Jump to content
Manny T

High Speed Rail Proposed for United City-States of America

Recommended Posts

Check out this map from the Washington Post for a new high speed rail system for the United City-States of America:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/29/six-maps-that-will-make-you-rethink-the-world/?wpisrc=nl_az_most

Interesting, thanks for sharing!

 

If only the morons in Congress and State and Local Governments would read and understand this, we could quit begging for pennies to keep our inadequate and outdated rail transportation systems running!🙈🙉🙊

Edited by Bob Dylan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the first national system high speed rail proposal. Here are some others:

 

America 2050: http://www.america2050.org/pdf/2050_Map_Passenger_Network.pdf

 

California Rail Map/ First Cultural.com: https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~atwu/maps/US-High-Speed-Rail-System-by-FirstCultural-2013-02-03.pdf

 

US High Speed Rail Association: http://www.ushsr.com/ushsrmap.html

Edited by Philly Amtrak Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$$$$$

Don't you mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see California's high speed rail is already under construction. Brightline (also under construction) is doing something similar to what has been proposed in Florida many times, even though trains will only hit 125mph.

Edited by Caesar La Rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes BoulderCO the Empire Builder is gone in the sense that the route is not a high speed route under the proposal. The thinking behind this imaginary proposal is to divide the U.S. into 7 regions and then, instead of dividing it by state lines, connecting it by high speed rail lines that link the URBAN centers--where "everybody" is going to live. Denver is the urban center for the Great Plains region. It will be linked to St. Louis and Kansas City to the east and Salt Lake City to the west. The trains are viewed in this proposal as a carrier for trade, commerce and passengers, not scenic looking out of the window type activities. Maybe Amtrak will still be around to run land cruises and pleasure excursions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I believe Amtrak can run HSR along the Acela (BOS-WAS), Keystone (HAR-NYP), and Wolverine (CHI-DET/Pontiac), and they are working on CHI-STL HSR. There are studies underway in the Midwest (http://www.midwesthsr.org/) and Southeast (http://www.sehsr.org/). Connect Harrisburg to either Detroit or Chicago and you've potentially got a brand new faster Broadway Limited between NYP/PHL and CHI. In the Southeast, WAS-ATL looks to be in motion. If they can get ATL to Florida (ORL/MIA) that could be the new NEC to Florida route (instead of Silver Star we can call it Gold Star) and while it would be longer it would include several larger cities along the route. I would say that would be a good start towards a national HSR map.

 

NEC to Chicago: NYP-PHL-HAR-PGH-CLE-TOL-DET-CHI

 

NEC to Florida: NYP-PHL-WAS-Richmond-Raleigh-CLT-ATL-Florida

 

If we ever can get around Shore Line East's capacity limits we can extend either or both to BOS.

 

Certainly there's progress in California and there is talk of a Dallas-Houston route (Texas Central) but connecting either of those to Chicago is going to be much longer in distance and there aren't as many big cities in between. Anything from Chicago to California is almost certainly going to go through Denver with a connection to Xpress West. CHI-STL soon will be HSR, they can either go from STL to DAL along the TE route or go from STL to KCY and then along the old Lone Star to Dallas/Houston with San Antonio another option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amtrak does not have any segment that would be rightfully called HSR anywhere else in the world these days. A few small segments of the NEC spine come close. But that's about it. There is nothing in PHL - HAR, or the Michigan Line that would be called HSR by anyone except a few in the US, and there is little chance that using the current ROW they will ever become HSR by world standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amtrak does not have any segment that would be rightfully called HSR anywhere else in the world these days. A few small segments of the NEC spine come close. But that's about it. There is nothing in PHL - HAR, or the Michigan Line that would be called HSR by anyone except a few in the US, and there is little chance that using the current ROW they will ever become HSR by world standard.

 

They're clearly the gold standard of the US even though by worldwide standards they are poor. Even if Amtrak averages 90 mph on a CHI-PGH-NYP line (925 miles) that's a 10-11 hr trip which many on this board would sign up for. And at the very least there isn't the freight interference problems on the Keystone and Wolverine routes that plague other routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a fast Front Range train as much as anyone, but calling Albuquerque-Pueblo an "urban corridor" is just silly. Small towns, separated by tens of miles of unpopulated open country.

 

Ainam "230 miles from Santa Fe to Walsenburg: three stops, maybe?" Kartma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one were dreaming of a national high speed rail network, wouldn't a direct link Kansas City to Chicago be an obvious part of the dream?

 

Ainamkartma

 

Currently CHI-STL-KCY is 567 miles and takes 12 hr 15 min (303-313, including 1 hr layover in STL) while CHI-KCY is 437 miles and takes 7 hr 11 min.

 

But IF (big IF) we can run these trains at 100 mph, then the difference between a STL diversion and going straight through would be maybe an hour and a half which might be worth it to include STL than going straight through. It also depends on how well the Illinois HSR CHI-STL is going. If that gets done, it's fewer miles to link that to STL (283 mil) than a brand new 437 mile track and St. Louis is way more populous than the Quad Cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get 90mph average on the CHI - NYP route we will need to get something like 125mph max speed on significant part of the route. That is not going to happen easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get 90mph average on the CHI - NYP route we will need to get something like 125mph max speed on significant part of the route. That is not going to happen easily.

 

Give me 70 mph then, still an improvement. And it's not just the speed, it's eliminating freight interference. I remember practically sitting on the CL just outside of WAS, assumedly because of CSX. We get a freight free line between HAR and DET or HAR and CHI and I wouldn't even care that much about the speed.

 

CP offered $28 billion to buy NS. How much do you think it will take to just buy HAR-CHI from NS? $10-$15B? Not that Congress will spend it but at least put some figures out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since presumably we are talking a hostile takeover, the price is hard to pin down. I doubt anyone will agree to an eminent domain kind of deal for such at present. Maybe in 30 years, when we have transformed the US into a socialist heaven. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to buy it, then you have to upgrade it. So go ahead and double the figure for just buying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

$$$$$

Don't you mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

 

This country can afford the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But even if we had that much in budget surpluses over as many years as it takes to build, it would never happen IMHO. Look at all the fighting over FEC Brightline and CAL high speed line on issues that had nothing to do with the cost of building the lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$$$$$

Don't you mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

This country can afford the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But even if we had that much in budget surpluses over as many years as it takes to build, it would never happen IMHO. Look at all the fighting over FEC Brightline and CAL high speed line on issues that had nothing to do with the cost of building the lines.

Not to mention Congress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast distances in that proposal are just a pipe dream....we already have high speed transportation in those markets much more suitable....you know....airliner's.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a good point. The author doesn't provide any justification beyond the map itself to explain why high speed rail would be desirable on these long distance routes, as opposed to air travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×