What was frustrating is that Texas actually had a plan to create travel corridors that consisted of highways, passenger rail, freight rail, and utility easements that connected all of the major cities in Texas. Interestingly, truck traffic and passenger vehicle traffic had separate parallel roads. Unfortunately, there was resistance and the plan was scratched. If the plan had gone through, we would have had passenger rail between all major Texas cities.
Nice video! One more thing I'd point out: cost of land/right of way in California is part of the cost estimate of our HSR project. Building a similar system on less expensive property is going to decrease costs.
It's actually a significant portion of the costs, as well as over engineering of some portions because of the earthquake issue. They could save a huge amount of money if they would consider the German ICE trains, which can handle grades of 3-4% at HSR speeds, that would cut down on the huge tunnelling costs through the Grapevine and Pacheco Passes, but that's been ruled out for some unknown reason.
Land costs were one of the big places they dropped the ball on HSR here in California. They didn't factor in that if you build it on what was farmland, the government doesn't just pay for the land-they also have to reimburse the farmer for the lost crop value. And in the case of fruit or nut trees, that could be 20 or 30 years of production.
These comments are right. You have to separate land acquisition costs from construction costs. As a practical matter, the train wouldn’t follow the highway right-of-way as it would likely seek easier grades elsewhere that would require land acquisition expense, but then cost less to build. HSR makes sense for the shorter trips and they would build a spoke or grid model in the East (like your route to the TN football game), one in TX (Dallas, Houston and Austin) and there would be one or several in the West (connecting CA cities and LV). No need to pay to build HSR between Las Vegas and the East Coast. They shouldn’t spend to build true HSR from SF to Portland/Seattle, but upgrade the existing tracks to run fully electric 120-30mph trains and get the freight off the tracks.
A few notes from a European: 1) Weather can certainly influence high-speed trains. Just a little snow can stop trains (making switches impossible to operate), and so can ice (build up on the overhead wires) and wind (making it too dangerous to cross high bridges). 2) Train prices can be expensive. Many routes in the Europe are cheaper by plane than by train. Train tickets of high speed routes will go up if there is more demand and when booked less far in advance, with premiums for flexible or refundable tickets. Just like airlines. Compared to driving, trains are far more expensive, specially if you travel with multiple people. 3) Trains are far less flexible than planes or cars when it comes to problems with infrastructure, as trains don't have much choice in alternative routes. I live close to a station where I can take a high speed train to the next country -- except that starting next year, no trains will cross that border due to an upgrade of the line. That's not to say having high(er) speed rail won't be a good thing. But the comparison between modes of travel isn't always that clear cut.
As a retired engineer who acquired ROW for electrical transmission lines many years ago, i always told people America could copy the concept of the interstate highway system for rails. In fact we could easily use existing interstate ROW in most cases between cities, by putting one rail on each side or in some cases down the middle of the grassy median. Of course elevations may present a problem in some cases. My concept is the government would own and maintain the rails just like they do the interstate system. Rail transportation companies could pay to use the system to transport passengers. The problem Amtrak has is they are using privately owned rails and they can only use them when freight is not using the same rail. This should be a bipartisan effort in congress or it will fail.
With due respect, I personally don't trust the govt trying to run a transportation system. The govt has never proved they could run anything adequately. Reason we are in so much debt.
And the government(taxpayers) paid for the transcontinental rail with the valuable resources that came with vast land grants and then let the tycoons keep the rail system i.e. Hill, stanford, Harriman, el al
As someone born and raised in Little Rock with lots of family there who currently lives in Chicago, I'd love high speed rail to enable me to visit family more conveniently and sustainability (on multiple levels). I took Amtrak last time and knew it would be a huge time suck. At the time I had a job which could be done remotely so it wasn't a huge deal. One thing I don't hear talked about a lot in people's calculus in "choosing"🙄🙄 to drive or fly is our limited vacation time.
I also love the idea of building higher and true high-speed railways (and also freight railways, if needed) along interstate routes. Operating the along the open-access model as in Europe would also be a good idea if taxpayer funded.
The DC Metro uses the median of highways when it's practical, and Brightline West is planning on using the median of I-15 for a portion of the route. If there's space for rail construction along the interstate right-of-way, it makes perfect sense. Maybe one of the biggest challenges is (pardon the pun) getting everyone on board with the idea of intercity rail transit.
@@brucenadeau2172 trains are faster than car and also gives me the freedom of getting there faster. Planes are fast until you deal with cramped seating, TSA, and if you’re in a wheelchair you need other people to lift you on board etc. What a mess.
One down side is that trains cannot replace highways, since you still need highways for local traffic and deliveries. But, as mentioned in the video, we already built out the interstate highway system, so adding passenger rail can be viewed as adding capacity and possibly an alternative to widening the freeway.
Sure you'd still need highways for shipping certain goods, but cities with competent public and active transit infrastructure let you get around without a car easily. I actually think most people in the US tend to put the cart before the horse, promoting HSR as our transportation savior when really its local public transit that would have the biggest impact.
@@LimitedWard I think it only works well if you have a combined system. Having local transit options makes high speed rail more appealing. But if you are in a situation where you need a car at both ends, and it's close enough to drive, then a lot of people will just drive. High speed rail and local transit go hand in hand.
Maybe in addition to routes, you can look at cities to see how they can use existing rail and highway right-of-ways to build passenger rail services. This is what Brightline is doing in Florida and planning for LA to Vegas. I suggest looking at Atlanta, which has a rail corridor running through downtown and also sits at the intersection of three interstate highways.
Downtown Atlanta would be an excellent place for an inter-city (and preferably higher-speed) rail station. I've discussed the location before in Southeast High-Speed Rail video: ruclips.net/video/sH0tCaDkFCk/видео.html
@ericnelius9062 Yes, I saw that video. It's not a good idea to end service in downtown Atlanta. The northern route should continue south to the airport. There should also be a train yard near the southern terminus. I would suggest Forrest Park or Fairburn for that.
Hold up, I stumbled onto this video as part of a Mass Transit rabbit hole and you casually mention living in ABQ? Me too! Glad to see a citizen of Albuquerque doing videos like this!
@@AllenGraetz Comapared to buses and cars trains have less parts than cars and buses making trains cheap in the long run, if you want something that is cheaper in the short term which is what we should not be doing you are right but in the long term trains will be cheaper to maintain.
@@Sacto1654 yeah I agree with on that front but besides that trains would be cheaper in the long term considering that is why California high speed rail is being built in the Central Valley and will not extend to Los Angeles and San Francisco because of the tunneling costs.
@@CityBuilder568 And the fact the tunnels have to include expensive earthquake mitigation features. Look at how long it took for the Hokuriku Shinkansen to be extended from Nagano to Kanazawa, especially the LONG tunnels between Nagano and Itoigawa.
It would be interesting to see a 4th analysis of what the economic benefit would be. You're giving people a faster and cheaper way to travel long distances, the people are saving money, which means they can spend more at other places. It lets way more people travel, which is means money is moving around; a part of that is taxed, businesses have more to spend.
Rail between Memphis and Nashville is desperately needed. I travel between them regularly and traffic is terrible and there is almost always an accident. Even if not high speed, rail is needed now. Thank you for a well researched video.
thewesternmind...Yep, and the traffic between Memphis and Little Rock on I-40 is also terrible. The roads are old and torn up ( they are being worked on but there need to be at least 2...probably 3 more lanes added each way ). Thankfully, I very seldom have to go Little Rock to Memphis. I live about 100 miles north of L.R. and when I have to go to Memphis, I will go towards Jonesboro and catch U.S. 550 ( 555...?? I forget..) highway there and take it to almost the Mississippi River where it blends with I-40. It's a much better and easier drive.
@@marbleman52 The extra lanes won't fix anything because people will inevitably go "Oh neat, they added two more lanes, I can now drive there!" and use the highway more often than usual, leading to these two lanes being once again full with traffic.
Your comparison omits something important. A four lane freeway will carry far more people than a high speed train. You should calculate the cost on a per-passenger-mile basis, and not construction cost per mile. On that basis, the four lane freeway would be less expensive.
One factor omitted: Cost and timing for lodging in route. Driving I-40 between California and North Carolina, even at 70 mph, is going to require about three overnight stops at hotels, motels, campsites, or trailer parks. If weather is bad, additional stops overnight may be needed. Overnight accommodations would be part of the high speed trains, that can remain moving overnight.
Well, yeah, but is it relevant? The main purpose of I-40 isn't to drive all the way from California to North Carolina, nor will that be the main purpose of the proposed train. Most people will drive a much shorter portion of the I-40, and will travel between two intermediate stations. When discussing roads or train lines, people should not just focus on terminus-to-terminus travel, as that will be a small fraction of the use of it.
@@dave4882 "They wont let you put a uhaul in your over head compartment." So have your shit shipped separately. Get one of those PODS, Portable On Demand Storage. Put your shit in it, lock it, have them ship to where you're going, fly there, unlock it, put it in your new house. Anyway, Dave, what does that have to do with building HSR down the whole length of I-40? You can't put a u-haul on a train, either?
@@neutrino78x It cost me so much less to do it myself. And I realize no uhaul on a train. I am just stating there are reasons someone would drive I-40. I do with they had an auto train running east to west though. If you have never heard of auto train, look it up.
@@dave4882 "It cost me so much less to do it myself. " I dunno. It costs you a lot of time. I guess it depends on the distance. "If you have never heard of auto train, look it up." I saw a video about it. Seems like it takes forever to load and unload and it's a 10 hour drive when you could fly in two hours. Anyway yeah there are probably reasons to drive on I-40 but flying is the fastest way to travel. 🙂
HSR works well in high density population centers where corridors between city pairs are relatively short, which is why it works so well in Europe and Japan. East of the Mississippi it's more cost effective to fly to Vegas or LA. West of the Mississippi you would need to connect major population centers to justify the cost of the build, and to generate the necessary income to keep the route viable, and such population centers are few and far between along I40. Patronage between Memphis, OKC, Albuquerque and Vegas likely wouldn't support the route. Moreover, given the push for zero-emission transportation, you're route would have to be electrified, driving the cost per mile up exponentially. To run fast gradients must be kept to a minimum, which means lots of tunnels in the East and lots of fills and cuts and bridges/causeways through, over and around the undulating terrain of New Mexico and Arizona. It would be a massive undertaking that would wind up costing 5 to 10 times your range of estimates. You could build it, but it would never pay for itself. The cost of maintaining the line would be prohibitive.
From Memphis to Nashville would take so many ups, downs, trestles, tunnels...for what? There are "tons" of connections? Bright line in FLA has NO overhead crossings and is flat as a pancake. Bro throws numbers around like a herd of mosquitoes.
That's why I think a hybrid 70/80 route would make more sense. SF to New York plus Chicago, Denver, Salt Lake, among others. Running it through larger population centers would generate more income.
You might be surprised at how often people out west do travel from city to city. We are used to the longer distances, and because of traffic in dense close cities, the driving time is more similar than you might think
@@J3scribe LA to Vegas screams HSR. Phoenix to Vegas as well eventually in the future. Maybe LA to Phoenix. LA to San Diego as well. However, distances beyond this would be better served by air.
Agree with your last statement. They talk of going green. Advanced rail would be the way to go. Yes the cost of construction is a fact, but the long term advantage of rail over road hands down is the way to go, especially with the push on electrical vehicles and their charging stations and the time during charging.
Here’s the problem. 30% or more of traffic on I40 is freight, not passenger vehicles. And this does not consider the final mile problem. So please don’t consider high speed passenger rail as a substitute for I40. A complement, yes. A replacement, no.
To add on to what CityLife in AZ said -- Most rural interstates have wide ROWs in the medians and off to the sides that are all state/fed owned as part of the highway itself. It would be a good idea to add on to the original Eisenhower Interstate Highway act with an Interstate HSR component that uses these ROWs for fed/state owned rail corridors that private companies can be licensed to operate on just as all interstate trucking registers with USDOT and pays apportionment taxes (that's what all the way stations are for along the highways BTW) This could also be sold as in the interest of the national defense as there's more of a guarantee to move large numbers of people and materials around orderly via rail than any other form of transport in times of emergency; including air. Just ask literally every nation that has had an armed conflict or national emergency within its borders in the last 100 years. It would solve the "can we please operate on your rails" problem with the likes of BNSF/SP/UP/CSX not wanting to give trackage rights to passenger rail and even when made to do so, ignore the prioritization of passenger traffic It also provides for a more through routing since most major cities and many secondary ones are situated around interstate highways since that's been the mode of transport obtainable by the majority of Americans for the last 65 years. There's almost no need to even build HSR terminals in the "downtown" CBD places even, since the majority of all Americans are suburbanites. Find the population center of most cities and will almost always be some point in the "midtown" transitional line between the old downtown and the newest suburbs. Finally, present your fact of higher speed rail being half the cost per mile than the typical rural interstate setup, but then add: - maintaining an electric railway corridor is about 75%+ cheaper on average than the comparable maintenance of an interstate ROW. - adding said electric railway to an already established interstate corridor is a value add since it will likely be done while involving maintenance works on the interstate that need to be done anyway. - Freight can move along HSR tracks as well. Wouldn't it be cool to see USPS. UPS and FedEx cars in the consists of HSR trains-- they could help underwrite the facilitating of the networks. - Amtrak still runs a successful AutoTrain... AutoTrain along I-40 as well as any other interstate corridors could also become a thing too. As someone who regularly traveled between Atlanta and St Louis via I-75/24/57/64, having an AutoTrain from Atlanta to Nashville would cut out half my drive and I'dve gladly paid for this. Thanks for allowing me to express my thoughts in this space.
If California's "Train to Nowhere" ever gets finished and operating, I would love to see an autotrain option. I'm pretty disgusted with how that project is being done. It seems like if there is a wrong decision to be made, it's been made. And since our state government pretends to hate cars so much, I doubt whoever ends up running the train would want to let cars anywhere near it. 1. The voters literally voted for a "half-baked" HSR. The ballot proposition was a bond measure to fund half the projected cost. Not only that, but costs have ballooned, skyrocketed, and whatnot ever since. I don't know where the agencies involved are getting the rest of the money. I'm not sure they know, either. 2. When I was told "HSR from Los Angeles to the Bay Area" I thought logically it should follow the I-5 corridor up the west side of the Central Valley. The hard parts would be obtaining ROW in the big metropolitan areas (fighting NIMBYs), and routing over the mountains (the Grapevine, for one). But no, it's following Hwy 99 up the east side of the Central Valley, where much of the land is built up already, so they've been obtaining ROW there, and angering the locals as they've done so. (Similar to what LA's Metro is facing in extending the C Line through the South Bay: they already bought existing ROW from a railroad, but the residents are starting to protest it more loudly, and it's not the most logical routing for that area.) Meanwhile, the HSR is also taking the long way around through the Antelope Valley and Tehachapi Pass. I guess the planners thought the people in the smaller cities and towns would want to go to L.A. and San Francisco, too. Maybe the planners are right.
