President Obama proposes to help address the nation’s transportation challenges by launching a new and efficient high-speed passenger rail network in 100-600 mile corridors that connect communities across America. The Strategic Plan outlines the President’s vision that would transform the nation’s transportation system by rebuilding existing rail infrastructure while developing a comprehensive high-speed intercity passenger rail network through a long-term commitment at both the federal and state levels. This plan draws from the successful highway and aviation development models with a 21st century solution that focuses on clean, energy-efficient rail transportation.
High-speed rail (HSR) is a family of transportation options that address longer-distance passenger transport needs in heavily populated corridors. Implementing HSR will promote economic expansion (including new manufacturing jobs), create new choices for travelers in addition to flying or driving, reduce national dependence on oil, and foster urban and rural livable communities. With the successful completion of the original phases of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) Transportation Project offering Amtrak’s 150 mph train service, known as “Acela,” between Washington, New York, and Boston, efforts have expanded beyond the NEC. A number of high-speed rail corridors are being planned by States that range from upgrades to existing rail lines to entirely new rail lines exclusively devoted to 150 to 250 mph trains.
Notice that the one proposal that just stirred up a little mud in Sin City, HSR from Las Vegas to Victorville, CA, doesn’t appear on the main map.[(-D]
The gaps are REALLY starting to look ridiculous to me![(-D]
Sam1–the self-proclaimed “contrarian” in other threads here–has not answered why Houston is not connected with the rest of Texas, except for offering that transportation is cheaper by air or bus. Why is Concord, NH, connected to Montreal–but not Jacksonville to Orlando or Pittsburgh to Cleveland?
The dirt is flying. The shovels are ready. Trains are waiting in the station. This is not a vision; it’s a vague remembrance of half-century old reality.
THe high speed concept is, somewhat, hub orientated. It’s not going to ever be cross country. That’s what Amtrak is for. The Houston connection is out of the New Orleans ‘hub’. But that hub doesn’t seem to extend to Dallas. It appears the largest hub will be Chicago.
There’s a minor hub in Calif… Oddly, as previously noted, the FAMOUS Disneyland to Las Vegas high speed rail is absent. According to previous press, that was supposed to be the only HSR.
Does it really make sense to build a HSR corridor between Chicago and Toledo PLUS a second one from Chicago to Detroit, when a spur from Toledo to Detroit would would be far more sensible?
You expect the plans to make any sense? As a society, we are so adverse to any kind central planning (Federal in our case), that the mere suggestion brings cries of dictatorship. The current route plan is nothing more than something that has been cobbled together by a variety of NGO’s and government agencies. I will agree with others on the forum who have stated or implied that there has been little study of the actual volume of traffic between or along the most of the suggested routes. “Let see. A million people here and two million 500 miles down the road over there. If we build it they will ride.”
Meanwhile, back at the funding end of the thing, none of the planning/advocating entities have dared to speak of the price tag for the route system now on paper. $8 billion authorized? At the expected cost of $50 million per mile for high speed 150MPH+ service that only gets 160 miles. As much as I think a well planned fast rail system for the shorter hauls-leaving the long trips to airplanes, Amtrak and autos-will be of great social and economic benefit to the country, when the total price tag is known I think we will be to cheap to do the deal. At best, we probably wind up with something half fast.
The map is pretty much the a compilation of every route every thought about by any state or politician. Some are part of plans already underway and some are hopeless pipe dreams. Which get the money will come down to who can make the best case for their route plus who shows up with state money.
The ox-goring time begins this fall with the selection of first routes to get some money.
I love the term “shovel ready”. With the exception of the one or two routes with some active work being done, most are a couple years away from any actual dirt being moved.
Where did you find this expected cost figure? Amtrak, according to a 2004 published article, estimates the cost of upgrading existing track to 150 mph standards to be $5 million per mile. That is 1/10th of your figure. By comparison, they estimate the cost of adding one lane to one mile of interstate highway to be $10 to 20 million.
Also, just to add some perspective, Boston’s “Big Dig,” a 7.5 mile tunnel cost $14.6 Billion (notice the capital B). That is about 400 times the per mile cost of an Amtrak speedup.
Also in 2002 there was a plan to improve Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. The proposed cost was $15 billion, which balloons to $40 to 60B when you include the financing costs. The payoff would be a 30% increase in capacity of one airport. I don’t know whether the project was carried out.
So when you look at other projects that have been proposed or completed, this HSR idea appears to be reasonably cost effective and certainly more widely beneficial than plowing dollars into one airport or one city.
and there in, you have the problem. route location becomes one more of “pork” than utility. if the taxpayers are going to be saddled to pay for it, “then the derned thing better come through here” and such.
personally I believe that the former PRR route twixt pittsburgh and chicago would be a route worth considering [:D]
HSR should be cost effective per mile of track. As long as the patronage is there. If the cities that are connected are centralised enough and not to spread out and urban then the trains may work well. HSR is also a great way to break down arcaic railroad work rules and replace them with high technolagy, that is what the French TGV, Japanese Bullit trains and especialy the HSR in Spain did. HSR will also get more productivity out of it’s operating employees and equipement then traditional slow passenger trains. It is important that the first HSR line to be built is a TOTAL success or it will become difficult to build more HSR.
Was Amtrak addressing the cost of bringing all of the Northeast Corridor up to 150 MPH? In a number of respects,they already have a fairly good start there.
One of my sources for the $50 million per mile figure is a recent post by Railway Man. As an “insider” he has a fairly good handle on the topic. California’s planned $40 billion expenditure for their 800 mile route rather confirms that figure. I will give you this hedge. The California figure may include equipment, storage and maintenance facilities and everything up from bare ground to the power lines feeding the system, so maybe 10% of the price goes for everything but the main line items.
My thought on HSR would be to connect AIRPORTS. If you could connect O’Hare to Mitchell Field in Milwaukee with HSR, and that you designed the trains to accommodate aircraft-type containerized cargo, you could treat it as a short-haul air link, and ticket it with the same ticketing mechanisms that airlines use. THEN you could use Mitchell Field as a satellite airport to O’Hare and your expansion worries there go away. And the same would work in many similar regional situations.
Yes! The idea is to create transportation connections and options that people can leverage to increase their wealth and quality of life.
What makes Europe’s HSR network work for me as a business traveler is its direct, walk-over connections at airports such as Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle.