Obama plans to be engaged in urban affairs/"White House Office on Urban Policy" (Chicago: how much, construction)

[southernnaturelover]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Sure. But with stops only in major cities along the way it should be possible. Europe has it's inter-city express trains that are pretty efficient.

The way I see passenger rail transportation evolving in the post-automobile world is that regional systems will be developed independently, and then connected to each other. The Northeast corridor is already pretty well-served. High-speed rail in the Midwest could connect our major cities. The Southeast and West Coast would develop independently, and then the resulting networks would be connected.



Umm, like the Federal highway system? It's actually quite a bit more cost-efficient to let our interstates crumble and develop rail.



"Playing pretend" got us to the moon, and has been responsible for the lion's share of innovation in the last century. You're being condescending, not rational.

You do realize that everytime these "high speed" trains go through smaller towns between the cities they will have to slow down to avoid hitting people trying to cross the tracks? Believe it or not there are people who live in these rural areas and these tracks run right through their backyards and the middle of their towns. Having a train run 100+mph non-stop from one city to another isn't very feasible.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by southernnaturelover

You do realize that everytime these "high speed" trains go through smaller towns between the cities they will have to slow down to avoid hitting people trying to cross the tracks? Believe it or not there are people who live in these rural areas and these tracks run right through their backyards and the middle of their towns. Having a train run 100+mph non-stop from one city to another isn't very feasible.

Well, ideally you'd have grade separated crossings. Expensive, yes. But its probably cheaper to build a train overpass than a freeway overpass.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by southernnaturelover

Having a train run 100+mph non-stop from one city to another isn't very feasible.

Yes it is. It's done all over the world in areas with higher population densities. As Sukwoo mentioned, it's called grade separation. Bypasses are another strategy that would be used. Together, it's the same way the Interstate Highway System avoids overwhelming small towns and rural areas. In fact, High Speed Rail would be likely to follow existing highway routes.

[supernerdgirl]

Originally Posted by southernnaturelover

You do realize that everytime these "high speed" trains go through smaller towns between the cities they will have to slow down to avoid hitting people trying to cross the tracks? Believe it or not there are people who live in these rural areas and these tracks run right through their backyards and the middle of their towns. Having a train run 100+mph non-stop from one city to another isn't very feasible.

*cough*http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/spain/ *cough*

It's feasible. Americans just don't think it is.

[allydriver]

Originally Posted by supernerdgirl

It's feasible. Americans just don't think it is.

Most if not all of the countries with high speed rail have nationalized railroads (government owned/operated).
While we have AMTRAK, it is still reliant on private (and sometimes rickety) infrastructure for it's operation.
In order for our nations corporately owned railroads to spend massive amounts of money on needed upgrades to implement high speed rail, they will need to see the potential of monetary return.
Until fuel prices go up and remain there, don't hold your breath.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by via chicago

Amen. And I think its ridiculous that we live in the 21st century and the fastest our intercity trains can go is is what..80 mph? Thats the same speed we were at in the 1930's with the Zephyr. Japan is rolling out a line that will be over 200mph by 2010. Germany hits 180. France has maxed out at 370 on some test runs.

We are in the dark ages people, and getting woefully left behind.

Again, train travel makes sense in areas of dense populations. France and Japan are very compact countries with much higher population density. Japan is about the size of California with 4 times the population of California. France is smaller than Texas but with 3 times the population. Train service makes sense in small, densely populated nations where there are only a handful of major metros and the distance between many of them is too short to make flying practical. It doesn't work very well in a country that spans an entire continent, much of which is lightly populated, and with hundreds of metro areas cities scattered in all directions as much as several thousand miles apart. In that environment, air travel is far, far more practical than train travel.

BTw, Amtrak's Acela train runs in some stretches as high as 150MPH.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Drover

Again, train travel makes sense in areas of dense populations. France and Japan are very compact countries with much higher population density. Japan is about the size of California with 4 times the population of California. France is smaller than Texas but with 3 times the population. Train service makes sense in small, densely populated nations where there are only a handful of major metros and the distance between many of them is too short to make flying practical. It doesn't work very well in a country that spans an entire continent, much of which is lightly populated, and with hundreds of metro areas cities scattered in all directions as much as several thousand miles apart. In that environment, air travel is far, far more practical than train travel.

Sure, building high-speed train lines in Nebraska and Kentucky doesn't make much sense. But in limited parts of the country such as the northeast corridor, California,, Florida, central Texas, and the urban midwest (centered around Chicago), there is enough density to make it worthwhile.

[Lookout Kid]

Look, I already spelled it out. High-speed rail corridors will be REGIONAL. The regional networks would then be loosely connected for intercontinental traffic.

Intercontinental rail travel will only be popular if airline travel becomes difficult for the masses. Forecasts for the airline industry look ominous at this time, and this scenario is entirely possible in mere decades. But for the time being it makes sense to just advocate regional High-speed rail expenditure.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Sure, building high-speed train lines in Nebraska and Kentucky doesn't make much sense. But in limited parts of the country such as the northeast corridor, California,, Florida, central Texas, and the urban midwest (centered around Chicago), there is enough density to make it worthwhile.

The only part where I agree is the Northeast corridor where the population density is so high that the market for rail travel is almost self-evident because the highways are clogged and plane travel over such short distances is not terribly practical. Maybe the same applies to California coast, but there's still an awful lot of open space between LA and the Bay Area. But generally speaking, putting high-speed rail lines in regions that are already adequately served by the existing air travel infrastructure and highway networks that are (presently) free-flowing still doesn't make much economic sense. Is there enough demand for travel between Chicago and Minneapolis to build what would be a double-redundant transportation infrastructure from the ground up to accommodate it? I'm not so sure there is.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Drover

But generally speaking, putting high-speed rail lines in regions that are already adequately served by the existing air travel infrastructure and highway networks that are (presently) free-flowing still doesn't make much economic sense. Is there enough demand for travel between Chicago and Minneapolis to build what would be a double-redundant transportation infrastructure from the ground up to accommodate it? I'm not so sure there is.

Maybe not Minneapolis, but St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis are definitely viable. HSR rail would basically be an improvement on existing rail service, and would be faster and more reliable than driving or flying. Although if the TSA could get their act together flying might be faster.

Rail has the big advantage of being located downtown as well - many business travelers can save time by not having to get out to Midway or O'Hare.