Using the median sounds nice, but 1) trains require far less steep slopes than cars can handle, 2) high speed rail requires very large curve radii (a few miles for a 200m/h train). Not only for the comfort of passengers, but also to avoid too much wear and tear -- you don't want to have to replace your rails every year. As for freight moving along HSR tracks, you either have to the freight at high speeds as well (which makes it expensive), or you have to drastically lower the maximum speed of the trains. Trains on high speed lines *must* go fast through curves, else you get too much wear and tear of your rails. You can see the latter in the Netherlands: their high speed line was designed for 300km/h trains (Thalys to Paris/Eurostar to London), but they're mixing the 300km/h traffic with national trains which go 160km/h. The insides of the curves get too much wear and tear because the trains don't go fast enough.
@Abi Gail For slopes, cut-and-fill, bridges and tunnels can be used in the center median. In less developed and flatter areas, there would be less opposition to having the track deviate from the Interstate. That is, less property owners to protest eminent domain. This would be especially true in the Western states, but you could also have more environmental issues due to the arid and fragile ecosystems. So it's back to airliners-- just hop right over all that land that many travelers don't want to spend time in anyway.
Using the California HSR cost as a reference for true HSR in America, is to use a reference 5-10 times the cost of European HSR per mile / km. Also, a key difference in your proposal is to re-use the right of way already owned by the Federal Interstate network which would drastically reduce the cost estimate.
As you point out, HSR cost up to 10x what 120mph rail cost, so a decision needs to be made. Is the higher speed worth it? We are told that the optimum distance for HSR is aprox 400 miles, however I have been on Shanghai to Bejing (750 miles, 215 mph) and it beats flying. The California HSR project probably would be 80% as good with 120 mph trains, at a fraction of the cost. Already, London to Edinburgh (400 miles. 120 mph) is begining to take passengers away from flying. It is as quick, as cheap, and more pleasant. London to Paris on Eurostar (185 mph) beats flying, hands down! Good video, keep it up!
Shanghai to Beijing justifies a HSR route because of the gigantic amount of travel between both cities on both business and government workers. That's why some of the fastest HSR's in the world are on this route.
Don’t the British about how expensive tickets are and Ryan air being extremely dirt cheap. I heard Ryan air is the worse version of spirit it’s the spirit of Europe
"We are told that the optimum distance for HSR is aprox 400 miles, however I have been on Shanghai to Bejing (750 miles, 215 mph) and it beats flying" How so? The flight is 2 hours according to Google Maps. It should be less because the direct air distance is 611 miles and a 737 cruise speed is about 580. Rome2Rio says the train is 4.5-5 hours (depending on which train you take). I don't understand how that's faster. Is this is a case of where 80% of the air space in China is reserved for their military, so commercial aircraft can't fly direct routes? Google Maps doesn't list a flight time, but in theory, it should be like 1 hour and 15 minutes, or so. "The California HSR project probably would be 80% as good with 120 mph trains, " lmao no it wouldn't. It would be about 3 hours and the flight is 1 hour. "London to Edinburgh (400 miles. 120 mph) is begining to take passengers away from flying. It is as quick," Well, maybe the Brits are willing to sit in a train for 4 hours when a plane could get them there in 1, but I am not. "ondon to Paris on Eurostar (185 mph) beats flying, hands down! " No, the train is 3x longer than flying. That's why they still have 23 non-stop flights a day. Although both London to Paris makes a lot more sense because both are very dense and the distance is short. (btw, it's 295 miles, 295/3.5=84 mph average, not 184).
@@Sacto1654 "Shanghai to Beijing justifies a HSR route because of the gigantic amount of travel between both cities on both business and government workers." yeah, much higher population density. Still, if Google Maps and Rome2Rio are correct, the train is four hours and the plane is 2 hours.
@@neutrino78x Wow!! There is so much wrong in your post, I don't know where to start! 1. The cruise speed of a 737 is 514 mph, not 580 mph. 2. The flight from Shanghai to Bejing is not 2 hours. You cannot even board the plane in two hours! I takes one hour to get to the airport, two hours minimum before boarding, 20 minutes minimum to taxi for take off, 20 minutes minimum to taxi to the gate after landing, one hour to get from the airport at the destination, plus the flight time and delays. 3. I have flown LAX to SFO countless times. You cannot even get to the airport in an hour, let alone board. 4. London to Edinburgh, just look at the several RUclips videos of a plane/train race. 5. London to Paris (I have done this several times as well) the train is 2 hours 15 minutes not 3.5 hours, and as I pointed out (Yeah I have flown it too) you cannot even board the plane in 2 hours 15 minutes. 6. "Flight times" are calculated "wheels up to wheels down" not the actual time you will spend trying to board, de-plane etc.
One thing that I think that you leave out in your discussion of the high speed rail discussion is economies of scale. Part of the reason that CA HSR is so expensive is that it is the only system in the country. It is literally being built from scratch. Part of why the cost of building a lane mile of interstate is so low, and to some degree even the cost of higher speed rail (which for the most part is normal rail with nicer trains... yeah, I know, there is more to it than that, but you don't have to do that much special to the rail like you do for HSR) is so low, is that we already have all the equipment and materials we need in mass. If we truly were building a nationwide HSR system, after the first few segments of HSR were built, it would start becoming more of an "off the shelf" operation like highway building is now.
Great analysis. I think shared right of way and a “trains instead of more lanes” approach would be good. Think of it, the desire to build a twelve lane highway probably means a median railway would have the necessary ridership and would be a wiser investment.
Thank you so much! If this thing were to be built, it would need to start by serving the most populous segments first (OKC to Nashville) then continue to be built out.
carl....I live here in north central Arkansas and I would love to be able to catch a high speed rail in Little Rock and get close to Virginia where my family lives to where they could take a short drive and come get me. I am 71 and driving a long distance is not something I care to do anymore. I vote for H.S. Rail... I will fly as long as the tickets are still reasonable and I have someone who can take me to the airport and come and get me when I return.
The cost estimates for rail are higher because of the cost of land purchases. Both areas have high land costs; once you get past a certain point, the land costs drop immensely. One advantage I saw with rail in Europe was that going between major cities you could leave at night, ride the train overnight, arrive in the morning, and have the whole day there.
British Rail built the Intercity 125 50 years ago capable of reaching speeds of 125mph on standard track. It is still in service. So realistically if you build track capable of running a 50 year old design of train you can achieve a realistic improvement. They also designed the APT (Advanced Passenger Train) which was the predecessor to the Pendolino (Tilting Train) capable of I believe 140mph agin on standard track. The holdup isn't the train design but the Political commitment to either track construction or rehabilitation.
@@ut000bs Point was they didn't need upgraded track. Virtually all High speed rail runs on dedicated track (see the project in California, most European high speed lines, China etc) The Intercity 125 could attain top speed on normal track with minimal upgrading. Amtrak needs to provide relatively quick Reliable services in order to stimulate demand, and that requires scheduling improvements and track upgrades. Some American services are good but the longer the distance the more chance of delay.
Can safely run up to about 155mph on standard track, as long as curves are straightened and crossings are eliminated and layers of automatic safety systems are added. This is also about the limit of modern standard rolling stock. Older stock tops out at about 125mph. Electrification can be added at the same time, reducing potential energy costs in the long run.
The last time I flew to Tulsa storms delayed me and I got to DFW two hours after my connecting flight was scheduled to take off, but an hour before the connecting flight actually arrived at DFW. That connecting flight was cancelled so I was transferred to another flight, then another. The fourth flight was cancelled at midnight and I camped in Terminal D until morning. Flying was neither quick nor comfortable. I would make a few changes. Since you aren't sticking strictly with the I-40 the whole route I would start on the 10 in LA, which is a far more productive terminus, before going to Barstow and Las Vegas, then following the 40. Interstates aren't built for 200 mph traffic, so speed would be limited if you use the I-40 right-of-way. I would use accelerated rail (I hate the term "higher speed rail" because logically it should be faster, not slower, than "high speed rail") at 120 mph, with active tilting technology and slowing at the tighter curves. this should still be capable of route speeds approaching 90 mph. Land costs would be minimal because we already own the right-of-way and would only need the really expensive land entering the cities so the stations can be placed in the CBD. Service can be provided by diesel-electric multiple units, with a locomotive on each end, and maybe tapping power off to power two axles on the coach at each end for more acceleration. This saves the cost of electrification at first, although if demand is high enough the tracks should be electrified eventually.
A high speed rail is in the works for L.A. to Vegas. However, it starts at Victorville, but people want to see it starting in L.A., or maybe even Disneyland. There is the Cajon Pass to deal with, which the freight trains do every day, but it would not be suitable for fast trains. Maybe the downtown to I-5 to SR 14 into the Antelope Valley would make sense. Metrolink already runs that route into Palmdale. Personally, I wouldn't want to drive to Victorville just to board a train to Vegas. Anyway, if this project actually gets built (a lot of people say they like the idea, and I think a lot of people would actually use it-- think Party Bus on rails), then having the cross country HSR start in Vegas makes a lot of sense.
@@EXROBOWIDOW I'd love t o see the rail line start at Ontario airport(at least for now). Plenty of existing parking capacity, and the rail lines are across the road. Maybe the train couldn't run at high speed up the canyon, but the car traffic up the canyon is abysmal. On major weekends I-15 turns into a 100 mile long parking lot.
@Dave Last time we went over the Cajon Pass, it was a Thursday night, so we did not expect a lot of traffic. But CalTrans was working, lanes were shut down, and there was indeed traffic. It was barely moving.
Regarding the costs, if you standardize all new high speed rail, like China has, you can significantly cut costs due to economies of scale. Also when building larger projects, again the economies of scale comes in. This is why California High Speed Rail is probably not a good example to go by, it's the first high speed rail system in the US, experiences from that will (or at least should if managed correctly) go into building new systems.
China, a dictatorship has to listen to no one. No environment groups will get in their way. If they displace millions of people to build a HSR, their govt could care less. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The challenge is the number of routes needed to make this work. For instance, at the minimum to cover Texas, you'd need a rail line following I10 starting in Jacksonville going through Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso. You'd then need a line along I20 starting in Atlanta that goes through DFW, Midland, and Odessa, then linking to the I10 line. It's not the higher/high speed rail cost per mile itself, but rather the thousands of miles to build.
You also have to factor in that with long train routes you also get to rest along the way, especially if you get a berth with a bed. The trip itself is part of the relaxation, unlike flying and you don't have to worry about traffic like you do driving. I actually like to drive on trips myself, but I also enjoy the carefree nature of a train trip.
You just earned a sub. I really enjoyed this video and the topic. I love traveling by train. Been cross country multiple times with Amtrak. Your idea is very well thought out and practical. I’m from CA. I unfortunately think the HSR project is botched. It should have followed the thought and logic you showed here. Thanks again.
Thank you for the sub! I'm hoping that CA HSR can get things back on track, but it may take Brightline coming in and completing the line from Vegas to Victorville to show CA HSR how to deliver on a promise.
“Higher speed” rail is probably the best approach in my opinion. The vast majority of existing rolling stock tops out at 125 or 150mph. Upgrading the majority of lines for safe operation up to 150mph would require rerouting, eliminating crossings with roads, and installing new layered automated safety systems. The lines could also be electrified at the same time. Of course certain sections could potentially be built to a higher safe speed standard but even getting them to 150mph would be a huge improvement. Average speeds could also be improved greatly by the new infrastructure which is currently miserably slow, well below even average highway speeds. This could greatly improve both freight and passenger rail service throughout the network. Building out a network is much more effective in getting more passengers than just a single line. The improvement in freight rail is probably even more significant because of the volume of freight compared with passenger rail. Building out fast freight has the side benefit of improving passenger rail significantly. High speed passenger rail lines can then be connected together with an only slightly slower fast freight focused network of lines.
Impeccably presented! Let's hope that Americans get on board with HSR which, in this time of climate change and sustainable living, makes perfect sense.
Thank you so much! Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, we also have to contend with the finite supply of oil. I'd be willing to bet electrified trains with steel wheels are more efficient and easier to maintain than electric cars with rubber tires. Hopefully this video (and others like it) cause Americans to consider rail transit as something worth funding.
My honest thought at about 9:33 is that your high-speed rail numbers are too high, on both the low end and the high end. California is unique in that its cost numbers include the costs of addressing a lot of terrain challenges, seismic challenges, environmental challenges, labor cost challenges, and other challenges that just aren’t replicated elsewhere in most other parts of the US. For instance, much of that route runs through the Midwestern US, where costs will be somewhere around half of costs in California. A second criticism is that the timetables could also be recalculated with the concepts of “express trains” and “local trains”. Express trains would connect city pairs along the proposed route (like Albuquerque to Nashville nonstop) while local trains would stop at each stop (Albuquerque, Amarillo, OKC, Tulsa, Fort Smith, Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville).
Those are both fair criticisms. I don't know how much extra the "California Tax" adds when broken down into itemized lines of labor, seismic robustness, etc. (that might be a good future video idea). But, while the geography of Oklahoma and Texas may not be too challenging, traversing through the Ozarks, across the Mississippi river, and across the Appalachian mountains is no easy task. I like the idea of express trains; you could easily save over an hour in stop time. My reasoning for adding the intermediate stops was to ensure the folks in more rural areas have access to transportation throughout the region, but the "local train" solution would cover that. Thank you so much for commenting; I hope you have a great day!
@@ericnelius9062 Frankly, my gut feeling is that depending on terrain and land cost, you're looking at between 50% and 80% of the cost of California. Somewhere in that ballpark would give you a decent guesstimation. Second, in addition to the breakdown of "Express" and "Local" trains that we got by looking at what the MTA does to move people through the NYC area fast, let's look at 2 other options that can also be built into an HSR service. A "Commuter" train service would be a lower-cost no-frills service that would be designed simply to facilitate commuting between a large city that is a jobs hub with smaller cities that could serve as bedroom communities. California plans to run some of the trains on its HSR like that. This would, for example, enable people to live near Fresno and easily commute to work in the Bay Area. All that would be needed would be for 1 train to simply shuttle back-and-forth between the same 2 stops. In a nationwide HSR system, this could be replicated all over the country, and would rejuvenate numerous small cities while expanding the available workforce for job centers in larger cities. An "Overnight" train service could move people across the country much more easily, by utilizing high-speed trains with sleeper berths to transport people nonstop while they sleep overnight. For example, a train connecting Albuquerque and New York City would have to cover roughly 2000 miles, which could be done in about 9 hours. A passenger could board a train in Albuquerque, get a comfortable sleep, and wake up pulling into New York City the next morning. It could be an easy, comfortable alternative that could be competitive with transcontinental airline service. There are a lot of good options for how HSR trains could be run that we ought to be talking about, since you can make a train car do things that a car or a plane can't easily or economically do.
Actually, integrating Interstate right-of-ways with High-Speed rail lines is an ingenious idea. All the grading is done, the real task would be to lay track along the medium. This has tremendous possibilities.
