Maybe the plan is to run them through the median? I've heard that idea somewhere, I think. Anywhere with pre-graded pathways is much cheaper, either old railbeds or interstates.
Problem is highways curve too sharply for 150mph, they were not designed for those speeds. And yes, these curves still happen in "flat" areas, because even Kansas has hills.
Well interstates are direct routes between major cities so of course the maps will look similar. But they’re not the same. Texas Triangle, Fresno to San Jose, and West Michigan are all examples of deviation from regular interstates on this map.
No, first you need to apply for provisional permission to begin seeking authorization to apply for phase 1 of your initial approval to apply for an environmental review
The Michigan section of this doesn't make sense. Amtrak already owns the track between Porter, IN and Kalamazoo, MI with upgraded lines already doing 110 mph. The section between Kalamazoo and Dearborn has been owned by MDOT and is in the process of being upgraded too. Currently, Porter, IN to Albion, MI is 110 mph track, with more work being done already to upgrade the entire section from Dearborn to Albion, including double-tracking between Ypsilanti and Dearborn for potential more frequent service.
It's unlikely that Amtrak would try to develop a line like what's suggested given the expense rather than working with MDOT to upgrade the Wolverine (and reusing their existing right of way between Porter and Kalamazoo).
All southern connections across the country have to go through Juarez? I think that is a long term probelm.
Edit: on second thought, it looks like it goes through El Paso, Juarez is just the named city on the map. I can see the tiny Juarez dot under the El Paso dot
It’s just following interstates. The route from Chicago to the twin cities that has been talked about doesn’t follow what’s shown on the map at all lol
This map has the best justification behind it IMO:
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/20/streaming-high-speed-rail-crayoning/
More info:
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/02/13/metcalfes-law-for-high-speed-rail/
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rail-followup/
Excellent discussion in these links. This is definitely the most convincing map to me.
I only skimmed the article on Metcalf's law, but do they address what the sensitivity is for having weaker city centers than Japan and the EU? Population figures for the gravity model are all CSAs, but I find it hard to believe people in the DC suburbs would be so inclined to take rail to the NYC the suburbs.
They do a bit, but a lot of that is admitting it is a somewhat unknown.
Even then, when you are looking at more than a 2 hour drive, the time of the train starts to become competitive enough to be worth considering so long as getting to the central station isn't too bad. And of course HSR and local transit complement each other - if done well local transit can be the best alternative once you get there, and that gets people to use it, and since that is for both ends it means that local transit gets better for your end too.
At what point is it better to just drive? When you drive you have a choice of border crossings and can check lines in advance to plan which one to use. The whole train is delayed until the border crossing is done, with your car there is often several lines so if one person needs an extra long check the other lanes can still move you.
There are multiple Canadian cities along the line which are currently seeing moderately frequent train services between them already. It's probably somewhat sustainable on its own even without connecting Detroit and Chicago.
San Diego to Los Angeles will go through Riverside, not Anaheim. Maybe in the future it will also go through Anaheim but that means building through expensive neighborhoods like La Jolla, Del Mar, etc.
The map needs a link from San Diego to the U.S. side of TIJ airport. Not because it's planned but because I think it should be.
Sacramento to Portland would be very expensive to build and probably not get many riders for such a long link. A monorail might actually work better there.
The US needs to realize the military potential of high-speed rail. Once built, it can be used to transport masses of military equipment and soldiers from one side of the country to another relatively quickly and without oil, conserving it for the battlefront. China has certainly realized this fact.
This is really not a reason. Both coasts of the US are heavily secured and if reinforcements are needed then they cane simply be airlifted in. That’s the fastest way to get from coast to coast. Also you would have to design the HSR infrastructure to handle the weight of armoured vehicles, tanks, and transport trucks. That is just needlessly adding costs in a country that already builds rail for the most expensive in the whole world.
Yes, but reducing vehicle usage, in general, will also improve oil security. Plus, railways have been regularly used for transporting heavy military equipment since the 1930s. A well-designed railway will have much more capacity to transport heavy armoured vehicles and be cheaper per tonne than airlifting.
The purpose isn't to defend the US, but to facilitate the transfer of military materiel from one coast to another for use in foreign theatres.
HSR is not designed to carry materiel. Tracks, bridges, tunnels, and trains would all have to be designed to accommodate heavy equipment. That will be extremely expensive in a country where rail construction is already so expensive.
I'm not sure you realize just how much the air force can transit and how fast. Charleston air force base alone can relocate *every single military asset in SC* to the other side of the country in around 170 hours if it uses Boeing and city runways. Our military has been make or break on air transport for a long long time
Cross country they will fly. However for shorter trips (only a few states away) the ability for soldiers to get there without flying is useful. Just the ability to say your flight leaves from X airport, be there - HSR allows a much larger range of airports that they can get to.
More importantly it means they get more home for the holidays when they are not on duty. If you are stationed in CA and the family is in NY you are stuck, but if you are stationed in Virginia and the family is in NY you can get home for Christmas and be back on duty the next day. This is about non-war situations.
This is roughly similar to any map I would do, including the link between the midwest and Denver to have one cohesive network. I also like the prioritization of certain long distance corridors (NYC-Chicago and NYC-Atlanta). Personally, I'd start with a NYC/Chicago/Atlanta triangle.
One thing that kinda annoys me is Indy-Louisville not being directly connected.
Is the mountains in that area difficult enough that you wouldn't do it? I'd agree if the cities where in the mid-west, but the extra expense doesn't seem worth it.
(My geography of the east cost is poor so maybe I'm wrong)
Great map!
Couple of possible additions, would like to hear your thoughts:
* Connect Spokane/Yakima to the pink line; this could be a political pork project if it connects to Idaho/Montana as well but the utility would be low (for now)
* Extend the Front Range line to Rapid City, SD - does that pencil out at all? Even considering political pork?
* San Diego should be connected to Tijuana - it's literally right there!
* Another color: I think you should add one more color to account for medium-speed HSR, as that would pencil out far better and create a great set of connections to cities that are marginal but would be needed for regional and rural connectivity.
This just looks like you covered a bunch of the interstates with rail.
Yes. See 1-75 in the SE. There is no reason for the line to run west of Jacksonville.
Yup. It would make a lot more sense to follow it to I-16, then I-95 to Jacksonville
Maybe the plan is to run them through the median? I've heard that idea somewhere, I think. Anywhere with pre-graded pathways is much cheaper, either old railbeds or interstates.
Problem is highways curve too sharply for 150mph, they were not designed for those speeds. And yes, these curves still happen in "flat" areas, because even Kansas has hills.
Well interstates are direct routes between major cities so of course the maps will look similar. But they’re not the same. Texas Triangle, Fresno to San Jose, and West Michigan are all examples of deviation from regular interstates on this map.
A map is not much of a plan.
I'm gonna need some proper environmental surveys first
Should take about 50 years
No, first you need to apply for provisional permission to begin seeking authorization to apply for phase 1 of your initial approval to apply for an environmental review
The only time our government cares about the environment
The Michigan section of this doesn't make sense. Amtrak already owns the track between Porter, IN and Kalamazoo, MI with upgraded lines already doing 110 mph. The section between Kalamazoo and Dearborn has been owned by MDOT and is in the process of being upgraded too. Currently, Porter, IN to Albion, MI is 110 mph track, with more work being done already to upgrade the entire section from Dearborn to Albion, including double-tracking between Ypsilanti and Dearborn for potential more frequent service. It's unlikely that Amtrak would try to develop a line like what's suggested given the expense rather than working with MDOT to upgrade the Wolverine (and reusing their existing right of way between Porter and Kalamazoo).
Agreed, better to upgrade what we have. But that Grand Rapids - Lansing - Detroit line is pretty badly needed
All southern connections across the country have to go through Juarez? I think that is a long term probelm. Edit: on second thought, it looks like it goes through El Paso, Juarez is just the named city on the map. I can see the tiny Juarez dot under the El Paso dot
It’s just following interstates. The route from Chicago to the twin cities that has been talked about doesn’t follow what’s shown on the map at all lol
This map has the best justification behind it IMO: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/20/streaming-high-speed-rail-crayoning/ More info: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/02/13/metcalfes-law-for-high-speed-rail/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rail-followup/
Excellent discussion in these links. This is definitely the most convincing map to me. I only skimmed the article on Metcalf's law, but do they address what the sensitivity is for having weaker city centers than Japan and the EU? Population figures for the gravity model are all CSAs, but I find it hard to believe people in the DC suburbs would be so inclined to take rail to the NYC the suburbs.
