NYT piece on worldwide HSR vs. the USA

Click Here

Worthy of note is that China intends to have 7,200 miles of HSR by 2020. Germany's Siemens has the contract for the trains, which will be EMUs similar to the ICE III. The USA might have less than a quarter of China's population, but in the face of increased highway spending, growing population and further dispersement of said population away from urban centers, excuses for lack of rail investment will run dry rapidly. (Incidentally, the USA has a similar population distribution to China, with most people concentrated east of the Mississippi River still, and along the Pacific Coast.)

Also, apparently, France's Alstom is switching to EMU technology for, as the article describes it, "the fourth generation of TGV".

The article's author is behind the times on a few things (EMD not being part of GM anymore, for example, as well as the top speed of the Acela Express in Rhode Island), but he's accurate in noting that the USA is "sitting this one out" (i.e. the HSR boom worldwide).

I can't get the text of the article without registering but I've long agreed with the sentiment that the US has been sitting out the high-speed rail boom which has taken place in every other developed, and even some developing, countries. The usual excuses, that the US is too spread out, or we don't need HSR because of our airline and interstate network, are less and less relevant. We saw on 9/11 how easily that airline network was not only crippled, but used to attack us. Meanwhile, the trains kept running. When we've had poor weather conditions which grounded flights, the trains kept running. When the fuel for our airplanes and cars reaches a high enough price to mothball them, our trains will still be running.

Ignoring the boom in HSR is being done at our own peril. It's a fact that oil will eventually become scarce. Long before it does, cheap oil, which is the cornerstone of the auto and airline industry, will disappear. When it does, if no cheaper alternative is in place moving goods and people will siphon an ever larger percentage of our GNP. I can't help but think in the future era of scarcer oil countries like France and Japan, which use largely use nuclear power, and have alternatives to autos and airplanes already in place, will emerge as economic powerhouses while the US will fall into a major economic collapse. Once it does, the money won't be there to build HSR. The time to do it is now, while we still have relative economic prosperity. Sad thing is, with the mentality against railways and public transportation in general (except arilines of course) prevalent in Washington this is as likely to happen as a snowball freezing in hell.

I'll also add that even with cheap oil, the bill for repairing the Interstate highway system will soon come due since much of the system is over 50 years old. Do we put good money into what will soon be a next to useless infrastructure (unless we start producing electric cars, which seems to be another nonstarter in Washington), or just build an HSR network which will serve us better? And do we continue to rely on means of transportation which spew tons of carcinogens into the air, and pay the medical bills for that ten or twenty or thirty years down the road? I'd personally like to see a comprehensive, well thought-out network with electric cars or local public transport used for short (<50 mile) distances, HSR for medium (100 to 1000 miles) distances, and maybe eventually maglev in evacuated tubes used for intercontinental distances (sure, this is a few decades off but why not start planning for it now). Such as network could be powered solely by electricity from renewable (hydroelectric, fission, solar, wind) sources. And once commercial fusion is viable we'll already be set up to use it as our sole power source.

I've long been an advocate of high speed rail, and in the U.S. there is just inherent hypocricy involved. It's a perpetual cycle that never ends:

1) People don't use rail when they have the opportunity and then degrade it.

2) People use more and more petrol/gas commuting to work, wasting it in traffic jams.

3) Gas prices go up, and people are paying more, complaining to gas companies when they can use rail.

4) People complain to the government about high prices and the government promises to find a new solution, already eliminating one of the best solutions - rail.

5) We use up all gas and the world grinds to a halt when we could have used rail instead of cars and aeroplanes which waste tons of gas.

Electric high speed rail is a simple solution that goes a long way. It's much less expensive for the user: they don't have to buy a $15,000 car and spend a minimum of $50 each time they fill it up, while hypocritically complaining that gas is too expensive. Thank god I live in NJ which has one of the most extensive rail systems (and a lot of electrified lines).

-Phil

interesting the french going the emu way . makes sense to me . wern't the original japanese bullet trains powered to each axle .
If nothing else the dynamic braking would be impressive .

