"HSR to Columbus" appears little more than any other Midwest 'capital corridor' (especially if it helps recalcitrant Hoosiers by going via or within reasonable distance of Indianapolis on the way) using the added speed to make the equipment turn reasonable. Without the political buy-in I think it's a financial non-starter even at 110mph peak (which isn't really even HrSR).
Pittsburgh has turned around dramatically since the late 1980s and would certainly be able to 'pull its weight' as an "anchor location" for LD high-speed rail ... but as a midpoint and significant traffic generator 'both ways', not an endpoint. Whether Pennsylvania and Ohio have any interest in 'upgrading' the Pennsylvanian service as a counterpart or extension of true HSR is a much greater question.
Anyone who has had to fly or drive to Pittsburgh will appreciate what good HSR would offer.
The midwest is ripe with potential HSR corridors. Pittsburgh defines the Eastern limit, Kansas City the Western limit with Chicago, St.Louis, Indianpolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Akron in between that can be constructed in manageable chunks. Throw in Milwaukee and the Twin Cities if you want.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
alphas Convicted One: One of the two main reasons when PA looked into High Speed rail in the 1980's [for Philadelphia to Pittsburgh] that nothing ever came of it was that Pittsburgh had ceased to be an economically justified ending point due to its major loss of population and decreasing corporate headquaters. (The other one was the politicans demanded it stop at way too many PA towns to have it be high speed--CA faces the same problem with their HSR attempt). Pittsburgh has lost more population and most all of the remaining corporate headquarters since then. So Chicago to Pittsburgh is not even a remote possibility for a successful high speed network.
Convicted One:
One of the two main reasons when PA looked into High Speed rail in the 1980's [for Philadelphia to Pittsburgh] that nothing ever came of it was that Pittsburgh had ceased to be an economically justified ending point due to its major loss of population and decreasing corporate headquaters. (The other one was the politicans demanded it stop at way too many PA towns to have it be high speed--CA faces the same problem with their HSR attempt). Pittsburgh has lost more population and most all of the remaining corporate headquarters since then. So Chicago to Pittsburgh is not even a remote possibility for a successful high speed network.
Your input is appreciated.
The snake oil salesmen currently pushing HSR projects in my neck of the woods are using Columbus OH as their proposed eastern terminus, which (to me) appears even less desirable than Pittsburgh.
The thought that occurred to me is that they could establish one corridor NYC-Philly-Pittsburgh and a second from Pittsburgh to Chicago.
Pittsburgh becoming a hub of sorts should the system further expand.
I know, I am a dreamer...but the world needs dreamers too.
I'm convinced that "the interstates" is a red herring. Passenger rail travel peaked in the 20s, well before the first shovel of dirt moved on any interstate. Cars were crushing it that early.
CMStPnP Convicted One So you are saying that a devastating war might be the shortest path to viable HSR in North America?
Convicted One
So you are saying that a devastating war might be the shortest path to viable HSR in North America?
Back on topic, why don't we build the nation's longest HSR corridor between San Diego and Houston Texas (with a spur to Brownsville of course), and kill two birds with one stone? There is nothing like synergy.
Flintlock76In the immediate post-war period the railroads were simply overwhelmed by all the returning servicemen, so much so that according to Bill Mauldin many ex-GI's (and sailors and Marines too) hopped boxcars in an effort to get home. Railroaders usually turned a blind eye to it, after all they had sons trying to get home too. Was it avoidable? Hard to say. Pile millions more passengers onto a system than it's capable of handling under normal circustances and there's going to be problems. And remember, these homecoming veterans weren't coming home in dedicated troop trains as they did when going off to war. Once they went through the discharge process they were on their own. Oh they had their discharge pay, but when it came to getting a train ticket they were no different than any other passenger. And that was just one of the problems in the immediate post-war period, it took a while to get things back to normal. Old cowboy saying, "There's bound to be a lot of tore-up ground where a herd's stampeded!"
Railroaders usually turned a blind eye to it, after all they had sons trying to get home too.
Was it avoidable? Hard to say. Pile millions more passengers onto a system than it's capable of handling under normal circustances and there's going to be problems.
And remember, these homecoming veterans weren't coming home in dedicated troop trains as they did when going off to war. Once they went through the discharge process they were on their own. Oh they had their discharge pay, but when it came to getting a train ticket they were no different than any other passenger.
