Trains.com

$11 billion later, high speed rail in US drags along

15294 views
66 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, August 8, 2014 11:14 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH

schlimm

Building another high speed corridor outside the northeast would have demonstrated modern passenger railroading and gotten the public beyond the NEC enthusiastic for the possibilities for a real passenger rail service.  LD trains interest few beyond a small segment of the population.

That's being tried in California, and look where it's been going.

An interesting experiment - or a soap opera.  It's hard to tell which!

I suspect the CAHSR is going to wind up sort of half built and not very effective.  I'll bet they spent about 1/3 of the total and wind up with some nice, straight high speed track in the Central Valley hosting hourly, 110 mph San Joaquins.  

I don't know why they didn't start by building the HSR route from LA to Bakersfield.  That link gets them the most bang for the buck and makes the existing trains much more useful (actual, competitive LA to SF trains) while they improve the rest of the route.  They'd build a lot more enthusiasm among the public that way.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: US
  • 383 posts
Posted by CG9602 on Friday, August 8, 2014 11:07 AM

OK -- I've been around this argument before.  If a TGV type train service is proposed, critics will label it a "billion dollar boondoggle," and a "rip-off that no one will ride."  Proposed a conventional yet faster speed train service and critics will complain that it isn't a TGV type bullet train.  I've experieced this sort of criticism here in Wisconsin.  Some folks will pan it and oppose it no matter what -- they'll simply change the objections.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, August 8, 2014 11:07 AM

schlimm

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22%7D

Critics say the mistake was putting the money into existing Amtrak (110 mph limit) services, rather than directly into projects.

The problem is the money was sprinkled and not really invested.  The money was available on a "come and get it" basis.  There was no real goal behind the spending and it was spread out rather thinly.   

The lead time and regulations surrounding these kinds of projects tend to hurt their viability.

There is no "magic" speed.  It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.  79 mph might be a perfectly high enough speed some places.  High speed links in an established network is how the Europeans are going about it.  It seems to be a good model to follow.

Beefing up local mobility along proposed routes might be a better place to start.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Friday, August 8, 2014 7:46 AM

I am flabergasted that the New York Times would print an article stating the obvious, the Emperor never had any clothes. What is the world coming to?!

Mac

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, August 8, 2014 7:21 AM

schlimm

Building another high speed corridor outside the northeast would have demonstrated modern passenger railroading and gotten the public beyond the NEC enthusiastic for the possibilities for a real passenger rail service.  LD trains interest few beyond a small segment of the population.

That's being tried in California, and look where it's been going.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, August 7, 2014 8:06 PM

Building another high speed corridor outside the northeast would have demonstrated modern passenger railroading and gotten the public beyond the NEC enthusiastic for the possibilities for a real passenger rail service.  LD trains interest few beyond a small segment of the population.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Thursday, August 7, 2014 7:40 PM

So build high speed trains without upgrading or enhancing the conventional trains necessary to support them. Oh my, how American.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
$11 billion later, high speed rail in US drags along
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, August 7, 2014 3:00 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22%7D

Critics say the mistake was putting the money into existing Amtrak (110 mph limit) services, rather than directly into projects.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy