296 replies to this topic

[BlueMound]

What America can learn from Europe's high speed trains

http://www.wired.com...h-speed-trains/

 

• the report warns against putting stops in sparsely populated areas because that slows trains down. Put them only in the center of major cities, not in suburbs or exurbs

 

• That means being denser, with walkable and bikeable streets, public transit systems, and regional commuter rail lines to the suburbs.

[renamerusk]

Because the U.S. is a nation governed by federalism, I do not think that a European blueprint will work here. States are and will be given the authority to develop HSR that meet their needs with the Federal Government providing reviews and funds.  My guess is that the California Plan will be closely copied in Texas/Oklahoma.

 

Question:

 

 Europe consists of at least 30+ nations; do each follow a single continental plan for HSR?

[Electricron]

Because the U.S. is a nation governed by federalism, I do not think that a European blueprint will work here. States are and will be given the authority to develop HSR that meet their needs with the Federal Government providing reviews and funds.  My guess is that the California Plan will be closely copied in Texas/Oklahoma.

 

Question:

 

 Europe consists of at least 30+ nations; do each follow a single continental plan for HSR?

There are some countries considered on the European continent that aren't apart of the European Union. That's why I don't think so. 

 

Britain, Scotland, and Whales which make up in total Great Britain, will fit within the borders of America's 11 largest states individually. Add Northern Ireland to make up the United Kingdom, the same is true. Russia (within Europe) is the only country larger than any America state. Alaska and Texas larger than any other individual country (within Europe). 

Data: (in square miles) 

1) Russia 6,593,721(1,428,560 in Europe)

2) Turkey 302,535 (9,175 in Europe)

3) Ukraine 233,090

4) France 211,209

5) Spain 194,897

6) Sweden 173,732

7) Germany 137,846

8) Finland 130,674

9) Norway 125,182

10) Poland 120,728

**Great Britain 88,745

**United Kingdom 94,525

 

1) Alaska 663,267

2) Texas 268,580

3) California 163,695 

4) Montana 147,042

5) New Mexico 121,589

6) Arizona 113,998

7) Nevada 110,560

8) Colorado 104,093

9) Oregon 98,380

10) Wyoming 97,813

11) Michigan 96,716

12) Minnesota 86,938

[renamerusk]

 

Because the U.S. is a nation governed by federalism, I do not think that a European blueprint will work here. States are and will be given the authority to develop HSR that meet their needs with the Federal Government providing reviews and funds.  My guess is that the California Plan will be closely copied in Texas/Oklahoma.

 

Question:

 

 Europe consists of at least 30+ nations; do each follow a single continental plan for HSR?

There are some countries considered on the European continent that aren't apart of the European Union. That's why I don't think so. 

 

 

To be clear, the point of my question is to point out the difference between Europe and the U.S. in governing/policy implementation. The countries of Europe are governed, by in large, by a "centrally controlled national parliament. Local control is almost non-existent.  In the U.S., the States are free to make decisions at the local level (State/County/City). 

 

Given the design of the American Governmental System, aside from technology, the way that HSR will be implemented will be more in line with the American Way than a European Way.

[Electricron]

 

To be clear, the point of my question is to point out the difference between Europe and the U.S. in governing/policy implementation. The countries of Europe are governed, by in large, by a "centrally controlled national parliament. Local control is almost non-existent.  In the U.S., the States are free to make decisions at the local level (State/County/City). 

 

Given the design of the American Governmental System, aside from technology, the way that HSR will be implemented will be more in line with the American Way than a European Way.

 

Excellent point! My point is that European nations are sized more alike our states. Historically, HSR works very well for a distance around 250 miles and less. Few, if any, HSR trains travel over 300 miles.

USA West coast line and Intercontinental line city pair examples:

Seattle to Portland = 173 miles (OK)

Portland to Eugene = 111 miles (OK)

Eugene to Sacramento = 474 miles (FAIL)

Sacramento to Oakland = 82 miles (OK)

Oakland to San Jose = 41 miles (OK)

San Jose to Los Angeles = 340 miles (FAIL)

Los Angeles to San Diego = 120 miles (OK)

 

Sacramento to Salt Lake City = 649 miles (FAIL)

Salt Lake City to Denver = 536 miles (FAIL)

Denver to Kansas City = 605 miles (FAIL) 

Kansas City to St, Louis = 248 miles (OK)

St. Louis to Chicago = 297 miles (FAIL)

Chicago to Cleveland = 345 miles (FAIL)

Cleveland to Pittsburgh = 132 miles (OK)

Pittsburgh to Philadelphia = 304 miles (FAIL)

Philadelphia to New York City = 97 miles (OK)

New York City to Boston = 214 miles (OK)

 

Let's look at cities in every direction from Dallas

Dallas to Houston = 239 miles (OK)

Dallas to Shreveport = 190 miles (OK)

Dallas to Little Rock = 319 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to Tulsa = 257 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to Oklahoma City = 205 miles (OK)

Dallas to Amarillo = 360 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to Lubbock = 323 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to El Paso = 631 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to Austin = 190 miles (OK)

Dallas to San Antonio = 275 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to Victoria = 297 miles (FAIL)

 

Just wanted to point out that lines stretching across the country, north to south and east to west, have difficulties stringing large city-pairs together. America should look at HSR much like Japanese and Europeans have, connecting city-pairs 250 miles apart or less. More akin to a regional train than a cross country intercontinental  train. 

[renamerusk]

Excellent point! My point is that European nations are sized more alike our states. Historically, HSR works very well for a distance around 250 miles and less. Few, if any, HSR trains travel over 300 miles.

 

While the statistics that you've cited are valid, the physical and political landscapes in the world and that in the U.S. are entirely different. Even though the U.S. infrastructure has fallen behind that in many other countries, a transcontinental rail system for the 21st and 22nd Centuries should be our goal. A rail system with amenities and that will be affordable to the masses is why a publicly built and publicly subsidized HSR is the better option for HSR in the U.S.  Everywhere in the world, rail systems are subsidized to some or to a total degree. A HSR viewed only for the 1% faces a financial and public relation hurdles; HSR developed akin to the Interstate System will be viewed by the public in a more favorable way.

 

A great deal is being placed upon speed, and that is important, however, to those for whom speed/time is critical, air service will continue to be the better choice.

 

It is my assertion that In Texas, Dallas, Fort Worth, Central Texas, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, El Paso  Midland will eventually be connected to each other by an intercity rail system as they once were in the past.

[Electricron]

It is my assertion that In Texas, Dallas, Fort Worth, Central Texas, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, El Paso  Midland will eventually be connected to each other by an intercity rail system as they once were in the past.

They already are connected together by rail. Amtrak already services every city quoted above except Midland. You can ride the Texas Eagle or Sunset Limited to reach East Texas, North Texas, West Texas, Central Texas, and Southeast Texas. The one major area of Texas you can't reach by Amtrak is the Panhandle. 

[renamerusk]

 

It is my assertion that In Texas, Dallas, Fort Worth, Central Texas, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, El Paso  Midland will eventually be connected to each other by an intercity rail system as they once were in the past.

They already are connected together by rail. Amtrak already services every city quoted above except Midland. You can ride the Texas Eagle or Sunset Limited to reach East Texas, North Texas, West Texas, Central Texas, and Southeast Texas. The one major area of Texas you can't reach by Amtrak is the Panhandle.

 

Yes, that is true. 

 

What I envision is a time when rail service will be faster than Amtrak by having it own designated ROW.  I am one who would accept frequency and comfort over 200 mph trains.  For this to happen politically, a majority of the state's population centers will need to be involved/included.

[Electricron]

What I envision is a time when rail service will be faster than Amtrak by having it own designated ROW.  I am one who would accept frequency and comfort over 200 mph trains.  For this to happen politically, a majority of the state's population centers will need to be involved/included.

 

Are you aware of the FRA regulations Amtrak or another party must meet to actually go faster than the 79 mph maximum speeds Amtrak does today? 

To keep it simple, to go faster than 79 mph you need cab signals inside the trains cabs - in addition to trackside signals. You also need to meet Class 5 track specifications, which is good up to 90 mph.

To go faster than 90 mph, you need to meet Class 6 track specifications, which is good up to 110 mph.

To go faster than 110 mph, your track corridor must have increase intrusion protection, reinforced crossing gates and strong perimeters, usually accomplished by grade separation the tracks away from everything else although grade separations isn't required at this speed,  You also need to meet Class 7 track specifications, which is good up to 125 mph.

To go faster than 125 mph, full grade separation is required. You also need to meet Class 8 track specifications which is good up to 150 mph and have a stronger car shell and stronger brakes throughout the entire train. 

Every speed step to higher train speeds faces increasing higher costs in capital, maintenance, and operations costs. 

 

Implementing Positive Train Control will result in installing cab signals into every passenger and freight train using that rail corridor. Along with track upgrades - Amtrak's Superliners could achieve maximum speeds of 90 mph. Believe it or not, the UP tracks between Dallas and Longview were refurbished to Class 5 standards, although I believe they are only being maintained at Class 4 standards. Many of the mainline freight rail corridors in our state meet just Class 3 standards, maximum speeds for passenger trains being 60 mph and freight trains being 50 mph. Few freight trains in our state operate at speeds greater than 50 mph, mainly to conserve fuel costs and therefore maximizing profits.  

 

So you are correct that those wishing to experience faster passenger train speeds should be advocating for new dedicated passenger rail corridors not sharing tracks with freight trains. DART has spent close to $6 Billion initiating 65 mph maximum speeds for its light rail trains over less than 100 miles of rail corridor. Admittedly, DART built in an urban and suburban environment where capital costs are higher than in rural areas. But building rail corridor for three times DART's light rail speeds should bring the costs back up to DART's average. If we took DART's average costs per mile, doubling the length of the corridor will cost $12 Billion, at less than 200 miles. It's 250 miles or so to Houston. It's 300 miles or so to San Antonio. It's another 300 miles or so from Houston to San Antonio. Just reaching the three largest metros in Texas would require 850 miles of rail corridor; building the rail triangle Texas could be spending up to nearly $51 Billion.

 

The entire state budget last FY'15 was $108 Billion

Here it was broken down:

Health Care 35%

Education 23%

Pensions 13%

Welfare 8%

Transportation 7%

Other Spending 6%

Protection 4%

General Government 2%

Interests 2%

Source of data: http://www.usgovernm...nding_pie_chart

 

7% of $108 Billion is $7.5 Billion.

If we put the ENTIRE State transportation budget into higher speed rail corridors, how many years would it take to save $51 Billion? Believe it or not, 6.8 years!

[BlueMound]

US, China agree on high speed rail between L.A. and Las Vegas
http://www.bloomberg...before-xi-visit

[Electricron]

US, China agree on high speed rail between L.A. and Las Vegas
http://www.bloomberg...before-xi-visit

XpressWest is a private US company, it certainly isn''t the US government nor the California government, so that headline is slightly misleading.

[renamerusk]

 

US, China agree on high speed rail between L.A. and Las Vegas
http://www.bloomberg...before-xi-visit

XpressWest is a private US company, it certainly isn''t the US government nor the California government, so that headline is slightly misleading.

 

According to some reports, they are using federal land and they will be receiving federal grants along with China's grey-area financing equivalent of our Export/Import Bank.

 

 The point that should not be missed is that HSR is a publicly funded effort, China, Japan and the U.S. not with standing. 

[Dismuke]

 

What I envision is a time when rail service will be faster than Amtrak by having it own designated ROW.  I am one who would accept frequency and comfort over 200 mph trains.  For this to happen politically, a majority of the state's population centers will need to be involved/included.

 

Are you aware of the FRA regulations Amtrak or another party must meet to actually go faster than the 79 mph maximum speeds Amtrak does today? 

To keep it simple, to go faster than 79 mph you need cab signals inside the trains cabs - in addition to trackside signals. You also need to meet Class 5 track specifications, which is good up to 90 mph.

To go faster than 90 mph, you need to meet Class 6 track specifications, which is good up to 110 mph.

To go faster than 110 mph, your track corridor must have increase intrusion protection, reinforced crossing gates and strong perimeters, usually accomplished by grade separation the tracks away from everything else although grade separations isn't required at this speed,  You also need to meet Class 7 track specifications, which is good up to 125 mph.

To go faster than 125 mph, full grade separation is required. You also need to meet Class 8 track specifications which is good up to 150 mph and have a stronger car shell and stronger brakes throughout the entire train. 

Every speed step to higher train speeds faces increasing higher costs in capital, maintenance, and operations costs. 

