Hypothetical Scenario: Where should the high-speed rail go?

[JFdez]

C makes the most senes for a number of reasons (not least of which is this area is one of the rare ones where many people in government, industry and the general populace seem predisposed to support it). 

Current growth trends, however, suggest that that G might make the better long-term investment.  This truly is the corridor of the future, and could (with simultaneous improvement of the NEC) make a huge economic and social impact to a vary large region.  Needless to say, the political will to make G happen does not exist now, nor is it likely to exist anytime soon.

 Juan

[snagletooth]

 I wouldn't say "beating" us. We have payed for damn near everything one way or another since WWII. We would allow them to have any military aside from what amounts to the coast gaurd or ROTC. That allows ALOT of money spent on infrastucure, which many American companies payed into to. We, one way or another, have paid for damn near all of it. I'm not complaining, it's the price WE pay for war. WE, as Americans, try our best to rebuild what we destroy in war, one of the few thar does. We shot our selves in the foot with Japan. Gave them favorable trade taxation(?). you know what I mean. To help them rebuild after the nukes we dropped. We still are obligated to protect Japan against China specificaly, and any other invader. which I personally find strange since we were on China's side during WWII. We are obligated by treaty to this. they are not beating us, we are letting them rebuild, to this day!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Natelord's points are politically impossible:

1. Where would the money come from to replace lost income to school districts, municipalities, etc. from such a proposal.  It might also be unconstitutional if it was applicable to intercity rail passenger service only.

2. Such a restriction would not fly since it would bar access to courts over real injuries.

3. If taken literally, even the underlying railroad could not set speed limits even for safe operation.

4. What are the differences between the Railway Labor Act and Taft-Hartley and subsequent labor laws?  The rest of it is redundant since railroads have these powers anyway.

5. This is already being done to some extent in the Northeast and in Michigan.

6. Try getting this through Congress intact.

7. You're not serious, are you?  Theoretically, this would allow a railroad to hack a new right of way through Yellowstone National Park without any repercussions.

Collectively, the points presented by natelord, if enacted, would put interstate rail passenger service above the law and everybody else's rights.

[AmtrakRider]

        The operators of high speed passenger service should be people who have a real stake in making such service pay for itself.

    Remember that Greyhound buses barrel down interstate highways at 75+ m.p.h. in some areas and that they have one-person crews. 

And Greyhound gets where it is going on time, and has a relatively high safety rating.  Plus it is affordable.

You made some good points.

[Anonymous]

We all know that Japan and Europe are beating us in practically everything except for diabetes/obesity, carbon emissions and failing students, but something I personally cannot stand is that they're beating us in high-speed rails.

I'm not sure where you derived this POV that Japan and Europe are "beating" us, but evidently that POV doesn't include such minute things as average income, tax rates, unemployment rates,.....aka quality of life issues.  The only thing Europe is beating us in is the encroachment of socialism/junk science into our private lives.

That being said......

 

So, suppose the following:

Someone has offered to lend our country $20 billion to build a high-speed railway. Something that all of you may notice is that this money is only going to heavily support one rail line.

Well, at least it's not taxpayer money.  I assume this is a speculative for profit venture, and not just a quirky example of philanthropy?

 

Here are the options:

A. Make the Adrionack line (New York City - Montreal) high-speed

B. Make the Empire State/Maple Leaf (New York - Buffalo - Toronto) high-speed

C. Build a high-speed line for California (San Diego - L.A. - Sacramento/San Francisco), noting that luckly, the Govenator has already approved of this plan

D. Build a high-speed line for the Texas Triangle (Houston - Austin - San Antonio - Dallas)

E. Build a high-speed line for Florida (Tampa - Miami - Orlando)

F. Make the Cascades line (Eugene - Portland - Seattle + Vancouver, BC) high-speed

G. Follow CSX's plan to make Washington D.C. - Miami "the corridor of the future"

None of the above, for this reason:  If you want to build a prototype for-profit HSR, the first thing to look for is a corridor with the least amount of potential competition.  In my view that means no parallel Interstate Highways (never underestimate how the lack of an interstate highway can make travelers consider other options).  Secondly, choose a corridor that has some freight potential, aka potential UPS or FedEx contracts to help underwrite the project.

