Forbes Article: The U.S. Is Preparing To Put Billions Into High-Speed Rail

Five of CityNerd's picks are city pairs on the Northeast Corridor, and it's a given that a big US HSR push will include the NEC, like new tunnels under the Hudson River and downtown Baltimore.

Of the others, Miami-Orlando will open soon, though it will be a moderate-speed line by HSR standards, LA-LV and Houston-Dallas are almost ready to begin construction, and LA-SFBA is partially under construction. That leaves Chicago-Detroit and his three honorable mentions.

lpetrich wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:06 pm CityNerd's picks:

1. NYC - DC - 22.6m, 9.8m, 230 mi
2. NYC - Boston - 22.6m, 8.3m, 215 mi
3. NYC - Philadelphia - 22.6m, 7.2m, 95 mi
4. DC - Philadelphia - 9.8m, 7.2m, 150 mi
5. Houston - Dallas - 7.3m, 8.1m, 240 mi
6. Los Angeles - San Francisco Bay Area - 18.7m, 9.7m, 380 mi
7. Los Angeles - Las Vegas - 18.7m, 2.3m, 270 mi
8. Chicago - Detroit - 9.8m, 5.3m, 290 mi
9. Boston - Philadelphia - 8.3m, 7.2m, 305 mi
10. Miami - Orlando - 6.9m,4.2m, 240 mi
11. LA - Phoenix - 18.7m, 5.0m, 370 mi
12. Chicago - Indianapolis - 9.8m, 2.5m, 190 mi
13. DC - Pittsburgh - 9.8m, 2.6m, 245 mi

(with some honorable mentions) (DC includes Baltimore here)
LA - Bay Area gets a hit because of using an inverse-square distance.

To add, the scores of these city pairs are more significant than their rankings. the NEC city pairs scored higher than 20 points, Houston-Dallas and LA-LV near 10, and the rest below 5.
1. NYC - DC - 32.4m, 230 mi
2. NYC - Boston - 30.9m, 215 mi
3. NYC - Philadelphia - 29.8m, 95 mi
4. DC - Philadelphia - 17.0m, 150 mi
5. Houston - Dallas - 15.4m, 240 mi
6. Los Angeles - San Francisco Bay Area - 28.4m, 380 mi
7. Los Angeles - Las Vegas - 21.0m, 270 mi
8. Chicago - Detroit - 15.1m, 290 mi
9. Boston - Philadelphia - 15.2m, 305 mi
10. Miami - Orlando - 11.1m, 240 mi
11. LA - Phoenix - 23.7m, 370 mi
12. Chicago - Indianapolis - 12.3m, 190 mi
13. DC - Pittsburgh - 12.4m, 245 mi
Just adding the city populations together to make the following observations clearer. Note, at distances further than 250 miles the travel distance effects the ranking more than population, while below 250 miles it seems the total market population of both cities in the married-pair effects the ranking more.
It's that 2 and 3 hour rules of thumb raising its ugly head again. At 2 hours, trains overwhelming rule over jets while at 3 hours they are competitive with one another. At 4 hours jets rule over trains.
City Nerd was assuming 180 mph average speeds with trains having maximum speeds at 200 mph when calculating these rankings. That in itself is being too optimistic. Texas Central, with very limited stops and using trains capable of 200 mph, only predicts 160 mph average speeds. So I really believe his 250 mile sweet spot is slightly optimistic. Just about every HSR line in the world slows down entering and exiting cities like Texas Central will, so average speeds will be lower than many think.

Another question is where the investment would make the biggest improvement over existing service and trip times. I don't think that the Northeast Corridor is the place. True high-speed rail end to end would be fantastically expensive to achieve NY-Boston and NY-DC trips that would be, what? an hour faster? I think that the bigger potential is in Texas, Florida, the Midwest, and Southwest.

Literalman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 3:13 pm Another question is where the investment would make the biggest improvement over existing service and trip times. I don't think that the Northeast Corridor is the place. True high-speed rail end to end would be fantastically expensive to achieve NY-Boston and NY-DC trips that would be, what? an hour faster? I think that the bigger potential is in Texas, Florida, the Midwest, and Southwest.

Expensive and I've read estimates that the NE Corridor conversion to top end high speed would require the displacement of at least, and likely many more, 100,000 people and businesses to acquire the land for elimination and easing of curves.

electricron wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 6:35 am It's that 2 and 3 hour rules of thumb raising its ugly head again. At 2 hours, trains overwhelming rule over jets while at 3 hours they are competitive with one another. At 4 hours jets rule over trains.

There is another factor which I personally witnessed on business trips for my employer. I made many trips over the years from Newark, NJ where my office was located in the corporate headquarters building, to industry meetings, federal regulatory meetings and hearings in Washington, DC and sometimes Boston. I used the Metroliners and Acela Express. Newark to DC was a bit under 3 hours. Other employees flew from Newark Airport to DC or Boston, I was the only one that took the train. When I asked the others why, they all said, "the frequent flyers miles". I responded that Amtrak also had a similar rewards program. They said, "I use the frequent flyer program for vacations. I am not going to spend a day or two on a train when I can fly to the vacation destination in a few hours at most."

BOS-NYP high speed rail, beyond what we have so far has been unsolvable due to curvature and/or hilliness and/or congested row. Not going to be fixed until there is perhaps superelevation and trains that don't yet exist that are able to generate more rolling friction (traction) for the same or less weight. Until then it's going to be small incremental improvements.

Ken W2KB wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 9:06 am Expensive and I've read estimates that the NE Corridor conversion to top end high speed would require the displacement of at least, and likely many more, 100,000 people and businesses to acquire the land for elimination and easing of curves.

Which is why I suggested earlier eliminating slow and congested areas earlier. 200 mph trains on the NEC is not likely going to happen at a reasonable cost. But replacing existing bridges and tunnels, where speeds drop, and adding track to the existing corridor to eliminate congestion can be done at a reasonable cost. We-re just going to have to be happy with 150-180 mph max speeds there. The biggest impact to the NEC average speeds is the MTA North tracks from New York to New Haven. Max speeds of 79 mph for that long a stretch of track really impacts the NEC average speeds. Sorry, I have no reasonable solution to pull out of the hat monetary wise.

Has CT DOT proposed to work on a small section to raise speed limits?

BandA wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 12:49 am Not going to be fixed until there is perhaps superelevation and trains that don't yet exist that are able to generate more rolling friction (traction) for the same or less weight.

There were and are trains which generate more traction for less weight. They use racks for traction.

And what's the average speed for rack traction where it's used?

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Ken W2KB wrote:

Literalman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 3:13 pm Another question is where the investment would make the biggest improvement over existing service and trip times. I don't think that the Northeast Corridor is the place. True high-speed rail end to end would be fantastically expensive to achieve NY-Boston and NY-DC trips that would be, what? an hour faster? I think that the bigger potential is in Texas, Florida, the Midwest, and Southwest.

Expensive and I've read estimates that the NE Corridor conversion to top end high speed would require the displacement of at least, and likely many more, 100,000 people and businesses to acquire the land for elimination and easing of curves.

This is how the Europeans and Chinese have built their HSR : Displace 100,000 for the public good and it will return 100 years of benefits....




Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

electricron wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 10:26 am We-re just going to have to be happy with 150-180 mph max speeds there. The biggest impact to the NEC average speeds is the MTA North tracks from New York to New Haven. Max speeds of 79 mph for that long a stretch of track really impacts the NEC average speeds. Sorry, I have no reasonable solution to pull out of the hat monetary wise.

And to be honest, NEC speeds in that range would be just fine. The distances are such, that a train running 150-180 makes the trip time competitive with air travel, and a clear winner over car/bus options. It already is break even time-wise. Shave off an hour+ by fixing the speed pinches as you've suggested, and I think we can legitimately consider the NEC to be HSR. The 200 - 250 mph speeds aren't needed there, leave that for California and Texas.

eolesen wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 1:30 am

To the best of my knowledge it is rather slow because it is currently only used to overcome steep grades--not for high acceleration.