Gunn's View on High Speed Rail

[Amfleet]

Gunn quoted during the annual Railway Age conference in Washington:

Gunn said that "no one alive today" will live to see a national network of TGV-style high-speed trains on dedicated rights-of-way.

However, he did say this:

It's worth pointing out, however, that California is moving in that direction. Gunn places great emphasis on incremental improvements to rail service, which is the most promising -- but not the only -- way forward.

In my opinion he is stretching it a bit when anyone alive today will not see "true" high-speed rail like in Europe and Japan. I think America will gradually join in the "high speed rail revolution" once they realize a crumbling transportation system. Canada will probably even go high-speed before we do.

 

[Viewliner]

I agree, I think it will take a while, but we'll gradually develop a high speed network, and yes at the rate we're going Canada may very well finish ahead of us.

 

[Miami Joe]

I don't think we will see trains like we see in foreign countries.

The train tracks were laid long before the roads and rail travel is a primary source of transportation. In this country, the tracks were removed for the roads and to try and lay high speed rail would require removing highways or building expensive alternatives to bypass obstuctions for the railbed. This was a very large portion of the Acela budget, eliminating crossings. Keep in mind, this country can't maintain the roads, rails and airline equipent now and it would cost billions to fix existing problems.

Gunn's idea of using existing track, upgrading it and using new trains at speeds of 120 to 160 mph has a better chance of happening at a much lower cost.

B)

 

[Viewliner]

I don't think we will see trains like we see in foreign countries.
The train tracks were laid long before the roads and rail travel is a primary source of transportation. In this country, the tracks were removed for the roads and to try and lay high speed rail would require removing highways or building expensive alternatives to bypass obstuctions for the railbed. This was a very large portion of the Acela budget, eliminating crossings. Keep in mind, this country can't maintain the roads, rails and airline equipent now and it would cost billions to fix existing problems.

Gunn's idea of using existing track, upgrading it and using new trains at speeds of 120 to 160 mph has a better chance of happening at a much lower cost.

B)

That makes sense and is more logical. Besides, even that wouldn't be bad to see.

 

[tp49]

Could you picture the eminent domain costs for the land they would need to aquire for those dedicated rights of way. The thought of the number makes my head spin.

 

[Viewliner]

Could you picture the eminent domain costs for the land they would need to aquire for those dedicated rights of way. The thought of the number makes my head spin.

We don't even get enough money as it is, let alone for high speed rail.

 

[Miami Joe]

I don't know where you can find a breakdown of the Acela's budget.

I recall reading something about 2 years ago thate stated that 60% of the budget was for eliminating crossings, redirecting roads and compensation to various communities who lost right of ways and road construction.

B)

 

[Allen Dee]

California is moving in that direction.

As I have stated many times on this forum, if every state in this country spent on rail improvement what California has, Amtrak would be in much better shape than it is now.

And not just for passenger traffic, look at the Alameda Corridor. Look at what that has done for the container traffic in the Los Angeles area.

The first truly high-speed passenger train service in this country will probably be between Los Angeles and Bakersfield. The second such line will be from Los Angeles to Las Vegas -- funded entirely by the state of Nevada (read the casinos).

The rest of you in the other states should get with the program.

 

[Viewliner]

California is moving in that direction.

As I have stated many times on this forum, if every state in this country spent on rail improvement what California has, Amtrak would be in much better shape than it is now.

And not just for passenger traffic, look at the Alameda Corridor. Look at what that has done for the container traffic in the Los Angeles area.

The first truly high-speed passenger train service in this country will probably be between Los Angeles and Bakersfield. The second such line will be from Los Angeles to Las Vegas -- funded entirely by the state of Nevada (read the casinos).

The rest of you in the other states should get with the program.

Well Said Allen, if every state supported us, we'd have an even nicer rail system, maybe we wouldn't even have such an equipment shortage.

 

[gswager]

I remember a coalition or organizaion converted abandoned tracks into trails as it is called "Rails To Trails".

I don't know correctly if a mass transportation, freight, or even Amtrak will reconvert trails to rails. Is is possible or what? Help me to refresh my memory, even others too.

 

[Amfleet]

The rails that have been converted to trails are basicly abandoned spur lines that trains had not been on in years. The recently finished such a project on Cape Cod.

 

[Steve4031]

"rail to trails"

Now that was a stupid concept. The thought of pulling up any rail lines is offensive to me.

 

[Amfleet]

Yes, but most of these lines had no potential for freight or passenger service. This program won't go and pull busy mainlines. Also they have to get approval from the state or town I beleive.

 

[Viewliner]

"rail to trails"
Now that was a stupid concept. The thought of pulling up any rail lines is offensive to me.

Seems like a waste to me, although it makes sense to do something with those unused rails with no potencial.