General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis Future Map Of The United States Is Way Cooler Than Any Current Map Of The United States
America's economy could be growing more quickly if we just focused on the right things—like high speed rail, for example. It takes cars off the road, creates thousands of jobs, makes travel easier, etc. One artist decided to draw up his vision of one potential future. We hope people consider it.
This currently is just a designer's dream. It can become a reality though, if you sign the official White House petition. It needs 100,000 signatures in order to get an official response
where I found it:
http://www.upworthy.com/this-future-map-of-the-united-states-is-way-cooler-than-any-current-map-of-the-u?c=upw1
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
longship
(40,416 posts)R&K
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)I've been pushing this idea since i for more than 30 years...while i was still employed and with young children. I am now free to take advantage of such a system,,,
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Posting up high for visibility. Hi longship! 
Thanks!
Mira
(22,380 posts)I was gone most of the day, and this thread took on a life of its own.
Rhiannon12866
(205,896 posts)Thank you! 
kooljerk666
(776 posts)It appears to be same thing, sign them both.
Also read steelinterstate.org
and this diary has ton of cool train facts & fun, http://www.dailykos.com/blog/SundayTrain/
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fund-high-speed-rail-system-runs-coast-coast-and-connects-all-metropolitan-areas/2KwWYNSb
Most of the truck traffic in the country is from LA to NE USA. I live near Philly which means these truck are on PA turnpike, I-78, I-95, i-81 -I-83 & Rt 30. I live near all of these & traffic & air quality is pretty bad.
Electric freight will demolish over the road trucking, truckers like it cause they would rather be home every night.
Steel Interstate sight has lots on solar & wind going into the train s ystem & train elec system used to carry power for people all across amerika.
oops same petition
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Mira
(22,380 posts)who asked me if I rent a car when I go to Germany to visit:
"WHY"? - I can go anywhere by train. Any time.
Easier, cheaper, safer.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)awesome city bus system.
I've been to Europe alot. I've used the trains, the planes, and I've rented automobiles. Going from high density to many places is typcially easy by train. Going from low to high can be a bit more difficult. Going from "low to low" density can take all day, for a trip I can drive is a few hours. Trains are great, when you're going where large number of other people travel regularly, these kinds of mass transit are great. Even busses though tend to be "slow" in the sense that they tend to wander on broad routes, and make alot of stops. Driving ones self can often save you the better part of whole days.
Those train routes are notional, and interesting. But the reality may be significantly less interesting when actual times and frequencies are established.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)I based myself in Brussels and trained out to Bruges, Ghent and Antwerp. I'd love to do the same out of Madrid and go to Seville and Toledo...
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)been there twice I liked it so much.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Did you go see that Beguinage? It was fascinating and beautiful...
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)was converted to a museum. It was 1999 and 2000 so my memory is a little blurry.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Quite nice, peaceful. The Beguines were interesting as they were widows who went into the Beguinage and while they were a religious community I don't think they had to follow all the rules of the normal orders of nuns.
CrispyQ
(36,502 posts)I'd love to visit there, someday.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)If you like beer, Beertje is the place to go....
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Imagine "Land Cruises"... where you take a "cruise" all over the country in an "Orient Express" like train with a dining car, bar car, sleepers, etc...all very chic up to the minute. That'd be awesome. You know people would sign up!
dotymed
(5,610 posts)Especially if it was owned and operated by and for the people. It would generate a lot of revenue and should pay a living wage to its' employees. Of course it would be another thing to fight the wealthy against privatizing.....
sad-cafe
(1,277 posts)that would be awesome
LeftofObama
(4,243 posts)Signatures needed by March 07, 2013 to reach goal of 100,000
68,258
Total signatures on this petition
31,742
I tried to log on to sign, but it said the site was temporarily down for maintenance. I'll try again later.
sad-cafe
(1,277 posts)will do what I can to promote awareness
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)BTW, I just had a post hidden for calling you a big shot in high school. Of course I was totally serious.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)But then I think I signed this last week.
Auggie
(31,184 posts)but I think local public transportation should take priority. In the San Francisco Bay Area we have a great system in BART, but it needs money to update and expand. We also need state and local government to plan community growth more wisely so the efficiencies of public transit easily utilized.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)If BART came down to the South Bay. I am looking forward to the proposed High Speed rail that will connect Northern and Southern Cal. Getting to LA in 2 to 3 hours would be fantastic.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)
TomClash
(11,344 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Freight rail moves at about 45 mph on roadbeds that have a very low grade, since a mile or more of very heavy bulk freight cars have to be towed by a few engines with traction wheels. Therefore, they have numerous curves of fairly tight radius in order to follow the terrain, often along meandering river valleys.
In contrast, high-speed rail cannot have tight curves, but it can have moderately steeper grades since the traction wheels are distributed among the several cars in a train set.
So the map shows the building of completely new roadbeds in some very uneconomical areas, both because the terrain is unfavorable and because the ridership is minimal in those areas. Examples include the stretch from Portland to Sacramento and from Talahassee to Houston. The first involves punching a new railroad through mountainous area and the second involves bridging numerous bayous and rivers with shipping channels that would require high elevations.
The map is a pipe dream.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Funny thing about humans and Americans - we have and will always build the impossible.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The military industrial complex and the space program are good examples of the uneconomic.
The US is not alone in building the uneconomic -- the pyramids of Egypt and the great cathedrals of Europe are other examples of societies building stuff that is uneconomic.
