Firstly, I think we should use only tried-and-tested technology, such as wheels-on-steel (not maglev). Let’s assume they can do a maximum of 200 mph, which is roughly in line with Japan and French trains.
Build the following lines to start with:
West Coast Line: Vancouver BC - San Diego
East Coast Line: Boston - Atlanta
Build several parallel tracks, so you can run services with different stopping patterns, to maximise speeds.
At 200mph, city centre to city centre, the fastest pattern should do:
LA-San Francisco: just under 2 hours
Boston-DC: 2hrs, 20min or so
What’s the problem? Like the interstate system, surely this would pay back far more than it cost to build?
Thanks for the second link, but I’m not sure the thread is relevant: I’m not talking about crossing the continent East-West here, just lines through densely populated areas (to counter the American exceptionalist “waaa you don’t know how big it is here” line, which is touted as if China, India and the EU are tiny city-states).
Btw things here really do have to appeal to patriotism don’t they?
How is being forced into building a system 40 years after other countries by high oil prices a ‘leadership role’? Not that I think it’s a bad idea, but come on.
Why on earth would you pick Atlanta? So you could stop off in Roanoke & Knoxville along the way?
If this was at all anything more than a pipe dream, it seems to me that after heading south from DC the likely stops along the way would be Charlotte, Charleston, Jacksonville and Miami.
Making it economically viable. Do you have any indications that people want to use this kind of rail system here in the US? Is there a big demand for it that is currently going unmet? If so…why isn’t anyone doing it? My guess would be it costs to much for your ROI.
How do you figure that? Again, a good place to start would be to determine if there is even a need for this rail system…and then how much it would cost. You’d most likely have to put down all new track and infrastructure, then you’d need to build or buy the trains and cars from some where…all that is going to cost a lot. Having paid it…who will use it? Are you going to subsidize it’s use to bring down the ticket prices? If not, what do you expect an average ticket to cost? What would the operating costs be for such a beast?
Here is the thing…In Japan and Europe these things are more popular than here in the US for several reasons…a big one is that the distances to travel are smaller between population points. Also, populations are more dense in Europe and Japan than here in the US.
I can’t see there would be a huge need for every day travel between Boston and DC…not enough to warrant a line there. Or LA to San Fransisco either. So…who do you expect your customers would be exactly?
I agree with you in some respects, but I think you are off base in a couple of key areas. The Boston to DC corridor has plenty of density to support rail (and I’m pretty sure San Diego to San Fransisco does too) . I don’t have numbers on hand, but I’m fairly certain that train ridership in this corridor is at an all time high even with half-assed system we currently have. Also, I think this is a case where there is less demand because good service doesn’t exist. Air travel is a huge hassle for a short trip like DC to Boston. As the cost of oil and congestion go up, driving becomes less appealing as well. If we had a better rail system in this corridor that could cut down the time of the trip to something faster than the time to drive, and faster than the time to fly when you factor in time at the airport, I think the demand for rail would go through the roof.
The thing is I guarantee the system will never make money, just like highways and airports don’t (and neither have most airlines minus government bailouts). We have to stop looking at rail as a business, pretty much all transit is a money loser.
I’d love to see the numbers, but I lived in the DC metro area for years and used to go to Boston and NY all the time…and I don’t think that the number of commuters would be sufficient to make such and expensive system viable. AFAIK the DC Metro isn’t doing all that great economically…and it’s quite an expensive system to use (and it takes a long time to get from the outer terminals in MD to those in DC…using it added an hour to my commute at least). I suppose that now that gas has gotten more expensive it may be getting more use and perhaps doing better than it was when I was there.
As for San Fran to LA…I actually don’t know about that personally to be honest. Perhaps with it’s high population density, and assuming a heave level of commuters back and forth, such a system my be viable there. Though as I understand it there are some engineering problems with creating such a rail system in California…but this is just from memory.
ETA: I see that you concede it’s not economically viable. So, you think that the government should subsidize this kind of system? What do you suppose the costs would be?
The first question that comes to my mind is where do you put the right of way for these proposed lines?
One reason that the Acela trains aren’t nearly as fast as they were originally proposed to be was that they had to run on the current rail lines, because the cost of acquiring additional land for right of ways was going to be prohibitively expensive.
I’m not saying it’s an insurmountable obstacle, but it is a significant one. Especially through the Boston, Hartford, NYC to DC lines. I’m not as familiar with land issues south of DC, but I think that at the very least the expenses for getting right of ways through Richmond would be almost as prohibitive.
XT, I agree that eminent domain is a governmental policy that can be abused horribly - but it doesn’t get land for free: Even the most questionable uses I’ve read about it being used had the government entity offering what was at least claimed to be a fair market value for the land.
So the cost issues are still there, even if you don’t have to worry about recalcitrant land owners.
I know.
You are quite right…even using it there would still be costs and they would be quite high. Since you couldn’t use the existing rail infrastructure you’d have to essentially build it all over again from scratch (or give up on high speed rain transport). Certainly the government COULD pay for such a system…but I think it would be mega-costly and would be a constant drain as it would never even come close to breaking even.
I think there are things we could better spend hundreds of billions of dollars on…like, say, the XT Retirement Fund! I’m not greedy…just give me one percent and I’m happy.
I think it’s pretty accepted that, when you factor in capital costs, infrastructure rarely turns a direct profit. But we still build bridges, which bring in no income whatsoever-why? Because we think it’s an acceptable use of public money which benefits everyone in the long term, like roads, education, medical care and military defence.
Please don’t pull the low population density American exceptionalist line on me- this isn’t some kind of drastic new project that America would be pioneering. Japan did this a long time ago with a shinkansen line to Hokkaido, which I’ll bet (no cite, sorry) passes through more empty areas than a Boston-Atlanta line would.
For those who don’t think a better rail system is a necessity, consider these factors: Our highways system is being stretched to the breaking point with wear and traffic (I’ve seen claims that traffic is going to double int he next 30 years), our current sprawl based development patterns that are predicated on cheap land and cheap oil are unsustainable (and unhealthy to boot), air travel is a nightmare with huge lines and important airports like NY and ATL operating at what is basically peak capacity.
I’m not saying that rail would completely solve these problems, but it certainly should be part of the solution. Once the infrastructure is built, its the cheapest, most environmentally friendly, and most efficient way to move large amounts of people and goods. I have no illusions that upgrading our rail system would be cheap. But it is becoming a necessity.
What we need is to realign our priorities. I see roads and highways around me being expanded all the time? Does anyone think that its done cheaply? Of course not. But people have the attitude that roads are a necessity and a birthright, so its done damn the cost in dollars and to the community. Yet people keep expecting rail to turn a profit.
Personally, I would love to see congress investigate a rail version of the Interstate Highway Act of the 50’s. There are tons of railroad right of ways that the government owns that pretty much sit dormant, maybe they can be reused for such a project. I would favor building an improved rail network in the following places:
First Phase
Boston – Charlotte (can eventually be expanded to Atlanta)
San Diego – San Fransisco
NY or Philly – Milwaukee (through Chicago)
Second Phase
Dallas – Houston (expand to New Orleans eventually)
Miami – Orlando – Tampa (hopefully connect to Atlanta one day)
Seattle – Portland
There are already a lot of people traveling the specified routes by car or by plane. HSR simply provides a third option – cheaper than planes, faster than cars, and more comfortable than either. There’s your potential market.
Inertia, overinvestment (of all forms) in the car culture.
As for “economically viable,” the interstate highway system is – but was built entirely by public funds.
