Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11278Re: [carfree_cities] Re: "Biden rolls out $1.3 billion for Amtrak"

Expand Messages
  • bruun@seas.upenn.edu
    Mar 24, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      The beauty of the TGV/AVE solution is that it can come into cities on
      existing paths and also go down branch lines not up to
      high speed standards. Thus, the huge investments are only in the
      countryside, not in the cities. But I should point out that
      they can be a nuisance in the country -- they make noise at high
      speeds and disrupt migration patterns. So they end up being put in
      trenches a lot, in which case you can't see much as a passenger.

      MagLev will never catch on if for no other reason that it must have
      100 percent new RoW every mm of the line.

      Eric Bruun

      Quoting Matt Hohmeister <matt@...>:

      > When HSR started coming out in Europe [AVE and TGV come to mind],
      > were the dedicated HSR tracks built on existing ROW, or was
      > completely new ROW acquired for the projects? Or a mixture?
      > I think it's time for the USA to undertake real HSR--100% dedicated
      > ROW, use existing rail or Interstate ROW where feasible, and where
      > not, acquire the appropriate ROW. Efforts should be made to use
      > existing stations, since they tend to be in good locations. The TGV
      > goes up to 200 mph--there's our speed goal.
      > Oh--and let's not replicate mistakes like the Cross-Bronx
      > Expressway. BTW, how much eminent domain had to be used to build
      > TGV/AVE systems?
      > Any new HSR ROW could be justified quite simply: the Tallahassee
      > airport is on 2743 acres, which is the same amount of space taken by
      > 226 miles of 100' ROW--does HSR even need that much?
      > Don't get me wrong: Interstate Rail is an excellent idea, even if
      > it'll be "only" 100 MPH. We already have pseudo-examples of this in
      > parts of BART and the Chicago 'L'.
      >> probably not advisable. Mixing low-speed and high-speed traffic
      >> (let's say anything above 100 MPH) is probably not a good idea;
      >> the speed differentials make it awfully difficult. What's wrong
      >> with Interstate Rail (not to beat a dead horse):
      >> http://www.carfree.com/papers/interstaterail.html
      >> True, that proposal is only for 100 MPH, but in most circumstances,
      >> speeds above 100 MPH are only going to be achieved over short
      >> distances, and that has only a small effect on total travel times.
      >> The California HSR project is supposed to go up to 220 MPH, but
      >> only for short distances. It's a waste of money. In France and
      >> Japan, the really do run above 160 MPH for long distances, and
      >> that DOES save time.
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic