Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
The out of date data for the Eurostar reflects more of what would be built in the USA using exiting rail corridors to reach existing train stations in Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, St. Louis, And Charlotte, Atlanta, New York City, Philadelphia, DC, New Haven, Boston, LA, SF, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, etc. When the HSR proposals for the USA include brand new dedicated HSR train stations in new rail corridors in the cities, only then would the new Eurostar data set reflect reality. Like they will for Texas Central and Brightline, which are building brand new dedicated train stations.
|
I can understand if existing infrastructure is used as an interim measure (i.e. like the early days of Eurostar), but if the plan is to never deliver dedicated HSR routes or maintain a mish-mash, then what is the point? Dressing up a route as HSR when it isn’t is completely counterproductive.
Two decades ago, rather than build a new high-speed railway to relieve the West Coast Main Line, the UK authorities opted for an extensive upgrade of the WCML. It was incredibly expensive, disruptive (line closures every weekend for several years) and the capacity that it provided? Already used up, with the prospect that by 2033/34 there will be the equivalent of
10.5 Acela Express trainsets worth of people standing on intercity journeys departing London Euston each PM peak. Hence the need for HS2: deliver a step-change in capacity with the added benefit of faster train services. Advocates of alternatives to HS2 run into the same issues as the WCML upgrade, except with less benefits, more disruption and higher costs.
Utilising existing rail and road corridors is sometimes helpful, many HSR routes around the world use such corridors to great effect as it sometimes results in reduced land take and minimises other complications that would hamper delivery of a viable route. There are countless areas in the US where this could be replicated.