Sometimes it’s comforting to have a rigorous, numbers-based analysis tell you something you already pretty much know. In this case, most Americans understand that there are intercity corridors in this country that would be ideally suited for high speed rail investment. But the smart folks at America 2050 have done a great deal in advancing the national conversation by putting together a report (pdf) that ranks which potential HSR routes are the best candidates for investment–that is, which will have the greatest ridership demand.
The rankings are based on six factors: population, the size the local economy, distance between cities (with 250 miles being optimum), the quality of the local transit networks at each end, how bad the highway congestion is both cities (on the idea that this dissuades driving), and whether the cities are in a mega-region (more on that here).
Naturally, tops on the list was a NY-Washington DC link–probably as good a natural candidate for HSR as any route in the world. Six of the top 10 pairs, in fact, are overlapping segments on the larger Washington-Boston route.
Confusingly, that very route is today served by the Acela, which many people think is high speed because it looks like a high speed train, what with the pointy aerodynamic nose, fancy seats, Euro-style name and all. But in any meaningful sense the Acela is just a device to fool ourselves–rather like chewing gum when you’re hungry. It theoretically could go fast, but doesn’t do so because the tracks just don’t allow for it (except one little stretch blah blah — a taunting and meaningless exception).
Also in the top ten are LA-SF and, charmingly, the Dallas-Houston route that Edward Glaeser poopooed in his unimpressive “back of envelope” analysis over at the NYT’s Economix blog.
The top 25 are city pairs are:
It’s worth noting that the much slagged “levitating Mickey Mouse gambling train” route from LA to Vegas comes in a respectable #23. Current plans on that line would only connect Vegas to the High Desert hellhole and meth mecca of Victorville though — and we’re not sure that would rank quite as high (no offense, V’villians!).
The report proposes three phases of investment and construction, as shown on the map above. Top priority are the Northeast, California and a Midwest network. Next are Florida, an Atlanta to DC link, Dallas to Houston, Portland to Vancouver BC, and few others. Then there is a third tier of projects, including routes connecting Philly to Chicago, NYC to Buffalo, and Denver to Albuquerque.
Overall, America 2050 has made an important addition to the high speed rail debate, offering some empirical basis for ranking potential investments.
Frankly, though, the report also highlights for us it just how frustrating the situation is in the Northeast, and how charming it would be to have some brutally determined Robert Moses type in national government who could cut through all the crap, destroy lives when necessary with total impunity, and spend the $10 billion or so necessary to straighten shit out and make the Northeast rail corridor the crown jewel-class national asset it really deserves to be. (Well, we enjoy that modern day Moses stuff as a naughty fantasy, anyway.) Many people make the point that getting one world-class line that works in this country will win over as proof-of-concept residents of other regions. And they tend to suggest California should be that one. Which is fine except that the California project is still 15 years or so from impressing many people and is not quite as good a candidate as the Northeast. Really the way to jumpstart serious HSR investment in other regions would be to get real-life 150+ mph trains rolling between Boston and DC, and to make that happen in, like, four years. But that’s a post for another day!
September 17th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Your argument for semi-high speed (150 MPH) trains in the NEC is interesting because the NEC is a better high speed route than the one in California. However, upgrading it in 4 years seems unlikely because of the number of different entities that have to be coordinated. However any upgrades you make on the NEC are likely to make it more competitive.
California’s situation is different and unique. San Francisco and Los Angeles are 400 miles apart, at the outer edge of where HSR is viable and getting between them requires crossing 2 serious mountain ranges. Building 100-150 MPH rail between SF and LA doesn’t get enough ridership to justify the enormous expense of building the essential mountain segments ($2-3 billion each), so only building 220MPH+ HSR all at once pays off. California is also fortunate in that most the sensible incremental upgrades have already been done on other corridors in California and will serve to feed the HSR system, these already upgraded corridors include the Surfliners (LA-San Diego) the Capitols (San Jose-Sacramento) and the San Joaquins (Oakland and Sacramento to Bakersfield) which are the second, third and fifth busiest rail corridors in the U.S. respectively and combined carry about half as many people as the entire NEC.
I say that the California system is the best situated to be upgraded for the following reasons
1) ONLY HSR will provide meaningful benefit due to California’s topography
2) The California system is already far along in planning and has a more or less complete EIR
3) California’s voters have graciously provided $10 billion to build it
4) The so called second phase parts of California HSR (extensions to Sacramento and San Diego) are already well served by rail*
5) California’s current intercity equipment is currently capable of 110 MPH operation with signaling upgrades, meaning that fast feeder lies will be easy to provide.
*San Jose is not currently well served by the Capiotls, but will have hourly service by the time HSR actually makes it ther.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Chicago-Columbus over Chicago-Minneapolis? Atlanta-Charlotte completely off this list?
September 17th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I love this emphasis on mega regions (not least because I live in the biggest one and CT stands to gain 2(!) lines). I think I need to study up a bit more though, because it still seems strange that Boston to Baltimore would have more in common than Pittsburgh to Philadelphia. And seeing Bridgeport show up is quite strange; it carries no weight in its own state and surely New Haven (where I presume a large HSR support yard would need to be built) or Stamford should have been listed instead.
I do have some problems with this plan, though. There’s no real mention of international connections save for Portland-Seattle-Vancouver. Might New York-Montreal, New York-Toronto, Chicago-Detroit-Toronto, or even something like San Antonio-Monterrey score higher than many of the 50 corridors listed in the study. If so, this would affect the phasing of lines (and maybe spread costs as well). Upstate New York, for example, could become a phase 1 line if linking two of the Anglo world’s three largest financial centers is deemed more important than Chicago-Toledo.
The next step should be to plan out a lower tier system around the country. This will be necessary in allowing isolated places like Salt Lake City build their rail infrastructure, and also prevent places like Wyoming from trying to force government funding of an extension from Denver to Cheyenne instead of Richmond to Norfolk.
September 18th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Perhaps Pres. Obama could do a Lincoln - appoint a USArmy general (Corps of Engineers ?) as a rail czar with eminent domain power over the Northeast Corridor. In parallel he would designate that corridor as a Federal District - taxes and fees would be paid to Uncle Sam with a pass-through to Amtrack. Since the local governments have been part of the Gordian Knot situation cutting them out would simplify things. Yes, they would scream very loudly but the “promote the general Welfare” phrase in the US Constitution gives Uncle Sam a “Teddy Big Stick” (GRIN !).
Also, a warning to those who think they can stop the steel ribbons through ANY kind of sabotage. It’s already a federal crime to interfere with a railroad line physically.
September 18th, 2009 at 2:57 am
The guy at The Transport Politic has some good methodological criticisms of this plan, and a good map of his own: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/17/establishing-objective-realistic-assessment-tools-for-planning-an-effective-high-speed-rail-network/
Basically, America 2050 makes the mistake of not considering city pairs closer than 100 miles apart (ruling out New York - Philly, for one), and considering 250 miles the “optimum” distance, when ridership will probably be higher for shorter trips, max being around 50 to 150 miles.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Looking at that map, it seems a little silly not to extent Chicago-Louisville all the way to Atlanta, or St. Louis to Oklahoma-Texas. Unless they’re assuming that Northerners and Southerners don’t mix.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:58 am
The New York State DOT considered upgrading the NYC to Montreal line. The current travel time by train is about 12 hours. I am not making this up. I’ve done the drive in 6-7 hours. Anyway, it was determined that it would be impossible under environmental regulations to upgrade the train line in the Adirondaks to make it useful, and so further efforts were abandoned. The Adirondaks were also the area in which several winter travelers froze to death in their vehicles when those vehicles were stranded in snow storms. The people who perished had cell phones to call for help, however environmentalists had blocked the construiction of cell phone towers along I-87 in the Adirondaks. You can take the train report right of the NYS DOT’s website, and you can google the news reports of the perished travellers. Anyway, you can draw lines on a map all you wnat, but I’d wager that in the year 2109, it’ll still take 12 hours for a train to reach Montreal from NYC.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I like the Teddy Big Stick idea. Since an army general would be appointed, they could push the entire thing as a matter of national security, less oil usage and since the military is running the show, less interference from people who are against rail investment.
California needs a big chunk of the money, but the NEC needs to be upgraded to 150mph, nearly the entire length. This is the most important rail line in the country and it needs to be upgraded as such.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Ted,
Well said. I actually had a sentence in the piece mentioning a rail czar but cut it at last second because didn’t want to get bogged down in this recent controversy about all Obama’s czars. But, hells yes.
Also - as one reader already noted, I highly recommend checking out Yonah’s take on this over at thetransportpolitic.com — offers a couple of very smart critiques, including of the way distance was considered.
Jebediah
September 18th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
[...] Jebediah Reed observed, the monumental challenge of getting HSR right can make one long for "some brutally determined [...]
September 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Here is my contribution to what a national north american network should look like:
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/300/hsrmapfrom2050base.jpg
September 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
By all means have a rail czar, but make sure it’s a senate-confirmed position to maintain credibility over the project, especially with the dollar amounts being talked about.
Re: the army approach - didn’t the highway system start out as a troop-movement system?
September 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Joe,
I’m not sure of the exact history of the interstate system, but I do know that Eisenhower modeled it after the Autobahn, which was built to move military equipment efficiently. Promote rail in the same aspect. The anti-public transit/rail opinionated people love anything that heaps vast amounts of money on security and military related issues, so as long as it is pushed in that manner, it has a better chance for success; at least in my opinion.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I would emphasize military efficiency over statist visions of military-industrial overlords dominating the transportation system.
Also, no thousand-dollar hammers, please.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I concur, especially when you use the term “Military-Industrial Overlords”. Let’s stick with efficiency and patriotism.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
For those who haven’t studied the “Late, Great Unpleasantness” (aka US Civil War) two things made a huge difference in the Union army’s performance :
1) top quality rails (solid steel vs. iron-strap-on-wood); and
2) a rail czar to coordinate troop and supply movements as well as kick the ass of any railroad company that got in the way. Some of the foreign observers were Prussian and the lessons they learned had an impact in the Franco-Prussian wars that followed. Some of that carried forward to World War II and Korea.
I remember seeing a pair of maps of the French rail network pre-/post-1944. The before map was like a lace mantilla or dense spiderweb. The after map was a shattered mess with large gaps in the network. Yes, it’s hard to blow up a bridge with strategic bombers - it’s a skinny target. But when a flock of tactical bombers - e.g. Jugs (P-47 Thunderbolts) - show up and dive bomb they’re not going to miss. Afterwards they’ll go looking for some trucks or rolling stock to bust with fifty caliber (.50 in.) or twenty mike-mike (20 mm). I really ought to go looking for some books on the reconstruction of the rail networks in France and Germany from the late 40’s through the 1960’s. There might be something we could use in those accounts.
P.S. The “Teddy” in my earlier post was a punning reference to Pres. Theodore Roosevelt and an anglic way of saying “very”.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Yes, the process has to be federalized. Just as bad as the localities with wild enthusiasm and no place to go–think Denver, are the places in a Libertarian coma, where HSR might as well be science fiction–think Phoenix. Put the locals in advisory capacities and listen carefully to them, just don’t let them control the process.
Siting and environmental fights have to be sped up–not eliminated, just accelerated.
Federalizing the process is the only practical way to build ties to Canada or Mexico. Doing so would be a huge benefit of HSR.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
“Looking at that map, it seems a little silly not to extent Chicago-Louisville all the way to Atlanta, or St. Louis to Oklahoma-Texas. Unless they’re assuming that Northerners and Southerners don’t mix.”
Catbus
thats a lot of open, a lot of it beautiful, and uncongested ground to cover between st. louis and tulsa. the illinois I-55 corridor on into chicago is busy as traffic from the plains, a lot of the mid-south and the southwest basically converge at st. louis if its going to chicago. people already enthusiastically take the train between st. louis and chicago.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:45 am
If you want riders, then pick 2 places with existing high-volume “mass transit”, such as DC’s Metro, and NYC’s Subway, and connect the two with this train; or 1 of those and an outlying airport, like Dulles in VA.
China has downtown Shanghai to the Shanghai airport.
Simple, short, makes sense.
Could we start with something short like that?
And are we going to reinvent the engineering? Or use something already existing and known to work? I love how in America, we reinvent the wheel everytime we try to do something “public”.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:40 am
i’m not sure that i like the way the system ranks the cities. atlanta gets no notice, despite having the 8th largest metropolitan area in the country with 5.5 million people. no one actually lives in atlanta, so they get bumped down. people drive in to atlanta for work then out of atlanta to go home. also, having the busiest airport in the world means that more people would pass near a station so they could take the train instead of a connecting flight.
dear god i want one of these hsr trains close to my house.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Has anyone looked at the feasibility of using the center median of highway systems? It seems to me that this could provide significant savings if the curves are suitable for truly high speed rail. The corridors already go to all major cities and there would be no property issues. Major earth work has already been done. It would probably be cheaper to widen the highways than to build / purchase entirely new rights of way and you can easily link up with the existing failing automobile transit system.
