General US High Speed Rail Discussion

There is one reason we don't have much HSR. We don't have the density. Look at the population density map linked below. It's just not there.

https://preview.redd.it/kdi05qrq65o31.p ... 048a0a073a

Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:47 pm There is one reason we don't have much HSR. We don't have the density. Look at the population density map linked below. It's just not there.

https://preview.redd.it/kdi05qrq65o31.p ... 048a0a073a

That's...not really about the case for HSR. HSR in france or japan is not successful because of high rural density you can see on that scale of map. It's successful because it connects large cities, and there are large cities to connect, and because since the 1960s there was a serious, often state-driven effort to connect them.

Just take for an example the North East Corridor. There is perhaps no place in the whole of Western Civilization where you have such a string of such enormous cities all lined up in a nice row, with the biggest conveniently in the middle, the equivalent of Berlin-Lyon-DoubleParis-Rome-Madrid-Marseille. California HSR is the equivalent of linking Moscow and Milan worth of people in three hours, with a whole slew of Hague-to-Vienna sized metropolises in between.

Sure, the US doesn't have the the population density of the very thick belt of people curving through England-Low-Countries-Rhineland-Lombardy, but that's not exactly the 'successful HSR' region of Europe anyway, it's places like France or Spain which are not that different from much of the US in population, and connect a one to a few quite large cities among a larger number of provincial centres, not unlike much of the US. France has a population density that's only 7% higher than California. Maryland is 2% more densely inhabited than Germany. Spain is less dense than Ohio.

I reckon that had the US come in to the 1960s, the period when the ground works for most of the rich world's HSR networks were laid, without semi-bankrupt and over-regulated railroads, cheap oil and a wildly extravagant program of urban and interurban highway building that only a country as rich as the US could afford at the time, the same sort of forces that lead the US to have the world's fastest trains thirty years prior would have continued to hold.

also I think this map captures some of the granularity better https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... th_key.png

bdawe wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:15 pm
Sure, the US doesn't have the the population density of the very thick belt of people curving through England-Low-Countries-Rhineland-Lombardy, but that's not exactly the 'successful HSR' region of Europe anyway, it's places like France or Spain which are not that different from much of the US in population, and connect a one to a few quite large cities among a larger number of provincial centres, not unlike much of the US. France has a population density that's only 7% higher than California. Maryland is 2% more densely inhabited than Germany. Spain is less dense than Ohio.

You raise an interesting point here. You draw a line between very high density HST like England-Low-Countries-Rhineland-Lombardy, to which I add Japan and Taiwan and some Chinese corridors, and " 'successful HSR' region of Europe anyway, ... places like France or Spain which are not that different from much of the US". I agree there is a line, but it proves the opposite of your theory.

I travel in the EU and UK a lot for work. The super-dense areas from category 1 are used a lot by business people and travelers seeking the best way between points, which happens to be HST. The "successful HSR" from category 2 are great fun for me to ride in my trips over there, but my colleagues think I'm batty for riding them. They're somewhere between patronage projects and paean to voters, much like we build interstates to remote areas that could probably suffice with well-done 4-lane highways or even 3-lane. Category 1 systems "make money" like Acela "makes money", IE creative accounting but not a sea of red ink. Category 2 systems are massive bleeders.

I am not strictly against category 2 systems as we have plenty of other more wasteful projects. But I go back to the average traveler. He or she does not want a bullet train, he or she wants a reliable ride. From Boulder to Milwaukee, they don't want an HST, they want a system that works. That might be high-frequency 79mph to Denver, 737 to O'hare, and HST to Milwaukee.

The category 1 systems are mostly upgraded legacy lines like the NEC, since stations need to be sufficiently close together to serve the dense connurbations that full-fat HSR lines are less relatively useful. They mostly make at least an above the rail profit for intercity trains, same as the NEC, but maybe more since they aren't burdened with Amtrak's high maintenance and staffing costs. The ''category 2'' systems cannot be so lumped together though, as they include one of the top-2 HSR lines ever built, the Paris-Lyon high speed line, which has long paid off it's capital costs. Sure, there are patronage lines, especially in Spain where you can do some pretty nice public services when you aren't spending at inflated New York rates for construction, but they tend to be operationally profitable and the patronage is in the form of the capital investment. This would make sense, as why wouldn't a high speed line be operationally profitable? They get a lot of train-miles and staff-miles out of their operational cost centres, it's the capital investment that's iffy.

I think it's something of a self-assurance that you see in the US & Canada to explain our transportation shortcomings that we simply assert that intercity trains lose money everywhere (they don't, it's mostly the commuter trains that are operationally subsidized) But it needs to be interrogated more

Does density really matter in true HSR? Isn't it more important that the endpoints are large traffic generators? If a high speed line is built between New York City and Chicago does it really matter that it goes through nothing but corn fields on the way? Los Angeles to Vegas? Dallas to Houston?

<bump>... evil laugh

Cross-posting to Amtrak, then back to General Passenger.

Oh boy! Something in the General US High Speed Rail Discussion! Is there any news of new/developing/proposed high speed trains in the US? Atlanta-Dallas? Charlotte-Atlanta? Brightline? Vegas-Southern CA? CAHSR? Midwest Hub? HSR in New York State???

"Search" is you friend, as is just perusing the forums. Vegas definitely has news. Texas Central as well. If you're interested in Worldwide HSR, I just moved a bunch of global HSR topics to that forum.

I'll throw some corridors out there that IMHO would be suitable for HSR:

-New York - Albany
-Chicago - Detroit
-Charlotte - Atlanta
-DC - Richmond (and potentially to FL)
-Philadelphia - Harrisburg (potentially Pittsburgh)

Thoughts?

There's the Alon Levy map for the eastern US



with Red being full-flight HSR lines, blue being upgraded legacy lines, and purple being more speculative HSR lines (yellow inside the article)

It never ceases to bother me that so many speculative American HSR maps write off the Michigan Line. Maybe it doesn’t look like a high-speed line should - no arrow-straight segments with wide sweeping curves and viaducts for miles - but it’s also the only place in America aside from the NEC (including Springfield, Albany, and Harrisburg branches) where there is daily scheduled 100+ mph service. (Assuming everything is working with ITCS.) With tilting equipment and track work, there could be 125 mph service on the route.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:37 pm It never ceases to bother me that so many speculative American HSR maps write off the Michigan Line. Maybe it doesn’t look like a high-speed line should - no arrow-straight segments with wide sweeping curves and viaducts for miles - but it’s also the only place in America aside from the NEC (including Springfield, Albany, and Harrisburg branches) where there is daily scheduled 100+ mph service. (Assuming everything is working with ITCS.) With tilting equipment and track work, there could be 125 mph service on the route.

In the authors discussion the blue lines (upgraded legacy lines <125 mph or so) they specify that they could have included the michigan line and many other such lines, but did not for clarity.

Well at least he put Chicago to Toledo along the Michigan state line instead of through Fort Wayne.

We don't need 250 km/h high speed rail. We need reliable 79 mph rail (and where possible 125 mph rail).