It’s about time that the Americans invest in an interstate high speed rail system. But the eight billion of dollars US is not enough to finance,paying and building an interstate high speed rail system for passengers. And this is not a real high speed rail system like Europeans and Asians people have it. Plus,the US high speed rail plan which these future high speed trains will be running on conventional and existing tracks and share the railroad tracks to freight trains except California that they plan to build a true high speed rail system like Europeans and Asian people have it.
Canada plans to study and building an high speed rail system too in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor to connect Quebec City-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto and Windsor in the Quebec and Ontario provinces.
This project exist only in study and it was never realized and Canada talked about this project to put on these rails since the 80’s about twenty-five years ago.
There another high speed project in Canada and he’s the second.The Edmonton-Calgary corridor is in project too.
In my opinion,Canada,United States and Mexico countries must investing in high speed rail in their territories from coast to coast.
Ten years ago politicians spent money for public goods and we talked about the cost of a project. Today, however, our politicians do not do that, they make “investments”. The word is rapidly changing meanings.
That said, I think much of the money will go toward projects that raise the average speed of existing routes rather than HSR as the Japanese or Europeans understand the term.
Spending HSR funds on existing routes that were laid out on horseback in the 19th Centrury with the idea of moving maximum freight tonnage at minimum expense will be a waste of time and money if true HSR is the expected outcome. Existing routes are constrained by excess curvature in their aim to maximize the tonnage hauling aspects of the line. HSR can handle grades that freight cannot, freight can tolerate at ‘freight acceptable speeds’ curvature that HSR cannot. HSR needs to be a basic clean sheet design, if the aim is truly HS.
Having flown quite a bit over the Eastern half of the country I find it amazing that there seems to be corridors already designed that could be used for HSR…High Tension Electrical power lines have many direct routes across vast distances that could be enhanced for HSR, as well has having a ready supply of power to be utilized if the HSR line is built as electrically operated.
HIGH SPEED RAIL…a hot, glamorous, sexy term. But what does it mean? To whom? Just to be able to run a train hundreds of miles an hour may not be in the best inerest of the passenger. It is a system that has promise, I agree. But it has to be designed, implimented, and marketed within its abilities and not up to the expectations of the masses.
I agree with henry6. IMHO it might be misplaced patriotism if federal disbursements to HSR insist that such a train be domestically designed and engineered (I am not talking about where they would be built), and that every HST route run hundreds or miles with few or no stops.
Once again, I think it’s a mug’s game to insist on the ability to jump in speed on from, say, fresh HST on or closely parallel to the old SP lines through the Imperial Valley or closer to the coast. We probably would need new track, new route, and lots of eminent domain no matter what. Don’t expect the ability to jump up to cruising speed anytime soon. The French TGV can cruise at above 350 kph (roughly 210 mph) speeds and as we know, has demonstrated the ability to cruise even faster. But if you care to dig up the videos someone posted a monhth or two about the TGV, you’ll notice that ony in one segment does the TGV get to strut its stuff and run at the flat-out cruising rate. A lot of the route, the train operates more or less at “rapide” speed, which is impressive in its own way but not world-class.
Doesn’t anyone remember that when the Interstate Highways were being built ca. 1960 - 1975, when the superhighway sections were in segments, that most states tried to get a good flow of traffic from the old federal highways where no Interstate was (yet) available and of course, route back to I-whatever whenever
I think that the 8 billion dollars in the cited bill is no more than smoke and mirror politics. It wouldn’t even fund the Federally-mandated environmental impact studies on potential rights-of-way for a nationwide system. If concentrated in one area, it might be possible to extend the BosWash corridor toward either New Orleans or Florida, but probably wouldn’t be enough to get all the way to either end point.
As a seed, it might grow. Just don’t expect it to produce a useful result without a lot more fertilizer ($$$$.)
[:)] That’s what it looks a real high speed rail system. It is the same system which as you need like interstate high speed rail system. Whatever is for the Southeast Corridor,The Florida Corridor,The Northeast Corridor,The California Corridor,etc,etc. And it also applies to Canada and Mexico.
An high speed rail like everybody else. An high speed rail to the European and Japanese style.
I would be shocked if the bulk of the $8B didn’t go to incremental improvments for 90-110 mph service along existing frt RR ROW. The Midwest Initiative, Ohio Hub and VA/NC SEHSR projects fit this descripition. Politics may decree the money be spread around a wider geography - FL and CA in particular.
If we do these, and they work well, then the ground will be laid for further imporvement, realignments, new ROW, etc. in the future.
$8B is a great chance at making a good start. We better leaverage it hard and we better not blow it.
You know, I could see a high speed rail line across places like NM, AZ, NV, etc. where there would be long…say 50 to 100 miles or more between station stops. But how effective, effecient, and economical would be a 210 mph railroad when stopping every 10 to 40 miles? Not sure the $$ are with it. Nor the fuel economy, either. Talk High Speed, but define High Speed and tell the people what the real expectations of its application will be. Not just political drival or Hollywood Hype, but real wheel to the rail, dollar to the bottom line truths and expectations. Perhaps $10 million to improve route to 100 or 125 mph standards will do as well or more than $100 million on a 210 mph right of way.
220 mile an hour trains for California doesn’t make any sense when the route they have selected between San Francisco and Los Angles will take an estimated 2hours 40 minutes. This does not beat the planes that presently fly between the two points.
Would it not make more sense to put in a 350 mph Maglev system. The argument they make for a conventional type train makes no sense either as nothing else is going to be running on the track anyway. With Maglev at 350 mph speeds the planes certainly could not compete. And Maglev would take no more space than conventional HSR , in fact probably less at it operates on elevated guideway. It certainly would create more jobs than the proposed HSR system would and could probably be built in far less time than the proposed HSR system.
I would think a powered, elevated track would take longer to engineer and build than a passive track plopped down after pushing dirt around for a while. So how “far less time”?
This latest storm that came up the Atlantic coast 03/02/09, what a mess! Just in Boston, MA, there were 900 canceled flights! This does not count the inbounds that had to be diverted. Thank goodness this wasn’t Easter weekend! A show of hands please! With regards to this past storm, how many think of global climate change as the cause? A typical late winter storm? Either way, can we in the USA and Canada afford to continue to have commerce and lives put in jeopardy because its snowing?
If the USA had an interstate railway system in place, all the commuter railroads from MBTA to VRE and beyond could have been carrying people between the major cities on the Atlantic; not to mention the cargo that gets delayed when the highways are in such bad shape.
With regards to Slytrain’s post, the idea of a high speed rail link that at least connects Ottawa, to Washington D.C., to Mexico City has to be in consideration. This rail link will be fed by rail connections that end in the three capitals. Unless, or course, the idea of having rail links for each time zone, linking the three countries makes more sense.
We all have to realize that the days of cheap fuel are over. Flying from Montreal to New York, or Ottawa to Boston, the writing is on the wall! But the existing railroads should not take advantage of this situation. And, having a interstate railway system that is shared between USA, Canada, and Mexico prevents any one railroad company from controlling the market! Let the tracks be open to all railroad companies, and let the market decide! Maybe train travel can become competative to flying in North America, as long as governments are willing to fund train travel as much as governments have funded air travel, and highway travel.
I, personally, see more train travel in the future. Why? (1) the price of fuel has gone up, what with local,state, and federal taxes per gallon/liter going up
This latest storm that came up the Atlantic coast 03/02/09, what a mess! Just in Boston, MA, there were 900 canceled flights! This does not count the inbounds that had to be diverted. Thank goodness this wasn’t Easter weekend! A show of hands please! With regards to this past storm, how many think of global climate change as the cause? A typical late winter storm? Either way, can we in the USA and Canada afford to continue to have commerce and lives put in jeopardy because its snowing?
If the USA had an interstate railway system in place, all the commuter railroads from MBTA to VRE and beyond could have been carrying people between the major cities on the Atlantic; not to mention the cargo that gets delayed when the highways are in such bad shape.
