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.
A lot of people seem to have their hopes up about this, but let's get one thing clear here. The "high-speed rail" infrastructure we're talking about creating in the U.S. would attain speeds of up to 110mph, which is not "high speed rail" so much as "slightly faster than current conventional rail." And much of the proposed network still wouldn't have a dedicated infrastructure so they would have to yield to freight traffic. The only way this network compares with most of what they have in Europe is that we would call it by the same name of "high-speed rail." While this may be a suitable substitute for regional transit, such as along populated corridors like SF to LA/SD or Portland to Vancouver, don't count on it getting you from one regional destination to another in anywhere near the same time frame as flying.
I don't think it's a given that existing freight rail right-of-ways will be used in unaltered form for 100% or near 100% of the high-speed rail projects that are proposed. Publicly-funded transportation projects in the U.S. typically go through a 5 step process, with the first step (preliminary engineering) evaluating the alternatives and selecting the preferred alternative. (Actually, with large projects like the proposed high-speed rail projects, feasibility studies probably will be - and should be - done first.) Obviously if new or widened right-of-ways are used, that will increase the cost and time for construction significantly at the trade-off of allowing higher speed passenger rail. That may or may not be feasible. The freight railroads obviously will play a role in this too; there are corridors where they probably will not be supportive at all and there are corridors where they need future capacity themselves and there could opportunities for trade-offs that benefit both freight rail operations and passenger rail operations while reducing the overall financial burden for both the public sector and private sector. As an example, CSX has already announced they support the high-speed rail initiative between Albany and Buffalo (which is CSX's primary east-west corridor in the northern portion of their system), and my guess they probably do so because they see an opportunity to gain some freight rail capacity that wouldn't have to be funded 100% by CSX.
As for the flying comparison, security measures are making total flying travel time a lot longer, making intermediate-length rail corridors that can offer reliable, quick service more viable. If people are traveling to/near the city centers, rail also is a better alternative than flying. Really though, the intermediate population along a corridor plays a large role in determining whether rail really makes sense. I believe the California high-speed rail alignment is something like Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose-Fresno-Bakersfield-Los Angeles-Anaheim-San Diego. Now flying still will probably make more sense for pairs like Los Angeles-Sacramento or Oakland (San Francisco)-San Diego, but rail may be a better option for many of the intermediate pairs, like Los Angeles-San Jose, Los Angeles-Fresno, or Oakland/San Francisco-Bakersfield. Having high or relatively high numbers of people traveling along overlapping city-pairs is where rail travel provides the most benefit compared to air travel - you can serve all of those travelers with a much smaller number of trains than planes.
Its too expensive and we already have hundreds of flights a day between the Northern and Southern halves of this state.
It would end up being completely underutilized. Better to put the money into expanding the electrified Boston - DC corridor all the way to Atlanta and beyond.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because with politics you never know. The line running from DC to Charlotte is supposed to be one of the furthest along with planning. And authories in Virginia and NC are expecting it to be one of the first to get funding. But I recall seeing an interview from one gentleman on the news saying he didn't care how well planned the other lines are, he wants all the money pumped into the population centers in the Norheast (typcial, LOL). The Obama adminstration said communities would have to compete for the money, but it will be interesting to see who gets money first and who gets left out.
De facto, the "East Coast" (as in, a highly developed zone stretching SW from Boston) has reached Atlanta. Making the entire line like it already is from DC to Boston is a complete no brainer. Should have been done years ago.
As for the flying comparison, security measures are making total flying travel time a lot longer, making intermediate-length rail corridors that can offer reliable, quick service more viable. If people are traveling to/near the city centers, rail also is a better alternative than flying. Really though, the intermediate population along a corridor plays a large role in determining whether rail really makes sense. I believe the California high-speed rail alignment is something like Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose-Fresno-Bakersfield-Los Angeles-Anaheim-San Diego. Now flying still will probably make more sense for pairs like Los Angeles-Sacramento or Oakland (San Francisco)-San Diego, but rail may be a better option for many of the intermediate pairs, like Los Angeles-San Jose, Los Angeles-Fresno, or Oakland/San Francisco-Bakersfield. Having high or relatively high numbers of people traveling along overlapping city-pairs is where rail travel provides the most benefit compared to air travel - you can serve all of those travelers with a much smaller number of trains than planes.
In the Pacific Northwest, a high-speed train (or slightly faster train) connecting the downtown cores of Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver could be a useful alternative to flying or driving. Considering going from Portland to Seattle takes about 2-3 hours to drive and flying takes about 45 minutes from terminal to terminal, a train that could make the trip in about an hour and a half would be useful. Since that flying time doesn't include the trips to and from to the PDX and SEA airports, security lines, possibly waiting for baggage, etc..trains could almost be close to the total travel time, depending on frequency of stops and other factors.
Shorter trips connecting closer population centers seems to be the the extent of the usefullness of train travel in the US. The Portland-Seattle train already appears to gets decent ridership (at least on my frequent trips it has) as a good alternative to driving I-5. However to take the train anywhere to the east or south to California, flying is a much better alternative.
None of these are needed. How about we put more trains where people actually ride them? (Federal funding for urban rail, improvements to the Northeast Corridor)
I know it's cute to pretend we live in Europe but how many people will actually take a train from ATL to Birmingham on a regular basis?
Actually, I am skeptical of the Midwest one. I mean Chicago being the only real mover and shaker economically up there, is there any reason besides seasonal tourism?
People can live in Metro Detroit with their families and travel to Chicago for work instead of leaving there families to live in Chicago for work and this can be played out in many of the other communities close by Chicago.
None of these are needed. How about we put more trains where people actually ride them? (Federal funding for urban rail, improvements to the Northeast Corridor)
I know it's cute to pretend we live in Europe but how many people will actually take a train from ATL to Birmingham on a regular basis?
I agree with you 95%.
I still think, given current over utilization of the "slow rail" between DC and at least Richmond, and, clogging of I-95 / I-85, you can justify extension of Acela if not to Atlanta, at least toward Atlanta. But that's about it. the others on the list are utter boondoggles.
Its too expensive and we already have hundreds of flights a day between the Northern and Southern halves of this state.
Who cares about the Northern & Southern halves? I think you're missing the biggest point.
For people in the IE who commute to SD & LA, this is very useful. The metrolink does not go through much of Riverside county, where many people commute out of the area. It could people by me 45 minutes to LA instead of 2 hours, and take their cars off the freeway. People going to SD will look at a 30 minute commute instead of 1 hour (and that's without traffic).
I would love to have a train system, especially for regular commuters. I think I was the only one who voted for the Empire rail, ha. My only problem I have is getting from the rail stop to other places.
I travel constantly from Rochester to Buffalo. The rail time is exactly as fast as the car and pricing is close (depends on gas prices and train prices). But some of the burbs and outer parts of these cities where I need to go, don't always have a good means of getting around. My sister lives in the city of Buffalo which I could probably walk or take a bus to, but my parents live in a smaller suburb outside Buffalo which no bus or mass transit goto, I have to drive. For Rochester it works well, I can walk, drop my car off or take the bus to get to the station.
I'm almost to the point where I don't need a car, this is one of my obsticals, and I can get rid of this $450 a month car (between gas, insurance and loan) burning a hole in my pocket.
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.
