Originally Posted By SpokkerJones 2010 is poised to be a make or break year for high speed rail in the United States. Right now states with high speed train plans are competing for the first federal dollars to be allocated for high speed rail study, design and construction. These should be awarded later this month. California appears to be the furthest along (with the first lawsuits being argued to boot), with Texas and Florida trailing. The Midwest has high speed rail plans but those are less ambitious with speeds up to 110 MPH. The Northeast corridor currently has the only service that could qualify as high speed rail but antiquated equipment limits speeds. Behind war and health care, transportation is probably next in line on the priority list. High speed rail could be a target for stimulus dollars and job creation. It's infrastructure that many industrialized countries currently operate, including France, Japan, Spain and Germany. Right now the fastest steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains operate in China. Here's a good overview of what's currently happening with high speed rail: <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4339857.html?nav=RSS20&src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=pop" target="_blank">http://www.popularmechanics.co...&mag=pop</a>
Originally Posted By trekkeruss What amazes me is the how fast the Chinese government is in building their high speed rail projects. While we've been creating studies for decades, in the past five years, they've built over 2000 miles of high speed rail lines, and have much more coming online in the next five. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...in_China</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X 110 MPH certainly doesn't seem very ambitious at all! Compare that to the AVERAGE speed of the new Chinese train at a touch over 215 MPH, not to mention regular daily service in France and Japan clocking impressive 186 MPH average speeds.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 The U.S. taxpayer doesn't have the guts to pay for a high speed rail system. I would gladly pay extra taxes in order to have high speed rail connecting major cities in America, but I highly doubt it will ever happen. I am absolutely in love with the rail system in Europe. It's cheap, relaxing, and an excellent way to travel.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes, Spokker, interesting stuff. And considering China is roughly the same size as the US physically, you can't say they let the "but it's such a vast country" excuse stop them.
Originally Posted By DAR If I'm on traveling the country on a train I don't know if I want to go at 215 mph, I'd like to enjoy a little bit of the splendor this country has to offer.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "If I'm on traveling the country on a train I don't know if I want to go at 215 mph, I'd like to enjoy a little bit of the splendor this country has to offer." I don't think Amtrak would go away. Anybody who believes that building 220 MPH trains between LA and New York is a good thing are nuts. High speed rail should be constructed on medium distance corridors (150-500 miles or so) like San Francisco to LA or the Houston/Dallas/San Antonio "T-Bone."
Originally Posted By gadzuux CA's proposed system is almost a sure-bet to happen. As mentioned, the planning and EIRs are much further along in the process than anywhere else, and the state has already poured over 100 million into the engineering studies. It's the textbook case of a "shovel ready" project and a perfect match for stimulus dollars looking for a place to be spent. Another advantage for CA is that completion costs are expected to be less per mile overall than other competing projects. The major expense is the absolute precision necessary for laying of the rails. Most of CA's route runs down the central valley - through flat, spacious and undeveloped land - so no physical obstacles to swerve around or expensive easements to obtain. It's fortuitous for CA had we had leaders with foresight twenty years ago and got the project rolling early. It's because of this foresight that CA will be among the first in line for high-speed rail. And yeah - it's expensive. But it's ideally suited for the layout of this state - several densely populated metropolitan areas separated by hundreds of miles of flat rural land. And yes GOPers - let's also build the proverbial "sin city" train to Las Vegas - another densely populated metro area separated by a vast flat desert. The idea that the hub for all of this would sit practically on DLs doorstep just makes it all the sweeter.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "And considering China is roughly the same size as the US physically, you can't say they let the "but it's such a vast country" excuse stop them." China is roughly the same size, but almost all of their population and arable land is in an area about 1/4 the size of the US.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<China is roughly the same size, but almost all of their population and arable land is in an area about 1/4 the size of the US.>> But as SpokkerJones points out, there are a number of medium distance corridors where it makes good sense. No one is advocating HSR for the entire country.