Eric Nelius, If you are actually doing a billion dollar project, it is usual to invest say 10% for design, planning engineering, market and financial analysis. Then, if the numbers don't justify the project, you eat the cost, walk away and keep your notes and plans for a different time. Nowadays, you set your AI to trigger when things look better and have it work out he updates and then tell you. So if you are spending a 100 hours or 1000 hours or 10,000 hours of you time, and are worth some nominal value as a consultant, you can see how close your effort comes to what is spent or ought to be spent - just to consider ideas. The local segments of highway probably serve mostly short range traffic. For every city or segment you can probably find some data, if you take a lot of your time. Though you hinted at truck and freight, the airlines now make a lot from moving mail and goods, besides people. The airlines serve many cities along that route, and can change schedule and priorities as tastes and demand change - to existing airports - point to point. These kinds of calculations are fun, because they are concrete and usually fairly easy to justify. but if you spend 1000 hours on one, and then present it in a short time, the bandwidth required to have it absorbed, understood and approved is astronomical. It is possible to set up global organizations to become experts at global scale problems - climate change, homelessness, clean nuclear energy, trash, sewage, water, food, jobs, education. I found about 15,000 "global" issues and opportunities spending 25 years every day looking at the way information and groups flow on the Internet. It is pretty sad. I worked on rail a few times. Alternative fuels, magnetic levitation, ultra high speed rail. You might want to look at drones a bit more. But all these various ideas that each require deep and comprehensive analysis, data, models, simulations, checks and cross checks -- they all are only done in fragments. Each of the thousands of universities will generate a few each. Every country and international agency will do periodic blurbs and reports. These are perennial problems, that are good for a few million or billion here and there. "high speed rail" is about 9.8 Million entry points on Google today. There are projects in many countries. Usually, my guess, where the proposers benefit. Not where citizens do. You are not wrong in what you found and what you say. It is just orders of magnitude too little. If you really want to check, then put a herd of AIs collecting the relevant market and social data for all possible routes. Design and build an entire new American national high speed rail, and give details for how to let the "old" airline industries, trucking and local traffic work out. If you don't do the whole thing, there are going to be billions (or hundreds of millions of naysayers and as many who will say "that is a great idea, I thought of it first, I am bigger, hire me". I have invested nearly 50 years in systemic issues and global methods of collaboration. So I can tell you sometimes the perennials like "high speed rail" might be red herrings. For instance, have you looked carefully at what people do when they travel? You want to visit family, and see new things. For business it is often meetings and dinner and drinks and discussions. But much of that could be done virtually. I spend a lot of time on "solar system colonization" or "heliospheric exploration and development" Those people are going to live most of their time virtually. I know of plans for fast trips from Mars to Earth, but not even the new crops of trillionaires from those new industries - only a few can afford the cost. But ultrahigh resolution immersive collaboration - cheap compared to travel. A lot of things that people buy they do not need or use. I am filing this note under "Design a global high speed transportation system, or design better ways to evaluate global issues and opportunities" Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
One thing people don't realize is like CaliHSR (which I think is a boondagle) how they plan to build in phases is the correct way to do it. Meaning, build the rail or improve it between say Las Vegas and Lincoln, Ne. Bring it up to true HSR standards then nationalize the line and put a "rail traffic controller" similar to how Brighline Orlando has, with passenger priority. It'd make more sense to expand it northward to Chicago or Detroit to be honest but you get the idea hopefully. Implement it in stages and phases that would gross the highest expected return. The last is more important than many neo urbanist like to admit.
I think the Higher Speed Rail is the most cost effective option. Besides High Speed Rail may not be able to maintain full speed on mountains, through cities, etc. Using the I-40 corridor is smart, saving a lot of cost for right-of-way. I live in Charlotte and would use rail to Raleigh, Atlanta, Nashville, and beyond. You may have overlooked the mountains Charlotte to Asheville. There’s a 2000ft climb separating the 2 along any possible route. A tunnel doesn’t fix that. Trains have gone through Saluda NC, one of the steepest mainline sections in the east but that was decommissioned and is being turned into a trail. A few other points you overlooked. Long distance trains have to change out crew every 8 hours, along with refueling. Add 1 hour for high speed rail, and 2 hours for higher speed rail.
Videos like these never take into account the truckers who need to transport goods from state to state. Eliminating a freeway that many truckers depend on will get every union in the country rallying against this. And since many politicians are in bed with these unions, they have to do what they say or else they'll get no campaign donations
For one I don't think the idea is to replace the highway but add a rail line to the ROW that the highway uses. And for two freight rail can be integrated into the route to reduce the need for long haul trucking along the route. Therefore reducing the cost associated with maintaining the highway.
There's a lot in here, anyone reading should expand the comment to read it all 😉 Though you are somewhat restricted by weather.... Running down I-40 right through the state with the most tornadic activity and some of the most extreme weather cycles. Trains will halt service for tornado warnings and sometimes for severe storm warnings. Trains are often also slowed down at higher temperatures due to rail expansion. And below -20C, also slowed down due to shrinkage. But all that said, it would be nice to have at least the X0 and X5 Interstates paired (or loosely paired within and around large metros, maybe on the 3di, to placate NIMBY busybodies) with some PAX-only rail service. The main gripe I have about current rail is not the speed but that even though PAX is supposed to be prioritized by law, it isn't, and penalties are not enforced, causing constant delays. But laying rail in the open is easy, problem will come into play when you have underpasses that do not meet FRA height clearance of 7.1 meters (23 feet) above rail. This would require a lot of earthwork to dredge the embankments or reconstruction of a lot of overpasses. FHWA only requires overpasses a minimum of 14 feet above road surface.
As a frequent user of the Interstate System I find your 70 mph base line wildly out of touch. As you casually mentioned, stopping is a reality not an option. In order to average 70 mph on the hypothetical trip, steady speeds of 80 - 85 mph would be necessary. I don't see that as realistic. I believe a 60 mph average would be more realistic for your comparisons. I like the premise of your presentation and as someone who simply will not fly, long distance rail connections are tempting to say the least. What I see as the major hurdle is overcoming the long entrenched entities that are so vocal as to pro-highway/auto/truck industries, plus the road construction companies that are major contributors to the politicians that would need to come on board (pun intended) to make a national rail system a reality.
amazing work! love the spreadsheets lol honestly though great video thank you for your thorough research I didn't realize just how expensive highways are! I think the only criticism I have is that i feel you should have taken an average of the CAHSR project and Brightline West cost per mile, idk if the TXHSR estimates are out yet but an average of the three I think would have been best-CAHSR's wild cost is due to the price of the land they're building through-it's clearly nowhere near as expensive to build between LA and LV, let alone in other parts of the country. either way it's more expensive, but it's not as huge a difference in cost between mid-speed v high speed. in any case great video, keep up the good work!
Thank you! If I do another video like this one for a different route (given how popular this one was, I probably will), I'll include a graphic (I'm thinking an illustrated bar graph) at the end to help viewers visualize the cost per mile.
Even if we never get faster rail they need to revive the rock island line that bnsf destroyed. Even if "slow" speed rail was the only option I would still use it to go to nearby cities. On top of that my city of Amarillo tx was built around the line and it didn't disturb the fabric of the city too much, I-40 and 287 however have leveled an entire neighborhood and torn through several more, its led to a complete breakdown of our older throughfares and many of them are completely deserted because everyone takes the highway. Its made my city a place to drive through as fast as possible instead of a being a destination.
More passenger rail can make highways better too. If driving is not the only transportation option then highways can be reoriented towards high speed high skill driving. A big part of the reason Europe can have higher speed limits or no speed limits on highways like Germany while most of North America has low strictly enforced speed limits is that in North America everyone has to be slowed right down so highways are more accessible to people who can barely drive. IMO if youre a driving enthusiast it's actually really logical to support having more passenger rail too. People who arent serious drivers can take the train and go on their phones or be otherwise distracted drunk etc to their hearts content.
My first step would be setting up a high speed truck trailer rail. And there is a derth of truck drivers west of Amarillo, because getting a return load is difficult. Once high speed truck train pays for the track, THEN add passengers.
@@ericnelius9062 "True, but to be fair, California HSR hasn't really had to deal with any major terrain in the Central Valley." It's a stupid route choice though....argh don't get me started on that stupid project. So proud I voted no, despite being a lifelong centrist Democrat. EVERYTHING I thought would go wrong with it has gone wrong.
You lost me at the eastern terminus being Charlotte. It's not even on I40 and there are way more folks living in the corridor from Winston Salem > Raleigh than in Charlotte. Raleigh-Durham, at ~2.2M, is also the largest CSA along the entire stretch of I-40 and it's growing more rapidly than even Charlotte. Charlotte belongs on a HSR corridor that stretches from WDC to Atlanta along I85.
"Charlotte belongs on a HSR corridor that stretches from WDC to Atlanta along I85." Uh, there's no density there, at all...and it's 639 miles, that's way too far. Higher speed rail, yeah, sure. Not per se HSR.
@@neutrino78x Atlantan here-- there are lots of people that make the drive between here and DC and points north because a large swath of transplants living here are from the Northeast. Also if we follow hub and spoke models, Charlotte would likely be a key transfer point in a HSR system just like ATL would be. There are plenty of people that would be OK with a 600+ mile high speed train trip as long as there are dining cars, restrooms, entertainment and wifi, and even scheduled 20 minute stops at key locations where one could get off and freshen up/walk around a bit, grab a snack and hop back aboard to continue their journey. These all exist on railways outside the US, but are bog standard operations. As long as ticket prices are comparable to flying Spirit or some other low-budget plane, then I'd be on the train all the time.
@@starrwulfe "here are lots of people that make the drive between here and DC and points nort" Lots? Like, ten? That's what, a ten hour drive? That's not a drive you're going to do on any kind of regular basis. If you wanted to go visit family once a month, you would fly. "Charlotte would likely be a key transfer point in a HSR system" There's never going to be a nationwide public transit HSR. The expense is simply not justified in light of the fact that we already have a high speed transportation system that is far less expensive and much faster: jet aircraft. " These all exist on railways outside the US, but are bog standard operations. " (all those things you listed exist on Amtrak today.) Show me the 600 mile HSR line in Europe. That would cross multiple countries. They don't have HSR out that far. Going from Lisbon, Portugal to Moscow takes three days on a train, just like crossing the USA, because they don't have HSR built out on that scale. They would fly such a distance, as we would. A lot of sources like to claim HSR is good out to 400 miles but I think that's nonsense. I haven't seen anything that claims it to be a good choice at 600 miles (1028 km). In theory, if you could maintain 200 mph the whole time, 639 miles should take 3.2 hours. But I don't think that's realistic, because look at California's HSR, quite a bit shorter at 380 miles....but they stupidly chose a longer route, 400+ miles, and it would take a minimum of 3 hours, probably more like 4 hours, if ever built. So look for DC to Atlanta to be more like 5 hours. The problem is you can fly it in under two hours. So you're wasting three hours of your life. What I would support DC to Atlanta is "higher speed rail", which is quite different from HSR: no special grade of track, no wire. It would be more like a six hour ride, but far less expensive. btw density of Atlanta, 3,685.45/sq mi (1,422.96/km2) DC, 11,280.71/sq mi (4,355.39/km2) Distance: 639 miles (1028 km) As opposed to Paris, 9,900/sq mi (3,800/km2) And London, 14,500/sq mi (5,598/km2) Distance: 318 miles (513 km) So DC has reasonable density but Atlanta doesn't, and the distance is double. That's why Europe and Asia have lots of HSR but in North America and Australia we don't use it hardly at all.
Another problem is that even if you built high-speed rail, most American cities have a very feeble public transit system to get you anywhere. Charlotte is in the process of building a unified Transit center for Amtrak and buses... But the New Orleans to New York City crescent train comes through about 2:30 in the morning when the public transit system is not running. Charlotte is talking about possibly having to shut down its light rail because of a lack of trained personnel.
@@neutrino78xhave you ever driven that route? Richmond, Petersburg, Durham, Greensboro, High Point, Charlotte, Spartanburg, Greenville are all fair sized cities and growing, causing heavy traffic the entire route, despite 6-8 lanes much of the way. Plus countless other towns providing potential customers.
The high cost of rail (and airlines) is the running of it. Every day, every night, every person 24hr of salaries and RR pensions. Building and repaving for drivers not being paid as operators pale in comparison to staff hierarchy, redundancy and management redundancy. This is often why a flight 2000 miles costs far less than a train which is a rolling cafe and hotel with numerous staffers covering 48 hrs of service with 48 stops, vs an expensive jet bus that only has a crew of 5 for four hours and only two ground crews. Automobile: the passenger is the driver, navigator, maintenance fueler...a 2000 me trip is likely two hotels, which the driver funds and 7 meals the driver also funds. Also those incidental stops funded by private businesses exist all along the route, paying gross receipts, income and property taxes to the jurisdictions the road passes through....which neither RRs or airlines do. THAT is why there are highways.
I love this! I wish that the US had true high speed rail. I love trains and traveling around the country that way would be great way to see the US again like our ancestors did.
I think that is a good starting line. It would be awesome if eventually it went north to Seattle on the west, north to New York in the east, and finished the loop across the north, probably through Chicago.
build as higherspeed rail but desing al tunnels and bridges in a way that it as easy as possible for later generations to refit the lines and include airport stations
My comment pie in the sky. The nice thing about I-40 is its avoidance of the largest cities, NYC, DC, ATL, LA, San Francisco, etc. It is mostly thru traffic from larger cities that feed to other interstates, I-15 to LA, CA-58/I-5 to NorCal, I-44 to St Louis/ Chicago, I-24 to Atlanta, I-81 to a whole bunch of east coast destinations. As to hills. You forgot I-40 in Arizona from Kingman up to Flagstaff. Nearly 7000 feet up in about 170 miles. Or east of Albuquerque to Moriarty, NM(not as bad but still a pull). Or North Carolina east of Asheville.
Are there more than on 40.. The one near me goes though southern illinois to St. Louis and east though Terra haute and east. Your showing way farther down in the states?
The one thing that high-speed rail doesn't account for is freight. A large part of I-40 traffic is trucks carrying cargo, quite often across several states. Although I like the high-speed rail option for passenger travel, the existing road system, or an upgraded version thereof, still needs to exist for freight. Another point I'd like to make is that the current routing of I-40 begins/ends in Barstow on the west end, however, it is just a little bit further southwest from there to get to Los Angeles. I believe this would be a more logical, albeit more difficult, terminus than Las Vegas. Another thing to consider regarding Barstow, is that it is the point where eastbound traffic from both the Los Angeles area (via I-15) and the San Joaquin Valley area (via SR-58) meet to get onto I-40. On the assumption that California will complete it's high-speed rail project eventually, I believe it makes sense to extend the "I-40" high-speed rail line to the west to connect to California's high-speed rail line, thus serving the more populous parts of the state. A connector roughly parallel to US-93 between Las Vegas and Kingman would also make sense to provide connectivity to Las Vegas, as would another connector along I-17 to connect to Phoenix. In the middle of the country, it would make sense to add an I-35 spur line to connect to the DFW region. On the eastern end, I believe it would make more sense to roughly follow the routing of I-81 from east Tennessee to connect to the DC/Baltimore, Philadelphia, and NYC regions.
A 150mph standard electrified fast freight rail network would be cost effective. It would shift a considerable amount of long haul truck freight onto rail. Trucking would refocus on more short haul and less long haul, but require about the same number of truckers. Some air freight may also shift back to rail.
There is a plan for HSR between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. However, it only runs to Victorville, though they may be reconsidering that. Many people think the L.A. to Vegas train is a good idea. If it does get built, then an I-40 train with its western terminus in Vegas would make sense.
Ending this at Charlotte instead of pushing through to Wilmington makes no sense at all. I've long advocated using the existing US interstate rights of way to include high speed rail, as right of way acquisitions are typically the most expensive aspects of such projects. If you're going to go almost the breadth of the nation, it makes sense to complete the job. Existing passenger rail service currently does not exist at all in Wilmington, which is ironic, considering Wilmington was the headquarters of Seaboard Coastline Railroad until 1957 or so.
Thank you so much! Seeing as this video got the most views out of any I've made so far, I'm going to keep making content that examines what rail overlayed on interstates would look like!
It cost $100 MILLION a MILE (plus) to build out a few useless miles of downtown trams in HOUSTON 15 years ago for one small example of the cost to build that measley light rail. This project would easily be a TRILLION.
I'm really glad that you've included the fact that your study (as impressive as it is) isn't exactly factual and to me, it seems to lean more towards your desire for people to park their cars and get on a train. But remember why interstate highways (both the free and toll ones) were built in the first place: So that in the event of a war on our country, the military could move equipment more efficiently. And while there have been cases where interstates became low speed parkways, most interstates (Especially I-40) are far too important to get rid of. I'd be for H.S.R. to take a page from the Chicago Transit Authority and build in medians of such interstates; building station platforms in with the tracks while adding escalators, elevators and stairs, leading to bridges that go to adjacent stations alongside the freeways. Subway down or viaduct up to cross interstate intersections or for turns away from and then back to the interstate when necessary. That saves a lot of money from buying up land. 🚄 ! 🐰
It's a good idea in principle: eminent domain doesn't have to be used, there is a connection between large cities, and access to the job site is simple. Is it easy to implement in practice? We'll find out with how Brightline West does as it's constructed along I-15!
While this a great idea we have bigger fish to fry in our transportation system. There is a huge bottleneck in the south central U.S. that needs to be addressed before we spend a trillion dollars on HSR. I69 from Detroit to Laredo TX needs to be completed first. This would remove a huge amount of truck freight traffic congestion from the Nashville to Little Rock corridor on I40 and then on to Dallas on I30, and finally the on to the border on the I35 corridor in Texas. As far as bang for the buck goes, this would effect many more people's lives than a HSR route past the Mississippi river, not enough population out west on that route to support it. Nice thought tho.
The 250 Million Dollar per Mile for the High Speed Rail seem a little bit expensive. The most expensive High Speed Railway in Germany (Berlin-Munich) costed about 40 Million € per km, appx. about 70 Mil. USD per Mile. This includes 41 km in new Tunnels and 12 km over new Bridges. An alternative Route with fewer bridges and tunnels would have costed 1/3 of that, but Tax Money is always easy to spend and our politicians are usually open for little donations.
There are a number factors contributing to the California High Speed Rail cost being so high. 1) The experience to construct a high speed railway does not exist in the United States. The EU has been building out high speed rail for the past 2 or 3 decades, and that experience is leveraged on extension after extension. Sadly, the US lacks that know-how. 2) Land acquisition is an incredibly painful process in the United States. While a rail authority may have power of eminent domain, it may take years to acquire a parcel of land before construction can even begin due to the slow judicial process in the United States. As a matter of fact, California High Speed Rail still does not control all the land needed for the initial operating segment in the central valley. 3) Building around or through the existing infrastructure between cities drives up the cost of construction significantly. The overpasses for cars, rerouting/splicing fiber optic cables, and avoiding oil and gas lines quickly drive up costs. 4) Corruption/politics/bureaucracy. This comes not only in the form of wasting time on environmental impact statements, but also in the form of Airlines, Automobile Manufacturers, and Oil Companies lobbying (bribing politicians at local, state, and federal levels) to opposite high speed rail. Those companies don't want to lose a revenue source to a superior mode of transit. On top of that, the companies awarded the contracts to build structures along the route may be paid more money if there are more tasks to complete. As a result, there may "accidentally" be a break in a fiber optic line that drives up the cost of the project. Additionally, everything has to be built to be earthquake-proof, where companies take generous liberties in using more materials than necessary. 5) Lack of public support. Sadly, many Americans do not understand the value in good public transportation. Ideally, everyone in the US would take a field trip to the EU to understand what good transportation looks like (and what good food tastes like), but the sad truth is many Americans squander a large portion of their income on depreciation and maintenance of their automobile. Anyhow, thank you so much for commenting! I hope you enjoy your wonderful food, healthcare, and transit on the east side of the Atlantic. We (in the USA) could stand to learn a couple of things from you. I hope you have a great day!
Certain sections of I40 need to be reinforced to carry train weight. Widening certain sections as to ease curving for trains. Also elevation clearances as trains can't climb like vehicles.
Red eye flights are not early morning flights. They are medium to long haul domestic overnight flights and travel west to east because of the time zone change(s).
Great video! I think a 10min stop is to much, usually trains only stop for maybe 2-5min. So with a 3min stop and accelaration of around 90sec to 200mph its 5-6min.
An acceleration time of just 90secs? That's very fast. You'd require heavier engines and draw more power than a more gradual acceleration, which makes for more expensive trains and infrastructure. And if the train is going to downtown, you probably don't want to go 200m/h in the city. Not to mention that if it's going to already existing train stations, it's likely to travel the last/first miles over existing lines which were not build for those speeds.
Agree that 10 minutes seems excessive, when compared to a driving speed of 70mph non-stop. Either assume the train will be doing 200mph non-stop, or factor in a break every couple of hours when driving plus the inevitable delays you get on any long drive...
1. you can't use cargo trains on high speed rail. the entire I-40 corridor is also a heavily trafficked freight corridor. even if you replaced the entire 2550 miles of interstate 40 with HSR, you'd basically be left with major economic disadvantages. 2. on top of it, billions of dollars have already been spent on interstate 40 to date, including upgrades and safety improvements. too much pork for 90% of DOTs to get behind, outside of california and maybe nevada. 3. then you have the towns and citizens that use I-40 for commerence, and tourism. not many people are gonna like the idea of even replacing a entire interstate with HSR. however, i would welcome more a elevated maglev train that reaches 500+ mph that follows interstate 40 to the california state line. i believe japan has made maglevs that reach those speeds recently. so we hire their expertise, we get them to plan out a maglev line from wilmington NC to barstow ca and we would see major economic improvements and interstate car traffic along the route would go down drastically. lots of pork to be had, but any person can literally easily convince most politicians to go along with it just by saying "you can claim that you voted on a bill to bring the latest innovations in trains to the united states and you'd get votes!" because america loves being top dog on innovation and they'll be happy to do that. heh might even bring back the 90/10 funding level for such a thing.
If the USA wants real high speed trains they need to look at China, not California. China has built over 25,000 miles of 200 mph liens over the last decade or so and they are running already. They are fast, clean, reliable and very comfortable. Shanghai to Beijing in 4.5 hours. That's like LA to Portland, Oregon roughly, or at least Eugene.
I lived in Tianjin, China when they constructing and opened up the first high speed rail line from there to Beijing, he is totally correct. I also rode on one of the older, slower but modern overnight trains from Beijing to Shanghai, China on a trip that took 18+ hours. I rather get someplace as quickly as possible and enjoy myself at my destination. I do enjoy modern HSR train rides though. ;)
We don't want high speed rail or it would already exist. The New York Central ran steam trains to Chicago at 90 mph, and the North Shore electric Interurban ran from Chicago to Milwaukee at 90 mph in the 1930s. The NorthShore no longer exists, and the demand for travel between New York City and Chicago warrants only half of a train once a day that meets another section from Boston in Albany
Thank you so much! Depending on demand, it may be worth following I-29 up from Kansas City to Omaha and Sioux Falls then heading to Minneapolis rather than following along I-35 the whole way. It'd be a cool video either way!
A dedicated high speed rail line can accommodate 15 trains per hour, no problem at all, and a train can carry more than 1000 passengers, so you could theoretically carry 200,000 people a day in each direction on a double-track line. Obviously in practice you are unlikely to be running at maximum capacity with every train full, but just think how many lanes of highway you would need to get anywhere close to that level of service.
They can't even figure out how to get the HSR from LA to SF. It is incredible the level of incompetence and outrageous cost. The entire country should have HSR. Using the road or railroad right of ways to get it done. Instead we deal with such a level of fraud, waste, abuse, and theft that nothing gets done and we will be bankrupt before they ever get anything done. I hope things change and we finally get HSR linking all the cities in the country. Tie this to subways and a renovated city transportation systems in each of these places and there will be economic activity and revival of these cities. We desperately need this type of infrastructure and a plan for the future. The way things are done today is not sustainable.
this needs to dip into Phoenix not through Flagstaff as Flagstaff already has Amtrak and Phoenix has a lot more potential use due to population and travel to/from the city
that's what he meant by HSR, the shinkansen is wheel on rail HSR. Japan's maglev is called SCMaglev, if that's what you meant. The speed of maglev is plenty fast enough to complete with air travel over that short distance Memphis to Knoxville, but the cost is way higher than even CAHSR so it's a non-starter too, unfortunately.
@@neutrino78x Yes, the Japanese SC Maglev technology is super efficient and super expensive. China and the Germans are also making more cost effective strides with Maglev technology.
@@electricar9 "China and the Germans are also making more cost effective strides with Maglev technology." Maglev is intrinsically more expensive than wheel on rail. And let's not pretend the Chinese "made strides". They clearly stole I.P. from the Germans. Since they have no individual freedom, China has a hard time innovating anything, so they have to steal from the Western World and from Japan. I have no idea why railfans like to praise China. IT IS STILL A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP, LIKE THE USSR. There's a long list of free countries that have implemented HSR....JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA, France, Italy, Germany..... HSR is just not justified in North America and Australia. MAYBE in the NEC. MAYBE. There's a private company trying to implement SCMaglev in a tunnel in the NEC area. I applaud their efforts, as they are not wasting public funds. I do think Higher Speed Rail is justified, but that's a totally different thing: no special track, no wire. Far less expensive than per se High Speed Rail. A Memphis to Knoxville train is definitely justified, just not the extreme expense of per se High Speed Rail. We need to understand that such a train would at best compete only with the highway, not with a flight. (if there were a direct flight, it would only take an hour. And a jet aircraft can fly the whole length of I-40 in about 4 or 5 hours, far faster than any train one could reasonably expect to be built.)
I don't believe the numbers from CA HSR on general principles. I believe they are excluding some of the dollars spent on grade separation. However - the bridges and underpasses built there are being constructed to meet their earthquake standards. They are using a stupendous amount of steel reinforcement in their concrete. On a cross-country route, once you leave their seismic zone you can go back to "ordinary" heavy rail bridge construction... until you get close to Memphis and the New Madrid fault zone there. Knoxville to Asheville then Charlotte will need a whole bunch of tunnel & bridge work. Blue Ridge Base Tunnel??
Love the idea! Building out a good higher speed rail should be pretty easy if the political capital was there. Just look at major interstate routes like I-40 and go from there.
I love trains and have taken the train from Raleigh to New York several times. Even clocked the train doing 125 MPH outside of Philadelphia. Brightline and the Texas Central are great ideas, I wish them great success. California's high speed train to nowhere is poorly conceived idea badly executed... not surprising considering where it is and who's pushing it. High speed rail on a national scale suffers from the fact this country is so BIG and when you get out west there are huge stretches of land with not much there.. That would make it hugely expensive, and unlike the Interstate system it would be useless for local traffic and freight. And to pick a nit, I-40 STARTS in Wilmington and ends in Barstow.. and Wilmington isn't almost on the east coast, it IS on the east coast, it's a port on the Atlantic ocean.
How about rolling highways like what the English Chunnel is effective? cars, busses, and trucks would park on railcars that are highway segments in order of stops and the highway would roll. Current rails do not need to expand continuously with traffic growth like paved highways do
I spent a lot of time in England, France, and Germany during my career. I noticed that Europe has excellent high speed passenger rail and relatively poor freight rail service. The US has extremely poor passenger rail service and comparatively excellent freight rail service. In the US west 100 car heavy freight trains moving 70 - 80 mph are common. Europe population density only matched in the US on the east coast corridor. Maybe distance and population density are the driving functions for best type of rail service?
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
What was frustrating is that Texas actually had a plan to create travel corridors that consisted of highways, passenger rail, freight rail, and utility easements that connected all of the major cities in Texas. Interestingly, truck traffic and passenger vehicle traffic had separate parallel roads. Unfortunately, there was resistance and the plan was scratched. If the plan had gone through, we would have had passenger rail between all major Texas cities.
So much better to move illegals from the Southern border to Canada. Great plan!
When the Du Pont Highway was built the length of Delaware in the 1920s, the plan also included rail down the medium, but that part got dropped.
Nice video!
One more thing I'd point out: cost of land/right of way in California is part of the cost estimate of our HSR project. Building a similar system on less expensive property is going to decrease costs.
It's actually a significant portion of the costs, as well as over engineering of some portions because of the earthquake issue. They could save a huge amount of money if they would consider the German ICE trains, which can handle grades of 3-4% at HSR speeds, that would cut down on the huge tunnelling costs through the Grapevine and Pacheco Passes, but that's been ruled out for some unknown reason.
Land costs were one of the big places they dropped the ball on HSR here in California.
They didn't factor in that if you build it on what was farmland, the government doesn't just pay for the land-they also have to reimburse the farmer for the lost crop value. And in the case of fruit or nut trees, that could be 20 or 30 years of production.
These comments are right. You have to separate land acquisition costs from construction costs. As a practical matter, the train wouldn’t follow the highway right-of-way as it would likely seek easier grades elsewhere that would require land acquisition expense, but then cost less to build. HSR makes sense for the shorter trips and they would build a spoke or grid model in the East (like your route to the TN football game), one in TX (Dallas, Houston and Austin) and there would be one or several in the West (connecting CA cities and LV). No need to pay to build HSR between Las Vegas and the East Coast. They shouldn’t spend to build true HSR from SF to Portland/Seattle, but upgrade the existing tracks to run fully electric 120-30mph trains and get the freight off the tracks.
A few notes from a European:
1) Weather can certainly influence high-speed trains. Just a little snow can stop trains (making switches impossible to operate), and so can ice (build up on the overhead wires) and wind (making it too dangerous to cross high bridges).
2) Train prices can be expensive. Many routes in the Europe are cheaper by plane than by train. Train tickets of high speed routes will go up if there is more demand and when booked less far in advance, with premiums for flexible or refundable tickets. Just like airlines. Compared to driving, trains are far more expensive, specially if you travel with multiple people.
3) Trains are far less flexible than planes or cars when it comes to problems with infrastructure, as trains don't have much choice in alternative routes. I live close to a station where I can take a high speed train to the next country -- except that starting next year, no trains will cross that border due to an upgrade of the line.
That's not to say having high(er) speed rail won't be a good thing. But the comparison between modes of travel isn't always that clear cut.
As a retired engineer who acquired ROW for electrical transmission lines many years ago, i always told people America could copy the concept of the interstate highway system for rails. In fact we could easily use existing interstate ROW in most cases between cities, by putting one rail on each side or in some cases down the middle of the grassy median. Of course elevations may present a problem in some cases. My concept is the government would own and maintain the rails just like they do the interstate system. Rail transportation companies could pay to use the system to transport passengers. The problem Amtrak has is they are using privately owned rails and they can only use them when freight is not using the same rail. This should be a bipartisan effort in congress or it will fail.
