Animated map of high-speed train system in the US

[scottie]

I'd be all over the SLC routes in phases 3 & 4:

The US's railroad network is made up of around 140,000 miles of track, but many of our trains are slow and outdated. Over the last couple of decades, countries like China, Japan, the UK, and France have made large investments in high-speed rail, and some groups in the US are urging that we do the same.

Here's what a high-speed rail network could look like in the US.

http://www.businessinsider.com/anima...-states-2016-8

[wuapinmon]

I'd take high-speed rail for short trips of less than 1,000 miles, but coast-to-coast, no thanks.

[Omaha 680]

As an engineer who specializes in the rail industry I would have much to gain from such a project and would hardly complain if it happened, but I don't think it's necessarily the way of the future. A couple of points:

1. It's true the US rail network does not support fast movement of passengers. But that's because it's not the "US" rail network. It's owned by private freight railroads who operate and maintain their right of way and have to make a profit. The geometry of the lines were laid out over 100 years ago in most cases and therefore support only slower moving freight traffic. Almost everywhere in the United States outside of major metro areas, passenger rail runs on freight tracks and therefore do not have priority. While Europe and China are the envy of the world for passenger rail service, the United States is the envy of the world for freight rail. No one moves stuff better than us and we wouldn't want to change that.

2. Given #1, to achieve 200+ mph as stated in the video, we are talking about building a rail network from scratch, without the benefit of huge government surpluses and slave wage labor that exist in China. A conservative estimate would be about $50M per track mile for such a system. Even if you assume only 10,000 miles of track, that is 500 billion dollars. But I'm not buying that. In many places the cost of ROW acquisition and utility relocations in dense urban areas will be massive. Rebuilding the Northeast Corridor alone so it has the geometry to support true high speed rail would cost 500 billion. So I think A national network like the video would be in the trillions of dollars. Maybe there would be political will to find that kind of money, but I seriously doubt it.

3. Autonomous automobiles may be the future. It is aging, but we have the premier highway network in the world. Yes it caused pollution, urban sprawl, and other undesirable side effects, but it could be turned to a huge net benefit again when autonomous vehicles are fully deployed and they triple or quadruple current highway capacities without a significant public investment. Rail will always be around, but in the world of autonomous vehicles it may be limited to very dense urban areas and a few highly traveled corridors only (DC to Boston, LA, to Las Vegas, etc).

[PaloAltoCougar]

Thanks for that, O680, very interesting.

[Moliere]

I agree with Omaha (of course he has the credentials) That high speed rail that covers the US is not a good idea. Something will supplement automobiles at some point and updating the rail system would take decades. We'd get it done then never get the use out of it.

High speed rail makes sense for shorter, frequently travelled routes. They are currently constructing a route between Dallas and Houston, which will probably have a bigger effect on highways than airports as most people make that trip by driving. However, it's a long enough trip that I know many that would take rail. They don't currently take a plane because the time to fly (including security and everything) is about the same time required to drive.

The rail system in France is awesome, but td also complimented by the public transportation systems in each city. France is also small, so you don't have places where you have hundreds of miles between major cities like you have in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[old_gregg]

first class on the acela is a great way to travel, but anything farther than say boston to dc doesn't make a lot of sense by rail.

[jay santos]

As an engineer who specializes in the rail industry I would have much to gain from such a project and would hardly complain if it happened, but I don't think it's necessarily the way of the future. A couple of points:

1. It's true the US rail network does not support fast movement of passengers. But that's because it's not the "US" rail network. It's owned by private freight railroads who operate and maintain their right of way and have to make a profit. The geometry of the lines were laid out over 100 years ago in most cases and therefore support only slower moving freight traffic. Almost everywhere in the United States outside of major metro areas, passenger rail runs on freight tracks and therefore do not have priority. While Europe and China are the envy of the world for passenger rail service, the United States is the envy of the world for freight rail. No one moves stuff better than us and we wouldn't want to change that.

2. Given #1, to achieve 200+ mph as stated in the video, we are talking about building a rail network from scratch, without the benefit of huge government surpluses and slave wage labor that exist in China. A conservative estimate would be about $50M per track mile for such a system. Even if you assume only 10,000 miles of track, that is 500 billion dollars. But I'm not buying that. In many places the cost of ROW acquisition and utility relocations in dense urban areas will be massive. Rebuilding the Northeast Corridor alone so it has the geometry to support true high speed rail would cost 500 billion. So I think A national network like the video would be in the trillions of dollars. Maybe there would be political will to find that kind of money, but I seriously doubt it.

3. Autonomous automobiles may be the future. It is aging, but we have the premier highway network in the world. Yes it caused pollution, urban sprawl, and other undesirable side effects, but it could be turned to a huge net benefit again when autonomous vehicles are fully deployed and they triple or quadruple current highway capacities without a significant public investment. Rail will always be around, but in the world of autonomous vehicles it may be limited to very dense urban areas and a few highly traveled corridors only (DC to Boston, LA, to Las Vegas, etc).

Yes, interesting. What do you mean by the bolded?

[beefytee]

So O680, have you looked into the hyperloop? Would that be worth building? I'm guessing its cost would be astronomical compared to high speed rail infrastructure. Would that be more economical and at least as quick as air travel? I'm guessing not.

[SCcoug]

Yes, interesting. What do you mean by the bolded?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon_(automobile)

[The_Tick]

They are building a HS rail system in California that is just plain dumb. Too expensive, poor locations.

They aren't smart enough to invest that money in dams for water management.

[Commando]

I would hop on a 4 hour rail from phoenix to slc every weekend all winter long!

[Commando]

So O680, have you looked into the hyperloop? Would that be worth building? I'm guessing its cost would be astronomical compared to high speed rail infrastructure. Would that be more economical and at least as quick as air travel? I'm guessing not.

Hyperloop is actually relatively cheap, I understand. I think Musk estimated the raw cost of building between L.A. and SF about 7.5 billion. Experts have pooh-poohed this estimate, pointing out that it would require purchase of about 1,100 different parcels of land upon which to build it, taking the total to about 100 billion, but I think Elon Musk just said uh- you build it along the I-5.

[jay santos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon_(automobile)

Thanks

[beefytee]

Hyperloop is actually relatively cheap, I understand. I think Musk estimated the raw cost of building between L.A. and SF about 7.5 billion. Experts have pooh-poohed this estimate, pointing out that it would require purchase of about 1,100 different parcels of land upon which to build it, taking the total to about 100 billion, but I think Elon Musk just said uh- you build it along the I-5.

So I looked it up. Musk suggested "under 6 Billion". With LA to SF being about 600 miles apart on I-5 (where he says the tubes would go), that comes down to $10 million per mile. Seems crazy to think that laying rails would cost 5 times as much as building a huge vacuum tube. Looking at their site, they say they would be electric trains, so they would need the electric infrastructure which I guess is where the cost would come from as I'm guessing it would be traditional track though and not maglev.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/tech/i...ins/index.html
https://www.freemaptools.com/how-far...ornia_-usa.htm
http://www.ushsr.com/ushsrmap.html
http://www.ushsr.com/hsr/infrastructure.html

[myboynoah]

This is all just fantasy.