I think that the high-speed rail map that the Obama Administration put up on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) website is a little more close to a tenable future.
It highlights the boston-washington route (NEC on the map or BosWash some like to say[1]), which seems to be easily the most do-able route in the near future, in terms of people served.
I like it. The idea, I mean. But its hard to get people to come around to spending money on anything remotely like this seems. I think all societies should have very lofty goals published and promoted often[2], but I think at the same time we need to always provide concrete reality-scale plans when trying to make the argument to non-believers, which is why I prefer the ARRA map, or something even smaller.
I think there are some larger societal issues that affect the value of things like this too. I wish Americans would (could) travel more, and see what other developed countries are like.
[2] "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" -Antoine de Saint Exupéry
I wish Americans would (could) travel more, and see what other developed countries are like.
If they did this, they would realize why high speed rail makes sense in other developed countries but not in the US. Most other developed countries are tiny.
Aomori-Kagoshima (top of Japan to bottom) - 1928 km.
London-Moscow - 2885km.
Paris, France to Mosul, Iraq - 4522km.
NY-LA - 4469km.
And unlike the NY-LA route, all of the routes I mentioned have a lot of destinations in between the endpoints. For example, on the Paris-Mosul route you find Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Syria. Between NY and LA there are Omaha, Chicago, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Denver and Vegas.
Even the short London-Moscow route passes through Antwerp, Dusseldorf, Berlin, Warsaw and Minsk.
>Most other developed countries are tiny
and have less people, less potential funds, etc. That isn't a valid arguemnt. Transportation infrastructure is almost by definition scalable.
Your point about destinations is pretty valid though. Getting to california from other parts of the US is an effort. The east coast has a lot of different possibilities though, and even things like Dallas-houston are frequented enough, and the time to get to DFW, go through security, etc. would be compensated easily by just taking a train.
The map the WH offered for the ARRA takes advantage of that fact. When big hubs are built, having single links between them becomes reasonable.
Rail scales up, not down. You can put two trains on a track and it costs marginally more than one train. If you put one empty train on the track, the cost is the same as a full train.
Having less money can actually help the economics of a rail line - if people are poorer (e.g. Europe), they can't afford a car and are stuck taking the train. The limiting case of this is India where low speed rail is extremely popular.
The problem with the Obama map is that it still suffers from the same problem as the one posted: topography.
It is more a map to appease voters, without bearing into mind the cost of building it. If you look at it and go "oh wow, I can go from LA to SF up the coast", you of course can't tell that it would be madly expensive to build.
Comments
I think that the high-speed rail map that the Obama Administration put up on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) website is a little more close to a tenable future.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/High_Spee...
It highlights the boston-washington route (NEC on the map or BosWash some like to say[1]), which seems to be easily the most do-able route in the near future, in terms of people served.
I like it. The idea, I mean. But its hard to get people to come around to spending money on anything remotely like this seems. I think all societies should have very lofty goals published and promoted often[2], but I think at the same time we need to always provide concrete reality-scale plans when trying to make the argument to non-believers, which is why I prefer the ARRA map, or something even smaller.
I think there are some larger societal issues that affect the value of things like this too. I wish Americans would (could) travel more, and see what other developed countries are like.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boswash
[2] "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" -Antoine de Saint Exupéry
I wish Americans would (could) travel more, and see what other developed countries are like.
If they did this, they would realize why high speed rail makes sense in other developed countries but not in the US. Most other developed countries are tiny.
Aomori-Kagoshima (top of Japan to bottom) - 1928 km.
London-Moscow - 2885km.
Paris, France to Mosul, Iraq - 4522km.
NY-LA - 4469km.
And unlike the NY-LA route, all of the routes I mentioned have a lot of destinations in between the endpoints. For example, on the Paris-Mosul route you find Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Syria. Between NY and LA there are Omaha, Chicago, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Denver and Vegas.
Even the short London-Moscow route passes through Antwerp, Dusseldorf, Berlin, Warsaw and Minsk.
>Most other developed countries are tiny and have less people, less potential funds, etc. That isn't a valid arguemnt. Transportation infrastructure is almost by definition scalable.
Your point about destinations is pretty valid though. Getting to california from other parts of the US is an effort. The east coast has a lot of different possibilities though, and even things like Dallas-houston are frequented enough, and the time to get to DFW, go through security, etc. would be compensated easily by just taking a train.
The map the WH offered for the ARRA takes advantage of that fact. When big hubs are built, having single links between them becomes reasonable.
Rail scales up, not down. You can put two trains on a track and it costs marginally more than one train. If you put one empty train on the track, the cost is the same as a full train.
Having less money can actually help the economics of a rail line - if people are poorer (e.g. Europe), they can't afford a car and are stuck taking the train. The limiting case of this is India where low speed rail is extremely popular.
Damn. Europe sounds pretty awesome when you put it that way.
The problem with the Obama map is that it still suffers from the same problem as the one posted: topography.
It is more a map to appease voters, without bearing into mind the cost of building it. If you look at it and go "oh wow, I can go from LA to SF up the coast", you of course can't tell that it would be madly expensive to build.
The Saint Exupéry quote is one of my favorites of all time. Thanks for including that. Good advice for any company as well.