However, if you are advocating the uneconomic, be honest about it -- don't try to sell it as having ecomic benefits or environmental benefits. If you account for all the energy used in construction and operation of high-speed rail, it is no more green than air travel.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)It was once 'impossible' to go to the moon. Yet we did it.
Building the 'uneconomic' as you say, yes I agree. The Hoover Dam was uneconomical for a private
corporation to build so We The People built it. And in retrospect, it was way worth it.
Funny how the train systems in Europe and China and Japan and elsewhere are hugely popular
and provide a great benefit to the people.
Transportation is infrastructure. There would be nothing wrong for us to build high speed rail
throughout America and not necessarily 'turn a profit'. Some benefits are not measured in dollars.
I see you are against high speed rail - how come?
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Improve and extend the Northeast Corridor -- maybe connect to Richmond, St Petersburg, Raleigh, Winston-Salem, Charlotte, Spartenburg, Greenville and Atlanta. Maybe extend to Portland, ME.
Improve the lines hubbed off of Chicago.
Improve San Antonio to Dallas, San Diego to San Francisco, and Portland to Seattle.
But transcontinental service across the Great Plains and Rockies is not remotely economic.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)A lot of folks would like the Acela to be a bit speedier in addition to expanding service on the NE corridor.
Right now, it seems that rail works between good-size hubs about 5 or so hours apart by car.
If we could put those people on trains, particularly people traveling alone, our roads may take much less a beating for shorter trips.
I'm also a big fan of container freight rail that takes the containers fairly close to their ultimate destination where a large crane takes the container off the train and puts it on a tractor trailer. That saves lots of diesel and a lot of roadbed.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)not economic.
Today many suffer because high speed internet is not.
There are times a government needs to step in and move us beyond it and eventually it pays dividends.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Folks from a certain area, like a county, would form a co-op and apply for a loan from the Rural Electrification Board ( or whatever it was called).
If they were approved for the loan, they'd go out and either hire folks to put up the poles and wires or do it themselves with consultation. They'd hire someone to build the transformers and contract for the electricity itself from larger producers. Later on, they built their own generating plants.
I grew up with electricity supplied by my county co-op, as did both my parents. Now, the county coops in western and parts of northern Michigan have joined into one electrical coop--Consumers Energy.
High speed internet is moving into rural areas, but it is wireless. There are more and more cell-type towers that offer the service. Verizon is a big provider.
Perhaps in some places, the populations want rail service and would be willing to finance their section of track. Of course, they would get the profits attributable to those sections.
Once the economy really gets going, who knows?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The examples you gave were uneconomic because they don't support other industries to any large degree. Investing in transportation is almost always a good long term investment. Investing in water navigation created most of our largest cities. Investment in railroads created many more cities. Investment in the interstate highway system fueled post WWII economic expansion.
Air travel can and should be maintained, but high speed rail can and should augment that system. That's why the rest of the advanced world is investing in high speed rail. So should we. That doesn't mean we should be building rail between Billings and Seattle, but along the Eastern seaboard makes a lot of sense if you consider the long term impact.
Mira
(22,380 posts)Unfortunately without a commitment to making it possible the entire concept remains a pipe dream.
I bet we could hire those who have done it in Europe and Asia to show us how.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)~ snip ~
When the passengers for D301 reached the platform, they encountered a vehicle that looked less like a train than a wingless jet: a tube of aluminum alloy, a quarter of a mile from end to end, containing sixteen carriages, painted in high-gloss white with blue racing stripes. The guests were ushered aboard by female attendants in Pan Am-style pillbox hats and pencil skirts; each attendant, according to regulations, had to be at least five feet five inches tall, and was trained to smile with exactly eight teeth visible. A twenty-year-old college student named Zhu Ping took her seat, then texted her roommate that she was about to “fly” home on the rails. “Even my laptop is running faster than usual,” she wrote.
~ snip ~
The driver of D301, Pan Yiheng, was a thirty-eight-year-old railway man with a broad nose and wide-set eyes. In the final seconds, Pan pulled a hand-operated emergency brake. His train was high atop a slender viaduct across a flat valley, and immediately ahead of him was train D3115, moving so slowly that it might as well have been a wall.
The collision impaled Pan on the brake handle, and it hurled Henry Cao into the air. His body tensed for impact. None came. Instead, he was falling—for how long he couldn’t tell. “I heard my mother’s voice shouting,” he told me later. “And then everything went black.” His carriage and two others peeled off the tracks, tumbling sixty-five feet to a field below. A fourth car, filled with passengers and spewing sparks, was left dangling vertically from the edge of the viaduct. Henry awoke in a hospital, where doctors removed his spleen and a kidney. He had shattered an ankle, broken his ribs, and suffered a brain injury. When he was alert enough to understand, he learned that his parents were dead. In the chaos of the rescue and recovery, his mother’s ten thousand dollars had also disappeared.
The Wenzhou crash killed forty people and injured a hundred and ninety-two. For reasons both practical and symbolic, the government was desperate to get trains running again, and within twenty-four hours it declared the line back in business. The Department of Propaganda ordered editors to give the crash as little attention as possible. “Do not question, do not elaborate,” it warned, on an internal notice. When newspapers came out the next morning, China’s first high-speed train wreck was not on the front page.
~ snip ~
siligut
(12,272 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Aside from the curves and grades you mention, we'd also want separate high-speed rail lines so that the trains can be lighter - The Acelas have to worry about running into freight trains and thus have to be heavier than necessary.
Is it is indeed going to be extremely expensive, and take a very long time. But it's still a good idea.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Another reason why new roadbeds have to be built is that the new roadbed must be grade separated from highways and other rail lines if speeds are over 90 mph. No grade level highway and street crossings or rail frogs can be permitted.
Most of the canceled "high-speed rail" projects were modest improvements to increase maximum running speeds to 90 mph. They were not really high-speed rail by the usual global meaning of high-speed.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)for a totally new infrastructure for this kind of service. But it should be done. Start in the places where there is already a clear demand, and go from there.
We spend enormous amounts of money on the highway infrastructure in this country, even if significant numbers of people never drive on it. We should be doing the same for rail.
It is important, in looking at this dream map, to keep in mind how very much larger this country is than all of western Europe. Or Japan.
But I would love to see it done.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)You are correct in turn and grade considerations, but much of the Frieght rail systems means that criteria. It will need new track and beds as well as power lines, because even the 70-80 rated rails can't handle the speed in question, and lack overhead wires. The right-of-way is likely usable in large amounts--including tunnels.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Unit coal trains move at 40 to 55 mph on most subdivisions.
Due to property tax policies of state and local governments, a lot of double track roadbed was converted to single track, so freight (and passenger trains) have trouble moving much faster than the slower freights.
Some of the class 1s have been putting back double track on certain routes to expedite container and perishable goods.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)My point was, the right-of-way can handle decent speeds in and of itself. New tracks will be required, to be sure.
yardwork
(61,700 posts)
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Construction would require new roadbeds, obviously; however, when one examines the map, one cannot help but notice that the metropolitan areas are already linked by interstate highways. This being true, the 'right of ways' would not need to be acquired anew, and much of the infrastructure (bridges, etc.) is already in situ. Further, few interstate highways have steep grades or tight-radius curves.
Expensive, certainly, but not 'pipe dream' expensive.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)High speed rail has minimum curve radius of over 10,000 feet and max grades of 3.5% if passenger trains only. Max grades are about 1.5% if mixed passenger and freight is designed for.
Bridge height standards for the interstates do not have enough clearance for high-speed trainsets with overhead catenaries.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)including both solar arrays and wind turbines and high-speed rail incorporated into the interstate highway system.
It can be done.
csziggy
(34,137 posts)But after the barge hit the bridge and dropped a passenger train in a bayou the service was never restored. http://www.railroad.net/articles/topics/the-1993-alabama-train-crash.php
I'd planned to take a train trip starting in Tallahassee, going to New Orleans, then north to Chicago, west to Seattle, and back via Canada Rail to Toronto, then down the East Coast. Not going to happen in my lifetime, apparently. If I want to take a train I have to drive at least 4-5 hours to Jacksonville, Orlando or Tampa to catch one.
The western Florida route shown on the OP map seems to follow US 19/98/27. There is still a railroad graded right of way that nearly parallels those highways. It's too remote for the Rails to Trails program that has converted many RR right of way to bike and hiking trails, but the rails have been removed and there has been no maintenance in years. It could be used as the backbone of that route.
To avoid the coastal swamps and bayous, a new rail system could go further inland, from Tallahassee to Bainbridge, GA, west to Dothan and across Mississippi and Louisiana to Waco rather than Houston - basically follow US 84. That route is between interstates 10 and 20 so it hits areas that badly need transportation access and an economic boost.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)<img src="http://www.snavi.com/en//tips/images/tips/railway/class1_rail_company%20(TIPS).bmp">
csziggy
(34,137 posts)It's already well populated and developed.
Putting a new system through less developed areas would be cheaper for purchasing right of way. And it would have the added advantage of economically stimulating areas that need better transportation.
Think of how the interstate system originally bypassed population systems and existing highways and how they have stimulated development in places that had little or no business before the internet passed through.
There could be connections via new short run high speed or existing Amtrak rail to connect major cities with new rail systems.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)We need this sort of project to put people to work and we need to add renewable energy and distribution grid projects too.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)so unless we get rid of the gop roadblocks, it won't happen. 
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)who turned back fed funds to help build WI's portion of the Chicago to St. Paul line. 
As one who is getting older, and a part of that demographic everyone seems to love to hate, I think most citizens are going to want us off the road-sooner rather than later, and air travel is just a non-starter for me. I would LOVE to see this high speed rail come to fruition. I take Amtrak whenever possible, and love trains.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)And I know what you mean about the hate for the elderly around here. It's getting worse! 
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Sancho
(9,070 posts)I've lived in three states and voted for about a dozen governors...Rick Scott is so bad that even the repubs hate him. Giving away the high speed rail even pissed off the tea party faithful who live in the "villages" (a big conservative retirement community that was in the path of the train).
hunter
(38,325 posts)We could reduce our oil imports.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's a trade-off
(EDIT: I know the trains don't burn coal, I mean the electricity is generated with coal)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We haven't been building new coal plants for quite a while. We have been building wind, solar and natural gas plants.
The point is using electricity lets us use whatever for power, instead of diesel.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)No new coal plants have been built for about 20 years.
Lots of new natural gas, wind and solar have been built in that time.
DeadEyeDyck
(1,504 posts)hunter
(38,325 posts)
DeadEyeDyck
(1,504 posts)and the advantage of external electricity is the fuel weight.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And, no, it won't increase our coal use.
But it does point to a very interesting dilemma/opportunity:
Electric generation used to be pretty much separate from transportation, which is largely petro-based.
