Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
High Speed Trains | 76 comments (76 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: High Speed Trains (4.00 / 2)
Here is a collection of US true high-speed projects for you.

The first real one was the Texas Triangle: a project to use TGV technology to connect San Antonio, Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth was established nearlya two decades ago. Highways and above all airlines strongly lobbied against it. It was finally killed by, who else, Dubya.

The project coming closest to reality was a whole network for Florida. They evewn wrote out the main tender and announced a winner. That after voters even put it into the Florida constitution in a referendum. But after years of sabotage and a campaign consisting almost completely of flat-out lies, Jeb Bush put the question of finance on a referendum (simultaneously with the 2004 Presidential Elections) -- and people voted for it...

A project resurfacing again and again is LA to Las Vegas, also in maglev form. But as far as I know, it was never much more than daydreaming.

The project currently closest to reality is the California High-Speed Rail. Planning of the line is well-advanced, with extensive cost estimates and impact studies. But California had a budget crisis, and Schwarzenegger tried the same tricks as Jeb Bush in open support of the highway lobby ("we are a car state"), even though studies showed highway widening would be a more expensive yet lesser capacity option. Still, the project isn't killed yet, and there shall be a referendum on bond issuing.

Further proposals were for a Midwest network centered on Chicago, and lines in Virginia. In both cases, "medium high-speed", e.g. faster trains on upgraded lines seems to get support instead (if even that).

The most ambitious proposal resurrects the Texas Triangle: the insane project of the Trans Texas Corridors, with 16-lane highways and six railway tracks (two for each type of transport) and pipes of everything. I guess if part of it ever becomes reality, it will be the roads, and the rail part will be shelved for cost overruns.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 05:37:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: High Speed Trains (none / 1)
Wouldn't the most sensible one be a high speed version of  the northeast corridor from Boston to DC, to be extended north to Portland and south through Richmond down to the NC Research Triangle and Atlanta? There is the problem of dealing with construction in a very densely populated area (much more so than France. However, it would make a lot of sense, especially with a twin set of stops, one every decent sized center - i.e. stopping in places like New Haven and Baltimore, the other just the major ones - Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, etc. Nobody would use it for the full route, but I'd imagine that with the right ticket price there would be enormous demand for shorter legs. And again, we're talking about an area with an enormous population.
by MarekNYC on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 05:47:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: High Speed Trains (none / 0)
There's already a high-speed train on the Boston-DC corridor.

Although the last time I took it, a mechanical problem forced us to go very slowly from just north of Philly to DC.  It was embarrassing, getting passed by the regular trains.  :-(

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 06:01:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: High Speed Trains (none / 0)
That's a false high-speed train -- see earlier discussion in the thread :-)

It reaches a mere 150 mph on a mere 18 miles of track.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 06:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: High Speed Trains (none / 1)
OH, never mind, that's "fake high speed." Sorry.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 06:06:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: High Speed Trains (none / 0)
it's  cheaper to fly from NYC to Boston and vice versa than to take the train. That coupled with Amtrak's terrible performance is why I never did it. My normal method was to drive to New Haven, CT and take the (slow) NYC commuter rail the rest of the way in.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Jan 24th, 2007 at 12:48:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's because the trains are slow. (none / 0)
In that corridor, if the trains were substantially faster for the full corridor, then the trains would attract a larger market share simply because of being quicker, end to end, for many travellers ... and then the increase in patronage would all for a reduction in ticket costs compared to the present, and that would attract higher volume, and that would allow ticket costs to be further reduced.

That's exactly why the 2 hour and 3 hour boundaries are so important. With a central metro point of access and a much shorter check in time because of no serious load balancing problem, you provide a quicker route to some, and that short-circuits the whole "nobody takes it because its more expensive because nobody take it" vicious circle.

New York to Boston is 300km, 187 miles. A VHS train could do the trip in under an hour and a half. You can be an hour and a half getting to La Guardia and getting through the check in and the security line, and still be waiting in line to board the flight.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 24th, 2007 at 01:32:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: High Speed Trains (none / 0)
The train is ridiculously expensive - which is why I always take the bus. As of a few years ago the Chinese started running buses from Chinatown to Chinatown for next to nothing. Considering the cost of parking in the city (curbside is hard to find and alternate side rules make it very annoying), driving to NYC sounds like an expensive choice, though if it's several people the cost calculations change a lot.
by MarekNYC on Wed Jan 24th, 2007 at 01:55:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: High Speed Trains (none / 1)
Yep, and given that AMTRAK already achieves more than a third of the air/rail market share even on NYC-Boston, that route could resemble the main Shinkansen corridor, would it be built. In Japan, your good idea of two sets of stops is already realised, BTW -- in fact there are even three classes of trains in terms of how many stops they have. But first voters have to be convinced to pay the price tag...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 06:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: High Speed Trains (none / 0)
Pay the price tag? Did you forget we're talking about the US? Why couldn't the US pay for this the way it pays for its wars, by selling War Bonds to the Asians?

Anyway, the voters have already been spoken for: as Reagan said, Americans don't like trains.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 07:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

High Speed Trains | 76 comments (76 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: