California is building highspeed rail in the central valley because that's the flat part of the state. It has to be 200 mph because it isn't competing with cars like brightline its competition is airplanes. It not needing to make a profit is a good thing because instead of settling for good enough they will get it done right the first time. The biggest hurdle that California has is that unlike Brightline it needs to some very complicated tunnels through the mountains and fault lines.
I moved to Vienna, Austria, and I never need a car! The transit system here is so quick and efficient that I can do everything I need by train, subway, bus or tram. And the year transit card costs only $365/year! I also have a discount on the city bike system. The same can be said for Zurich, Amsterdam, Geneva and Paris. NM needs to expand its bikeways, and roundabouts with efficient smart signalling systems to make biking, walking and ever car travel more efficient. Roundabouts mean no more waiting at intersections, and they're safer for bike and pedestrians as well. That means you save money and time.
UNM is currently conducting a 2 year study on how to make it better for cyclists and pedestrians, since we're the state that's #1 in pedestrian deaths and crashes. We already have bits and pieces of good infrastructure but it's not an engineering standard, and a few roundabouts/ intersections here are poorly designed. I think partly we're gonna need a bit of a cultural shift, since it requires educating people (from the engineers to public school) and advertising to people how much more beneficial it is. I think us already having a BRT in ABQ and Rail Runner might help persuade people more, but we desperately need more examples of good transit here.
Two points about California high speed rail. One, new right of way had to be bought. Land prices are crazy stupid for that. Two, the money in PR against it has been a tell, also. Highway proponents don't want to loose that money to rail infrastructure purchases and building. Airline industry doesn't want to loose the short haul market. Hence the PR against it.
You make fair points, thanks for commenting! Land is crazy expensive in CA, but not in NM, which makes using eminent domain to buy it at 120% of tax-appraised value an easier option here. I don't know what goes on behind closed doors at C-level meetings at airlines, but if I had to bet on it, I'd say the SFLA flights are pretty low margin and not worth spending the money trying to monopolize. But to your point, there was a ballot initiative in 2018 to build a light rail system in Nashville that didn't pass largely due to cooperate lobbying (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_Move_Nashville). It is disappointing to have good ideas struck down by cooperate interests, but hopefully videos like this one will better inform folks of what transit in the US could be.
California is not a flat state like Florida. In order to build a high speed train in California you have numerous passes that you have to traverse, that adds cost to the project. The reason the first phase was built in central California is because this area is flat and it connects Bakersfield with Fresno. When those track are completed Amtrak will have access to these tracks until phase 2 is completed connecting San Francisco to LA. New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the Union, unless the economy of New Mexico becomes as big as California or gets Federal funding, the high speed train in New Mexico will just be a paper train.
Design the corridor for high speed electric, including alignment for >200MPH, then pare back the construction in a manner similar to Brightline's Orlando extension. Start with single track where the volume allows, diesel trains and 125MPH. Then upgrade when the demand justifies increased frequency. I'd suggest inviting BrightLine to build the system using the state proposed money plus federal grants plus commercially obtained funds (bonds or loans). The state would retain ownership of the infrastructure and BrighLine would get an exclusive operation period with option to extend that exclusive period as part of each infrastructure upgrade package. Also, it is possible to have "bi-modal" trains - diesel electric with pantographs so that they can operate from overhead wires where available. This would allow, for example, for electrification of urban sections to reduce noise and emissions while deferring electrification between urban areas. The bi-modal locomotives could be replaced with faster electric-only units once the track is fully electrified.
That sounds like a great plan! I had no idea bi-modal trains existed, that would be the way to do it. If you have a PE license and the $500k study bill passes, I'd encourage you to bid on the contract!
if you want to burn up billions of tax dollars just build it double track from the start. as it will save billions of just having to relocate the first line to start with. bridges, grades, stations, right of way, etc. O and all of the time... and lives saved from head-on accidents.
@@larryjanson4011 Brightline's initial single track is in the alignment of one of the two tracks, with high speed points at the transition between single and double track. Several of the bridges have the supports for the bridge beams, but only have the beams for one track installed. Other places were more practical to complete during the initial construction. When they have enough patronage to need the second track, they will complete the bridges, build up embankments that are presently only wide enough for the single track, then lay the second track alongside the first. The only tracks that will need to be moved will be removing the points and installing straight rail in their place.
Building a 200+ mph alignment will be extremely expensive as curves and elevation changes need to be very gentle. Brightline is simply building a second main line next to an existing freight corridor. Max speed on that section will be 110 mph. Only about 30 miles is new right-of-way with a maximum speed of 125 mph. That section is mostly single track. It can be expanded to double track but is not straight enough for 200 mph trains.
Definitely start with the Brightline Model, and once its up and running, electrification can come online down the line. Even the projects in Europe and Asia started with an incremental approach (e.g. Japan started Tokyo-Osaka only), so your suggestions to start with a "Brightline" service makes sense.
Forget the Amtrak route to Raton. Trains creep through there at 20 mph. Those tracks were built 100 years ago. The California High Speed Rail is going to be completed. You can count on that. Although Brightline does a fantastic job, it is not high speed rail. But, great job, I would love to see New Mexico high speed rail. I love visiting and taking the Rail Runner.
Thank you so much! A hard truth to digest is rail infrastructure (just like all infrastructure) needs to be a continuous investment. If we don't upgrade our tracks for 100+ years, we'll have 100+ year-old tracks
@@ericnelius9062 Part of it is geography. The reason the train goes slow is that it is mountainous. The curves are many, and very sharp. The high speed rail in California is putting tunnels in this type of terrain. Very expensive, and it takes a long time.
@@robinrussell7965 I concur with your comments. The CAHSR may not begin digging a tunnel until the 171-mile IOS is complete by as late as 2035 for as much as $35 billion.
Brightline is serving 7 million and will be 11 million with Orlando and Tampa. Frontrunner serves 2.5 million over only 80 miles and Utah is growing faster than Florida and Texas on a percentage basis. Texas central would serve 15 million. New Mexico is not even a drop in the bucket in comparison. A few hundred thousand on the railrunner line is about what the SMART train services and that is struggling also. The conditions are not there for NM I am sorry to say. A million in Honolulu is not enough for HART too. I love trains too and live in California's valley. That project is half a century away from doing any good. Thanks again for your great analysis.
Thank you for engaging with this content! While yes, the total population of NM is only 2.1 million, linking together El Paso, Los Cruces, and ABQ would connect roughly 2 million people... over 300 miles. Sure, the distance is great, but you need to remember: the land outside of cities/towns is cheap and unoccupied in NM... it's just wilderness, which is the reason why so many wacky experiments occur in this state. Maybe the next experiment can be a higher-speed rail line! Anyhow, thank you so much for commenting! You may have inspired my next video exploring which set of cities would be the best candidate for higher-speed rail: I'm thinking Atlanta -> Chattanooga -> Nashville -> Louisville!
@@ericnelius9062 Atlanta is very underserved and your are correct it needs better passenger service. Your candidate has one problem I think. Louisville would need to be connected to Chicago first. When you say higher speed I assume you mean the top speed in 110-125 mph. I have heard Atlanta to Charlotte NC has some merit. The population and distance seems to have more merit than to Louisville without Chicago. Just saying. Atleast the Rail Runner is owned by the state and the 375 million dollar price for 97 miles from Sante Fe was a nice decent price. The 20 million to operate each year needs more ridership. Ideally 4,000/weekday or 2 million a year would only be a $10 per trip subsidy. But going slow people still won't take it even when it's free. I say get the average speed to 80 mph on an express by upgrading the tracks to class 6 110 mph. Phase in Brightline Siemens trains. Make it free again for perhaps resident commuters. Have a premium car for mosty tourists. Connect to Taos if there is merit. This system needs to succeed before investing in tracks to Colorado or Texas. I think a rule of thumb is the annual ridership needs to have an approximate relationship to the population. Best wishes Eric and keep up the good work. I like your perspective. Thanks.
