Forbes Article: The U.S. Is Preparing To Put Billions Into High-Speed Rail

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsma ... 5639be5e3b

The 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law set aside billions of dollars for Amtrak to get its Northeast Corridor’s Acela trains running at up to 160 miles per hour this year between Boston, New York and Washington DC. But it also earmarked $12 billion for other projects, some targeting even faster trains. Funding decisions for two of those, California’s high-speed rail system and Brightline West’s Las Vegas-to-L.A. train, are coming soon, according to Mitch Landrieu, President Joe Biden’s senior adviser on infrastructure.
...
Proposed railways in other parts of the country, such as a Portland-Seattle-Vancouver line and a Dallas-Fort Worth-Houston high-speed train, are at earlier development stages and likely seeking federal grants to accelerate engineering and planning rather than construction.
...
The rise of the automobile, the creation of a national highway system and access to air travel in the post-World War II era killed off a passenger rail industry that thrived for a century in the U.S. But a growing number of states and regions beyond California and the Northeast, where Amtrak is most heavily used, are mapping out future high-speed lines to ease travel between big cities up to 300 miles apart, including Texas, the Pacific Northwest and Georgia. For the first time, there’s federal grant money to help with that, along with a decades-old loan program originally created to upgrade freight lines that could provide an additional $30 billion.
...

IMO Seattle might need HSR more than its population might indicate. The N - S traffic situation is very bad and only to get worse. I-5 cannot expand and surface streets are close to maximum.

Really. more cash for more and faster Cascades trains? Why? Is it even close to being shovel ready? Has all the environment assessments finished?Two years do not pass withoiut the existing rail corridor being washed out by a landslide. Where will the new railroad corridor be built? The median of I-5 like Brightline West within I-15?
Brightline West, for all practical purposes, is shovel ready. The Final EAS has been released to the public and they are just waiting on the FRA Record of Decision. The dirt could be flying later this year (2023). Even though these trains can reach max speeds over 180 mph on the straightest and levelest sections of 1_15, it will only average around 100 mph because of the freeways curvature and grades. Is I-5 built any straighter in Washington state? I'm sorry, but I do not consider 100 mph average speed train true high speed rail.

Sorry if my post sounded that I indicated Seattle should get money first. The only point is that the traffic density per population on the I-5 corridor there is higher that locations that are much farther along. Right now the Vancouver, BC - Seattle - Portland corridor is congested. This corridor is on the shorter hand trying by Cascades, Sound transit, Light Rail to meet in near time but driving that corridor will need HSR more than say a LAX- PHX which will probably be built first based on strictly population.

It's one of those corridors that's too short to fly, and a pain to drive. That's perfect for HSR. Can 5 support a train in the ROW?

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:13 am It's one of those corridors that's too short to fly, and a pain to drive. That's perfect for HSR. Can 5 support a train in the ROW?

Yes, it is. But City Nerd’s basic and simplistic “Gravity” modeling leaves this HSR corridor far behind others.
It did not make his top ten list.

If we are going to spend $Billion on HSR trains, let’s build it where it actually helps the most.
https://youtu.be/pwgZfZxzuQU

To add, he lives in the Pacific Northwest and desires HSR up there, but he was surprised at how low his gravity modeling placed Seattle to Portland as city pairs.

Good points. Where would you pick?

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:26 am Good points. Where would you pick?

I would start with City Nerd’s Top 10 10 City Pairs.
Eliminating the slow, heavily congested sections of the existing NEC will have by far the largest punch.
Then build true HSR between Dallas to Houston, LA to SF (not Bakersfield to Merced), Chicago to Detroit, LA to LV, and Miami to Orlando.
Miami to Orlando 80 mph average speed already matches the NEC, with Brightline spending around $6 Billion. Is there a HSR corridor that could be used to go faster? How about the Florida Turnpike? Would spending twice as much be worth the extra expense to increase the train’s average speed to 100 mph vs 80?
Because that is what Brightline West achieves LA to LV within the I-15 right of way.
Chicago to Detroit recent track upgrades to max speeds of 110 mph should increase the train’s average speed up to 80 mph. Not quite true HSR. I’ll assume following I-94 right of way may achieve the same 100 mph average speed LA to LV gets.
The only two true HSR projects in question achieve train average speeds of 160 mph, Texas Central Dallas to Houston projected for $20 billion cost. Reasonable expenditure if they can maintain those low costs. CHSR will also spend around $20 billion for Bakersfield to Merced, but that is around 170 miles vs 240 miles in Texas. The reason CHSR LA to SF projected costs have risen to over $100 billion is the distance is twice as far, approaching 500 miles, with three major tunnels and elevation changes.

So to answer your direct question where to spend the money first, (1) NEC upgrades, 2) Texas Central, (3) Brightline West. I am against giving CHSR any more Federalfunding until they commit to building LA to SF in one 5 year plan. What makes LA to SF rank so high is LA and SF. Without them this project falls far below financial acceptability .

electricron wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:32 pm Eliminating the slow, heavily congested sections of the existing NEC will have by far the largest punch.

Agreed there. Just replacing the B&P alone will raise speeds from 30 to 100 MPH. Most everything else is adding capacity by adding track (and the NEC can use 4 tracks WAS to NYP).

So to answer your direct question where to spend the money first, (1) NEC upgrades, 2) Texas Central, (3) Brightline West. I am against giving CHSR any more Federal funding until they commit to building LA to SF in one 5 year plan. What makes LA to SF rank so high is LA and SF. Without them this project falls far below financial acceptability .

