"High-Speed" Rail -- Has Its Time Come? -- Maybe. (accuse, elect)
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.
I think it could take off if we could make the trains go faster. Why don't we have any trains that CAN move fast enough? Or are they just not allowed?
As it is it's (in theory) two hours more for me to take the train from Raleigh to New York than to drive. If I get to the airport two hours before departure, and allow for 1.5 hours post-arrival at LGA or JFK, it's 4 hours longer to drive and six to fly.
Also be interested to hear your take on Autotrains. When I fly to Nashville, I'm usually meeting clients in a suburb. When I flew to New York it was halfway across Long Island from LGA. Rarely am I in an urban center. I think that if people could book an autotrain on a high speed rail setup it could end up being very popular.
Most of the tracks used for passenger rail, outside of the Northeast, are shared with freight trains, and the rails are owned by the freight lines. Freight trains don't move that fast, 80mph is about the top.
Europe has more land area, but the major cities are closer together. Paris to Moscow is less than half the distance from LA to NYC.
And the major cities that are likely to be frequented by high fare-paying passengers are much closer than that. They are basically in a circle with a 500 mile radius centered somewhere around Basel.
Most of the tracks used for passenger rail, outside of the Northeast, are shared with freight trains, and the rails are owned by the freight lines. Freight trains don't move that fast, 80mph is about the top.
The average speed of freight trains (on properly-maintained track in open country) is 40-55 MPH; quite a bit less when full transit times (terminal-to-terminal) are used as a measure.
But the point here is that the intercity freight rail network, which was a shambles at its low point in the early Seventies, has been completely rebuilt, is brutally efficient, and was restructured almost entirely by the private sector. Amtrak and the commuter passenger operations are a case of the tail trying to wag the dog.
(As an aside, back in the late Sixties, the Santa Fe system -- forerunner of the "transcon" that hauls most of the imported Chinese consumer goods from the Ports of Los Angeles / Long Beach -- experimented with a "premium" freight train service operating between Los Angeles and Chicago at passenger train speeds (75-80 MPH). There were few takers, and the service was discontinued in the mid-Seventies).
And there is a huge site, called trainweb.com which, among many other freatures, depicts how the Port and City of New York got its food, fuel and merchandise over the years 1910-1940 -- just before a "Great Reset" of another kind.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 07-31-2021 at 08:45 AM..
The status of passenger rail in the United States is where it is for the same reason as it is where it is in Canada and Australia - population density. Note that while its true that the United States has vastly more people than either of those countries, the population densities of the generally-inhabited areas are comparable. The Lower 48 has nothing like the vast swaths of the marginally-population Australian bush or Canadian Arctic.
The issue is geography.
No. It’s not. In 1935, I could have walked a couple hundred yards in my suburban coastal village to an electrified trolley and ridden 3 miles to the train station. From there, I could take the 50 mile train ride to Boston or the 20 mile ride to Providence and then connect to NYC. Great Depression. People didn’t own cars. The coastal Northeast had plenty of population density to support rail. Following WW II, the United States had enormous prosperity and the automobile became ubiquitous. The trolleys and passenger rail in 1935 were private and run for profit. They all went out of business. Public transportation became something only poor people used. The middle class drove their own automobiles. Since subsidized public transportation was only for poor people, it wasn’t well funded. Bus service was cheaper than rail so that is what was used.
Commuter rail to Boston is coming back here in another 3 years. The stations and track upgrades have their contracts awarded and construction is underway. That says more about the totally saturated and failed highway infrastructure within 30 miles of Boston than any compelling need for a 50 mile rail run. The better solution would have been to upgrade rail service and provide infinite parking 30 miles out with frequent express runs. The poor people can get bused to those stations from farther out.
I had noted there was nimby oppo in the DC burbs. The current Balto mayor and some on the council are also opposed. The previous two mayors were supportive. The Guvner supports. The Baltimore Sun Ed Board supports. The DEIS has been released, and the FEIS is expected in early 2022.
The alarm bells began ringing as soon as I saw the word "monorail".
The monorail is an extremely difficult technology to expand or contract due to the problem of switching tracks; multiple routes serving a single hub might also prove a challenge to dispatch and control. But anything exotic grabs the attention of the uninitiated and impressionable. Maglevs amd hyperloops also have to deal with the "gimmick" factor -- not to mention the high initial cost of construction.
I haven't heard whether the new infrastucture bill provides any finds for replacement of these vulnerable assets, but the "safety valves" have been downplayed for a long time, and a major failure could cause a disruption on the level of the COVID scare or the events of 9/11/01 -- maybe worse since it possibly could last much longer.
With the predicate that monorail is not high speed, the Md DOT recently completed an initial feasibility study for a 28 mile monorail down the center of I 270. They assessed it as physically feasible, with $5B initial costs, and $53M annual op costs. They looked at various systems around the world.
There's $67B in the infrastructure bill for rail, including the replacement of the Baltimore tunnels.
Hyperloop may be on the back burner, but Maglev is making progress. Currently, there are at least 6 operating systems and others planned.
Well, you're sort of right, but when most people think about traveling in Europe by train they really mean from France in the west to the eastern border of Poland, or even Germany, in the east. If you look at this illustration showing the overlay of the United States on Europe there's a huge amount of our territory that extends past both sides of that area, not to mention how much of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona are down over the Mediterranean.
On the other hand, your observation of the density of the population of Europe is kind of my point. They don't have anything like our big square states that hardly anybody lives in, but if you want to travel coast to coast you still have to get through them. Obviously there was a time when train was the fastest, best way to get across the country, but nobody's going to invest billions in high speed rail to get through Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah.
Your map of the US superimposed on Europe is incorrect. It leaves out large areas of Europe.
Here's a map of all of Europe.
Also be interested to hear your take on Autotrains. When I fly to Nashville, I'm usually meeting clients in a suburb. When I flew to New York it was halfway across Long Island from LGA. Rarely am I in an urban center. I think that if people could book an autotrain on a high speed rail setup it could end up being very popular.
Autotrains make less sense when cars become a rentable commodity. Why transport thousands of pounds of car on a train when there is a rental waiting at your destination?
The autotrain from DC to Orlando is one of the shortest trains I've seen. Two cars for passengers, plus 4 or 5 for vehicles. That was in springtime. Maybe it's longer at other times. Pricewise, not a lot of difference between flying and renting. Guess it depends on how long the trip is.
I don't think it will ever take off, nationwide at least. Our country is just too vast. I don't know how we could afford all that, either.
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.
