<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Future Interstate Rail Network &#8211; Redux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:19:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Korner</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/#comment-155056</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Korner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:57:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=1004#comment-155056</guid>
		<description>Thinking nationally instantly reveals some the problems with the corridors being pursued around the country, and, specifically, in California.

Hubs need to be given priority, not necessarily individual city pairs, because establishing multiple corridors in multiple directions maximizes the usefulness of the system exponentially.

Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York are all natural hubs, and you also identified Montreal, Atlanta, and a few other places.  But, perhaps, the most important is San Bernardino.  Connecting Palm Springs, Phoenix, and, potentially, Tuscon to Los Angeles and San Diego through the San Gabriel Pass in San Bernardino is obvious, but, less so is the Desert Lightning proposal that uses the very same infrastructure to also connect  Las Vegas with both Los Angeles and San Diego.  

This &quot;Y&quot;-shaped configuration would also permit Las Vegas and Phoenix to be connected directly to each other.

Running a line through the Tehachapi Pass for Las Vegas, as Desert Xpress proposes, ignores the significant populations on the C.H.S.R.&#039;s L.A.-to-San Diego section.  And, naturally, that scenario presumes Desert Xpress can be connected with C.H.S.R.

A line through the Cajon Pass is unlikely, unless, of course, magnetic levitation is employed, but, even if such technology proved feasible in this situation, connections to Los Angeles and San Diego (as well as Phoenix) would require intermodal transfers.  And, the proposed section between Ontario and Anaheim would be redundant relative to the C.H.S.R. system.  Moreover, Ontario lies several miles west of the foot of the pass and out of the way for passengers traveling north from San Diego and west from Palm Springs-Phoenix-Tuscon.  The principal advantage of magnetic levitation, however, is its ability to eventually extend the line to St. George, Salt Lake City, Denver, and/or Reno; however, such extensions can still be accomplished in the future with intermodal transfers from a steel-wheels-on-steel-rails line to Las Vegas.

As such, the ideal is the proposed California High-Speed Rail system joined with Desert Lightning at a hub built at the optional station location in San Bernardino.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thinking nationally instantly reveals some the problems with the corridors being pursued around the country, and, specifically, in California.</p>
<p>Hubs need to be given priority, not necessarily individual city pairs, because establishing multiple corridors in multiple directions maximizes the usefulness of the system exponentially.</p>
<p>Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York are all natural hubs, and you also identified Montreal, Atlanta, and a few other places.  But, perhaps, the most important is San Bernardino.  Connecting Palm Springs, Phoenix, and, potentially, Tuscon to Los Angeles and San Diego through the San Gabriel Pass in San Bernardino is obvious, but, less so is the Desert Lightning proposal that uses the very same infrastructure to also connect  Las Vegas with both Los Angeles and San Diego.  </p>
<p>This &#8220;Y&#8221;-shaped configuration would also permit Las Vegas and Phoenix to be connected directly to each other.</p>
<p>Running a line through the Tehachapi Pass for Las Vegas, as Desert Xpress proposes, ignores the significant populations on the C.H.S.R.&#8217;s L.A.-to-San Diego section.  And, naturally, that scenario presumes Desert Xpress can be connected with C.H.S.R.</p>
<p>A line through the Cajon Pass is unlikely, unless, of course, magnetic levitation is employed, but, even if such technology proved feasible in this situation, connections to Los Angeles and San Diego (as well as Phoenix) would require intermodal transfers.  And, the proposed section between Ontario and Anaheim would be redundant relative to the C.H.S.R. system.  Moreover, Ontario lies several miles west of the foot of the pass and out of the way for passengers traveling north from San Diego and west from Palm Springs-Phoenix-Tuscon.  The principal advantage of magnetic levitation, however, is its ability to eventually extend the line to St. George, Salt Lake City, Denver, and/or Reno; however, such extensions can still be accomplished in the future with intermodal transfers from a steel-wheels-on-steel-rails line to Las Vegas.</p>
<p>As such, the ideal is the proposed California High-Speed Rail system joined with Desert Lightning at a hub built at the optional station location in San Bernardino.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Windsor Ontario</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/#comment-75704</link>
		<dc:creator>Windsor Ontario</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=1004#comment-75704</guid>
		<description>I live right across from Detroit and would love to see this happen. The ease of rail travel is highlighted even more with all the regulations of flying, and if I could hop on a high speed rail line to Chicago or other nearby cities I&#039;d definitely take advantage of the service.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I live right across from Detroit and would love to see this happen. The ease of rail travel is highlighted even more with all the regulations of flying, and if I could hop on a high speed rail line to Chicago or other nearby cities I&#8217;d definitely take advantage of the service.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FG</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/#comment-27027</link>
		<dc:creator>FG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:37:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=1004#comment-27027</guid>
		<description>Doesn&#039;t the train to Churchill run because there is no road? 

What I&#039;d really like to see is long distance tourist trains, i.e. Chicago-Denver-Ski Areas (Winter Park specifically). I picture a sevenish departure from Union Station, with stops in Des Moines and Omaha. There&#039;d be full dining and bar car services and breakfast would be timed for climbing the foothills. When the train pulled out from Moffat Tunnel into a new station where bags would be transferred to hotels (along with check in), lift tickets issued and travelers would ski right onto the slopes (for those of you who&#039;ve never been to Winter Park, the west portal of Moffat Tunnel is at the base of the ski slopes). The return would leave at dinner time Sunday evening delivering skiers before work on Monday. 

The decor would have to be &quot;modern alpine&quot; (Pioneer Zephyr perhaps?) and in summer the ski space would and could be used for camping/hiking/backpacking equipment and would be routed to the National Parks. Of course, this would kill off a lot of Wisconsin&#039;s ski industry, but would certainly be easier than driving to Devil&#039;s Head or Alpine Valley for a weekend trip.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doesn&#8217;t the train to Churchill run because there is no road? </p>
<p>What I&#8217;d really like to see is long distance tourist trains, i.e. Chicago-Denver-Ski Areas (Winter Park specifically). I picture a sevenish departure from Union Station, with stops in Des Moines and Omaha. There&#8217;d be full dining and bar car services and breakfast would be timed for climbing the foothills. When the train pulled out from Moffat Tunnel into a new station where bags would be transferred to hotels (along with check in), lift tickets issued and travelers would ski right onto the slopes (for those of you who&#8217;ve never been to Winter Park, the west portal of Moffat Tunnel is at the base of the ski slopes). The return would leave at dinner time Sunday evening delivering skiers before work on Monday. </p>
<p>The decor would have to be &#8220;modern alpine&#8221; (Pioneer Zephyr perhaps?) and in summer the ski space would and could be used for camping/hiking/backpacking equipment and would be routed to the National Parks. Of course, this would kill off a lot of Wisconsin&#8217;s ski industry, but would certainly be easier than driving to Devil&#8217;s Head or Alpine Valley for a weekend trip.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg Wesson</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/#comment-24670</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg Wesson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=1004#comment-24670</guid>
		<description>Interesting to see discussion of this.  As the first commenter said, it makes me want to visit the future!

I do have to take issue with your Cross Canada prioritisation, though.  According to the VIA FAST study back in 2002 (available from the High Speed Canada site (http://highspeedrail.ca/)), the following are the trips between cities in the Quebec - Windsor corridor.

Montreal - Quebec City - 6.9 million trips (a staggering 90% by car)
Montreal - Ottawa - Toronto - 4.4 (Mon-Tor) + 3.5 (Mon-Ott) + 2.4 (Tor-Ott) = 10.3 million trips
Toronto - London - Windsor - 3.0 (Tor-Lon) + 1.8 (Tor-Win) = 4.8 million trips

Obviously the Toronto-Windsor portion doesn&#039;t include Toronto-Detroit traffic, or traffic coming from Ohio or Chicago, but the border crossing between Windsor and Detroit get traffic volumes in the 1000s per day, not 10000s, so I don&#039;t know that those trips would add substantially to the Toronto-Windsor volumes.

These numbers would suggest that Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal or Montreal-Quebec City would be the first priority, with connections between Ontario and Western New York and Quebec and New York prioritised over a Detroit-Windsor connection.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting to see discussion of this.  As the first commenter said, it makes me want to visit the future!</p>
<p>I do have to take issue with your Cross Canada prioritisation, though.  According to the VIA FAST study back in 2002 (available from the High Speed Canada site (<a href="http://highspeedrail.ca/" rel="nofollow">http://highspeedrail.ca/</a>)), the following are the trips between cities in the Quebec &#8211; Windsor corridor.</p>
<p>Montreal &#8211; Quebec City &#8211; 6.9 million trips (a staggering 90% by car)<br />
Montreal &#8211; Ottawa &#8211; Toronto &#8211; 4.4 (Mon-Tor) + 3.5 (Mon-Ott) + 2.4 (Tor-Ott) = 10.3 million trips<br />
Toronto &#8211; London &#8211; Windsor &#8211; 3.0 (Tor-Lon) + 1.8 (Tor-Win) = 4.8 million trips</p>
<p>Obviously the Toronto-Windsor portion doesn&#8217;t include Toronto-Detroit traffic, or traffic coming from Ohio or Chicago, but the border crossing between Windsor and Detroit get traffic volumes in the 1000s per day, not 10000s, so I don&#8217;t know that those trips would add substantially to the Toronto-Windsor volumes.</p>
<p>These numbers would suggest that Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal or Montreal-Quebec City would be the first priority, with connections between Ontario and Western New York and Quebec and New York prioritised over a Detroit-Windsor connection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/#comment-20036</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:18:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=1004#comment-20036</guid>
		<description>Love the concept and the information provided about it thus far.  I&#039;m on an Environment and Land Use committee in the Atlanta area, and this link provides a great look at a potential future.

