http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/faa
In the cities where they will be stopping, high-speed trains can use the existing stations and the tracks just need to be electrified. The track improvements between the cities wouldn’t be cheap, but we’re not starting this whole thing from scratch. There is signifigant usable infrastructure already in place.
Well, on the air traffic subject, first off your cite is over a year old. Not that I dispute that upgrades need to be made to it (I don’t have an opinion on that one way or the other), we’d still have to pay that whether we get HSR or not…it’s a sunk cost. So, it still doesn’t address your point or what I said in response…but thanks for the cite. I haven’t read Wired in a long time.
Your cite shows nothing of the kind. It merely shows rail stations in the US…it doesn’t explain how they could or would be used for a new HSR system. Would the trackage be the same gage? I doubt it. Would it run along the same lines? No way. At least not if it’s like any OTHER HSR system in the world. The grades are wrong, the gage is wrong, the curves are wrong…they were all made for our CURRENT rail traffic. Same with the rail stations. Oh, you MAY be able to use some of the grades and maybe even some of the stations (with extensive modifications, not just of the trackage but safety and control features), but we are talking about a hell of a lot of money regardless. Hundreds of billions…maybe trillions if we are talking about an extensive system. Hell, the Japanese ALREADY have such a system, and it costs them big dollars when they add to it. We don’t have any of it…not the initial infrastructure, not the control systems, not the trains.
-XT
Doesn’t work for your example, I admit, but along a lot of routes low-cost motorcoach service would serve you well. Along with the well-known Chinatown buses, providers like Megabus and Boltbus are entering the market - providing a comfortable ride, Internet access, free movies and refreshments for very low cost.
My wife rode Boltbus from DC to Penn Station in NY. It cost $20. She slept for a good portion of the trip and had no complaints at all.
DC is a good market for this - there are a lot of providers going lots of places.
Right. So that’s why the TGV uses brand-new buildings like this :dubious: One of the very deliberate design elements of European systems is that they do use appropriate infrastructure, especially within cities. Until the channel tunnel link opened a few months ago, Eurostar trains made their way through Kent and into London along the suburban network.
And they use the same gage as their (or our) old rail system? If so then I stand corrected and my apologies. I didn’t know you could run HSR on old trackage.
What did their system cost btw?
-XT
It’s not a sunk cost yet. In this country, we like to travel from place to place, and we expect the government to provide the infrastructure to make it possible. And nothing we have now will handle the expected demand without signifigant improvement and investment. Increasing population density, advances in rail technology, and the increasing cost of fossil fuels point to rail travel becoming a more viable option. When and where it is the most attractive and efficient way of meeting our travel needs, we should do it.
The U.S. uses standard gauge. And every place where I’ve ridden high-speed rail (Germany, France, Belgium), the trains share the same stations with all the other passenger trains. South Station in Boston handles Acela, other Amtrak service, and commuter rail. Give me a cite that we can’t do the same thing in other cities.
Here is a Wiki article on the TGV…the trackage seems to be different than the older system and had to be replaced. Using the old train station is only part of the problem, as I said.
According to this , the initial (presumably 1980’s) cost was $4million/km…and the current expansion cost is $10-15 million/km (I assume in US dollars…but more if it’s in Euros).
According to the cite this is one of the cheaper systems out there. So, lets take the $15 million per km figure (for track only, mind). NY to DC (one of the probable connections) is 330 KM (roughly)…which would be around $5 billion. That’s a hell of a lot of money for a connection between DC and NY (and doesn’t count all the other costs)…no? And that’s just one link.
-XT
Why aren’t we simply running HSR trains across our existing trackage then Robot? Some kind of conspiracy? If all you have to do is plop a shiny new fast train on top of it then why isn’t someone doing that? Gage is only one factor (and you seem to be right…I was wrong that they don’t run on standard gage. I thought a lot of the new rail systems ran on double gage or some kind of other rail gage)…slope, curve, bank etc all factor in. If we COULD run HSR on our existing track we WOULD be running it…some bright guy would have figure that out already, don’t you think?
Thanks again for the cite though…I didn’t know that about standard gage and clearly I was wrong there.
-XT
We need to get Nevada on board with HSR. The first rail system can set its major hub in Las Vegas, then build out to major cities in all directions. Keep the tickets cheap with subsidies from casino taxes, and folks will pour into Vegas like a flood to spend money. Once the initial infrastructure questions are worked out, then the system can be built out further to handle non-Las Vegas travel.
OK, this needs clarifying. In cities, near stations, there’s no need for high speeds, so trains can use other infrastructure. Then, when the surroundings make it possible, the dedicated high speed track branches away.
I thought I was clear on this, but I’ll try again.
High-speed trains can travel on standard-gauge track. Other factors, such as turn radius, limit how fast the train can operate on those tracks. With some slight modifications (such as electrification) high-speed trains can use existing stations and the nearby tracks. The track limitations will not signifigantly impact the operation because the train will be slowing down to stop at the station anyway.
Outside of the cities, much greater (and, admittedly, more expensive) track improvements or new track will be needed to permit the trains to operate at high speeds.
Think of it like a car. You don’t do 70 miles-per-hour in your driveway, you don’t park on the freeway. Each part of the system is designed for the needs of the traffic that will use it.
My point was that a high-speed rail system can be built more cheaply by using elements that are already in place.
Well, instead of a $50 billion system that few people use, you might have a $10 billion system that few people use, which I guess is an improvement.
No, I understand both of your points, and I grasped that when you showed me they can use the same gage trackage (standard). MY point (after that correction) is that even if you use existing stations and even trackage close to the stations there is going to be fairly large expenses incured by bringing the REST of the system up to snuff…and probably going to entail at a minimum all new tracks in between, or at least heavy modification to the existing system. Not to mention that I’m sure you will need modifications to the existing stations and such as well.
From the cite I gave earlier on the French system they are talking about 10-15 million dollars per kilometer. Even if you cut out, say, 30km of that distance between NY and DC I mentioned, you are still talking about 300km (say, $3 billion dollars at the lower figure), and that’s just for the track infrastructure. No idea what all the OTHER systems (software, hardware, safety, trains, etc) would cost…another $2 billion? More?
And that’s just for one link between NY and DC (though granted you would leverage some of the other capital costs on subsequent links). That’s a lot of money to essentially duplicate not only the air and car system we already have but the rail system that already is there as well (I assume…I took a train from DC to NY once so I assume the service is still there)…no?
-XT
We need a HSR service Chicago-Detroit/Windsor-London-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City. That would take care of the Great Lakes Corridor, and there could be a branch from Montreal to New York to connect to the Northeast Corridor.
It wouldn’t even have to be the highest of high-speed rail either. The Swedish X-2000 tilting train travels around 200 km/h and was built through similar climate and terrain, and it is far superior to current VIA/Amtrak service.
They’re redoing a 10 mile (16km) strech of Interstate 64 here in St. Louis, MO to the tune of $535+ mill or $33m/km. Context is everything.
As you say…context is everything. Assuming your quote is correct, they are RE-DOING a stretch of EXISTING infrastructure…i.e. they are fixing what’s already there. Again, this is a sunk cost unless you think that a HSR system would replace the existing infrastructure…IOW, we’d have to pay for this AND a HSR system (and of course that will incur maintenance costs as well).
Additionally, those were numbers from the French system (which the cited article concedes is the cheapest in the world). I used it as a rough ballpark…I don’t think that realistically it would be cheaper (or even as cheap) here in the US, especially not between DC and NY (which would be quite expensive). Do you?
-XT
I think our (American) view of HSR is also somewhat skewed. You say HSR I think “train” in general. Trains here SUCK. They are expensive and take forever.
HSR would be a SWEET improvement and I’d take it, more so than flying, I’ve tried to fly home from school 3 times, every time so far the flights been canceled, or delayed long enough that it made more sense to drive.
Plunk down the cash and start building me some effective public transportation, the U.S. needs it.
The thing is, the US isn’t Europe. It isn’t Japan either. It’s the US. We have spent the last half century (at least) building up our car and air infrastructure and shifting away from our rail system. We are also a really BIG country size wise. So, our population centers are…well, not as central as those in Europe or Japan.
So…we already have a pretty major investment in the current infrastructure. We’ve spent the last century decreasing our use of our rail system. And we don’t have the same geographic situation as our pals in Japan or our buddies in Europe.
It’s no big wonder that we don’t have a HSR system in the US (yet). Even a limited system would be highly expensive and would essentially be redundant, having to compete with car (bus), air and our older, existing rail system. How many people would use such a system if you made it limited to a point to point connections between a few cities? How would you justify spending the billions necessary? Conversely, if you attempted a more wide spread system, how would you find the funds for the hundreds of billions or even trillions needed to make the system wide spread? And again, how would you make it competitive with the existing transport systems?
Any way you slice it I am not holding my breath for a HSR system in the US…certainly not a ‘national-scale high speed rail’ system from the OP. On a personal level I would LOVE a HSR connection between Albuquerque and Phoenix or Tucson…or Denver or even Dallas. Let alone one that allowed me to travel to California, Washington or back east. But it ain’t gona happen…it’s to damn expensive and it would be redundant to what we already have.
-XT
It hits home the point about all other forms of transportation infrastructure being footed by the government and the relative cost of those compared to this new infrastructure. This is just maintenance and it’s costing twice what the French HSR initial layout was (although in a highly populated area). On top of that, don’t you think maintenance on other forms of transportation would be reduced if HSR was thrown into the equation? Logically, there would be less use of airports and interstates.
If the cost isn’t absurd in comparison to our other forms of transportation infrastructure (and it’s not when you consider what airports and interstates cost) it only becomes a matter of priorities. Is this where we want to invest our ‘transportation dollars’?
Frankly, I think it is low on the list of priorities, myself. What I’d prefer is to see airports and downtown areas become transportation hubs for both rail and motorcoach service. In general the rail wouldn’t have to be high speed - it would just need to be efficient.
I think you could pair this development with the development of additional airports to ease crowding at major ones. Most of the delay that exists currently is on the ground and gate, and many small municipal airports are underutilized. Infrastructure improvements to them would be reasonably simple, and they would be used if connections to other areas could be assured. Islip seems to have been pretty successful in recent years by doing this out on Long Island.
