# Is it Time? U.S. High Speed Rail



## Mr. Fusion (Jul 1, 2006)

miamicanes said:


> ...*should*..._anywhere along the line_..._at that speed_..._ever_..."*compounded interest*"..."*compounded interest*"...*does*...*has*..._alone_..._hopeless_...*ever*...*knew*...*essential*..._rest_...


:yes:


----------



## shadyunltd (May 1, 2006)

Nobody here knows about the Trans-Texas Corridor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor

The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) is a transportation network in the planning and early construction stages in the U.S. state of Texas. The supercorridor, as planned, would use swaths of land up to 1,200 feet (365 m) wide to carry parallel links of expressways, rails, and utility lines. The expressway portion would be divided into two separate elements: truck lanes and lanes for passenger vehicles. Similarly, the rail lines in the corridor would be divided among freight, commuter, and high-speed rail. Services expected to be carried in the utility corridor include water, electricity, natural gas, petroleum, fiber optic lines, and other telecommunications services.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Cloudship said:


> The rail infrastructure in the US is pittiful. It's in such bad shape that I wouldn't even bother with trying to reconstruct existing lines except in rare cases. I think it is time to build a new network, that is completely grade-crossing free. Yeah, it would be expensive, but I think it would be worth it in the long run, and necessary given the problems with air travel in today's world.
> 
> As far as the government's position on this, I think the issue is that people need to make the government make this a priority. The current government is too tied up with the airline industry right now (let's face it - where are three of the majors located?). It's time for that to change.


Good suggestion and great vision, lets go HSR!:cheer:

Chicago is the central hub of US HSR which will connect N to E to S to W like its air network!
:runaway: 
E: Chicago-NYC
N: Chicago-MIN
S:Chicago-HOU
W:Chicago-LA
and many other routes feasible at request! :cheers:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

^^
Lovely, time to connecting dots with Chicago HSR Hub!



MRichR said:


> They have been trying for years now to get a high speed rail line from Chicago to St. Louis, and simply the cost and time expended to convert that section makes me believe any "Midwest high speed rail network" is decades away.
> 
> A few related links on the proposed Chicago-St. Louis route:
> 
> ...


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Cloudship said:


> The problem with many of the current proposals is that they are trying to work with existing lines, existing funding, and existing regulations. _That's_ what needs to change.
> 
> First, at this point there are so few decent lines that it's pointless to try and recover any of them. Yes, we can use some of the rights of way, but just build the track fromscratch the right way. AS far as funding, that is something the government has to do, or rather that the people have to demand the government do. We pour huge amounts of money into air travel, highways, and trucking, yet nothing into our rail infrastructure. It's time we poured some money into that. Lastly, the regulations set forth by the FRA are designed specifically to limit passenger rail traffic and make it very difficult to establish high-speed routes. That also has to change. The regulations are both antiquated as well as biased to the freight industry.
> 
> I believe rail travel will work inthe US. Looking at the map of corridors it's easy to see how close some of those corridors get to one another. With the exception of the gap in the west, it is a great start to a national network. But we have to get the back-end stuff in order first to make that happen.


I am totally agree with your points!
In order for successvie HSR implementation in US, its OWN track lines has to be alone without using its existing railroads and it has to be TRANSPARENT with the bypass cities and roads! When you really want to kicking up the High Speed on rail, you can't have road crossing to worry about and bypassing cities to standby! It needs to bring the shortest distant between the HOT SPOTS which will demand feasible when that SPEED is up to the AIR standard and when it can kick up to 200-250MPH...We will start seeing air travlers transit their focus to HSR!
So HSR in US need its self sufficient rail network that has its CENTRAL HUB in CHICAGO(don't forget about our Canadian neighboring cities!) and connecting the rest of major hubs that can also link smaller cities along the dots if there are demands...:cheers:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

miamicanes said:


> Don't forget, though... terrorists can strike trains even easier than planes. The only thing stopping them will be the knowledge that it would be a waste of the terrorists' limited resources. That's the one good thing about FRA mandates that require American trains to be rolling bank vaults... it helps to limit the scope of damage and injury in an attack. When passenger trains in America derail, 99% of the passengers walk away from it. When passenger trains in Europe derail, lots of people die, and even more get seriously hurt.
> 
> The one amendment that *should* be made to FRA rules is to the rule that requires passenger trains that run in mixed traffic be capable of surviving a head-on collision with a freight train at the maximum speed they run _anywhere along the line_, instead requiring that they be capable of surviving a head-on collision with whatever they're likely to encounter _at that speed_. In other words, if a train is proposed that will run 150mph on its own ROW where freight trains never, _ever_ run, but limit itself to 79mph on "last mile" tracks shared with freight, it should only have to be capable of surviving a 150mph head-on collision with another train like itself, and a 79mph head-on collision with a freight train.
> 
> ...