That being said, I would opt for the following:

Phoenix-Las Vegas-Reno-Eugene

LA-Reno-Boise-Spokane

Salt Lake-Albuquerque-Lubbock-San Antonio

Kansas City-Little Rock-New Orleans

St Louis-Little Rock-Shrevepot-Houston

H. Build awesome locomotives to gain our dignity and set a new speed record

Perhaps a rendition of the Coors Light Silver Bullet Express based on the Pennsy T1 concept?!

 

J. Remain Americans, and do nothing 

You mean remain smart and practical?

[JT22CW]

I'm not sure where you derived this POV that Japan and Europe are "beating" us, but evidently that POV doesn't include such minute things as average income, tax rates, unemployment rates…aka quality of life issues

You're saying that Japan and Europe have lower quality of life than the USA?  They do not have higher unemployment rates, mainly because they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment compensation as "employed" as we do here.  They are also smart enough to keep enough production (manufacturing) within their borders, home-grown to boot, to keep their money within the country.

The only thing Europe is beating us in is the encroachment of socialism/junk science into our private lives

Europe is not socialist.  You have a whole internet in front of you to find out the nature of Europe's political landscape.

If you want to build a prototype for-profit HSR, the first thing to look for is a corridor with the least amount of potential competition.  In my view that means no parallel Interstate Highways (never underestimate how the lack of an interstate highway can make travelers consider other options)

Germany has built a lot of newer high-speed rail corridors alongside the Autobahnen.  And the present focus of DB is towards profit.  On the Autobahn, it's permissible, where you have a car thus powered, to attempt to drive at the same speed as the ICE trains running alongside you.  This has no impact on the success of the ICE service, though.

Secondly, choose a corridor that has some freight potential, aka potential UPS or FedEx contracts to help underwrite the project

Sounds like a de-facto return to RPO/REA, which I'd be in favor of even with conventional rail; although the speeds could be increased on said corridors—if speeds on our traditional rail corridors were increased to allow the average speed of Amtrak Regionals, which would be in the high 70 mph range, a NY-Chicago one-way trip would be executed in a mere 10 hours.  (TGV average speeds of around 135 mph would result in a NY-Chicago trip of about 5.9 hours one-way.)

But this is another idea the Germans already have in practice, insofar as freight in general—they already run freight on their high-speed corridors.

Remain Americans, and do nothing

You mean remain smart and practical?

Smartness and practicality is illustrated in the 13 billion gallons of jet fuel we burn every year for domestic flights alone?  No, that's neither.

I wouldn't characterize HSR Ludditeism as either smart, practical or American.  The USA invented all the general technology that is applied to high-speed rail; it makes little sense to not use it while other countries show what it's capable of, for energy costs that are not in any way exorbitant. 

[snagletooth]

 They do not have higher unemployment rates, mainly because they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment compensation as "employed" as we do here.  They are also smart enough to keep enough production (manufacturing) within their borders, home-grown to boot, to keep their money within the country.

The only thing Europe is beating us in is the encroachment of socialism/junk science into our private lives

Europe is not socialist. 

I agree with most of what you said, except this. There is huge arguments in UE about letting foreign competion in, including other UE members. They are not holding in within their borders. Watch BBC. Brition held out as long as it could for this very reason. France has a muslim and Northern African imigration problem far exceeding our Central/ South American problem. Brition has a huge Eastern block and Asian imigration problem. Germany has a huge unemployment rate do to new EU members geting preffered tarrifs. China is bombarding Europe with products, despite EU resolutions to not except them anymore. They don't have anymore wharehouse space, but China keeps sending it, despite the rules. France and Italy have had Socilist parties since Karl Marx. Several have had sociolist goverments for a periods of time. They'res a strong sociolist party in Britian France Germany, and Italy. They, unlike the US (with only two) have multiparty systems, and the sociolist are a strong group. You need to look up those "many sites" you're talking about. Europe is hurting, bad. And, America, as it's "child", will be there soon if we aren't carefull. 

[JT22CW]

Note the recent elections in Germany and France.  Both countries were, prior to that, more centrist and leaning slightly left—their political parties that are outright socialists have never held majority power (the social democrats cannot be characterized as outright socialists, much as the far-right elements try to do so).

Europe does have its own immigration problem, but they were taking steps to deal with it long before the right-leaning politicians got voted in.  And of course, the high-speed railroads have nothing to do with that problem.

Europe is not hurting as bad as you think.  And stop relying on BBC; their reporting leaves a lot to be desired.

[snagletooth]

Note the recent elections in Germany and France.  Both countries were, prior to that, more centrist and leaning slightly left—their political parties that are outright socialists have never held majority power (the social democrats cannot be characterized as outright socialists, much as the far-right elements try to do so).

Europe does have its own immigration problem, but they were taking steps to deal with it long before the right-leaning politicians got voted in.  And of course, the high-speed railroads have nothing to do with that problem.

Europe is not hurting as bad as you think.  And stop relying on BBC; their reporting leaves a lot to be desired.

And what would you suggest, CNN/FOX? I've got Rueter's, BBC, AP! Anything else to suggest? The world Ain't hunky dory, hasn't been for YEARS! I've been to the east coast ( Newark/ Port Elizebeth and Newark, and Phily.) and met those  "immigrants", I hualed for Polish Truck Lines, ie., nee- "Thee" Pennsylvania Truck Lines, and met MANY Immagrants from MANY countries. Most where more than fine, hospitable, and more than curious and open to our culture, but oh, oh, so many where NOT! I got a WIDE open view of how the rest of the world views US! It's not how about how WE see ourselves, or even how we THINK other's see us, it's about how they REALLY see us that cause war's and conflict, right or wrong!!

[tomikawaTT]

Oakland, CA to Reno, NV?

Including, I presume, the longest tunnel on earth (Auburn, CA, to Reno.)  Or didn't you notice the Sierra Nevada standing directly athwart the route?

The Oakland - Fairfield section is no geographic prize, either.  (Can you say, "Earthquake Country?)

Chuck

[jclass]

But, why spend billions overcoming friction on the ground when you could do this?

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403369/index.htm?postversion=2007032807

 

[oltmannd]

But, why spend billions overcoming friction on the ground when you could do this?

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403369/index.htm?postversion=2007032807

An easy one....

Because you'd have to spend 10s or 100s of billions on airports, runways, air traffic control, airport access, noise mitigation and extra fuel to equal the capacity of a HSR network.

[jclass]

Does everyone have a need to travel at 200mph or more, or just some? (a target market) 

[oltmannd]

Does everyone have a need to travel at 200mph or more, or just some? (a target market) 

I'd be happy with anything that's faster than driving with a price point between the incremental cost of driving and flying.  That would mean an average of 70+ mph and imply a top speed of 110 mph or so.

[jclass]

That makes sense to me.  Who do you think could bring that into existence?

[oltmannd]

That makes sense to me.  Who do you think could bring that into existence?

The same folks that bring you roads and air infrastructure.....Taxpayers.

[nanaimo73]

 I'd be happy with anything that's faster than driving with a price point between the incremental cost of driving and flying.  That would mean an average of 70+ mph and imply a top speed of 110 mph or so.

Don,

If you added train control, and changed the timing for road crossings, how much of the NS Washington-New Orleans main could handle 110 mph ?

I'm guessing the tonnage on the route would basically rule out superelevating the curves. Would 79 mph on curves be logical ?

[oltmannd]

 I'd be happy with anything that's faster than driving with a price point between the incremental cost of driving and flying.  That would mean an average of 70+ mph and imply a top speed of 110 mph or so.

Don,

If you added train control, and changed the timing for road crossings, how much of the NS Washington-New Orleans main could handle 110 mph ?

I'm guessing the tonnage on the route would basically rule out superelevating the curves. Would 79 mph on curves be logical ?

Very little -- at least without a lot more work.  Lots of 2 deg and curves north of Charlotte and 3 deg curves Charlotte to Atlanta.  The Charlotte to Atlanta piece already has 5" superelevation (6" is max allowable) in order to allow 60 mph for the van trains.  There is a nice study http://www.garail.com/Pages/macontocharlotte.htm about the Atlanat to Charlotte piece.  The SEHSR web site has a study for the Charlotte to DC portion (although their preferred route is thru Raleigh and over the abandoned ex-SAL to Richmond.)

