Sleelsup[/sup], the thing that impressed me the most about the CA-HSR representatives at the meeting that I attended was that they were the opposite of slimy salespeople. They were facing a public audience containing skeptics as well as boosters, with impressive knowledge both of global HSR efforts and existing US rail networks (intercity and commuter). The CA-HSR people seemed to have really done their homework, but were not ashamed to admit lack of specific knowledge (i.e. rather than insulting the audience by blustering).
[QUOTE=MarcusF]
That’s interesting - I hadn’t realised the French TGVs used any existing tracks.
[/QUOTE]
Most people are surprised at how much time TGV trains spend on conventional tracks (“lignes classiques”). Here is a map showing the French LGVs (lignes à grande vitesse, dedicated high-speed lines) in blue. For a trip such as Paris-Bordeaux, the TGV train spends most of its time on pre-existing (although somewhat upgraded) track; usually no additional acquisition of land is required. Apparently, system-wide, only about 25% of TGV distance traveled is on new, dedicated high-speed track. (This same link shows that there has never been a fatality on a TGV while traveling on high-speed track – however, when they’re on the lignes classiques they are as subject to accidents on level crossings / grade crossings as any normal train on the same tracks).
[QUOTE=MarcusF]
One of the major costs of the British Channel Tunnel Rail Link was the 11.5 mile tunnels under north London to allow high speead (160mph + ) running almost all the way into St Pancras.
The existing suburban tracks through London are hopelessly congested and have been one of major problems delaying the Eurostar trains when they went into Waterloo. Up-thread, when talking about the North East Corridor, the assumption seems to have been that you either use existing tracks and rights of way or you have to buy up some of the most expensive real estate on the planet. The CTRL into London does give another option.
[/QUOTE]
South London posed a specific set of problems that were unlike those faced in Paris, or what would apply in the US North-East Corridor (NEC). Whereas existing conventional (i.e. non-Metro or RER) tracks in Paris tended to radiate outwards from the center, suburban rail in South London more closely resembles a spider’s websup[/sup], which made the Folkestone (i.e. Chunnel) - London route difficult to implement. In addition, electrification south of the Thames was all third-rail rather than overhead. The combined result was that hundreds of millions of pounds were spent on a route that only lasted for 13 years; Waterloo International, an architectural marvel built at the cost of £135 million (probably US$400 million in 2008 dollars, with inflation) opened in Nov 1994, and closed in Nov 2007. This is what the “International” part of Waterloo looks like today. One can claim that it was a necessary part of the ongoing saga of trans-Channel rail, but from a US perspective (Devils’ Advocate, in my case) it looks terrible. The fact that Eurostar was switched from Waterloo to St Pancras in a US$10 billion upgrade (CTRL), whose main claim to fame is that it shaves 40 minutes off the London-Paris trip, is not something that I would use to try to sell Americans on real HSR.
North-East Corridor:
As I mentioned in post #110 above, there’s a case to be made that the NEC is too densely-populated to make it a good candidate for HSR, at least until some other HSR system (California?) has paved the way. The problems that I see are partly geographic and partly political. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll limit the study to Washington-NYC, since that’s the make-or-break part of the network. NYC-Boston has a completely different set of parameters, and can be the subject of a later post.
First off, here’s a rundown of the major stops between Washington DC and New York City on the various Amtrak NEC services (Acela Express and regular). Mileage is given from Washington’s Union Station:
[ul]
[li] 000 miles Washington, DC (2007 passengers 4,108,569, #2 in US) [PDF][/li][li] 040 miles Baltimore, MD (2007 passengers 977,379, #7 in US) [PDF][/li][li] 109 miles Wilmington, DE (2007 passengers 711,570, #11 in US) [PDF][/li][li] 134 miles Philadelphia, PA (2007 passengers 3,674,255, #3 in US) [PDF][/li][li] 215 miles Newark, NJ (2007 passengers 625,853, #13 in US) [PDF][/li][li] 225 miles New York, NY (Penn Station) (2007 passengers 8,027,976, #1 in US) [PDF][/li][/ul]
Current schedules are here (PDF). Now, note that – with the exception of one train in each direction per day that stops at Philadelphia only, all Acela Express trains stop at (at least) Baltimore MD, Wilmington DE, Philadelphia PA, and Newark NJ. Note that this is (at least) one stop in each of the intermediary states between DC and NY.
The above demonstrates the political tightrope upon which rail travel in the US walks. On the one hand you have John McCain, the Presidential candidate who is apparently anti-rail, and on the other hand you have Senator Joe Biden, who commutes 90 minutes each way to the Senate on Amtrak from his home in Wilmington, Del. He has done so since 1972 when he was first elected, at 29, as the Senate’s second youngest member in history.. Biden is probably Amtrak’s best friend in the US Senate, but he’s also why Wilmington DE (pop ~70k) gets a stop on every Acela Express (except one per weekday in each direction). If a future HSR line goes through Delaware, you can bet that it’s going to stop in Wilmington. It could fairly easily go around Delaware, but then it’s just lost 2 of its 10 potential Senate supporters as well as possible DE state funding. MD, PA, and NJ are muchsup[/sup] harder to bypass, so you just know that most future HSR trains are going to stop in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Newark.
So a major problem in the NEC is that even if you could buy new land cheaply for dedicated HSR tracks, which major cities would you bypass? In the UK, “Kent” doesn’t hold the same comparative political power as “Pennsylvania” does in the US system, and Ashford is easier to bypass than Philadelphiasup[/sup].
All in all, IMHO it will be easier to motivate the NEC by jealousy directed at a well-planned-and operated California system a few years from now, than it would be to get world-class HSR running on the NEC as a test case.
Finally, a few more numbers:
Here – once again – is Amtrak’s current Washington-NYC schedule (PDF). If one goes to www.amtrak.com and enters “WAS” as the “Departs” station and “NYP” as the “Arrives” station and selects “Weekday”, one can see the cost for Acela Express as compared to regular service for the Washington-New York City route.
Now, let’s say that you want to arrive in NYC shortly before 9am. Great! There’s an Acela Express (#X2100) that departs Washington at 06:00 and arrives at Penn Station at 08:48. Cost? $194 one-way. But wait… there’s a train leaving DC at 05:30 that gets in at 08:42 (only 24 minutes longer trip) for $98, or about half the price. I’m pretty sure that that’s the train that I would take. Now, what’s that you say? You’re going to build a new system – only a few years after the Acela – that costs billions of dollars but saves maybe 40 minutes max for WAS-NYP? What’s that going to cost per ticket? $300? Great, we’re subsidizing Donald Trump…
Now, compare that with California. One single state, with the Governor, both Senators, and most Congressional reps behind it. Currently, if one wants to take Amtrak from SF to LA, the fastest route (the San Joaquin service bus across the Bay to Emeryville, then train to Bakersfield, then bus to LA) takes 8hr51min and costs $52. [The Coast Starlight , which is rail all the way from the Bay Area to LA is $60 and takes 12hr40min – much prettier route but s-l-o-w.] Well, not too surprising there – you’re talking about routes laid out as freight lines in the 19th century. However, a PERFECT test case for dedicated HSR. There’s some definite complication at either end in the urbanized areas, but the CA-HSR plans seem very realizable to me – and I’m not easily swayed.
With California-HSR operational and successful, other regions of the US (note: regions, not a transcontinental network – at least to start with) can take the hard data and apply them to their own situations. By then, it’ll be much easier to sell.
Fund CA-HSR NOW! ($10 billion State, $10 billion private, $10 billion Federal).
sup[/sup] Sorry for decapitalizing your name in post #115, Sleel – mea culpa, and no slight intended!
sup[/sup] I was born in Purley and grew up in Croydon, so you’ll have to trust me on this.
sup[/sup] Candidate for the “Understatement of the Century” award.
sup[/sup] I’ve been to Ashford, and I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Philadelphia. The latter is – quite considerably larger.
) that they have done extensive engineering, financial, and customer research, and aren’t just a bunch of pro-train nuts. IMHO, if world-class HSR can be initiated successfully anywhere in the US, given current and near-term-foreseeable conditions and technology, it’s in the (San Diego) - Los Angeles - San Francisco - (Sacramento) corridor.
