daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 21st, 2010, 05:57 AM   #1301
strong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 22
Likes (Received): 0

You might be right in speaking of patent thing. I am thinking about if japanese car makers ever paid to USA a dime patent as japanese stole american automobile tech decades ago.
Btw, can anyone tell me if toyota owns sudden acceleration gas pedal patent? If not, has it paid for such pedal patent fee?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
I have doubts since I do not believe any of the HSR forerunners would have transferred sensitive technology like on-board signaling system to PRC without a catch within the contract.
This system is built-in to the tracks so whoever wins the bid requires the necessary patents and/or pay fee to the actual patent owner to install them.
strong no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 21st, 2010, 06:22 AM   #1302
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

You may not see it but there is a huge relationship. Since China is the largest market right now and foreseeable future, it has a significant leverage. That simple. They are also not selling it for free. Don't worry China has paid for the technology too As I wrote if you want to sell your trains to China you have to give the technology. This is clear since they have started to build trains (both Siemens and Kawasaki models) in China and stated that they are going to upgrade (already upgraded Kawasaki model- base model cannot run at 350km/h) these trains. It is clear future models will be based on technology from these trains and no one can stop China to sell these trains to other countries. Not immediately but in ten years, I am sure we will see some Chinese high speed trains in international market.

For Siemens and Kawasaki, it was a deal. They have been earning billions of dollars.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2010, 09:04 AM   #1303
dl3000
Registered User
 
dl3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by strong View Post
You might be right in speaking of patent thing. I am thinking about if japanese car makers ever paid to USA a dime patent as japanese stole american automobile tech decades ago.
Btw, can anyone tell me if toyota owns sudden acceleration gas pedal patent? If not, has it paid for such pedal patent fee?
Japan didn't steal, the US gave the patents especially in early electronics. It's diplomacy like the Marshall Plan, you don't expect money back but you get something less tangible instead, loyalty.
__________________
"San Diego...drink it in, it always goes down smooth" - Ron Burgundy
dl3000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2010, 10:08 AM   #1304
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
You may not see it but there is a huge relationship. Since China is the largest market right now and foreseeable future, it has a significant leverage. That simple. They are also not selling it for free. Don't worry China has paid for the technology too As I wrote if you want to sell your trains to China you have to give the technology. This is clear since they have started to build trains (both Siemens and Kawasaki models) in China and stated that they are going to upgrade (already upgraded Kawasaki model- base model cannot run at 350km/h) these trains. It is clear future models will be based on technology from these trains and no one can stop China to sell these trains to other countries. Not immediately but in ten years, I am sure we will see some Chinese high speed trains in international market.

For Siemens and Kawasaki, it was a deal. They have been earning billions of dollars.
Still don't make any sense, patents are not sold they're usually lent with limitations.
As for the 350Km, it's a little known fact but JR group caps a 25% allowance on top of it's commercial top speed for safety so 280X125%=350 meaning PRC is just pushing the E2 to it's design limits.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2010, 04:51 PM   #1305
Restless
Registered User
 
Restless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,170
Likes (Received): 271

Siemens initially weren't selected to participate in the train programme - allegedly due to the technology licensing conditions they attached. Then apparently Siemens submitted a revised proposal on technology transfer and received a special contract on top of the existing requirements. But who actually knows what is in this contract and the in the other contracts?

There's a good article by the FT (the UK equivalent of the Wall Street Journal) that summarises the state of the industry.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a04d14cc-3...44feabdc0.html

China on track to boost high-speed rail
By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing


For decades the high-speed railway sector has been dominated by a handful of companies in Europe, Japan and North America that have mostly concentrated on projects in their own regional markets.

But now, just as the industry is witnessing a proliferation of high-speed rail projects across the globe, the rapid rise of Chinese state-owned rail producers is posing a serious threat to the dominance of companies like Germany’s Siemens, France’s Alstom, Canada’s Bombardier and Japan’s Kawasaki.

“Chinese companies are changing the landscape of the global railway market because of the dimensions of their home market and because they are becoming involved in international tenders, which is new,” according to Dominique Pouliquen, Asia-Pacific managing director for Alstom.

In a sign of how competitive the Chinese state railway equipment producers now are, Siemens has abandoned its own bid for the second phase of the “pilgrim express” linking the holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia and joined a Chinese consortium instead.

While the Chinese companies are new to the global stage and lag their European rivals in terms of quality and technology they have some significant advantages.

“Price is their number one competitive advantage and they are very well organized with financing support from Chinese state-owned banks,” Mr Pouliquen told the Financial Times. “They offer a global package which is usually combining technical solution with financing so it is very easy for governments to make a decision to use their products.”

The Chinese Ministry of Railways, which directly owns many of the country’s rail companies, co-ordinates tenders so Chinese companies don’t bid against each other and also encourages foreign companies to join Chinese consortiums by holding out the prospect of greater access to the enormous Chinese market.

Analysts say Chinese companies are already very active in bidding for projects in Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as Latin American countries like Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.

They are also targeting a number of projects in Australia and the US and have already made significant inroads in their own region with contracts in Thailand and Hong Kong.

The rise of the Chinese rail industry with its global aspirations has happened virtually overnight.

Iain Carmichael, managing director Lloyd’s Register Rail in Asia, says that as recently as three years ago Chinese companies didn’t have the knowhow for many parts of their own rail systems, such as signaling and high-speed technology, and that provided a huge opportunity for European companies.

“But as the Chinese gained the know-how, the relationship changed so now the Chinese have the upper hand and the Europeans now have to work co-operatively if they want to compete,” Mr Carmichael said.

“Rolling stock products are built cheaper in China than anywhere else and the quality is now at the level where they can sell to global projects.”
He says the main constraint on Chinese exports of rolling stock is capacity, as Chinese producers are trying to keep up with orders at home in what is now the largest market in the world.

“Some big manufacturers are tripling their output this year and we’re seeing a vast expansion of metro systems as well as high speed rail,” Mr Carmichael said.

China’s market for rail equipment, including trains, components and equipment like signaling systems, is expected to quintuple from an average of $10bn a year in the period between 2004 and 2008 to more than $50bn a year between 2009 and 2013, according to estimates from McKinsey and Co.

This year, China is expected to account for more than half of the total global expenditure on rail equipment.

The government plans to build at least 30,000km of new railway, most of it high speed, over the next five years and China is expected to soon overtake Russia to have the second-largest rail infrastructure in the world after the US.

These ambitious expansion plans have been on the books for years but in the wake of the financial crisis, the government accelerated its planned build-out to help boost growth, moving the target date for completion for many projects up from 2020 to 2015.

The size and scale of the Chinese market partly explains why European and international rail equipment providers are scrambling over each other to partner with the Chinese state producers inside the country and around the world.

But co-operation has come at a price.

“European manufacturers have complained that they have transferred technology to China as required [by Beijing] and now the Chinese are using their technology to compete on price in the international market and even in the European home markets,” said Evan Auyang, an executive at Hong Kong-based Transport International and a former infrastructure consultant at McKinsey.

Chinese regulations for the sector include onerous local content requirements stipulating that 70-90 per cent of rail equipment must be Chinese-made and the official state policy on using foreign rail technology is known as “introduce, digest, absorb then innovate”.

“Around 90 per cent of the technology the Chinese currently are using is derived from their partnerships or equipment developed by foreign companies,” Mr Pouliquen said.

Last edited by Restless; March 22nd, 2010 at 04:57 PM.
Restless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2010, 04:03 AM   #1306
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless View Post
Siemens initially weren't selected to participate in the train programme - allegedly due to the technology licensing conditions they attached. Then apparently Siemens submitted a revised proposal on technology transfer and received a special contract on top of the existing requirements. But who actually knows what is in this contract and the in the other contracts?