I am sorry, but your suggestions seem suicidal when you have HSR run along with freight rail line? It is never a good idea to MIX railroad usage in the first place and when two entities are differ in such a dramatic pace, it makes that extra urgency to start anew with one network that is fit for HSR and HSR only(no road crossing EVER, no city crossing EVER...unless there is demand for standby)! If the HSR ought to run in full speed without all the major concerns like terroists, accidents and spendings then building the HSR network is most practical and efficient way to go about gas and air terror insecurities, besides, when HSR get up to 200 MPH, you will see demands for it much higher!
That's say the for hot spot hubs like Chicago and NYC, it is likely to building MULTI lines to compensate the FREQUENT rates of transitions HSR traffic!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Lets start with Midwest regional HSR from the main hub in Chicago:
Building some major routes like this but not with any affiliate of railroads like Amtrak, freightrail and its existing rail routes!
Complete building a brand new UNSTOPPABLE HSR routes that connects major air destinations and have amtrak or slower passenger rail services of some sort connect the rest of smaller ridership routes from Major hubs in regional!
Midwest Regional Rail System:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States









:cheer:


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

I have seen that plan before, and for a long range vision I think it is great. But you have to start with a few key routes. The first I would do is New York, Albany, Buffalo, Toronto, Detroit, Chicago. Big business traffic, and enough intermediate connections. I would do San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as Miami - Orlando - Tampa. These would get the most usage and drive the market. I woudl then focus on connecting Florida to the Northeast corridor (snowbird traffic) as well as building out Chicago and Texas. A national network won't happen overnight, but if you get good routes that have enough traffic both at teh end points as well as intermediary stepps, demand will grow.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

The TTC represents just about the most shameless transfer of wealth from taxpayers to industry in world history. The passenger rail component is _worse_ than expensive... it's expensive and _useless_. 

*Nobody* is going to drive 20-40 miles out of town to go use a HSR line that ends up 20-40 miles away from their destination. If they at least ran the HSR line to downtown Dallas and DFW, it might be rationalizable. But 30 miles east of anything resembling urban Dallas? Dear god.

Any component allegedly there to improve the personal mobility of Texans is a decoy, tacked on as an excuse to make the state's taxpayers bear the cost of building and maintaining something of nearly zero direct benefit to them.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Cloudship said:


> I have seen that plan before, and for a long range vision I think it is great. But you have to start with a few key routes. The first I would do is New York, Albany, Buffalo, Toronto, Detroit, Chicago. Big business traffic, and enough intermediate connections. I would do San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as Miami - Orlando - Tampa. These would get the most usage and drive the market. I woudl then focus on connecting Florida to the Northeast corridor (snowbird traffic) as well as building out Chicago and Texas. A national network won't happen overnight, but if you get good routes that have enough traffic both at teh end points as well as intermediary stepps, demand will grow.


Of course such HSR network can't happen overnite, but it has to start somewhere and somewhere worthy of investment first. Some hotspots for HSR potential are the ones that have extreme visibility of current rail traffic markets like (freight and commuters)....so Chicago, NYC, Miami and St. Louis came to mind! I think that HSR should established the fundation in midwest and Eastern hotspots where there are lots of dots to connect and most of them are closer to each other. While Chicago can be the CENTRAL hub for NA HSR network which also connect West coast, Canadian and Mexican cities in the future! :cheers:


----------



## degnaw (Jul 4, 2006)

yeah, honestly about the "ttc", whats the point of making a 1200 foot wide corridor MAINLY for cars and trucks? just build a few good railways (grade seperated with several lines) and both cars and trucks will miraculously dissapear... Its obviously easier to bring a railway into a city than a 1200 foot wasteland. And why how would there be NO upfront costs? if they can buy, build, and pave such a wide corridor why can't they simply build more, um, light rail? of course this is texas, the most car-dependent and fat state. :cheers:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

miamicanes said:


> The TTC represents just about the most shameless transfer of wealth from taxpayers to industry in world history. The passenger rail component is _worse_ than expensive... it's expensive and _useless_.
> 
> *Nobody* is going to drive 20-40 miles out of town to go use a HSR line that ends up 20-40 miles away from their destination. If they at least ran the HSR line to downtown Dallas and DFW, it might be rationalizable. But 30 miles east of anything resembling urban Dallas? Dear god.
> 
> Any component allegedly there to improve the personal mobility of Texans is a decoy, tacked on as an excuse to make the state's taxpayers bear the cost of building and maintaining something of nearly zero direct benefit to them.


I don't get it, why would you use HSR if your destination is only 20-40 miles out of town???
HSR is good for long distant travel like from Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Milwaukee(semi long), Chicago-Min/St. Paul, Chicago-NYC, Chicago-Toronto, Chicago-Miami, Chicago-ATL, Chicago-Houston, Chicago-LA, Chicago-Mexico City, Chicago Seattle!

If you like to get to town only 20-40miles out there are lots of options LOCALLY, by car, by bus, by mass transit, by walk :jk: , by biky, by boat, by helicopter, by lightrail and then by HSR :scouserd: , but you get the idea, you don't use HSR for short distant travel, just as you do when you FLY! You don't drive 20-40miles out to airport so you can fly to another town 20-40miles away, that is kind of dumb if you ask me!

So, what is efficient, it is when HSR are TOTAL TRANSPARENT to any city and roadcrossing which has its own terminals, walls, and most important rail tracks! That expensiveness just an excuses for dumb decisions made on air infrastrcutures! :cheers:


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

I really like riding the railways. I never realized this until I was 20 and I rode the railway for the first time from Toronto to Montreal. It was then I realized how incredibly smooth the ride was and how fast it all was, much better than riding a bus. Unfortunately, this service was just too expensive, it was almost the cost of an airplane ticket, and would have been without my student discount.

The fact is, as good as rail was, it wasn't fast enough to justify the cost. I put the thoughts of rail away until I visited Europe 4 years later. It was then that I saw what could really be. Then last year I visited Japan, and yet again I saw what could be.


America (and North America for that matter) would be amazing with high speed rail and comparible local rail networks. Then again I wonder if we have the density to support such an undertaking. That and without the fact that the government didn't appropriate the land way back when it was cheap and not covered with stuff, is it even possible?

I wonder what the utility of building a HSR network would be without comparible low-speed networks servicing as well. For these mega-rail terminals to be successful, they would almost have to be virtual airports (unless they were hooking up to a city with a massively good mass transit, for instance if it hooked up to Grand Central or Penn Station in NYC), with a full range of taxi and parking lot connections. If that was the case, then for this venture to be successful, it would have to be at least as fast and as safe as air travel. But to make people change their habits, it would probably have to be even better in some way. Add to the fact that the rail system will never be as flexable as air travel (unless we spend a few trillion on lines), it would have to be MUCH better for people to change.

There are two ways to do it. One way would be to upgrade the existing network with trains that go 100-200 kmh (55-130 mph). Then by upgrading existing stations and establishing right of ways a network could slowly develop. This would be good for slowly introducing the service, and for cost.

Unfortunately, the right of way issue is huge. Either a lot of money would be spent making overpasses/underpasses, or the trains would run slower and slower. Because of the initial cost, the service would likely only start as it is now with better trains. But would this have the clout to cancel out airplane and car travel? I don't see how it would be good enough to tilt the equation towards either, and as such I don't see why people would change en mass to rail, thus having enough money to further fund expansion.


The other way to have this happen is to have the political will to scrape up the money to build a super-high speed network (350 kmh/220mph and above) either using conventional technology or with next-generation Mag-lev technology. These would then have to be elevated to ensure constant speeds and right of way. Massive amounts of land would have to be expropriated, and massive amounts of money would be used. But it would be possible.

Japan's Shinkensen system is in many places on a completely seperate track and elevated. These bridges are so powerful that they are built to survive earthquakes. They feature many pillars in close proximity and very advanced detection devices to shut off the train.