September 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
The california HSR has already failed. It will cost double the $50b price tag. The tickets will either have to be heavily subsidized to get riders. My prediction: It will *never* be finished. White Elephant time. The “public” “private” partnership is crud. Who would put their money into it without a promise of return. They aim to make the SF->LA ticket cost $70. It will be three times that amount to cover the actual costs. It makes no sense economically when planes are available. Welcome to the 19th century. Idiots.
September 19th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
If railroad companies and local communities wish to build such things do so. I noticed that this project ‘America 2050′ chose some of the most unemployed and bankrupt areas in the nation. I suppose we should continue ridding ourselves of the middle class by forcing those who still have jobs and homes to create jobs in these communities ? One would think people would learn but from the responses it seems that you people enjoy ruining your neighbor by taking every penny you can from him/her for the “greater good” of course..
September 19th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
F8ck all y’all East/West coasters. Bring it to Denver!
September 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
With jobless rates at 12% in some states, why not put them to work right now? The money we waste on unemployment can help finance it. Also, why not put the prison systems to work?
September 19th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
LA-LV should be ranked higher. It is a far busier route than many of the city pairs listed. For instance, do you really think Chicago-Columbus, Chicago-Cleveland or LA-Phoenix would have higher ridership?
September 19th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Call me old-fashioned, but aren’t investment options normally ranked based upon both cost and benefit? There is zero mention of relative construction costs in the report.
I think any taxpaying citizen outside of a “mega-region” would challenge additional public investment being based upon citizenship in a “mega-region”, rather than population or travel time statistics alone. Unless megaregionalists are picking up the whole tab.
Size of local economy is a crude surrogate for number of business trips generated out of a region…which is not hard information to get in the first place. For that matter, there are “official” data bases that estimate OD trip demand by city pair and project future demand by OD pair, using population and business growth as inputs. They’ve been around for, oh, forty years or so. Why is the study ignoring them and using this clumsy surrogate instead?
In any respect, why not *projected* population and business activity, say in 2020 or 2050, instead of today’s numbers? derrick is right … they never specified whether they consider city population or SMA population…a big difference.
People should, and will, drive to a high-speed train station to save a few hours on a 250 mi+ journey. The high-speed rail link still provides practically the same marginal societal and environmental benefits if passengers choose auto at either end. Why the special consideration for local transit at either end? The study seems to subscribe to transit “veganism” - anything other than a pure non-auto trip is spiritually suspect. Or at least that is the upshot of this criterion.
Considering airport congestion is good…projected future airport congestion would be better. Nonlinearities make it easier for the bad to get much worse more quickly.
Relative weighting between the factors are never defined for the reader.
Wow…so this passes for a “rigorous” analysis nowadays? Useful, yes; rigorous, no.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Its a bit weird that Memphis is only a small link in the train seeing as its the distribution center of the world when it comes to cargo (FedEx main hub) with another large Delta hub for passengers. And in addition it is big stop on the future international highway from Canada through the US to Mexico.
Id honestly make the whole Chicago-St Louis-Memphis-New Orleans route a bigger one than proposed….especially seeing as how train freight is quickly becoming more viable as opposed to airflight due to the rising cost of jet fuel (trains are much more efficient in fuel use as well as featuring many electric models)
September 20th, 2009 at 1:10 am
One of the big problems I have with these recommendations is that the preferenced high-speed rail lines are in many areas that already have some sort of mass transit. Where I live in Atlanta, we have a city train, otherwise, Amtrak goes to D.C. or New Orleans and that is it. LA to San Diego already has a great rail service, as well as much of New England. It would be nice to focus on connecting cities that are already lackign in options.
September 20th, 2009 at 2:16 am
[...] Here’s How We Should Build Out A High Speed Rail Network Posted on Thursday September 17th by Jebediah Reed [...]
September 21st, 2009 at 12:43 am
[...] this article they explain which places would be the most suitable for High-Speed Rail (HSR). Los Angeles to San Francisco is [...]
September 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
Building the Texas T-Bone (http://www.thsrtc.com/) reduces the mileage (cost) to 62% of the triangle arrangement and it’s what Texans want. Doing so only increases the mileage from HOU to DFW by 27%, not to mention that it adds Bryan/College Station–home to a major state university–to the network.
September 21st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I believe that since the San Diego to LA corridor is the second busiest in the nation that it should rank above LA to San Francisco.
The corridor is also shorter than LA-SF, could be built faster, and thereby provide an example to the nation of how effective HSR can be.
There is always a bias in favour of a few big coastal cities, that causes pundits (in my opinion) to ignore the facts that are right under their expert noses.