I&#039;m just now getting a first look at this proposed network, and I was wondering about something in the southeast region.  It seems to me that it would make a lot of sense to route a 150-220 corridor from Minn/Chi to Miami.  By making the Macon - Savannah route a 150-220 corridor, and then continuing from Daytona Beach to Miami with the same.  Keep the Daytona Beach - Tampa at 150-220, but it would seem more practical to make the Tampa - Miami segment at 70-120.

I look forward to researching this more.  Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love the concept and the information provided about it thus far.  I&#8217;m on an Environment and Land Use committee in the Atlanta area, and this link provides a great look at a potential future.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m just now getting a first look at this proposed network, and I was wondering about something in the southeast region.  It seems to me that it would make a lot of sense to route a 150-220 corridor from Minn/Chi to Miami.  By making the Macon &#8211; Savannah route a 150-220 corridor, and then continuing from Daytona Beach to Miami with the same.  Keep the Daytona Beach &#8211; Tampa at 150-220, but it would seem more practical to make the Tampa &#8211; Miami segment at 70-120.</p>
<p>I look forward to researching this more.  Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Woody</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/#comment-16680</link>
		<dc:creator>Woody</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:32:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=1004#comment-16680</guid>
		<description>Yonah makes an error of inclusion here (rather than your garden variety error of omission). He ranks the competing corridors like D.C.-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte / Crescent 1, #8, and Jacksonville-Orlando-Tamps-Miami / Florida CrossState, #12. 

But now we&#039;re talking about affordable short stretches within those longer corridors. D.C.-Richmond and Tampa-Orlando Airport. We could use breakouts to compare the value and viability of these corridors-within-corridors contenders.

I still think California HSR will get the largest piece of the $8 billion plus pie, about $3.5 billion. Florida could get as much, with the advantage that it&#039;s a stand-alone segment that could be funded and finished before the end of Obama-Biden&#039;s second term.

These &quot;true&quot; HST contenders don&#039;t leave much for the incremental improvement candidates, obviously. Not that I&#039;m convinced the others deserve it.

The Chicago-Springfield-St Louis line that I used to think had the inside track only ranks  #25 by Yonah&#039;s calculation. Meanwhile, its price tag has climbed to $4.5 billion, for an unimpressive four-hour trip.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?articleId=32548

And after a study of the recent Amtrak report on the NEC, if I were on the Obama-Biden-LaHood team, I&#039;d punt. &#039;The NEC is too important to be part of this little $8 billion pie. It will need congressional action on its own, next year.&#039;

That play could allow one of the feeders into the NEC to become the demonstration line for incremental upgrades -- Springfield-Hartford-New Haven, Albany-NYC, Harrisburg-Philly, or Richmond-D.C. 

Remember the discussion of the Keystone Corridor here a month or two back. That Pennsylvania project aims to add a million or so passengers, the same as the Chicago-St Louis upgrade, for a lot less than that $4.5 billion Illinois project.

But Richmond-D.C. could easily grab a billion in a swing state with a bipartisan record of support for passenger rail. 

Or perhaps use a billion or so to sprinkle around a dozen states or more, mostly to keep hope alive and the pressure on Congress to appropriate many more billions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yonah makes an error of inclusion here (rather than your garden variety error of omission). He ranks the competing corridors like D.C.-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte / Crescent 1, #8, and Jacksonville-Orlando-Tamps-Miami / Florida CrossState, #12. </p>
<p>But now we&#8217;re talking about affordable short stretches within those longer corridors. D.C.-Richmond and Tampa-Orlando Airport. We could use breakouts to compare the value and viability of these corridors-within-corridors contenders.</p>
<p>I still think California HSR will get the largest piece of the $8 billion plus pie, about $3.5 billion. Florida could get as much, with the advantage that it&#8217;s a stand-alone segment that could be funded and finished before the end of Obama-Biden&#8217;s second term.</p>
<p>These &#8220;true&#8221; HST contenders don&#8217;t leave much for the incremental improvement candidates, obviously. Not that I&#8217;m convinced the others deserve it.</p>
<p>The Chicago-Springfield-St Louis line that I used to think had the inside track only ranks  #25 by Yonah&#8217;s calculation. Meanwhile, its price tag has climbed to $4.5 billion, for an unimpressive four-hour trip.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?articleId=32548" rel="nofollow">http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?articleId=32548</a></p>
<p>And after a study of the recent Amtrak report on the NEC, if I were on the Obama-Biden-LaHood team, I&#8217;d punt. &#8216;The NEC is too important to be part of this little $8 billion pie. It will need congressional action on its own, next year.&#8217;</p>
<p>That play could allow one of the feeders into the NEC to become the demonstration line for incremental upgrades &#8212; Springfield-Hartford-New Haven, Albany-NYC, Harrisburg-Philly, or Richmond-D.C. </p>
<p>Remember the discussion of the Keystone Corridor here a month or two back. That Pennsylvania project aims to add a million or so passengers, the same as the Chicago-St Louis upgrade, for a lot less than that $4.5 billion Illinois project.</p>
<p>But Richmond-D.C. could easily grab a billion in a swing state with a bipartisan record of support for passenger rail. </p>
<p>Or perhaps use a billion or so to sprinkle around a dozen states or more, mostly to keep hope alive and the pressure on Congress to appropriate many more billions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ocean Railroader</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/#comment-16544</link>
		<dc:creator>Ocean Railroader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:36:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=1004#comment-16544</guid>
		<description>I live in Virginia and Virginia is still a swing state and Floirida too could easly change parties the next election. The high speed rail line going though NC and with a spur to Hampton Roads go though some of the worst hit areas in the state of Vriginia were the unempolyment is passing 15%. At least they could try to extend the NEC down to Richmond VA and at least give NC money to restore the former abandoned S line railroad in NC.

But over all it looks like that all ten of the high speed rail corridors would need to have large sections of them built at once to keep the states happy. They could take 10 billon out of that 68 billon that eather Bear Sterns or Morgan Stanely is starting to pay back to the Goverment or they could take 3 billon from the 16 billon that GM is saying they are planning on giving back to the Goverment. A small section of this bailout money could build whole high speed corridors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I live in Virginia and Virginia is still a swing state and Floirida too could easly change parties the next election. The high speed rail line going though NC and with a spur to Hampton Roads go though some of the worst hit areas in the state of Vriginia were the unempolyment is passing 15%. At least they could try to extend the NEC down to Richmond VA and at least give NC money to restore the former abandoned S line railroad in NC.</p>
<p>But over all it looks like that all ten of the high speed rail corridors would need to have large sections of them built at once to keep the states happy. They could take 10 billon out of that 68 billon that eather Bear Sterns or Morgan Stanely is starting to pay back to the Goverment or they could take 3 billon from the 16 billon that GM is saying they are planning on giving back to the Goverment. A small section of this bailout money could build whole high speed corridors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/#comment-16542</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:34:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=1004#comment-16542</guid>
		<description>Florida opens Obama up to criticism that he&#039;s distributing pork to swing states in order to win them in 2012. Texas would be better, but the state would need to come up with a plan that&#039;s less stupid than the TTC - for example, the SNCF plan, or a version of the T-Bone that explains where the line would run in the DFW area.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Florida opens Obama up to criticism that he&#8217;s distributing pork to swing states in order to win them in 2012. Texas would be better, but the state would need to come up with a plan that&#8217;s less stupid than the TTC &#8211; for example, the SNCF plan, or a version of the T-Bone that explains where the line would run in the DFW area.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Lynch</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/#comment-16516</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Lynch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:57:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=1004#comment-16516</guid>
		<description>Alon, thaks for clarifying a point. If this were proposed Obama would need each line selected to be a home run. There are probably better ways to more quickly help the NO area.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alon, thaks for clarifying a point. If this were proposed Obama would need each line selected to be a home run. There are probably better ways to more quickly help the NO area.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jim</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/#comment-16498</link>
		<dc:creator>jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:30:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=1004#comment-16498</guid>
		<description>I suspect that&#039;s LaHood&#039;s intent.  Every time he mentions Florida he seems to be asking them to give him an excuse:  they should fund something, anything vaguely rail-related.  Mica has told them the same thing.

But there are other states which would fit the bill.  Virginia or, even better, North Carolina.  Both may have gone for Obama in 08, but Virginia just elected a Republican governor by a substantial margin and North Carolina is, apart from its 08 Presidential vote, still solidly Republican.  And as was just mentioned in another thread the Republican Mayor of Charlotte (one of the end-points of the NC HSIPR proposal) is notoriously pro-transit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suspect that&#8217;s LaHood&#8217;s intent.  Every time he mentions Florida he seems to be asking them to give him an excuse:  they should fund something, anything vaguely rail-related.  Mica has told them the same thing.</p>
<p>But there are other states which would fit the bill.  Virginia or, even better, North Carolina.  Both may have gone for Obama in 08, but Virginia just elected a Republican governor by a substantial margin and North Carolina is, apart from its 08 Presidential vote, still solidly Republican.  And as was just mentioned in another thread the Republican Mayor of Charlotte (one of the end-points of the NC HSIPR proposal) is notoriously pro-transit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