This seems like an inapt comparison TBH-plenty of smaller regional cites* outside the US have useful rail service especially at non-HSR but still faster than US shitbahnen (say 100 MPH, which can be done without specialized ROW or tech and is wayyy below what the standard benchmark for HSR is), and while NM doesn't have a ton of people they're *extremely concentrated. You don't need a Desert Shinkansen to offer an appealing alternative to cars-even a desert Vermonter will do some good. Side note: I think this is where network effects and interstate cooperation matters because if you have say Front Range rail and a connection to Texas the picture changes dramatically. A Denver-ABQ-El Paso connection links 3 cities with ~500-700K populations, two of which have a metro area pasat a million people, and once you do that it's pretty easy/cheap. to just toss in service to towns along the ROW and structure branch services (rail, bus, whatever makes sense for capacity needs) around the connection. *And places with good HSR networks usually have extensive local non-HSR services as part of their system.
@@ericnelius9062 you think a maglev would be better at such high speeds it’s better maintenance wise. The distance is great and that’s why the service has to be high speed rail to even be considered an alternative
Interesting video, I do have some thoughts to add: 1) full HSR is unrealistic but you don't need that-as you say even 110-ish is a good speed for competing with cars (and makes more sense with the kind of distances and populations involved); at that speed driving time to/from the train stations will matter a lot. Plus for a lot of trips you can probably get away with a park and ride. 2) Is there a lot that can be done as "low hanging fruit" with rail runner, for instance negotiating more slots with BNSF to allow more consistent all-day service? Something that looks more like a regional/all day rail pattern makes a lot of sense. If there's a push to allow electrification generally on mainline freight rail that will also help. This can also build political support for serious intercity rail since people will actually have a practical example they can see themselves. 3) I would be cautious about trying to fit every rail transit need into a single project ,especially since the RGV from Taos to ABQ (relatively concentrated, some of suburban areas that may need service) will have different transport needs from the southern half of the state (longer distances that can be covered quickly but probably won't involve as many stops). It's better IMO to have a clear breakdown of RGV regional rail transport, local/city level rail transport where appropriate, and state-level rail transport with projects tailored to the locality. E.g. continuing to operate Rail Runner as a separate regional system for RGV local trips and concentrate intercity rail on major centers. This also takes a lot of pressure off the "who gets a train station" convo-you can make sure *everyone* gets transit connections and go from there to picking the connection that makes the most sense. Maybe it doesn't make sense to have the NM intercity connector stop at San Antonio, but if there's a frequent and reliable bus or local service from there to Socorro it's a lot easier to swallow not getting a station. 4) Pendant to the above, I would pay *extremely* close attention to making sure transfers to local systems (either rail runner or other non-intercity services) are as smooth and seamless as possible. Close study of Swiss-style timed transfers for any non-intercity services you can't get to better frequencies than "every 15 minutes" would be extremely useful-e.g. if you want people to use this to get from a suburban ABQ rail runner stop to Las Cruces, it works a lot better if they have a timed transfer at downtown ABQ. 5) This is a little off the wall, but I wonder if (pending BNSF cooperation on necessary electrified infrastructure) a Karlsruhe style tram-train would make sense for say the ABQ or Isleta Pueblo-Taos area as an adjunct to the intercity system? I don't think there are many (any?) US examples but the area seems pretty conducive since you have an existing corridor, a series of cities and towns with decent but not insane spacing and not a lot in between them, and probably some benefit from running trams directly through without having to plow a whole ass mainline in and maybe giving local transit a kick in the butt. You could even table upgrading the ABQ BRT to a modern euro tramline that branches off to old town and some of the areas that don't really have transit RN. 6. I would definitely make sure that you can connect to Front Range rail when that happens, but that should be easy if you don't use wacky custom gauges or anything like that. Likewise, if you go via I-40 it makes a lot of sense to think about a possible connection to Flagstaff. One thing I'm surprised you didn't mention is El Paso; if you can get Texas cooperation you could pull a LOT of ridership to/from there and in general no reason to leave a connection to an enormous population center like that on the table. In general, if you have a cheap extension that gets you a lot of new ridership, may as well take it. Sorry for the wall of text, just had a lot of thoughts etc.
If such a system, then definitely from the beginning as electric, its operation is cheaper and offers more convenience. As for speed, the question is whether you want to build it to compete only with cars or also with airplanes, as in California. If there are not enough funds for a full-size HSR line, it can be divided into sections where sections with easier and more straightforward terrain can have a maximum speed of up to 200 mph and sections with complicated sections only 110-120 mph. Many tracks in Europe have been built this way, not many tracks have a top speed of 200 mph for their entire length.
This is a really interesting discussion, many thanks for uploading it. Are there any plans to expand the RailRunner down to Las Cruces? Connecting the two biggest cities along an existing rail corridor, then electrifying that whole RailRunner system would seem like a good start. And what about a west-east section too, along the I-40 corridor? Those far-flung communities also deserve a convenient rail link to ABQ. Lots to think about here, I'll be following the project proposals closely.
You make an excellent point about the east-west expansion, but instead of running a line along I-40, running a line toward Phoenix to the (south)west and Lubbock to the (south)east could reach the communities that are a little too far from the interstate. I haven't heard anything about Bill's bills or the RailRunner expansion at this time, but I'll keep you posted as soon as I find something out. Anyhow, thank you so much for commenting! Hopefully more discussion and debate will lead to better-informed representatives and better legislation overall!
The Rail Runner down to Las Cruces would be an interesting proposition...the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe ran the El Pasoan service down that way until 1969 (it almost survived to Amtrak Day!). By the end, it was "Amos 'n Andy" (the railroads only two Budd RDC self-propelled coaches) running the service, or an E8M pulling three cars: an RPO, a diner-coach with vending machines, and a coach. I'd be worried that a straight commuter train wouldn't offer some of the amenities that a longer distance train would be expected to have on board, like limited food services. The Amtrak Cascades would be a good model for this, with its Cafe-Bistro car.
@@brentboswell1294- These are some good ideas, and I hope the decision makers in SF are bold enough to forge ahead with this. “ABQ to Las Cruces is a 3¼ hour drive on I-25, wouldn’t you rather let the train take the strain? Stay connected, do some work, enjoy the view, have a snack, kick back, take a nap, arrive relaxed…” etc.
@@Yormsane I hope so! I'm an NMSU grad-go Aggies 😎 Another obstacle, that will ultimately limit track speed, is that the former ATSF El Paso sub (Belen, NM-El Paso, TX) is the longest stretch of "dark" territory in the Continental USA (i.e. no automatic train signals)! Trains were dispatched on this line with old-fashioned train orders, with train passings being organized hours in advance by the line dispatcher, and train crews would have to stop, meet each other, and exchange a track warrant to proceed. The BNSF would probably be a little adverse about upgrading the El Paso sub to a signaled subdivision. As I recall from railfanning in my time at NMSU (early 1990's), the speed limit posts were showing 45 for freight, 60 for passenger trains. And what passenger trains, you might say? I caught the Sunset Limited diverted onto the El Paso sub twice, and once the (private) American Orient Express going up from El Paso 🙂 But the old Santa Fe always kept their tracks in excellent condition. I remember in the early 1990's, they had the only section of Class VI rail on a freight line in the US (the Belen Cutoff-79 MPH limit for freight, 90 for passenger trains). I understand that the BNSF allowed that section of rail to deteriorate to Class V, which is the same as most freight mainlines in the USA.