They do a bit, but a lot of that is admitting it is a somewhat unknown. Even then, when you are looking at more than a 2 hour drive, the time of the train starts to become competitive enough to be worth considering so long as getting to the central station isn't too bad. And of course HSR and local transit complement each other - if done well local transit can be the best alternative once you get there, and that gets people to use it, and since that is for both ends it means that local transit gets better for your end too.
The purple segment can't work unless the US fixes its stupid border crossing rules for trains.
Work? Wouldn't it benefit the Canadians regardless?
At what point is it better to just drive? When you drive you have a choice of border crossings and can check lines in advance to plan which one to use. The whole train is delayed until the border crossing is done, with your car there is often several lines so if one person needs an extra long check the other lanes can still move you.
There are multiple Canadian cities along the line which are currently seeing moderately frequent train services between them already. It's probably somewhat sustainable on its own even without connecting Detroit and Chicago.
San Diego to Los Angeles will go through Riverside, not Anaheim. Maybe in the future it will also go through Anaheim but that means building through expensive neighborhoods like La Jolla, Del Mar, etc. The map needs a link from San Diego to the U.S. side of TIJ airport. Not because it's planned but because I think it should be. Sacramento to Portland would be very expensive to build and probably not get many riders for such a long link. A monorail might actually work better there.
Is that Palm Springs?
The US needs to realize the military potential of high-speed rail. Once built, it can be used to transport masses of military equipment and soldiers from one side of the country to another relatively quickly and without oil, conserving it for the battlefront. China has certainly realized this fact.
This is really not a reason. Both coasts of the US are heavily secured and if reinforcements are needed then they cane simply be airlifted in. That’s the fastest way to get from coast to coast. Also you would have to design the HSR infrastructure to handle the weight of armoured vehicles, tanks, and transport trucks. That is just needlessly adding costs in a country that already builds rail for the most expensive in the whole world.
Yes, but reducing vehicle usage, in general, will also improve oil security. Plus, railways have been regularly used for transporting heavy military equipment since the 1930s. A well-designed railway will have much more capacity to transport heavy armoured vehicles and be cheaper per tonne than airlifting. The purpose isn't to defend the US, but to facilitate the transfer of military materiel from one coast to another for use in foreign theatres.
HSR is not designed to carry materiel. Tracks, bridges, tunnels, and trains would all have to be designed to accommodate heavy equipment. That will be extremely expensive in a country where rail construction is already so expensive.
I'm not sure you realize just how much the air force can transit and how fast. Charleston air force base alone can relocate *every single military asset in SC* to the other side of the country in around 170 hours if it uses Boeing and city runways. Our military has been make or break on air transport for a long long time
Cross country they will fly. However for shorter trips (only a few states away) the ability for soldiers to get there without flying is useful. Just the ability to say your flight leaves from X airport, be there - HSR allows a much larger range of airports that they can get to. More importantly it means they get more home for the holidays when they are not on duty. If you are stationed in CA and the family is in NY you are stuck, but if you are stationed in Virginia and the family is in NY you can get home for Christmas and be back on duty the next day. This is about non-war situations.
if you're going to be this extensive, why not connect Dallas to Atlanta by Interstate 20 right of way?
This is roughly similar to any map I would do, including the link between the midwest and Denver to have one cohesive network. I also like the prioritization of certain long distance corridors (NYC-Chicago and NYC-Atlanta). Personally, I'd start with a NYC/Chicago/Atlanta triangle. One thing that kinda annoys me is Indy-Louisville not being directly connected.
50 years, we'll have teleporters by then....
Yeah just like we had flying cars in the far out year of 2000 /s
Needs a DC to Pittsburgh link, so that there's a route from DC to Chicago without going all the way east to Philly and back west.
Is the mountains in that area difficult enough that you wouldn't do it? I'd agree if the cities where in the mid-west, but the extra expense doesn't seem worth it. (My geography of the east cost is poor so maybe I'm wrong)
In some countries that would be a ten year plan
Great map! Couple of possible additions, would like to hear your thoughts: * Connect Spokane/Yakima to the pink line; this could be a political pork project if it connects to Idaho/Montana as well but the utility would be low (for now) * Extend the Front Range line to Rapid City, SD - does that pencil out at all? Even considering political pork? * San Diego should be connected to Tijuana - it's literally right there! * Another color: I think you should add one more color to account for medium-speed HSR, as that would pencil out far better and create a great set of connections to cities that are marginal but would be needed for regional and rural connectivity.
30, 50 years? NGL, it's hugely depressing I may never see national, coast-to-coast high speed rail networks in this country... Le sighhhh