Recall, electricron, that most nations that develop true HSR corridors do so atop a large-scale medium-speed network. This is true in Italy, Germany, Sweden, China, S. Korea, and Great Britain, and even in the earliest adopters--Japan and France. About the only nation where this paradigm does
not hold is Spain, because (as Alon--Levy, I assume?--pointed out, Spanish HSR was built simultaneously with extensive improvements to its medium-speed service).
Also, may I remind you that for super-110 operation,
electrification is a requirement? This ups the costs quite a lot; it is unlikely to happen so long as the freight railroads rely on diesel service (because diesel power will remain the primary prime mover in this country).
What I think is most likely to happen is that we'll continue to see upgrades to 110 mph service, and somebody (or somebodies) developing a clone/upgrade of the IC 125 which will be hailed as "a revolution in rail transportation!"
, with post-110mph service mainly limited to the Northeast and California markets until a large enough network, a large enough proven market, exists in the Midwest for it to independently electrify its five primary routes (Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Minneapolis, Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Cleveland, and Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati). That would not happen until ca. 2030 at the earliest.
But, of course, massive changes can happen. What if the price of gas plateaus at $5/gal? The major freight railroads would have intense pressure to electrify; this, in turn, would drive faster electrification of passenger services, and thus development of post-110 corridors throughout the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
Instead, I suggest at the national level we should be setting a higher priority at increasing max speeds on the existing corridors to what the owners of the corridors will allow, eliminating congestion, and eliminating slow orders. Adding mainline tracks, upgrading existing tracks, and re-signalling the corridors for faster trains should be the extent of investment by the federal government on a year to year continuing funding basis. No Federal grants should be given to intercity HSR projects, at best the Federal government should provide is low interest rate loans.
|
Totally agreed. BTW, since road investments have been seeing declining returns for a number of years, I would suggest that (after maintenance and managed rightsizing of our current road system) this should be the second-highest transportation priority. Bike infrastructure, while it has a high rate of return, generally requires infinitesimal investment; rail, on the other hand, requires substantial capital investment.