The Brightline model may work because there already exists an existing rail corridor they have access to. Of the 270 miles between Miami and Orlando, they are only building less than 50 miles of new corridor, and single track with a few passing sidings. Along the existing FEC rail corridor, they are just double tracking and improving bridges. They plan to average 80 mph, taking less than 3.5 hours to travel between Orlando and Miami. Note the important statistic I wish to emphasize is 3.5 hours of elapse time. Around the 3 hour point is where trains start to gain more market share than flying. For example, Amtrak’s Acela has 70% market share over flying NYC to DC with an elapse time of 3 hours, but just 50% between NYC and Boston with an elapse time of 3.5 hours. So Brightline is aiming for about a 50% market share with flying in Florida. Another important point to recognize is the traveling distance of less than 300 miles. Most passenger trains in the USA off the NEC Acela runs at average speeds of less than 50 mph. Believe it or not, brightline’s goal of 80 mph average speeds matches what Acela does. That is awesome. But To get that high an average speed, the train makes fewer station stops, they double tracked the entire freight corridor between Miami and Cocoa, resignaled the entire corridor for faster speed trains, etc spending over $3 billion. And that is just one railroad corridor. I do not think Brightline would attempt this same formula Atlanta to Chicago. Why? It is over 700 miles between Atlanta and Chicago, and assuming the rail corridor could be double tracked, resignaled, and otherwise upgraded to achieve 80 mph average speed, the elapse time would be around 9 hours. Much longer than the three hour goal I mentioned earlier, three times more. Doing this on a rail corridor twisting its way through the Allegheny Mountains. Not likely. But to achieve average speeds of even 80 mph, FRA regulations additional set points are reached that add expenses to both the trains and rail corridors. Over 80 mph, cab signaling is required. Over 90 mph enforced and strengthened grade crossing gates are required, over 110 mph grade separations at crossings are required, over 125 mph special FRA regulations are required for operations. Now the entire corridor does not need to be built to the same standard. For example, Brightline runs at a maximum speed of 60 mph between Miami and Fort Lauderdale, 79 mph between Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach, 110 mph between Palm Beach and Cocoa, and 125 mph Cocoa to Orlando. And even in these huge sections, local conditions can cause speed restrictions that will force the trains to slow down. The longer the route, and the faster the trains, the harder it is to maintain the tracks and higher train speeds. Trains make great linear transport, as vehicles must travel along a linear corridor. It’s not like ships which can move in any direction they please outside a ship channel. So it is easy for map lurkers to keep drawing the line further and further. But most people do not travel in straight lines over long distances. Instead of going north from Atlanta to Nashville, we might wish to travel west from Atlanta to Birmingham, or east from Atlanta to Charleston. The advantage flying from the airport in Atlanta is that you can fly to hundreds of destinations in just about every compass point. A HSR train station in Atlanta will only give you a linear line of destinations, in just a few compass points.
I agree 😃 Although building something like this won't happen overnight, but I think it's worth talking about so that we can get projects like this one moving!
Looking at your assessment from a European perspective, I wonder why California HSR is so expensive? We are dealing with very similar hurdles in Germany, as they are in California. Environmental aspects and NIMBYism are enormous factor here as well (some projects are in the discussion for 30+ years now) and still, 120km (75miles) of 300kph (186mph) able newly built corridor came out to less than 3 billion and opened about 5 years ago. after inflation, in todays money it might be closer to 4 billion, but that would still be just around 50 million per mile, fully electrified and not built along existing rights of way. Brightline will only operate 110 mph on the FEC corridor and only reach 125mph on their newly built segment to Orlando airport after diverging from the mixed use FEC. Given that the freight trains on the Florida East Coast railway don't seem to be using super long trains with engines in the middle of the consists, I see no reason why electrification wouldn't be super beneficial. Electric locos usually pull at least twice what their Diesel counterparts pull, while doing away with the energy loss in combustion engines. these trains could change engines north of the split point or also electrify the rest of the line to Jacksonville, making future passenger service there much more likely. Back to California HSR, its crucial to fund the project to completion asap, to avoid further cost increases and deliver benefits sooner than later, whatever the costs. These costs (even at CHSR levels) will pale in comparison to their benefit and after a decade or two the rail line will be an irreplaceable part of California transport infrastructure. For New Mexico and Colorado I'd love to see electrified rail at speeds of 155mph, with track curvatures being designed for 225mph, so that the right of way could be upgraded in the future. Electrification brings huge benefits and 155mph rolling stock is readily available in Europe or with the new Acela trains. I'm not very well informed on the regional details of your population distribution in NM, but usually when we build new HSR lines for 155, 186 or more we try to also benefit smaller population centers along the way. Giving them stops on the line and with higher speed regional trains operating at 115 to 125mph (standard is around 100 mph here for many regional trains). All of that is usually mixed with several electrified freight trains an hour operating around 70mph (with some sidings to let passenger trains pass) and plenty of freight trains throughout the night. This leads to super high utilization, while still always prioritizing passenger trains over freight.
Those are some real interesting remarks. Wikipedia has some good information on the cost of CAHSR. The initial 171 mile segment is over 17 billion or 100+ mil per mile. This is the easiest segment. I don't know about Germany but in California there will be 55 miles of mountainous tunneling in the coming decades. The newest cost projection has a high of 128 Bil. Regarding New Mexico, it is a very large state (6th) with a very low density population of about 2 million. It is not fast growing like Florida, Texas, Utah and Idaho. It has a low per capital income also.
Update on CAHSR: Last week's board meeting reported the IOS (below) is likely to now cost up to $35 B by as late as 2035. Electric in Florida may not be advisable. Catenaries do not like hurricanes.
In comparision to your German example of $40-50 M/mile, It is projected to be as much as $200 M/mile for the CAHSR IOS. Further, some tunnels have been projected to cost an unbelievable $1 B/mile. Welcome to the public transit construction monster.
@@davidjackson7281 Its also in public hand over here. And we keep complaining all the time about the inefficient processes and high cost. The cost I provided for our line here in Germany include 3 tunnels (total 9,6 miles) and 6 bridges (total 9 miles)
Have you read the 2014 State Rail Plan? It gives a lot of good info about the opportunities and challenges for passenger rail in the state (it also talks a lot about other stuff, which is interesting but also very long). In particular, it estimated an El Paso to Denver HSR to be 45 billion, so the border-to-border segment of that would definitely be more than 1 billion haha. But it also mentions that increasing the Rail Runner's track speeds to 90mph would only cost about 15 million, which sounds like a pretty good deal! The Rio Metro budget document also has some good discussion about what it would need to run hourly service and/or get more powerful locomotives.
The RailRunner would greatly improve with more frequency plus most importantly --110 mph track and perhaps some 125 mph track aka Brightline. Anthol Mullen's comments up top are really outstanding and spot on. There is not nearly enough populaton to support a way too long through rough terrain 635 mile HSR from Denver to El Paso. Pat has there been a more recent NM State Rail Plan published since 2014 that you may know of?
There are no longer any BNSF freight trains using the ABQ - Raton corridor, AFAIK. Maybe a few random trains at random times, but no daily freight trains. There are some new battery-powered trains being used in Europe that are also capable of running either on diesel power or on catenary electric power. Brightline West is planning on using catenary electric for their Las Vegas to SoCal passenger train. A direct "as the crow flies" ABQ to Phoenix train doesn't seem at all likely, due to the terrain. However, Amtrak could create a new Denver - Phoenix passenger train, which could use the existing Raton - ABQ segment, then follow the SW Chief route westwards to Ash Fork, AZ, then south on BNSF freight tracks to Phoenix. Option #2 would travel south from ABQ to El Paso, then follow the existing Sunset Ltd. route past Tucson before branching north to downtown Phoenix. The tracks running southwest of Phoenix (going to Yuma) are no longer in service. Maybe New Mexico should consider buying the Raton - ABQ corridor from BNSF, and then extend the Rail Runner service along that route. The existing freight line between ABQ & El Paso would need some mandated upgrades before passenger trains could safely run along there.
You can use existing rail corridors. Just adding a track and double tracking bridges makes a lot of difference. Adding long third rail passing tracks where the topography makes it feasible. Look at the Brightline Coca to Miami FEC corridor. Nice presentation.
Thank you so much! I've been impressed with how quickly Brightline has built up their tracks. Though I'm not a Floridian, I'm hoping they'll be running trains with passengers by the end of June!
I don’t not care if the train is not faster than the car always, I like to look at the scenery and read, and some of my relatives like to work on the train with their laptop and some other relatives like to read or play games with their computer. And some of my friends don’t like to drive, but would rather arrive relaxed.
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 Good for you. But I'd prefer to build a new hospital, school or rec center (Actually build many) with those funds rather then support the passion project of a few.
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 You would still be relaxed, since you don't have to worry about driving. But a modern train being faster than driving is really important, otherwise there's no economic sense to have it as a transportation network.
10:20 Las Cruces to Alamogordo-are you nuts? There's a prominent geographic feature in the way (the Organ Mountains). In addition, much of the Tularosa basin is taken up by the White Sands Missile Range, White Sands National Park, and Holloman Air Force Base.
Alan Fisher (The Armchair Urbanist) has a good video on why Californias High speed Rail project is so so behind... The TLDW is that there is too much upstart and pauses in building as money is not a cotstant flow, so construction stoppes and starts a lot, and that is expensive.
I’ve been watching HSR here in California. The folks who are opposed to HSR (LOOKING AT YOU, ELON!) have been leveraging all available legal challenges to impede progress on this critical infrastructure project. Why start with “nowhere to nowhere” in the San Joaquin Valley? It’s relatively cheap, and avoids the political clash between Northern and Southern California.
I think the population in New Mexico, will continue to grow greatly, many people are moving from California because of problems in California plus the price of apartments and houses have increased greatly.
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 Yep, and nobody realizes the reason people are fleeing California, and why California is dumping billions into HSR are related...
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 Sorry. Though I hope NM gets many from Cal and NM cost of living is cheaper the population was 2,064,588 in 2010 and 2,115,550 in 2022. A mere increase of only 50,962 or 2.5% over a dozen years.At 4k/yr NM will have 3M in 234 years. Only WY and Alaska are worse.
Personally, I would go for 110-125 electrified higher speed rail/Regional Rail between el paso and Santa Fe and serval lines to connect with other cites Holloman and roswell. Along with lesser used routes like Lordsburg to las curses using Deasil multiple units.
Great question, thank you for asking! Short answer: oil and gas revenue. NM is the second largest producer of crude oil in the United States (www.statista.com/statistics/714376/crude-oil-production-by-us-state/) More detailed answer: at $20M/mile, a 400 mile line would cost $8 Billion. If the state implemented a $2/barrel tax on crude oil production, it would net $900 million per year. Over 9 years, that tax would generate $8.1 billion.
Bro Amtrak is a non factor please not worth talking about build HSR Amtrak is a lost cause drop the rest after building HSR all over the country and let states takeover rail.
Another foamer video. Pure pipe dream. New Mexico does not have nearly enough population to support the construction & operation of HSR. The New Mexico also does not have the public transit to feed HSR & provide first/last mile travel solution.
Thank you for commenting, but with all due respect, you are incorrect. Between ABQ, Las Cruces, and El Paso, you're looking at 1.9 million people in those metro areas alone with very cheap land in between. Each of those areas is served by ART, SCRTD, and the Sun Metro public transit systems, respectively. Seeing as the RailRunner construction/operation was/is supported by the local population, I don't see how this proposed line would have any trouble with staffing. As for this being a "pipe dream," I would remind you that NM is a place where "pipe dreams" come to fruition: in the 40s with the Manhattan Project, in the 70s with the founding of Microsoft, in the 90s with the recharging of our aquifer (www.abqjournal.com/276444/aquifer-under-city-still-rising-despite-drought.html), and in the 00s with the construction of the RailRunner. Anyhow, thank you again for commenting, and I you are a little better informed about the 47th state.
@@ericnelius9062: LOL Comparing HSR to conventional commuter rail is ridiculous. The costs are several orders of magnitude different..renting a time slot on a conventional freight line is cheap compared to the construction of a separate, highly engineered HSR route....not to mention the cost of electrification, rolling stock, and infrastructure like stations and power facilities. Let's compare that to the two HSR lines in the world that have actually paid for their cost of construction, operation and maintenance: Japan's Tokaido Shinkansen (Tokyo-Osaka-Kyoto) or France's TGV Sud-Est (Paris Lyon).... Just the end-point citie complexes of these have more than double the population of the entire route a New Mexico HSR corridor would serve...and started with BOTH robust local transportation networks to feed the HSR line, and the right -of-way almost entirely owned by the government before they even started consideration.
@@ericnelius9062 I love your pride in NM. Mark is correct me thinks. Florida has Brightline because HSR would need more population. 5-10M at each end 15-25M along the route.
@@ilikehardplay I agree with much of that, but it's not like it couldn't happen. In terms of transit-oriented development we're just at the beginning steps and we have much to learn (since most of the country is highway-oriented development), but if surrounding states start implementing it I don't see why we wouldn't cooperate to build out a network, especially if there's a federal initiative similar to the highway project. Lawyers and a few politicians are interested in seeing it happen, and it could possibly be a state bill ruclips.net/video/a28qQdy409w/видео.html
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
at this point i think its important that HSR is seperate from other rail transport, amtrak shows why this is needed to avoid freight rail
California is building highspeed rail in the central valley because that's the flat part of the state. It has to be 200 mph because it isn't competing with cars like brightline its competition is airplanes. It not needing to make a profit is a good thing because instead of settling for good enough they will get it done right the first time. The biggest hurdle that California has is that unlike Brightline it needs to some very complicated tunnels through the mountains and fault lines.
I moved to Vienna, Austria, and I never need a car! The transit system here is so quick and efficient that I can do everything I need by train, subway, bus or tram. And the year transit card costs only $365/year! I also have a discount on the city bike system. The same can be said for Zurich, Amsterdam, Geneva and Paris.
NM needs to expand its bikeways, and roundabouts with efficient smart signalling systems to make biking, walking and ever car travel more efficient. Roundabouts mean no more waiting at intersections, and they're safer for bike and pedestrians as well. That means you save money and time.
