If we’re talking a North American view, it’s time for us Great Lakes people to become involved. I therefore propose a Chicago-Detroit-Windsor-London-Toronto-Ottawa-Montréal-Québec HSR line. This would extend and supersede the “Corridor” lines operated by Via, revive the Toronto-Chicago train that no longer runs (because it was deadly slow), and plug Detroit back into the network. While we’re at it, let’s connect Montréal back to NYC.
It’s a lot cheaper (and a lot easier for the government there to grab) than it is here in the US on the eastern seaboard (or in California). Certainly land in Japan is expensive in the major population centers (but their real estate still hasn’t recovered from their crash), but not outside of those areas…not like here in the US going between cities like Boston and Atlanta. Unless you were planning to go way out of the way of course.
Could be, I was going from memory. I thought that some of the infrastructure, grades and maybe older station platforms had been reused.
To be sure…which is going to add a lot to the cost and the the travel time of the commuters. It’s also going to cut down on being able to run your train at anything approaching 200 mph if you have to stop frequently…no?
-XT
Not if you have different stopping patterns.
On the train from Tokyo to Osaka, there are trains that stop at every town (kodama) and those that stop only at the biggest cities (nozomi).
So you can have both super-long-distance high speed and more local services.
pdts
You know, one other thing that keep niggling at the back of my mind… Does anyone think a brand new, expensive HSR through densely populated US areas wouldn’t be crawling with pain-in-the-ass security checks and the like? Half the reason I drive to LA is because airport security is such a clusterfuck.
The system seems to be getting more and more complex as we progress through the thread. 
And yes, that is certainly one solution. I don’t remember a non-stop train when I was in Japan for long distances…I remember it stopping fairly periodically. But that could have been due to my own igorance in buying the wrong kind of ticket…lord knows I was having enough problem trying to figure out their street system (which didn’t seem to have names of individual streets but instead like district addresses or some such).
-XT
FWIW, they tried to set up airport style protections for the Fast Ferry that was here, so I think you’re on to something here. Though, it has to be noted that Fast Ferry was crossing international borders, so it isn’t a perfect parallel.
Really?
Perhaps you can point out the added complexity?
pdts
But isn’t he talking about a single network? Is it necessary that the Boston-New York leg connect with the Boston-Providence leg? For that matter, mightn’t New York and Boston prefer links that ease the hassle for people who live in their own suburbs and commute daily to the city for work, rather than benefit the people who occasionally travel between the two cities?
Well, how many? More than drive from Long Island to Manhattan daily? More than Worcester to Boston? Seriously, I don’t know. It may turn out that instead of building long rail lines to replace long highway drives that people do sometimes, the real improvement potential is in shorter rail lines that replace the shorter drives they do daily.
Fair enough. The 130 mph number I gave is for the average Nozomi speed between Osaka and Tokyo.
I’m not sure I’m following you. It’s not so much a network as just one line that passes through lots of cities along the way. A train leaves Boston. At Providence, some people stay on board, some get off, some others get on. Boston-New York and Boston-Providence don’t need to connect; they’re happening at the same time, on the same train.
My point was that it’s foolish to judge this thing on the number of people who would ride it all the way. Few people would use it that way. Few people drive from Bar Harbor to San Diego, but that doesn’t mean no one is using the interstates.
Boston and New York City both have commuter rail systems like you describe, and both are used by many people. No need for high-speed systems there; the journeys between stations are so short that you’d never use that capability.
I think that’s a bit of a false dilemma. If high-speed rail lines along both seaboards are technically feasible and would serve a sufficient public good, it should happen. If increased commuter rail capacity is needed, do that. For that matter, if there’s sufficient demand for upgrading our air-traffic control infrastructure, do that, too. And if one of those projects obviates the need for another, figure out what makes the most long-term sense and do it.
Well, there’s the proposal for a Great Lakes line hitting Chicago-Toronto and points between. And there have been some extensions proposed for the East and West coast lines, too.
That’s what I assumed XT had been referring to.
You must have taken the wrong trains. Just about every railway in Japan (including commuter rail, but maybe not subways) have trains with different stopping patterns. “Local” vs. “Express” at the very least, sometimes a couple more different types (e.g. local - rapid - express - limited express).
Inter-city rail lines should connect cities. I certainly think a suburban mass transit would also be useful, but I don’t think you can combine the two. The Shinkansen has several stops within the Tokyo metropolitan area, but that’s so people can get on/off the Shinkansen at the one closest to their origin/destination. Nobody rides it between those tops - the commuter lines are cheaper and run more frequently.
But picture this - you can build a high-speed rail that links the southwestern outskirts of Boston (with the train station adjoining one of Boston’s own local mass-transit systems, possibly the Riverside subway station or some other major access point) and run it through the relatively sparse territory to northern New York, say the Wakefield station. That’ll do for anyone travelling between those cities. Now, if you want to go from New York to, say, Washington D.C., maybe you could build your high-speed link to start at the Bay Ridge station (the southeastern extreme of NYC’s mass-transit system), cross the Verranzo-Narrows bridge and meander southwest. This is moderately feasible.
It would be nice to have the high-speed line unbroken so someone could ride Boston-Washington without have to change trains, but that would involve laying new track through New York City, some of the most densely-populated territory in the world. With unlimited funding and no-restraint eminent domain, it could be done, I guess. You’d probably be better off genetically engineering giant gophers to dig tunnels for you.
Heck, I’m not even suggesting anyone try. Rather than spend $50 billion for a long-range link of dubious benefit, it’d be nice to see $10 billion spent in each of five major cities to bring their local mass-transit systems up to date. I’d start with a list of problem areas (as in the bottleneck list cited earlier) and see what could be done at the local level.
Much of it would be underground, of course. And it doesn’t have to go through the center of NYC, though that would be ideal.
Why does it have to be one or the other? I don’t hear too many people say “let’s improve our city streets instead of building interstates.”
Well, we can assume limitless funding, if you prefer. Then everybody can have a jetpack.
Can I get a rocket powered pony instead??
-XT
High speed trains can run on the slow-speed tracks, they just have to go, well, slow. How about we run this new train from downtown Boston to midtown Manhattan, but at the ends we just merge into the regular traffic on the existing tracks? it’s more convenient than switching trains, anyway.
That’s what the Acela does now. It could be faster than it already is (I think having to plod along with the regular trains from New Haven to New York is the real killer.) But maybe that gives us a way to implement a high-speed system incrementally. We could build a new high-speed bypass from New Haven to New Rochelle; valuable real estate, to be sure, but nothing like Manhattan. That might shave 30 minutes off every trip along that route, make it that much more competitive with the air shuttles. Find where we can get the most improvement for the least money.
(From what I could tell, that’s pretty much how the high speed trains in France and Germany work, too. You have to get a little bit outside of the cities before you really put the spurs to her.)
By the way, Riverside would be a non-starter. The green line uses surface-level trolleys. The D branch to Riverside is dedicated right-of-way, but it’s still 40 minutes or so from downtown. And there’s already a suburban Boston station at Rte. 128.
I’m just wondering why you’re painting it as “commuter rail vs. inter-city rail,” as if there’s a fixed amount allocated to all rail transport. Commuter rail funding should be discussed in the context of city planning; if it competes for funding, it’s against construction and maintenance of city streets, suburban bypasses, etc. Inter-city rail is an alternative to inter-city freeways and airline travel, and should compete for funding against those.
Sorry… can we re-state why this inter-city rail system is desirable in the first place, and what advantages it will have over each of its alternatives–cars, buses, current trains, planes?