 

Implementing Positive Train Control will result in installing cab signals into every passenger and freight train using that rail corridor. Along with track upgrades - Amtrak's Superliners could achieve maximum speeds of 90 mph. Believe it or not, the UP tracks between Dallas and Longview were refurbished to Class 5 standards, although I believe they are only being maintained at Class 4 standards. Many of the mainline freight rail corridors in our state meet just Class 3 standards, maximum speeds for passenger trains being 60 mph and freight trains being 50 mph. Few freight trains in our state operate at speeds greater than 50 mph, mainly to conserve fuel costs and therefore maximizing profits.  

 

So you are correct that those wishing to experience faster passenger train speeds should be advocating for new dedicated passenger rail corridors not sharing tracks with freight trains. DART has spent close to $6 Billion initiating 65 mph maximum speeds for its light rail trains over less than 100 miles of rail corridor. Admittedly, DART built in an urban and suburban environment where capital costs are higher than in rural areas. But building rail corridor for three times DART's light rail speeds should bring the costs back up to DART's average. If we took DART's average costs per mile, doubling the length of the corridor will cost $12 Billion, at less than 200 miles. It's 250 miles or so to Houston. It's 300 miles or so to San Antonio. It's another 300 miles or so from Houston to San Antonio. Just reaching the three largest metros in Texas would require 850 miles of rail corridor; building the rail triangle Texas could be spending up to nearly $51 Billion.

 

The entire state budget last FY'15 was $108 Billion

Here it was broken down:

Health Care 35%

Education 23%

Pensions 13%

Welfare 8%

Transportation 7%

Other Spending 6%

Protection 4%

General Government 2%

Interests 2%

Source of data: http://www.usgovernm...nding_pie_chart

 

7% of $108 Billion is $7.5 Billion.

If we put the ENTIRE State transportation budget into higher speed rail corridors, how many years would it take to save $51 Billion? Believe it or not, 6.8 years!

 

 

 

 

Electricron -

 

I enjoyed this posting - and I think that there is a wider point that can be drawn from it beyond just the issue of high speed rail:   It is extremely easy to dream up all sorts of things that would be nice to have.  The devil is always in the details - and, in most cases, the most devilish detail is always where the money is going to come from to make it happen.   People sometimes get angry when one points out such details - they say that the person is being "negative" or is trying to undermine the idea.  But all they are doing is point out the facts of reality.  And if one fails to face the facts of reality - then the idea will never get beyond the dream stage anyway.

[Dismuke]

 

 

To be clear, the point of my question is to point out the difference between Europe and the U.S. in governing/policy implementation. The countries of Europe are governed, by in large, by a "centrally controlled national parliament. Local control is almost non-existent.  In the U.S., the States are free to make decisions at the local level (State/County/City). 

 

Given the design of the American Governmental System, aside from technology, the way that HSR will be implemented will be more in line with the American Way than a European Way.

 

Excellent point! My point is that European nations are sized more alike our states. Historically, HSR works very well for a distance around 250 miles and less. Few, if any, HSR trains travel over 300 miles.

USA West coast line and Intercontinental line city pair examples:

Seattle to Portland = 173 miles (OK)

Portland to Eugene = 111 miles (OK)

Eugene to Sacramento = 474 miles (FAIL)

Sacramento to Oakland = 82 miles (OK)

Oakland to San Jose = 41 miles (OK)

San Jose to Los Angeles = 340 miles (FAIL)

Los Angeles to San Diego = 120 miles (OK)

 

Sacramento to Salt Lake City = 649 miles (FAIL)

Salt Lake City to Denver = 536 miles (FAIL)

Denver to Kansas City = 605 miles (FAIL) 

Kansas City to St, Louis = 248 miles (OK)

St. Louis to Chicago = 297 miles (FAIL)

Chicago to Cleveland = 345 miles (FAIL)

Cleveland to Pittsburgh = 132 miles (OK)

Pittsburgh to Philadelphia = 304 miles (FAIL)

Philadelphia to New York City = 97 miles (OK)

New York City to Boston = 214 miles (OK)

 

Let's look at cities in every direction from Dallas

Dallas to Houston = 239 miles (OK)

Dallas to Shreveport = 190 miles (OK)

Dallas to Little Rock = 319 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to Tulsa = 257 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to Oklahoma City = 205 miles (OK)

Dallas to Amarillo = 360 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to Lubbock = 323 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to El Paso = 631 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to Austin = 190 miles (OK)

Dallas to San Antonio = 275 miles (FAIL)

Dallas to Victoria = 297 miles (FAIL)

 

Just wanted to point out that lines stretching across the country, north to south and east to west, have difficulties stringing large city-pairs together. America should look at HSR much like Japanese and Europeans have, connecting city-pairs 250 miles apart or less. More akin to a regional train than a cross country intercontinental  train. 

 

 

 

But there is another factor that must also be added in to the equation: How much demand is there going to be between the two cities?  Without enough demand, if such a line manages to get built in the first place, the overall net economic impact it would have would be negative, not positive.

 

And to determine demand, we must first define what it is - i.e., the target customers whose patronage is critical to its success.

 

I would maintain that the target customers of such an endeavor in most regions of the United States is different than it is in Europe.

 

The primary target customer in this part of the country for the sort of regional high speed rail you have described would be business people whose time has a high dollar value - people for whom time spent in transit imposes a high cost in terms of lost productivity.   These are mostly people who would want to travel to the other city and back within the same day.

 

I would guess that there are a great many such people who are required to travel between Houston and Dallas on a regular basis.   But how many such people need to travel between Dallas and Shreveport?  I am sure there are some - but is it enough to justify the considerable expense of building and operating such a line?  Shreveport is just not that economically vibrant when compared to cities such as Dallas and Houston.

 

Of course, there will be users beyond business people.  The problem, however, is that such a line does not have the same competitive advantage verses other modes of getting there that it does for high end business travel.

 

The other critical difference between Europe and the United States is, when people step off a train in most parts of Europe, they are immediately able to get wherever they want to go without the need to rent a car.  There are many places in Europe where people get around and live their entire lives without owning a car.  That is not the case with the exception of a very small number of USA cities - none of them anywhere close to this part of the country.   

 

Step off a train station in Houston or Dallas, unless your destination just so happens to be near the station or on transit line connecting to the station, you are going to need to rent a car unless someone is picking you up or you are willing to pay for a taxi.  For someone whose time is worth a lot of money, paying for a cab or for the cost of someone on the other end to make a pick up is not a big deal.  But for most leisure travelers and even many business travelers that is not a practical option.

 

In this part of the country high speed rail would have two primary competitors:  airlines with frequent regional flights such as Southwest and simply getting into one's own car and making the trip.   The primary  advantage high speed rail has is speed plus the fact that one does not have to personally contend with the task and stress of driving.

 

But keep in mind that the time advantage of high speed rail or air travel can be significantly undercut by the commute time one has to make getting to the train station or airport.  If you are having to fight rush hour traffic to get to the station and go though the hassle of parking your car plus any hassles you might have on the other end of renting a car or waiting for someone to pick you up - you might end up eating up a significant portion of the time saved verses simply getting on the Interstate and making the drive.

 

Plus I am not convinced that, in the end, high speed rail will save all that much time over commuter flights.  The big time hassle in flying is finding parking plus all of the security protocols.  But there will be similar parking hassles if lots of people use the train.  And if lots of people are using high speed rail - such a train is actually a higher security risk in terms of ease of launching a terrorist attack than is an airplane. If there are attacks on trains, one can almost certainly expect similar delays at train stations as we currently have at airports.

 

On top of all of that, even under the best of circumstances, if you are catching a train or a plane you are going to want to leave and be there early just in case something comes up along the way - otherwise you risk an even greater loss of time having to wait for the next departure.   That also eats into the time savings of simply making the drive yourself.

 

And all I have mentioned so far is the comparative advantages for those who don't consider fare price to be the major factor.   But for those who do, it is hard to imagine that the airlines will just roll over and let a train take away market share. You can count on Southwest and other airlines to aggressively compete on price.  And, in terms of absolute price advantage, if one owns a car, the cost of driving to and from Dallas and Houston is something under two tanks of gas plus mileage depreciation if one plans on eventually selling the car.  That is almost always going to be more cost effective than the combined price of a plane/train ticket plus rental car on the other end.   And, if mileage depreciation on your vehicle is high, the cheapest way would be to just rent a car here and drive down as most rentals these days have unlimited miles.

 

The only way that high speed rail can compete and attract customers verses other forms of transportation is some combination of time savings, price and convenience.

 

I have a difficult time seeing how high speed rail can be competitive enough in this part of the country verses air and car to make the cost of construction and ongoing operations an economic positive rather than an economic sinkhole - either for a private endeavor risking its own capital or through the use of compulsion to force the rest of us to pay for it.   But, certainly, if there is a chance for it to be viable here, I think Dallas and Houston would certainly be the most logical route.

 

Europe is an entirely different story.  There one has major centers of population, industry, commerce and government within a relatively close geographical proximity.  Plus, in Europe, because one is able to get around most cities from the moment one steps out of the train station, unlike here,  train travel is practical for large numbers of people. And, because many Europeans do not own cars, they do not even have the option of making the drive themselves.  Being able to appeal to a larger portion of the population provides critical mass necessary to spread costs across a wider user base - and thus makes high speed rail economical.

 

We have the potential for something like that here in the Boston to DC corridor.  But where else?  I can't think of any other examples  The large commercial and population centers in Texas definitely give us the geographical proximity portion of the equation.   But, for the vast majority of travelers, getting around once one arrives without an automobile on the other end ranges from impractical to impossible.  If I have a business meeting in booming northern areas of Houston such as Spring or The Woodlands, does it make sense for me to fight traffic to get to and park at the train station in Dallas and then obtain a car and fight traffic to commute from the train station in Houston to where my meeting is - and, afterwards, fight Houston traffic in the other direction to get back to the station?   At least by driving, you can leave directly from your home or office and arrive directly at your destination without any stops other than perhaps a gas/snack/potty break.

 

This is a subject I would prefer to be wrong on.  I personally hate flying - so a high speed rail option is something I would appreciate.  Heck, I would even appreciate plain old AMTRAK if it's timetables weren't such a joke.   In the end, however, one has to deal with reality - and I suspect that, when all the facts of reality have their say, high speed rail in this part of the country will end up being mostly wishful thinking or, if it ends up being built,  will result in the net destruction rather than net creation of economic value.

[Electricron]

If a Fort Worth stop makes no sense. Than a Arlington stop seems even more less likely. But I see it this way. The real goal is to link coast to coast. Just like in the train system 1800s.

If you had studied the building of the railroads in America, you should have discovered they were built city to city. Vanderbilt and other railroad tycoons consolidated many railroads into larger ones. That's how HSR should be built in America today.

If the real goal is to connect the east coast to the west coast, we're going to be wasting most of our money. Today it takes three nights and four days on two different trains to travel that far. Jet airliners take less than 6 hours to fly that far. A HSR train averaging 150 mph would take 19 hours to travel the 2750 miles between LA and NYC. While a significant improvement over today's trains by taking one third less time, but still a poor loser to flying because flying will remain three times faster.

HSR will only be worthwhile if it can attract businessmen and women, who consider time as money. Business is important because they travel on weekdays as well as on weekends, and those that do travel do so frequently. Being 12 hours slower, in their mind of $50 per hour at a minimum, is wasting $600. They would also consider losing another $600 on the return trip. The distances are too far for there will ever be a worthwhile cross the entire country HSR line. To be competitive with flying, the first rain will have to average 450 mph, about 100 mph lower than jetliner speeds.

[renamerusk]

 

HSR will only be worthwhile if it can attract businessmen and women, who consider time as money.....

 

See, fundamentally, I can not agree with that approach and would predict that the approach you favor will not be supported by the public. 

 

HSR can not be successful if it is viewed to be mainly a perk for the 1% or as a luxury liner.

[fortworthhorn]

 

 

HSR will only be worthwhile if it can attract businessmen and women, who consider time as money.....

 

See, fundamentally, I  predict that the approach you favor will not be supported by the public.  HSR can not be successful if it is view as mainly a perk for the 1% or as a luxury liner.

 

I think both of your points have merit. 

[RD Milhollin]

I would suggest that a third justification for HSR, or any well-built passenger rail, to be built from coastal areas to inland, upland areas would be to transport coastal dwellers from out of the path of tropical storms to higher grounds. There are no realistically effective plans being drawn or in place to protect coastal cities from big storms and expected flooding, and roadways get jammed, like out of Houston when Ike was on the way and from New Orleans when Katrina bore down. These storms are going to happen again, and FEMA should be looking to (and helping fund) means to move large numbers of people out of harms way when coastal disasters loom.

 

Lines from Houston to Dallas, Corpus Christi to San Antonio, New Orleans to Shreveport and Jackson, Mobile to Jackson and Birmingham, Miami / Fort Lauderdale / Tampa / Jacksonville to Atlanta, Savanna to Atlanta, etc. should qualify for some contribution from an emergency relief preparedness standpoint.

[Electricron]

See, fundamentally, I can not agree with that approach and would predict that the approach you favor will not be supported by the public. 

 

HSR can not be successful if it is viewed to be mainly a perk for the 1% or as a luxury liner.

 

The public in general, including the poor, can't afford season tickets to Cowboys, Mavericks, Rangers, and Stars games, yet every team succeeded in getting a city to help finance their new arenas and stadiums. The middle class can afford going to a game or two every year, and the poor sit at home or in a restaurant and watch the games on TV.  It's the very rich who buy the season tickets and suites where the teams makes most of their money additional to TV revenues. 

Central Texas isn't asking for public money to pay to build their corridor and trains, they're depending upon privately generated ticket fares and leases from the TODs they are planning to  build besides their stations. If they can compete with fare prices and elapse time with the airlines, they will win market share from the airlines. Even businessmen look for deals. If the poor can't afford to ride on their trains, there will be cheaper options available to them that will take much longer to get to their destinations.

They don't need everyone to ride their trains, what they need are enough passengers willing to pay a high enough fare so they can operate the trains at a profit.

 

Of course, about the time this train enters service, you should expect the airlines to drop their fares between Dallas and Houston to discourage their steady customers from trying the train. Hopefully the few who do ride it will report to those sitting on the fence how great their experience was. Then their market share will increase month by month.

 

Here's a recent video made 9 months ago in Japan with English speakers within the interior of a Shinkansen Nozimi N700 train Central Texas plans to use. It's less than 7 minutes long. Take the time to watch it....

 

[renamerusk]

(1) - The public in general, including the poor, can't afford season tickets to Cowboys, Mavericks, Rangers, and Stars games, yet every team succeeded in getting a city to help finance their new arenas and stadiums. The middle class can afford going to a game or two every year, and the poor sit at home or in a restaurant and watch the games on TV.  It's the very rich who buy the season tickets and suites where the teams makes most of their money additional to TV revenues. 
 

(2) - Central Texas isn't asking for public money to pay to build their corridor and trains, they're depending upon privately generated ticket fares and leases from the TODs they are planning to  build besides their stations......They don't need everyone to ride their trains, what they need are enough passengers willing to pay a high enough fare so they can operate the trains at a profit.

 

Reminder; there is a thread "Texas Central Railway" designated to the efforts of a privately developed HSR.  "High Speed Rail - Texas" looks at the prospects of a publicly developed project.  Keeping the two separate prevents is a way to discourage conflating the two.  It also keeps the focus on what is the prospect used time and time again globally. 

 

So to a couple of points that have been raised.  Sorry, but your premises are seriously flawed.

 

1. Professional sports are subsidized in a number of essential ways: Stadiums, personnel, security, use of  

    eminent domain, tax loopholes, etc.  

 

2. The notion that HSR can be developed and operated with 100% privately funding is a fallacy for all the

     reasons that follow:

 

    http://www.frontierg...private-or-both

[Electricron]

Reminder; there is a thread "Texas Central Railway" designated to the efforts of a privately developed HSR.  "High Speed Rail - Texas" looks at the prospects of a publicly developed project.  Keeping the two separate prevents is a way to discourage conflating the two.  It also keeps the focus on what is the prospect used time and time again globally. 

 

So to a couple of points that have been raised.  Sorry, but your premises are seriously flawed.

 

1. Professional sports are subsidized in a number of essential ways: Stadiums, personnel, security, use of  

    eminent domain, tax loopholes, etc.  

 

2. The notion that HSR can be developed and operated with 100% privately funding is a fallacy for all the

     reasons that follow:

 

    http://www.frontierg...private-or-both

 

 

Three major Japenese HSR lrailway companies are operated by private publicly traded companies today, and all three do so at a profit!. 

 

Read these Wiki articles:

JR East https://en.wikipedia...Railway_Company

Profits = ¥175,384 million(FY 2013) 

Ridership = 6.169 billion per year

JR Central https://en.wikipedia...Railway_Company

Profits = ¥133,807 million (2011)

Ridership =  528 million per year

JR West https://en.wikipedia...Railway_Company

Profits = ¥60,198 million (FY 2013)

Ridership = 1.778 billion per year

 

Note: Amtrak ridership nationally is around 31 million per year; many, many times less than either of these three Japanese companies. 

 

Admitting, most of Japan's railroad companies do not earn a profit, including the freight railroad companies.  But the three largest companies with HSR trains do earn a profit. KI haven't invented this data out of thin air! 

 

FYI = ¥120.2 to $1 is the conversion rate

[RD Milhollin]

It looks like the ideas for the connecting "High Speed Rail" route between Dallas and Fort Worth are getting more convoluted and further away from HSR:

 

http://www.nbcdfw.co...partner=nbcnews

[Austin55]

3 stations in one metro is just to many. And with DART's Orange line and TexRail why do they need an airport connection?

[fortworthhorn]

3 stations in one metro is just to many. And with DART's Orange line and TexRail why do they need an airport connection?

Lot of cooks in the kitchen.  A lot of special interest groups.  My uneducated read is that HSR to Tarrant is either unlikely or they are pessimistic about it so this is the backup.

[renamerusk]

It looks like the ideas for the connecting "High Speed Rail" route between Dallas and Fort Worth are getting more convoluted and further away from HSR:

 

 Convince me that 125MPH is not fast.  I become uncomfortable when exceeding 80 MPH.

 

I too question the need for a stop at DFW Airport.

[JBB]

125 mph is faster than highway speeds but significantly slower than air travel and well below the capacity of the equipment. Why invest in equipment with capabilities that you won't be using?

[renamerusk]

125 mph is faster than highway speeds but significantly slower than air travel and well below the capacity of the equipment. Why invest in equipment with capabilities that you won't be using?

 

Okay, but are you always flying at top altitude and top speed during air travel?

[JBB]

Fair enough, but a plane also doesn't make 2 stops in the first or last 30 miles of the 60 minute flight to Houston.

[360texas]

Austin55 : about comment about putting a train station at DFW.

 

Many world airports have train connection stations.  I am sure you could look up the number of air passengers whose final destination is DFW.  Those folks could use a connector train/  at a fair price to get near their metroplex home.

 

While at Frankfurt Germany it was easy to get off the plane walk down 2 flights of stairs to the train station where I got on a train to the down town Haupbaunhof.  Then from there took typical street trolly car to the hotel stop.  All with in 45 minutes and about Euro €4.50 or $5.00 .

 

I would imagine it costs about $45 to $80 (ride-n-fly common van or private exec service ) in less than an hour to get to DFW.

[JBB]

Thinking about HSR as a local transit option is why I have little confidence in it ever working here. No city will be happy or supportive without their own stop.

The existing and planned commuter and light rail options are what those folks at the airport should be using to get to their metro area home at a fair price. Trying to make HSR a whole new network instead of an extension of the existing network is wasteful and a recipe for failure.

[Electricron]

The NCTCOG planners  planning the HSR line between Dallas and Fort Worth are looking at using I-30 TXDOT ROW, which is around 10 miles south of DFW's air terminals. Golly, the TRE ROW is 5 miles south of DFW's air terminals, and by all accounts service DFW poorly. 

No one is looking at using SH114 ROW for HSR, yet we keep reading that any HSR line between Dallas and Fort Worth must service DFW.  WHY?

[renamerusk]

Thinking about HSR as a local transit option is why I have little confidence in it ever working here.....

 

If HSR is being thought of as a local option, then that is an idea that has escaped my attention. 

 

But then, the easiest way to discourage that from becoming an viable option is through pricing.  Very few commuters will be prepared to pay $50 or more each way just to get to and from work.

[Dylan]

Whoever is in charge of this project is forgetting the difference between HSR and commuter / light rail.

 

This should be treated as a Fort Worth to Houston line, not a local commuter line.

[Dylan]

Austin55 : about comment about putting a train station at DFW.

 

Many world airports have train connection stations.  I am sure you could look up the number of air passengers whose final destination is DFW.  Those folks could use a connector train/  at a fair price to get near their metroplex home.

 

While at Frankfurt Germany it was easy to get off the plane walk down 2 flights of stairs to the train station where I got on a train to the down town Haupbaunhof.  Then from there took typical street trolly car to the hotel stop.  All with in 45 minutes and about Euro €4.50 or $5.00 .

 

I would imagine it costs about $45 to $80 (ride-n-fly common van or private exec service ) in less than an hour to get to DFW.

 

Yes, I agree every major city should have a rail line to their airport.

 

DFW Airport is currently served by the Orange Line to Dallas, and hopefully TEX Rail to Fort Worth in the future.

 

The Orange Line is light rail, and TEX Rail will be commuter rail. However, HSR is a completely different type of rail line that serves a completely different purpose. HSR is much more expensive, and is intended for travel over long distances (think Fort Worth to Houston). HSR works best with few stops and few curves. For travel between suburb or airport and city, light rail and commuter rail are more appropriate.

[360texas]

I agree HSR and local light rail and TEX rail.  Rail should serve peoples needs.  I would not think of DFW airport as a final destination but rather as a major connection point to other types of transportation and destinations.

 

All 3 transport methods have at least 3 common elements in the form of Connectivity:

People, transport method and where the people go AFTER they get to their destination.

If you don't provide for peoples needs the ridership (the paying public) rail will not be effective.  No cash flow... caused by ineffective design and planning.

 

Of course then there always will be other transport methods Car, the bus and Airplanes.

 

But then you already knew this.  However, the concept of overall "People" connectivity seems to have gotten lost in the mix.

[Russ Graham]

Here's the Dallas Observer on the proposed FW-Dallas HSR:

http://www.dallasobs...-dumber-7636035

 

The last sentence sums it up very well:

 

 

It seems like officials could make Dallas-to-Fort Worth rail a more attractive transportation option — maybe by increasing frequency and adding express routes on the TRE — without spending $4 billion on wannabe high-speed rail.

[renamerusk]

From the beginning, I have viewed HSR in Texas as being a part of a state and regional network.

 

If the premise is that HSR is Dallas to Houston and nothing more,  then you necessarily have a narrower perspective; you also have a project that is limited to only two terminals, limited in growth potential and much easier for competitors to derail.

 

View it this way.  Dallas to Fort Worth.

 

Why? Because Fort Worth is crucial to a statewide system and a regional system.

 

Why? Logistics.

 

The only way that Dallas is tied into a statewide and regional system is via Fort Worth; without Fort Worth as the gateway, you don't have a broader and more viable HSR project that will connect to West Texas (El Paso) or to South Texas (Austin, Houston, San Antonio) and Mexico.  Without Fort Worth, you are increasing the costs to connect to Oklahoma as oppose to going through Tarrant County.

 

So for me, chatter about not needing a FW/D HSR connection actually means that Dallas could potential be cut off from a three jurisdictional network.

 

If pinning hope on a two-terminal HSR is the discussion of the day, then by all mean,  go ahead and eliminate the need for a HSR connection to Dallas from Fort Worth. My intuition tells me that the two-terminal option is doomed for eventual failure.

[360texas]

Cross-Link to another thread on similar subject

 

http://www.fortworth...?showtopic=5703

[Electricron]

From the beginning, I have viewed HSR in Texas as being a part of a state and regional network.

 

If the premise is that HSR is Dallas to Houston and nothing more,  then you necessarily have a narrower perspective; you also have a project that is limited to only two terminals, limited in growth potential and much easier for competitors to derail.

 

View it this way.  Dallas to Fort Worth.

 

Why? Because Fort Worth is crucial to a statewide system and a regional system.

 

Why? Logistics.

 

The only way that Dallas is tied into a statewide and regional system is via Fort Worth; without Fort Worth as the gateway, you don't have a broader and more viable HSR project that will connect to West Texas (El Paso) or to South Texas (Austin, Houston, San Antonio) and Mexico.  Without Fort Worth, you are increasing the costs to connect to Oklahoma as oppose to going through Tarrant County.

 

So for me, chatter about not needing a FW/D HSR connection actually means that Dallas could potential be cut off from a three jurisdictional network.

 

If pinning hope on a two-terminal HSR is the discussion of the day, then by all mean,  go ahead and eliminate the need for a HSR connection to Dallas from Fort Worth. My intuition tells me that the two-terminal option is doomed for eventual failure.

You're assuming a HSR network must go through Fort Worth, which I would like to point out isn't 100% fact.

Let's assume Texas Central builds it's 200 mph HSR line between Dallas and Houston, then later decides to expand to Austin and San Antonio with 200 mph HSR.  I strongly suggest it would be far cheaper for them to follow another utility  corridor branching from the existing HSR line than initiate a new HSR line from downtown Fort Worth. Remember the old T-Bone designs! 

 

The entire FY State of Texas budget is around $110 Billion - TXDOT sees around $8 Billion per year. There's no way TXDOT or the State can afford to build a $10 Billion HSR network within the existing tax structure.

Stop suggesting the State or TXDOT will somehow suddenly find money growing on trees to build and operate a HSR network.   

[renamerusk]

(1) - You're assuming a HSR network must go through Fort Worth, which I would like to point out isn't 100% fact.

 

(2) - Let's assume Texas Central builds it's 200 mph HSR line between Dallas and Houston....

 

(3) - Stop suggesting the State or TXDOT will somehow suddenly find money growing on trees to build and operate a HSR network.   

 

 

1. Yes. If not 100%, then 95%. Hardly anything of importance will happen in North Texas without involving Fort Worth; and it takes someone who is seriously lacking of reality to suggest otherwise. Oh the many failed attempts by those who would dish Fort Worth.  The Texas Commission for HSR is chaired and controlled by a Fort Worth contingent. European (French/German) who met in Fort Worth are already in preliminary discussion to provide technical and managerial expertise to OK/TX/MEX HSR. And planning and an EIS is already underway to enable Dallas to connect to Fort Worth; which is the precise way to look at it when developing a regional system involving two states and a foreign country.  To go directly to or from Oklahoma,or  Austin-Houston, or San Antonio/Monterrey, MEX., the route that seamlessly connects any of these destinations runs through Fort Worth. I would ask you to dispute that fact by proving that it must not go through Fort Worth to accomplish effectiveness.

 

2. Quit assuming that Texas Central is HSR in Texas; it is not! If it were, then there would not have been a need to establish Texas Commission for HSR. Put plainly,  TCR does not belong in this thread.  TCR has always been a PR project hoping to eventually be bailed out by the public and to assume managerial rights for the public funded system.  I feel confident in saying that to assume that TCR will be able to survive competitively, and to then be able to expand a network is a fool's assumption.  The creation of a State Commission for HSR tells you all that you need to know about the prospects of TCR.

 

3. The States of Texas and Oklahoma, the Republic of Mexico and DOT-US will provide both the initial funding and even more importantly, the credibility for HSR Southwest/Mexico; and this in turn shall provide investors with the confidence needed to increase further investment towards the development of a public project.   

[Electricron]

3. The States of Texas and Oklahoma, the Republic of Mexico and DOT-US will provide both the initial funding and even more importantly, the credibility for HSR Southwest/Mexico; and this in turn shall provide investors with the confidence needed to increase further investment towards the development of a public project.   

 

Where is the State going to find the money to build your higher speed rail? Last fiscal year the State of Texas entire budget was less than $110 Billion, TXDOT's budget was around $8 Billion. Almost all of TXDOT's budget was spent on maintenance - little was spent on new highways. That's why almost all the new lanes on all the freeways within the state have tolls. 

[renamerusk]

Where is the State going to find the money to build your higher speed rail? Last fiscal year the State of Texas entire budget was less than $110 Billion, TXDOT's budget was around $8 Billion. Almost all of TXDOT's budget was spent on maintenance - little was spent on new highways. That's why almost all the new lanes on all the freeways within the state have tolls.

 

With points #1 and #2 apparently  unchallenged, point #3 (post#140) is an easy hurdle.

Sovereign investment (China/Euro) is eager to partner with the U.S. and the various states in a joint effort to build and administer HSR in the U.S.  One example that is already underway is the China+U.S.+CA(LA)+NV(LV) HSR project.  This HSR is scheduled to be in operations within 5 years or less.  China, France and Germany want to export their product to the U.S. and are willing to invest here.

Texas, Oklahoma, Mexico and the U.S. will and have already began to replicate the LA to LV model.  The French have shown a strong interest in becoming a partner with TX Commission for HSR.  My assumption is that the French have also been working with Oklahoma and Mexico as well.

When it comes to the U.S. and the various states finding money for infrastructure, that is and has always been a political issue and not a monetary issue.  Eventually, the self-inflicting  politics will dissolve and the country can began to rebuild and upgrade its aging infrastructure.  The economy, to be competitive globally,  will demand it.  I seriously do not expect that the U.S. will or can continue to ignore 21st century modes of transportation.  
 

[Electricron]

Sovereign investment (China/Euro) is eager to partner with the U.S. and the various states in a joint effort to build and administer HSR in the U.S.  One example that is already underway is the China+U.S.+CA(LA)+NV(LV) HSR project.  This HSR is scheduled to be in operations within 5 years or less.  China, France and Germany want to export their product to the U.S. and are willing to invest here.

Texas, Oklahoma, Mexico and the U.S. will and have already began to replicate the LA to LV model.  The French have shown a strong interest in becoming a partner with TX Commission for HSR.  My assumption is that the French have also been working with Oklahoma and Mexico as well.

The French TGV people failed back in the 1990s to implement HSR. The sticking point that cause its failure was the lack of State support to fund even one penny into the project, or back one penny of private bonds. Texas isn't willing to partner with anyone to build HSR if it involves $Billions of state funding. 

 

Golly, look at the trouble Texas Central is receiving even though it is being privately financed. As soon as state financing is included, these projects are going to fail. 

 

Today, the NCTCOG planners are suggesting train speeds approaching 150 to 160 mph between Dallas and Fort Worth on its HSR extension.

 

Here's some math:

it's around 34 miles between downtown Dallas and downtown Fort Worth. A train averaging 150 mph could travel that far in less than 14 minutes.

 

It takes 3 minutes to accelerate to max speed, and 6 minutes to decelerate to a stop. That's 9 minutes of the 14 minutes spent accelerating and decelerating, only leaving 5 minutes or so at maximum speed. Add one station in Arlington or DFW airport, that train can't ever achieve its maximum speed.

 

Sometimes I get the awful opinion that the NCTCOG planners don't have the slightest idea about what the are advocating. Apparently, they're down to two routes in their study, one that follows the TRE corridor the entire way, and the second that follows the UP tracks west of downtown Dallas, then turns north at SH 360, before turning west again following the TRE corridor.

 

What happen to the potential route following I-30 all the way?

What happen to the potential route following the UP corridor all the way?  

Could the answer be what I suggested months ago, interference at the major freeway intersections with their flyovers? Especially entering downtown Fort Worth from either the UP or I-30 corridors? Apparently the only acceptable routes in play entering downtown Fort Worth today is using the TRE corridor. 

 

The further along this study has proceeded, the routing I've suggested all along is becoming the obvious choice, using the existing TRE corridor the entire way.  With that conclusion, what's so wrong with continuing to use the TRE trains as is between downtown Dallas and Fort Worth?

[renamerusk]

(1) - The French TGV people failed back in the 1990s to implement HSR. The sticking point that cause its failure was the lack of State support to fund even one penny into the project, or back one penny of private bonds. Texas isn't willing to partner with anyone to build HSR if it involves $Billions of state funding. 

 

(2) - The further along this study has proceeded, the routing I've suggested all along is becoming the obvious choice, using the existing TRE corridor the entire way.  With that conclusion, what's so wrong with continuing to use the TRE trains as is between downtown Dallas and Fort Worth?

 

 1. You are correct, if Texas continues to remain unwilling to modernize as other states (CA, NV, FL) do. You do realize that the failure of TX to move forward will not prevent others from doing so and becoming partners with Sovereign/Fed investment to first build and then administrate HSR in the U.S.

 

 2. You are incorrect, if with the TRE premise you think it will be a popular substitution for HSR, then it is a non starter in Tarrant County.  The idea also lacks a sophisticated understanding of facts. However there is nothing wrong if Dallas settles for TRE, as it is, as that city's means of connecting to the OK-TX-MEX HSR system's mainline corridor OKC-FTW-AUS-SAN-MON; but of course, that is a decision to be made by Dallas; and I would think that would be unpopular.

 

Fort Worth/Arlington have been rather clear about what they want - HSR - and how it ought to be achieved.

[Dylan]

 

Sovereign investment (China/Euro) is eager to partner with the U.S. and the various states in a joint effort to build and administer HSR in the U.S.  One example that is already underway is the China+U.S.+CA(LA)+NV(LV) HSR project.  This HSR is scheduled to be in operations within 5 years or less.  China, France and Germany want to export their product to the U.S. and are willing to invest here.

Texas, Oklahoma, Mexico and the U.S. will and have already began to replicate the LA to LV model.  The French have shown a strong interest in becoming a partner with TX Commission for HSR.  My assumption is that the French have also been working with Oklahoma and Mexico as well.

The French TGV people failed back in the 1990s to implement HSR. The sticking point that cause its failure was the lack of State support to fund even one penny into the project, or back one penny of private bonds. Texas isn't willing to partner with anyone to build HSR if it involves $Billions of state funding. 

 

Golly, look at the trouble Texas Central is receiving even though it is being privately financed. As soon as state financing is included, these projects are going to fail. 

 

Today, the NCTCOG planners are suggesting train speeds approaching 150 to 160 mph between Dallas and Fort Worth on its HSR extension.

 

Here's some math:

it's around 34 miles between downtown Dallas and downtown Fort Worth. A train averaging 150 mph could travel that far in less than 14 minutes.

 

It takes 3 minutes to accelerate to max speed, and 6 minutes to decelerate to a stop. That's 9 minutes of the 14 minutes spent accelerating and decelerating, only leaving 5 minutes or so at maximum speed. Add one station in Arlington or DFW airport, that train can't ever achieve its maximum speed.

 

Sometimes I get the awful opinion that the NCTCOG planners don't have the slightest idea about what the are advocating. Apparently, they're down to two routes in their study, one that follows the TRE corridor the entire way, and the second that follows the UP tracks west of downtown Dallas, then turns north at SH 360, before turning west again following the TRE corridor.

 

What happen to the potential route following I-30 all the way?

What happen to the potential route following the UP corridor all the way?  

Could the answer be what I suggested months ago, interference at the major freeway intersections with their flyovers? Especially entering downtown Fort Worth from either the UP or I-30 corridors? Apparently the only acceptable routes in play entering downtown Fort Worth today is using the TRE corridor. 

 

The further along this study has proceeded, the routing I've suggested all along is becoming the obvious choice, using the existing TRE corridor the entire way.  With that conclusion, what's so wrong with continuing to use the TRE trains as is between downtown Dallas and Fort Worth?

 

 

The original goal was to have a HSR train from Fort Worth to Houston without having to transfer in Dallas.

 

As more time passes, that appears to be less and less likely to happen.

 

Might as well beef up the TRE if you're going to build a line that requires transferring in Dallas.

[renamerusk]

Where is the State going to find the money to build your higher speed rail? Last fiscal year the State of Texas entire budget was less than $110 Billion, TXDOT's budget was around $8 Billion. Almost all of TXDOT's budget was spent on maintenance - little was spent on new highways. That's why almost all the new lanes on all the freeways within the state have tolls.

 

 This is an excellent illustration of how the States can find the money to build their HSR -  "Sovereign Investor(s) - China"

 

They are one big Banker!

 

http://www.euronews....-nuclear-plant/

[360texas]

DFW Land Use Plan (using Aerial photo dated January 2014).  Click the map to zoom in to read the tiny print.

Of particular note HIGH SPEED RAIL black line starting at South end DFW adjacent to the Soil Stock Pile area.  Appears that HIGH SPEED RAIL is in their Land Use Plan through Jan 2014

 

Forum link:

http://www.fortworth...ge=2#entry94517

 

DFW Land Use Map link

 

https://www.dfwairpo...t/p2_139331.jpg

[RD Milhollin]

Channel 5 NBC has a short segment on the HSR system being shopped by the Texas Central Partners for their Dallas - Houston line:

 

http://www.nbcdfw.co...partner=nbcnews

 

Another segment tomorrow will look at problems the project faces. 

[Dylan]

I plan on watching.

[BlueMound]

China continues building pan asian high speed railway network
http://nextbigfuture...n-high.html?m=1