm not opposed to the idea of gasoline taxes. I'm opposed to the idea of a nationwide gas tax to fund HSR, and especially to the idea that such a tax would be a "penalty" to those who wish to use their cars/trucks. There are places in this country that one could do well with little automobile use. Likewise, there are definately places that being punished for auto use is simply not fair because there are NO other options.
Yes I can. Why should that rancher in the middle of nowhere NE or WY have to pay a tax that's funding HSR in Southern California? Or a tax that's serving as a penalty for using an automobile? The difference between you and him is that you choose not to use the interstate system or the airports. Neither is unavailable to you.
So let's say we add a $1.00 or $2.00 tax nationally to fund public transit and to "punish" automotive usage. For urban America, no big deal. We'd complain a lot, but we'd still be able to use public transit to get where we need to go. What are you going to tell that rancher? Just take the bus? Jump on the high speed rail line that runs past his place?
How would one do the same in let's say, Worland, WY?
If high speed rail is highly developed and mass transit is extensive, then you can kiss goodbye to regional airlines, and there are people afraid of that. They rather strain are congested two modes of transportation instead of giving intercity travelers something they want and is NEEDED for us to continue to prosper. You laugh at gas prices getting has high as they are in Europe but I don't see it so much further down the line for them to get that high here, because those highways and airlines are not cheap either, you need to take the stain off of them. When I look 50 years down the road either we will have and extensive high speed rail network or complete transportation breakdown. High Speed rail is not to replace all of car travel or air travel but it will make it more convenient for quiet a few people that use them now.
Again, my argument isn't with high speed rail, or figuring out how to fund it where it makes sense. I just don't think that it's fair to serve up a nationwide tax and toll every road as was suggested specifically as a means of funding HSR and serving as a punishment for automobile use.
A couple of comments here.
I do a lot of driving in areas that do not involve multi lane freeways. My territory covers a lot of rural communities that service the agricultural area north of London ON. To get to the 401 from Harriston takes about 2.5 hours. Owen Sound about 3 to 3.5 hours. I can already guess just how popular any tolling will be up here....
Most farms of here are still family owned/operated. There are factory farms, yes, but we still have a lot of the other farms. Not all have been doing as well as we think----most of our food is still comparitively cheap and these farmers are not getting the barrels of $$$$ as some think they are. If these farmers/food producers end up paying a wacking amount of road tolls simply to go from point A to point B do not be surprised if your food bill goes up.....trucking produce to market will cost more hence urbanites will be crabbing about the cost of food more---
And I'm not even going to ask how that will effect the other sectors even---
I do think that there are regional means of dealing with this issue----a "one size fits all" approach just does not cut it here
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
But Barry, isn't the gasoline/petrol tax higher in Canada than down here?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm But Barry, isn't the gasoline/petrol tax higher in Canada than down here?
Yep. And we pay more for just about everything too---
Bucyrus schlimm Bucyrus There is one more component needed to make passenger rail become the preferred national method of travel. That is a high tax on gasoline, coupled with high tolls on every road. It will kill two birds with one stone by getting people out of their cars and into the trains; and it will pay for the trains. There is no need to wait for the public attitude to change when you can just use force. This is a straw man argument designed to make others think that forced toll roads and gasoline taxes are the method of payment. As long as you are up to using these rhetorical devices, I see no valid reason to respond to your postings. You have made it abundantly clear you oppose HSR, etc. Rhetorical devices? Straw man argument? Getting travelers off of the roads is one of the stated objectives for HSR. Encouraging reduced consumption of oil by taxing motor fuels is also a commonly proposed public policy objective. The FRA is on the record as stating that the purpose of HSR is as follows: 1) To reduce CO2 by six billion pounds. 2) To create new jobs. 3) To offer a new choice for travelers. 4) To reduce the dependency on oil. 5) To foster urban and rural communities. I don’t believe that HSR will go very far in fulfilling the stated objective to get people out of their cars. So raising the cost of driving will be needed to do the trick. HSR is the carrot. High gas taxes will be the stick. If you look into the grass roots HSR boosterism, you find this to be one of their commonly stated ideas. I do agree that it is pretty spooky.
schlimm Bucyrus There is one more component needed to make passenger rail become the preferred national method of travel. That is a high tax on gasoline, coupled with high tolls on every road. It will kill two birds with one stone by getting people out of their cars and into the trains; and it will pay for the trains. There is no need to wait for the public attitude to change when you can just use force. This is a straw man argument designed to make others think that forced toll roads and gasoline taxes are the method of payment. As long as you are up to using these rhetorical devices, I see no valid reason to respond to your postings. You have made it abundantly clear you oppose HSR, etc.