This would effectively neutralize the terrorism problem. Sure parts of the track could be blown up, but would they actually fall apart? Either the train has enough time to run over it (just needs a few seconds) or the train can stop. Yes high speed trains take time to stop, but imagine if it were mag lev. The nature of the technology could make super fast stopping possible even if that were quite uncomfortable for passengers.

But how about the cost? Well in short the cost would be astronomical. But it would not be impossible. In fact for instance, NASA is going to spend $125 billion in the next 10 years to effectively rebuild the Apollo program (and resend men to the moon). As much as I love space exploration, if money could be found to do that, money could be found to do this. Also in comparison is the fact that the Iraq war eats up over $100 billion USD every year with very little benefit to America.

The fact is, the money can be found if the will were there. Even if the money were 'thrown away' (infrastructure created without ever being repaid by fares), it might still be worth it. How much worse is it to use that money by sending people to the moon yet again, or by fighting foreign wars? How much worse is it to use that money for tax cuts for the rich ($80 billion/year)?


Of course we arrive at the real meat of the argument. Can a system be created that is actually useful to the point that it can actually help replace current modes of transport and make things more efficient? I don't know how to answer the question. Even in Europe, low-cost air in recent years has taken a huge dent on rail. The fact that you can fly from Poland to England for 50 pounds in only a few hours, means that the train simplly cannot compete.

If such a system is built in America, will it even be used?


Perhaps in the end it's nothing more than a pipe dream. Perhaps what's needed really isn't a high speed rail system, but imagine if that political will and money were channeled into building very efficient public transport, and local transport links that would effectively link up nearby cities... only after the local networks have materialized is it even necessary to dream in high speed.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

Ergo, the need to first go after the low-hanging fruit -- the city pairs that are technically driveable, but farther than anyone really *wants* to drive. Start cheap, with trains that are no slower than driving and more productive (or at least more pleasant), and THEN, once the public starts to embrace the idea and hunger for more, and there's enough revenue flowing in to have a snowball's chance in hell of at least covering the incremental operating costs, make it faster. 

If anyone needs proof that passengers are willing to trade absolute time savings for "one train transfer-free convenience", just look at pre-Eurotunnel Britain. The _fastest_ way to get from London to Paris by surface transport would have been to take a train to the dock, get off, walk onto a hovercraft leaving 5 minutes later, get off the hovercraft at the other end, get on a train, and leave 5 minutes later for Paris. 

As a practical matter, every attempt to get people to do this failed miserably and was a commercial disaster. The only people who took the hovercrafts and jet catamarans were people who drove to the dock and parked. The overwhelming preference of Paris-bound British rail travelers was to remain on the train while the cars were loaded (one at a time) onto a ferry (even if it took a half hour or more to load, and took 50% longer to reach France, than a passenger-only hovercraft), unloaded at the other end, and continue. Passengers simply refused to go along with any other alternative, regardless of how much cheaper or faster it would have been. That, more than anything, should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks it's better to build a short HSR line that runs exclusively on its own dedicated tracks and force passengers traveling beyond its limits to do cross-platform transfers (or worse, cross-station transfers). In the real world, people just won't go for it.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Epi said:


> I really like riding the railways. I never realized this until I was 20 and I rode the railway for the first time from Toronto to Montreal. It was then I realized how incredibly smooth the ride was and how fast it all was, much better than riding a bus. Unfortunately, this service was just too expensive, it was almost the cost of an airplane ticket, and would have been without my student discount.
> 
> The fact is, as good as rail was, it wasn't fast enough to justify the cost. I put the thoughts of rail away until I visited Europe 4 years later. It was then that I saw what could really be. Then last year I visited Japan, and yet again I saw what could be.
> 
> ...


^^
The Post of the tread!
Anyway, 


> *Then again I wonder if we have the density to support such an undertaking.*


,yes, just look at Southern part Canada and northern part US, do you see the DENSITY that can have HSR network spawl like a web?
With the density of US eastern corridor and US midwest lake michigan rustbelt corridor along with Canada windsor-montreal corridor. I think that there is great potential for HSR travel, due to some of its major cities closeness! :cheers:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> ^^
> The Post of the tread!
> Anyway,
> 
> ...


