Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin
I was wondering if higher-speed, basically slightly slower than I experienced, rail could be used to attract riders to commuter rail.
For example, Caltrain in the Bay Area between Millbrae and San Francisco could operate at speeds of close to 120 mph, and this could shave several minutes off of the travel time.
|
There's the technology question, and then the economic/business question.
On the tech side, you may run into problems with sheer acceleration. The station spacing on the Peninsula or other "commuter" routes is too close together - if trains depart from one station, they don't have time to accelerate up to maximum speed before they need to start slowing down for the next station. It might be technically possible, but the rates of acceleration you need would be very uncomfortable for riders. Vomit comet, anyone?
You can maintain the tracks to a 125mph standard for intercity trains, and run commuter trains at that speed where the station spacing allows, especially on limited-stop trains. MARC already does this on the Northeast Corridor, and NJTransit sorta does it but they have an artificial 100mph limit for commuter service. MBTA does not, because the diesel equipment they use for commuter service can't go that fast.
Then there's the economic question - if an HSR line is built, would people use it to commute from one faraway city to another (i.e. Bakersfield to LA)? The answer is yes, but the appeal is limited because it's costly and the fares often change over time like airfares so it's hard to budget. A fare on Acela between Philly and NYC on a random weekday next month is $51 each way. Most people can't afford to spend that much every day, but maybe they can afford to go into the office one day a week and work remotely the rest of the time. The fares are a political decision so you could always set them lower, but most HSR lines are supposed to be operationally profitable so you'd have to abandon that goal.