Bucyrus There is one more component needed to make passenger rail become the preferred national method of travel. That is a high tax on gasoline, coupled with high tolls on every road. It will kill two birds with one stone by getting people out of their cars and into the trains; and it will pay for the trains. There is no need to wait for the public attitude to change when you can just use force.
There is one more component needed to make passenger rail become the preferred national method of travel. That is a high tax on gasoline, coupled with high tolls on every road. It will kill two birds with one stone by getting people out of their cars and into the trains; and it will pay for the trains. There is no need to wait for the public attitude to change when you can just use force.
This is a straw man argument designed to make others think that forced toll roads and gasoline taxes are the method of payment. As long as you are up to using these rhetorical devices, I see no valid reason to respond to your postings. You have made it abundantly clear you oppose HSR, etc.
Rhetorical devices? Straw man argument?
I don’t believe that HSR will go very far in fulfilling the stated objective to get people out of their cars. So raising the cost of driving will be needed to do the trick. HSR is the carrot. High gas taxes will be the stick. If you look into the grass roots HSR boosterism, you find this to be one of their commonly stated ideas. I do agree that it is pretty spooky.
There are a few problems with your statement.
1. In order for HSR to break even, using Europe as an example, gasoline will have to be at least $15 a gallon, and that is only for short haul distances. This price will cause the economy to totally shut down, lose 5 times as many jobs as it creates, and will do nothing to improve the air because China is going to pick up the slack when all of our jobs move to China. This is a reality so many on the left refuse to accept.
2. The US economy depends on productivity. Your idea will reduce productivity by a very large amount, which loses even more jobs.
3. Reduce dependency on oil???? It will do nothing of the sort, except for the fact that there will be no manufacturing base left in the USA, so there will be many fewer jobs, thus lowering our dependency.
4. We already have urban and rural communities, but to be honest, only a very small minority in the USA actually want to be like Europe.
I am all for HSR, but only if it can compete with all other modes of transportation with NO SUBSIDIES. Even if you take away the small subsidies that air, trucking, and automobiles have, HSR still can't even come close to competing.
The idea that people in sparsely populated states shouldn't pay for services they don't use doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is hard to find a breakdown on the distribution to the states of the Federal Excise tax on fuel, but it probably is in line with these numbers from the conservative Tax Foundation on overall Federal tax burdens:
Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: Nebraska is a Beneficiary State Nebraska taxpayers receive more federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2004, Nebraska citizens received approximately $1.10 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 25th highest nationally. Neighboring states and the amount of federal dollars they received per dollar collected in federal taxes were: South Dakota ($1.53), Iowa ($1.10), Missouri ($1.32), Kansas ($1.12), and Wyoming ($1.11).
More densely populated states generally are donor states: California $ .78,New York .79, Illinois .75. People in Nebraska, et al. shouldn't complain, lest they have to start carrying their own weight in tax burden.
Forget higher gas taxes please! We have enough taxes already. Price the HSR so it would be stupid not to take the train.
In the Chicago area Metra charges you $5.00 for a weekend pass.That's all the travel you want on Metra all weekend.When I go to the city on a weekend I never drive. That could be why the trains seem packed to me. People will flock to a good deal.
No one said HSR had to be profitable. The airlines would not last without subsidies, neither would the interstate system, which by the way is 90% funded by the feds.
People will ride on an extensive network of rail if it were up to par. Look at the Northeast Corridor and the Keystone Service. They are used heavily by the public.
We are going to be forced onto the railways to cover a certain percentage of our commutes and travels. Americas love affair with the car is nearing it's course. Up until now we have had the luxury to drive a car at low cost. We are becoming heavily populated, demographics show more and more people are living in urban centers. I see America going down a road that relies on HSR and mass transit to move folk around. It's inevitable the way I look at it.
You look over at Europe & Asia and see it not happening here, how long have they been around? They are just ahead of us. We will catch up eventually.
Your tea bags are showing.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
The countries that have high speed rail now are compact in terms of land area, collect very high taxes from both industry and the citizenry and have nationally owned railroad systems. They build dedicated rights-of-way, heavily subsidize the equipment manufacturers and unhesitatingly accept comprehensive centralized planning to get the job done. Except for the pale ghost of AMTRAK, the United States fulfills none of these perameters. Like so many other things, what's commonplace for other countries is out of reach for us. Kinda like a national health plan
Phoebe Vet Your tea bags are showing.
Thanks!! You caused me to virtually snort my coffee up into my nose!