There's a good article by the FT (the UK equivalent of the Wall Street Journal) that summarises the state of the industry.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a04d14cc-3...44feabdc0.html
I could come up with a different conclusion reading this article based on my original hypothesis that China does not obtain the necessary technology and that it needed to team up with companies like Siemens that obtain the international patents to participate in bids overseas. Seimens on the other hand saw an opportunity to enter the lucrative mainland China market with little damage overseas by partnering with PRC splitting roles since actual production of components will had done through outsourcing anyways.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2010, 12:28 PM   #1307
GreenPeas
BANNED
 
GreenPeas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Miguel, Manila
Posts: 225
Likes (Received): 3

China willing to share hi-speed railway tech

March 23, 2010

With 6442 kilometers of high-speed passenger railway, China currently has world's longest high-speed rail operations mileage. China is willing to share its mature technology with other countries to boost the development of high-speed railway worldwide, said He Huawu, chief engineer of China's Ministry of Railway (MOR).

High capacity and low energy conservation

China's high-speed rail lines operate at a top speed of 350 km/h (220 mph). Meanwhile, as one passenger train can carry over 1,000 passengers and the minimum wait-time was only 3 minutes, China's high-speed railway system has a remarkable capacity. Weather has also very limited impact on the operation of the high-speed railway.

"The high-speed trains are 'green' and meet the calls of energy conservation and emission reduction," He said.

Independent intellectual property rights

With the principles of "Advanced, mature, economic, practical and reliable", China has got considerable technological innovations targeting world advanced level.

"We now possess a package of advanced high-speed railway technologies, from construction to operation and management, and have built up a high-speed railway technology system with independent property rights," He noted.

High-speed railway was originated in Japan, Germany and France. However, China's high-speed railway technology is more complex and there has been none intellectual property right disputes between China and foreign companies, said He, adding that China has filed 946 patent applications in this field.

Currently, China's high-speed railway system has the world's most comprehensive technologies, highest integration capacity, longest operation mileage, highest operation speed and largest construction scale.

"Going out"

In recent year, China's achievements in the modernization of its railway system and the development of the high-speed railway have had great influence worldwide, and created an excellent opportunity for the "going out" of China's rail constructors.

He disclosed that China has been in contact with the US, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in cooperation in the high-speed railway field. "They hope that China could take part in their domestic high-speed railway projects."

Chinese enterprises now have contracts with over 50 countries and regions, and the total contract value is over $26 billion. China's railway equipment has been exported to over 30 countries located in Asia, Africa and Oceania. It is believed that the widening export of rail equipment will boost the transformation of "Made in China" from low-end to high-end and from labor intensive to technology intensive.

The US, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Poland have expressed that they want to cooperate with China's railway constructors in their domestic high-speed railway projects. China's MOR has already signed MOUs with the US and Russia.

"China is willing to share its mature technology with other countries to boost the development of high-speed railway worldwide," He iterated.

By People's Daily Online
GreenPeas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2010, 03:06 PM   #1308
Restless
Registered User
 
Restless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,170
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
I could come up with a different conclusion reading this article based on my original hypothesis that China does not obtain the necessary technology and that it needed to team up with companies like Siemens that obtain the international patents to participate in bids overseas. Seimens on the other hand saw an opportunity to enter the lucrative mainland China market with little damage overseas by partnering with PRC splitting roles since actual production of components will had done through outsourcing anyways.
Based on the FT article below on the Saudi HSR, my thoughts are:

a) The China South consortium saw an opportunity to derail a rival bid
b) This is the first? overseas HSR railway project. Having Siemens on board reduces the apprehension of the Saudis about the technology - as the Chinese are newcomers
c) Siemens and the German government will help lobby for the contract as well

------------------


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae804264-3...=53&SID=google

Siemens joins China bid for Saudi rail link
By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing
Published: March 16 2010 13:56 | Last updated: March 16 2010 13:56

Siemens, the German industrial giant, has dropped a bid to supply trains and equipment for the Mecca-to-Medina high-speed railway line in Saudi Arabia and has joined a Chinese consortium, in a sign of the growing competitiveness of Chinese rail manufacturers.

