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.
It's that we are more anti-tax than anything, and that depends on where your interests lie.
Right now the NE Corridor and Pacific NW seem to make the most sense, I still think a Texas T-Bone would be cool, but I doubt they would go for it without HEAVY buisness endorsements, particualrly from the airlines.
[quote=waltlantz;9910536]I still think a Texas T-Bone would be cool.../quote]
I don't know. I think any Texas rail line that doesn't include a direct connection from Houston to Dallas is plain retarded. It may save a few bucks, but by designing it to save money versus designing it for maximum functionality is dooming it to failure before it begins. It would have to be a super fast train to make a side jaunt into Austin more time efficient than simply hopping on the Interstate and driving. It's my opinion that the state should start with a Houston-Dallas train before moving on to other routes. Approximately half of the state's residents live in either one of the two metroplexes. The two cities are the economic powerhouses in the state. This is the only route that would be initially viable in Texas. If the T-Bone is built, it'll be used by the anti-rail groups in the future as an example of how Texans don't want rail due to lower than expected ridership, even though in reality it'll be because the wrong rail lines were built.
The Chicago hub network is interesting given how almost all the other lines are corridors. The problem would be that Chicago would be the primary benificiary of it while people who want to travel from one place on the spoke to another would have to go through Chicago--which may not be the most efficient way to go (like Kansas City to the Twin Cities via Chicago). However, it's how a lot of the airlines currently work, so maybe it is a good model.
I can only see the "fluff" lines like the Empire State line and the Keystone Corridor being particularly successful if they join the NE corridor to the Chicago Hub via high-speed rail. Which means putting them on the backburner until those lines are finished.
Does anyone have links to studies done on the various routes?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-23-2009 at 03:15 PM..
So it looks like quite a few areas have put in their applications for federal funding and the results will be announced winter of next year.
I really think the Chicago hub is probably the best proposal given that the area is host to several sizable cities which means that a single line can serve many cities along the way, the terrain is generally not all the rugged so construction wouldn't be as arduous (so that's at least one occasion where all that flatness people decry is actually good), the area in general is ready for some serious revitalization, and with a connection to Detroit, there is an opportunity to cheaply tap into Canada's thriving Windsor-Quebec City corridor. On a related note, perhaps the Empire Corridor could also take advantage of this by going into and maybe even through Canada.
I wouldn't consider Acela (Boston to NYC to Philly to DC line)a true his speed rail line.
Very late to this conversation, and I don't really care which corridor gets built first since I live on the Northeast Corridor, but I would most like to see the California and Florida ones built. California is already well on it's way since they have secured funding for the line. Also, the NEC needs infrastructure improvements such as the $1 billion Baltimore tunnel.
I wouldn't consider Acela (Boston to NYC to Philly to DC line)a true his speed rail line.
Then you certainly wouldn't consider most of these projects "high-speed." The Southeast Corridor will just be a series of track and signal improvements to increase max operating speed to 90mph (to maybe 100mph) on some sections. There won't be any electrification or anything else that will make it truly high-speed. I think the California project will be 200mph though.
The FRA defines high-speed as 125mph+, which is the max speed at which Northeast Regionals travel. The Acela Express reaches 150mph in New England, and 135mph in Maryland and New Jersey.
I would love to See the SE portion being built because I-85 has gotten really busy between Atlanta and Charlotte its crazy. Yesterday had to drive to Charlotte and Traffic was heavy for country driving the whole way from when I left Atlanta suburbs to I got to Charlotte Suburbs and it was Sunday.
They either need to build the rail or widen 85 between Spartanburg and Kings Mountain because it is crazy for a country interstate to have alot of traffic like that.
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.