And that was just one of the problems in the immediate post-war period, it took a while to get things back to normal.
Old cowboy saying, "There's bound to be a lot of tore-up ground where a herd's stampeded!"
Our view of history - decades or centurys removed from the 'happening' - tend to pigeon hole that happening in neat, clean dates. History is neather neat nor clean. The logistics supporting history is likewise neither neat nor clean.
Moving millions of people with a physical plant that has been stressed moving hundreds of thousands on a daily basis creates chaos. Returning soldiers came back by the ship load, loads that probably held two to four times the number of 'passengers' than the ships had transported in their normal peace time service. Throw several thousand 'passengers' on a single port city's rail transportation infrastructure at the same time and only chaos can result - especially when that transportation infrastructure is already operating at capacity.
My Great Uncle rode the Hiawatha back to Milwaukee. I was shocked to find his interview by the Milwaukee Journal on the Internet, the reporter stated they were on the Northbound Hiawatha from Chicago which his station was at Fort Sheridan so I wonder how he made the choice. He was at Corregidor and somewhat of a national hero for surviving all the torture, he missed the death march because he was captured in a Jeep and the Japs commandeered it but kept him in it for that part of history (plus being a Major helped).
Also found some of his writings for the U.S. Army when he was in Hawaii after the war recovering, all the survivors of Corregidor were not immediately released but had to go through a period of medical and psychiatric observation as well as Army induced weight gain in Hawaii mostly.....he ran into a LT (promotion held back) who escaped the Corregidor assignment by feigning mental illness to get a better assignment in Hawaii prior to the Japanese attack that most of them knew was comming......interesting writings there worth reading.
The Alamo Scouts sprung him from his POW camp. They made a movie on the escape and part of his history is documented by the Alamo Scouts veterans organization which is online as well.
Continuously surprised with what Google is able to uncover. Ghosts from the past.
My dad rode the Golden State route from California back to Illinois when he returned from the Pacific. He telegraphed my mom saying this train has square wheels.
In the immediate post-war period the railroads were simply overwhelmed by all the returning servicemen, so much so that according to Bill Mauldin many ex-GI's (and sailors and Marines too) hopped boxcars in an effort to get home.
54light15I recall hearing and the railroads did nothing to expedite getting the troops home in 1945
Nothing they could do, nature of military deployments. Both the buildup and drawdown of troops takes months or years depending on the number of troops because we do not maintain a "surge" capacity anywhere in our transportation system on the military or civilian side. In this case I would not blame the railroads because U.S. entry into WWII was sudden up until December 7, 1941 you had a strong countervailing argument that we would never enter the war and that was the environment the railroads had to plan in. During the war, most everything was rationed and troops returning home en masse was probably low on the priority list.
Convicted OneSo you are saying that a devastating war might be the shortest path to viable HSR in North America?
Actually, after the next major war I think we will finally move to infrastructure replacement on a serious scale.
Flintlock76Sam, I'm more than sure "Convicted One" had his tongue well planted in his cheek when he made his "devastating war" comment, hence the whistling emoticon.
Absolutely correct!
I believe that one (successful widespread implementation of HSR) is about as likley as the other....unfortunately.
There are more barriers than just the popular talking points about evil NIMBYS and ignorant BANANAs. Corrupt politicians and the attendant cronyism, where they will oppose all options that do not afford them their desired participation, for one.....and what I will call "casual cynicism" for another.
The latter, citizens who would actually use the product so long as it's made convenient for them at a cost they consider reasonable.
A HSR corridor between Chicago and Pittburgh seems reasonable to me...even desirable. But when it comes time to pay for it there is a problem.
For the Indiana section, roughly 160 miles from border to border...and an estimated cost of say $60million/mile, you're talking roughly ten billion dollars (rounded up to account for the cost of money)...divided between every man, woman, and child living in Indiana that comes down to about $1500 per person.
Now, if you live within a half hour's drive of the nearest station, that might look like a pretty good deal. But what about the Hoosiers who live 50 miles from the nearest station? Or 100 miles? or 140 miles? Those people are going to be considerably harder to pry away from their $1500.
So, obtaining the consensus to move forward on such a project, and having everybody happy to be paying into it, is going to be a challenge.