Oh, yea, and the reason that train wasn't as attractive as airplanes is because its speed and inflexibility!
Well, but also realized the trade offs like safety, long wait, delays, oil crsis, terminal expansions...etc(Chicago O'hare for example), HSR seems like another great reason to look for the legacy train ride experience!
The reasons are these and not limited: It will be way fast than your traditional train raides when done right(its own rail tracks, technologies, terminals, walls, no roadcrossing, no signals, transparent to the cities, upgradable speed/trains, not reliant on oil/gas, reliable long distant commute...etc) get up to around 200 mph - 250 mph, regional hubs as HSR dots and connect the existing Amtrak routes or some other passenger routes to these Hubs for smaller cities!


----------



## GrigorisSokratis (Apr 6, 2005)

I cannot understand those gaps between Jacksonville-Miami, Pittsburgh-Cleveland.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

:cheers:


GrigorisSokratis said:


> I cannot understand those gaps between Jacksonville-Miami, Pittsburgh-Cleveland.


Yea, me too, I guess that those gaps aren't so hot at the time of HSR research!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> ^^
> The Post of the tread!
> Anyway,
> 
> ...










:cheer:


----------



## OhmehawJ (Jul 31, 2004)

Our rail network should be more something like this:








*HSN Canada (turqoise)* serving Detroit, Boston, Buffalo, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Seattle, Toronto and Vancouver
*HSN Central (green)* serving Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Lansing, Lincoln, Louisville, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Moline, New York, Newark, Omaha, Pittsburgh, Saint Louis, Toledo and Washington
*HSN East (red)* serving Albany, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Charlotte, Hartford, Jacksonville, Miami, New York, Newark, Orlando, Philadelphia, Providence, Raleigh, Richmond VA, Tampa and Washington
*HSN West (purple)* serving Bakersfield, Denver, El Paso, Eugene, Fresno, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Tuscon
*HSN South (blue)* serving Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, El Paso, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Louisville, Memphis, Mobile, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Saint Louis and San Antonio

The entire Northeast/Upper Midwest and southern Ontario and Quebec are more than ready for high speed rail. Time to cut down on all those polluting short-haul flights inbetween all of those cities, not to mention the congestion at airports like O'Hare and JFK.

If the US can build nearly 47,000 miles of Interstate Highway, surely we can build _half_ as many miles of high speed rail to compliment them.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

OhmehawJ said:


> Our rail network should be more something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great stuff Ohmehaw!
I sure like to visit omaha someday with HSR...lol!
Yes, the corridor of midwest,eastern US and lower canada are one of the best framework to start its plan on HSR!
Our airports and air routes are way too crowded, and highways are way to expanded! We sure can make our new HSR network overridden!  :cheers:
Think about it Japan can do it, European like to top it, I think US can cherrish it! :runaway:


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

GrigorisSokratis said:


> I cannot understand those gaps between Jacksonville-Miami, Pittsburgh-Cleveland.


Politics. Those two lines were different political proposals. Thus they never touched each other. The Miamai-Orlando-Tampa was more of a tourist line. Of course, you can partially blame the Disney Corporation for making that such an impossibility. 

I don't think that air travel in todays world is exactly something people look forward to and will need to be convinced to switch from. Think about it - on a train, you can board easier, get up and move around, more room, better service, and potentially better connections to the city itself. It just has to be a workable option.

I also think we do have enough density in the North East. There are a number of smaller cities can can be connected. I don't think a lot of people go from one small station to another small station, it would be a smaller station to a bigger city. So people would drive to a station, get on the train, and then get off in the city. Maybe that would prompt some cities to improve theri transportation network.


----------



## HeMo (May 8, 2006)

I don't think that trans-con high speed service will be viable. Whem the French started out on the concept works for HST they did extensive market research, which showed that the only way to compete with aircrafts in the lucrative buisiness market was to reduce trip times to three hours, thus allowing a full working day at the destination (e.g. take the train at 7, get to your destination at 10 - work, leave at 6 be back in your home city at 9). They used this formula to design the TGV system. It had to do the Paris - Lyon journey in 3 hours. All the other design parameters followed this goal. Nowadas with HST going 350km/h instead of 250km/h the range of high speed rail lines has increased. 
The distances in through West are too long for that kind of service, but I feel that most of the corrdiors shown in this maps are suitable:









And eventually the Eastern corridors would be interconnected.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I'd love to see American/Canadian HSR but there needs to be the political will followed by its money.