UNM is currently conducting a 2 year study on how to make it better for cyclists and pedestrians, since we're the state that's #1 in pedestrian deaths and crashes. We already have bits and pieces of good infrastructure but it's not an engineering standard, and a few roundabouts/ intersections here are poorly designed. I think partly we're gonna need a bit of a cultural shift, since it requires educating people (from the engineers to public school) and advertising to people how much more beneficial it is. I think us already having a BRT in ABQ and Rail Runner might help persuade people more, but we desperately need more examples of good transit here.
Two points about California high speed rail. One, new right of way had to be bought. Land prices are crazy stupid for that. Two, the money in PR against it has been a tell, also. Highway proponents don't want to loose that money to rail infrastructure purchases and building. Airline industry doesn't want to loose the short haul market. Hence the PR against it.
You make fair points, thanks for commenting!
Land is crazy expensive in CA, but not in NM, which makes using eminent domain to buy it at 120% of tax-appraised value an easier option here.
I don't know what goes on behind closed doors at C-level meetings at airlines, but if I had to bet on it, I'd say the SFLA flights are pretty low margin and not worth spending the money trying to monopolize. But to your point, there was a ballot initiative in 2018 to build a light rail system in Nashville that didn't pass largely due to cooperate lobbying (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_Move_Nashville).
It is disappointing to have good ideas struck down by cooperate interests, but hopefully videos like this one will better inform folks of what transit in the US could be.
California is not a flat state like Florida. In order to build a high speed train in California you have numerous passes that you have to traverse, that adds cost to the project. The reason the first phase was built in central California is because this area is flat and it connects Bakersfield with Fresno. When those track are completed Amtrak will have access to these tracks until phase 2 is completed connecting San Francisco to LA. New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the Union, unless the economy of New Mexico becomes as big as California or gets Federal funding, the high speed train in New Mexico will just be a paper train.
Design the corridor for high speed electric, including alignment for >200MPH, then pare back the construction in a manner similar to Brightline's Orlando extension. Start with single track where the volume allows, diesel trains and 125MPH. Then upgrade when the demand justifies increased frequency.
I'd suggest inviting BrightLine to build the system using the state proposed money plus federal grants plus commercially obtained funds (bonds or loans). The state would retain ownership of the infrastructure and BrighLine would get an exclusive operation period with option to extend that exclusive period as part of each infrastructure upgrade package.
Also, it is possible to have "bi-modal" trains - diesel electric with pantographs so that they can operate from overhead wires where available. This would allow, for example, for electrification of urban sections to reduce noise and emissions while deferring electrification between urban areas. The bi-modal locomotives could be replaced with faster electric-only units once the track is fully electrified.
Great comments that make a lot of sense.
That sounds like a great plan! I had no idea bi-modal trains existed, that would be the way to do it.
If you have a PE license and the $500k study bill passes, I'd encourage you to bid on the contract!
if you want to burn up billions of tax dollars just build it double track from the start. as it will save billions of just having to relocate the first line to start with. bridges, grades, stations, right of way, etc.
O and all of the time... and lives saved from head-on accidents.
@@larryjanson4011 Brightline's initial single track is in the alignment of one of the two tracks, with high speed points at the transition between single and double track. Several of the bridges have the supports for the bridge beams, but only have the beams for one track installed. Other places were more practical to complete during the initial construction. When they have enough patronage to need the second track, they will complete the bridges, build up embankments that are presently only wide enough for the single track, then lay the second track alongside the first. The only tracks that will need to be moved will be removing the points and installing straight rail in their place.
Building a 200+ mph alignment will be extremely expensive as curves and elevation changes need to be very gentle.
Brightline is simply building a second main line next to an existing freight corridor. Max speed on that section will be 110 mph. Only about 30 miles is new right-of-way with a maximum speed of 125 mph. That section is mostly single track. It can be expanded to double track but is not straight enough for 200 mph trains.
Definitely start with the Brightline Model, and once its up and running, electrification can come online down the line. Even the projects in Europe and Asia started with an incremental approach (e.g. Japan started Tokyo-Osaka only), so your suggestions to start with a "Brightline" service makes sense.
Forget the Amtrak route to Raton. Trains creep through there at 20 mph. Those tracks were built 100 years ago.
The California High Speed Rail is going to be completed. You can count on that. Although Brightline does a fantastic job, it is not high speed rail.
But, great job, I would love to see New Mexico high speed rail. I love visiting and taking the Rail Runner.
Thank you so much! A hard truth to digest is rail infrastructure (just like all infrastructure) needs to be a continuous investment. If we don't upgrade our tracks for 100+ years, we'll have 100+ year-old tracks
@@ericnelius9062 Part of it is geography. The reason the train goes slow is that it is mountainous. The curves are many, and very sharp. The high speed rail in California is putting tunnels in this type of terrain. Very expensive, and it takes a long time.
@@robinrussell7965 I concur with your comments. The CAHSR may not begin digging a tunnel until the 171-mile IOS is complete by as late as 2035 for as much as $35 billion.
Thanks for the great discussion. You have very good train knowledge.
Brightline is serving 7 million and will be 11 million with Orlando and Tampa. Frontrunner serves 2.5 million over only 80 miles and Utah is growing faster than Florida and Texas on a percentage basis. Texas central would serve 15 million. New Mexico is not even a drop in the bucket in comparison. A few hundred thousand on the railrunner line is about what the SMART train services and that is struggling also. The conditions are not there for NM I am sorry to say. A million in Honolulu is not enough for HART too. I love trains too and live in California's valley. That project is half a century away from doing any good. Thanks again for your great analysis.
Thank you for engaging with this content! While yes, the total population of NM is only 2.1 million, linking together El Paso, Los Cruces, and ABQ would connect roughly 2 million people... over 300 miles.
Sure, the distance is great, but you need to remember: the land outside of cities/towns is cheap and unoccupied in NM... it's just wilderness, which is the reason why so many wacky experiments occur in this state. Maybe the next experiment can be a higher-speed rail line!
Anyhow, thank you so much for commenting! You may have inspired my next video exploring which set of cities would be the best candidate for higher-speed rail: I'm thinking Atlanta -> Chattanooga -> Nashville -> Louisville!
@@ericnelius9062 Atlanta is very underserved and your are correct it needs better passenger service. Your candidate has one problem I think. Louisville would need to be connected to Chicago first. When you say higher speed I assume you mean the top speed in 110-125 mph. I have heard Atlanta to Charlotte NC has some merit. The population and distance seems to have more merit than to Louisville without Chicago. Just saying.
Atleast the Rail Runner is owned by the state and the 375 million dollar price for 97 miles from Sante Fe was a nice decent price. The 20 million to operate each year needs more ridership. Ideally 4,000/weekday or 2 million a year would only be a $10 per trip subsidy.
But going slow people still won't take it even when it's free. I say get the average speed to 80 mph on an express by upgrading the tracks to class 6 110 mph. Phase in Brightline Siemens trains. Make it free again for perhaps resident commuters. Have a premium car for mosty tourists. Connect to Taos if there is merit.
This system needs to succeed before investing in tracks to Colorado or Texas. I think a rule of thumb is the annual ridership needs to have an approximate relationship to the population. Best wishes Eric and keep up the good work. I like your perspective. Thanks.
This seems like an inapt comparison TBH-plenty of smaller regional cites* outside the US have useful rail service especially at non-HSR but still faster than US shitbahnen (say 100 MPH, which can be done without specialized ROW or tech and is wayyy below what the standard benchmark for HSR is), and while NM doesn't have a ton of people they're *extremely concentrated. You don't need a Desert Shinkansen to offer an appealing alternative to cars-even a desert Vermonter will do some good.
Side note: I think this is where network effects and interstate cooperation matters because if you have say Front Range rail and a connection to Texas the picture changes dramatically. A Denver-ABQ-El Paso connection links 3 cities with ~500-700K populations, two of which have a metro area pasat a million people, and once you do that it's pretty easy/cheap. to just toss in service to towns along the ROW and structure branch services (rail, bus, whatever makes sense for capacity needs) around the connection.
*And places with good HSR networks usually have extensive local non-HSR services as part of their system.
The SMART if extended to SF to form regional rail through running can end up becoming a frequent and high ridership service
@@ericnelius9062 you think a maglev would be better at such high speeds it’s better maintenance wise. The distance is great and that’s why the service has to be high speed rail to even be considered an alternative
Interesting video, I do have some thoughts to add:
1) full HSR is unrealistic but you don't need that-as you say even 110-ish is a good speed for competing with cars (and makes more sense with the kind of distances and populations involved); at that speed driving time to/from the train stations will matter a lot. Plus for a lot of trips you can probably get away with a park and ride.
2) Is there a lot that can be done as "low hanging fruit" with rail runner, for instance negotiating more slots with BNSF to allow more consistent all-day service? Something that looks more like a regional/all day rail pattern makes a lot of sense. If there's a push to allow electrification generally on mainline freight rail that will also help. This can also build political support for serious intercity rail since people will actually have a practical example they can see themselves.
3) I would be cautious about trying to fit every rail transit need into a single project ,especially since the RGV from Taos to ABQ (relatively concentrated, some of suburban areas that may need service) will have different transport needs from the southern half of the state (longer distances that can be covered quickly but probably won't involve as many stops). It's better IMO to have a clear breakdown of RGV regional rail transport, local/city level rail transport where appropriate, and state-level rail transport with projects tailored to the locality. E.g. continuing to operate Rail Runner as a separate regional system for RGV local trips and concentrate intercity rail on major centers. This also takes a lot of pressure off the "who gets a train station"
convo-you can make sure *everyone* gets transit connections and go from there to picking the connection that makes the most sense. Maybe it doesn't make sense to have the NM intercity connector stop at San Antonio, but if there's a frequent and reliable bus or local service from there to Socorro it's a lot easier to swallow not getting a station.
4) Pendant to the above, I would pay *extremely* close attention to making sure transfers to local systems (either rail runner or other non-intercity services) are as smooth and seamless as possible. Close study of Swiss-style timed transfers for any non-intercity services you can't get to better frequencies than "every 15 minutes" would be extremely useful-e.g. if you want people to use this to get from a suburban ABQ rail runner stop to Las Cruces, it works a lot better if they have a timed transfer at downtown ABQ.
5) This is a little off the wall, but I wonder if (pending BNSF cooperation on necessary electrified infrastructure) a Karlsruhe style tram-train would make sense for say the ABQ or Isleta Pueblo-Taos area as an adjunct to the intercity system? I don't think there are many (any?) US examples but the area seems pretty conducive since you have an existing corridor, a series of cities and towns with decent but not insane spacing and not a lot in between them, and probably some benefit from running trams directly through without having to plow a whole ass mainline in and maybe giving local transit a kick in the butt. You could even table upgrading the ABQ BRT to a modern euro tramline that branches off to old town and some of the areas that don't really have transit RN.
6. I would definitely make sure that you can connect to Front Range rail when that happens, but that should be easy if you don't use wacky custom gauges or anything like that. Likewise, if you go via I-40 it makes a lot of sense to think about a possible connection to Flagstaff. One thing I'm surprised you didn't mention is El Paso; if you can get Texas cooperation you could pull a LOT of ridership to/from there and in general no reason to leave a connection to an enormous population center like that on the table. In general, if you have a cheap extension that gets you a lot of new ridership, may as well take it.
Sorry for the wall of text, just had a lot of thoughts etc.
If such a system, then definitely from the beginning as electric, its operation is cheaper and offers more convenience. As for speed, the question is whether you want to build it to compete only with cars or also with airplanes, as in California. If there are not enough funds for a full-size HSR line, it can be divided into sections where sections with easier and more straightforward terrain can have a maximum speed of up to 200 mph and sections with complicated sections only 110-120 mph. Many tracks in Europe have been built this way, not many tracks have a top speed of 200 mph for their entire length.
This is a really interesting discussion, many thanks for uploading it. Are there any plans to expand the RailRunner down to Las Cruces? Connecting the two biggest cities along an existing rail corridor, then electrifying that whole RailRunner system would seem like a good start. And what about a west-east section too, along the I-40 corridor? Those far-flung communities also deserve a convenient rail link to ABQ. Lots to think about here, I'll be following the project proposals closely.
You make an excellent point about the east-west expansion, but instead of running a line along I-40, running a line toward Phoenix to the (south)west and Lubbock to the (south)east could reach the communities that are a little too far from the interstate.
I haven't heard anything about Bill's bills or the RailRunner expansion at this time, but I'll keep you posted as soon as I find something out.
Anyhow, thank you so much for commenting! Hopefully more discussion and debate will lead to better-informed representatives and better legislation overall!
The Rail Runner down to Las Cruces would be an interesting proposition...the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe ran the El Pasoan service down that way until 1969 (it almost survived to Amtrak Day!). By the end, it was "Amos 'n Andy" (the railroads only two Budd RDC self-propelled coaches) running the service, or an E8M pulling three cars: an RPO, a diner-coach with vending machines, and a coach. I'd be worried that a straight commuter train wouldn't offer some of the amenities that a longer distance train would be expected to have on board, like limited food services. The Amtrak Cascades would be a good model for this, with its Cafe-Bistro car.
@@brentboswell1294- These are some good ideas, and I hope the decision makers in SF are bold enough to forge ahead with this. “ABQ to Las Cruces is a 3¼ hour drive on I-25, wouldn’t you rather let the train take the strain? Stay connected, do some work, enjoy the view, have a snack, kick back, take a nap, arrive relaxed…” etc.
@@Yormsane I hope so! I'm an NMSU grad-go Aggies 😎 Another obstacle, that will ultimately limit track speed, is that the former ATSF El Paso sub (Belen, NM-El Paso, TX) is the longest stretch of "dark" territory in the Continental USA (i.e. no automatic train signals)! Trains were dispatched on this line with old-fashioned train orders, with train passings being organized hours in advance by the line dispatcher, and train crews would have to stop, meet each other, and exchange a track warrant to proceed. The BNSF would probably be a little adverse about upgrading the El Paso sub to a signaled subdivision. As I recall from railfanning in my time at NMSU (early 1990's), the speed limit posts were showing 45 for freight, 60 for passenger trains. And what passenger trains, you might say? I caught the Sunset Limited diverted onto the El Paso sub twice, and once the (private) American Orient Express going up from El Paso 🙂 But the old Santa Fe always kept their tracks in excellent condition. I remember in the early 1990's, they had the only section of Class VI rail on a freight line in the US (the Belen Cutoff-79 MPH limit for freight, 90 for passenger trains). I understand that the BNSF allowed that section of rail to deteriorate to Class V, which is the same as most freight mainlines in the USA.
I love Las Cruces. Such beautiful sunsets coming form highway 70 from the east. I love the entire region ♥
The Brightline model may work because there already exists an existing rail corridor they have access to. Of the 270 miles between Miami and Orlando, they are only building less than 50 miles of new corridor, and single track with a few passing sidings. Along the existing FEC rail corridor, they are just double tracking and improving bridges. They plan to average 80 mph, taking less than 3.5 hours to travel between Orlando and Miami.
Note the important statistic I wish to emphasize is 3.5 hours of elapse time. Around the 3 hour point is where trains start to gain more market share than flying. For example, Amtrak’s Acela has 70% market share over flying NYC to DC with an elapse time of 3 hours, but just 50% between NYC and Boston with an elapse time of 3.5 hours. So Brightline is aiming for about a 50% market share with flying in Florida.
Another important point to recognize is the traveling distance of less than 300 miles. Most passenger trains in the USA off the NEC Acela runs at average speeds of less than 50 mph. Believe it or not, brightline’s goal of 80 mph average speeds matches what Acela does. That is awesome. But To get that high an average speed, the train makes fewer station stops, they double tracked the entire freight corridor between Miami and Cocoa, resignaled the entire corridor for faster speed trains, etc spending over $3 billion. And that is just one railroad corridor.
I do not think Brightline would attempt this same formula Atlanta to Chicago. Why? It is over 700 miles between Atlanta and Chicago, and assuming the rail corridor could be double tracked, resignaled, and otherwise upgraded to achieve 80 mph average speed, the elapse time would be around 9 hours. Much longer than the three hour goal I mentioned earlier, three times more. Doing this on a rail corridor twisting its way through the Allegheny Mountains. Not likely.
But to achieve average speeds of even 80 mph, FRA regulations additional set points are reached that add expenses to both the trains and rail corridors. Over 80 mph, cab signaling is required. Over 90 mph enforced and strengthened grade crossing gates are required, over 110 mph grade separations at crossings are required, over 125 mph special FRA regulations are required for operations.
Now the entire corridor does not need to be built to the same standard. For example, Brightline runs at a maximum speed of 60 mph between Miami and Fort Lauderdale, 79 mph between Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach, 110 mph between Palm Beach and Cocoa, and 125 mph Cocoa to Orlando. And even in these huge sections, local conditions can cause speed restrictions that will force the trains to slow down.
The longer the route, and the faster the trains, the harder it is to maintain the tracks and higher train speeds.
Trains make great linear transport, as vehicles must travel along a linear corridor. It’s not like ships which can move in any direction they please outside a ship channel. So it is easy for map lurkers to keep drawing the line further and further. But most people do not travel in straight lines over long distances. Instead of going north from Atlanta to Nashville, we might wish to travel west from Atlanta to Birmingham, or east from Atlanta to Charleston. The advantage flying from the airport in Atlanta is that you can fly to hundreds of destinations in just about every compass point. A HSR train station in Atlanta will only give you a linear line of destinations, in just a few compass points.
I’d love to be able to take a train from ABQ to visit family in the Denver area. I hate driving and flying. Trains are so much more pleasant
I agree 😃
Although building something like this won't happen overnight, but I think it's worth talking about so that we can get projects like this one moving!
How come no one is talking about Brightline's actual highspeed train LA to Vegas....
Just announced: $10 B 191-mile plan from Las Vegas to Ranco Cucamongo to be completed by 2027.
Looking at your assessment from a European perspective, I wonder why California HSR is so expensive? We are dealing with very similar hurdles in Germany, as they are in California. Environmental aspects and NIMBYism are enormous factor here as well (some projects are in the discussion for 30+ years now) and still, 120km (75miles) of 300kph (186mph) able newly built corridor came out to less than 3 billion and opened about 5 years ago. after inflation, in todays money it might be closer to 4 billion, but that would still be just around 50 million per mile, fully electrified and not built along existing rights of way. Brightline will only operate 110 mph on the FEC corridor and only reach 125mph on their newly built segment to Orlando airport after diverging from the mixed use FEC. Given that the freight trains on the Florida East Coast railway don't seem to be using super long trains with engines in the middle of the consists, I see no reason why electrification wouldn't be super beneficial. Electric locos usually pull at least twice what their Diesel counterparts pull, while doing away with the energy loss in combustion engines. these trains could change engines north of the split point or also electrify the rest of the line to Jacksonville, making future passenger service there much more likely.
Back to California HSR, its crucial to fund the project to completion asap, to avoid further cost increases and deliver benefits sooner than later, whatever the costs. These costs (even at CHSR levels) will pale in comparison to their benefit and after a decade or two the rail line will be an irreplaceable part of California transport infrastructure.
For New Mexico and Colorado I'd love to see electrified rail at speeds of 155mph, with track curvatures being designed for 225mph, so that the right of way could be upgraded in the future. Electrification brings huge benefits and 155mph rolling stock is readily available in Europe or with the new Acela trains. I'm not very well informed on the regional details of your population distribution in NM, but usually when we build new HSR lines for 155, 186 or more we try to also benefit smaller population centers along the way. Giving them stops on the line and with higher speed regional trains operating at 115 to 125mph (standard is around 100 mph here for many regional trains). All of that is usually mixed with several electrified freight trains an hour operating around 70mph (with some sidings to let passenger trains pass) and plenty of freight trains throughout the night. This leads to super high utilization, while still always prioritizing passenger trains over freight.
Those are some real interesting remarks. Wikipedia has some good information on the cost of CAHSR. The initial 171 mile segment is over 17 billion or 100+ mil per mile. This is the easiest segment. I don't know about Germany but in California there will be 55 miles of mountainous tunneling in the coming decades. The newest cost projection has a high of 128 Bil. Regarding New Mexico, it is a very large state (6th) with a very low density population of about 2 million. It is not fast growing like Florida, Texas, Utah and Idaho. It has a low per capital income also.
Update on CAHSR: Last week's board meeting reported the IOS (below) is likely to now cost up to $35 B by as late as 2035. Electric in Florida may not be advisable. Catenaries do not like hurricanes.
In comparision to your German example of $40-50 M/mile, It is projected to be as much as $200 M/mile for the CAHSR IOS. Further, some tunnels have been projected to cost an unbelievable $1 B/mile. Welcome to the public transit construction monster.
@@davidjackson7281 Its also in public hand over here. And we keep complaining all the time about the inefficient processes and high cost. The cost I provided for our line here in Germany include 3 tunnels (total 9,6 miles) and 6 bridges (total 9 miles)
@@MaxiAir That's nice. It's springtime for trains in Germany. Don't be late. Don't be tardy. Come and join the grand old party.
Have you read the 2014 State Rail Plan? It gives a lot of good info about the opportunities and challenges for passenger rail in the state (it also talks a lot about other stuff, which is interesting but also very long). In particular, it estimated an El Paso to Denver HSR to be 45 billion, so the border-to-border segment of that would definitely be more than 1 billion haha. But it also mentions that increasing the Rail Runner's track speeds to 90mph would only cost about 15 million, which sounds like a pretty good deal! The Rio Metro budget document also has some good discussion about what it would need to run hourly service and/or get more powerful locomotives.
The RailRunner would greatly improve with more frequency plus most importantly --110 mph track and perhaps some 125 mph track aka Brightline. Anthol Mullen's comments up top are really outstanding and spot on. There is not nearly enough populaton to support a way too long through rough terrain 635 mile HSR from Denver to El Paso. Pat has there been a more recent NM State Rail Plan published since 2014 that you may know of?
I definitely think Brightline-like projects are "just good enough".
