Comments on: GAO Questions DOT's HSR Strategy

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:43:22 +0000

Chris, at 110 mph, the time cost of a single station stop is 3-5 minutes. Amtrak already runs an express Chicago-St. Louis train, which makes 5 stops, and, since it only runs at 79 mph, saves only 10 minutes versus local trains, which make 10 stops. If such an express train, run at 110 mph, can’t maintain an average speed of at least 90 mph, it’s because of slow zones, not stops.

By: Chris G

Chris G — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:10:51 +0000

Too many station stops Yonah.

If they went about the frequency increases they could run trains express and help that situation on at least some runs.

But yes, i was using top speed instead of average and that turned to be misleading.

By: Yonah Freemark

Yonah Freemark — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:49:32 +0000

I think it's important to clarify that 110 mph would be the top speed, not the average speed. This is an important difference. A four-hour trip between Chicago and St. Louis means an average speed of 75 mph. Not much faster than the average car trip, in other words.

By: Chris G

Chris G — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:46:02 +0000

A follow up to polical_incorrectness.

I disagree with your statement that 110 will not generate excitement St Louis to Chicago. I think its more than enough to start and get people taking the train. 110 is faster by far than what should be allowed on the roads. People may claim they drive 85-90 etc, but if they’re averaging speeds like that they’re driving off peak and the police there is not doing their job.

Also, the key to these corridors (and i hate using that word) is to increase frequency and upgrade the trains. Comfort and choice will do more to increase ridership than top speed. Throw in the upgrades to increase average speed by reducing slow areas (example CREATE) and 110 will be an excellent start. 110 will allow more station stops.

I know we all want 200+, but 110 right now would be a huge increase over the 79 we have now and we can do more of it for the same amount of money.

That said, if the government puts out a plan, i’ll support it. We shouldnt be arguing amongst ourselves. (not saying we are here)

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:30:46 +0000

In several Midwestern corridors, including Chicago-St. Louis, 110 mph is easy to upgrade to 220 later, because the right of way is straight with few curves, all of which can be eased later with little difficulties. Going to 220 will require electrification and probably additional track upgrade, but no construction of a new line from scratch as in France or California.

A more or less complete list of such corridors, where full HSR can be overlaid in the future on existing tracks is NY-Philly (and to some extent Philly-DC, which requires a few easements in Maryland and a brand new tunnel in West Baltimore), Kingston-Boston (which is already HSR, just not cutting edge HSR), Rome-Buffalo-Cleveland-Chicago (except for a few problem curves between Syracuse and Rochester), Chicago-St. Louis, Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati, Chicago-Indianapolis-Louisville (but there are some nasty curves near Lafayette that need to be bypassed), and Chicago-Milwaukee-Waukesha.

By: political_incorrectness

political_incorrectness — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:04:42 +0000

Here would be a plan, have Citi freaking repay us all the money they’re swindling and direct it right into HSR. It would be best to obtain 220 mph corridors first in order to keep up the enthusiasm and will, then start improving on the shorter end. Even though it will take more dollars and reach fewer places, 110 mph between two major cities (Chicago and St. Louis) is not going to amount to that much excitement. Many want a train comeback but the convenience needs to be added back in with reliable operations of trains.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:43:37 +0000

The $8 billion for HSR is absolutely not going to studies. It will go directly to track upgrades. California and the Midwest will get the lion’s share of the HSR stimulus funds and both of those areas have highly developed, well thought out plans.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:44:05 +0000

Rockfish, the world standard for local and express tracks is to have two-track mainlines, but then split into four tracks at every local station, two local and two express. The express trains can overtake the locals at the station, given smart scheduling.

By: Adirondacker

Adirondacker — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:36:14 +0000

Wouldn’t it make great sense to install local tracks alongside whatever HSR right-of-way you build?

Only after they have enough traffic to justify it. In the mean time they can schedule locals in between the expresses.

By: Deacon

Deacon — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:25:38 +0000

God I hate Politics. Would someone(House and Congress) somewhere(DC) sit their ass down, and come up with a real plan. @ Rockfish: I agree.

It would seem that no politician wants to go ahead and say right this is how we’re gonna go about implementing these wishes and desires for re-building our railway system. Why?

Simply put that would mean he/she/it/they would be held accountable for whatever transpires, Oh the horror,accountability! So rather than doing what we voted them to do, their public service and come up with something tangible that makes sense and puts our tax dollars to good use. Inside the one side spars with the other until everybody gets to the point of “F@#k this for a game of soldiers lets build a highway”

CAHSR has a plan, it was voted for. So build the damn thing. If you don’t know how, call Japan, Germany, Spain, France, South Korea their systems work just fine. People WILL use it and it WILL be worth it.