With due respect, I personally don't trust the govt trying to run a transportation system. The govt has never proved they could run anything adequately. Reason we are in so much debt.
we are all children under the stars
@@grahamcracker659 What are you smoking or drinking. Your comments are not relevant.
And the government(taxpayers) paid for the transcontinental rail with the valuable resources that came with vast land grants and then let the tycoons keep the rail system i.e. Hill, stanford, Harriman, el al
That makes too much sense and would not allow for 10% for the Big Guy.
As someone born and raised in Little Rock with lots of family there who currently lives in Chicago, I'd love high speed rail to enable me to visit family more conveniently and sustainability (on multiple levels). I took Amtrak last time and knew it would be a huge time suck. At the time I had a job which could be done remotely so it wasn't a huge deal. One thing I don't hear talked about a lot in people's calculus in "choosing"🙄🙄 to drive or fly is our limited vacation time.
Living in NM, my family is from Chicago. Since all trains lead to Chicago, my mom has always thought of us as still living in the suburbs of Chicago.
If we ever get national HSR along the highways I’d totally be on board with using the highway shields and numbering like that.
I also love the idea of building higher and true high-speed railways (and also freight railways, if needed) along interstate routes. Operating the along the open-access model as in Europe would also be a good idea if taxpayer funded.
The DC Metro uses the median of highways when it's practical, and Brightline West is planning on using the median of I-15 for a portion of the route.
If there's space for rail construction along the interstate right-of-way, it makes perfect sense. Maybe one of the biggest challenges is (pardon the pun) getting everyone on board with the idea of intercity rail transit.
dolphins are people too
planes are faster then train , car give you freedom of go to when you get there
@@brucenadeau2172 trains are faster than car and also gives me the freedom of getting there faster.
Planes are fast until you deal with cramped seating, TSA, and if you’re in a wheelchair you need other people to lift you on board etc. What a mess.
One down side is that trains cannot replace highways, since you still need highways for local traffic and deliveries. But, as mentioned in the video, we already built out the interstate highway system, so adding passenger rail can be viewed as adding capacity and possibly an alternative to widening the freeway.
Sure you'd still need highways for shipping certain goods, but cities with competent public and active transit infrastructure let you get around without a car easily. I actually think most people in the US tend to put the cart before the horse, promoting HSR as our transportation savior when really its local public transit that would have the biggest impact.
@@LimitedWard I think it only works well if you have a combined system. Having local transit options makes high speed rail more appealing. But if you are in a situation where you need a car at both ends, and it's close enough to drive, then a lot of people will just drive. High speed rail and local transit go hand in hand.
Maybe in addition to routes, you can look at cities to see how they can use existing rail and highway right-of-ways to build passenger rail services. This is what Brightline is doing in Florida and planning for LA to Vegas.
I suggest looking at Atlanta, which has a rail corridor running through downtown and also sits at the intersection of three interstate highways.
Downtown Atlanta would be an excellent place for an inter-city (and preferably higher-speed) rail station. I've discussed the location before in Southeast High-Speed Rail video:
ruclips.net/video/sH0tCaDkFCk/видео.html
@ericnelius9062 Yes, I saw that video. It's not a good idea to end service in downtown Atlanta. The northern route should continue south to the airport. There should also be a train yard near the southern terminus. I would suggest Forrest Park or Fairburn for that.
@@gregory596 even if some trains terminate there, Atlanta should absolutely be configured as a through station, not a terminal only.
Atlanta should be designated as a first strike nuke point. In 300 years it might be habitable again.
Hold up, I stumbled onto this video as part of a Mass Transit rabbit hole and you casually mention living in ABQ? Me too! Glad to see a citizen of Albuquerque doing videos like this!
I'm glad to be living in ABQ! I might make a video about my journey out here sometime. Anyhow, thank you for watching and commenting!
@@ericnelius9062 Maybe you two can get together at Gus Fring's Los Pollos Hermanos for some chicken with a Meth chaser.
NM unite!
What is a good gun range there? Asking for a friend.
Good video. Although You didn't include the costs of maintenance. Trains are a lot cheaper to maintain.
Any perception that trains are cheap to maintain is a mistake on your part.
@@AllenGraetz Comapared to buses and cars trains have less parts than cars and buses making trains cheap in the long run, if you want something that is cheaper in the short term which is what we should not be doing you are right but in the long term trains will be cheaper to maintain.
But building the line--cheap it isn't! Especially having build a lot of tunnels along the way.
@@Sacto1654 yeah I agree with on that front but besides that trains would be cheaper in the long term considering that is why California high speed rail is being built in the Central Valley and will not extend to Los Angeles and San Francisco because of the tunneling costs.
@@CityBuilder568 And the fact the tunnels have to include expensive earthquake mitigation features. Look at how long it took for the Hokuriku Shinkansen to be extended from Nagano to Kanazawa, especially the LONG tunnels between Nagano and Itoigawa.
It would be interesting to see a 4th analysis of what the economic benefit would be. You're giving people a faster and cheaper way to travel long distances, the people are saving money, which means they can spend more at other places. It lets way more people travel, which is means money is moving around; a part of that is taxed, businesses have more to spend.
Rail between Memphis and Nashville is desperately needed. I travel between them regularly and traffic is terrible and there is almost always an accident. Even if not high speed, rail is needed now. Thank you for a well researched video.
thewesternmind...Yep, and the traffic between Memphis and Little Rock on I-40 is also terrible. The roads are old and torn up ( they are being worked on but there need to be at least 2...probably 3 more lanes added each way ). Thankfully, I very seldom have to go Little Rock to Memphis. I live about 100 miles north of L.R. and when I have to go to Memphis, I will go towards Jonesboro and catch U.S. 550 ( 555...?? I forget..) highway there and take it to almost the Mississippi River where it blends with I-40. It's a much better and easier drive.
@@marbleman52 The extra lanes won't fix anything because people will inevitably go "Oh neat, they added two more lanes, I can now drive there!" and use the highway more often than usual, leading to these two lanes being once again full with traffic.
Your comparison omits something important. A four lane freeway will carry far more people than a high speed train. You should calculate the cost on a per-passenger-mile basis, and not construction cost per mile. On that basis, the four lane freeway would be less expensive.
Scaling is also much less expensive with trains. Doubling the capacity of a rail line is just a matter of purchasing a couple of train sets.
Exactly! No widening highways, just add trains. Building rail can save money down the line.
One factor omitted: Cost and timing for lodging in route. Driving I-40 between California and North Carolina, even at 70 mph, is going to require about three overnight stops at hotels, motels, campsites, or trailer parks. If weather is bad, additional stops overnight may be needed. Overnight accommodations would be part of the high speed trains, that can remain moving overnight.
Well, yeah, but is it relevant? The main purpose of I-40 isn't to drive all the way from California to North Carolina, nor will that be the main purpose of the proposed train. Most people will drive a much shorter portion of the I-40, and will travel between two intermediate stations.
When discussing roads or train lines, people should not just focus on terminus-to-terminus travel, as that will be a small fraction of the use of it.
“If you want to go from Memphis to Knoxville to watch UT lose a game…”
Well, I was going to subscribe…
And he used a already fired coach as an exemplar.
And after such a great football season last year too.
having done the whole legnth of I40 driving I totally wish this was a thing
Why would you do a thing like that? Just fly, and get there in 5 or 6 hours.
I have done 90% of it many times. @neutrino They wont let you put a uhaul in your over head compartment.
@@dave4882
"They wont let you put a uhaul in your over head compartment."
So have your shit shipped separately. Get one of those PODS, Portable On Demand Storage. Put your shit in it, lock it, have them ship to where you're going, fly there, unlock it, put it in your new house.
Anyway, Dave, what does that have to do with building HSR down the whole length of I-40? You can't put a u-haul on a train, either?
@@neutrino78x It cost me so much less to do it myself. And I realize no uhaul on a train. I am just stating there are reasons someone would drive I-40. I do with they had an auto train running east to west though. If you have never heard of auto train, look it up.
@@dave4882
"It cost me so much less to do it myself. "
I dunno. It costs you a lot of time. I guess it depends on the distance.
"If you have never heard of auto train, look it up."
I saw a video about it. Seems like it takes forever to load and unload and it's a 10 hour drive when you could fly in two hours.
Anyway yeah there are probably reasons to drive on I-40 but flying is the fastest way to travel. 🙂
HSR works well in high density population centers where corridors between city pairs are relatively short, which is why it works so well in Europe and Japan. East of the Mississippi it's more cost effective to fly to Vegas or LA. West of the Mississippi you would need to connect major population centers to justify the cost of the build, and to generate the necessary income to keep the route viable, and such population centers are few and far between along I40. Patronage between Memphis, OKC, Albuquerque and Vegas likely wouldn't support the route. Moreover, given the push for zero-emission transportation, you're route would have to be electrified, driving the cost per mile up exponentially. To run fast gradients must be kept to a minimum, which means lots of tunnels in the East and lots of fills and cuts and bridges/causeways through, over and around the undulating terrain of New Mexico and Arizona. It would be a massive undertaking that would wind up costing 5 to 10 times your range of estimates. You could build it, but it would never pay for itself. The cost of maintaining the line would be prohibitive.
From Memphis to Nashville would take so many ups, downs, trestles, tunnels...for what? There are "tons" of connections? Bright line in FLA has NO overhead crossings and is flat as a pancake. Bro throws numbers around like a herd of mosquitoes.
That's why I think a hybrid 70/80 route would make more sense. SF to New York plus Chicago, Denver, Salt Lake, among others. Running it through larger population centers would generate more income.
You might be surprised at how often people out west do travel from city to city. We are used to the longer distances, and because of traffic in dense close cities, the driving time is more similar than you might think
@@kzisnbkosplay3346 I lived in Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada for 40 years. It's faster and more economical to fly.
@@J3scribe LA to Vegas screams HSR. Phoenix to Vegas as well eventually in the future. Maybe LA to Phoenix. LA to San Diego as well. However, distances beyond this would be better served by air.
As long as the money proposed for it doesn’t disappear before gets completed.
Agree with your last statement. They talk of going green. Advanced rail would be the way to go. Yes the cost of construction is a fact, but the long term advantage of rail over road hands down is the way to go, especially with the push on electrical vehicles and their charging stations and the time during charging.
Here’s the problem. 30% or more of traffic on I40 is freight, not passenger vehicles.
And this does not consider the final mile problem.
So please don’t consider high speed passenger rail as a substitute for I40. A complement, yes. A replacement, no.
To add on to what CityLife in AZ said -- Most rural interstates have wide ROWs in the medians and off to the sides that are all state/fed owned as part of the highway itself. It would be a good idea to add on to the original Eisenhower Interstate Highway act with an Interstate HSR component that uses these ROWs for fed/state owned rail corridors that private companies can be licensed to operate on just as all interstate trucking registers with USDOT and pays apportionment taxes (that's what all the way stations are for along the highways BTW)
This could also be sold as in the interest of the national defense as there's more of a guarantee to move large numbers of people and materials around orderly via rail than any other form of transport in times of emergency; including air. Just ask literally every nation that has had an armed conflict or national emergency within its borders in the last 100 years.
It would solve the "can we please operate on your rails" problem with the likes of BNSF/SP/UP/CSX not wanting to give trackage rights to passenger rail and even when made to do so, ignore the prioritization of passenger traffic
It also provides for a more through routing since most major cities and many secondary ones are situated around interstate highways since that's been the mode of transport obtainable by the majority of Americans for the last 65 years. There's almost no need to even build HSR terminals in the "downtown" CBD places even, since the majority of all Americans are suburbanites. Find the population center of most cities and will almost always be some point in the "midtown" transitional line between the old downtown and the newest suburbs.
Finally, present your fact of higher speed rail being half the cost per mile than the typical rural interstate setup, but then add:
- maintaining an electric railway corridor is about 75%+ cheaper on average than the comparable maintenance of an interstate ROW.
- adding said electric railway to an already established interstate corridor is a value add since it will likely be done while involving maintenance works on the interstate that need to be done anyway.
- Freight can move along HSR tracks as well. Wouldn't it be cool to see USPS. UPS and FedEx cars in the consists of HSR trains-- they could help underwrite the facilitating of the networks.
- Amtrak still runs a successful AutoTrain... AutoTrain along I-40 as well as any other interstate corridors could also become a thing too. As someone who regularly traveled between Atlanta and St Louis via I-75/24/57/64, having an AutoTrain from Atlanta to Nashville would cut out half my drive and I'dve gladly paid for this.
Thanks for allowing me to express my thoughts in this space.
If California's "Train to Nowhere" ever gets finished and operating, I would love to see an autotrain option. I'm pretty disgusted with how that project is being done. It seems like if there is a wrong decision to be made, it's been made. And since our state government pretends to hate cars so much, I doubt whoever ends up running the train would want to let cars anywhere near it.
1. The voters literally voted for a "half-baked" HSR. The ballot proposition was a bond measure to fund half the projected cost. Not only that, but costs have ballooned, skyrocketed, and whatnot ever since. I don't know where the agencies involved are getting the rest of the money. I'm not sure they know, either.
2. When I was told "HSR from Los Angeles to the Bay Area" I thought logically it should follow the I-5 corridor up the west side of the Central Valley. The hard parts would be obtaining ROW in the big metropolitan areas (fighting NIMBYs), and routing over the mountains (the Grapevine, for one). But no, it's following Hwy 99 up the east side of the Central Valley, where much of the land is built up already, so they've been obtaining ROW there, and angering the locals as they've done so. (Similar to what LA's Metro is facing in extending the C Line through the South Bay: they already bought existing ROW from a railroad, but the residents are starting to protest it more loudly, and it's not the most logical routing for that area.) Meanwhile, the HSR is also taking the long way around through the Antelope Valley and Tehachapi Pass. I guess the planners thought the people in the smaller cities and towns would want to go to L.A. and San Francisco, too. Maybe the planners are right.
Using the median sounds nice, but 1) trains require far less steep slopes than cars can handle, 2) high speed rail requires very large curve radii (a few miles for a 200m/h train). Not only for the comfort of passengers, but also to avoid too much wear and tear -- you don't want to have to replace your rails every year.
As for freight moving along HSR tracks, you either have to the freight at high speeds as well (which makes it expensive), or you have to drastically lower the maximum speed of the trains. Trains on high speed lines *must* go fast through curves, else you get too much wear and tear of your rails. You can see the latter in the Netherlands: their high speed line was designed for 300km/h trains (Thalys to Paris/Eurostar to London), but they're mixing the 300km/h traffic with national trains which go 160km/h. The insides of the curves get too much wear and tear because the trains don't go fast enough.
@Abi Gail For slopes, cut-and-fill, bridges and tunnels can be used in the center median. In less developed and flatter areas, there would be less opposition to having the track deviate from the Interstate. That is, less property owners to protest eminent domain. This would be especially true in the Western states, but you could also have more environmental issues due to the arid and fragile ecosystems. So it's back to airliners-- just hop right over all that land that many travelers don't want to spend time in anyway.
