3 ms·

The Route Map is very interesting: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap-lv.pdf http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap-lv.pdf It seems odd you

by javery 17y ago

The Route Map is very interesting: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap-lv.pdf http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap-lv.pdf It seems odd you would be able to go from Boston to Houston on all high-speed but not New York to Chicago. I think they should add that Buffalo to Cleveland rout to the high-speed list. Of course it probably has to do with the condition of the existing rails and the terrain.

hristov 17y ago
Southern senators need their pork. Logically the south is not the best place to put rail because they do not have the large population centers, but politically there has to be just as much rail in the south as in the northeast or the southern congresspeople will destroy any legislation. This is one of the reasons Amtrak has been losing money, btw.
- wallflower 17y ago
  "Amtrak operates corridor routes (covering distances under 400 miles) and long-distance routes (over 400 miles in length)...Virtually all of Amtrak's 44 or so routes lose money but the long-distance routes lose the most... In congressional testimony the DOT IG stated that long-distance trains accounted for only 15% of total inter-city ridership.." http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/crs/amtrak.pdf http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/crs/amtrak.pdf
- skolor 17y ago
  This statement confuses me. Looking at that map, it looks like most of the rail is being put in places that could most use it. There are a few confusing places (like the Buffalo-Cleveland being left out), but for the most part it seems to be linking the major city centers for those areas together. I do wonder about that little Florida circuit, especially why it isn't being connected to the rest of the huge Houston->All of the East coast circuit. I also wonder why Kentucky/Tennessee are left out.
- tptacek 17y ago
  The other reasons being that they provide a mostly terrible service that is impractical for routine use to an uninteresting market with an ineffective pricing scheme. But yeah, pork is bad too.
- jdrock 17y ago
  Maybe the population in the South will increase as a result?
  - tptacek 17y ago
    More likely, lots of people stuck in dead-end manufacturing jobs will have access to better careers in major/minor S/E metro areas, and a lot more locations in the S/E will become viable locations for business expansion, like new call centers, data centers, modern industrial, etc.
- hughprime 17y ago
  The South does have large population centers, it's just that they're rather far apart. The northeast, maybe extending into Chicago, is the one and only part of the US where a high-speed rail network would make sense, but it's silly to expect a government to do things just because they make sense.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    SF-Sacramento-LA-SD PHX-Tucson-ABQ-Vegas DFW-Austin-Houston-San Antonio Memphis-Little Rock-Jackson-Birmingham-Louisville-Atlanta There's really only one place on the map that doesn't make sense for rail, and that's the inner northwest (bounded by but not including Wichita, Sioux Falls, Spokane, and SLC). Everywhere else on the map there are hugely valuable cliques. The fully connected graph is a red herring. Until we properly invest in monorail technology (bona-fide electrified six-car monorail!), trains will never be the right way to get from NYC to LA. But there is a whole universe of people I could hire --- people I can name right now --- if STL and MSP were wired to Chicago metro via high-speed rail. There are also clients who I could do 2-3x more work at, because we could staff on-site.
    - jamesbritt 17y ago
      It pains me that I can't grab a decent train from Phoenix to Los Angeles or San Diego. ABQ would be real perk. Being able to join up events in those areas would be a boon to all involved.
    - masklinn 17y ago
      > The fully connected graph is a red herring. Until we properly invest in monorail technology Don't you mean maglev rather than monorail? Monorails aren't especially fast. And even with expensive maglev techs, NYC to LA by train will still be long and painful. I don't expect that kind of travels to be worth doing by train (rather than plane) until we manage transcontinental vacuum-pressurized maglev tunnels.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        No, I meant monorail. Once again? Monorail! Was I sent here by the devil? No, good sir. I'm on the level!
tptacek 17y ago
That, and with the goals of the system: it could be more beneficial to get people from Detroit, Toledo, and St. Louis to Chicago, to create a vibrant midwest business "zone" across much of the rust belt by linking it to a prosperous metro, than to link Chicago to NYC --- which would mostly benefit people like me, who don't need the help.
warfangle 17y ago
Sure is interesting. If tickets on the NC->NY circuit are less than airline tickets, it might be worthwhile (currently, airline tickets are only about fifty dollars more than amtrak tickets; and amtrak takes ~9 hours). Also interesting is the route between Raleigh and Charlotte - right now there are only two trains that do that, late morning and early afternoon trains that aren't even useful for business travelers.
DougWebb 17y ago
The North-East Corridor (NEC) is basically our already-existing high speed train system: Amtrak's Acela. The problem is that it was a regular speed train system before that (and still is) and although some upgrades were made to the existing railbeds, their locations, slopes, and curves can't be changed much because of the population density throughout the region. That slows the trains down, and prevents real high speed trains in one of the US regions where it makes the most economic sense to have them. Business and government travel between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington is HUGE, and the little jumper flights between these cities are lousy.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Repeated from downthread, but I think this is a red herring. NYC->BOS Acela doesn't need to be faster than a car to be tied with JetBlue for most effective way to get between those two cities. Cars are, in fact, a very effective way to get between point A and B when A->B < 4 hours. They're just a pain in the ass, and environmentally unsound.

by javery 17y ago

hristov 17y ago

Southern senators need their pork. Logically the south is not the best place to put rail because they do not have the large population centers, but politically there has to be just as much rail in the south as in the northeast or the southern congresspeople will destroy any legislation. This is one of the reasons Amtrak has been losing money, btw.

wallflower 17y ago
"Amtrak operates corridor routes (covering distances under 400 miles) and long-distance routes (over 400 miles in length)...Virtually all of Amtrak's 44 or so routes lose money but the long-distance routes lose the most... In congressional testimony the DOT IG stated that long-distance trains accounted for only 15% of total inter-city ridership.." http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/crs/amtrak.pdf http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/crs/amtrak.pdf
skolor 17y ago
This statement confuses me. Looking at that map, it looks like most of the rail is being put in places that could most use it. There are a few confusing places (like the Buffalo-Cleveland being left out), but for the most part it seems to be linking the major city centers for those areas together. I do wonder about that little Florida circuit, especially why it isn't being connected to the rest of the huge Houston->All of the East coast circuit. I also wonder why Kentucky/Tennessee are left out.
tptacek 17y ago
The other reasons being that they provide a mostly terrible service that is impractical for routine use to an uninteresting market with an ineffective pricing scheme. But yeah, pork is bad too.
jdrock 17y ago
Maybe the population in the South will increase as a result?
- tptacek 17y ago
  More likely, lots of people stuck in dead-end manufacturing jobs will have access to better careers in major/minor S/E metro areas, and a lot more locations in the S/E will become viable locations for business expansion, like new call centers, data centers, modern industrial, etc.
hughprime 17y ago
The South does have large population centers, it's just that they're rather far apart. The northeast, maybe extending into Chicago, is the one and only part of the US where a high-speed rail network would make sense, but it's silly to expect a government to do things just because they make sense.
- tptacek 17y ago
  SF-Sacramento-LA-SD PHX-Tucson-ABQ-Vegas DFW-Austin-Houston-San Antonio Memphis-Little Rock-Jackson-Birmingham-Louisville-Atlanta There's really only one place on the map that doesn't make sense for rail, and that's the inner northwest (bounded by but not including Wichita, Sioux Falls, Spokane, and SLC). Everywhere else on the map there are hugely valuable cliques. The fully connected graph is a red herring. Until we properly invest in monorail technology (bona-fide electrified six-car monorail!), trains will never be the right way to get from NYC to LA. But there is a whole universe of people I could hire --- people I can name right now --- if STL and MSP were wired to Chicago metro via high-speed rail. There are also clients who I could do 2-3x more work at, because we could staff on-site.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    It pains me that I can't grab a decent train from Phoenix to Los Angeles or San Diego. ABQ would be real perk. Being able to join up events in those areas would be a boon to all involved.
  - masklinn 17y ago
    > The fully connected graph is a red herring. Until we properly invest in monorail technology Don't you mean maglev rather than monorail? Monorails aren't especially fast. And even with expensive maglev techs, NYC to LA by train will still be long and painful. I don't expect that kind of travels to be worth doing by train (rather than plane) until we manage transcontinental vacuum-pressurized maglev tunnels.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      No, I meant monorail. Once again? Monorail! Was I sent here by the devil? No, good sir. I'm on the level!

tptacek 17y ago

That, and with the goals of the system: it could be more beneficial to get people from Detroit, Toledo, and St. Louis to Chicago, to create a vibrant midwest business "zone" across much of the rust belt by linking it to a prosperous metro, than to link Chicago to NYC --- which would mostly benefit people like me, who don't need the help.

warfangle 17y ago

Sure is interesting. If tickets on the NC->NY circuit are less than airline tickets, it might be worthwhile (currently, airline tickets are only about fifty dollars more than amtrak tickets; and amtrak takes ~9 hours). Also interesting is the route between Raleigh and Charlotte - right now there are only two trains that do that, late morning and early afternoon trains that aren't even useful for business travelers.

DougWebb 17y ago

The North-East Corridor (NEC) is basically our already-existing high speed train system: Amtrak's Acela. The problem is that it was a regular speed train system before that (and still is) and although some upgrades were made to the existing railbeds, their locations, slopes, and curves can't be changed much because of the population density throughout the region. That slows the trains down, and prevents real high speed trains in one of the US regions where it makes the most economic sense to have them. Business and government travel between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington is HUGE, and the little jumper flights between these cities are lousy.

tptacek 17y ago
Repeated from downthread, but I think this is a red herring. NYC->BOS Acela doesn't need to be faster than a car to be tied with JetBlue for most effective way to get between those two cities. Cars are, in fact, a very effective way to get between point A and B when A->B < 4 hours. They're just a pain in the ass, and environmentally unsound.