Comments on: The High-Speed Rail Numbers Game: Is $13 Billion and 110 MPH Enough?

By: lexslamman

lexslamman — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:58:28 +0000

I think that there aren't enough corridors - and there isn't enough money. In addition to the 11 corridors given, I would say that Cincinnati-Atlanta, Indianapolis-Birmingham, Cincinnati-Cleveland, Cleveland-Pittsburgh, Tulsa-Memphis, Chicago-Toronto-Montreal, Los Angeles-Phoenix, Los Angeles-Las Vegas-Salt Lake City and Denver-Albuquerque should be seriously considered for their economic and linking benefits. First step, of course, will be to pass the Surface Transportation Act of 2009.

By: 21st Century Urban Solutions

21st Century Urban Solutions — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:27:13 +0000

I think it's too much of an "all or nothing" approach. The way I see it, there should be 3 categories: Improved corridors (80-110mph), Moderate High Speed (110-150mph), and Ultra-High Speed (150+mph). It seems like a big jump is required to push trains above the 100-110mph level (with grade separations, etc.), and there are some corridors that could function very well if trains had their own set of tracks and consistently traveled 80-90mph (the Capitol Corridor, ACE, Colorado, Upstate NY, and many of the Southern routes come to mind). For these shorter corridors, some of which are marked for HSR and some that are not, as long as trains are frequent, reliable, and faster that driving, they could still capture a significant amount of riders. Really, we should be focusing on five main corridors for new moderate and ultra high speed--CA, Cascades, Texas, Florida, and Midwest-Chicago, as well as improvements to the existing Northeast corridor. Everything else would do fine as basic improved corridors for now.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:46:07 +0000

Jeffrey: this map depicts the coastal route because it is basically the old 90 mph designated corridor map, generated well before Obama or his HSR strategic plan. The National Rail Plan, which is due to be released this fall, will update the HSR corridors to be consistent with state planning.

By: John Murphy

John Murphy — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:57:00 +0000

@patrick - impossible. I've ridden that route from SLO to SJC. Too curvy to shoot for those speeds.

By: patrick

patrick — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:35:47 +0000

I think they are talking about upgrading the existing Amtrak coastal route to be express (about 100mph or so), rather than true HSR (150+ mph). It's definitely not part of the recently approved California High Speed Rail Project, which will be going through the Central Valley.

By: John Murphy

John Murphy — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:34:05 +0000

Jeffrey - to Ed Rendell, Fresno is on the West Coast....

By: Jeffrey W. Baker

Jeffrey W. Baker — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:37:29 +0000

Is anyone seriously proposing a coastal HSR route in California? I've certainly seen misguided bloggers who believe Lompoc is a major city complaining that CAHSR won't run through their towns, but I know of no actual plan to do so.