Siemens abandoned its own bid as part of a consortium with the Saudi Binladin Group and has joined a bid led by state-owned China South Locomotive & Rolling Stock Corporation for the second phase of the $7bn Haramain high-speed rail project, according to people familiar with the situation.

The German engineering group will provide signalling and electrification equipment to the Chinese consortium, which also includes China Railway Construction Corp and the Beijing Railway Administration.

The 450km railway will link Islam’s two holiest sites via the port of Jeddah and will ease congestion during the annual Hajj pilgrimage, when more than 2.5m people make the journey to Mecca.

The Chinese bid is seen as the frontrunner – China Railway Construction Corp, which is also state-owned, was part of a consortium that won a $1.8bn contract to build the first phase of the project last year.

“Siemens realised when China threw its hat in the ring, that they were unlikely to win so they decided to join them rather than let one of their competitors team up with the Chinese bidder,” said one person involved in the project.

France’s Alstom and South Korea’s Hyundai and Samsung are also bidding for the second phase of the Haramain project, according to someone close to the situation.

Siemens said it was unable to comment on the project due to the ongoing tender.

“Generally, we can say that co-operation with our Chinese partners in international projects is always an option for us,” Ansgar Brockmeyer, head of public transit at Siemens Mobility told the Financial Times.

Shafqat Rabbani, project manager for the Haramain high speed rail at the Saudi Railways Organisation, said the SRO had not been “formally informed” that Siemens was joining the Chinese consortium.

Final bids for the project are due in on May 1.

Analysts said Siemens’ decision to hitch its wagon to the Chinese bid was a sign of how competitive the Chinese rail industry has become and how state backing from Beijing helps in winning contracts abroad.

A series of bids by state-owned Chinese rail companies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have all been co-ordinated by China’s Railway Ministry. Two $1.8bn contracts were announced last year during a visit to the Kingdom by Chinese President Hu Jintao.

“China is now the largest producer of rolling stock and related technologies globally, and we’re seeing more and more of these Sino-foreign partnerships exploring new markets,” said Evan Auyang, an executive at Transport International and a former infrastructure consultant at McKinsey.

Additional reporting by Eliot Gao in Beijing
Restless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2010, 06:27 AM   #1309
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

China/German consortium has a huge chance to win.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2010, 08:46 AM   #1310
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
I have doubts since I do not believe any of the HSR forerunners would have transferred sensitive technology like on-board signaling system to PRC without a catch within the contract.
This system is built-in to the tracks so whoever wins the bid requires the necessary patents and/or pay fee to the actual patent owner to install them.
Patents don't last for ever, so the key technology is probably already available patent free. After all, cabin signaling systems have been around almost a century now, so have track circuits and beacons. The new systems like ETCS are mostly software, and no company has a monopoly on ETCS.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2010, 06:44 PM   #1311
SPIREINTHEHOLE!
Registered User
 
SPIREINTHEHOLE!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Iberia, Louisiana
Posts: 47
Likes (Received): 82

A few recent news items concerning high-speed rail:

Amtrak reorganizing to advance high-speed rail

http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/S...peed-rail.aspx

Quote:
Amtrak announced it is reorganizing and establishing a new department to pursue opportunities to develop new intercity high-speed rail service in select corridors around the country and to plan for major improvements on the Northeast Corridor, including determining the feasibility of increasing top speeds up to 220 mph.

"Amtrak is the unparalleled leader in high-speed rail operations in America today and we intend to be major player in the development and operation of new corridors," said President/CEO Joseph Boardman, noting Amtrak is the only railroad in America to operate passenger trains at 150 mph.

