Tweet
Canals are fun!
-
-
There is an Amtrak line which goes from San diego to Seattle along the coast but inland there is no passenger service. There are plenty of freight rail lines but Amtrak doesn't use them. Arnold's proposal is to create a new state owned line of tracks going San Diego-LA-Sacramento for use as a passenger rail line. He hasn't funded his proposal though.Originally posted by DanS
I think that TGV-like rail is unrealistic at this time. It's cool, but the politics do not yet favor it.
Is there a line in use now? How long does it take LA-Oakland? If so, how much would it cost to increase speeds?Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Here's a good article with numbers about possible upgrades to the Milwaukee - Chicago line (Hiawatha service). With numbers.
Currently serves 600,000 passengers per year, or a little less than half of Acela Express on Washington - NYC (not including the regional passengers). 7 trains each way.
According to the writer, electrifying the route would cost about $300 million and would shave about 15 minutes off of the ~ 1:15 trip (the article says it takes 1:30, but the schedule says ~ 1:15).
Doing the upgrade might make sense, but it's less of a slam dunk than the $650 million for a ~ 15 minute upgrade on Washington to NYC.Last edited by DanS; December 5, 2007, 12:33.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Wait, so half the passengers, half the cost, and probably the same time savings on what looks to me a shorter overall trip (I assume DC-NY is more than an hour... if that's not true then this makes sense)? Why is that not logical?
(Also, why does it take an hour to go to Milwaukee by train... you can drive it in about that, barring traffic??)<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.Comment
-
DC - NYC also has regional service, which would be improved in like fashion on any upgrade. In total, there are 34 trains a weekday going North from DC to NYC. In any event, the fares for DC - NYC are quite a bit higher, so all else equal it makes sense to add capacity DC - NYC, if you can only do one investment.
Also, it doesn't make sense that you could drive dowtown Milwaukee to downtown Chicago in about an hour, even without traffic. That's 92 miles per Google. Besides, when is there ever no traffic? My sis used to live near the Wisconsin-IL line (Gurnee, about equidistant from Chicago and Milwaukee) and her husband sometimes drove downtown for work. It took well over an hour, IIRC.Last edited by DanS; December 5, 2007, 12:56.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Whatever it is, its finite, and its conceivable at some point in the future it could be viable. Especially if airports and highways continue to grow more congested in the region.Originally posted by DanS
I don't think truly high speeds are viable in the corridor. I can't even begin to fathom the billions it would take to relay the track from Washington to Boston in a more direct fashion."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Point well taken.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Buffet is investing in rail, so there has to be something there... what? I have no idea. However, the train between Chicago and DC stops here at 3am in the morning, really makes no sense for me to ever want to take that.Comment
-
Yes, I agree. No reason not to fly Chicago to DC.
Buffett is investing in freight rail, but he has sold a lot of his investments in the sector lately. Buffett is a big investor who likes to fund big infrastructure, since big infrastructure investment is large enough to warrant his attention. FYI, Bill Gates also is a big investor in the freight railroads.
Not too many Buffetts and Gateses around, although the investor phobia toward infrastructure is a little too much, IMO. Infrastructure can be used to create an overwhelming competitive advantage and barrier to entry, after all.Last edited by DanS; December 5, 2007, 13:14.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I think the Diaspar-Lys route will be viable for quite awhile...although I predict a serious decline in ridership in the future.
Other than that, no line has a really long term viability.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003Comment
-
I wonder why Dallas to Houston hasn't been mentioned as a viable route for passenger rail. #9 and #10 metro areas (or #4 and #6, depending on how you count it) about 240 miles apart. Is there not much travel between the two cities?
Edit: Damn, Houston has almost no passenger rail activity. Only about 10,000 passengers per year. Amazing for a metro area of 5.5 million people. Compare to 4 million rail passengers a year in DC, a city of about the same size.Last edited by DanS; December 5, 2007, 14:07.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Dan, you focus too much on metro area populations. Intercity rail travel makes the most sense from dense area to dense area. That's why the NE corridor works - think of how many people on a daily basis want/need to move among downtown DC, downtown Philly, central Manhattan and downtown Boston. Now think about how many people want/need to move between downtown Dallas and downtown Houston, and if stations in those centers (or peripheral areas around the rail line) are at all convenient for many people in the vast sprawl of those metro areas."The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - DissidentComment
-
Certainly not when you're going to work, of course. 92 miles seems a bit high, but still that's around the same time as the train says to take, and non-rush hour you can typically make relatively close to top speed for most of the trip (70 or 75 for most speeders...) barring an accident of course. I'm of the opinion that trains should be able to go faster... don't we have 85mph trains or thereabouts? And if not, why not?Originally posted by DanS
Also, it doesn't make sense that you could drive dowtown Milwaukee to downtown Chicago in about an hour, even without traffic. That's 92 miles per Google.<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.Comment
-
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu7al.lZHBTgACxZXNyoA?p=texas+high+speed+ rail&fr=yfp-t-501-s&ei=UTF-8Originally posted by DanS
I wonder why Dallas to Houston hasn't been mentioned as a viable route for passenger rail. #9 and #10 metro areas (or #4 and #6, depending on how you count it) about 240 miles apart. Is there not much travel between the two cities?
Edit: Damn, Houston has almost no passenger rail activity. Only about 10,000 passengers per year. Amazing for a metro area of 5.5 million people. Compare to 4 million rail passengers a year in DC, a city of about the same size."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
In general freight rail lines are not designed or maintained to quite that speed (and combining high speed limits with heavy coal trains and the like on the same track tends to be murder on track maintenance budgets), and at the moment theres no dedicated passenger tracks Chi-Milw, and note well, even where freight high speed is, say 79 MPH (certain corridors for double stack trains) the average speed is a good bit lower. Basically you're going to need some investment to get speeds that high, and probably dedicated passenger tracks. I dont know if theres ever been any passenger related investment on the Chi-Milw corridor (stations aside) in the last 35 years.Originally posted by snoopy369
Certainly not when you're going to work, of course. 92 miles seems a bit high, but still that's around the same time as the train says to take, and non-rush hour you can typically make relatively close to top speed for most of the trip (70 or 75 for most speeders...) barring an accident of course. I'm of the opinion that trains should be able to go faster... don't we have 85mph trains or thereabouts? And if not, why not?"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
Comment