DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004 From: Chicago, IL Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: corysub I think the construction of high speed rail would be a fantastic project for the country. It could be built right on top of the existing Amtrak roadbed so that survey and clearances should be able to be accomplished quite easily. Europe moves on their rail system and, for selfish reasons, I would start in the Northeast..and connect Boston to Washington first...than put in links to Chicago, Atalanta and Miami. At the same time a MHD rail line could be started on the West Coast linking Seattle with Los Angeles...than a spur out through Arizona Texas and Louisana. Eventually all the lines..east and west coast could meet as they did when the first transcontinental rail line was completed. You would be able travel from the center of each city to the center of your destination city...not have to drive miles to the airport, and miles back to the city when you arrive..etc edited: Didn't see the thread on high speed rail. High speed rail cannot be built on existing roadbed. High speed rail roadbeds must have as little grade and as straight a path as possible. When turns are unavoidable they are long gradual banked turns so as to lose as little speed as possible. Existing roadbed is also in pretty heavy use in most places and isn't built for the sorts of stresses a 180 mph train would cause. Last time I saw anything on using existing roadbeds a high speed train between Chicago and St. Louis, one of the better choices for a demonstration project, would be limited to an average speed of about 60 mph, peak was 90 IIRC, and would seriously disrupt existing commercial uses of that roadbed. Of course building new track requires aquiring, probably by condemnation, these long straight paths and then building as near zero grade roadbeds as possible which turns out to be enormously expensive.
|