Boardman explained the Amtrak board of directors recently approved the creation of a new High-Speed Rail department as the next step in an ongoing process to better position Amtrak to maximize the opportunities available in the new intercity passenger rail environment. He said the department will be led by a vice president that reports directly to the president and CEO and that he will move quickly to fill the position with a highly qualified individual.

The new department will focus on the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor and conduct the necessary planning activities required to provide: a major reduction in trip-times between Washington, D.C., and New York and New York and Boston; a significant increase in the number of train frequencies; and determining the feasibility of increasing top speeds up to 220 mph.

In addition, it will pursue partnerships with states and others in the passenger rail industry to develop federally-designated high-speed rail corridors such as the new projects moving forward in California and Florida.

Last edited by SPIREINTHEHOLE!; March 25th, 2010 at 07:17 PM.
SPIREINTHEHOLE! no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2010, 07:15 PM   #1312
SPIREINTHEHOLE!
Registered User
 
SPIREINTHEHOLE!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Iberia, Louisiana
Posts: 47
Likes (Received): 82

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/mar...l-could-begin/

State DOT: Construction of high-speed rail could begin by February


Quote:
By TED JACKOVICS | The Tampa Tribune

Published: March 24, 2010

Updated: 03/24/2010 04:22 pm

LAKELAND - Construction could begin by February or March for the high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando, with the first trains running by the first or second quarter of 2015, a Florida Department of Transportation official said Wednesday during a regional briefing.

State officials are refining cost estimates and plans for required work on the high-speed rail corridor that largely will run on the median of I-4 to prepare for requests for federal funding. Although Florida was awarded $1.25 billion by the Obama administration toward the $2.6 billion project, the state does not receive the money until it completes various portions of the project.

That work would include preparation of the corridor to accommodate two tracks that will be separated from the I-4 vehicular traffic by barriers, reconstructing bridges and moving utilities to make way for the rail line.

Wednesday's regional rail briefing with the mayors of Tampa, Lakeland and Orlando drew more than 100 area business and civic officials in the first of a series of forums to improve public understanding of high speed rail.

"High speed rail is not just building a train," said Ed Turanchik, founder of the grassroots rail support group fastrailconnectus.com. "It is about bringing together two regions and creating a broader community."

Rail and enhanced mass transit advocates, including local and regional economic development officials, seek to push their message that private sector investment goes hand in hand with transportation improvements, from development surrounding stations and enhanced mobility between regional cities.

Reports by two consultants that helped Florida win the federal money indicate that 2 million passengers a year would use high-speed rail at the beginning, said Nazih Haddad, chief operating officer of the Florida Rail Enterprise, which the Legislature created in December - modeled on the Florida Turnpike Enterprise - to oversee the state's passenger rail development.

That would amount to 12 percent to 13 percent of the traffic in 2015 along that corridor, Haddad said. Other officials have said I-4 truck traffic is likely to increase as the Port of Tampa enhances its container cargo business and a limited access connector links the port and I-4 by 2013.

Fifty percent of high-speed rail passengers are expected to be tourism or leisure related; the other 50 percent are expected to be business travelers.

About 45 percent of the high-speed rail travelers are expected to take the train between Tampa and Orlando, with the remainder on shorter legs, such as between Tampa and Lakeland or Lakeland and Orlando.
SPIREINTHEHOLE! no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2010, 07:36 PM   #1313
SPIREINTHEHOLE!
Registered User
 
SPIREINTHEHOLE!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Iberia, Louisiana
Posts: 47
Likes (Received): 82

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmana...p?z=2&a=444487

Red Wing, other officials push for high-speed rail along river


Quote:
By Brett Boese
The Post-Bulletin, Rochester MN

RED WING — More than 50 elected officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin gathered in La Crosse recently to drum up support for high-speed rail along a river route that would connect the Twin Cities to Madison, Wis., by 2015.

The proposal, which would essentially run along a rail line that already exists near the Mississippi River, is one of two being considered by Wisconsin officials. The other proposed route would run east from St. Paul to Eau Claire, though it's unclear whether it would also hook up with Wisconsin's capitol, which lies nearly 200 miles to the southeast.

The debate in Minnesota about where to build high-speed rail is essentially on hold until Wisconsin's decision is made, said Red Wing Mayor John Howe. However, it's clear what he prefers.

"We certainly feel the river route is the best route," said Howe, who is a member of the Minnesota High Speed Rail Commission that meets monthly in Red Wing. "There's a four-to-one payback."

From Howe's perspective, the river route has four advantages: it makes sense environmentally since a rail is already in place; improvement to the existing tracks would benefit current freight transportation; it would lead to a commuter option; and it would be more time- and cost-efficient to upgrade rather than build from scratch.

Rochester has often been mentioned as an alternative to Minnesota's river route. While Howe doesn't believe that a Rochester route has as much to offer, it remains under consideration.

Minnesota received $600,000 in federal stimulus money earlier this month to conduct an environment impact study for the project.

Once Wisconsin makes its decision — WisDOT secretary Frank Busalacchi says a study is being formulated — then MnDOT officials will better be able to chart their own path. It's unclear how soon Wisconsin will decide between Eau Claire and La Crosse.

"We do need the Minnesota Department of Transportation to make a recommendation, a data-driven recommendation, and then we can make our case to the transportation officials," Howe said.
SPIREINTHEHOLE! no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2010, 01:33 AM   #1314
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Hmmmm, just by the very matter of this thread is the state of N American R&D revealed, huh? As far as rail travel goes, it's clearer to me now why cab designs of N American trucks have yet to shun their coziness with 1930s --errrrr-- panache...
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2010, 02:59 AM   #1315
chicagoboulder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mateusz View Post
Question is... what trains ?

Something European ?

That is a good question. What about the British Pendolino's used on the West Coast Main Line? I say this because they tilt and can be very useful on routes that have some wind to them. The NEC would benefit from these trains, and as for the rest of the proposed corridors, I would propose either the Siemens Valero or the SNCF POS trains.
chicagoboulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2010, 03:24 AM   #1316
chicagoboulder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 1

Having read through this entire thread, here is what I have concluded:

1. The gov't is not funding as much as it should
Reply: There are other factors going into it, such as the economy, healthcare, and immigration.

2. The Interstate system is very efficient as it stands
3. We are not paying the "full cost" of using the roads and associated infrastructure.
4. Gas is still subsidized heavily by the gov't

Here is what I propose:

1. We start paying the "full cost" that will encourage people to use alternate modes of transportation, and also hopefully (cause we never know what will happen) increase support for HSR in multiple regions of the US.

2. What about using some of the right-of-way of the Interstates to build HSR? Some of them have HUGE medians that could work for a two track system.

3. Identify major megalopolises and metropolitan areas that could benefit from HSR.

4. In the Midwest, there are a few major key cities, such as Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, Kansas City (not sure), and Salt Lake City. There could be HSR JUST between the major cities, and regional trains to service the individual metro areas. The proposed Chicago Hub system is a great example of this. It includes medium-sized cities in the system, like Milwaukee, Peoria, Springfield, and the concept continues in the subsystem the Ohio Hub.

5. I would love to see a system of HSR trains zigzagging across the country, but that is not possible due to the enormous size of the US. The reason that many countries in Europe have developed such great intra-country HSR systems is because their cities are closer together. This, in the case of France, almost completely wiped out the domestic air travel. This is happening in Spain as well. Each of these European countries is the size of one of the Midwestern states. That is a HUGE size difference.
chicagoboulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2010, 08:51 AM   #1317
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,531
Likes (Received): 21237

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagoboulder View Post
1. We start paying the "full cost" that will encourage people to use alternate modes of transportation, and also hopefully (cause we never know what will happen) increase support for HSR in multiple regions of the US.
Why so many people want to raise taxes on an essential component of modern life just to make the alternative attractive? This is what bothers me most: people want rail (ok), but also to come with massive price increases (e.g., taxes - NOT OK) on road mobility to "incentive" change of use patterns.

