High Speed Rail in America?

Post Reply New Topic

But the point of this would be to head off such a crisis before it occurs so that infrastructure is in place before the collapse. I mean I can see how society will just continue on forward to the collapse without a structure in place but it'd be wise to at least try to set up some kind of structure beforehand for such a collapse as the oil based society. It'd be foolish to do nothing before such a collapse.

Portland to Seattle to Vancouver BC?

If the interstate highway system was acheived, so can this.

I was sifting through some articles from Upstate NY publications, and there are serious plans to build a new rail line from New York City to Buffalo, and possibly onwards to Toronto. Already, the state has received stimulus funds to build more rail lines for passenger trains, with an option to upgrade to electrification.

I think such a line would be profitable. I know of people who live in Rochester and Buffalo, yet commute by plane to New York for a few days every week. A high-speed rail line would make a commute trip cheaper, and may encourage more commuters to NYC to move to Upstate. It'd certainly help the economies of both sections of the state. In fact, any high speed rail line that radiates from the Northeast Corridor would probably make money.

Seems odd that there is such resistance to the idea of rapid transit. To move with celerity between destinations is not impossible, unlikely, or even particularly difficult. If speeds in excess of 100mph are possible in the UK then doing that in the states should be more than simple.

The cost of acquiring a straight right of way and building a high speed railroad is financially difficult. Such railroads are very expensive to build. Getting the right of way will cost a bundle and then there is the cost of the structure itself and its proper maintaining.

ruveyn

Why? Japan has mountainous landscapes and serious earthquakes and they can still build and maintain their rail systems. It shouldn't be that hard to manufacture a network in a country that's mostly flat and we previously railed up back in the 19th century.

It cost the Japanese a great deal to build the lines that run the bullet trains. Financing is the problem, not the technology.

ruveyn

That's a poor excuse. Financing has never been a problem; we just print up more money as needed. God for f*cking bid we venture into a nation-wide venture that'd actually grant jobs for a medium-term length that will provide more effective travel for people.

You would think.

I really envy much of Europe's progress without the use of cars. I'm sure it's not everywhere but whenever I talk to someone from Sweden or Britain, it's as if there is no need for cars. It seems over here, you're in trouble if you can't drive or don't own a car unless you're rich enough to order a taxi. Trouble with the U.S. is everything is so spread out especially in the midwest where I live.

While it is expensive, the financing problems are no different than the Interstate Highway system. That was extremely expensive to build and maintain, and now that it's aging, its cost will rise exponentially. I imagine the federal government may see high speed rail as a way to alleviate pressure on the highways, and hopefully lower their maintenance costs. I'm not saying high speed rail isn't expensive (it is), but that no transit solution is cheap. It all comes out in the wash eventually.

Because they started in the 60s when all this was a brand new technology, AND because they had to negotiate such complex terrain? The technology to create a permanent way has existed for a substantial period of time now, and as the UK manage to produce some fairly rapid movement over a system that is a couple of hundred years old, tried in knots and terribly managed over a regularly-built network, its not exactly science fiction. Besides, the very building of a network would produce jobs and shove the economy along, and a lot of things are expensive, but governments STILL buy them.

Do not underestimate the financial impacts required.

The interstate highway system was built at a time when significant vacant land existed, and the existing infrastructure that was already in place in cities could be connected in. In the case of high speed rail, you cannot simply connect high speed rail tracks to existing railbeds. Consider how much land would have to be acquired in Manhattan, alone, just to get a train from a terminal out of the city. Every mile of track requires approximately 100,000 sq. ft. of land. If you are going to double track, than that rises to about 150,000 sq. ft. Allowing for a modest $20/sq. ft. land costs on a weighted mean, you are still looking at $3m per mile of track to acquire the land, before you have even started to put a shovel in the ground. (For reference, the mean land cost in NY Metro in 2006 was $366/sq. ft.): http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/curr ... ci14-3.pdf For a line from Boston to Washington, that's about 400 miles, or $1.2billion dollars in land, alone.

Studies related to the California corridor demonstrate that the internal costs (infrastructure, equipment and operating cost) for high speed rail are approximately $0.19 / passenger-km-travelled, which is almost double the air ($0.11 / pkt) and road ($0.10 / pkt). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8mm50358

Where rail begins to make a positive impact is in the social costs (pollution, accident, congestion and noise). The public policy question is, though, to what degree should government be subsidizing the higher infrastructure costs in order to accomplish the desirable public policy goals of lower social costs?

The only thing I really question is the internal cost. Doesn't internal cost assume that a project is financed at the rate of the internal cost, and not at the cost of capital? Maybe I am confusing it too much with internal rate of return.

Also, the cost of building a high speed rail corridor neither surprises me or phases me. While it may not be feasible for the private sector, I imagine some future administration would love the idea. Not only would a high speed rail corridor have social benefits, but it'd be pretty popular in the Northeast. After all, the Northeast has the highest transit ridership in the US, and is the region where transit ridership is growing the most.

How was the infrastructure and equipment costs determined to factor in to the internal costs? Is that from this point on forward? How long into the future are these costs estimated?

I agree that this proposal is in no way anything closely resembling a true 'high speed' service. To create a true high-speed line (as in 300-350 km/h, as are now being built all over China and western Europe) between, let's say, Chicago and MSP, would require the creation of an entirely new ROW cross-country line that would bypass EVERYTHING, operating with zero intermediate stops as any stops along the way would make it uncompetitive with airlines. The line would likely have to cross Wisconsin on a routing that roughly follows US 12 into the state from the south and then kind of follows UP's ex CNW Adams Line (a railroad that was originally built over 100 years ago as a dedicated high-speed passenger line) and another part of US 12 the rest of the way to the MStP area. A line could branch off of it with full-speed switches near Watertown, WI to provide service between MStP and Milwaukee while a new grade (elevated over an existing line?) could provide upgraded service between MKE and Chicago.

The Chicago-Milwaukee portion could operate much like China's new Tianjin-Beijing line (similar distance) - about 30 minutes from 'doors close' in Tianjin and 'doors open' in Beijing.

Think BIG BUCKS to build awith perhaps insurmountable NIMBY opposition and a bunch of POed Wisconsin politicians along the way.

As for service to Madison and Northeastern Wisconsin (the Fox Valley is one of the largest total markets not served by Amtrak)? It will likely not ever be anything more than about 175km/h 'enhanced speed' type service. The only reason why Amtrak did not take over CNW's very popular Chicago-Milwaukee-Green Bay (via Appleton and Oshkosh) service on their startup in 1971 was that at that time, CNW's track was in too decrepit of a condition, something that is no longer an issue today (CN's ex WC, nee CNW Green Bay line is in FANTASTIC shape!).

Yes, even though I am quite libertarian/conservative, this is something that I do see bubbling up, perhaps not now (Wisconsin has a state budget hole that will likely end up deep-sixing the current proposals), but the demand from the Appleton/Oshkosh/Green Bay area is there and it would save me a lot of transport hassles when traveling to and from Chicago.

Fuel prices will be a BIG wild-card in all of this, too.

An aside - where would the airline industry be today without their incredible public subsidies over the years?

Mike

The flat parts are privately owned. The only way to acquire the rights of way is very heavy handed use of Eminent Domain. Even with E.D. the owners will have to compensated reasonably or they will tie the thing up in the courts for a decade.

ruveyn