Sould Amtrak focus on high growth areas? (freeways, projects, construction)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
right through the middle of oregon and idaho, then have light rail in eugene, bend, boise and idaho falls. then have high speed rail all over the east side of the country. that conects to the slow west amtrak
Amtrak is best for 100-200 mile trips. Besides the NEC, look how well LA-SD, Chicago-Milwaukee, Seattle-Portland and SJ/Oakland-Sacramento do. But over 300 miles, like Boston-DC or LA-SF and the 6 hour+ train ride starts to lose its battle vs. the TSA hassle.
Amtrak is best for 100-200 mile trips. Besides the NEC, look how well LA-SD, Chicago-Milwaukee, Seattle-Portland and SJ/Oakland-Sacramento do. But over 300 miles, like Boston-DC or LA-SF and the 6 hour+ train ride starts to lose its battle vs. the TSA hassle.
I'd change that to say it's a function of time (plus ease of travel) rather than raw distance. Beyond some length of time, the speed of air travel catches up to the ease and comfort of traveling by train. But, within that window of time, a train can cover large distances if the system allows for it. So, if the window is three hours, a train traveling at an average speed of 150 MPH (accounting for acceleration, deceleration, and dwell times) could cover 450 miles.
450 miles around Detroit includes, for example:
Chicago
Toronto
Cleveland
Pittsburg
Columbus
Cinci
Indianapolis
ten or so miles short of reaching St. Louis
But if the train only averages 60 MPH, that radius shrinks to 180 miles in 3 hours.
So time seems more important than raw distance.
As a tangent of this point, I see CA HSR being heavily utilized...by exurban commuters trading away high house prices for an hour commute.
I'd change that to say it's a function of time (plus ease of travel) rather than raw distance. Beyond some length of time, the speed of air travel catches up to the ease and comfort of traveling by train. But, within that window of time, a train can cover large distances if the system allows for it. So, if the window is three hours, a train traveling at an average speed of 150 MPH (accounting for acceleration, deceleration, and dwell times) could cover 450
As a tangent of this point, I see CA HSR being heavily utilized...by exurban commuters trading away high house prices for an hour commute.
Absolutely. If they could increase the whole corridor to 110 mph, perhaps the average could reach 90 mph. That really increases commuting range. Considering you can sleep on the train, 180 mile (300 km) might be viable.
People forget the issue in Wisconsin was not the idea of a high speed rail line between Chicago and Minneapolis via Milwaukee. The issue was having it start between Milwaukee and Madison. The line would have been maybe 5-10 minutes faster than driving and the Madison station was in a bad location. The proposed ticket prices were about double the average bus rate. The bus depot is located in a better location. The line would have failed. It doesn't have the built in advantages of the Hiawatha line. They wanted the money to be used to improve the existing, popular Hiawatha Line but the transfer was denied. If you want to build a high speed rail line between Chicago and Minneapolis start with the Chicago to Milwaukee segment and make it truly high speed. Currently, one train daily does go between Chicago and Minneapolis via Milwaukee, the Empire Builder.
Anyway, they are in the process of receiving final approval to improve the line and increase the number of trains for Hiawatha. They are having public meetings in Milwaukee, Glenview, and Chicago.
Absolutely. If they could increase the whole corridor to 110 mph, perhaps the average could reach 90 mph. That really increases commuting range. Considering you can sleep on the train, 180 mile (300 km) might be viable.
I wonder how many people would be OK with that life, but for those already willing to hypercommute, CA HSR would open up several central valley cities. If the average speed could be high enough, this could negate the need for Amtrak's Capitol Corridor (Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose); a currently 3-hour trip between Sacramento and San Jose could, potentially, be cut down to an hour and 45 minutes. For semi-remote tech workers who don't need to be on site every day, this could be a game changer for housing selection.
If Amtrak is going to expand, they need to expand in the areas where people like cars less. Perhaps a Brooklyn to Portland express.
Or make car centric areas more walkable friendly. It doesn't even take much to do. Just widen sidewalks, add crossing medians/islands, and intersperse businesses so they are a 15 minute walk from residential areas.
Amtrak can work on providing proper link between Austin, Houston and San Antonio. There is enough population in that area to make rail transport viable.
Amtrak can work on providing proper link between Austin, Houston and San Antonio. There is enough population in that area to make rail transport viable.
There's enough population, but the issue is that San Antonio and Austin don't have very good mass transit options within their respective cities (Houston's isn't great, but it's improving).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
