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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.