September 21st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Hey Jim Harper — the reason Columbus-Chicago IS that popular is because that’s the main route everyone in and around Ohio uses (temporarily) to get to Canada. It would be more accurate if it said Columbus-Detroit though.
It might not seem like a lot, but if you’ve ever been stuck in line trying to get in or out of Canada, you know there’s actually a ton of states with traffic siphoning through that one area.
Interesting article, although I don’t follow the logic of some of the phase lists. Why is Cleveland extension not only not phase one, but just a tiny phase two extension? Why not just include it in phase one?
Also, it might be worth having less rails in tornado alley, and more mini rails in the Louisiana south region, that extend due north as escape routes in times of crisis.
September 21st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
The purported need for electrified high-speed rail to reach speeds of 200+mph seems counter-productive. Modern society has become accustomed to long-distance travel by any and all means regardless of cost. Isn’t Acela the more expensive Amtrak option through the NE corridor? How much more expensive will it become with further electrification? Is electrification an excess?
This purported need for speed also applies to transport of goods. If the global economy is based on long-distance transport and travel, the faster the better, what sort of economy would be its replacement in the event of predictable energy shortages? Would transport within local and regional economies become the most important consideration? Would scarce electricity be more wisely appropriated to light rail systems to help reduce the worst metropolitan area traffic? Would long-distance travel become more of a luxury and no longer constrained by the perceived need for speed and capacity?
I think rather that basic track upgrades to reach 150mph is sufficient and does not precude eventual electrification where justified. The route I use as an example is the Anahiem/Las Vegas line. High-speed Talgo ’tilting’ trainsets can reach 135mph and ran on this corridor ably, though not speedily, for years. Extension from Las Vegas north past fabulous National Parks to Salt Lake City and from there along Amtrak’s Pioneer line through Idaho to Portland Oregon seems totally logical. Amtrak’s Zephyr runs one train daily from the Bay Area to Chicago and arrives in Salt Lake at 3:am! Yikes! With the return of the Amtrak Pioneer and connection via Las Vegas to LA, a 2nd Zephyr daily could arrive in SLC at a more civilized hour. Electrification of the Anahiem/Las Vegas line is thus short-sighted. Non-electrfication would sooner enable further extension north and better connections to other passenger rail lines.
September 21st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
[...] How the United States should build a high speed rail network. [...]
September 21st, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I agree this study is useful but there are other metrics that should be used for evaluating route alternatives: chiefly, the economic development potential of HSR investment on regional economies; the buildability of HSR routes; as well as potential international connections as stated in this comment stream. Were these metrics used, routes like New York-Albany-Buffalo-Toronto would receive greater notice. In this case, ROW’s are already established, lagging economies cry out for high-impact public investment. Potential ridership is important, but public investment should always take broader considerations into account.
September 21st, 2009 at 11:06 pm
This article misses an important point: one of the unrecognized and undiscussed side effects of American suburban sprawl is that it has made the construction of new (straight) rail corridors nearly impossible. How is it that The Netherlands (the most densely populated nation on the planet) can relatively easily lay down new high speed rail corridors, while the idea of a new corridor between Boston and Washington straight enough to accomodate true high speed rail is nearly impossible? The answer is suburban sprawl. Easements through Dutch farmland are relatively easy and probably lucrative to Dutch farmers. The idea of 200 MPH trains racing through American suburbs is enough to cause civil war.
Suburban sprawl has probably permanently precluded the creation of a true high speed corridor in the Northeast, short of putting large portions in tunnels. I defy anyone to explain how a new transportation corridor can possibly be carved between Boston and Washington.
Chicago has a much better chance of becoming the hub of a true high speed network. Corridors can much more easily be created there, even if some tunneling is needed. Chicago can then gain its rightful place as the true American city — the biggest and richest of the country — the city at the hub of a much more diversified economy than the Northeast — a region that is still a manufacturing powerhouse. New York City is still largely a creature of the Erie Canal and the two world wars. A new era is beginning. I wish I had money to buy property in Chicago.
New York looks to be in for an extremely extended period of decline.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 am
[...] to Mass-Produce Efficient Homes [The New York Times] A big week for the cottage cult [Crosscut] Here’s How We Should Build Out A High Speed Rail Network [The Infrastructurist] Does Berlin Disprove Broken Windows? [Next American City] As City Grows More [...]
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
[...] and mega-region designation - to rank the top 50 routes across the U.S. (via Planetizen and Infrastructurist).Tags: America 2050, energy-efficient transportation, high speed rail, spatial fix, urban [...]
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
[...] Also very recently, America2050 came out with a report that details where HSR could work best. They use population, the size the local economy, distance between cities (with 250 miles being optimum), the quality of the local transit networks at each end, how bad the highway congestion is both cities, and whether the cities are in a mega-region as variables in the study. While the methodology may not be perfect, it is a great quantitative analysis on how to phase our investment. Studies like this are very important to both build a case and make policy decisions that match up to good planning, not politics. The Infrastructurist has more on this report. [...]
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 am
Eisenhower looked to Germany and the Autobahn when envisioning the Interstate Highway System.
When and why did we stop believing that there is NOTHING to be learned from the rest of the world (aka Europe and Asia) when fashioning a High Speed Rail system that is world class?
Or for that matter, why the cessation of belief we can cherrypick some of the good/great ideas from other countries when ANY strategic planning considerations for the future of our country are debated?
We need to get creative on funding massive infrastructure improvements (public-private partnerships, investment/venture funding, etc…), and on those that are not merely low class band-aids but leapfrogging cutting edge technologies instead.
we need to run the country the way our forefathers did—and the way any sane businessperson would run their business–with a STRATEGIC PLAN.
otherwise, you’re just dead…
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
Its not “veganism,” its practicality. Cities with strong transit system allow one to actually get to more places once they reach their hsr destination station which should be located in city centers, not the best places for massive car rental lots.
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
[...] the YES camp, Infrastructurist hails the America 2050 plan, stating that they’ve “done a great deal in advancing the national [...]
September 24th, 2009 at 10:07 am
So how is this different from Amtrak? From where Im located the map looks like the exact same route for my region.
September 25th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Looking at the various proposed rail maps, there is an obvious logic in a national rail system as a matter of national economic policy. Substituting trains for autos on inter-city routes will save fuel, create a huge number of new jobs (not just in construction but in O&M, plus all the support services like lodging, local transport, eateries, etc). Rail can also be electrified, affecting carbon emissions as we move toward renewable energy. And small, personal electric autos can be transported from city to city by rail for maximum flexibility at each end where local transit is not flexible enough. An efficient national rail network will require express runs, represented by HSR, but, more importantly, feeder routes or local lines to collect and distribute passengers from and to smaller cities.
By widening rights-of-way in densely populated areas to accommodate two or more separate rail systems, a national rail network could emulate the local-express system of the NY subway, which was the model for the local-express elevator system in the World Trade Towers. Both these systems are/were able to optimize travel times from any point to any other point. On more sparsely populated routes (say, across Montana), single tracks with computerized scheduling of several types of traffic would work.
We will probably have to make use of the existing freight lines for a long time, mainly for “local” travel from small cities to regional centers, as the places to transfer to “express” trains moving at higher speeds, non-stop to other regional centers.
With HSR requiring isolated grade crossings and multiple safety features, as well as other very expensive technologies, we should start with the goal of moving people at a guaranteed 90-110 mph using non-HSR technology and trackage, then later upgrade the most used 100-250 mile segments to HSR. Of course we could build an HSR demo or two right now just to show off or to capture the public imagination, but I wouldn’t start rebuilding our rail system from the gee-whiz to the mundane, but the other way around. It’s better economically for the whole nation.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
i think we should have high speed rail connecting all of the US. although that seems wayy impossible. like connect all the major cities on the outer edges of America, then work our way in.
but since so many people are unemployed, they could possibly hire them to build railroads?
September 27th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
[...] Here’s how we should build out a high speed rail network [The Infrastructurist] [...]
September 30th, 2009 at 12:05 am
[...] Where High Speed Rail Makes the Most Sense: An America 2050 Report, as covered by The Infrastructurist. [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
[...] because it doesn’t even figure in the top 50 city pairs of America 2050’s recent study (we wrote about it here). But all the city pairs America 2050 looked at least 100 miles apart. Baton Rouge and New Orleans [...]
October 9th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
[...] US investment in passenger rail infrastructure likely to grow robustly for many years to come, American cities might want to take notes. Because there hasn’t been [...]
October 10th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
[...] http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/09/17/heres-how-we-should-build-out-a-high-speed-rail-network/ [...]
October 18th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
[...] News link: here [...]
October 27th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
[...] the US High Speed train network Jump to Comments High Speed Rail, once at the forefront of President Obama’s economic stimulus plans, has now been placed on [...]