With regards to Slytrain’s post, the idea of a high speed rail link that at least connects Ottawa, to Washington D.C., to Mexico City has to be in consideration. This rail link will be fed by rail connections that end in the three capitals. Unless, or course, the idea of having rail links for each time zone, linking the three countries makes more sense.
We all have to realize that the days of cheap fuel are over. Flying from Montreal to New York, or Ottawa to Boston, the writing is on the wall! But the existing railroads should not take advantage of this situation. And, having a interstate railway system that is shared between USA, Canada, and Mexico prevents any one railroad company from controlling the market! Let the tracks be open to all railroad companies, and let the market decide! Maybe train travel can become competative to flying in North America, as long as governments are willing to fund train travel as much as governments have funded air travel, and highway travel.
I, personally, see more train travel in the future. Why? (1) the price of fuel has gone up, what with
Lets face it…that is one hell of an ambitious project (the one P.A. Talbot describes above). One that none of us alive today, no matter what age, will ever see totally completed. Doable only piecemeal over almost a hundred years with most marketable sections completed in some kind of priority order. Staffing, unions, etc. have no place in the discussion at this time. What is needed is a concrete concept and plan of what the project is, will do, how it will do it, and how it will get done. Following that there should be about 25 or 30 years of discussion and debate, then engineering and environmental studies over another 10 or so years, then new technology will have been invented and the whole thing obsolete anyway!
Al: I’ll take that question on. I do have my doubts that 2:40 will be attained but since you ask. I’ve been in the airline business for a long time. First LAX - The 10 mile population density around there does not support the SFO traffic. Most passengers that I’ve hauled come from much farther (granted unscientific survey). So I’ll take a 1-1/4 hour average travel time. Travel time to a local RR station will probably be 1/2 hr then a 1/2 hr ride to HSR station. 1/4 hr wait time so its a wash. There is no way to know how long it takes to get into any LAX terminal. If the parking is full then going to remote parking takes longer. I’ve taken 15 minutes (RR comparable) and I’ve taken 1-1/2 hours to get in terminal. Lax tTicket counter waits count on at least 1/2 hr and in bad weather times a 1 hr wait can occurr. Most asirline counters require 30 - 45 minutes before departure check in (domestic). 10 minutes usually all the time at AMTRAK. If quick ticketing no wait for either. Security waits 5 - 30 minutes and I always plan on 30 minutes. LAX walks to gates 10 - 20 minutes rail 5 minutes
I am sick and tired of hearing the phrase “how are we going to pay for it?”. This is not constructive criticism! It is getting so that even recently deceased road kill can ask “how are we going to pay for it?” Where were all the deceased road kill asking how to pay for the useless war in Iraq? How about the over 4000 young Americans, our future, who died there? Where were all you “how are we going to pay for this” then?!?!
(1) The president of the US Chamber of Commerce, in a June 2008 speech, made the statement that the transportation infrastructure of the USA “is broken, and we are going to have to fix it. And, we are going to have to pay for it.”
(2) We need to create jobs, here in America, for Americans! Spending tax money, even tomorrow’s, is better than doing nothing. This idea of cutting taxes is only going to help the rich, who are crying in their milk over their stark market losses.
(3) The days of cheap oil are over!!! Crying for your Hummer, or big V-8 or V-10 pickup/car does not change the fact that affordable flying, and driving are comming to a rapid end. We cannot continue to put tax $$‘s into an interstate highway system that will only be used by commerical trucking companies. Let the trucking companies pay to support the interstate highway system. Has anyone heard that (03/03/2009) trucking companies want to get rid of restrictions so that double 53’ tractor trailers will be able to use all interstate highways, and US Highways?
(4) An Interstate Railway System would provide multiple interstate, interregional rail links for the purpose of transporting raw materials, finished goods, and people; as well as, new work environments, shopping, recreation, and travel opportunities. In addition, (IRSA) an Interstate Railway System will allow for smaller independent railroad operators to {a} pick up transportation services that current large providers are reluctant to provide, and {b} create the
I am sick and tired of hearing the phrase “how are we going to pay for it?”. This is not constructive criticism! It is getting so that even recently deceased road kill can ask “how are we going to pay for it?” Where were all the deceased road kill asking how to pay for the useless war in Iraq? How about the over 4000 young Americans, our future, who died there? Where were all you “how are we going to pay for this” then?!?!
(1) The president of the US Chamber of Commerce, in a June 2008 speech, made the statement that the transportation infrastructure of the USA “is broken, and we are going to have to fix it. And, we are going to have to pay for it.”
(2) We need to create jobs, here in America, for Americans! Spending tax money, even tomorrow’s, is better than doing nothing. This idea of cutting taxes is only going to help the rich, who are crying in their milk over their stark market losses.
(3) The days of cheap oil are over!!! Crying for your Hummer, or big V-8 or V-10 pickup/car does not change the fact that affordable flying, and driving are comming to a rapid end. We cannot continue to put tax $$‘s into an interstate highway system that will only be used by commerical trucking companies. Let the trucking companies pay to support the interstate highway system. Has anyone heard that (03/03/2009) trucking companies want to get rid of restrictions so that double 53’ tractor trailers will be able to use all interstate highways, and US Highways?
(4) An Interstate Railway System would provide multiple interstate, interregional rail links for the purpose of transporting raw materials, finished goods, and people; as well as, new work environments, shopping, recreation, and travel opportunities. In addition, (IRSA) an Interstate Railway System will allow for smaller independent railroad operators to {a} pick up transportation services that current large
The question is not “how are we going to pay for…?” but rather “what do we have to do to meet the challenges (in this case all transportation challenges) of the 21st Century?”. After we decide what is going to be done, then financing can be discussed. To do nothing, not even discussing the problems, will lead to bigger problems and not be the world power we have been: hiding our heads in the sand because the financial question is not answered first means our butts will be exposed and thus get kicked so bad we’ll never know who or what kicked us (clue: ourselves!).
As far as the statement that we have a transportation police and those who raise the question are sore losers for not being included: WRONG! All those involved in all aspects and fields of transportation are saying the same thing: we need a cohisive, comprehensive, fully allocated, totally understood, intergrated, intermodal, uniform approach to moving people and frieght across town and across country. It is not one group agains the other as has been in the past, but all groups working together to apply the best of each mode to each need in the best way possible for economy, efficiency, and in an enviromentally safe manner.
There are folks around here who tell me that they are older than me, but I have been around advocacy groups since the time I was age 11 and used my lawn cutting money to pay NARP dues. Rail advocacy has been for the past 40 years in the position of the outside looking in, and even if a comprehensive, centrally planned, intermodal transportation policy were adopted, there is some question as to whether passenger train advocates would like it when we get it. There is this assumption that there is an inherent and self-evident goodness to trains that when the powers that be get around to the central plan, there will be a more significant role for trains, but I have been at this long enough that I am not convinced this would be the case, or at least not without improvement in how Amtrak is operated to help make that case.
Now tell me. The Iraq war was supposed to be about weapons that were never found or about freedoms that people haven’t yet received – the powers that be told us it was not about oil, but maybe, perhaps just maybe, it was about oil. The cost (to the US Treasury) of that war depends on who is doing the figuring, but we spent at least an even trillion dollars. Over time, the expectation is that Iraq could add an additional 5 million barrels per day (MBPD) to world oil production.
The Vision Report talks about replacing 1 percent of auto miles with intercity trains, spending about a half trillion dollars. US oil consumption is about 20 MBPD, autos use 40 percent of the oil, the proposed trains would use 1/3 the fuel of autos. The fuel saving you get with the half trillion dollar investment is 1/20’th of a MBPD.
By the calculus of unnecessary war, the Iraq adventure spent 200 billi
Excellent point. Trains will likely be used to add capacity and fill gaps in the existing air/auto network. The more cost effective they are, the more locations they’ll be a good fit. If you like trains, it’s in your best interest to make sure the money gets spent as wisely as possible. We’ll get more trains that way!
A very interesting calculation! (I wonder what the final tally for the war will be, once the Army and Marines finish replacing all the stuff they wore out…)
I really dont’ care for the agruement that if one has money