Using the California HSR cost as a reference for true HSR in America, is to use a reference 5-10 times the cost of European HSR per mile / km. Also, a key difference in your proposal is to re-use the right of way already owned by the Federal Interstate network which would drastically reduce the cost estimate.
As you point out, HSR cost up to 10x what 120mph rail cost, so a decision needs to be made. Is the higher speed worth it? We are told that the optimum distance for HSR is aprox 400 miles, however I have been on Shanghai to Bejing (750 miles, 215 mph) and it beats flying. The California HSR project probably would be 80% as good with 120 mph trains, at a fraction of the cost. Already, London to Edinburgh (400 miles. 120 mph) is begining to take passengers away from flying. It is as quick, as cheap, and more pleasant. London to Paris on Eurostar (185 mph) beats flying, hands down! Good video, keep it up!
Shanghai to Beijing justifies a HSR route because of the gigantic amount of travel between both cities on both business and government workers. That's why some of the fastest HSR's in the world are on this route.
Don’t the British about how expensive tickets are and Ryan air being extremely dirt cheap. I heard Ryan air is the worse version of spirit it’s the spirit of Europe
"We are told that the optimum distance for HSR is aprox 400 miles, however I have been on Shanghai to Bejing (750 miles, 215 mph) and it beats flying"
How so? The flight is 2 hours according to Google Maps. It should be less because the direct air distance is 611 miles and a 737 cruise speed is about 580.
Rome2Rio says the train is 4.5-5 hours (depending on which train you take).
I don't understand how that's faster.
Is this is a case of where 80% of the air space in China is reserved for their military, so commercial aircraft can't fly direct routes? Google Maps doesn't list a flight time, but in theory, it should be like 1 hour and 15 minutes, or so.
"The California HSR project probably would be 80% as good with 120 mph trains, "
lmao no it wouldn't. It would be about 3 hours and the flight is 1 hour.
"London to Edinburgh (400 miles. 120 mph) is begining to take passengers away from flying. It is as quick,"
Well, maybe the Brits are willing to sit in a train for 4 hours when a plane could get them there in 1, but I am not.
"ondon to Paris on Eurostar (185 mph) beats flying, hands down! "
No, the train is 3x longer than flying. That's why they still have 23 non-stop flights a day. Although both London to Paris makes a lot more sense because both are very dense and the distance is short.
(btw, it's 295 miles, 295/3.5=84 mph average, not 184).
@@Sacto1654
"Shanghai to Beijing justifies a HSR route because of the gigantic amount of travel between both cities on both business and government workers."
yeah, much higher population density. Still, if Google Maps and Rome2Rio are correct, the train is four hours and the plane is 2 hours.
@@neutrino78x Wow!! There is so much wrong in your post, I don't know where to start!
1. The cruise speed of a 737 is 514 mph, not 580 mph.
2. The flight from Shanghai to Bejing is not 2 hours. You cannot even board the plane in two hours! I takes one hour to get to the airport, two hours minimum before boarding, 20 minutes minimum to taxi for take off, 20 minutes minimum to taxi to the gate after landing, one hour to get from the airport at the destination, plus the flight time and delays.
3. I have flown LAX to SFO countless times. You cannot even get to the airport in an hour, let alone board.
4. London to Edinburgh, just look at the several RUclips videos of a plane/train race.
5. London to Paris (I have done this several times as well) the train is 2 hours 15 minutes not 3.5 hours, and as I pointed out (Yeah I have flown it too) you cannot even board the plane in 2 hours 15 minutes.
6. "Flight times" are calculated "wheels up to wheels down" not the actual time you will spend trying to board, de-plane etc.
One thing that I think that you leave out in your discussion of the high speed rail discussion is economies of scale. Part of the reason that CA HSR is so expensive is that it is the only system in the country. It is literally being built from scratch. Part of why the cost of building a lane mile of interstate is so low, and to some degree even the cost of higher speed rail (which for the most part is normal rail with nicer trains... yeah, I know, there is more to it than that, but you don't have to do that much special to the rail like you do for HSR) is so low, is that we already have all the equipment and materials we need in mass. If we truly were building a nationwide HSR system, after the first few segments of HSR were built, it would start becoming more of an "off the shelf" operation like highway building is now.
You know that scene in Inglourious Basterds where the American spy orders 3 beers with the wrong gesture and is thereby discovered? 0:08
Good catch
Great analysis. I think shared right of way and a “trains instead of more lanes” approach would be good.
Think of it, the desire to build a twelve lane highway probably means a median railway would have the necessary ridership and would be a wiser investment.
Thank you so much! If this thing were to be built, it would need to start by serving the most populous segments first (OKC to Nashville) then continue to be built out.
I would love just a low speed route between memphis and nashville, but it would have to be state funded and thats not happening any time soon :/
carl....I live here in north central Arkansas and I would love to be able to catch a high speed rail in Little Rock and get close to Virginia where my family lives to where they could take a short drive and come get me. I am 71 and driving a long distance is not something I care to do anymore. I vote for H.S. Rail...
I will fly as long as the tickets are still reasonable and I have someone who can take me to the airport and come and get me when I return.
The cost estimates for rail are higher because of the cost of land purchases. Both areas have high land costs; once you get past a certain point, the land costs drop immensely. One advantage I saw with rail in Europe was that going between major cities you could leave at night, ride the train overnight, arrive in the morning, and have the whole day there.
British Rail built the Intercity 125 50 years ago capable of reaching speeds of 125mph on standard track. It is still in service. So realistically if you build track capable of running a 50 year old design of train you can achieve a realistic improvement. They also designed the APT (Advanced Passenger Train) which was the predecessor to the Pendolino (Tilting Train) capable of I believe 140mph agin on standard track. The holdup isn't the train design but the Political commitment to either track construction or rehabilitation.
If only we were the size of England.
@@ut000bs Point was they didn't need upgraded track. Virtually all High speed rail runs on dedicated track (see the project in California, most European high speed lines, China etc) The Intercity 125 could attain top speed on normal track with minimal upgrading. Amtrak needs to provide relatively quick Reliable services in order to stimulate demand, and that requires scheduling improvements and track upgrades. Some American services are good but the longer the distance the more chance of delay.
Can safely run up to about 155mph on standard track, as long as curves are straightened and crossings are eliminated and layers of automatic safety systems are added. This is also about the limit of modern standard rolling stock. Older stock tops out at about 125mph. Electrification can be added at the same time, reducing potential energy costs in the long run.
The last time I flew to Tulsa storms delayed me and I got to DFW two hours after my connecting flight was scheduled to take off, but an hour before the connecting flight actually arrived at DFW.
That connecting flight was cancelled so I was transferred to another flight, then another. The fourth flight was cancelled at midnight and I camped in Terminal D until morning.
Flying was neither quick nor comfortable.
I would make a few changes. Since you aren't sticking strictly with the I-40 the whole route I would start on the 10 in LA, which is a far more productive terminus, before going to Barstow and Las Vegas, then following the 40.
Interstates aren't built for 200 mph traffic, so speed would be limited if you use the I-40 right-of-way. I would use accelerated rail (I hate the term "higher speed rail" because logically it should be faster, not slower, than "high speed rail") at 120 mph, with active tilting technology and slowing at the tighter curves. this should still be capable of route speeds approaching 90 mph. Land costs would be minimal because we already own the right-of-way and would only need the really expensive land entering the cities so the stations can be placed in the CBD.
Service can be provided by diesel-electric multiple units, with a locomotive on each end, and maybe tapping power off to power two axles on the coach at each end for more acceleration. This saves the cost of electrification at first, although if demand is high enough the tracks should be electrified eventually.
A high speed rail is in the works for L.A. to Vegas. However, it starts at Victorville, but people want to see it starting in L.A., or maybe even Disneyland. There is the Cajon Pass to deal with, which the freight trains do every day, but it would not be suitable for fast trains. Maybe the downtown to I-5 to SR 14 into the Antelope Valley would make sense. Metrolink already runs that route into Palmdale. Personally, I wouldn't want to drive to Victorville just to board a train to Vegas.
Anyway, if this project actually gets built (a lot of people say they like the idea, and I think a lot of people would actually use it-- think Party Bus on rails), then having the cross country HSR start in Vegas makes a lot of sense.
@@EXROBOWIDOW I'd love t o see the rail line start at Ontario airport(at least for now). Plenty of existing parking capacity, and the rail lines are across the road. Maybe the train couldn't run at high speed up the canyon, but the car traffic up the canyon is abysmal. On major weekends I-15 turns into a 100 mile long parking lot.
@Dave Last time we went over the Cajon Pass, it was a Thursday night, so we did not expect a lot of traffic. But CalTrans was working, lanes were shut down, and there was indeed traffic. It was barely moving.
@@EXROBOWIDOW exactly why I think it make little sense to put the first station in barstow.
Regarding the costs, if you standardize all new high speed rail, like China has, you can significantly cut costs due to economies of scale. Also when building larger projects, again the economies of scale comes in. This is why California High Speed Rail is probably not a good example to go by, it's the first high speed rail system in the US, experiences from that will (or at least should if managed correctly) go into building new systems.
China, a dictatorship has to listen to no one. No environment groups will get in their way. If they displace millions of people to build a HSR, their govt could care less. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The challenge is the number of routes needed to make this work. For instance, at the minimum to cover Texas, you'd need a rail line following I10 starting in Jacksonville going through Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso. You'd then need a line along I20 starting in Atlanta that goes through DFW, Midland, and Odessa, then linking to the I10 line. It's not the higher/high speed rail cost per mile itself, but rather the thousands of miles to build.
You also have to factor in that with long train routes you also get to rest along the way, especially if you get a berth with a bed. The trip itself is part of the relaxation, unlike flying and you don't have to worry about traffic like you do driving. I actually like to drive on trips myself, but I also enjoy the carefree nature of a train trip.
You just earned a sub. I really enjoyed this video and the topic. I love traveling by train. Been cross country multiple times with Amtrak. Your idea is very well thought out and practical. I’m from CA. I unfortunately think the HSR project is botched. It should have followed the thought and logic you showed here. Thanks again.
Thank you for the sub! I'm hoping that CA HSR can get things back on track, but it may take Brightline coming in and completing the line from Vegas to Victorville to show CA HSR how to deliver on a promise.
Good Job on the report, Thanks for putting it on line.
“Higher speed” rail is probably the best approach in my opinion. The vast majority of existing rolling stock tops out at 125 or 150mph. Upgrading the majority of lines for safe operation up to 150mph would require rerouting, eliminating crossings with roads, and installing new layered automated safety systems. The lines could also be electrified at the same time. Of course certain sections could potentially be built to a higher safe speed standard but even getting them to 150mph would be a huge improvement. Average speeds could also be improved greatly by the new infrastructure which is currently miserably slow, well below even average highway speeds.
This could greatly improve both freight and passenger rail service throughout the network. Building out a network is much more effective in getting more passengers than just a single line. The improvement in freight rail is probably even more significant because of the volume of freight compared with passenger rail. Building out fast freight has the side benefit of improving passenger rail significantly. High speed passenger rail lines can then be connected together with an only slightly slower fast freight focused network of lines.
Impeccably presented! Let's hope that Americans get on board with HSR which, in this time of climate change and sustainable living, makes perfect sense.
Thank you so much! Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, we also have to contend with the finite supply of oil. I'd be willing to bet electrified trains with steel wheels are more efficient and easier to maintain than electric cars with rubber tires. Hopefully this video (and others like it) cause Americans to consider rail transit as something worth funding.
@@ericnelius9062 Yes, Eric. Americans should look to the Dutch for expertise and guidance. (I live in the Netherlands.)
My honest thought at about 9:33 is that your high-speed rail numbers are too high, on both the low end and the high end.
California is unique in that its cost numbers include the costs of addressing a lot of terrain challenges, seismic challenges, environmental challenges, labor cost challenges, and other challenges that just aren’t replicated elsewhere in most other parts of the US.
For instance, much of that route runs through the Midwestern US, where costs will be somewhere around half of costs in California.
A second criticism is that the timetables could also be recalculated with the concepts of “express trains” and “local trains”. Express trains would connect city pairs along the proposed route (like Albuquerque to Nashville nonstop) while local trains would stop at each stop (Albuquerque, Amarillo, OKC, Tulsa, Fort Smith, Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville).
Those are both fair criticisms.
I don't know how much extra the "California Tax" adds when broken down into itemized lines of labor, seismic robustness, etc. (that might be a good future video idea). But, while the geography of Oklahoma and Texas may not be too challenging, traversing through the Ozarks, across the Mississippi river, and across the Appalachian mountains is no easy task.
I like the idea of express trains; you could easily save over an hour in stop time. My reasoning for adding the intermediate stops was to ensure the folks in more rural areas have access to transportation throughout the region, but the "local train" solution would cover that.
Thank you so much for commenting; I hope you have a great day!
@@ericnelius9062 Frankly, my gut feeling is that depending on terrain and land cost, you're looking at between 50% and 80% of the cost of California. Somewhere in that ballpark would give you a decent guesstimation.
Second, in addition to the breakdown of "Express" and "Local" trains that we got by looking at what the MTA does to move people through the NYC area fast, let's look at 2 other options that can also be built into an HSR service.
A "Commuter" train service would be a lower-cost no-frills service that would be designed simply to facilitate commuting between a large city that is a jobs hub with smaller cities that could serve as bedroom communities. California plans to run some of the trains on its HSR like that. This would, for example, enable people to live near Fresno and easily commute to work in the Bay Area. All that would be needed would be for 1 train to simply shuttle back-and-forth between the same 2 stops. In a nationwide HSR system, this could be replicated all over the country, and would rejuvenate numerous small cities while expanding the available workforce for job centers in larger cities.
An "Overnight" train service could move people across the country much more easily, by utilizing high-speed trains with sleeper berths to transport people nonstop while they sleep overnight. For example, a train connecting Albuquerque and New York City would have to cover roughly 2000 miles, which could be done in about 9 hours. A passenger could board a train in Albuquerque, get a comfortable sleep, and wake up pulling into New York City the next morning. It could be an easy, comfortable alternative that could be competitive with transcontinental airline service.
There are a lot of good options for how HSR trains could be run that we ought to be talking about, since you can make a train car do things that a car or a plane can't easily or economically do.
Actually, integrating Interstate right-of-ways with High-Speed rail lines is an ingenious idea. All the grading is done, the real task would be to lay track along the medium. This has tremendous possibilities.
Hopefully with Brightline West, more folks will see the value in using the interstate right-of-ways.
Brightline tracks go right past me. There is no station planned within 35 miles. BIG WIN for me.
Where are you located? I am near Victorville, CA where we will have Brightline West going by plus a station near me.
Eric Nelius,
If you are actually doing a billion dollar project, it is usual to invest say 10% for design, planning engineering, market and financial analysis. Then, if the numbers don't justify the project, you eat the cost, walk away and keep your notes and plans for a different time. Nowadays, you set your AI to trigger when things look better and have it work out he updates and then tell you. So if you are spending a 100 hours or 1000 hours or 10,000 hours of you time, and are worth some nominal value as a consultant, you can see how close your effort comes to what is spent or ought to be spent - just to consider ideas.
