urbanSTL

I was listening to KWMU a while back and they had a story about high-speed rail in Europe, and what it could do for the US, if it were made in a similar vein.



What the interviewee had talked about was how high-speed rail in Europe has allowed the creation of "super-metropolises" as he called them. So in the US, for example, the larger cities would be the job centers and the other cities within two to three hundred miles would become almost suburbs to them. One would work in Chicago, but live in Saint Louis or Detroit or Indianapolis, and instead of spending an hour and a half in traffic driving to work, one would spend an hour on the train heading back and forth to and from Chicago.



It was an interesting concept.

per jcdick's comment:

I was thinking along the same lines. Richard Flora stated the same thing in a recent interview - arguing that Detroit and Toronto or Vancouver and Seattle could essentially merge with sufficient high speed rail. I started wondering if something similar could be accomplished in St. Louis. My gut response would be no - simply because we're just too far away from other major cities. Chicago - even with high speed rail - would still be 3 - 4 hours away (right?). Thats way too far to be considered "commuting distance." Maybe KC would be possible - but, given the distance, even that would be a stretch. What do you guys think?



plus - I would thin that we would need a LOT of lines and highly dependable ones at that before people start settling in Detroit with a job in Toronto.

Admittedly, what the guy was talking about was truly high-speed rail. Point-to-point (no stops in between), European or Japanese style high speed (200+ mph) rail, with low enough fare cost to make it viable as a daily commuter rail.



Given that Chicago is only 4.5 hours away by drive from Saint Louis, a three to four hour train is still not "high speed," really.

Obama has a good idea with high speed rail but a horrible execution. Imagine trying to do the interstate system using technology not designed for higher speeds / capacities. The FRA's highest certification of equipment is tier 2... only allowable up to 150 MPH. Even though they have classes of track that are higher than that (up to Class 9 which would be equivalent to TGV), the FRA wont let the train go faster. The only way to get around this is to either

1) change the FRA certifications (fat chance) or

2) not require FRA certification by having dedicated and totatlly protected ROW.

150 MPH may seem fast, but any train paid for by the state Chciago (Illinois) is going to stop at least twice between here and Chicago (Springfield and Peoria/Decatur/Urbana depending on route) which would make it a lot less attractive for a time savings (if actual top speed is 150 than average speed would be maxed around 110-120 assuming no stops in Alton or suburban chicago and they can get the signalling fixed). Until you get AMTRAK away from the operations - you will never see anything resembling European High Speed Rail. (Acela is a joke - in a LOT of places only going 75 - 90 miles per hour when the regular trains can go 69).

^aw man! you had to go and bum me out with details. I've just been excited that high speed rail is actually being discussed in Washington again



But you have a point. If this isn't executed correctly it may not be much better than what we have. If we're gonna do it gotta do it right!

jcdick1 wrote:Admittedly, what the guy was talking about was truly high-speed rail. Point-to-point (no stops in between), European or Japanese style high speed (200+ mph) rail, with low enough fare cost to make it viable as a daily commuter rail.



Given that Chicago is only 4.5 hours away by drive from Saint Louis, a three to four hour train is still not "high speed," really.

Japanese high speed rail does have multiple stops, but only in larger cities.



Legroom, however, leaves something to be desired. It suuuuuucks.



The best part were the little udon noodle places in the couple towns we stopped in. Nom nom.

Yup, our government wants to spend $13 billion on "high speed" trains that will get us to Chicago 15-30 minutes faster. Good one! What a friggin joke...

innov8ion wrote:Yup, our government wants to spend $13 billion on "high speed" trains that will get us to Chicago 15-30 minutes faster. Good one! What a friggin joke...

well that's why we have to make sure this is done right.



At least we have an administration now that puts high speed rail on the radar. Of course that in and of itself isn't enough. But it's a start.

I'm not sure if this would be better in an existing thread or its own thread, but here goes -



I found the following via Andrew Sullivan and it seemed interesting so far (I can't do much more than skim at work). He calls it "The Conservative Case for Mass Transit":

Sadly, American conservatives have come to be associated with support for transportation decisions that promote dependence on automobiles, while American liberals are more likely to be associated with public transportation, city life, and pro-pedestrian policies. This association can be traced to the ’70s, when cities became associated with social dysfunction and suburbs remained bastions of ‘normalcy.’ This dynamic was fueled by headlines mocking ill-conceived transit projects that conservatives loved to point out as examples of wasteful government spending. Of course, just because there is a historic explanation for why Democrats are “pro-transit” and Republicans are “pro-car” does not mean that these associations make any sense. Support for government-subsidized highway projects and contempt for efficient mass transit does not follow from any of the core principles of social conservatism.

That is from the full article he links to which is here: http://thepublicdiscourse.com/viewartic ... .001.pdart

^^^ Interesting read, but sadly the issues of transportation, sprawl, urban design, etc. in America are directly related to white flight racism and the idea that only poor people should use public transit. The Republican/Conservative platform has been division (borderline racism, classism, separatism), anti-urban and anti-progression so long that they have essentially gotten away from their core principles of monetary conservatism/efficiency in order to win votes. Sadly divisive behavior has sold well (politically and socially) in America for a long time.

^ The "other side" uses division as well. This is classic homosapien behavior since the dawn of time. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

Grover wrote:^ hey, let's keep it real REAL and recognize that before homosapiens many animals and other organisms have exploited "division" as a means of thriving in their environment.

Not to mention asexual microorganisms. Mitosis & Meiosis are the keys to division! (I think, I got a 'D' in AP Biology because I didn't pay attention/do any work/hand in homework)

I wish they would stop calling it "high speed" rail and just call it what it is - a collection of (more) functional regional rail systems. There has been no talk at high levels about high speed other than the fact that it is "too expensive" (funny when they want to invest another $4 trillion in the interstates over the next 40 years to bring them to capacity)

Technically what they are proposing IS high speed rail. The USA differs from the rest of the world on what the definition of high speed rail is. In the US, set by the FRA, trains are only required to reach speeds of 90 mph (145 kph) to be called HSR, whereas the rest of the world 200 kph (125 mph) is the threshold of what distinguished HSR from conventional commuter services. The improvements that are proposed would bring the railways above the 90 mph designation.



edit: found this on Wikipedia after I posted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail

"Technically" everything is 'high speed' compared to the first trains in the early 1800s.... CRB is right that USA does differ from the rest of the world, but he is wrong in that everywhere that high speed rail has been successfully implemented - (Europe & Asia) - they are far more densely populated and the major cities are much closer together. The definition of HSR here SHOULD be higher. I think high speed rail will work in America - but for a rail system to be anything more than a novelty here we need to use the French and Japanese off the shelf technology as a starting point (200+ mph). Think of it this way - 90 mph sounds nice except that isn't the average speed or even the speed most of the way... that is the absolute max. The average speed is going to be no faster than driving a car if you’re lucky. (Average approximately 60 mph the entire trip). If you max out at 200+ mph your average is twice that of a car (about 120 mph) unless major infrastructure is done in the urban cores to increase this. At that point it is only competitive over the point-to-point convenience a car offers you. Getting much faster than that (and it is possible with today’s technology) and it becomes an inconvenience to have to drive.



And don’t listen to the hype – the North East Corridor is owned by AMTRAK, everything else that is proposed is owned by the class 1 railroads. Until AMTRAK has the dispatching capability elsewhere that it enjoys in the NEC, their trains will never even come close to averaging the speeds they are promising. The liability, possible hit to reputation and even worse the hit to their bottom line - it makes no sense for the freight railroads to allow them to do that. We are stuck with a bottomless hole in which to throw money until someone in Washington decides they really want this done – not just to say they want this done.

^I totally agree with you on this last post. I had only intended to say that they are not really misleading the public with their terminology. In fact it looks like they are trying to address some of the issues you described.



http://masstransitmag.com/online/articl ... =3&id=8826

I think the benefit of strengthening the transportation network is being overlook by a discussion on what is high speed that is followed with comparisons to Europe/Asia. For the most part, as a frequent business traveller, we already have built a high speed transportation network in this country. I use it everytime I go to the airport.



Instead, we should think of this in terms of establishing strong intercity network that is not only competitive in time with car travel for individuals and families (which 110 mph will do) but a transportation corridor that could be electrified in time. Why electrification? The energy souce can come from mulitple sources that exist within this country (coad, wind, nuclear, solar, etc.). That would be a big step for this county considering that we import about $50 billion a month in oil. Thus, an infrasctructure investment worth pursuing.



The second aspect is that freight railroads are looking at electrification. Once again, it removes the up and downs of a fuel cost that will only rise in the future. We might not get our dream of seperate 220 mph trains. However, electrified rail corridors with 110 mph passenger trains and 90 mph container/intermodal trains would be advantageous. The freight railroads getting help via better improved passenger service would not be a bad trade off. Finally, several corridors exist between city pairs. So you can emphasize passenger and intermodal trains on UP's line between KC and STL while exsiting Burlington Northen and Kansas City Southern routes can be used for general merchandise, coal and grain trains.

^^ The problem with electric is that no one wants to pay the infrastructure costs for the over-head wires that is required for the high speed rails. Read about Amtrak and their North East Corridor (NEC) - the thing preventing them from going faster in a lot of areas is the lack of wires that have the ability to keep constant tension on the catenaries. With as much as they thought it - you would think they would just go install the highest level infrastructure to get better PR and more profitability. But in some cases it can cost $20 - $40 million a mile for true high speed quality catenaries (anecdote-- I have done a lot of cost estimating on rail projects but never with high end self-tensioning wires) A better start would be that Bombardier took a standard ACELA train (train used in the high speed NEC and is already FRA compliant) and basically put a jet turbine in it saying it could go 150 MPH +/-. No wires needed but USA high speed achieved.



Having worked with the class 1 freight railroads for years, I have seen NO indication they want to work with electricity over diesel. LA required them to do so in their Alameda Corridor but the deal was basically that the rail roads didn't directly have to pay for the new engines. Electric sounds green but when you consider installing electricity on all 150,000 miles of existing rail it isn't very cost efficient to just upgrade it all - and until you upgrade at least the Transcon / Sunset Route (LA to Chicago lines for BNSF and UP respectively) it is worthless. Seeing as the railroads are privately owned and are responsible to their shareholders and not tree huggers... it just isn’t happening. Plus the Class 1s buy enough fuel (UP spends billions a year on it alone) that they negotiate prices that make it favorable.



The implementation of any successful nation wide HSR system will be in phases... step one is to get track between populated areas capable of true high speed traffic (dense populated business centers connected by track with 15 minute curves max). Start running basic Acela-type trains over them. Then after demand (and political will) improves install catenaries and get TGV style trains (no new track needed just new vehicles and over head lines). Next improve the access within the cities to make entrance and egress from the major areas smoother / faster. Then .?.!.?. leave it to someone way smarter than me.

For 2 - 3 billion dollars we could have a DOT owned / operated track on dedicated ROW from STL to Chicago with one stop in between (probably Springfield) with a max speed of 250 mph.... that utilizes existing infrastructure in the metro areas (no new Mississippi river bridge - probably use Metrolink track / Eads bridge and come into the Gateway Transit Center at 10 MPH). That is about the cost of going 3 lanes the whole way from suburbs to suburbs with rebuilding/reconfiguring all the interchanges etc.



There is a psychological problem in this country.... if New York -> Washington works - the rest of the country is like "cool" no different than 30 years ago saying "New York’s Subway works"... it is a novelty. They live in a different world. If Cali throws $40 Billion at their HSP and gets it from San Diego to San Fran the response is - "if i threw $40 billion at something, we could take over a small foreign nation." What happened after STL (and a very few other cities like us in middle America) got successful light rail... all of a sudden Downtown Chicago, midtown Manhattan and other places are talking/thinking about light rail. Houston installs one. If STL Chicago HSR were to be done (or better yet STL -> KC or STL -> Indy or STL-> Memphis) then all of a sudden it is available to anyone. If we support it - use it- allow it to prosper - than everyone will want / need it. At that point America will be begging for Japan / France style trains (or more) and resistance will be futile. STL has more power than it likes to admit - it just needs to put all its weight behind something. If we show it can be done, it must be able to really be done.... the power / responsibility is nauseating. This movement has to start in Springfield or Jeff City or Indy and the DOTS need to start acting like Transportation Departments – not Highway Departments. Highways and Airports are already highly subsidized – why not rail also? The freight railroads would welcome that change.

I understand the attraction of a Chicago/STL line, but I think that pulling together STL/Indy or Louisville would be a real coup for mid-size Midwest. What would really make sense to me is to have Indy/Cincinnati/Louisville connected via high speed rail. All of a sudden you have 4M+ people separated by a < one hour commute. Bring Columbus, OH in the mix and it's a very major metro area.