So any word on whose high-speed technology will be competing for this?
France's TGV?
Germnay's ICE?
Japan's Shinkansen?
There's some good stuff out there.
New, inferior, slower, more expensive American technology, probably.
I'm wondering what the fares are going to be like. Acela is pretty absurdly expensive. $100 to get from Boston to NYC. Mass transit should be less expensive, or at least comparably expensive, or much faster than driving. Acela is like five times as expensive and not a whole lot faster than driving.
Getting the tracks right are the most important part, but yeah - Acela better not be used.
This is from the strategy document:
Near-term investment strategy seeks to:
• Advance new express high-speed corridor services (operating speeds above 150 mph on primarily dedicated track) in select corridors of 200–600 miles.
• Develop emerging and regional high-speed corridor services (operating speeds up to 90–110 mph and 110–150 mph respectively, on shared and dedicated track) in corridors of 100–500 miles.
• Upgrade reliability and service on conventional intercity rail services (operating speeds up to 79–90 mph).
So any word on whose high-speed technology will be competing for this?
France's TGV?
Germnay's ICE?
Japan's Shinkansen?
There's some good stuff out there.
New, inferior, slower, more expensive American technology, probably.
Please tell me that's your pessimism speaking. There is no actual indication we're about to spend the cash reinventing high speed trains, right?
Don't get me wrong. I could see some sort of "Buy American" clause, where GE (or whoever) licenses the technology from another country but builds the trains here. But, please, let's not invent a whole new one.
please be a maglev, please be a maglev, please be a maglev...
uh, no. those are ungodly expensive.
Seriously. I mean, I'm all for the cool factor. But I'd rather get a sensible and comprehensive system setup than 1 or two corridors built over the course of the next century. We shouldn't be reinventing the wheel with this thing. There are systems proved to work that can be implemented here. We should implement them.
Updated the OP with a much better version of the proposed HSR map which includes some of the non high speed rail that fills in a lot of the obvious holes.
Included here for the lazy
werehippy on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
please be a maglev, please be a maglev, please be a maglev...
uh, no. those are ungodly expensive.
Seriously. I mean, I'm all for the cool factor. But I'd rather get a sensible and comprehensive system setup than 1 or two corridors built over the course of the next century. We shouldn't be reinventing the wheel with this thing. There are systems proved to work that can be implemented here. We should implement them.
Indeed, and maglev doesn't look like it has super awesome benefits:
Wiki: The highest recorded speed of a maglev train is 581 km/h (361 mph), achieved in Japan in 2003[2], 6 km/h faster than the conventional TGV speed record.
So looking at that map, why no high speed train from San Antonio to Houston and no high speed train from Florida to everywhere else? Besides the fact that lots of people dislike Florida.
I understand the big gap over most of the west, but it seems odd to not have it between major cities near one another.
Man, Omaha gets left out. Which wouldn't be all that shocking if they weren't talking about running a line to Albany, Raleigh and especially that hellhole Jacksonville of all places.
From what I understand a lot of the problems and costs associated with running high speed rail transit in the United States has to do with elevation gradients in various parts of the country and also the cost of getting the land to run the track through. Doesn't seem like either would be a problem with Omaha and I would love to be able to zip to Chicago for a weekend. Going to join a tea party over this great injustice Obama, just you wait and see.
Yeah, why the fuck isn't Omaha in that plan. The train service is a joke.
And to whoever said just take a plane: planes are effin expensive if you want to take anything bigger than a computer cross country. They aren't the end-all-be-all of transportation. It'd be awesome if I could get on one of these and go to Chicago or Denver over the weekend and come back without having to pay $texas in short-notice plane tickets and only be able to bring like one extra pair of clothes.
Also the fact that you can actually get up and move around on a train. Also, not everyone can take a plane, nor can you transport everything on a plane.
But for all we know this is probably just the first proposal, and we'll get an actual trans-continent high speed line, which will more than likely go through Omaha.
Man, Omaha gets left out. Which wouldn't be all that shocking if they weren't talking about running a line to Albany, Raleigh and especially that hellhole Jacksonville of all places.
From what I understand a lot of the problems and costs associated with running high speed rail transit in the United States has to do with elevation gradients in various parts of the country and also the cost of getting the land to run the track through. Doesn't seem like either would be a problem with Omaha and I would love to be able to zip to Chicago for a weekend. Going to join a tea party over this great injustice Obama, just you wait and see.
Yeah, why the fuck isn't Omaha in that plan. The train service is a joke.
And to whoever said just take a plane: planes are effin expensive if you want to take anything bigger than a computer cross country. They aren't the end-all-be-all of transportation. It'd be awesome if I could get on one of these and go to Chicago or Denver over the weekend and come back without having to pay $texas in short-notice plane tickets and only be able to bring like one extra pair of clothes.
Also the fact that you can actually get up and move around on a train. Also, not everyone can take a plane, nor can you transport everything on a plane.
If you're moving cross country then mass transit is not the route to take. Hire some movers, or get a u-haul. Overhead compartments don't magically get larger on trains, nor are they going to tack on a new car just so you can bring your sofa with you.
Omaha should be connected, though. Through Iowa City, Des Moines, and the Quad Cities.
Man, Omaha gets left out. Which wouldn't be all that shocking if they weren't talking about running a line to Albany, Raleigh and especially that hellhole Jacksonville of all places.
From what I understand a lot of the problems and costs associated with running high speed rail transit in the United States has to do with elevation gradients in various parts of the country and also the cost of getting the land to run the track through. Doesn't seem like either would be a problem with Omaha and I would love to be able to zip to Chicago for a weekend. Going to join a tea party over this great injustice Obama, just you wait and see.
Yeah, why the fuck isn't Omaha in that plan. The train service is a joke.
And to whoever said just take a plane: planes are effin expensive if you want to take anything bigger than a computer cross country. They aren't the end-all-be-all of transportation. It'd be awesome if I could get on one of these and go to Chicago or Denver over the weekend and come back without having to pay $texas in short-notice plane tickets and only be able to bring like one extra pair of clothes.
Also the fact that you can actually get up and move around on a train. Also, not everyone can take a plane, nor can you transport everything on a plane.
But for all we know this is probably just the first proposal, and we'll get an actual trans-continent high speed line, which will more than likely go through Omaha.
There is not going to be a high speed transcontinental railroad line because our continent is pretty damn huge. We should definitely work to increase speed and rail capacity for freight, but that's a completely different can of worms.
I see people using the Greyhound to move cross-country all the time. Not everyone knows how to or should be driving.
So use greyhound or hire movers. High speed rail is not intended, nor should it be intended, to move houses across country. It's to replace short-hop plane rides and/or driving. Driving as in a car driving, not a truck laden down with crap.
Please be TGV or ICE tech, Please be TGV or ICE tech...
Unlikely, TGV doesn't meet our safety standards (dunno about ICE).
ahahaha, what?
From Wikipedia. Have some tissue ready to wipe your tears:
The Acela trainset is a unique train designed specifically to satisfy very specific U.S. governmental rolling stock requirements. These requirements are significantly different than anywhere else in the world, including countries that have a highly functional high speed rail network. Most manufacturers who bid on the Acela were unable to meet these requirements, bringing up cost and complication for the manufacture of the trains, leaving only one manufacturer, and requiring that manufacturer to make significant engineering changes to their standard designs. These specifications are not a result of specific Northeast Corridor track conditions.
The tilting carriages are based upon Bombardier's earlier LRC trains rather than the TGV's articulated trailers, and the locomotives and passenger cars are much heavier than those of the TGV in order to meet the United States Federal Railroad Administration's different approach to rail crash standards. The Tier II crash standards, adopted in 1999, have also resulted in the passenger cars being designed without steps and trapdoors, which means that the trainsets can only serve stations with high-level platforms—this currently restricts them to lines with high-level platforms such as the Northeast Corridor.
Anybody who's ridden the TGV, ICE, and Acela knows that the Acela is a worse design in more ways than its hilariously inadequate track.
Please be TGV or ICE tech, Please be TGV or ICE tech...
Unlikely, TGV doesn't meet our safety standards (dunno about ICE).
ahahaha, what?
From Wikipedia. Have some tissue ready to wipe your tears:
The Acela trainset is a unique train designed specifically to satisfy very specific U.S. governmental rolling stock requirements. These requirements are significantly different than anywhere else in the world, including countries that have a highly functional high speed rail network. Most manufacturers who bid on the Acela were unable to meet these requirements, bringing up cost and complication for the manufacture of the trains, leaving only one manufacturer, and requiring that manufacturer to make significant engineering changes to their standard designs. These specifications are not a result of specific Northeast Corridor track conditions.
The tilting carriages are based upon Bombardier's earlier LRC trains rather than the TGV's articulated trailers, and the locomotives and passenger cars are much heavier than those of the TGV in order to meet the United States Federal Railroad Administration's different approach to rail crash standards. The Tier II crash standards, adopted in 1999, have also resulted in the passenger cars being designed without steps and trapdoors, which means that the trainsets can only serve stations with high-level platforms—this currently restricts them to lines with high-level platforms such as the Northeast Corridor.
Anybody who's ridden the TGV, ICE, and Acela knows that the Acela is a worse design in more ways than its hilariously inadequate track.
Whooooooooooooa what? Why are our safety standards so much different than everywhere else around the world?
Please be TGV or ICE tech, Please be TGV or ICE tech...
Unlikely, TGV doesn't meet our safety standards (dunno about ICE).
ahahaha, what?
From Wikipedia. Have some tissue ready to wipe your tears:
The Acela trainset is a unique train designed specifically to satisfy very specific U.S. governmental rolling stock requirements. These requirements are significantly different than anywhere else in the world, including countries that have a highly functional high speed rail network. Most manufacturers who bid on the Acela were unable to meet these requirements, bringing up cost and complication for the manufacture of the trains, leaving only one manufacturer, and requiring that manufacturer to make significant engineering changes to their standard designs. These specifications are not a result of specific Northeast Corridor track conditions.
The tilting carriages are based upon Bombardier's earlier LRC trains rather than the TGV's articulated trailers, and the locomotives and passenger cars are much heavier than those of the TGV in order to meet the United States Federal Railroad Administration's different approach to rail crash standards. The Tier II crash standards, adopted in 1999, have also resulted in the passenger cars being designed without steps and trapdoors, which means that the trainsets can only serve stations with high-level platforms—this currently restricts them to lines with high-level platforms such as the Northeast Corridor.
Anybody who's ridden the TGV, ICE, and Acela knows that the Acela is a worse design in more ways than its hilariously inadequate track.
Mei Hikari on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
And people wonder why our public transportation is decaying.
I like this idea from a local perspective. A high-speed rail line linking Reno with the Bay Area would be a boon to both areas. A lot of us already drive from Reno to SF or Sac. regularly, and I'd love to be able to relax on the ride, even if it took marginally longer than a drive.
If the tickets were reasonable, I'd even consider taking cross-country trips on it.
I've mucked about on the ICE trains in Germany and the Benelux region. I honestly prefer it to air travel. With all the checking in and baggage bullshit, it takes less time in a lot of cases than flying, and is a hell of a lot more pleasant.
I kinda wish they'd throw in a spur going from Daytona over to Orlando. It'd be nice to be able to hit up the orlando downtown area, and not have to get drive home drunk, and it would pull some tourists over to our little berg. We suck pretty hard for intracity mass transit though, Orlando as well, but if there was more demand and more money coming into the area, they could work something out. We've got buses, but they are pretty much only used by the chronically unemployable.
I like this idea from a local perspective. A high-speed rail line linking Reno with the Bay Area would be a boon to both areas. A lot of us already drive from Reno to SF or Sac. regularly, and I'd love to be able to relax on the ride, even if it took marginally longer than a drive.
If the tickets were reasonable, I'd even consider taking cross-country trips on it.
Yeah. You'd never be late, even if it crashed, because hey, the governor lady can always send in more trains.
I like this idea from a local perspective. A high-speed rail line linking Reno with the Bay Area would be a boon to both areas. A lot of us already drive from Reno to SF or Sac. regularly, and I'd love to be able to relax on the ride, even if it took marginally longer than a drive.
If the tickets were reasonable, I'd even consider taking cross-country trips on it.
Unfortunately most people care about exactly two things in travel: How fast? How cheap?
Last year I took a 13 hour train ride from Germany to the Netherlands. My wife and I had a sleeping room to ourselves: Bunk beds. Your own toilet and shower. Sparkling wine upon embarkment. An extensive breakfast including meats, cheeses, yogurt, rolls, tea, coffee, and juice. Being woken by a steward.
Next year, I'll go back using the Queen Mary II, the last ocean liner. To me it's as much about the trip as how fast I get there. It's vacation after all.