There are no longer any BNSF freight trains using the ABQ - Raton corridor, AFAIK. Maybe a few random trains at random times, but no daily freight trains. There are some new battery-powered trains being used in Europe that are also capable of running either on diesel power or on catenary electric power. Brightline West is planning on using catenary electric for their Las Vegas to SoCal passenger train. A direct "as the crow flies" ABQ to Phoenix train doesn't seem at all likely, due to the terrain. However, Amtrak could create a new Denver - Phoenix passenger train, which could use the existing Raton - ABQ segment, then follow the SW Chief route westwards to Ash Fork, AZ, then south on BNSF freight tracks to Phoenix. Option #2 would travel south from ABQ to El Paso, then follow the existing Sunset Ltd. route past Tucson before branching north to downtown Phoenix. The tracks running southwest of Phoenix (going to Yuma) are no longer in service. Maybe New Mexico should consider buying the Raton - ABQ corridor from BNSF, and then extend the Rail Runner service along that route. The existing freight line between ABQ & El Paso would need some mandated upgrades before passenger trains could safely run along there.
You can use existing rail corridors. Just adding a track and double tracking bridges makes a lot of difference. Adding long third rail passing tracks where the topography makes it feasible. Look at the Brightline Coca to Miami FEC corridor. Nice presentation.
Thank you so much! I've been impressed with how quickly Brightline has built up their tracks. Though I'm not a Floridian, I'm hoping they'll be running trains with passengers by the end of June!
Unless the railrunner train is faster than a car few will take it.
I and my relatives and friends will take it!!!
I don’t not care if the train is not faster than the car always, I like to look at the scenery and read, and some of my relatives like to work on the train with their laptop and some other relatives like to read or play games with their computer. And some of my friends don’t like to drive, but would rather arrive relaxed.
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 Good for you. But I'd prefer to build a new hospital, school or rec center (Actually build many) with those funds rather then support the passion project of a few.
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 You would still be relaxed, since you don't have to worry about driving. But a modern train being faster than driving is really important, otherwise there's no economic sense to have it as a transportation network.
10:20 Las Cruces to Alamogordo-are you nuts? There's a prominent geographic feature in the way (the Organ Mountains). In addition, much of the Tularosa basin is taken up by the White Sands Missile Range, White Sands National Park, and Holloman Air Force Base.
You tell 'em. Just get the RailRunner working. These other dreams can not happen without tens of millions of people close by.
Alan Fisher (The Armchair Urbanist) has a good video on why Californias High speed Rail project is so so behind...
The TLDW is that there is too much upstart and pauses in building as money is not a cotstant flow, so construction stoppes and starts a lot, and that is expensive.
I’ve been watching HSR here in California. The folks who are opposed to HSR (LOOKING AT YOU, ELON!) have been leveraging all available legal challenges to impede progress on this critical infrastructure project.
Why start with “nowhere to nowhere” in the San Joaquin Valley? It’s relatively cheap, and avoids the political clash between Northern and Southern California.
Tell New Mexico to help California build their hsr we should be completed within the next century 😂😂
If this will need any federal funding, New Mexico's Rail Plan needs to be updated to qualify for federal funding.
Hope you get the $$$ backing for this. would love to have HSR running from Las Cruces to Santa Fe.
There is really no freight trains from Lamy to La Junta, CO. Amtrak has no conflict in that area.
There are too few people in NM. Try to upgrade the track so the railrunner can average 80 mph like brightline.
I think the population in New Mexico, will continue to grow greatly, many people are moving from California because of problems in California plus the price of apartments and houses have increased greatly.
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 Yep, and nobody realizes the reason people are fleeing California, and why California is dumping billions into HSR are related...
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 Sorry. Though I hope NM gets many from Cal and NM cost of living is cheaper the population was 2,064,588 in 2010 and 2,115,550 in 2022. A mere increase of only 50,962 or 2.5% over a dozen years.At 4k/yr NM will have 3M in 234 years. Only WY and Alaska are worse.
Florida does not have three mountain ranges between its two major population regions -
Twould be nice to have high speed rail from Phoenix to Albuquerque up to Denver.
When will it be my turn god
Speedy Gonzalez Line !
Be weary of minimum effort actions to inaction
Albuquerque to El Paso in 3 hours? It should be 1 hour 🤣🤣🤣
It already takes 3-4 hours to drive there
Personally, I would go for 110-125 electrified higher speed rail/Regional Rail between el paso and Santa Fe and serval lines to connect with other cites Holloman and roswell. Along with lesser used routes like Lordsburg to las curses using Deasil multiple units.
New Mexico is a relatively poor state. How can they afford this?
Great question, thank you for asking!
Short answer: oil and gas revenue. NM is the second largest producer of crude oil in the United States (www.statista.com/statistics/714376/crude-oil-production-by-us-state/)
More detailed answer: at $20M/mile, a 400 mile line would cost $8 Billion. If the state implemented a $2/barrel tax on crude oil production, it would net $900 million per year. Over 9 years, that tax would generate $8.1 billion.
?????? What 😮😅😊😊😊 cool
Bro Amtrak is a non factor please not worth talking about build HSR Amtrak is a lost cause drop the rest after building HSR all over the country and let states takeover rail.
Wouldn't it be more efficient to dig a pit, dump a bunch of cash in it, and then set it on fire?
Another foamer video. Pure pipe dream. New Mexico does not have nearly enough population to support the construction & operation of HSR. The New Mexico also does not have the public transit to feed HSR & provide first/last mile travel solution.
Thank you for commenting, but with all due respect, you are incorrect.
Between ABQ, Las Cruces, and El Paso, you're looking at 1.9 million people in those metro areas alone with very cheap land in between. Each of those areas is served by ART, SCRTD, and the Sun Metro public transit systems, respectively. Seeing as the RailRunner construction/operation was/is supported by the local population, I don't see how this proposed line would have any trouble with staffing.
As for this being a "pipe dream," I would remind you that NM is a place where "pipe dreams" come to fruition: in the 40s with the Manhattan Project, in the 70s with the founding of Microsoft, in the 90s with the recharging of our aquifer (www.abqjournal.com/276444/aquifer-under-city-still-rising-despite-drought.html), and in the 00s with the construction of the RailRunner.
Anyhow, thank you again for commenting, and I you are a little better informed about the 47th state.
@@ericnelius9062: LOL
Comparing HSR to conventional commuter rail is ridiculous. The costs are several orders of magnitude different..renting a time slot on a conventional freight line is cheap compared to the construction of a separate, highly engineered HSR route....not to mention the cost of electrification, rolling stock, and infrastructure like stations and power facilities.
Let's compare that to the two HSR lines in the world that have actually paid for their cost of construction, operation and maintenance:
Japan's Tokaido Shinkansen (Tokyo-Osaka-Kyoto) or France's TGV Sud-Est (Paris Lyon).... Just the end-point citie complexes of these have more than double the population of the entire route a New Mexico HSR corridor would serve...and started with BOTH robust local transportation networks to feed the HSR line, and the right -of-way almost entirely owned by the government before they even started consideration.
@@ericnelius9062 I love your pride in NM. Mark is correct me thinks. Florida has Brightline because HSR would need more population. 5-10M at each end 15-25M along the route.
@@ilikehardplay I agree with much of that, but it's not like it couldn't happen. In terms of transit-oriented development we're just at the beginning steps and we have much to learn (since most of the country is highway-oriented development), but if surrounding states start implementing it I don't see why we wouldn't cooperate to build out a network, especially if there's a federal initiative similar to the highway project. Lawyers and a few politicians are interested in seeing it happen, and it could possibly be a state bill ruclips.net/video/a28qQdy409w/видео.html