West of Atlanta, there is too much traffic to try to shoot a 110 mph train accross the RR.  There is much trouble even trying to get a 79 mph train over the road right now.  It would take lots of double track.  I think the alignment west of Birmingham and then south from Meridian would be more ammenable to higher speeds, though.

[Cricketer]

A key issue in any decision has to be something I'm going to call secondary distribution - in brief how easy is it to get to the station. It's no good having an ultra high speed journey if the start and finish point is a long way from where people live.

Both London and Paris have pretty good local transport systems which get passengers into central termini reasonably effectively, thus making the station's catchment area pretty wide. In my experience only a lucky few American cities (San Francisco and New York being two) have the local distribution network that allows people arriving at a terminal station to get home without using their cars. And if they have to drive then you have to have a really got to have a strong incentive to get people not to drive all the way. One option is of course road pricing which I fear will cause apoplexy in some of the readers of this forum...

And you also need to remember that even in a seriously mobile society such as the USA certain people, generally the wealthier ones, have the disposable income to travel a lot. For any high speed system to work you need to get these people to change mode. But where do these people live? In London, and to a greater extent in Paris there is still a decent sized affluent residential population living centrally. How many cities can say the same in the US. New York obviously springs to mind, but not many others. So American situatuons have those able to pay to travel regularly often living a long way from the centre of town, but quite often nearer airports which tend to be situated away from the city centre as well. You have a tough market to crack.   

All the best

Robert

(PS it's not very Socialist over here)

More seriously remember your labor history, Pullman strikes and Pinkerton men in the late 19th century. I also have a short book published in 1980 called Amercian Railroads - a case for Nationalization, by one Dick Roberts. Not sure it was that good at predicting the post Staggers Act future, but instructive that at least some of your compatriots were thinking on those lines not so long ago.

 

[Wdlgln005]

The initial routes may have to be extensions of the NEC & other corridors where frequent service is already in place. It will take $2mil per crossing to eliminate them via some sort ov elevation. The new construction could be similar to the Interstate Highway system. Between cities, some new ROW may need to be built to avoid going thru small towns where the speedster won't stop. I don't think i'd allow anyone to stand on the platform when a 100+mph train goes by.

The NARP has a new proposal to expand the passenger network into routes that would rival the Interstates in size.
http://www.narprail.org

[jclass]

Chicago is one city that has a lot of high income housing within close proximity of the Loop station/terminals.  And it's expanding, particularly the South Loop developments.  Also, several suburban stops on the Racetrack and the North Shore serve high income areas.

This is where I've thought if the Century or Broadway routes were brought up to 80-110mph condition, maybe an overnight service between NYC and Chicago would work. Several intermediate cities could benefit, too.

I've also wondered about running up the Lakeshore to Millenium (Randolph St Station) in Chicago - an easy entrance to the Gold Coast.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Running into Randolph Street may look good on paper but it may not be very practical.  IC only ran its through trains to Central Station, and there was a separate Roosevelt Road station for the IC suburban trains and the South Shore.  Randolph Street is rather small (6 tracks for IC and 5 tracks for South Shore, each on its own level) and you have a long, narrow (3 tracks) throat between Roosevelt and Randolph with an intermediate station (Van Buren St.) involved.  South Shore's MU's lay over on one or two tracks between Randolph and Van Buren and IC's MU's lay over at 18th Street, which leads to a lot of congestion at rush hours.

[hf1001]

Oklahoma city area

[alphas]

Forget high speed rail on a national level.  The next big government program coming in 2009 after the next elections, barring some big political surprise, is National Health Care.   Once that program starts, along with the pending medicare/medicaid crisis and eventually Social Security, there won't be any government monies availabe for anything on a large scale.    (As many others before me have said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until its free.")    Of course, we could do what the other democracies with government health care have done to finance it--cut the military to practically nothing.   However, given all the nasties in the world that have long hated and will continue to hate America that might not be such a good idea.

The other thing that everyone keeps forgetting is that AMTRAK by Federal Law has the sole monopoly on interstate rail passenger service.   No way is AMTRAK going to ever give that up.  It will take a congress and president to agree on changing the law and AMTRAK's unions have too much clout in congress.    And AMTRAK is currently incapable of running anything as complex as high-speed rail.   AMTRAK was a political  creation and like all political creations it rapidly became a bureaucracy.  Its too bad the current law doesn't allow for some competition--think of how much more modern the US Postal Service has had to become due to its competition from private carriers.  (And it would probably be even more modern if the USPS didn't have a monopoly by law on most mail.)

High speed rail in the US won't work on long distance routes.  I just flew from central PA to FT. Lauderdale and return.   It cost me $700 for 2 adults and that was because I flew out of the local airport.  (If I lived in Philly it would only have been about $480.)   I left my house to go to the local airport at just about 8:30 AM and arrrived in FT. Lauderdale at about 2:40PM, with a 90 minute layover in Philly (after a 50 minute commuter plane flight) where we ate a good lunch  (quality of the food available in airports has definitely improved in last 10-12 years).  No way high speed rail can compete.  

  It could compete in some intermediate routes such as St. Louis-Chicago if it could average at least 135 mph for the entire trip including stops.    But the local politicians will always be trying to get stops for their districts so the odds of that happening are slim and none.   There's also no way a local politician in either state outside the 2 cities' metropolitian districts will vote to spend big bucks on something outside her/his district which doesn't impact on that district.  They always want something in return so the actual cost of a project such as high-speed rail is usually double or more its cost to pay for the  political "grease".    As told directly to me by the Chairman of the PA State Commission that looked into high speed PA rail back in the 1980's, it was doomed (1) because of the cost, (2) Pittsburgh's deterioration as a termination point, and (3) the politicians insisting on about 9 intermediate stops (which averaged out to about one per 35 miles.)   

 Short distances, NYC to Philly or Philly to Balt/DC for example, need good speed but don't have to be high speed: averaging 60 -70 mph for the trip is enough to bring in the riders.   (NYC-Philly also has the much cheaper option of going NJT/SEPTA  if you want to take another hour or so to travel it.)    So true high-speed rail really isn't needed. 

[Anonymous]

So much for cordially concluding this thread about... 30 posts ago.

I have two completely different, small responses to what you said:

 

1. Concerning your apparently delightful plane ride from PA to FL, most of the people in this thread never said that such trips should be made via rail, because you're right, it would be ridiculous. But as far as finding a cheaper alternative, looking at things besides people eating microwaved food and the tops of clouds, and avoiding all of the new security measures at the airports, many people would ride it if it could just be faster. I have several friends whose highlights of their vacations to Florida are the overnight trains they take there - and they can't tell whether a Big Boy 4-8-8-4 is a steam or electric locomotive.

2. While you may think that 60-70 mph is all that is needed by Amtrak to bring riders onto certain corridors, especially the northeast, you can attract HUMONGOUS crowds with something the American people can be proud of; something new, techy and special. If you were to bring a maglev train that runs over 100 mph to any popular corridor (or even some unpopular ones, as suggested too), you'll most likely get a gargantuan crowd of railfanners looking for a ride on the trains of the 21st century without traversing half the world.

Please excuse any bad grammar which you may find.

[daveklepper]

I don't think that intercity maglev makes economic sense,  and I note China has dropped its plans for a real intercity line.   Airports to town in specific cases may be appropriate.

Amtrak's President has pointed out the impracticality of real high speed in the NEC.   Where it is most impractical is the NY-New Haven stretch, mostly over Metro North with about as dense commuter traffic and as many curves and as built up an area as you can find anywhere.  No Tilting for Tilting trains, tracks too close on centers!  NY Washington and NY Boston isn't really a problem at present speeds, which can economically be improved slightly, and rail has a high pecentage of the traffic.   Boston Washington is something else.   Both cities have reasonable local public transportation, and there isn't a problem on that score.   My idea is for a really high speed line that uses the old White Train route through Wilamentic, bypassing Providence, interchanging with the present NEC at New Haven, but then following the Maybrook Line and a rebuilt Poughkeepsie River Bridge with new trackage on the New Jersey side into Bound Brook, new tracks next to CSX frieght line (the old Reading) to West Trenton and next to SEPTA into 30th Street to rejoin the NEC there.   The mileage may be slightly longer than the Hell Gate Bridge Penn Station route, but it could be built for really high speed operation and would not face congestion, possibly bringing Boston - Washington to four hours.   And the business is there. 

[Anonymous]

Well, as far as I can tell, skipping New Yark ain't da brightest idea, and I'm not just saying that because I live in the city. If you were to have one and only one high-speed rail line, as this scenario suggests, why would you make it bypass New York?

[daveklepper]

I certainly would not abandon the NY Boston and NY Wasahington corridors.   Indeed, some NY Boston traffic would be routed via the White Train route bypassing New London and Providence for a shorter in mileage and much faster trip.   But the reasons a Washington - Boston nonstop must bypass NY for really competitive speeds are:

1.  Commuter and other rail congestion New Haven - Trenton

2.  Permanently lower speed operation New Haven - New York

This bypass would get traffic not readily available via NY

[Anonymous]

I have followed this discussion for a while and from my point of view there are five major factors for establishing successful High Speed Rail:
(Most of it has been mentioned before in more or less the same way)

Distance:
The cities connected shouldn't be too far in distance. All what's beyond a travelling time of four hours has to be avoided because air travelling has an advantage in time. (Here on Europe they even talk about three hours maximum).
The distance should be even lower so travelling time stays under one hour. By this you can attract commuters who travel the way every day. With longer distances you may only attract week-end commuters. Besides, a shorter way will save money for the constructing.

Number of cities:
Of cost reasons: first connect two cites. If it becomes a success, you will get more money to build tracks to more cities.

Population:
Take at least one large city. It would also be helpful if there are smaller town in between. This will give the possibility to run fast regional trains on the same tracks. This means a better efficiency and you're bringing the trains to more people.

Public Transport (In my opinion the most important factor):
Much more people will use the trains if you give them the possibility to use public transport inside town to get to the train stations or continue their journey from there. Using a car getting to and from downtown isn't as comfortable as using the subway or light rail which stops just one floor below the high speed train.
This is the weakness of most American cities compared to cities in Europe and Japan which have usually a very dense system of public transport. And this reduces the possible "starting points" for HSR in the USA to a handful of cities.

Existing Infrastructure:
Using existing tracks will keep costs low, especially in regions where land is expensive. Sometimes this will be the only opportunity if you don't want to build tunnels under populated areas. Only upgrade the tracks for higher velocities and add overhead lines.
The constraints are, that the tracks should not have much curves and getting rid of all railroad-crossings. Also try to separate high speed passenger trains and freight trains.
With using existing tracks it might not be possible to reach velocities of more than 125 mph. But this will be absolutely enough for two neighboring cities. New tracks and a higher velocity will be necessary if the network is extended to more distant cities.


Beside the NEC I only see two possibilities where these conditions are fulfilled:
Chicago - Milwaukee
San Francisco - San Jose


My choice would be San Francisco - San Jose. Although this seems to be too short for HSR, the political environment in California seems to be more promising and there is already a good rail service.
First, build a 3rd and 4th track at full length between the two cities. Two tracks can be used for the trains stopping at every station, two tracks for the fast trains. It shouldn't be a problem to reach 100 mph at full length (except the curve near Brisbane, but a shortcut-tunnel would solve this), and there's a good chance to reach 125 mph south of Millbrae.
With this, the travelling time between San Francisco and San Jose could be reduced to 30 minutes for through trains. Regional Express trains (similar to the baby bullets) with about five stops in between would need about 45 - 50 min. This gives enough capacity for two through-trains and two regional express trains per hour. But for a start one of each per hour would be sufficient.
Additionally there are the local trains which stop at every station (perhaps there is money left to build a few more stations). And these trains are faster, too, because electric trains have a much better acceleration.

I'm sure the cost for the track upgrade and the trains wouldn't exceed 10 billion. With the rest of the money build up a light rail system in San Jose and extend the Muni-Metro and Bart.
Try to extend the local trains to Market Street by building a tunnel.
And still you have the "old" diesel trains with which you can build up a service north and south of San Jose.

Advantages of this solution are that you're not only spending the money for HSR, so more people will an improvement. The risk is quite low and this route will be part of a Californian HSR anyway.

[daveklepper]

Why not use tram-trains for the planned electrfication, like Kartsruh's?   Then use the existing streetcar and munimentro tunnel tracks to get the San Jose trains downtown, with equipment that can go 125 mph on high voltage overhead grade separated high speed track but can also behave like a PCC in traffic.