Correction

California is asking for $4.7 billion in federal HSR stimulus funds, not $1.3 billion. That's a large chunk of the $8 billion total, but California voters have passed that all-important $9.95 billion bond authorization (of which $950 million is reserved for capital improvements to existing connecting local/regional transit). The California system will be dedicated to passenger traffic, electrified and run on renewable electricity (hydro, wind, solar, geothermal and/or biomass) purchased from utilities.

Posted by: Rafael | 10/3/09

Response to this comment

California's request for $4.7 billion in federal stimulus funds was made on October 2 after this article went to press. The $1.3 billion request cited in the article was proposed by the California High Speed Rail Authority for preliminary construction costs in Central Valley in July. Three more line segments were subsequently added to the state's final stimulus request.

Posted by: The Editors | 10/13/09

crossings

Another thing to consider with high-speed rail is the necessity of elevated crossings. At-grade crossings on current railroads pose a significant safety risk to motorists, and with the speed and weight of high-speed rail the risk increases for the motorists and the train. The typical standard elsewhere is to make all crossings on a high-speed line elevated, but this increases the costs significantly, especially when you take into account all the crossings that have very little traffic but yet are necessary (i.e. rural areas with unacceptably long alternate routes).

Posted by: Mark | 11/10/09

Gasoline Tax

A project of this sort requires a cultural reorientation. The addiction to private automobile was manipulated via Federal Highway Funds and incentives for citizens to move to the suburbs. A development of the culture in the direction of improved public transit is also an environmentally and socially positive change from suburban/exurban development to city and town developlment. A simple way to fund this cultural transformation: A progressive gasoline tax, which takes into account the real cost of gasoline (including public-funded wars to maintain access to cheap oil). The income generated can be used to build public transit infrastructure, such as high-speed rail. Similarly, we might consider a luxury tax on private automobiles, with the income used to substantially lower ticket costs on public transit.

Posted by: FuturePast | 12/3/09

Tri-modal rail system

As Professor of Energetics Vaclav Smil likes to point out, diesel is the most important portable fuel in the world, and the days of diesel will ultimately end. Biodiesel can replace petrodiesel, but not at present volumes. In the future, electrified rail, run off mains power, will become essential for the continued functioning of society. What's needed is a three mode system: 1) slow speed (60 mph), long train (2 mile length) for time-uncritical bulk cargo; 2) double speed (120 mph), short train (20 cars) for time critical freight and rural passenger service; 3) high speed (200+ mph) inter-metro passenger service. Right of way and rail would be owned and maintained by the federal government with operators paying a user fee. System 1 would operate like present railroads and be managed by rail companies; system 2 would be operated by trucking companies for hauling freight and by Amtrak for passengers; system 3 would be operated by airlines or any passenger hauling entities, and terminals would be located at airports and major metro hubs to allow for easy interconnect service. Systems 2 and 3 would have unidirectional track and absolutely no grade crossings. Traffic would run at the same speed and be kept at uniform spacings by a rail traffic control system similar to air traffic control. Trains would move in and out of slots and there would be no passing. One of the commentators mentioned the need for elevated rail crossings. This is a serious issue for high speed rail. A less expensive solution would be pre-manufactured, modular, concrete box culverts. In rural areas, they can be one-lane with traffic light control. Drainage and pumps would be built into the culverts. Transportation will need systematic change to deal with a post-oil world and climate change. What has been missing in the discussions is the need to approach the issue from a systematics standpoint.

Posted by: fred schumacher | 12/11/09

Intermodal Transit

Several errors in current high speed rail thinking seem to be occurring. One is that we still need to use the old Union Stations and Central City Stations for rail terminus and station locations. These areas are congested, slow and expensive to build into. Further, there is no way to make these locations effective. Terminating rail lines directly underneath airports, and using the airports as the core of transit hubs, is sensible, much more cost effective, and able to deal with substantial additional expansion. It directly addresses trip requirements, and airport to airport terminations begin to mimic the effectiveness of the intermodel freight system. Second, massive use of underground construction, both cut and cover and bored tubes, needs to be used to bypass old and ineffective infrastructure.

Posted by: Donald Missey | 12/12/09

Look to yesteryear

The Northeast Corridor, although it is old and has too many curves in the line, is nonetheless a good prototype for high-speed rail. It could be made to run faster (if new infrastructure is put in, and especially if someone can straighten out the curves and add more areas of "broad way" (four-tracking, like on the Pennsy mainline)), and a TurboTrain once did something like 170 mph on a stretch of it (look it up, that was a North American speed record). However, the NEC shows what a good North American high speed line should look like (minus the NEC's curves, which are too sharp near cities, its old infrastructure, and perhaps some of its junctions with other lines, of course). The principle is a simple one. Avoid grade crossings, multiple-track as much as you can (so you can run express trains), make the line as straight as you can, line it with large stations for the locals and expresses and smaller stations for the locals (that way, you get real estate and economic development potential along more of the line's length). Bear in mind, however, that top speed for expresses at the time much of the NEC was designed tended to be 60-80 mph!

Posted by: Rickyrab | 2/19/10

I hope.

I'd ride it everywhere that I could. I refuse to take Amtrak now because driving is much faster and about the same cost. Additionally I don't have to sit next to people I don't know from 5.5-10 hours at a time for what should be a 5.5 hr flat trip.

Posted by: Matthew | 12/13/10

i think they should put more information on here so 13 year old wont get a bad grade on a poject!!!!!.....thank you for your time

Posted by: maya santillan | 12/9/11

Constitutional obstacles to North American Bullet Train

The tracks are littered not only with with political and financial obstacles, but with legal and constitutional ones. For a bit more detail, please read this article on the constitutional impediments in Canada to the Bullet Train for North American Union (and other means of vertical integration of Canada into the United States and Mexico). http://comment-aire.x11s.org/WP/2013/02/project-of-the-century-bullet-train-for-north-american-union/ There is no top-level domain for this blog as yet. Sincerely, Kathleen Moore HABEAS CORPUS CANADA The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union www.habeascorpuscanada.com www.nosnowinmoscow.com

Posted by: Kathleen Moore | 2/24/13

High Speed Rail

High speed rail has a lot of potential. Massive amounts of freight could be moved long distances for a much reduced cost and at a faster speed. Also, this type of rail uses electricity, which can be produced using environmentally friendly methods, and cheaper than fossil fuels.. Also, there is the potential to move more people, faster, and more comfortably than by air or auto. This could be a big plus for our environment and our economy

Posted by: Ed Simons | 3/5/13