Not only do freight and passenger rail have to be kept separate, but there must be total separation of highway grade crossings from the railroad right-of-way. This was done many years ago on the Northeast Corridor. This is a difficult problem to overcome. In my municipality of 7,500 population, there are 8 public grade crossings and several more "private" crossings used by local farmers. All this occurs across a distance of about five miles. Most other muncipalities along the rails in our county have the same problem. It took ten years and $4 million to separate one crossing in a neighboring municipality.
coloskier Bucyrus schlimm Bucyrus There is one more component needed to make passenger rail become the preferred national method of travel. That is a high tax on gasoline, coupled with high tolls on every road. It will kill two birds with one stone by getting people out of their cars and into the trains; and it will pay for the trains. There is no need to wait for the public attitude to change when you can just use force. This is a straw man argument designed to make others think that forced toll roads and gasoline taxes are the method of payment. As long as you are up to using these rhetorical devices, I see no valid reason to respond to your postings. You have made it abundantly clear you oppose HSR, etc. Rhetorical devices? Straw man argument? Getting travelers off of the roads is one of the stated objectives for HSR. Encouraging reduced consumption of oil by taxing motor fuels is also a commonly proposed public policy objective. The FRA is on the record as stating that the purpose of HSR is as follows: 1) To reduce CO2 by six billion pounds. 2) To create new jobs. 3) To offer a new choice for travelers. 4) To reduce the dependency on oil. 5) To foster urban and rural communities. I don’t believe that HSR will go very far in fulfilling the stated objective to get people out of their cars. So raising the cost of driving will be needed to do the trick. HSR is the carrot. High gas taxes will be the stick. If you look into the grass roots HSR boosterism, you find this to be one of their commonly stated ideas. I do agree that it is pretty spooky. There are a few problems with your statement. 1. In order for HSR to break even, using Europe as an example, gasoline will have to be at least $15 a gallon, and that is only for short haul distances. This price will cause the economy to totally shut down, lose 5 times as many jobs as it creates, and will do nothing to improve the air because China is going to pick up the slack when all of our jobs move to China. This is a reality so many on the left refuse to accept. 2. The US economy depends on productivity. Your idea will reduce productivity by a very large amount, which loses even more jobs. 3. Reduce dependency on oil???? It will do nothing of the sort, except for the fact that there will be no manufacturing base left in the USA, so there will be many fewer jobs, thus lowering our dependency. 4. We already have urban and rural communities, but to be honest, only a very small minority in the USA actually want to be like Europe. I am all for HSR, but only if it can compete with all other modes of transportation with NO SUBSIDIES. Even if you take away the small subsidies that air, trucking, and automobiles have, HSR still can't even come close to competing.
coloskier,
I believe you might be misunderstanding my position on this. I am opposed to HSR for all of the reasons you mention. My preceding statements were only to outline the position of the HSR proponents, including the FRA. I think it is quite telling that the FRA, in stating why we need HSR, says nothing about it providing necessary, cost-effective transportaion.
And welcome to the forum.
rblystone Not only do freight and passenger rail have to be kept separate, but there must be total separation of highway grade crossings from the railroad right-of-way. This was done many years ago on the Northeast Corridor. This is a difficult problem to overcome. In my municipality of 7,500 population, there are 8 public grade crossings and several more "private" crossings used by local farmers. All this occurs across a distance of about five miles. Most other muncipalities along the rails in our county have the same problem. It took ten years and $4 million to separate one crossing in a neighboring municipality.
A major grade seperation project that has been about 16+ years in the making has finally been started at a projected cost of about $11 million. One grade seperation. And you are looking at $13billion for HSR across the US?
Now, of course, if you want to do this bad enough then maybe going to a centrally planned system might be the way----
I wonder how many would go for that now-------
I'm only saying-----
First make it both fashionable and efficient for business travel. See the Northeast Corridor and San Diego-L.A. routes. No weather delays, no security hassles, easy baggage handling (no bag fees).
Design for high traffic areas first then link those corridors with longer distance intercity expresses.
Make grade crossings a relic of the past. Either elevate the rail right of way (and electrify it, too) or create some other forms of over/under crossings and perhaps close down some existing crossings.
Use the California Altamont Express and Capitols as examples; start with morning & evening commuter services and expand into all day service as demand rises. All it takes is some more train sets which cost less than one airliner.