I recall reading from many sources over the years that the railroads were not too pleasant to use during WW2. It wasn't all the Super Chief but rather days standing up in a day coach with no dining car. Maybe that's an exaggeration but that is what I recall hearing and the railroads did nothing to expedite getting the troops home in 1945. So, as soon as they could, people bought cars with all that wartime money (nothing to spend it on for the duration) and many vowed to never ride a train again. The choice was made and letting Robert Moses put highways through the middle of Bronx neighbourhoods and farmland on Long Island meant "progress" and if you weren't in favor of progress there was likely something subversive about you.
PMWRMNM-- Recalling the ads placed in Trains magazine by the railroads in the early to mid 50's that explained to us all what was going on and how unfair it was.
What you describe is a societal direction encouraged and supported by Government with a policy in mind for a great lessening of the power of railroads.
I think they were seen as old fashioned, especially in terms of moving people and freight deemed that could be handled by trucks instead.
The point is I do believe that they could have instigated a levelling out of all forms of transportation. The technology was available.
Instead of leading the world in HSR and other benefits in railroad transportation the influences of big business pushed things in a different direction. Not saying it was wrong headed, only that the railroads didn't stand a chance, watched their massive investment in new equipment go down the drain, lost a lot of revenue and they, as competition, were effectively eliminated.
Instead Pennsylvania Station was tore down, passenger service and a lot freight was essentially eliminated and Ike warned of the Military- Industrial Complex. It could have gone all ways more to the benefit of all.
Miningman Wishing and wondering why someone, like say, the New York Central in partnership with government didn't do this on their many passenger routes post war. That's what we saw in futuristic drawings. Now that would have evened out the playing field with airlines, highways and waterways. I think they knew of this at the time and could do it. It would require the full support and funding of Government. Imagine how far down the road and advanced things would be today. It would have paid for itself several times by now. Required competent people with vision. It was an opportunity at that time.
Wishing and wondering why someone, like say, the New York Central in partnership with government didn't do this on their many passenger routes post war. That's what we saw in futuristic drawings. Now that would have evened out the playing field with airlines, highways and waterways. I think they knew of this at the time and could do it. It would require the full support and funding of Government. Imagine how far down the road and advanced things would be today. It would have paid for itself several times by now.
Required competent people with vision. It was an opportunity at that time.
Sam, I'm more than sure "Convicted One" had his tongue well planted in his cheek when he made his "devastating war" comment, hence the whistling emoticon.
We already had our cataclysm here in the 1860's. We sure don't need another one! Once was enough!
Wayne
Convicted One CMStPnP So you are saying that a devastating war might be the shortest path to viable HSR in North America?
CMStPnP
Good thread. Good comments.
Overmod is bang on about having to bulid the ' Chinese Wall' although I'm not fond of the term ( I understand fully why though)
So why would this be a difficulty if it was built above existing right of ways. Private railroads and all freight below, HSR (and other passenger perhaps) but all passenger above, a public-private investment partnership. Might even be easier or desirable to go all electric on the private freight lines using the bottom of the above roof to carry the cat.
Airines were one reason for no HSR in this country, but more specifically the likes of the Pacific Southwest Airlines and what PSA inspired (Southwest). During the 1970's, non-stop flights from Southern to Northern California took one hour from gate to gate, and Air Cal could fly from Oakland to San Diego in two hours with stops at San Jose and Orange County. In 1972, air fare between L.A. and the Bay Area was $20, San Diego and the Bay Area fare was $24.50.
High speed rail makes the most sense when there is a substantial population density along the route, that is where most of the trips do not involve travel between the endpoints, otherwise it makes more sense to fly. In Calfornia, the high population route follows the US 99 corridor, where the shortest and cheapest route would follow I-5. Cheapest since the I-5 route would have required far less utility relocation.
I still think the federal money that went to the Cal HSR project would have been better utilized on the LOSSAN corridor.
I truly believe an overstated issue is "our crumbling infrastructure".
A nominal search finds all kinds of gloomy reports, normally made by some civil engineering groups. Isn't that strange?
And then those reports are trumpeted by politicians, who also would never, ever profit from increased government spending.
We then hear about it from media outlets who have no interest in reporting that a bridge is in good shape.
What about "structurally deficient bridges"? Next time you hear about a deficient bridge, here is what the term actually means, from the DOT Federal Highway Administration: "Structural deficiencies are characterized by deteriorated conditions of significant bridge elements and reduced load carrying capacity. Functional obsolescence is a function of the geometrics of the bidge not meeting current design standards. Neither type of deficiency indicates that the bridge is unsafe."
Highways are continually being rebuilt. I know because I have sat in my share construction zones. Railroads are continually repairing and upgrading. Airports and airlines have the best safety records ever, and even old airports have been updated in the past 20 years. Look at a map of the pipelines in our country, and remember how few pipeline accidents we have compared to the thousands of miles of pipe. And our ports have been upgraded over the past years to handle huge amounts of trade.
York1 John
Overmod:
I don't see the impediment to HSR being cost. I see HSR not getting built as the legacy of Ralph Nader.
Back in the day of urban planner Robert Moses and California Governor Edmund G "Pat" Brown (Sr.), whatever the project was, it got done. This was the context in which Mr. Nader had his breakout idea, the context where the little guy got pushed aside in the name of a Greater Good.
Ralph Nader's idea was to fight this disrespect in the courts. This has caught on; Nader has succeeded in empowering the little guy beyond his wildest imagination.
This is why HSR is all tied up in California. This is what Thomas Friedman is admiring about China -- Friedman wishes restoration of a more authoritarian political order to get nice things like HSR.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Flintlock76 Pretty good report, but they DID leave several things out. ...NIMBY and BANANA opposition. ...Then, unions. ... Eviornmental study costs....Property rights.....The did mention car culture. Fair enough. This is America, we love our cars and hate everything else Here's the thing, when enough people stand up and demand high-speed rail we'll get it. Right now the demand's not there. You can't sell people what they don't want, no matter how attractive you make it.
Pretty good report, but they DID leave several things out. ...NIMBY and BANANA opposition. ...Then, unions. ... Eviornmental study costs....Property rights.....The did mention car culture. Fair enough. This is America, we love our cars and hate everything else
Here's the thing, when enough people stand up and demand high-speed rail we'll get it. Right now the demand's not there. You can't sell people what they don't want, no matter how attractive you make it.
You pretty much nailed it. Out of all of this, I think environmental opposition and private property rights are the biggest.
We can't even get a highway widened without studies of how it will affect the geen-striped hornfly, the studies take years, and even if the studies come back fine, the lawsuits from the environmental groups and adjacent landowners will add more years.
Imagine trying to build a new rail line, even out here in flyover country. Imagine trying to reroute an existing rail line for high speed traffic.
It won't happen.
The greatest point is really cost. Obama threw a fornicaton (or coproton, if you object to the term) of money at high-speed rail, and it's difficult to see where much if any of that actually contributed to 125mph+ service. We've had the knowledge and the technical development (e.g. ALPS) to implement at least HST-level service on new lines with fairly radical peak grades for decades now.
The great deal-killing thing I keep seeing is a point related to NIMBYism: a good HSR route is effectively a Chinese wall whether in neighborhoods or farm country, and it cannot deviate either for natural features or property boundaries. Even a proportion of railfans wouldn't want to live within blocks of such a thing, and I see a large number of local politicians recognizing this fact even with respect to lower-speed developments like Brightline. You'd need a significant preponderance of voters, or at least effective lobbyist-influenced voters, to get any headway toward political support of true HSR, and the relatively small group of people who would cough up the likely tariff for HSR trips aren't even a start on such a bloc...
I don't see the 'car' being as much of an influence on this issue as the 'good roads' movement, culminating in the idea that highways should be free (or, if toll, providing significant convenience benefits). I was never prouder of Connecticut than when they abolished the toll on their turnpike, as they had initially promised, when it was paid off. But that would have been a nail in the coffin of any remaining intrastate competition from the New Haven or one of its successors.
We are now seeing, in the crumbling-infrastructure issue, what may become an end to cheap good-roads free access by 'anyone' (at least anyone who doesn't have a valid RFID account hotlinked to a major credit card or equivalent) and, unsurprisingly, an accelerating trend by Gen C or whatever it's called now to avoid the growing expenses and inconveniences of actual vehicle ownership. While I doubt there's a better subregional approach than Uber/Lyft except in specific cases, there's increasing interest in feeder services to faster regional 'mass transit' -- although I still suspect that better very cheap buses are a likelier solution even there than overripe-tomato "transit" projects with bloated budgets and ridiculous "ROI".
If there is a model for observing actual gains vs. problems for modern American HSR, it will come out of Texas. The problem then rapidly becoming that almost all the real gains of true HSR are on extremely long corridors or LD services. Where the expense will be in large numbers of billions; the service to intermediate points difficult to achieve, let alone justify in many cases; and the 'financial' return from operations likely insufficient to cover above-the-rail costs, let alone interest on the investment.
CMStPnPThe Europeans had to start over again at near poverty after WWII because of the devastation of World War II, same with the Japaneese. Rail transportation was immediately available and made much more sense than waiting for the time when Europeans could afford to buy their own car or even a second car (which many of them still do not have today). Same is true of Japan and China
Pretty good report, but they DID leave several things out.
NIMBY and BANANA opposition. Maybe a lot of people DO want high-speed rail, but not in their backyard, and they'll fight tooth and nail to stop it. Add all those court costs to the construction costs.
Then, unions. Especially in the major urban areas. All those sky-high labor costs. Then there's the corrolary big-city "where did the money go?" corruption. Don't say it isn't real!
Eviornmental study costs, I'm suprised they didn't mention what a major killer those things are. Look at the Northeast, one environmental study after another to rebuild or improve rail lines that have been there since the 1850s! How is a modern electrically (or diesel) operated rail line going to pollute more than a smoky 4-4-0? Environmentalists are their own worst enemy sometimes. Don't say how environmentally friendly high-speed rail is and then add to the difficulty in building it.
Property rights. Thank God we have them, but other countries don't have that issue, especially dictatorships like China. "A rail line's coming through. Move or else!" China doesn't have a problem with unions or labor costs either, to say nothing of environmental impact studies. Wonder why?
They did mention car culture. Fair enough. This is America, we love our cars and hate everything else. An exagerration of course, but it's real, and it exists for a reason. Car culture's all about freedom, you come and go as you please not tied to any schedule or location.
And let me tell you, the root of car culture goes back further than you think. Ever hear of the "Great Bicycle Craze" of the 1890's? By that time the modern bicycle as we know it was pretty much perfected. Here was a mode of transportation, for local uses anyway, that was a LOT cheaper than owning a horse and not tied to rail or streetcar schedules. You could come and go as you wanted. That got other people thinking, Henry Ford for example, that there was a demand for personal transportation that was a market waiting to be tapped. How right he was.
And we all know, it was the Wright brothers very successful bike business that funded their aviation experiments.
And let me add, the demand for road improvements didn't start with the Model T owners, it began back in the 1890's with lobbying by the bicycle clubs, and there were a LOT of them.
Oh, and the Eisenhower interstate highway system? Is there anyone who can imagine life in this country now without it? Seriously? For a reminder of what it was like before the interstates let me recommend a movie from 1953, a Lucille Ball - Desi Arnaz comedy called "The Long, Long Trailer." Oh, brother. A very funny movie, and remember, for something to be funny it has to have a grain of truth to it. "L-L-T" has more than a grain of truth to it!
Ah, enough.
Regarding that old conspiracy about the streetcars, the systems were worn out, people started buying cars and all GM did was open thier bus catalog.
Point of correction on the big transit systems being bought out by an Oil-Automobile-Tire conspiracy. Had the discussion while I worked at GM at their HQ with their Economists. The Economists raised the issue because they knew I was a rail afficianado. Most of them were PhD's and knew their specific areas of coverage really well. They all agreed this conspiracy theory was only partially true and the largest fact missing was the transit systems at the time of purchase were in serious financial trouble and the purchase and conversion to bus was an attempt to make them viable again via exchanging the rail infrastructure cost with the largely cost free and public provided paved streets. It wasn't a nationwide goal to destroy rail or rail transit. So every time I hear it I am going to throw the BS flag on that specific conspiracy theory. It was the general move prior to WWII that continued after WWII to the private automobile and the U.S. standard of living which made one and two car households viable that led to the downfall of the privately run passenger train.
The Europeans had to start over again at near poverty after WWII because of the devastation of World War II, same with the Japaneese. Rail transportation was immediately available and made much more sense than waiting for the time when Europeans could afford to buy their own car or even a second car (which many of them still do not have today). Same is true of Japan and China. If everyone in China owned an automobile or had two of them that country would be unliveable due to traffic congestion and pollution.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.