The thing is in the US, outside of the Northeast, people simply don't use rail to the extent of people in Europe and in the Northeast, it is simply too densly populated to find the space to construct a new line that would be straight enough for 170mph+ speeds. In Europe, urban centers have miles of farmland and wilderness between them. In most of the U.S, low density suburbs stretch between cities, slowly fading out, and metropolitan areas are polycentric. In the Northeastern US, a megalapolis exists. The area functions as one massive polycentric city. This enviornment is unique. Massive demand for High Speed Rail exists, but since almost every acre of land is developed, there is no room to shoehorn a line in. The people are stuck with the outdated Northeast Corridor which on its southern half, has an ageing, crumbling electrification system. Where HSRT is most needed, it is near impossible to create without massive tunneling projects and large realignments and where it is easily done, it is not wanted. The northeast is too densely populated and the rest of the country too sparsely populated.

High speed rail concerns itself with endpoints, not intermediate population.

Existing rail lines in the US can be "straightened out" and even converted to high-speed operation. And the benchmark is not 170 mph; rather, it's 186 mph or faster.

I think a few things should happen in regards to HSR in the US;

1)Update the NEC to have the same type of catenary to the one between New Haven and Boston.

2)Update tracks,switches,bridges,and RTC centers on the NEC to allow for the Acelas to go faster

3)Extend the NEC to Atlanta/Florida and give tax breaks to those who use rail(Amtrak) versus cars.

4)Have an HSR line to Chicago and major cities in the Midwest from Washington or NY.

4A)Have state DOT's promote commuter railroads from the major cities to the suburban areas to allievate highway congestion while also promoting Amtrak for longer distance trips.

5)Update lines on the West Coast for electric and HSR use.

6)Have electric terminals at Chicago,Los Angeles,Atlanta, and St. Louis where transcontinental trains switch to Diesel,Maglev, or other lower speed trains until they reach the W. Coast.

7)If transcontinental rail comes back, the Government should buy/build/update only passenger rail lines and format them with HSR or higher speed capabilities.

One problem is that, most don't know enough about Rail, or refuse to break the bonds with their cars. The second problem is that with a government who is in bed with the oil industry, nothing is going to get done on the national level in terms of HSR. It will be up to the states to follow CT's lead into updating the rail lines and encouraging commuter rail over cars to work. I use Metro-North or Amtrak to commute to work, and I ride my bicycle to the train station. I only use my car when the weather is lousy. If others would do this, gas comsumption could be lowered drastically.

Cheers,
Patrick

The #1 problem is the one I face.

I live in southern NH. I work in Danvers MA. There is NO line that goes anywhere NEAR between the two. Even if I worked in Boston, even allowing for the traffic, driving is still quicker than the train.

Mind you - I *like* trains and wish I could take one to/from work. Even if it took a LITTLE longer than driving, the 'hassle factor' would more than make up for it.

The last several places I've worked:

Watertown MA - no rail anywhere near.
Andover MA - commuter rail goes to Boston but is MILES from the office parks
Cambridge MA - commuter rail and 2 subway lines to get NEAR the office.
Boston MA (Seaport) - commuter rail and, again, 2 subway lines AND a bus - though now the Silver Line goes there.
Boston MA (Kenmore Sq) - commuter rail and 1 or 2 subway lines. My drive was 55 minutes. Coming home could take 2 hours by train.
Framingham MA - forget it.
Worcester MA - From NH? Are you kidding?

It's not often I've had the option and when I have it's not been terribly practical.

djlong wrote:The #1 problem is the one I face.

I live in southern NH. I work in Danvers MA. There is NO line that goes anywhere NEAR between the two. Even if I worked in Boston, even allowing for the traffic, driving is still quicker than the train.

Mind you - I *like* trains and wish I could take one to/from work. Even if it took a LITTLE longer than driving, the 'hassle factor' would more than make up for it.

The last several places I've worked:

Watertown MA - no rail anywhere near.
Andover MA - commuter rail goes to Boston but is MILES from the office parks
Cambridge MA - commuter rail and 2 subway lines to get NEAR the office.
Boston MA (Seaport) - commuter rail and, again, 2 subway lines AND a bus - though now the Silver Line goes there.
Boston MA (Kenmore Sq) - commuter rail and 1 or 2 subway lines. My drive was 55 minutes. Coming home could take 2 hours by train.
Framingham MA - forget it.
Worcester MA - From NH? Are you kidding?

It's not often I've had the option and when I have it's not been terribly practical.

I see your problem, and since you wouldn't be benefited by the MBTA unless they provided through service from N. Boston trains through N. Station and find a way to connect the two stations. Thaw way if there was rail service into Boston from your town you wouldn't have to transfer on to the Green Line to Park and Red to S. Station and then back onto a train Southbound.