As we roll out more electric trains and EVs and hybrids, the Grid people are going to have to talk to the people in transportation.
Here in California we can't meet our greenhouse gas goals AND our 30% by 2020 renewable energy generation goals without shifting transportation away from petrol and to electrical power, which magnifies the generation goals.
A fun problem to solve, but we are working on it!
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)It would be a money pit, first of all, since the only place in the US where high speed rail is remotely economic is between
DC and Boston. Any other major metro areas are more economically served by air travel, with the possible exceptions of Houston/Dallas, LA/San Diego/Phoenix/Vegas, and a spoke network from Chicago as far as Indy and St Louis. MAYBE.
No, the European model isn't applicable, since a huge chunk of Europe fits in Texas. No one other than a few very patient tourists is going to take a train from LA to NYC. With stops, it would still take a calendar day to go that far.
Sorry. Not practical.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)the country has a growing population and an aging one. Not all of us are in a hurry and quite frankly I hate flying anymore. imho
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)I'd gladly ride the train to Chicago instead of going out to MSP, going through security, sitting around forever, being strapped into a cramped seat and bossed around by stressed-out crew, being given a tiny drink and a bag of pretzels, and having to figure out how to get from ORD to downtown Chicago.
On a high-speed train (such as they have in most other industrialized countries now), your station is in the middle of town, you can take your luggage with you, the seats are spacious and comfortable, you see the scenery roll by, you can get up and walk around whenever you want to, and everyone seems more talkative and friendly than on a plane.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Traveling from LA to NYC via air doesn't take a calendar day....only on paper.
Add in all the other time sinks for air travel (get to airport 2 hours early, probably have a 2+ hour layover, the hassles when you get to NYC) and you've burned an entire day.
If the actual travel is more pleasant, which would be really damn easy to do, then it would get a lot of riders. If it's cheaper than air travel, which also should be easy to do, then it would get even more riders.
With current airline schedules, I can only do 1-night business trips to the Eastern 1/3rd of the country (fly out one afternoon, have meeting the next day, fly back next evening). The western 2/3rds of the country requires 2 nights because the airlines can not get me back via afternoon/evening flights. So your hypothetical rail situation would make me lose exactly nothing.
ArtiChoke
(61 posts)"...the European model isn't applicable, since a huge chunk of Europe fits in Texas."
Nope. Berlin to Seville ~1700 miles. Or Glasgow to Naples. Nearly the same as Boston to Dallas. That's Boston MA not Boston TX.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Yes, we can build a train that goes from coast to coast. Is it worth it? Over 500 miles or so, almost certainly not.
ArtiChoke
(61 posts)OnlinePoker
(5,725 posts)When I left Germany in 1994, the rail system was the equivalent of $36 Billion in debt. I read some time later, that they reorganized the system and cut a lot of lines to try and trim that debt, but I don't know how it turned out. I know there was a big push on as well to expand the western German high speed system into the much more depressed eastern German region, but the costs were astronomical because they had to upgrade every single kilometer of track to meet the demands of the faster moving trains. I took a trip on France's TGV from Strasbourg to Leon which was supposed to be extremely fast, but the week I chose for my trip, farmers invaded the rail lines for the entire distance, dumping crops on the tracks in protest against the French government. After averaging 35 miles an hour, they finally offloaded us in Mulhouse and bussed us the rest of the way. One of the main issues people in France have with the TGV (at least during construction) was how much land had to be expropriated to build it. This would be the same in the U.S. Unless the route goes along right-of-ways of formerly running railroads, land would have to be purchased to build the single purpose system (no freight allowed). These costs would be exorbitant and in an era of cutbacks, it is highly doubtful a majority of voters would support it (you can't pay for the programs you already have).
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)california is moving ahead with high speed rail. it's too bad it didn't happen sooner.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Mileages from http://www.worldatlas.com/travelaids/flight_distance.htm
For one thing, you can't actually get from Berlin to Seville on high-speed trains. There is no high-speed from Montpelier to Perpignan.
Whither Spain’s high-speed trains?
....
So far, there are no independent studies of Spain's high-speed plans that suggest they will ever be anything other than a money pit. When asked by EL PAÍS if it knew of any economist or transport and infrastructure expert who supports the investment in the AVE network, the Public Works Ministry was unable to supply a name.
....
The facts speak for themselves: the Madrid-Seville route attracts around 14,000 annual passengers per kilometer, more than Madrid-Barcelona, but way off the 59,000 for the train between Paris and Lyon each year, or the 51,000 on the Cologne-Frankfurt line. This is not to mention the 235,000 annual passengers per kilometer who use the Tokyo-Osaka bullet train. Just to cover its operational costs, high-speed trains need a constituency of between 6.5 million and eight million passengers a year; none of Spain's routes come close.
Spain's planners seem to have forgotten that the country has closed high-speed routes for these reasons - the Toledo-Cuenca line was used by just a few dozen passengers most of the time. There are days when nobody boards the AVE at Guadalajara or Tardienta in Huesca. Tardienta has a population of just 1,000 people, but yet it has a high-speed train station. Is this the model that will connect up Spain and make it prosperous?
http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/01/15/inenglish/1358253198_135607.html
Boondoggles like this are part of the reason that Spain is near economic collapse.
ArtiChoke
(61 posts)...and one can still travel by rail from the cities I mentioned. The EU's economic woes were not caused by rail development.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Even Houston to San Antonio is essentially unpopulated by European standards of density.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)But from Cleveland to Omaha.. or Denver to St. Louis.
Considering the time it takes to get through security at an airport, this could be just as fast and more affordable.
There is also the possibility of shipping cargo at higher speeds than is now being done with conventional rail. The Mississippi River is effectively shut down due to low water levels. Additional shipping options is never a bad idea.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)But that would be on vacation, the purpose of which would be to take the train cross-country. That would be a dream vacation!
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I have and it wasn't that much fun.
If there were stops where you could rent a car and take a day or two to explore the city then it would be fun. Just sitting on a train for days isn't fun.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)I'd get off at every city for a day or two.
I spent for days in a car driving cross-country once. I'd prefer a train any day.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Possible, in theory, but it seems unlikely.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)That's 136 mph including stops, which means the same speed NYC to LA would get you there in 21 hours, less than one day.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I don't see any train going 136 mph uphill like that.
1 day still isn't that bad. Better than I expected.
kooljerk666
(776 posts)....to get some bed rest in a hotel & shower or rent a car & go camping.
USA Rail Passes
15-day, 30-day and 45-day rail travel options throughout the United States.
California Rail Pass
Get 7 days of travel in a 21-day period for $159.
The 15 day pass is about $420 and would allow you to circle the philly>chicago>la>portland>chicago>nyc>Florida>back to philly.
What is a Travel Segment?
Amtrak considers a travel segment any time you get on and then get off a vehicle (train, bus, ferry or other allowable leg) regardless of length..
To travel from Spokane, WA to Portland OR, you could ride the Empire Builder train directly to Portland using one segment or you could ride the Empire Builder train to Seattle (segment 1) and then ride the Amtrak Cascades train from Seattle to Portland (segment 2). Both journeys take you to Portland but use a different number of your allowable segments.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)St. Louis to Denver? Denver to Salt Lake City? Salt Lake City to San Francisco?
Definitely!
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Any trip where you can have breakfast at home, lunch on the train and dinner at your destination is viable.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)It'd take some of the traffic off I-94.
Personally, I'd like to see more service on the GR to Chicago line or a new line Muskegon-GR-Lansing-suburban Detroit and downtown Detroit.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and that could be used to service downtown and some of the suburban area
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)I'm from the other side of the state (which I suppose you've guessed).
Over there, we like both Detroit and Chicago, although we mostly root for Detroit teams. There are lots of folks who follow both the AL Tigers and the NL Cubs. Not much hope of seeing those two teams in the World Series. There are also a few GB football fans, but that happened as the Lions went through their absolutely hopeless years. If the Lions continue to improve, I expect that many of the GB fans will "come home" to the Lions. Both the Pistons and the Red Wings are popular, too. There's really no interest in the Bulls or the Blackhawks.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Air travel is still pretty pricey, and isn't going to be getting any cheaper. I would imagine that high-speed rail would cost a fraction of what it would to fly.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)For a round trip 2/27 to 3/6, Newark to Logan is $194 and NY Penn to Boston South Station via Acela is $214.
For cheap, the Fung Wah bus is $15 each way.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)and flying is virtually always cheaper and often spectacularly so.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)Looks like all roads lead to Texas and the northeast. Florida cities are covered, Texas cities are covered, and California cities are easy because they're all pretty much in a straight line up the coast.
derby378
(30,252 posts)It's about darn time America got its act together with regard to high-speed rail.
yellowcanine
(35,701 posts)I think we should skip the rail and go right to the tubes.
Johonny
(20,880 posts)it is a series of tubes
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Only drawback is that you can't see the scenery.
Morning Dew
(6,539 posts)a leg from Minneapolis to Kansas City via Des Moines or possibly Omaha.
A direct Seattle to Denver wouldn't hurt either.
colorado_ufo
(5,737 posts)No weather delays, snow buildup, rock slides, collisions with cars or animals, and on and on. On time, all the time.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)And this is the right time for it.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)and Japan's Joetsu Shinkansen from Tokyo to Niigata runs through places with serious snowfall. (I know someone who used to have a summer home in that region. One winter they decided to spend New Year's at their cabin, but when they arrived, they found snow so deep that it covered the windows, so they turned around and went home.)
The Joetsu Shinkansen has heated tracks.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,086 posts)It would be really neat to see The City of New Orleans as a high-speed train. Wish they'd add that leg between Memphis and New Orleans.
tinrobot
(10,914 posts)I can easily see it in high density corridors, such as the eastern seaboard or California. This is where the speed of the train is equivalent to air travel.
Crossing the deserts and the Rockies using high speed rail, however, would not be easier. The trips would be much longer than airplanes, and the cost of installing all that rail would be very expensive, keeping overall prices higher.
Let's start with the coasts and high density corridors where it is needed.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)California is the latest example. Their plan to connect LA and San Francisco is the worst option, being done in the worst way. And surprise, surprise, when they shut the thing down after sinking billions into it after a decade, it'll be another reason why "It can't work".
A high speed rail from LA to Las Vegas would cost less and be profitable right away, as well as saving hundreds of the lives lost every year on the 15. But we can't have that, it might give people the idea that we can do things well and make decisions based on reality.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)I also love the idea of being able to travel by high speed rail, across the country!
Dream to reality, please and yes, I'm signing that petition.
RC
(25,592 posts)No one in the right mind wants to go through Chicago, if they don't have to,
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Still needs 60K+ signatures!
lovuian
(19,362 posts)when do they start
No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)Of the funds projected for Ohio early in his term.
