This is a take off (which means I stole the idea) from Animus' thread.

I commented that High Speed rail may work on the eastern side of the Mississippi River, but would not really help out west. Having lived and travelled in both sections of the following are my perceptions:

1) Population density in the west is very small except in Texas, along the Pacific Coast and a few areas.

2) The distances between most major population centers are very great. The long slow trains are great for cargo, but less useful for passengers.

3) The travel of people between the population centers is not as high as it is on the east coast.

4) The east coast has the population to support the rail ridership.

5) The east coast has many cities which are much closer to each other, like western europe.

6) The eastern portion of the U.S. has many tracks already in place or that are no longer used (yes, rails would have to be re-laid, but the base of the track is there and the property is already owned/zoned for rail)

7) The east coast cities tend to have decent to well developed mass tranportation, whereas, may cities in the west do not and have grown so fast as to sprawl out making local rail systems difficult and expensive as may individual properties have to be bought up, roads, highways and bridges moved before an high speed railway can be built.

8) The western mountains make rail transportation much more difficult and expensive as they larger with less population to support the cost of building the high speed rail. The eastern side has smaller mountains and much more developed railways.

The above does not mean that the west cannot plan and work towards these goals, but they need a 50 year plan, not a 5 or 10 year plan.

That said, build nuke plants first. Create space for wing and solar, while planning and executing the mass transportation plans.

Comment away.

The population density didn't stop LA from building a rail system. My brother lives on one of those rail lines, and it's turned his 90 minute drive to work (and home) into a 10 minute train ride. San Francisco has BART, and Seattle has it's monorail. So it's not impossible to get something like that done, even out west...

(03-04-2011 02:08 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The population density didn't stop LA from building a rail system. My brother lives on one of those rail lines, and it's turned his 90 minute drive to work (and home) into a 10 minute train ride. San Francisco has BART, and Seattle has it's monorail. So it's not impossible to get something like that done, even out west...

The local rails systems within a metro are one thing, the speed trains between cities are another. Even Houston is working towards a real metro line system - all we have right now is a one line from downtown to the medical center. And the ridership will be there once they add each section.

Every journey begins with a single step, Orange dude...

Agreed, lets make the steps we take account for the most value to the country. If building an high speed rail, build it where it will benefit the most and recover its cost the fastest. Example, there is talk of an high speed rail between Htown and Austin. Based on ridership estimates (using real travel data between the two cities) it will take around 200 years to recoup the INITIAL investment! That does not include ANY upkeep! The idea for this area is simply not economical. It would be more feasible between Htown and Big D, but still not as beneficial as along the east coast and major inland cities. Beantown to South Beach. The country gets more bang for their buck up front.

I'm not against rail or high speed rail. I just want projects to pay for themselves.

MAGNETIC LEVITATION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_(transport)

This is what I was referring to in the OP. The train needs electricity and moves along smothly and fast! Plus, with the limitied contact, there is less wear and tear, less maintenance and therefore less costs of maintenance.

Great thread.

I really don't mind HSR out west. You can always build a city like Denver, Boise, Oklahoma City, or Kansas City as a major hub. Or possibly 2 of them. The railroads literally built Atlanta into a major city and the same could be said of a Boise or a Tulsa or a very new city somewhere in the west. The main idea of a western hub would be for the building of newer trains as tech gets better and overall maintenance of the program.

MagLev is a great resource but its extremely expensive and the pillars are going to get the NIMBYS out in force. I know PA proposed a starter system linking Downtown Pittsburgh, Monroeville, Greenburg and the airport. The idea would be to build it out to Harrisburg and Philly eventually. Never took off unfortunately. http://www.maglevpa.com/

Also a system was proposed between Baltimore and DC with a stop at BWI Airport with extensions to via Richmond and Raleigh to Charlotte and via Wilmington, Philly, Newark, New York to Boston. http://www.bwmaglev.com/default.htm

However, I agree that High-speed rail only works in certain places. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. The Texas Triangle linking Houston, San Antonio, Austin and Dallas and up to Oklahoma City is one that would work. Upgrading the Boston-New York-Philly-Baltimore-DC-Richmond corridor is one. The California corridors would work. The Chicago-centered Midwestern hub and spoke system would work.

I was thinking of building the John Galt Line.

Here Louisville-Lexington would be a no brainer if it weren't for all the horse farms surrounding Lexington, and that both cities are losing population to the suburbs. Get people back into the center of the city, and mass transit and high speed rail can be much more effective.

(03-04-2011 08:15 PM)brista21 Wrote:  MagLev is a great resource but its extremely expensive and the pillars are going to get the NIMBYS out in force. I know PA proposed a starter system linking Downtown Pittsburgh, Monroeville, Greenburg and the airport. The idea would be to build it out to Harrisburg and Philly eventually. Never took off unfortunately. http://www.maglevpa.com/

Also a system was proposed between Baltimore and DC with a stop at BWI Airport with extensions to via Richmond and Raleigh to Charlotte and via Wilmington, Philly, Newark, New York to Boston. http://www.bwmaglev.com/default.htm

However, I agree that High-speed rail only works in certain places. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. The Texas Triangle linking Houston, San Antonio, Austin and Dallas and up to Oklahoma City is one that would work. Upgrading the Boston-New York-Philly-Baltimore-DC-Richmond corridor is one. The California corridors would work. The Chicago-centered Midwestern hub and spoke system would work.

NIMBY is always an issue, no matter the project. That is why I recommend using the exisiting, but abandoned, roadbeds. Perhaps parallel the existing roadbeds when necessary. Which is why I recommended the North and East, there are far more railroad beds - less infrastructure costs and less NIMBY.

The Texas triangle would work except I don't think that there is enough passenger traffic, but studies could verify that one way or another.

(03-04-2011 03:15 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Every journey begins with a single step, Orange dude...

West Virginia should build a big railroad through all your mountains. That is some pretty country that few ever see. I've driven N/S on the interstate and come in from Ohio, watching a sunrise/sunset in the mountains is unbelievably cool.

It would be a very expensive undertaking, with little return on the investment. There just aren't enough people to justify it...

(03-07-2011 05:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It would be a very expensive undertaking, with little return on the investment. There just aren't enough people to justify it...

Unfortunately, you are correct. But then, not having enough people is part of what makes the mountains beautiful, they are still undeveloped.

I'm glad they're still undeveloped. If they had been developed, they wouldn't be so beautiful...