Texas has been talking a Dallas-San Antonio-Houston triangle high speed rail for many years. That would connect in with the Houston-New Orleans route.
I think the states will get behind this big time and drive the feds. When in place, it will replace many old, slow inefficient Amtrack lines.
Mah, you can't compare the US to other countries. One reason we don't have cross-country rail, like other countries is our size. I always hear... you can go all the way across XYZ in three hours! But those countries are about the size of Louisiana. It's like going from New Orleans to Shreveport in three hours. Good, but not comparable to going from NY to LA (2,800 miles). At 100-mph non-stop that's still a 28-hour ride. Add stops and grade crossings and the trip time easly doubles to 56-hours. Too long for anything but leisure travel. That's impractcal for business travel which is the backbone of travel industry profits. Even say... Chicago to Houston at 100-mph, non-stop would be 11-hours. Add stops and grade crossings that trip time easily doubles to 22-hours. It would have to be awefully cheap to justify that when you can do it in 3-hours on a plane.
This is all true, but this is also why you don't see any transcontinental lines on the proposed routes. The high-speed corridors are all shorter lines connecting population centers. The Europeans are running some 170 mph express trains and they run them on routes with no grade crossings, no freight trafffic, and no local stops. I presume we would try to match this performance rather than the 90mph "high speed" rail now running in the US on regular track and right's of way. It won't replace air travel, but will supplement it. In some cases it can be faster and cheaper than air travel. To travel from lower manhattan to the mall in DC by high speed rail would be one ticket at Pennsylvania station, reading the paper for an hour or so, and getting off in walking distance of the mall. That versus taking a cab from Manhattan to Newark ($$), then checking in at least an hour early before taking a flight to Reagan ($$$), and then taking a cab ($$) or the Metro ($) to the mall.
Don't know. Although not as big as the US, Europe is big. I lived there for 6 years. Then, I would pony up about $250 for an Euro-pass which allowed travel by train, intercity rail and buses for a year. A few years later I am sure the rates are up and well, Europe has grow by rail a bit since. There is not a train that geaux's between two cities that travels less then 100 MPH. Fast rail geaux's around 200 MPH. You can do Frankfurt to Rome in under 4 hours where it could take just over 9 hours to drive. About the same between New Orleans and Miami (est). Trains have bed cars, bars, and restaurants as well. Flying will get you there quicker, peanuts, two drinks and a 1 in 10,000 shot at the mile high club. I guess it comes down to time management but as a cheaper route, businesses on the save might geaux with a train ticket. It will be certain for airlines to promote competitive pricing.
http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/04/16/high-speed-rail-can-it-work-in-the-us/ We already have that. And no, it doesn't even break even. Europeans also travel for leisure way more than Americans. Leisure travel is a significant portion of the rail traffic there. For leisure travel I think it's a fantastic idea. Cheap, relatively quick. But leisure traffic alone won't support it. It doesn't for the airlines, and it doesn't for AMTRAK in the NE corridor. As a business traveler my time is really valuable. If I can do a trip by air in one day, as opposed to one travel day, meet, travel day return (3-days total) I'm going to do it unless it's a huge price difference. I probably wouldn't take the train even if it was free. I also have to consider that train trip requires atleast one, likely, two nights in a hotel, plus a car rental on the other end.
The Acela is not the kind of high-speed train envisioned. It averages only 88mph on the NewYork to DC run, shares track with slower trains, and must contend with grade crossings. It's not just the airlines to compare it to. Rail can also take significant family leisure traffic off US highways. You are not the only type of traveler. The airport is still there for you. But sleeping while you travel in a rail stateroom eliminates the need for a hotel room and has appeal for many.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf I ass-u-me ya'll have read the "vision". Notice not one mention of future profitability, projected ridership, expected revenues, or fiscal sustainability is mentioned. It's all about how to get legislative subsidies out of Congress. That's the problem I have with it. No one's looking at the economic justification of it. Only the preceived need to have one because other countries do. I think it's a cool idea. Maybe it has a place. But it's awfully expensive investment without considering the revenue side of the picture.
