HSR Interest By Region

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

birdy

Service Attendant
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
205
I've taken to googling high speed rail from time to time to read about local proposals. It seems to me that there is wide regional variation in interest. It doesn't have much to do with the practicalities of the proposed systems for their areas. As a straw-man, here is where I perceive us to be by region. What do you think?

Northeast: Mostly happy with Acela and not expecting much more. Upstate NY wants HSR, but can't think of a way to justify the staggering( apparently) cost of running the lines to NYC.

Midwest: Considerable interest, but convinced that they are unworthy of high cost systems. The farther North you go, the more convinced they are of this, Chicago included, "City of Broad Shoulder" stereotypes notwithstanding.

South: Awakening to the possibilities and steadily turning more positive. Lets face it: HSR is very "Atlanta"

Texas: Generally favorable, something they practically expect and would take in stride.

Mountain West: Wild enthusiasm in Denver. No potential destinations, however. Phoenix has many destinations, but its in a complete Libertarian coma.

California/ Nevada: Advanced to NIMBY backlash stage.

Pacific Northwest: Interested in so far as there is an environmental benefit.

Canada: Similar to Texas. No interest on either side of the border with cross-border systems, despite obvious benefits.
 
birdy said:
I've taken to googling high speed rail from time to time to read about local proposals. It seems to me that there is wide regional variation in interest. It doesn't have much to do with the practicalities of the proposed systems for their areas. As a straw-man, here is where I perceive us to be by region. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Hawaii - What's a train? High Speed, the hips during a Tahitian Dance :lol: :lol: :rolleyes: Sorry could not resist, Hope you Don't mind birdy, I know your thoughts were serious.

Aloha
 
I haven't seen any discussion in the press or on blogs for any consideration of HSR in Kentucky. But, we have very little Amtrak traffic anyway.
 
Pretty interesting analysis,thanks!In the case of Texas a little history says it all: for years various and sundry groups have come up with schemes to have HSR ("bullet trains")connecting our major metro areas (ie DFW/HOS/SAS/AUS)

in the state.Some were credible,most were schemes to enrich the share holders and con men behind them(Bernie Madoff

in a ten gallon hat!LOL)Most of them asked the Legislature to fund them to the tune of millions and millions for studies/planning/"legal and investment banking fees"(a favorite scam here in Texas,aka political payoffsLOL)The last such scheme got the more conservative(read right wing)property rights activists engaged and the current(and hopefully

on the way out)governor got behind this scheme in opposition to these vigilantes!Eventually the effort collapsed when the so called liberal media(ie The Texas Observer)exposed the scoundrels behinds this pyramid scheme and the revelation that the state would be liable for billions of dollars in so called development and investment bonds!(nothing wrong with this except when the folks behind it are crooks and con-men and cronies of the governor).Eventually all the right wing politicans(most in Texas,we havent elected a state wide politician since GW was governor in the 90s)were able to reverse their suport under the guise of "property rights" and it was also revealed that Southwest Airlines

(a good airline!)had funded the campaign since it was in their interest (secretly)to discredit the effort soas to maintain

their monoply on city to city trans in this huge,growing state!HSR will NEVER fly in this anti-tax,anti-progressive,anti-public transportation state until and unless we elect progressive,logical and intellegent politicians and this will happen about the same time that Illinois/Louisiana/New Jersey/New York/Mass/RI etc. do too!LOL At the local level DFW and HOS are doing a great job of advancing their local metro trans(light rail/trolley/bus etc.) and Austin ans San Antonio are still fiddling as Rome burns(see Austins Red Line still not operative after 5 years of development and hundreds of millions down the drain in OP!)Poor Texas,so much potential,such sad sheep misled by con men in empty suits!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Midwest High Speed project will get some of the first federal funds, along with California, since it is the most advanced in planning. General favorable attitude toward the project, although I'm sure some NIMBY's will be making appearances as the plans advance. Within four-five years, we'll have at least 110 mph service from Chicago to Milwaukee-Madison, St. Louis and Detroit. Minneapolis will be next. Kansas City, Toledo-Clevland, after that. Others will lag behind mainly because of current lousy track conditions --- Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Iowa. Three C's in Ohio is worthy, but they been talking about this for 30 years without any progress.

First 220 mph in Midwest will be Chicago-St. Louis via Champaign, Decatur, Springfield, but that is far down the line.

California will have first true high speed system, despite the state's current financial problems.

After that, maybe Pacific Northwest, New England.

Texas and Florida need HSR, but political leadership is lacking. Same with Atlanta-based system. Georgia has been trying to get a couple of quasi commuter trains going for 15 years without any progress.
 
Ah, IF ONLY Southwest Airlines would get behind, and RUN the Texas HSR, then we'd have HST on time, and profitable........

All kidding aside, I lived in Texas from 81 to 87, and was heavily involved in TexArp for a time. There are some REAL political issues (mentioned above) to deal with. Need a state leader who has the balls to just say, "let's do it". But those are few and far between.
 
The local city governments here in Killeen and Temple have a big interest in HSR. The T in the Texas T-Bone crosses right here. The Mayor of Temple is vicepresident of the Texas High Speed Rail Commision and each city has aready started spending 25,000 dollars a years towards the project.
 
The Midwest and California seem to be farther along than any other region. The northeast needs some repair, but beyond that where do you go? Straighten out the curves for true 200 mph, or is 135 to 150 mph Acela service okay for now?

The Midwest seems to be focused on Higher Speed Rail which is a good thing. Looks like the Chicago to St Louis corridor will be the first get funds to upgrade its line to 110 mph in the near future. The Hiawatha corridor also seems to be far along with service to Madison not very far away.

Texas is slowly coming out of the dark ages. The D/FW area has really lead the southwest region on rail expansion, and has over 250 miles of commuter rail planned by 2030. Support is really growing in this area, and the rest of the state is seeing that. Even Gov. Perry recently announced his support for office. (I still want him out though) Texas just past a law that allows TxDOT to form a Rail Division, that includes coming up with plans to start passenger rail and work with freight rail here in Texas. A new director is to be named shortly. Even though no money was allocated, hopefully in 2011, this will change. I'd like to see "Amtrak Texas"
 
There is a lot of interest and there has been quite a bit of press here in Florida, but there has been this kind of talk for several years since the HSR plan was approved and then repealed. The greatest challenge is getting the funds to build HSR. With all the tourists coming to Florida and many of those are European who want to use trains, HSR would do well if it is intergrated well with local trains, commuter trains and transit systems. A European friend of mine was visiting in South Florida and wanted to travel by rail from South Beach to Ft. Lauderdale and then to Orlando. He was baffled by the fact that is was difficult and time consuming to do compared what he was used to. If HSR is built in Florida, it will be used, its just the matter of the powers to be getting behind the funding.
 
birdy said:
Northeast: Mostly happy with Acela and not expecting much more. Upstate NY wants HSR, but can't think of a way to justify the staggering( apparently) cost of running the lines to NYC.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by HSR. Nobody is seriously talking about electrification north of NYC, nor of true high-speed bullet trains, although the politicians like to imply that this is what they mean by HSR. I wish they wouldn't, because they are setting unrealistic expectations.

The current New York State rail plan proposes getting train top speeds up to 110 mph, by building a third track along the existing right-of-way from Albany to Buffalo that will be dedicated to passenger trains, and by eliminating the worst bottlenecks in terms of grade-crossings, curves, poor track condition, etc. Some of this work is already being done through federal stimulus money. I support this kind of incremental improvement, because it is much more cost effective. It can be done with the current tracks and current Amtrak equipment, whereas going 150 mph or higher needs new equipment and the entire ROW probably would need to be barricaded off (hard to do in farm country). Going from 79 to 110 is incredibly cheap compared with going from 110 to 150 or above. Plus, we can do this without waiting for the FRA to come up with new regulations for faster than 150 mph trains (right now they are effectively illegal in the US).

Politically, there seems to be a lot of bipartisan support here for rail improvements. I guess the big question is where the money will come from (the state has a $50 billion budget gap next year). But we spend more per mile on many highway expansions than this "higher-speed rail" plan is estimated to cost (including station improvements and equipment purchases). So it really is just a question of having the political will for prioritizing spending towards rail and away from highways.

I don't expect TGV/Shinkansen style trains in NY in my lifetime, but I would like to see frequent, reasonably fast service on par with "standard" European or British trains. I think that's entirely reasonable and feasible, but it will take a substantial shift in our nation's transportation funding priorities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
birdy said:
South: Awakening to the possibilities and steadily turning more positive. Lets face it: HSR is very "Atlanta"
Click to expand...
I think Savannah will get HSR before Atlanta, though I don't expect it anytime soon. Only reason being that Atlanta has done just about everything possible to destroy the long distance passenger rail infrastructure. On one hand, that could mean a clean slate to start from, but I highly doubt they'll ever organize to the point of practical application.

Savannah would just be residually benefitted by a Miami - Boston High Speed Corridor. If ever built, it would join every major population center on the East Coast together and could possibly be one of the longest HS Routes in the World. Miami to DC would take less than 7 hours. 8 to New York. Just over 9 to Boston... All if you could get an average of 150 MPH. This will never be done on the existing NEC. A new trunk line would have to be purpose built for speed. These trains can be built for a fraction of Maglev costs if incorporating worldwide steel-wheel technologies. Passenger utilization could be upwards around 1500 passengers per train, every 20 minutes.

Next, I can envision a Chicago - Buffalo - Boston route and a Chicago - Pittsburg - NYC route. Both of these would tie into the above system.

A beautiful creation would be a true coastline following California Route. However, the population density would only allow for an upgrade to the existing system. Again, all new ROW, all new speed. San Diego - LA - San Jose - Sacramento - Portland - Seattle - Vancouver. Spur to San Fran from San Jose. Spur from LA (NOT Disneyland) to Vegas.

Rolling stock would be bi-directional, powered EMUs for weight distribution and incorporate a passive tilt system. Rail construction would bear the brunt of centrifugal force.

Finally, they would all be NON-UNION, NON-GOVERNMENT, and most of all NON-AMTRAK. These trains shall not be social programs, but rather legetimate business & leisure tools for people willing to pay the price. Any level of service below what is outlined above WILL fail, because it will be hard to get enough people interested to justify its existence. Railfans will NEVER be able to pay for the level of service this country needs.
 
Well, I'm glad everybody thinks you can bring most of the lines out of CHI up to 110mph (even 220mph) without addressing congestion around CUS... and the only mention of Ohio getting monies is the TOL-CHI line which is a heavily traffic NS route and currently only sees four LD trains in the dead of night.

PGH is brought up, despite the rolling curves and steep grades of the mountains.

Hell even some nut mentioned Hawaii ;)

The costs of HSR on flat non-congested track is pretty damn high... throw in the above factors and it becomes virtually unfeasible with current technology.

And nobody even thinks the 3C corridor is possible? Wow... I'm pretty damn insulted.
 
MikefromCrete said:
Within four-five years, we'll have at least 110 mph service from Chicago to Milwaukee-Madison, St. Louis and Detroit. Minneapolis will be next. Kansas City, Toledo-Clevland, after that.
Click to expand...
saxman66 said:
The Midwest seems to be focused on Higher Speed Rail which is a good thing. Looks like the Chicago to St Louis corridor will be the first get funds to upgrade its line to 110 mph in the near future. The Hiawatha corridor also seems to be far along with service to Madison not very far away.
Click to expand...
There isn't going to be 110 mph service from CHI to MKE anytime soon. Wisconsin's plan is to first do the MKE-Madison 110 mph route. Then after that they will focus on the Madison-St Paul 110 mph line. But that hasn't even been studied yet and they're not even sure what route it will take. THEN after that is constructed they will push for a Green Bay train. The CHI-MKE improvements will be done during that phase. Why it isn't a priority I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with trying to get new service rather than improve existing service.
 
I know there is some interest in the I-5 corridor, mainly between Seattle and Portland. Over here, near Spokane, the part of Washington very few people know exists, there is none. And it is really not feasible. Not with the Cascades between Spokane and Seattle. Between Spokane and Portland, maybe, but I don't think there is nor will there ever be enough interest to make it feasible.
 
Three completely unrelated thoughts: Its too bad there is so little talk about trans-border routes with Canada. Boston to Montreal would be awesome and a real kick in the pants to the economy of both places.

I'm beginning to think that the money should follow the interest. That is, there seems to be little correlation between the level of interest and the practicality of the route. As a corollary, the process should be heavily federalized to impose at least some rationality to the deployment of the systems besides the level of local rah-rah support.

So far as I know, Southwest Airlines famous lobbying campaign against HSR (I heard that they had more lobbyists than legislators at the peak) is a thing of the past. I think the airlines have decided the advantages of inter-modal transportation (Coding passengers from Spartanburg S.C. to Timbuktu through a station at Hartsfield, for example) outweigh the disadvantage of losing low-margin short-haul traffic.

Anyway, thanks for the update. Its clear the issue is being taken seriously at the local level.
 
birdy said:
Three completely unrelated thoughts: Its too bad there is so little talk about trans-border routes with Canada. Boston to Montreal would be awesome and a real kick in the pants to the economy of both places.
I'm beginning to think that the money should follow the interest. That is, there seems to be little correlation between the level of interest and the practicality of the route. As a corollary, the process should be heavily federalized to impose at least some rationality to the deployment of the systems besides the level of local rah-rah support.

So far as I know, Southwest Airlines famous lobbying campaign against HSR (I heard that they had more lobbyists than legislators at the peak) is a thing of the past. I think the airlines have decided the advantages of inter-modal transportation (Coding passengers from Spartanburg S.C. to Timbuktu through a station at Hartsfield, for example) outweigh the disadvantage of losing low-margin short-haul traffic.

Anyway, thanks for the update. Its clear the issue is being taken seriously at the local level.
Click to expand...
Interesting comment,you are mostly correct,however in the case of the Texas Leg and lobbyists there are literally hundreds of lobbyists hanging out in Austin for every conceivable interest,they outnumber the members and the transportation lobby,national/state and local have among their number some of the highest paid and most influential guys that money can buy!(aka "campaign contributions")The schemes for bullet trains and HSR in the Texas triangle continue to come up and receive media mention regularly down here!Our current Gov favors contracts with foriegn companies to do his scheme for a transportation corridor(Toll roads/HSR/air)but the property rights folks(mostly farmers and ranchers)are totatally against all these ponzi schemes and the regular,everyday folks are slowly beginning to see the light!I have and do ride SW quite often,they are the airline of choice for lots of folks due to price/availability/schedule etc.When trains are available I choose them over any other means of transportation :D of course,but Im not anti-airline,just anti hassle @ the airports and the cattle car conditions that we have allowed to happen in the name of security!The Canada idea is excellent,add Mexico too!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
add Mexico too!!

I would. But the border crossing issues would be a little more difficult. Also, without preexisting short-haul air traffic to poach, the case for any given line would be harder to make. Of course, the know-nothing crowd would be apoplectic. That might be an advantage, though.
Click to expand...
 
I think the comments on the Midwest are a little misplaced. In the last vote on High Speed Rail all the Illinois Congressmen but two Republicans (Kirk & Roskam) voted for High Speed Rail. A lot of down state Republicans voted for High Speed Rail. The insane thing is that the communities that Kirk and Roskam serve have excellent Metra Service (Chicagoland Regional Rail). They have seen passenger rail work! I do not understand their votes?
 
North Carolina is quite interested in HSR and has already done a great deal of work improving the infrastructure on its stretch of the Southeast HSR Corridor. Plus, it has submitted various Recovery Act applications for funding to bring about additional improvements. See http://www.sehsr.org/
 
SanJoaquinRider said:
birdy said:
I've taken to googling high speed rail from time to time
Click to expand...
You might want to check out Google Alerts. You can set up a search on "High Speed Rail", or any other topic, and Google will email you results on a weekly, daily or as-it-happens basis.
Click to expand...
Definitely good advice, I have quite a few alerts set up for various subjects..
 
We really need HSR in Central Florida, especially from Orlando to Tampa and from Orlando to South Florida. However, we have state legislators that are more interested in reducing taxes (to the detriment of education, transportation, and virtually everything else) than improving the quality of life in Central Florida.
 
rrdude said:
Ah, IF ONLY Southwest Airlines would get behind, and RUN the Texas HSR, then we'd have HST on time, and profitable........
Click to expand...
These thoughts aren't as crazy as they would seem on the face of it. Rail, including HSR, could be a tremendous asset to the airlines, allowing them to drop some low margin puddle hopping and instead draw customers from much farther away into larger, more efficient planes. At the same time rail would provide a backup in cases of weather, equipment failure, or meltdown of ATC. I can't count the number of airline vouchers I've personally built up from snagged flights... and each voucher, I'm sure, completely negates the profit the airline would have seen from my seat.

Posed right, this gamechanger could significantly be in the airlines' interests. That airlines fight it is probably a symbol of their lack of confidence in the plan and management more than anything else.

Anyway, I'm thinking particularly about north (and northeast) Texas where people who drive for hours to tiny regional airports would be happy to ride a train for slightly longer to reach DFW/DAL, but I'd imagine this mindset would apply across all regions: the set of people who fly frequently would probably be pretty interested in swapping a fourty-five minute, up and down flight to a "real" airport for a convenient train ride to kick off their travel.
 
Big interest in HSR here in Norfolk, VA. A possible high speed line from Petersburg to Norfolk has quite a few people excited. We miss rail service here!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top