Build a decent, true high-speed system, and a reasonable number of people will use it for what it is worth for: medium distance travel usually covered either by relatively inefficient short-haul commuter flight (to much time on the ground for too little time in the air) or relatively long driving trips (many hours lost). It is competitive on its own features.

Build a "patched" system, poison it with too much politics (like building stations not where demand and easy access to/from station exists, but on pork-loaded downtown renovation schemes instead...), revamp a century old railroad and place a "high speed" sticky, and it will not be used. If the latter is chosen, just don't make car drives double-pay for the costs of such bad choices (as taxpayers at general, than as drivers).

Quote:
2. What about using some of the right-of-way of the Interstates to build HSR? Some of them have HUGE medians that could work for a two track system.
Not so easy. The allowed gradients, curve radius etc. for high-speed railways (in some European projects as low as 17/1000 and 5300m respectively) are far more stringent than those allowed on FHWA manuals for interstates. On long plain curve-less stretches like I-80 west of Salt Lake City that could be viable, but otherwise, it's not.

Quote:
5. I would love to see a system of HSR trains zigzagging across the country, but that is not possible due to the enormous size of the US. The reason that many countries in Europe have developed such great intra-country HSR systems is because their cities are closer together. This, in the case of France, almost completely wiped out the domestic air travel. This is happening in Spain as well. Each of these European countries is the size of one of the Midwestern states. That is a HUGE size difference.
France has a population of over 60 million, Spain, over 40 million. Population density plays a role, too, but not only for good of HS rail, it must be said: too much dense countries like Germany and Netherlands, with scattered population patterns instead of few big metropolitan areas, end up not building much true HSR because there is too much pressure for "intermediate" cities that don't want to be "downgraded" by being left out of HSR service. The historically hot-debated HS line project between Frankfurt and Stuttgart in Germany is a good example - too bad that the great city of Mannheim doesn't want to have "second class" medium speed service only, so no line gets fully build because serving Mannheim would greatly increase the costs of such new HSR line.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2010, 10:05 AM   #1318
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17034

Amtrak to study 220mph operations on NEC and elsewhere

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...h-speed-lines/

I think can be done , the only question is the how much $$$ and how long with it take?
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2010, 10:06 AM   #1319
chicagoboulder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 1

I meant size wise as in total area of the country. Thank you for pointing out that Interstate median might not be the best idea, it was just a thought I had. If you look at a map of the US at night, the population centers become clear. Yes population density does play a role, but having a sizeable population can spur density developments. As to the "full-cost". It is defined as paying for the costs of drilling, transporting, refining, and transporting the oil. If we factor this in, the price per gallon goes way up. I am a student and this is something we discussed in one of my classes.
chicagoboulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2010, 10:48 AM   #1320
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,531
Likes (Received): 21237

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
I think can be done , the only question is the how much $$$ and how long with it take?
Sure it can be done. That ($$$) is the problem, particularly with the current fiscal situation. In the NEC area, for instance, all state governments are pretty much on dire straits. Then, you have all the political situation in Capitol Hill. Imagine if DOT appear with a "billionaire wasteful bill" that you put "America a little closer of coming an European socialist state"... I doubt the US fed. govt. would be willing to pick up a fight in the light of swift opposition even to things like modestly increased Pell Grants for students...

I'm not being a negative person, but I think there is no political will to build such a system right now. In 3/4 years, if the economy stars recovering and the bailouts turn out a profit or only a modest loss to the government, then we can think about HSR real activity construction.

However, it is not all bad that there is no money/will to do it right now: projects have more time do be discussed and assessed, so when there is money available, projects will be more close do shovel-ready status.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium