https://sites.google.com/site/californiarailmap/us-high-speed-rail-system
This system of nationwide HSR technically isn't in the works but it should be. The routes probably wouldn't quite look like that. In my view there definitely is demand for such a system just what is needed is political will. As for the expected density comments I say get rid of density restrictions, euclidean zoning, and parking requirements and density should come as a result. Distances are somewhat long but time would still be competitive with air travel due to going to downtown areas and of course lower energy costs and the ever more volatile oil prices make it cost competitive. Such a system would most likely be used for the cities in between but that doesn't rule out longer distances. What would the benefits of such a system be?
A huge dream but I think such a project can be feasible if done properly. While such a project would cost 1 trillion or so dollars. For to avoid going into further debt I would issue what are called US notes instead of federal reserve notes which require no borrowing and thus wouldn't expand the debt. Us notes are just as good as federal reserve notes in terms of being legal tender. The inflation would be mitigated by the enhancements in commerce. The capital costs can be paid off through passenger revenues, postal service revenues, passenger station revenues, electricity revenues through using catenaries as a grid, real estate around a passenger station, and I would also have localities pay off part of the capital cost through enhancements in property values. The money made from it could be used for freight rail expansion and electrification, it could also be used for for expanding local and city transit systems, and it could also be used to pay for things like social programs etc. I would focus on building piece by piece and building efficiently. Being as much of the land needed for such a project is federal land such costs can be largely avoided, however eminent domain should be used conservatively if at all and land owners well compensated. I think renewable and clean energy should a focus of such a project thorium, solar, wind, and in some areas hydro electric. Maybe I am dreamer but at least I have constructive ideas. Cheers!
Railroad to Freedom
Political will is generally the sum of the will of the constituents, so you'd have to start with the grass roots. That's part of the problem. The passenger train advocacy groups are often about lines on the map and diners and sleepers rather than anything really useful.
Your proposal is of the "quantum leap" variety, which is a pretty hard sell. I think the way to "catch up" to Europe, et. al. is to follow their path. That is, an incremental one. Start with what's easy and cheap and works, like the NEC extensions to Norfolk and Lynchburg and grow from there. Eventually, you can replace congested/slow rural links with new HSR alignments. Just let the network grow organically.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ontheBNSF Reduced petroleum consumption
How much?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
oltmannd Political will is generally the sum of the will of the constituents, so you'd have to start with the grass roots. That's part of the problem. The passenger train advocacy groups are often about lines on the map and diners and sleepers rather than anything really useful. Your proposal is of the "quantum leap" variety, which is a pretty hard sell. I think the way to "catch up" to Europe, et. al. is to follow their path. That is, an incremental one. Start with what's easy and cheap and works, like the NEC extensions to Norfolk and Lynchburg and grow from there. Eventually, you can replace congested/slow rural links with new HSR alignments. Just let the network grow organically.
Such a system would be built incrementally but it would unified network with similar standards and what have you. Also we got to stop talking about 80-120mph trains the public doesn't care about it that technology was made more than half a century ago. As for a quantum leap the rail system of this country is one of several years old so a quantum leap wouldn't be bade idea. We need to excite the public whom likes shiny, fast, new things and massive things.
Paul Milenkovic ontheBNSF Reduced petroleum consumption How much?
Several planes would be out of the air, buses off highways, cars offf of highways, and oil powered trains replaced so this is hard to tell.
ontheBNSFAlso we got to stop talking about 80-120mph trains the public doesn't care about it that technology was made more than half a century ago
No, then exactly who is riding that new train from Norfolk? And the one from Lyncburg? And the 1.3M Keystone riders? Or the Capitols and Surfliners? Or any NEC regional train for that matter?
People just want to get where they are going.
ontheBNSFFor to avoid going into further debt I would issue what are called US notes instead of federal reserve notes which require no borrowing and thus wouldn't expand the debt. Us notes are just as good as federal reserve notes in terms of being legal tender. The inflation would be mitigated by the enhancements in commerce.
Don't forget to wave the hands a lot as you explain this ... ;-}
No practical difference between a "US Note" and any other form of free money, and 'improvements in commerce' will scarcely be direct enough, or monetized enough, to be viewed as sterilizing the effect on national debt and/or money supply -- let alone anti-inflationary. If you issued the Notes as tax-free bonds, discounting appropriately, and ensuring against the wrong types of ownership (including foreign) you might be closer to something financially workable... but there's that awful D word again. Were you planning on making the Notes transferrable? Have you looked into the multiplier effects of their denomination in 'legal tender' dollars (for that is what they would have to be) -- particularly in terms of denominated interest-bearing instruments? Or how arbs of various flavors would enforce their perceptions of Gresham's Law, etc. regarding the real worth of these Notes, and therefore the ongoing long-term capital projects they're supposed to be funding or securing?
A problem I see is that the target widespread regional rail is aiming for is moving. Much of what would be served by very expensive dedicated electrification can be served by... well, hybrid trolleybuses, or BEVs of various sizes, or induction-charged vehicles. And meanwhile here comes the expanded FAA regional airport proposal, which gives inexpensive service to communities not much more than 40-50 miles apart, certainly for lots less money and more flexible service as a network than regional can provide one-seat (or even multiple-train direct). Same argument applies now as it did in the 'teens and after in the last century: going direct between destinations or regional destination pairs trumps having to go through transport hubs almost every time, PARTICULARLY if the transport system using the hubs requires heavy construction and dedicated maintenance funding. Were you going to lay all this regional rail with Class-9 top-down slab track? (Which I think I might...)
Reminds me more than a bit of the anti-Amtrak propaganda sometime back in the '70s, where someone pointed out that the Government could buy every Amtrak passenger a new Volkswagen and still come out ahead...
RME
ontheBNSF Paul Milenkovic ontheBNSF Reduced petroleum consumption How much? Several planes would be out of the air, buses off highways, cars offf of highways, and oil powered trains replaced so this is hard to tell.
C'mon, you want to spend a trillion dollars? What does this buy? And no, replacing a few planes, buses and Diesel trains hard-to-tell is not an answer.
Overmod ontheBNSFFor to avoid going into further debt I would issue what are called US notes instead of federal reserve notes which require no borrowing and thus wouldn't expand the debt. Us notes are just as good as federal reserve notes in terms of being legal tender. The inflation would be mitigated by the enhancements in commerce. Don't forget to wave the hands a lot as you explain this ... ;-} No practical difference between a "US Note" and any other form of free money, and 'improvements in commerce' will scarcely be direct enough, or monetized enough, to be viewed as sterilizing the effect on national debt and/or money supply -- let alone anti-inflationary. If you issued the Notes as tax-free bonds, discounting appropriately, and ensuring against the wrong types of ownership (including foreign) you might be closer to something financially workable... but there's that awful D word again. Were you planning on making the Notes transferrable? Have you looked into the multiplier effects of their denomination in 'legal tender' dollars (for that is what they would have to be) -- particularly in terms of denominated interest-bearing instruments? Or how arbs of various flavors would enforce their perceptions of Gresham's Law, etc. regarding the real worth of these Notes, and therefore the ongoing long-term capital projects they're supposed to be funding or securing?
On a somewhat off topic note governments don't need to borrow at all. If a government is in debt it looses it sovereignty. Governments can issue their own currency without debt and In fact Lincoln did that with the Greenback during the civil war. Article 1 Section 8 "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"
Paul Milenkovic ontheBNSF Paul Milenkovic ontheBNSF Reduced petroleum consumption How much? Several planes would be out of the air, buses off highways, cars offf of highways, and oil powered trains replaced so this is hard to tell. C'mon, you want to spend a trillion dollars? What does this buy? And no, replacing a few planes, buses and Diesel trains hard-to-tell is not an answer.
I am just not sure what the math would be. One could use such a system to easily replace most if not all of the regional air travel, multi-city flights, and some long distance flights. I am sure the energy savings would be significant.
U.S. Note not requiring borrowing???
Look up the word shinplaster for a description of what happened the first (and, IIRC, last) time the United States government issued an un-backed currency.
Chuck
tomikawaTT U.S. Note not requiring borrowing??? Look up the word shinplaster for a description of what happened the first (and, IIRC, last) time the United States government issued an un-backed currency. Chuck
Greenbacks weren't highly inflated and were in fact deflated. There was overall a shortage of greenbacks. In the case of colonial scrip it was counter fitted by the British. In fact Debt based currency is far more inflationary then non debt based currency being as debt based currency is loaned into existence and you end up with the problem of where the principal plus interest is more than there is money to pay off so one has to constantly go into debt in order to pay it off and this in turn creates a constant expansion of money.
ontheBNSFI am just not sure what the math would be. One could use such a system to easily replace most if not all of the regional air travel, multi-city flights, and some long distance flights. I am sure the energy savings would be significant.
That's not good enough. You HAVE to be sure what the math would be before proposing ... even if it's only the math that would go in a business plan, and we all know business-plan math is BS, even the VCs. You show you know something about what you're discussing by making the effort, and showing that you understand and are responsive to real-world institutions and opportunities.
"Being sure" the energy savings "would be significant" fails on two counts. It's attractive to say that there would have to be savings... but trains are not THAT much more fuel-efficient than alternatives, especially if built to AAR/FRA buff standards with reasonably comfortable interiors or seat tracking. There is no other practical use for your regional rail than passenger operations, so the entire sunk cost has to be attributed to either redership revenues or some kind of vast public financing ... that could easily be spent somewhere else with greater long-term advantage (like education, for example).
BE SURE what the energy savings will be, and BE SURE of their significance, and discuss those in detail. You may not be right -- there's no sin in differing with others' opinions anyway -- but you will be credible. And credibility is the bare bones of necessity for any real plan.
tomikawaTTLook up the word shinplaster for a description of what happened the first (and, IIRC, last) time the United States government issued an un-backed currency.
Abe Lincoln took us off the gold standard and issued paper money (greenbacks) based on the "full faith and credit of the United States Government." Bankers argued it would be inflationary. It was but there was also a tremendous expansion of the economy. Some years later we returned to the gold standard. And then we went off of it again. Do you propose to return to the gold standard?
I greatly over estimated the costs of such project it would be closer 500 billion dollars not 1 trillion. As for how much oil it would save I am not sure how one would calculate it but consider 70% of flights are regional flights of relatively short distance high speed rail could replace virtually all of them. As for the education comment by all objective measures education spending has increased by huge numbers. When people say oh we spend the money on other things I am not against improvements to other government programs however those improvements shouldn't rule out high speed rail. If FRA/AAR standards are an issue change them to match standards of other countries. As for oltmannd's incremental approach we have been trying that since 1971 and it hasn't gotten us very far.
I also think we need to develop HSR corridors, primarily in the 300-400 mile range. However, your estimate of $500 bil. for the ambitious plan you propose doesn't jive with reality. For California HSR alone, plan estimates final cost at Year-Of-Expenditure (YOE) $68 billion for just the Phase 1 project, connecting San Francisco with Los Angeles via Central Valley and Palmdale.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
ontheBNSF consider 70% of flights are regional flights of relatively short distance high speed rail could replace virtually all of them.
I agree with you here. However, I also agree with Don's incremental approach. After all incrementalism has worked in the North East Corridor and I think it is working in other corridors.
Actually as airline companies become more and more reluctant to serve small markets I think there will be push factors getting people onto the trains. Either airline fares in small markets will rise to the point where people will back away from them or the airlines themselves will pull out of the markets.
The politics being used against HSR is that since it can't service everybody tomorrow - it should not service anybody ever.
The Interstate system didn't service everybody, the day after Eisenhower signed the bill, but over the 50+ years after the bill was signed the Interstate system has expanded to provide value to nearly every driver in the country.
HSR, West of the Missouri River is a pipe dream except on the West Coast - there aren't enough 'centers of commerce' to build a sustainable traffic base - it's called 'Fly Over Territory' today.
East of Missouri, specific corridors can be built between 'centers of commerce' and eventually linked together to form a HSR network. It will not be done 'overnight' and it will not service 'East Podunk' directly, but it would have the utility of today's short haul air carriers and considering current 'air line security concerns' would in almost all instances be faster than air.
It cannot be done by piggybacking the routes on existing freight routes that were built to facilitate the movement of freight. The curvature built into the freight routes to minimze the grades excludes high speed running where highly powered HSR trains can surmount grades the would financially cripple a freight carrier to operate. The bulk of the Interstate system was not built upon the pre-existing road system for similar reasons.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD HSR, West of the Missouri River is a pipe dream except on the West Coast - there aren't enough 'centers of commerce' to build a sustainable traffic base - it's called 'Fly Over Territory' today. East of Missouri, specific corridors can be built between 'centers of commerce' and eventually linked together to form a HSR network. It will not be done 'overnight' and it will not service 'East Podunk' directly, but it would have the utility of today's short haul air carriers and considering current 'air line security concerns' would in almost all instances be faster than air. It cannot be done by piggybacking the routes on existing freight routes that were built to facilitate the movement of freight. The curvature built into the freight routes to minimze the grades excludes high speed running where highly powered HSR trains can surmount grades the would financially cripple a freight carrier to operate. The bulk of the Interstate system was not built upon the pre-existing road system for similar reasons.
Good points, Balt. In Germany, some of the newer, dedicated HSR routes (Neubaustrecke) are parallel to existing Autobahns. Often the countryside there is fairly hilly and tunnels are used to reduce the grades that the road uses. Why is that concept not being considered here, other than the private HSR in Florida?? Expanding the interstate ROW to accommodate a 2-track HSR line wouldn't be all that expensive.
schlimmExpanding the interstate ROW to accommodate a 2-track HSR line wouldn't be all that expensive
Schlimm,
It seems to me that building new right of way even by expanding current interstate rights of way would be quite expensive.
John
1. Why? the new line in Florida is paying very little to share ROW with the interstate. 2. BaltACD has a pretty good handle on the freight lines' attitude. 3. Aside from sharing lines in approaches to major cities, a dedicated ROW is needed to run HSR.
schlimm BaltACD HSR, West of the Missouri River is a pipe dream except on the West Coast - there aren't enough 'centers of commerce' to build a sustainable traffic base - it's called 'Fly Over Territory' today. East of Missouri, specific corridors can be built between 'centers of commerce' and eventually linked together to form a HSR network. It will not be done 'overnight' and it will not service 'East Podunk' directly, but it would have the utility of today's short haul air carriers and considering current 'air line security concerns' would in almost all instances be faster than air. It cannot be done by piggybacking the routes on existing freight routes that were built to facilitate the movement of freight. The curvature built into the freight routes to minimze the grades excludes high speed running where highly powered HSR trains can surmount grades the would financially cripple a freight carrier to operate. The bulk of the Interstate system was not built upon the pre-existing road system for similar reasons. Good points, Balt. In Germany, some of the newer, dedicated HSR routes (Neubaustrecke) are parallel to existing Autobahns. Often the countryside there is fairly hilly and tunnels are used to reduce the grades that the road uses. Why is that concept not being considered here, other than the private HSR in Florida?? Expanding the interstate ROW to accommodate a 2-track HSR line wouldn't be all that expensive.
Grades are not the problem. Curves are.
If we take HSR to mean 190-220 mph, then large stretches of interstate have horizontal and vertical curves that make them unsuitable. If we straighten them, then we have the same cost issues we have trying adopt existing rail ROW. $$$
It would work in spots but not universally.
The second problem would be access to the route. If much of the problem with urban interstates is clogged feeders, then putting a high capacity batch mode transport system that relies on the same feeder system would be a lousy idea. You you just use the interstate ROW for the rural portion, though.
BaltACDIt cannot be done by piggybacking the routes on existing freight routes that were built to facilitate the movement of freight.
...in the 19th century, at fairly low speeds.
oltmannd Grades are not the problem. Curves are. If we take HSR to mean 190-220 mph, then large stretches of interstate have horizontal and vertical curves that make them unsuitable. If we straighten them, then we have the same cost issues we have trying adopt existing rail ROW. $$$ It would work in spots but not universally. The second problem would be access to the route. If much of the problem with urban interstates is clogged feeders, then putting a high capacity batch mode transport system that relies on the same feeder system would be a lousy idea. You you just use the interstate ROW for the rural portion, though.
First look at the likely corridors. Most have interstates and the ROW's, although not arrow straight, have fairly minimal curves or fairly large radius. And as on the DB, the dedicated HSR stretches use existing shared rail ROW in approaches to cities. What are the alternatives?
1. Use freight ROW's only. Thus no HSR, now or in the future.
2. Share ROW's as much as possible with the interstates, as on various current and planned HSR lines, here and abroad.
3. Totally new ROW's at a very high cost for land acquisition.
4. Purchase existing freight ROW's that are lightly used.
Most big advances are made by dreamers who are surrounded by people who are telling them it can't be done.
That said, there are some mountains you must climb to accomplish your dream.
1: Your US Note fantasy: Contrary to popular belief the majority of our national debt is not held by China, it is owed to the Federal Reserve and the various pension and dedicated funds administered by our own government. China holds about 10% of the debt. Just printing more money is a mistake our government is already making.
2: You would probably be surprised how little a trillion dollars would buy when applied at the national level.
3: The government routinely sabotages the agencies it runs by trying to do too much with limited resources. One train a day is not useful transportation. When you try to do too much with too little, NO ONE gets an acceptable level of service. A better plan would be to take large city pairs just a few hours apart and run fast, frequent, on time service in those corridors. Long distance should be limited to areas where it makes sense to connect two or more corridors. A well run system would naturally expand over time. A poorly run system will eventually die.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
schlimm What are the alternatives? 1. Use freight ROW's only. Thus no HSR, now or in the future. 2. Share ROW's as much as possible with the interstates, as on various current and planned HSR lines, here and abroad. 3. Totally new ROW's at a very high cost for land acquisition. 4. Purchase existing freight ROW's that are lightly used.
What are the alternatives?
All. Depending on the particular circumstances. (some RR ROW is good for HSR. Big chunks of the ACL in the SE and NYC Cleveland to Chicago, for example.)
In Pennsylvania, I 80 is pretty straight on the west end put has vertical curves that would need flattening and I 80 really doesn't "connect the dots" very well or fit into the existing NEC and branches very well. The land there would be pretty cheap, so maybe a greenfield solution would be best - Harrsburg - State College - Pittsburgh.
In the Piedmont, the rail route south of Charlotte is too curvy for even 90 mph and the interstate alignment has terrible vertical curves and a pretty narrow ROW in SC. But, the existing rail route does a better job of "connect the dots", so using the RR alignment with some greenfield "patches" might work better than using I 85 in SC. In GA, the Interstate is newer, wider and "smoother", so piggybacking HSR might be a good idea.
1. There is not only the cost of the property for the right of way. There is also the cost of building the right of way to HSR standards. Certainly the cost of new rail lines has to be more -- much more -- that using existing lines.
2. Railroad managers are not the only people capable of having attitudes. Railroad passengers can have attitudes too. And they can express those attitudes to Members of Congress. This includes attitudes about late trains whether or not the lateness is caused by a freight train.
3. I agree completely that a dedicated row is needed for high speed rail.
schlimm oltmannd Grades are not the problem. Curves are. If we take HSR to mean 190-220 mph, then large stretches of interstate have horizontal and vertical curves that make them unsuitable. If we straighten them, then we have the same cost issues we have trying adopt existing rail ROW. $$$ It would work in spots but not universally. The second problem would be access to the route. If much of the problem with urban interstates is clogged feeders, then putting a high capacity batch mode transport system that relies on the same feeder system would be a lousy idea. You you just use the interstate ROW for the rural portion, though. First look at the likely corridors. Most have interstates and the ROW's, although not arrow straight, have fairly minimal curves or fairly large radius. And as on the DB, the dedicated HSR stretches use existing shared rail ROW in approaches to cities. What are the alternatives? 1. Use freight ROW's only. Thus no HSR, now or in the future. 2. Share ROW's as much as possible with the interstates, as on various current and planned HSR lines, here and abroad. 3. Totally new ROW's at a very high cost for land acquisition. 4. Purchase existing freight ROW's that are lightly used.
Interesting point. In the Northeast U.S the reverse is somewhat true in that some of the interstates were built on RR ROWs....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Phoebe Vet Most big advances are made by dreamers who are surrounded by people who are telling them it can't be done. That said, there are some mountains you must climb to accomplish your dream. 1: Your US Note fantasy: Contrary to popular belief the majority of our national debt is not held by China, it is owed to the Federal Reserve and the various pension and dedicated funds administered by our own government. China holds about 10% of the debt. Just printing more money is a mistake our government is already making. 2: You would probably be surprised how little a trillion dollars would buy when applied at the national level. 3: The government routinely sabotages the agencies it runs by trying to do too much with limited resources. One train a day is not useful transportation. When you try to do too much with too little, NO ONE gets an acceptable level of service. A better plan would be to take large city pairs just a few hours apart and run fast, frequent, on time service in those corridors. Long distance should be limited to areas where it makes sense to connect two or more corridors. A well run system would naturally expand over time. A poorly run system will eventually die.
I won't deny the government's wasteful which is indeed a problem. Building it on a federal level might not be ideal. Building it in a select number corridors would be better however replacing certain airline routes in say the southwest is not a bad idea. I never said anything about China. However the money the government owes is not owed to itself that is banker speak. The Federal Reserve System is a contradiction in terms it has no reserves it is not part of the Federal government this has been proven through various court cases such as Lewis v. the United States. It is as best a pseudo government agency at best. The government has lost it sovereignty to bankers and rich industrialists not China. The Federal Reserve is primarily owned by the Rockefeller family owners of the Exxon Mobil and the Morgan family who financed general motors, general electric etc. A non gold and non debt based currency is far better . England had tallysticks and used them successfully for 700 years the US had greenbacks that were successful as well. Sorry if this off topic.
Lewis v. United States
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5898553144184705388&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
ontheBNSFThe government routinely sabotages the agencies it runs by trying to do too much with limited resources. One train a day is not useful transportation. When you try to do too much with too little, NO ONE gets an acceptable level of service. A better plan would be to take large city pairs just a few hours apart and run fast, frequent, on time service in those corridors. Long distance should be limited to areas where it makes sense to connect two or more corridors. A well run system would naturally expand over time. A poorly run system will eventually die.
I agree with the first part of this statement. However, Amtrak is not quite dead yet. When it began is was carrying fewer than 2 million passengers a year. Today it carries about 3 million. And that is Amtrak as it stands, not Amtrak as it might be.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.