The local segments of highway probably serve mostly short range traffic. For every city or segment you can probably find some data, if you take a lot of your time. Though you hinted at truck and freight, the airlines now make a lot from moving mail and goods, besides people. The airlines serve many cities along that route, and can change schedule and priorities as tastes and demand change - to existing airports - point to point.
These kinds of calculations are fun, because they are concrete and usually fairly easy to justify. but if you spend 1000 hours on one, and then present it in a short time, the bandwidth required to have it absorbed, understood and approved is astronomical.
It is possible to set up global organizations to become experts at global scale problems - climate change, homelessness, clean nuclear energy, trash, sewage, water, food, jobs, education. I found about 15,000 "global" issues and opportunities spending 25 years every day looking at the way information and groups flow on the Internet. It is pretty sad. I worked on rail a few times. Alternative fuels, magnetic levitation, ultra high speed rail. You might want to look at drones a bit more. But all these various ideas that each require deep and comprehensive analysis, data, models, simulations, checks and cross checks -- they all are only done in fragments. Each of the thousands of universities will generate a few each. Every country and international agency will do periodic blurbs and reports. These are perennial problems, that are good for a few million or billion here and there.
"high speed rail" is about 9.8 Million entry points on Google today. There are projects in many countries. Usually, my guess, where the proposers benefit. Not where citizens do.
You are not wrong in what you found and what you say. It is just orders of magnitude too little. If you really want to check, then put a herd of AIs collecting the relevant market and social data for all possible routes. Design and build an entire new American national high speed rail, and give details for how to let the "old" airline industries, trucking and local traffic work out. If you don't do the whole thing, there are going to be billions (or hundreds of millions of naysayers and as many who will say "that is a great idea, I thought of it first, I am bigger, hire me".
I have invested nearly 50 years in systemic issues and global methods of collaboration. So I can tell you sometimes the perennials like "high speed rail" might be red herrings. For instance, have you looked carefully at what people do when they travel? You want to visit family, and see new things. For business it is often meetings and dinner and drinks and discussions. But much of that could be done virtually. I spend a lot of time on "solar system colonization" or "heliospheric exploration and development" Those people are going to live most of their time virtually. I know of plans for fast trips from Mars to Earth, but not even the new crops of trillionaires from those new industries - only a few can afford the cost. But ultrahigh resolution immersive collaboration - cheap compared to travel. A lot of things that people buy they do not need or use.
I am filing this note under "Design a global high speed transportation system, or design better ways to evaluate global issues and opportunities"
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
One thing people don't realize is like CaliHSR (which I think is a boondagle) how they plan to build in phases is the correct way to do it. Meaning, build the rail or improve it between say Las Vegas and Lincoln, Ne. Bring it up to true HSR standards then nationalize the line and put a "rail traffic controller" similar to how Brighline Orlando has, with passenger priority. It'd make more sense to expand it northward to Chicago or Detroit to be honest but you get the idea hopefully. Implement it in stages and phases that would gross the highest expected return. The last is more important than many neo urbanist like to admit.
I think the Higher Speed Rail is the most cost effective option. Besides High Speed Rail may not be able to maintain full speed on mountains, through cities, etc. Using the I-40 corridor is smart, saving a lot of cost for right-of-way. I live in Charlotte and would use rail to Raleigh, Atlanta, Nashville, and beyond. You may have overlooked the mountains Charlotte to Asheville. There’s a 2000ft climb separating the 2 along any possible route. A tunnel doesn’t fix that. Trains have gone through Saluda NC, one of the steepest mainline sections in the east but that was decommissioned and is being turned into a trail. A few other points you overlooked. Long distance trains have to change out crew every 8 hours, along with refueling. Add 1 hour for high speed rail, and 2 hours for higher speed rail.
If the Train is Electric Powered, there would be no extra Time needed for Refueling.
Videos like these never take into account the truckers who need to transport goods from state to state. Eliminating a freeway that many truckers depend on will get every union in the country rallying against this. And since many politicians are in bed with these unions, they have to do what they say or else they'll get no campaign donations
For one I don't think the idea is to replace the highway but add a rail line to the ROW that the highway uses. And for two freight rail can be integrated into the route to reduce the need for long haul trucking along the route. Therefore reducing the cost associated with maintaining the highway.
Great idea! Imagine! Zipping along I-95 up and down the East Coast. No big bad freight RRs to deal with.
There's a lot in here, anyone reading should expand the comment to read it all 😉
Though you are somewhat restricted by weather.... Running down I-40 right through the state with the most tornadic activity and some of the most extreme weather cycles. Trains will halt service for tornado warnings and sometimes for severe storm warnings. Trains are often also slowed down at higher temperatures due to rail expansion. And below -20C, also slowed down due to shrinkage.
But all that said, it would be nice to have at least the X0 and X5 Interstates paired (or loosely paired within and around large metros, maybe on the 3di, to placate NIMBY busybodies) with some PAX-only rail service. The main gripe I have about current rail is not the speed but that even though PAX is supposed to be prioritized by law, it isn't, and penalties are not enforced, causing constant delays.
But laying rail in the open is easy, problem will come into play when you have underpasses that do not meet FRA height clearance of 7.1 meters (23 feet) above rail. This would require a lot of earthwork to dredge the embankments or reconstruction of a lot of overpasses. FHWA only requires overpasses a minimum of 14 feet above road surface.
As a frequent user of the Interstate System I find your 70 mph base line wildly out of touch. As you casually mentioned, stopping is a reality not an option. In order to average 70 mph on the hypothetical trip, steady speeds of 80 - 85 mph would be necessary. I don't see that as realistic. I believe a 60 mph average would be more realistic for your comparisons.
I like the premise of your presentation and as someone who simply will not fly, long distance rail connections are tempting to say the least. What I see as the major hurdle is overcoming the long entrenched entities that are so vocal as to pro-highway/auto/truck industries, plus the road construction companies that are major contributors to the politicians that would need to come on board (pun intended) to make a national rail system a reality.
amazing work! love the spreadsheets lol honestly though great video thank you for your thorough research I didn't realize just how expensive highways are! I think the only criticism I have is that i feel you should have taken an average of the CAHSR project and Brightline West cost per mile, idk if the TXHSR estimates are out yet but an average of the three I think would have been best-CAHSR's wild cost is due to the price of the land they're building through-it's clearly nowhere near as expensive to build between LA and LV, let alone in other parts of the country. either way it's more expensive, but it's not as huge a difference in cost between mid-speed v high speed. in any case great video, keep up the good work!
Thank you! If I do another video like this one for a different route (given how popular this one was, I probably will), I'll include a graphic (I'm thinking an illustrated bar graph) at the end to help viewers visualize the cost per mile.
Even if we never get faster rail they need to revive the rock island line that bnsf destroyed. Even if "slow" speed rail was the only option I would still use it to go to nearby cities. On top of that my city of Amarillo tx was built around the line and it didn't disturb the fabric of the city too much, I-40 and 287 however have leveled an entire neighborhood and torn through several more, its led to a complete breakdown of our older throughfares and many of them are completely deserted because everyone takes the highway. Its made my city a place to drive through as fast as possible instead of a being a destination.
More passenger rail can make highways better too. If driving is not the only transportation option then highways can be reoriented towards high speed high skill driving. A big part of the reason Europe can have higher speed limits or no speed limits on highways like Germany while most of North America has low strictly enforced speed limits is that in North America everyone has to be slowed right down so highways are more accessible to people who can barely drive.
IMO if youre a driving enthusiast it's actually really logical to support having more passenger rail too. People who arent serious drivers can take the train and go on their phones or be otherwise distracted drunk etc to their hearts content.
My first step would be setting up a high speed truck trailer rail. And there is a derth of truck drivers west of Amarillo, because getting a return load is difficult. Once high speed truck train pays for the track, THEN add passengers.
Brightline had to deal with absolutely NO terrain.
True, but to be fair, California HSR hasn't really had to deal with any major terrain in the Central Valley.
@@ericnelius9062
"True, but to be fair, California HSR hasn't really had to deal with any major terrain in the Central Valley."
It's a stupid route choice though....argh don't get me started on that stupid project. So proud I voted no, despite being a lifelong centrist Democrat. EVERYTHING I thought would go wrong with it has gone wrong.
Good content. Keep the dream alive! Old dream.
You lost me at the eastern terminus being Charlotte. It's not even on I40 and there are way more folks living in the corridor from Winston Salem > Raleigh than in Charlotte. Raleigh-Durham, at ~2.2M, is also the largest CSA along the entire stretch of I-40 and it's growing more rapidly than even Charlotte. Charlotte belongs on a HSR corridor that stretches from WDC to Atlanta along I85.
"Charlotte belongs on a HSR corridor that stretches from WDC to Atlanta along I85."
Uh, there's no density there, at all...and it's 639 miles, that's way too far.
Higher speed rail, yeah, sure. Not per se HSR.
@@neutrino78x
Atlantan here-- there are lots of people that make the drive between here and DC and points north because a large swath of transplants living here are from the Northeast. Also if we follow hub and spoke models, Charlotte would likely be a key transfer point in a HSR system just like ATL would be.
There are plenty of people that would be OK with a 600+ mile high speed train trip as long as there are dining cars, restrooms, entertainment and wifi, and even scheduled 20 minute stops at key locations where one could get off and freshen up/walk around a bit, grab a snack and hop back aboard to continue their journey. These all exist on railways outside the US, but are bog standard operations. As long as ticket prices are comparable to flying Spirit or some other low-budget plane, then I'd be on the train all the time.
@@starrwulfe
"here are lots of people that make the drive between here and DC and points nort"
Lots? Like, ten? That's what, a ten hour drive? That's not a drive you're going to do on any kind of regular basis. If you wanted to go visit family once a month, you would fly.
"Charlotte would likely be a key transfer point in a HSR system"
There's never going to be a nationwide public transit HSR. The expense is simply not justified in light of the fact that we already have a high speed transportation system that is far less expensive and much faster: jet aircraft.
" These all exist on railways outside the US, but are bog standard operations. "
(all those things you listed exist on Amtrak today.)
Show me the 600 mile HSR line in Europe. That would cross multiple countries. They don't have HSR out that far. Going from Lisbon, Portugal to Moscow takes three days on a train, just like crossing the USA, because they don't have HSR built out on that scale. They would fly such a distance, as we would.
A lot of sources like to claim HSR is good out to 400 miles but I think that's nonsense. I haven't seen anything that claims it to be a good choice at 600 miles (1028 km).
In theory, if you could maintain 200 mph the whole time, 639 miles should take 3.2 hours.
But I don't think that's realistic, because look at California's HSR, quite a bit shorter at 380 miles....but they stupidly chose a longer route, 400+ miles, and it would take a minimum of 3 hours, probably more like 4 hours, if ever built. So look for DC to Atlanta to be more like 5 hours. The problem is you can fly it in under two hours. So you're wasting three hours of your life.
What I would support DC to Atlanta is "higher speed rail", which is quite different from HSR: no special grade of track, no wire. It would be more like a six hour ride, but far less expensive.
btw density of Atlanta, 3,685.45/sq mi (1,422.96/km2)
DC, 11,280.71/sq mi (4,355.39/km2)
Distance: 639 miles (1028 km)
As opposed to Paris, 9,900/sq mi (3,800/km2)
And London, 14,500/sq mi (5,598/km2)
Distance: 318 miles (513 km)
So DC has reasonable density but Atlanta doesn't, and the distance is double. That's why Europe and Asia have lots of HSR but in North America and Australia we don't use it hardly at all.
Another problem is that even if you built high-speed rail, most American cities have a very feeble public transit system to get you anywhere. Charlotte is in the process of building a unified Transit center for Amtrak and buses... But the New Orleans to New York City crescent train comes through about 2:30 in the morning when the public transit system is not running. Charlotte is talking about possibly having to shut down its light rail because of a lack of trained personnel.
@@neutrino78xhave you ever driven that route? Richmond, Petersburg, Durham, Greensboro, High Point, Charlotte, Spartanburg, Greenville are all fair sized cities and growing, causing heavy traffic the entire route, despite 6-8 lanes much of the way. Plus countless other towns providing potential customers.
What are the capacities for each?
10 minute stops? In most countries you’d be lucky to get 2 or 3.
True; the HSR running from Bruxelles to London stops in Lile for exactly 3 minutes, but you have to account for acceleration and deceleration.
The high cost of rail (and airlines) is the running of it. Every day, every night, every person 24hr of salaries and RR pensions.
Building and repaving for drivers not being paid as operators pale in comparison to staff hierarchy, redundancy and management redundancy.
This is often why a flight 2000 miles costs far less than a train which is a rolling cafe and hotel with numerous staffers covering 48 hrs of service with 48 stops, vs an expensive jet bus that only has a crew of 5 for four hours and only two ground crews.
Automobile: the passenger is the driver, navigator, maintenance fueler...a 2000 me trip is likely two hotels, which the driver funds and 7 meals the driver also funds.
Also those incidental stops funded by private businesses exist all along the route, paying gross receipts, income and property taxes to the jurisdictions the road passes through....which neither RRs or airlines do.
THAT is why there are highways.
Land acqusistion and labor cost will balloon this project far beyond actual cost in each state. State, Right of Ways, will help some, but not enough.
I love this! I wish that the US had true high speed rail. I love trains and traveling around the country that way would be great way to see the US again like our ancestors did.
🎶 You say “rowt”,
🎵And then you say “root”,
Roo-oot, Row-owt,🎵
Row-owt, Roo-oot,🎶
🎵Let’s call the whole thing off ! 🎶
I think that is a good starting line. It would be awesome if eventually it went north to Seattle on the west, north to New York in the east, and finished the loop across the north, probably through Chicago.
build as higherspeed rail but desing al tunnels and bridges in a way that it as easy as possible for later generations to refit the lines and include airport stations
My comment pie in the sky. The nice thing about I-40 is its avoidance of the largest cities, NYC, DC, ATL, LA, San Francisco, etc. It is mostly thru traffic from larger cities that feed to other interstates, I-15 to LA, CA-58/I-5 to NorCal, I-44 to St Louis/ Chicago, I-24 to Atlanta, I-81 to a whole bunch of east coast destinations.
As to hills. You forgot I-40 in Arizona from Kingman up to Flagstaff. Nearly 7000 feet up in about 170 miles. Or east of Albuquerque to Moriarty, NM(not as bad but still a pull). Or North Carolina east of Asheville.
More like Tennessee east of Jackson TN, that's where the flat land stops.
Are there more than on 40.. The one near me goes though southern illinois to St. Louis and east though Terra haute and east. Your showing way farther down in the states?
Interstate 40. Not US 40, state route 40, county road 40...
The one thing that high-speed rail doesn't account for is freight. A large part of I-40 traffic is trucks carrying cargo, quite often across several states. Although I like the high-speed rail option for passenger travel, the existing road system, or an upgraded version thereof, still needs to exist for freight.
Another point I'd like to make is that the current routing of I-40 begins/ends in Barstow on the west end, however, it is just a little bit further southwest from there to get to Los Angeles. I believe this would be a more logical, albeit more difficult, terminus than Las Vegas. Another thing to consider regarding Barstow, is that it is the point where eastbound traffic from both the Los Angeles area (via I-15) and the San Joaquin Valley area (via SR-58) meet to get onto I-40.
On the assumption that California will complete it's high-speed rail project eventually, I believe it makes sense to extend the "I-40" high-speed rail line to the west to connect to California's high-speed rail line, thus serving the more populous parts of the state.
A connector roughly parallel to US-93 between Las Vegas and Kingman would also make sense to provide connectivity to Las Vegas, as would another connector along I-17 to connect to Phoenix. In the middle of the country, it would make sense to add an I-35 spur line to connect to the DFW region.
On the eastern end, I believe it would make more sense to roughly follow the routing of I-81 from east Tennessee to connect to the DC/Baltimore, Philadelphia, and NYC regions.
Add in a triangle between Nashville, Atlanta, and Charlotte. That would still include Asheville, and add Chattanooga and parts of SC.
A 150mph standard electrified fast freight rail network would be cost effective. It would shift a considerable amount of long haul truck freight onto rail. Trucking would refocus on more short haul and less long haul, but require about the same number of truckers. Some air freight may also shift back to rail.
There is a plan for HSR between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. However, it only runs to Victorville, though they may be reconsidering that. Many people think the L.A. to Vegas train is a good idea. If it does get built, then an I-40 train with its western terminus in Vegas would make sense.
you need to use that drawl in the opening for an AAAAAAALL ABOARD!
Ending this at Charlotte instead of pushing through to Wilmington makes no sense at all. I've long advocated using the existing US interstate rights of way to include high speed rail, as right of way acquisitions are typically the most expensive aspects of such projects. If you're going to go almost the breadth of the nation, it makes sense to complete the job. Existing passenger rail service currently does not exist at all in Wilmington, which is ironic, considering Wilmington was the headquarters of Seaboard Coastline Railroad until 1957 or so.
What a great idea! I think EVERY interstate should be replaced or paralleled by HSR.
Thank you so much!
Seeing as this video got the most views out of any I've made so far, I'm going to keep making content that examines what rail overlayed on interstates would look like!
It cost $100 MILLION a MILE (plus) to build out a few useless miles of downtown trams in HOUSTON 15 years ago for one small example of the cost to build that measley light rail. This project would easily be a TRILLION.
I'm really glad that you've included the fact that your study (as impressive as it is) isn't exactly factual and to me, it seems to lean more towards your desire for people to park their cars and get on a train.
But remember why interstate highways (both the free and toll ones) were built in the first place: So that in the event of a war on our country, the military could move equipment more efficiently. And while there have been cases where interstates became low speed parkways, most interstates (Especially I-40) are far too important to get rid of.
I'd be for H.S.R. to take a page from the Chicago Transit Authority and build in medians of such interstates; building station platforms in with the tracks while adding escalators, elevators and stairs, leading to bridges that go to adjacent stations alongside the freeways. Subway down or viaduct up to cross interstate intersections or for turns away from and then back to the interstate when necessary. That saves a lot of money from buying up land. 🚄 !
🐰
You are forgetting if you have something like that you are going to have heavy security just like at the airports.
What would be better for high-speed rail, I-40 or 1-10?
I've actually thought that the only way we're going to get a good high speed rail system would be to use the interstate highway rights of way.
It's a good idea in principle: eminent domain doesn't have to be used, there is a connection between large cities, and access to the job site is simple.
Is it easy to implement in practice? We'll find out with how Brightline West does as it's constructed along I-15!
Jeez, Erick, Oklahoma is a DUMP.
Erick Oklahoma is just a wide spot in the road at best.
While this a great idea we have bigger fish to fry in our transportation system. There is a huge bottleneck in the south central U.S. that needs to be addressed before we spend a trillion dollars on HSR. I69 from Detroit to Laredo TX needs to be completed first. This would remove a huge amount of truck freight traffic congestion from the Nashville to Little Rock corridor on I40 and then on to Dallas on I30, and finally the on to the border on the I35 corridor in Texas. As far as bang for the buck goes, this would effect many more people's lives than a HSR route past the Mississippi river, not enough population out west on that route to support it. Nice thought tho.
The 250 Million Dollar per Mile for the High Speed Rail seem a little bit expensive. The most expensive High Speed Railway in Germany (Berlin-Munich) costed about 40 Million € per km, appx. about 70 Mil. USD per Mile. This includes 41 km in new Tunnels and 12 km over new Bridges. An alternative Route with fewer bridges and tunnels would have costed 1/3 of that, but Tax Money is always easy to spend and our politicians are usually open for little donations.
There are a number factors contributing to the California High Speed Rail cost being so high.
1) The experience to construct a high speed railway does not exist in the United States. The EU has been building out high speed rail for the past 2 or 3 decades, and that experience is leveraged on extension after extension. Sadly, the US lacks that know-how.
2) Land acquisition is an incredibly painful process in the United States. While a rail authority may have power of eminent domain, it may take years to acquire a parcel of land before construction can even begin due to the slow judicial process in the United States. As a matter of fact, California High Speed Rail still does not control all the land needed for the initial operating segment in the central valley.
3) Building around or through the existing infrastructure between cities drives up the cost of construction significantly. The overpasses for cars, rerouting/splicing fiber optic cables, and avoiding oil and gas lines quickly drive up costs.
4) Corruption/politics/bureaucracy. This comes not only in the form of wasting time on environmental impact statements, but also in the form of Airlines, Automobile Manufacturers, and Oil Companies lobbying (bribing politicians at local, state, and federal levels) to opposite high speed rail. Those companies don't want to lose a revenue source to a superior mode of transit. On top of that, the companies awarded the contracts to build structures along the route may be paid more money if there are more tasks to complete. As a result, there may "accidentally" be a break in a fiber optic line that drives up the cost of the project. Additionally, everything has to be built to be earthquake-proof, where companies take generous liberties in using more materials than necessary.
5) Lack of public support. Sadly, many Americans do not understand the value in good public transportation. Ideally, everyone in the US would take a field trip to the EU to understand what good transportation looks like (and what good food tastes like), but the sad truth is many Americans squander a large portion of their income on depreciation and maintenance of their automobile.
Anyhow, thank you so much for commenting! I hope you enjoy your wonderful food, healthcare, and transit on the east side of the Atlantic. We (in the USA) could stand to learn a couple of things from you. I hope you have a great day!
One assumption is incorrect. Loss by the Vols.
Certain sections of I40 need to be reinforced to carry train weight. Widening certain sections as to ease curving for trains. Also elevation clearances as trains can't climb like vehicles.
Red eye flights are not early morning flights. They are medium to long haul domestic overnight flights and travel west to east because of the time zone change(s).
And after you got to the destination, how would you get around? And what if your destination wasn't on I-40, but I-40 was only part of the journey?
Same as when flying - rental car, taxi/equivalent, public transportation, family/friends.
Great video! I think a 10min stop is to much, usually trains only stop for maybe 2-5min. So with a 3min stop and accelaration of around 90sec to 200mph its 5-6min.
Thank you so much! As a frame of reference, the train from Bruxelles to London was stopped for exactly 3 minutes when I rode it recently.
@@ericnelius9062 yeah right also the train usually stops longer at big important stations but shorter on smaller less important stations👍🏼
An acceleration time of just 90secs? That's very fast. You'd require heavier engines and draw more power than a more gradual acceleration, which makes for more expensive trains and infrastructure. And if the train is going to downtown, you probably don't want to go 200m/h in the city. Not to mention that if it's going to already existing train stations, it's likely to travel the last/first miles over existing lines which were not build for those speeds.
Agree that 10 minutes seems excessive, when compared to a driving speed of 70mph non-stop. Either assume the train will be doing 200mph non-stop, or factor in a break every couple of hours when driving plus the inevitable delays you get on any long drive...
It depends on where? Int. 40 isn't very straight on many places. It goes deep into the mountains.
Buying land in California is much more expensive than buying land in the desert south west. Much of I-40 is open land, or at best pasture land.
1. you can't use cargo trains on high speed rail. the entire I-40 corridor is also a heavily trafficked freight corridor. even if you replaced the entire 2550 miles of interstate 40 with HSR, you'd basically be left with major economic disadvantages.
2. on top of it, billions of dollars have already been spent on interstate 40 to date, including upgrades and safety improvements. too much pork for 90% of DOTs to get behind, outside of california and maybe nevada.
3. then you have the towns and citizens that use I-40 for commerence, and tourism. not many people are gonna like the idea of even replacing a entire interstate with HSR.
however, i would welcome more a elevated maglev train that reaches 500+ mph that follows interstate 40 to the california state line. i believe japan has made maglevs that reach those speeds recently.
so we hire their expertise, we get them to plan out a maglev line from wilmington NC to barstow ca and we would see major economic improvements and interstate car traffic along the route would go down drastically. lots of pork to be had, but any person can literally easily convince most politicians to go along with it just by saying "you can claim that you voted on a bill to bring the latest innovations in trains to the united states and you'd get votes!" because america loves being top dog on innovation and they'll be happy to do that. heh might even bring back the 90/10 funding level for such a thing.
If the USA wants real high speed trains they need to look at China, not California. China has built over 25,000 miles of 200 mph liens over the last decade or so and they are running already. They are fast, clean, reliable and very comfortable. Shanghai to Beijing in 4.5 hours. That's like LA to Portland, Oregon roughly, or at least Eugene.
Oops. That should be 'lines', not liens. My bad.
I lived in Tianjin, China when they constructing and opened up the first high speed rail line from there to Beijing, he is totally correct. I also rode on one of the older, slower but modern overnight trains from Beijing to Shanghai, China on a trip that took 18+ hours. I rather get someplace as quickly as possible and enjoy myself at my destination. I do enjoy modern HSR train rides though. ;)
China can do things like quickly taking people's land whereas in the US it takes paying lawyers for years to secure full eminent domain
We don't want high speed rail or it would already exist. The New York Central ran steam trains to Chicago at 90 mph, and the North Shore electric Interurban ran from Chicago to Milwaukee at 90 mph in the 1930s. The NorthShore no longer exists, and the demand for travel between New York City and Chicago warrants only half of a train once a day that meets another section from Boston in Albany
there are no property rights in china they take your land at a point of a gun
The construction costs mean nothing if tickets are not significantly cheaper than air, also assume TSA would then extend to rail because idiots exist.
Thanks for the great video! I might haae to do something similar for I-35.
Thank you so much! Depending on demand, it may be worth following I-29 up from Kansas City to Omaha and Sioux Falls then heading to Minneapolis rather than following along I-35 the whole way. It'd be a cool video either way!
How many trains per day on either of the railways would you expect? Thousands of cars and trucks use the highways each day going each way.
A dedicated high speed rail line can accommodate 15 trains per hour, no problem at all, and a train can carry more than 1000 passengers, so you could theoretically carry 200,000 people a day in each direction on a double-track line. Obviously in practice you are unlikely to be running at maximum capacity with every train full, but just think how many lanes of highway you would need to get anywhere close to that level of service.
4:19 ohhh security would still be a hassle. Bureaucracy growth follows the money
They can't even figure out how to get the HSR from LA to SF. It is incredible the level of incompetence and outrageous cost. The entire country should have HSR. Using the road or railroad right of ways to get it done. Instead we deal with such a level of fraud, waste, abuse, and theft that nothing gets done and we will be bankrupt before they ever get anything done.
I hope things change and we finally get HSR linking all the cities in the country. Tie this to subways and a renovated city transportation systems in each of these places and there will be economic activity and revival of these cities. We desperately need this type of infrastructure and a plan for the future. The way things are done today is not sustainable.
this needs to dip into Phoenix not through Flagstaff as Flagstaff already has Amtrak and Phoenix has a lot more potential use due to population and travel to/from the city
Why not a shinkansen the distances are huge anyway
that's what he meant by HSR, the shinkansen is wheel on rail HSR.
Japan's maglev is called SCMaglev, if that's what you meant.
The speed of maglev is plenty fast enough to complete with air travel over that short distance Memphis to Knoxville, but the cost is way higher than even CAHSR so it's a non-starter too, unfortunately.
@@neutrino78x Yes, the Japanese SC Maglev technology is super efficient and super expensive. China and the Germans are also making more cost effective strides with Maglev technology.
@@electricar9
"China and the Germans are also making more cost effective strides with Maglev technology."
Maglev is intrinsically more expensive than wheel on rail.
And let's not pretend the Chinese "made strides". They clearly stole I.P. from the Germans. Since they have no individual freedom, China has a hard time innovating anything, so they have to steal from the Western World and from Japan.
I have no idea why railfans like to praise China. IT IS STILL A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP, LIKE THE USSR.
There's a long list of free countries that have implemented HSR....JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA, France, Italy, Germany.....
HSR is just not justified in North America and Australia. MAYBE in the NEC. MAYBE. There's a private company trying to implement SCMaglev in a tunnel in the NEC area. I applaud their efforts, as they are not wasting public funds.
I do think Higher Speed Rail is justified, but that's a totally different thing: no special track, no wire. Far less expensive than per se High Speed Rail.
A Memphis to Knoxville train is definitely justified, just not the extreme expense of per se High Speed Rail. We need to understand that such a train would at best compete only with the highway, not with a flight. (if there were a direct flight, it would only take an hour. And a jet aircraft can fly the whole length of I-40 in about 4 or 5 hours, far faster than any train one could reasonably expect to be built.)
How does all that calculate to passenger miles?
I don't believe the numbers from CA HSR on general principles. I believe they are excluding some of the dollars spent on grade separation. However - the bridges and underpasses built there are being constructed to meet their earthquake standards. They are using a stupendous amount of steel reinforcement in their concrete. On a cross-country route, once you leave their seismic zone you can go back to "ordinary" heavy rail bridge construction... until you get close to Memphis and the New Madrid fault zone there. Knoxville to Asheville then Charlotte will need a whole bunch of tunnel & bridge work. Blue Ridge Base Tunnel??
Love the idea! Building out a good higher speed rail should be pretty easy if the political capital was there. Just look at major interstate routes like I-40 and go from there.
What's missing - light freight HSR service to help pay the bills.
I love trains and have taken the train from Raleigh to New York several times. Even clocked the train doing 125 MPH outside of Philadelphia.
Brightline and the Texas Central are great ideas, I wish them great success. California's high speed train to nowhere is poorly conceived idea badly executed... not surprising considering where it is and who's pushing it.
High speed rail on a national scale suffers from the fact this country is so BIG and when you get out west there are huge stretches of land with not much there.. That would make it hugely expensive, and unlike the Interstate system it would be useless for local traffic and freight.
And to pick a nit, I-40 STARTS in Wilmington and ends in Barstow.. and Wilmington isn't almost on the east coast, it IS on the east coast, it's a port on the Atlantic ocean.
How about rolling highways like what the English Chunnel is effective? cars, busses, and trucks would park on railcars that are highway segments in order of stops and the highway would roll. Current rails do not need to expand continuously with traffic growth like paved highways do
I spent a lot of time in England, France, and Germany during my career. I noticed that Europe has excellent high speed passenger rail and relatively poor freight rail service. The US has extremely poor passenger rail service and comparatively excellent freight rail service. In the US west 100 car heavy freight trains moving 70 - 80 mph are common. Europe population density only matched in the US on the east coast corridor. Maybe distance and population density are the driving functions for best type of rail service?