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>If I'm on traveling the country on a train I don't know if I want to go at 215 mph, I'd like to enjoy a little bit of the splendor this country has to offer.<<< You'd be surprised. Here in the UK, my slow commuter train does 70, the fast train goes 125, and the train from london to paris/brussels is 186 on average. Never a problem taking in the scenery.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If I'm on traveling the country on a train I don't know if I want to go at 215 mph, I'd like to enjoy a little bit of the splendor this country has to offer.*** There are at least a handful of countries out there that have all options at your disposal (including Japan, of course). They have bullet trains to whisk you to your destination very quickly, slower bullet trains if you want to save some cash and still get their quite quickly, slower but still rapid trains for shorter commutes (or if you're REALLY trying to save some cash and have time to spare for a long distance, cheap voyage), local trains, scenic trains with big windows and slower paces, and luxury trains as well. It's not an either/or thing if it's done right, you have all the options you might care for. FWIW, I've been on the fastest sucker Japan has to offer (near 200 MPH) and while you are going super fast, you can still enjoy the countryside although more from a "macro" perspective (for example, 10-15 minute fantastic views of Mt. Fuji as you cruise on by). If you try and take in the details though, it is admittedly a bit nauseating. ***Anybody who believes that building 220 MPH trains between LA and New York is a good thing are nuts. High speed rail should be constructed on medium distance corridors (150-500 miles or so) like San Francisco to LA or the Houston/Dallas/San Antonio "T-Bone."*** I'd extend that to 1000 miles or so, a 4-5 hour train ride is not unreasonable although more is a drag unless you're sightseeing. Long distance though, I agree. You'd need a 10 hour or less ride coast to coast to begin competing with the airlines.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I have to say though X, if we take the train to Disneyland PAris, we have an hour ride to London. Check in to Eurostar 30 mins min before departure, then 2 hours 15 minutes and we are in the Esplanade. If we fly, it is a 50 minute drive to airport and nightmare parking. Check in at least 2 hours before boarding the flight. Load the plane. Wait for a slot to take off and then an hour and a quarter flight. Wait for the luggage, then through customs and passport control again. Then get on a bus (sometimes a 50 min wait if unlucky) and an hour - 90 min drive. So the train is 4-5 hours door to door. Flying is 6-7 hours door to door. I much prefer taking the train (though driving is even better, and we put the car on the high speed train for a part of the journey). The drive is about 9 hours door to door (though I have done it in 5 when lucky). Something tells me, if done right, I would have a California/Las Vegas Network; and East Coast Network, and Midwest network; and then eventually link them up.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I have to say though X, if we take the train to Disneyland PAris, we have an hour ride to London. Check in to Eurostar 30 mins min before departure, then 2 hours 15 minutes and we are in the Esplanade.*** Oh, I totally understand the plane vs train argument (that'd still be a relatively medium distance proposition though...over 1000 miles definitely calls for a flight imho). You have to check in 30 minutes early? Is that for security or something? Last I checked, you can stroll up to the shinkansen trains in Japan at the last minute if you feel like it (and even if you miss one, another is departing 4 minutes later anyway...assuming you don't have a reserved seat on a particular train which would require a bit of a time buffer but is safer during the busy times if you don't want to stand up!).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Something tells me, if done right, I would have a California/Las Vegas Network; and East Coast Network, and Midwest network; and then eventually link them up.*** That would be awesome. Add a Southern/Texas network to that as well and you've got almost the whole place covered.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo It is 30 minutes due to security - you are travelling to another country, through a massive tunnel, so they like to scan your bags. The highspeed intraUK trains, you can just run for it, as long as you are on the platform 2 minutes before departure.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It is 30 minutes due to security - you are travelling to another country, through a massive tunnel, so they like to scan your bags.*** Ah...makes sense. No border crossings to worry about here.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "You have to check in 30 minutes early? Is that for security or something?" Even then, security on the Eurostar is not as intrusive as on airplanes.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Absolutely. It is fairly easy going. Though there is talk of putting human x ray machines in the airports and Eurostar terminal here in the UK now.