----------



## OhmehawJ (Jul 31, 2004)

HeMo said:


> I don't think that trans-con high speed service will be viable. Whem the French started out on the concept works for HST they did extensive market research, which showed that the only way to compete with aircrafts in the lucrative buisiness market was to reduce trip times to three hours, thus allowing a full working day at the destination (e.g. take the train at 7, get to your destination at 10 - work, leave at 6 be back in your home city at 9). They used this formula to design the TGV system. It had to do the Paris - Lyon journey in 3 hours. All the other design parameters followed this goal. Nowadas with HST going 350km/h instead of 250km/h the range of high speed rail lines has increased.
> The distances in through West are too long for that kind of service, but I feel that most of the corrdiors shown in this maps are suitable:
> And eventually the Eastern corridors would be interconnected.


Albeit people wouldn't likely travel from Los Angeles to New York via train, the people traveling between Los Angeles-Las Vegas, Las Vegas-Denver, Denver-Chicago, Chicago-New York, etc. along that same Los Angeles-New York path would have an option better than flying.

In fact, the majority of the stretch routes (like the ones I drew on that map) would be under three and a half hours. Denver-Albuqueruque-Phoenix, for example, is the longest route, but with a train going 320 kph the trip would take only three hours, 26 minutes. Other examples:

2.11 hours, 0674 km Salt Lake City-Las Vegas*
2.16 hours, 0690 km Phoenix-Tucson-El Paso*
2.48 hours, 0797 km Denver-Oklahoma City
2.68 hours, 0859 km Denver-Salt Lake City*
2.72 hours, 0871 km Denver-Omaha*
3.19 hours, 1022 km El Paso-Dallas/Fort Worth*
3.26 hours, 1044 km Salt Lake City-Sacramento*
3.41 hours, 1090 km Denver-Albuquerque-Phoenix
*distance by highway (actual distance by train could be shorter)

It's just sad that instead of constantly bailing out ailing airlines our country hasn't wisened up to short-haul, high speed train service.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

OhmehawJ said:


> Albeit people wouldn't likely travel from Los Angeles to New York via train, the people traveling between Los Angeles-Las Vegas, Las Vegas-Denver, Denver-Chicago, Chicago-New York, etc. along that same Los Angeles-New York path would have an option better than flying.
> 
> In fact, the majority of the stretch routes (like the ones I drew on that map) would be under three and a half hours. Denver-Albuqueruque-Phoenix, for example, is the longest route, but with a train going 320 kph the trip would take only three hours, 26 minutes. Other examples:
> 
> ...


Good stuff, but I doubt that these cities will get much HSR traffic usages! It should start in Midwest and Eastern US corridors, they are much more compact and requried lesser tracks to connect! We can start up in the Midwest, Lower Canada and Eastern US first, if HSR seems like a great conceiveable option over flying, then, expanding HSR network like West cost, South coasts and even mountain range want to get some action! 

This HSR network plan is about 2/5 doable right now! The green, light blue and upper red are the ones good to go!









Here is my plan HSR network in near future! :runaway:


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> Here is my plan HSR network in near future! :runaway:


I wonder if the US and Canada would be willing to split the costs and share a line between Detroit and Buffalo running through southern Ontario, that the Americans can run "sealed" trains through without having to clear customs and immigration.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Nutterbug said:


> I wonder if the US and Canada would be willing to split the costs and share a line between Detroit and Buffalo running through southern Ontario, that the Americans can run "sealed" trains through without having to clear customs and immigration.


Yea, that is some major step to go thru isn't it!  
Well, the line between Detroit and Buffalo is feasible if there are large rider based behind it, so it all depends...as far as the US to Canadian cities like Toronto and Montreal, I think that it is very likily even it means to clear customs and immigration in Detroit and Buffalo HSR stations before entry! :runaway: :jk:
If not, we can still connect Midwest cities and eastern us cities first to see how everything all work out! :cheers: :cheer:


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> I am sorry, but your suggestions seem suicidal when you have HSR run along with freight rail line? It is never a good idea to MIX railroad usage in the first place and when two entities are differ in such a dramatic pace, it makes that extra urgency to start anew with one network that is fit for HSR and HSR only(no road crossing EVER, no city crossing EVER...unless there is demand for standby)! If the HSR ought to run in full speed without all the major concerns like terroists, accidents and spendings then building the HSR network is most practical and efficient way to go about gas and air terror insecurities, besides, when HSR get up to 200 MPH, you will see demands for it much higher!
> That's say the for hot spot hubs like Chicago and NYC, it is likely to building MULTI lines to compensate the FREQUENT rates of transitions HSR traffic!


I agree - HSR absolutely and completely has to be entirely seperate from any other traffic that runs at a different speed - for the network to run effectively, if it is a 150mph network everything must travel at 150mph. Even station stops at that speed will add 6-7 minutes, thats why HSR networks don't have stations on them (or only one every 100 miles). The only place where they'll get away with mixing hsr (160+ mph) and a slower (140mph) local train is in Kent England because the distance isn't that long and the traffic is only moderate.
I don't belive the operating costs of the rail network will be at all in doubt when oil reaches $150/barrel in the next 5 years, and that applies to most of the world.
And the main reaon why hsr shouldn't be a separate guage is because common practice is to use existing track in cities, where the train would be slowing down or speeding up anyway, to use the nice existing city center stations, as in England,France,Germany,Italy,Spain,Belgium,Holland - not a single city where you have to travel outside the city to get hsr, because that would be pointless.
And terrorists are more likely to blow up mass transit systems in cities anyway - it's easier, there's more people and media will be there in a flash and won't be in some distant place where the authorities can get there first and cordon it off.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

With the exception of Chicago and New York City, and maybe Philadelphia and boston, is there really enough existing city center track to worry about? And even in those cases, it should be possible to make at least one line a different guage. In Europe I doubt something like that would work, but in the US where we have such little to work with.

As far as crossing Canada, is there a reason why customs has to be onboard? Couldn't they make a special platofrom that has controlled entry, and if you get off then you go through customs, otherwise you don't have to deal with it? Toronto is not as ar north as the map makes it look, and I think it would be worth adding that to the line.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

elfabyanos said:


> I agree - HSR absolutely and completely has to be entirely seperate from any other traffic that runs at a different speed - for the network to run effectively, if it is a 150mph network everything must travel at 150mph. Even station stops at that speed will add 6-7 minutes, thats why HSR networks don't have stations on them (or only one every 100 miles). The only place where they'll get away with mixing hsr (160+ mph) and a slower (140mph) local train is in Kent England because the distance isn't that long and the traffic is only moderate.
> I don't belive the operating costs of the rail network will be at all in doubt when oil reaches $150/barrel in the next 5 years, and that applies to most of the world.
> And the main reaon why hsr shouldn't be a separate guage is because common practice is to use existing track in cities, where the train would be slowing down or speeding up anyway, to use the nice existing city center stations, as in England,France,Germany,Italy,Spain,Belgium,Holland - not a single city where you have to travel outside the city to get hsr, because that would be pointless.
> And terrorists are more likely to blow up mass transit systems in cities anyway - it's easier, there's more people and media will be there in a flash and won't be in some distant place where the authorities can get there first and cordon it off.


Thank you, elfabyanos! It is nice to hear from outsiders particularly from europeans whom have experience on HSR!
I agree that HSR over 150 mph is way out of line for mixing tracks with regular commuter rail and freight rail! Besides if there is some reason that local government doesn't support multi-track platform, we can always total upgrade the track or exile it. Realizing the oil is major issue now and in the future, I think that HSR technology and network is worthy of looking at particular for the dense Eastern US, Midwest and lower Canada altogether to full utilize the serenity of HSR experience!
Terroists will always find ways to excuse themselves, but their intention always the same, to explode in the desnest possible civilized urban area and HSR rail can most likely to avoid most of them while keeping fatality rates way lower then air travel!


----------



## kub86 (Aug 13, 2004)

I think there's a market for HSR between Seattle and Portland. They're 140 miles apart. There's currently 60 roundtrip flights to/from SEA and PDX daily (45 min flight). But if you factor in airport security and check ins, that could be 1.5 - 2 hrs total. There's also 4 or 5 amtrak trains that service the line. But that's a 4 hour ride. A super fast train can probably get there in 40 minutes without the hassle of airports. I wanna make one!

So don't forget about Seattle - Portland! And maybe Seattle - Vancouver, BC?


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

I think there should be a HSR line connecting San Diego, Los Angeles, and the SF/Bay Area. It would serve well over 25 million people, and would definitely be in our best interests whether we realize it or not. The implication there is towards minimizing usage of cars and airplanes, because both modes of transport are less efficient than a train.

The major setback is the cost. Last time I heard it was running at around 16 billion dollars, and probably is going to be even greater now.

I do believe that HSR is possible without electrification, however. This is due to promising developments in various areas. I bet half of the money (probably 5 billion would do) will suffice to fund a good R&D development to build a fast train (200+mph) without the use of an overhead power source.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

kub86 said:


> I think there's a market for HSR between Seattle and Portland. They're 140 miles apart. There's currently 60 roundtrip flights to/from SEA and PDX daily (45 min flight). But if you factor in airport security and check ins, that could be 1.5 - 2 hrs total. There's also 4 or 5 amtrak trains that service the line. But that's a 4 hour ride. A super fast train can probably get there in 40 minutes without the hassle of airports. I wanna make one!
> 
> So don't forget about Seattle - Portland! And maybe Seattle - Vancouver, BC?


Yea, if the HSR network all goes well between dense Eastern US and upper Midwest. Expansion of West Coast HSR can also be consider without a doubt! :cheers:


----------



## TexasBoi (Jan 7, 2004)

Needs to be a connection from Houston to DFW.


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

:runaway:


Facial said:


> I think there should be a HSR line connecting San Diego, Los Angeles, and the SF/Bay Area. It would serve well over 25 million people, and would definitely be in our best interests whether we realize it or not. The implication there is towards minimizing usage of cars and airplanes, because both modes of transport are less efficient than a train.
> 
> The major setback is the cost. Last time I heard it was running at around 16 billion dollars, and probably is going to be even greater now.


Check out http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

At 140 miles, you'd be better off with slower, cheaper, *more frequent* service. First, the obligatory travel times:

150mph = 56 minutes
120mph = 70 minutes
110mph = 77 minutes

110mph, running on normal tracks, is 21 minutes slower than 150mph (the fastest any train is likely to ever run in the US). Now, 21 minutes isn't totally trivial... but ask yourself: how much more would you *really* be willing to pay per round trip to save those 21 minutes? Another hundred dollars? Because they'd have to charge _at least_ $199 per round trip (vs $49-89 round-trip) to cover the higher costs. And really, it's more like $250 or more. 

Or, looking at it another way... does it make more sense to have one 150mph train per hour, or a 110mph train leaving every 15-20 minutes? When you consider that you'll _never_ arrive at a station at _precisely_ the last minute before it leaves, you'll always have to wait for the next train. With hourly service, you'd have to show up at least 10-20 minutes before departure, because the opportunity cost of missing a train would be a 60 minute delay. With slower service every 15-20 minutes, you don't even have to bother with time, because the worst wait you'll have after randomly showing up is 14-19 minutes.


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

I'm thinking of non-electrified HSR speeds of around 180-200mph, around trips involving several stops between longer lines such as LA and SF, or in the future possibly LA and LV. Around 400 miles between LA and SF, and around 270 miles between LA and LV. Non-electrification may take a while to pay off, but at least it'll be less than the case w/ electrification. With many stops such as the Pac Surfliner Line between LA and SD, I would agree that slower and more frequent service fits the bill (c.110 miles between LA and SD, but with over 10 stops).


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Be careful with comparing speeds, though. The train does not travel it's full trip at the highest speed - it hits those speeds only in certain areas. The reason why I think HSR does make sense is that for the fastest travel, you need to take advantage of speed when you can get it. It's like taking the highway versus a side road. Sure it's only a short distance. But by jumping on the highway you are actually cutting out a lot of extra stuff - increased traffic, stops, etc. That is where the savings come in.

The fact is, if you even were able to find a place where you could possibly get to 110mph on current rails, you would very likely only be able to do that during very limited stretches. Plus, you would still be limited by online stations, traffic, bad track layout, etc. all which make it innefectual. If you do decide to layout a new line, and get rid of all those issues, then the difference in track running an extra 40mph is not very significant.


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

There's a good reference there with the Acela route, which bends and twists its way around - much like many of the routes between LA and SD on the Pac Surf - but for a track laid out involving segments of 50-mile straight stretches, as would be the case between LA and SF or LA and LV, then a 100mph speed boost will be significant.


----------