CHSR's also weird because of how California state government funds itself. I fully expect California to go bankrupt in the future and their constitution rewritten to be more like the other states.

Seattle might need HSR more than its population might indicate. The N - S traffic situation is very bad and only to get worse. I-5 cannot expand and surface streets are close to maximum.

And just where are you going to cram in HSR? Even Cascadia Rail admits that its scheme requires the total and complete destruction of tens of thousands of homes consisting of some of the most affordable housing within 100 miles, some of the most ethnically diverse housing; and hundreds of small businesses; in the glimmer of hope that urban sprawl (yes!) in Centralia and Kelso forcing the poor people to live 90 miles away and somehow have the money to commute on HSR (most likely they'll be relegated to much slower trains keeping the pristine HSR limited to the wealthy elite of Seattle politics and business, paid for by increased taxes on the poor while continuing to shovel tax breaks and incentives for the top 1%ers.

From Seattle to Vancouver, there isn't even a suitable HSR route at all unless you somehow build across a major waterway and shipping channel. Or, acknowledge that the "high speed rail" might only be "high speed" in quality, not necessarily in actual practice due to the hundreds of permanent slow orders that will be required to navigate around internationally protected wetlands and ecosystems, sovereign First Nations and Native American reservations and lands, and mountains.

Portland to Eugene would be the easiest route to build, but also the most pointless and rider-less portion of the route. Anyone who says I-5 from Portland south to Sacramento is "congested"...yeah, for maybe 30 minutes a day. The other 23 hours and 30 minutes is wide freaking open and 90 MPH speeds are not uncommon (nevermind the posted speed limit of 65). Loaded semi-trucks doing 75? Every. Single. Day.

Cannot say where to build the line. Have not been there for years. BUT it will become increasingly needed.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:39 am

electricron wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:32 pm Eliminating the slow, heavily congested sections of the existing NEC will have by far the largest punch.

Agreed there. Just replacing the B&P alone will raise speeds from 30 to 100 MPH. Most everything else is adding capacity by adding track (and the NEC can use 4 tracks WAS to NYP).

The Portal Bridge project should help fix the 2-track bottleneck between NWK and NYP, but the tunnel project
which would provide full relief is still some time away.

There are also three 2-track bridges in Maryland, along with double track between NYP and New Rochelle.

electricron wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:32 pm So to answer your direct question where to spend the money first, (1) NEC upgrades, 2) Texas Central, (3) Brightline West. I am against giving CHSR any more Federal funding until they commit to building LA to SF in one 5 year plan. What makes LA to SF rank so high is LA and SF. Without them this project falls far below financial acceptability .

LA to SF in 5 years? That'll be very difficult. I think that it would be better to get Merced - Bakersfield going, then extend from there to LA and SF. Like go from Merced to Gilroy and maybe San Jose, and also go from Bakersfield to Palmdale and maybe Burbank. Why only Merced - Bakersfield? So that the project has something to show for all its expense, even if takes a couple of hours of bus ride at each end.

LA - 2.25 h (bus) - Bakersfield - 1 h (train), 3.5 h (bus, Amtrak train) - Merced - 2.5 h (bus) - SF
LA - 1.25 h (bus) - Palmdale - 2 h ((train), 6.5 h (bus) - Gilroy - 1.5 h (bus) - SF
LA - 0.33 h (bus) - Burbank - 2.5 h (train), 8 h (bus) - SJ - 1h (bus) - SF
LA - 3.5 h (train), 9.25 h (bus) - SF

using the LA - Bakersfield Amtrak bus to estimate 50 mph for a bus.

electricron wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:32 pm I would start with City Nerd’s Top 10 10 City Pairs.

Top 10 Places to Build High Speed Rail In the U.S. - YouTube

His gravity model : P1*P2/D^2 -- where P1, P2 = city populations, D = distance

Except that I'd treat the denominator as a function to be estimated, and I'd consider P1+P2 along with P1*P2. I remember taking US airline trip data and finding that (P1+P2) is a better fit, with not much variation with distance.

He finds crossover points train-car: 75 mi / 120 km, plane-car: 250 mi / 400 km, plane-train: 600 mi / 1000 km

CityNerd's picks:

1. NYC - DC - 22.6m, 9.8m, 230 mi
2. NYC - Boston - 22.6m, 8.3m, 215 mi
3. NYC - Philadelphia - 22.6m, 7.2m, 95 mi
4. DC - Philadelphia - 9.8m, 7.2m, 150 mi
5. Houston - Dallas - 7.3m, 8.1m, 240 mi
6. Los Angeles - San Francisco Bay Area - 18.7m, 9.7m, 380 mi
7. Los Angeles - Las Vegas - 18.7m, 2.3m, 270 mi
8. Chicago - Detroit - 9.8m, 5.3m, 290 mi
9. Boston - Philadelphia - 8.3m, 7.2m, 305 mi
10. Miami - Orlando - 6.9m,4.2m, 240 mi
11. LA - Phoenix - 18.7m, 5.0m, 370 mi
12. Chicago - Indianapolis - 9.8m, 2.5m, 190 mi
13. DC - Pittsburgh - 9.8m, 2.6m, 245 mi

(with some honorable mentions) (DC includes Baltimore here)

LA - Bay Area gets a hit because of using an inverse-square distance.