I believe Ohio's money was given to California.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)that was not a high speed rail system but a high speed pneumatic system...that could not derail and would not be effected by weather or conditions and would cost less to operate than a rail system?
Such a system was possible 40 years ago when it was first proposed and now it is even more possible due to technology advances...
But what the hell, it is hard enough to talk people into a high speed rail system...
ewagner
(18,964 posts)but there are Department of Transportation programs that finance 80% of the deficit (loss) for cab and bus routes in some areas...
Imagine if they did that for nationwide passenger-rail service instead.
Johnny Noshoes
(1,977 posts)if I read the map right - the red line is interstate 80, the blue line along the East coast is I95. The others probably follow other Interstate Highway routes. We built the Intersate - we can build this - what happened to the America that dreamed big dreams and did big things. What happened to the America that wasn't afraid to try the America that wasn't afraid of everything?
Tien1985
(920 posts)Can't afford to pay its bills. New America really wants to look at the economical impact thoroughly before it starts an enormous project. (I'm poking fun here.)
I'm actually in favor of mass transit options. I think it would create jobs and help to increase people's mobility (helping them to get to jobs). But, I would really like to see someone come up with a detailed plan first. Dream big, plans lots, build better. I'm a fan of calculated risks. Not afriad, but informed.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)To think that the Interstate system was done from scratch, yet people say that rail can't be done.
Bull!
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)They are not generally usable for high-speed rail.
High-speed rail routing would require fairly severe use of eminent domain to condem property in order to achieve the right curvature and grade.
Just getting a route for Amtrak from Sunnyside Yards through Queens, over Hells Gate and through the Bronx to allow speeds > 90 mph would be quite a challenge.
Since the presumed advantage is direct high-speed rail from city center to city center, this would be a recapitulation of the fights over freeway routing through cities.
shireen
(8,333 posts)This could open up whole new sectors for manufacturing and transport.
DFW
(54,436 posts)It's called "Europe."
tavalon
(27,985 posts)It's about time Biden got his chance. This is his baby.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)is the dependence on the Chicago Hub.
What happens in a blizzard? Or a power outage, or some other problem that effects that hub?
I would like to see more secondary hubs so that Chicago could be bypassed if needed.
I would not run all the way across Michigan and instead connect Detroit to Toledo. I would also eliminate the line from Chicago to Quincy and instead connect Louisville to St. Louis to Quincy to Des Moines. I would also like to see a line from Minneapolis St. Paul running east into Michigan's Upper Peninsula and then south through Michigan to Detroit and another from Minneapolis St. Paul running south to Des Moines (or though Sioux Falls to Omaha).
These changes would create a loop around Chicago so that the hub could be bypassed if needed. They could also be used to reduce congestion at the hub if this system ever gets so much usage that congestion is a problem (which I hope it would).
OK, that's my 2 cents.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)is going to be extremely snowy.
I don't know that it would be any better than going through Chicago.
Plus, you'd have to build another bridge across the Straights of Mackinac or arrange ferry service once again between St. Ignace and Mackinac City. You might even need Icebreaker Mackinac to stand by. The straights are a real choke point once sub-freezing weather sets in.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)to the entire area
The ability to travel by rail from say, Cleveland or Atlanta, to the U.P. in a few hours would be great for all concerned.
I agree that it is possible that a storm might effect both Chicago and northern Michigan, but it also might not. There are also other problems that might just cause problems at the Chicago hub. The argument about relieving congestion by allowing alternate routes is also still valid.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 12, 2013, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)
and the UP, I don't think that a high speed rail line through there would necessarily be the best idea!
There has always been rail congestion around Chicago, and now, of course, vehicle traffic on that spaghetti of interstates is hellacious, too.
In the late 1800s and early to mid 1900s, a system of railroads car ferries carried railroad cars, people, and then regular autos across Lake Michigan. Starting with Chicago and moving clockwise, Chicago, Milwaukee, Sheboygan (WI), Kewaunee (WI), Green Bay (most service went through Kewaunee--you can see why on a map), Escanaba, Manistique, Frankfurt, Manistee, Ludington, Muskegon, Saugatuck and I think South Haven ( all in Michigan).
The most modern of the ferries carried 30 railroad cars. Nowadays, trains consist of at least 90 trains. Many of the harbors on the Michigan side of Lake Michigan cannot take deep draft vessels (Muskegon is by far the best harbor), so even today, it would take multiple vessels to carry one train of cars, if anyone was interested in restarting the service.
Today, only one of the old railroad car ferries still plies Lake Michigan. It is the Badger, which sails out of Ludington to Kewaunee twice a day from late April or May through September or early October. Ludington is a really nice beach town these days, because, unfortunately, most of the manufacturing is gone.
Badger is so large despite its relatively shallow draft that it can carry at least one tractor trailer and a bunch of Winnebagos in addition to the usual SUVs, cars and bicycles. A big highlight of the day in Ludington is to go down to the ferry dock and watch Badger come in, unload, load up, and steam back out of the harbor and across the Lake.
Unfortunately, Badger is a coal-fired piston driven ship. It belches coal smoke, and there are people, mostly out of town and in the thrall of its competitor, a high speed catamaran ferry that runs from Muskegon to Milwaukee. Right now, Badger has an EPA exception as an historical vessel. I hope that it continues to run.
On edit: I'm not so sure about how easy it would be to build a railroad bridge across the Straights of Mackinac. I read a book about building the current bridge in the 1950s. For those of you readers who have never seen it, it is a double tower suspension bridge over the spot where Lakes Michigan and Huron meet at the tip of the Michigan mitten. It's longer than the Golden Gate, and is very attractive, especially in the summer when it is lit.
Anyway, several lives were lost building the Mackinac bridge and it took quite a bit of time. The weather is atrocious for 8 months out of the year, and the waters beneath the bridge are very cold and turbulent. Ice flows are a problem in most winters.
Any railroad bridge would have to be built at one of the less desirable locations, which would make it longer, and the bridge would have to be made much stronger for rail traffic.
I'm sure it could be done and would not be as dangerous to build as the original bridge. However, I think that it would still be difficult and very expensive.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and the bridge could be a drawbridge, which would be much easier than the suspension bridge that now exists.
Tunnels are also an option although I don't know enough about what that would take to comment on it.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)train to slow down so that they could appreciate the scenery.
I've been to the Straights many times. It was one of my Dad's favorite spots.
Counting the approach bridges, the Mackinac Bridge is over 5 miles long. 5 miles. The main part of the current bridge is a dual tower suspension type because that is the only type of bridge that can cross such a long distance.
That's just too long for a drawbridge with the deep wide shipping channel through there. If a drawbridge was possible, I'm sure that it would have been built instead of the suspension bridge that has stood there now for 60 or so years.
I have never heard any discussion of a tunnel. Maybe that would be the answer.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Keep up the momentum and we can hit the required amount.
brooklynite
(94,713 posts)It conflates two things: an expanded passenger rail network (which I support BUT acknowledge the lack of public demand for), and HIGH SPEED RAIL. If you go beyond a 5-6 hour trip (equivalent to a flight across country), the demand is going to drop substantially. That means that, if you hit optimal speeds (which would be difficult, not because of constrction costs but because of the ability to rights of way for maintained high speeds in the intermediate built up areas) you MIGHT get in a line from NYC to Chicago or Washington to Miami. Routes to the Midwest will be too long and too low-density to be effective.
1620rock
(2,218 posts)...coupled with more intercity bus service to include the scores of cities not served by rail. Greyhound eliminated over 2000 cities served in the last few years.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)A U.S. bus-transportation boom that began seven years ago is accelerating as travelers ditch their cars and avoid airport security lines to buy cheap tickets on Wi-Fi equipped motorcoaches.
No doubt the improved amenities and lower prices of these discount bus lines are major draws, but don't underestimate how much the increasingly-crappy air travel experience drives travelers to seek alternatives. Between the hassle, inconvenience and indignities of TSA, the nickel-and-diming of consumers via baggage/seat/food fees, and the generally awful customer service that has become the industry norm, air travel has grown ever more stressful, uncomfortable, and expensive over the past decade or so.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/07/intercity-bus-and-rail-ridership-up-as-car-and-air-travel-remains-flat
While Greyhound service may have declined, intercity bus service by the "curbside" bus companies is growing well. The use of smartphones to check schedules, reserve seats, and make payments is obsoleting bus terminals and the companies that use them.
Note that Bolt Bus is a joint venture between Greyhound and Peter Pan.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)The cost/time calculations and behaviors of American's aren't enough to get people to use high speed rail over airplanes for longer distances and probably won't even cause families to use it for short distances.
I honestly think the only places it could work are in the Northeast and the Southwest. I live in Kansas City and there is no chance of my family and I taking high speed rail anywhere. It's too easy to just jump in the car and drive to Chicago or Minneapolis or Dallas and get there in about 7 hours for about $100 gas for our whole family. Even going farther, say to Washington D.C. It's more fun to drive and save $500 over airfare or high speed rail and the journey is part of the trip.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)worst, given how much we may get for retirement, Calfornia living will not be it. Cleveland probably.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)how much would it cost, and who is going to pay for this? Is it really worth it? Currently, our modes of transportation are auto, air and train. A typical 3 hour air flight takes 2 days by train/auto. So what would a 220 mph train gain us? You might get that 3 hour air flight down to a day, especially with all the stops. In the end will a job at the USHSRS (United States High Speed Rail System) pay the good money that we are all looking for? I don't know, but i would say unlikely. There are sure a lot of unanswered questions.
Ya know, someone a lot smarter than me once said. In every day life, there are 3 stages involved with everything you do. Gather your facts, Analyze the facts, Make a decision. Sometimes theses decisions take seconds, others may take weeks, months, etc. I'd say we're still in the gather your facts stage.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)we'd have something to show for it at the end.
Are you aware that there were naysayers saying exactly the same things that American naysayers say now in Japan fifty years ago?
Nobody will ride it, it's too expensive, it doesn't stop at enough towns, highways and planes are the wave of the future. They heard this even from the World Bank.
Now demand is so great that trains run literally ever five to ten minutes in all directions out of Tokyo. The Shinkansen trains carry 1/3 of all traffic between the two major business centers of Tokyo and Osaka, offering downtown-to-downtown service in slightly less than three hours with comfort, speed, and scenery.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Awesome!
Bake
(21,977 posts)Great!
Now, just let it happen. Oh wait, the rich fucks don't want to pay taxes for that. Nevermind.
Bake
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)I would use it. Governor of Florida will not want government funding in his state so we may need a bypass around Florida, smile.
Hamlette
(15,412 posts)I could be in LA in 4 hours by high speed train. It takes me nearly that long to fly! (get to airport one hour early etc.)
And yes, I'm part of the aging population so I've got the time. In fact, I'm so old I remember when flying was fun. It sucks now, hurry up, worry about getting there in time, then wait for long periods of time.
Warpy
(111,332 posts)The only reason it's there is because NM already built the first 120 miles of it in the middle of the state. The governors of CO and TX have called for extending it, but neither has done a thing about funding it.
If you build it they will come. Eventually. When they're plumb out of other alternatives.
DearHeart
(692 posts)We have such a need for more public transportation of all kinds, especially local runs. Imagine all the jobs that even adding new bus routes would bring!
Outside of Chicago, you get to a certain point and the train routes dead end...would be nice to get to the western suburbs or down to Champaign/Urbana, and Bloomington/Normal areas on a train, instead of by car.
I'm a dreamer! 
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I thought this was a global-warming skeptics thread. My knuckles were already taped.
JPZenger
(6,819 posts)Pittsburgh is served by two rail lines. The one that connects it with Philadelphia is about to be shut down. Congress passed a law requiring that, in many cases. states must subsidize passenger rail lines that run deficits.
So far, Pennsylvania is refusing to cover the cost. As a result, rail service will not exist from Pittsburgh east to Harrisburg. To go from Philadelphia to Chicago, you will have to go to upstate New York or down to DC. With those extra hours of travel, no one will use it.
As far as high speed rail, I'd love some medium speed rail service. A year ago, I took Amtrak through Indiana to Chicago and the train was going 5 mph for a full hour because of a slow freight train in front of it. This was an Amtrak train with several hundred passengers on board.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Capitol Ltd overnight.
kooljerk666
(776 posts)The Pennsylvanian train is 17 hours with a 4 hour layover in Pittsburgh.
Traveling via Washington DC or NYC is about 2-3 hour more train time but 3 hours less on a lay over/transfer.
Corbett is the most hated gov PA has ever had & the folk who like him live in the NO AMTRAK FOR YOU zone. This ought to help him be loved even more.
Overall Amtrak is fine (not hurt real bad by this) but people who live in Lewistown PA, Huntington PA, Tyrone PA, Altoona PA, Johnstown PA, Latrobe PA & Greensburg PA are screwed & so is anyone trying to get to these areas.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)....link between the tech center of the SF Bay Area and New York to make this work. And Seattle seems kind of isolated. Need more lines!
ghurley
(205 posts)While maps like this are nice, I think it would be more beneficial to focus on connecting regional cities that have high interstate / highway traffic.
As far as the europe remarks I'm seeing on here... I don't know a whole lot of European's, but when I do meet some, I almost always ask about their high speed rail. The response I always find is Europeans use rail for shorter trips and air for longer trips. It's the tourists that will travel the longer distances on rail.
NoPasaran
(17,291 posts)It will be next in line after they build the Death Star.
undeterred
(34,658 posts)
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)
citizen blues
(570 posts)Why does the Pacific NW get no service? Seattle and Portland are economic power houses for technology and green jobs!
phylny
(8,385 posts)Blech.
beac
(9,992 posts)Hoping those are "Phase Two" of the plan.
phylny
(8,385 posts)That would be great.
I'd love to spend less time on I-81, that's for sure. 
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)for the ruling elite to get all-a-board. They have figured out that they can "harvest" struggling companies or blackmail us into bailing them out for trillions.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)squared away before we come up with any fantastic job creating ideas. They will just obstruct anything progressives put forward to make this country a great place. I'm all for it, and I like traveling by train. I do like seeing the country side and would love to disembark right in the middle of a city center of one of our great Metropolises. The routes could be negotiated later, we just have to find the funding. I don't think Americans know how wonderful train travel can be. We're still in such a hurry to get to our destination. It would take some really savvy persuasion.
Evasporque
(2,133 posts)beac
(9,992 posts)Sending the link out by email as well. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
life long demo
(1,113 posts)I'd love to travel by train, you don't need a traveling companion. You get to see the country. You can stay over in any city then continue on to the next.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)the very first thing I would say is that the routing might of necessity follow the rights of way of existing Interstate highways. So it seems to me as a major change in the routing, while following the general map as shown, is that the red line in the map might better follow the existing path of I-70. I would also comment that having three lines service south Florida is sort of redundant when a hub at Jacksonville might serve the needs of the region at considerable cost savings. I'm sure others will note places where different routing makes more sense as well.
WeRQ4U
(4,212 posts)Surprising, because a good percentage of the nation's JOBS are up here. Not surprising, because it always happens that way.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)It was my understanding that the rail roads in that part of the country were thriving and in more or less constant high use. I recall reading that they have become quite profitable for the rail companies. This is because of resource extraction of course, trees and minerals I suppose. At any rate I'd immagine that when the systems are finally built they will be fed by lines that rely on existing railway, and if I'm not mistaken you all have that in spades.
CrispyQ
(36,502 posts)Reading through this thread -- so many people would use this!
Love, love, love RTD! Looking at my little book of bright green L passes & smiling.
Shared & signed!
This RTD rider says, "Bring it!" Time to get with the 21st century, America!
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)about gas prices.
liberal N proud
(60,340 posts)Cleveland to St. Louis and Kansas City.
Or maybe the Red Line to Omaha
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)Stick to the Northeast that actually has near European population density and major cities in relatively close proximity and forget the rest.
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)Look how many lines have a hub there... Though I would add a minor line connecting St. Louis and Kansas City to Denver. I don't want to have to ride to Chicago if I want to catch a ride to LA.
beac
(9,992 posts) 