Finally, get the editorial newspaper and TV media behind the project. Stop the negativity and let's get moving. Even Russia has new high speed service now between Moscow and St. Petersburg (built by the Germans). This is a project that will ultimately pay for itself (according to numerous studies) and even the neocons and tea baggers should support it.
dmikeeThis is a project that will ultimately pay for itself (according to numerous studies) and even the neocons and tea baggers should support it.
dmikee: I agree with all you say except your final conclusion. If this forum is remotely representative, the more conservative and libertarian types seem adamantly opposed. One of them wanted to turn all the highways into toll roads and eliminate fuel taxes.
To get it done it is going to take a lot of people to stop talking about it and start doing it.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Responses to several points raised by people in this thread in no particular order:
If HSR could pay for itself, it would not need a public subsidy. HSR boosters always say that a public subsidy for HSR is deserved because roads and airlines are subsidized. But that is a red herring. The way to decide whether something is worth subsidizing is by comparing how much use it gets by the people who pay for it compared to other alternatives. Roads get a lot of general use by most of the people who help pay for them. HSR users will be relatively few compared to the number of people who will pay for it.
When I mentioned getting people out of their cars and onto rail by raising the taxes on gasoline and adding tolls to all roads, this will actually be accomplished solely by new tolls because fuel taxes will be rolled into the tolls. There will be no actual tax on motor fuel.
The new comprehensive road tolls will not be a one-size-fits-all billing rate. On the contrary, it will be constantly adjusted by the Central Bureau of Tolling. They will control traffic though the manipulation of tolls. They will be able to ration the roadway according to user demand by raising or lowering the toll. They will impose fuel conservation pricing by raising the toll the farther you drive. They will factor the fuel economy of your vehicle. With driver income information, they will be able to charge according to the ability of users to pay. If excess rail capacity exits in a particular corridor, they will be able to squeeze the nearest roads and get people into the trains. Remember: driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.
Of course, while this brave new world of motoring may initially get people out of their cars and onto rail, it is likely to ultimately supplant rail travel and make it obsolete. Twenty years from now, we will look back with nostalgia to the days when we innocently thought rail was the answer to a national transportation system.
Just stumbled on this thread.
One cautionary tale: Illinois was close to building a first phase 125 mph upgrade from Springfield to Dwight in the 1990s; but few grade separations and many crossing closures and no convenient stops in rural areas brought out strong opposition that killed the project. Local travel was forced over long detours to get across the tracks, especially for walking; and there was no benefit of access to the faster trains. Closing roads and at-grade crossings must be sensitive to local travel.
The idea that HSR would not serve smaller communities and would be focused on major city pairs ignores the support system of local services, branches, and extensions at more conventional speeds in building a stronger, more relevant system serving a greater proportion of the population over time with occasional, usually discretionary trips.
The funding issues regarding toll roads and gas taxes is much broader than funding HSR. The Highway Trust Fund in bankrupt and unable to support needed road maintenance with the current level of Motor Fuel Taxes. The gallon-based tax would be limited with improved fuel economy and reduced driving; but still would serve as an incentive. A mileage-based system may be possible with satellite and transponder technology; and could be coupled with insurance to identify fast driving as a factor in risk assessment.
Taxing driving more would tilt the playing field somewhat. My hope would be that sufficient resources from gallon and mile taxes would be available for much of the grade separation need of both freight and passenger rail that has been avoided as well as for new HSR lines.
It's true in Chicago as well as New York that high parking rates offer the opportunity to charge more for rail. Apparently, New York bridge and tunnel tolls are obscenely high as well; and this shows up in the cab ride to the airport and in ones out of pocket cost calculation for driving. Call it peak or demand pricing exploitation Acela fares are not that bad. The down side is this doesn't work for the rail system, adding in the cost to continue a trip between areas while competing with free parking and possibly more direct route than going downtown.
Contrary to Fox News commentators, most media are owned by conservative corporations with a particular sensitivity to government spending. Sweet talk and social and environmental benefits will not sway their editorials as much as costs and revenues. At least Sam1 likes trains.
Bucyrus...it will be constantly adjusted by the Central Bureau of Tolling.
Just what we need, another government agency. Especially one that I'm sure will be a paradigm of efficiency. Can we put a toll czar in charge of it?
CopCarSSBucyrus...it will be constantly adjusted by the Central Bureau of Tolling. Just what we need, another government agency. Especially one that I'm sure will be a paradigm of efficiency. Can we put a toll czar in charge of it?
blownout cylinderschlimm But Barry, isn't the gasoline/petrol tax higher in Canada than down here? Yep. And we pay more for just about everything too---
And I think you get a whole lot more in usable services from your governments, both federal and provincial, even with a conservative party in power.
Harvey raises a good point about the highway infrastructure and taxes. Clearly revenue to fix decaying highway systems (federal, state and local) is going to require more revenue than is generated by the current fuel tax. So even if no monies from fuel taxes are diverted for rails, the rates are going to increase anyway.
schlimm Harvey raises a good point about the highway infrastructure and taxes. Clearly revenue to fix decaying highway systems (federal, state and local) is going to require more revenue than is generated by the current fuel tax. So even if no monies from fuel taxes are diverted for rails, the rates are going to increase anyway.
A US Senate bill passsed today will add $20 billion from general funds-not gas taxes-to go into maintenance for the Federal Highway System. So much more to the myth that streets and highways are paid by "user fees".
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Bullet trains always were a hard sell in the USA. Unlike Japan or most European countries, we had multiple corridors to serve, which competed for resources. We weren't rebuilding a bombed-out infrastructure. And the highways weren't yet congested enough to force us to pay attention to rail improvements. Now, we increasingly have the will to build HSR, we may no longer have the way. Every element of our infrastructure is aging and failing at once, from roadways to water systems. Just as our economy loses its fire and runs out of steam.
I suggest we aim at more modest goals, like higher speed rail, with more comfortable trains, and a lot more of them. From the OP's list, I'd emphasize No. 2, Frequency, and 3. Cooperation with mass transit. No 4 (freight and passenger separation) is a means to an end. No.1 Speed comes last, after the other three are implemented, because it would be underutilized or dangerous beforehand.
As a first step, I'd want to double the size of Amtrak's available fleet. Add more departures to each route, giving passengers more choice of travel times. That will give each city served more incentive to improve local transit connectivity, in the same way that a baseball stadium, with 70+ home games, will invigorate its neighborhood's restaurants and bars more than a football stadium's 8-game schedule. That way, work on Tactic 2 advances Tactic 3.
Then you continue working to iron out the kinks in the current network. After decades of general underinvestment, there's plenty of low-hanging fruit here. Adding another siding for freight meets in mid-Nevada, for example, might trim the CZ's time by an hour. That's got to be cheaper than what it takes to increase the train's top speed by a corresponding amount. Let's add some comfort, also. Fresh-cooked food, washed windows and clean cars are smaller cost items than building hundreds of miles of dedicated high-speed track. It's also time to search for better sleeping options in coach. Sections, anyone? I'd consider higher subsidies to fund cheaper sleepers. Overnight travel at 70 MPH puts you well ahead of a motorist laying over in a motel bed, and that's a cheap way to make trains competitive with the general public.
Trains will always have slower cruising speeds than airplanes. Let's not fight it. As a personal note, I'm not attracted to the idea of blasting past the scenery at 150 MPH. A trip down the NWC thirty years ago was a tense experience, nothing but freight cars zooming past, disturbingly close.
Passenger rail has the best support from the White House and Congress that I've seen in ages. I hope we don't waste this opportunity by aiming for a goal too high, a bridge too far. Perhaps the official goal has to be "High Speed Rail," because that sounds all-new and innovative. But we have to work with what we've got. What I see is a lot of little-used, medium-speed rails and not enough passenger trains. Give us quantity and quality, I say, and the speed will come.
I think domefoemer has the right idea, and I don't beleive separation from frieght operations is essential in all cases, some yes, but not all, depending on volume of freight and type of freigiht service. Investment in right of way should in many cases be used to improve freight as well as passenger service.
I am appalled that Massachusetts for example does not have decent passenger service between its two major cities, Boston and Springfield and that a North Station - South Station link has not been built.
BT CPSO 266If I can drive to Latrobe, catch a morning train to Pittsburgh, use mass transit, and then take an evening train back, that would be what I would be well spent tax money, and you know there are countless other scenarios like that in this country.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
All kinds of level crossings exist as well that would make HSR problematic. Can you say---"Let's Beat The Train"? Or just plain inattentiveness?
Oh yes, they've been talking HSR through here for years---something like near 30-35 years.
Between London ON and Woodstock ON alone the CN main crosses about 15 roads---all level crossing. It also has the Beachville Limestone Quarry to contend with---as it traverses right through the middle of it. The quarry has a subway/underpass that it goes through toget to the north side of it. Beachville is the only place that has grade separation here --- Woodstock has grade separation but still has Ingersoll Rd and Wilson St.(highway 59South) to contend with.
We need to think about infrastructure first in this case. Even the "little bit" of grade separation may increase track speed by a few mph hence increasing on time performance. No need going whole hog including the postage stamp when you can do the thing incrementally.
Patience can be a virtue in this case.....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.