For those of you who are wondering about fares for HST in California, there is a convenient fare/travel time calculator. I think proposed fare is being overtly optimistic (Frisco to LA for $55), but the planners claim that the fare structure can pay for its entire capital costs in 30 years, give or take.
The Obama plan stitches together most of the plans that have already been studied.
The disconnected networks are mainly already studied plans - the Chicago hub (MRRI) network has been in various stages of development since 1996. 13 years! And there is a 15 year buildout plan for that one alone. Buildout of the original highway system finished in 1992, with the Glenwood Canyon section of Interstate 70. The map presented is at least feasible in a shorter time frame. Most of the other plans have been in the works - so they are far closer to getting to production than starting from scratch. There is a huge planning information for the MRRI system on the DOT sites for the various states.
And no, spurs to Omaha (60th largest metro area) or Daytona (100th largest) should not be on the initial build out plan. Look at the original Eisenhower highway system. are not on the rail paths connecting any large population centers. Of the top 25, only Phoenix and Denver are not in the plan, which are isolated from the usual 500 mi range of HSI. I'd only shift the Little Rock/Texarkana part to connect through Topeka and KC.
Please be TGV or ICE tech, Please be TGV or ICE tech...
Unlikely, TGV doesn't meet our safety standards (dunno about ICE).
ahahaha, what?
From Wikipedia. Have some tissue ready to wipe your tears:
The Acela trainset is a unique train designed specifically to satisfy very specific U.S. governmental rolling stock requirements. These requirements are significantly different than anywhere else in the world, including countries that have a highly functional high speed rail network. Most manufacturers who bid on the Acela were unable to meet these requirements, bringing up cost and complication for the manufacture of the trains, leaving only one manufacturer, and requiring that manufacturer to make significant engineering changes to their standard designs. These specifications are not a result of specific Northeast Corridor track conditions.
The tilting carriages are based upon Bombardier's earlier LRC trains rather than the TGV's articulated trailers, and the locomotives and passenger cars are much heavier than those of the TGV in order to meet the United States Federal Railroad Administration's different approach to rail crash standards. The Tier II crash standards, adopted in 1999, have also resulted in the passenger cars being designed without steps and trapdoors, which means that the trainsets can only serve stations with high-level platforms—this currently restricts them to lines with high-level platforms such as the Northeast Corridor.
Anybody who's ridden the TGV, ICE, and Acela knows that the Acela is a worse design in more ways than its hilariously inadequate track.
Yeah, our crash standards (just like our car crash standards) are tougher than those in Europe.
I asked before and I'll ask it again, what exactly makes Acela so bad?
I'm not defending it, I seriously have no idea why it should be crap other than the fact that the track is, as you put it, "hilariously inadequate" - which it most certainly is.
Posts
The South hates the French. Well, it's really more of a mild disdain than hate. Really it's just Bill O'Reilly.
We mock because, well, we're a sarcastic people.
I'm wondering what the fares are going to be like. Acela is pretty absurdly expensive. $100 to get from Boston to NYC. Mass transit should be less expensive, or at least comparably expensive, or much faster than driving. Acela is like five times as expensive and not a whole lot faster than driving.
This is from the strategy document:
There may be talk of a bridge...
I never though I'd be on a traaaaain [/robotvoice]
Please tell me that's your pessimism speaking. There is no actual indication we're about to spend the cash reinventing high speed trains, right?
Don't get me wrong. I could see some sort of "Buy American" clause, where GE (or whoever) licenses the technology from another country but builds the trains here. But, please, let's not invent a whole new one.
and it is a goddamn joke
uh, no. those are ungodly expensive.
Seriously. I mean, I'm all for the cool factor. But I'd rather get a sensible and comprehensive system setup than 1 or two corridors built over the course of the next century. We shouldn't be reinventing the wheel with this thing. There are systems proved to work that can be implemented here. We should implement them.
Included here for the lazy
Indeed, and maglev doesn't look like it has super awesome benefits:
Laser powered Rearden-trains for everyone who is not a Taker.
I understand the big gap over most of the west, but it seems odd to not have it between major cities near one another.
Unlikely, TGV doesn't meet our safety standards (dunno about ICE).
There's a reason why we developed Acela.
Also, what's wrong with Acela other than the fact that the railbed doesn't allow it to go fast enough?
Yeah, why the fuck isn't Omaha in that plan. The train service is a joke.
And to whoever said just take a plane: planes are effin expensive if you want to take anything bigger than a computer cross country. They aren't the end-all-be-all of transportation. It'd be awesome if I could get on one of these and go to Chicago or Denver over the weekend and come back without having to pay $texas in short-notice plane tickets and only be able to bring like one extra pair of clothes.
Also the fact that you can actually get up and move around on a train. Also, not everyone can take a plane, nor can you transport everything on a plane.
But for all we know this is probably just the first proposal, and we'll get an actual trans-continent high speed line, which will more than likely go through Omaha.
If you're moving cross country then mass transit is not the route to take. Hire some movers, or get a u-haul. Overhead compartments don't magically get larger on trains, nor are they going to tack on a new car just so you can bring your sofa with you.
Omaha should be connected, though. Through Iowa City, Des Moines, and the Quad Cities.
Then use greyhound.
There is not going to be a high speed transcontinental railroad line because our continent is pretty damn huge. We should definitely work to increase speed and rail capacity for freight, but that's a completely different can of worms.
So use greyhound or hire movers. High speed rail is not intended, nor should it be intended, to move houses across country. It's to replace short-hop plane rides and/or driving. Driving as in a car driving, not a truck laden down with crap.
Greyhound is more expensive than the train or plane.
ahahaha, what?
From Wikipedia. Have some tissue ready to wipe your tears:
The tilting carriages are based upon Bombardier's earlier LRC trains rather than the TGV's articulated trailers, and the locomotives and passenger cars are much heavier than those of the TGV in order to meet the United States Federal Railroad Administration's different approach to rail crash standards. The Tier II crash standards, adopted in 1999, have also resulted in the passenger cars being designed without steps and trapdoors, which means that the trainsets can only serve stations with high-level platforms—this currently restricts them to lines with high-level platforms such as the Northeast Corridor.
Anybody who's ridden the TGV, ICE, and Acela knows that the Acela is a worse design in more ways than its hilariously inadequate track.
Whooooooooooooa what? Why are our safety standards so much different than everywhere else around the world?
If the tickets were reasonable, I'd even consider taking cross-country trips on it.
I kinda wish they'd throw in a spur going from Daytona over to Orlando. It'd be nice to be able to hit up the orlando downtown area, and not have to get drive home drunk, and it would pull some tourists over to our little berg. We suck pretty hard for intracity mass transit though, Orlando as well, but if there was more demand and more money coming into the area, they could work something out. We've got buses, but they are pretty much only used by the chronically unemployable.
Yeah. You'd never be late, even if it crashed, because hey, the governor lady can always send in more trains.
Unfortunately most people care about exactly two things in travel: How fast? How cheap?
Last year I took a 13 hour train ride from Germany to the Netherlands. My wife and I had a sleeping room to ourselves: Bunk beds. Your own toilet and shower. Sparkling wine upon embarkment. An extensive breakfast including meats, cheeses, yogurt, rolls, tea, coffee, and juice. Being woken by a steward.
Next year, I'll go back using the Queen Mary II, the last ocean liner. To me it's as much about the trip as how fast I get there. It's vacation after all.
The disconnected networks are mainly already studied plans - the Chicago hub (MRRI) network has been in various stages of development since 1996. 13 years! And there is a 15 year buildout plan for that one alone. Buildout of the original highway system finished in 1992, with the Glenwood Canyon section of Interstate 70. The map presented is at least feasible in a shorter time frame. Most of the other plans have been in the works - so they are far closer to getting to production than starting from scratch. There is a huge planning information for the MRRI system on the DOT sites for the various states.
And no, spurs to Omaha (60th largest metro area) or Daytona (100th largest) should not be on the initial build out plan. Look at the original Eisenhower highway system. are not on the rail paths connecting any large population centers. Of the top 25, only Phoenix and Denver are not in the plan, which are isolated from the usual 500 mi range of HSI. I'd only shift the Little Rock/Texarkana part to connect through Topeka and KC.
Yeah, our crash standards (just like our car crash standards) are tougher than those in Europe.
I asked before and I'll ask it again, what exactly makes Acela so bad?
I'm not defending it, I seriously have no idea why it should be crap other than the fact that the track is, as you put it, "hilariously inadequate" - which it most certainly is.