This is my proposal. Hastily drawn up in paint, with new proposed lines in red.

If I can find the time, I'll make a more coherent map with major stations listed.

Comments? Anything missing or unnecessary?

I think if we build giant monorails thousands of feet in the air, we could take advantage of the open space. Then, we could somehow make it so the trains could lift themselves and wouldn't even need the rails. Then we could call them planes.

>>59959

Trolling, I know, but this bears pointing out:

1) Air traffic in the US is incredibly overloaded. Major airports are constantly stuck in delays, and new airports and runways are in perpetual demand. There's no real limit to demand for high-speed intercity travel, but there is a limit to how much space America can give to airports and runways. A backup system is necessary, especially for shorter distances.

2) Airports are usually stuck way outside the cities they serve. Since it's impossible to carry a car with you on your flight, some system is needed to either get people from airports into cities, en masse, or to move people directly from city center to city center without extra stops (airships?).

3) Air travel is severely hampered by weather. Snow, rain, fog, and even high wind can screw up a flight. Furthermore, if weather is bad enough, airplanes can lose control and crash, which usually results in the death of everyone on board. A safer system of travel which can operate in any weather is needed.

4) Current airplanes are incredibly polluting, and the airports they use have catastrophic effects on local ecosystems due to the immense runoff from the runways. A less disruptive, clean system of travel is absolutely necessary for the future of the country.

As it turns out, high speed rail would 1) relieve the load on air travel, providing a far faster system with virtually no delays for short distances, 2) operate directly between city centers, 3) operate safely in any weather (the only time a Shinkansen was derailed was during an earthquake, with no casualties), and 4) operate on electric power which could be provided by a host of different, cleaner sources (geothermal, wind, hydro, nuclear, etc.).

Anything I missed?

While I'm at it, here's a comparison of the current HSR systems in the US and Japan, to give a sense of scale.

Same map, with all lines under construction drawn in...

Again, now with all official proposals drawn in as well (apologies to California--if this map showed the entire US, Japan might be tough to make out).

>>59963

Forgot mah map...

>>59960
Sure trains will go between city center and city center, but who the heck lives in a city center? Going to a city center requires a car, just like getting to the airport. Intra-city transportation will probably fail in America, until we get to the point where we've got enough IN-city transportation that a person can go door to door without getting in their car.

Last pic for now--my proposals for USHSR, plus a couple of additions to the Shinkansen.

>>59966

As it happens, I have oodles of plans for in-city transportation as well--subways, local rail, trams, and buses. I also have sketches (mostly on paper) for regional conventional rail lines (pic related--rough national map).

Furthermore, it's still impossible to bring a car on an airplane, yet people travel by air all the time. If they can pull that off, with all of its inefficiencies, I'm sure they can figure out a train.

>>59970

Goddammit, I forgot the pic again.

>>59956
>high-speed rail is no replacement for conventional rail
LOLWUT

In regards to the DOT map, I'm guessing this is probably what they designed with budget in mind. However, It seems silly not to connect Cleveland to Pittsburgh as this would connect the Chicago Hub Network to all the East Coast and Golf Coast systems.

Also, it's very bizarre that Phoenix and Las Vegas aren't part of this schematic. Phoenix is the fifth-largest city in the USA, and Las Vegas is growing pretty fast and there's a lot of traffic issues between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. I'd add something there.

With regards to the US DOT Plan...

The state of Iowa has repeatedly affirmed that if a HSR rail was built to the Mississippi, we'd pay to extend it to the Missouri.

>>59974
>Golf Coast

wut

>>59979
*Gulf, honest typo there

>>59960
>1)
Physically there is a limit America can devote to airports and runways, sure, but logically we haven't gotten close to approaching it, there is so much free space left, even driving on the east coast its not hard to pick out ten square miles. The problem is the infrastructure we have is being updated but not expanded, so we're stuck with 1970's sized airports serving a 2008 sized demand. We need to expand, but NIMBYs don't like more land being claimed in cities, so the only logical solution is to build out of the city. Perhaps a high speed rail could connect these "satellite airports" to city centers.
>2)
See airport-to-city HSR suggestion.
>3)
I wouldn't characterize air travel as unsafe in the least, so I don't see the need for a safer alternative. It is very rare to hear of a properly trained crew getting so fucked by weather there is nothing they can do but crash. Most planes fly above the weather and carrying enough fuel to divert to another airport if the weather on the ground is reported to be bad. I don't know enough about HSR to know how effected trains are by rail-icing or high winds, but even if they aren't building a whole HSR infrastructure as a bad-weather backup seems ridiculous.

>4)
Modern jet engines are very clean and much quieter, they just aren't being used much yet on most airplanes due to the cost of upgrading. As older airplanes are retired, air travel will get cleaner and quieter, its simply a money issue, as building an HSR network would be. Also, its worth noting high speed trains don't run on magic either, and it'd be interesting to calculate pollutant emissions per passenger, although I don't doubt high speed trains would be lower.

Air travel is more versatile, faster, and the basic infrastructure is already in place, it is just in urgent need of significant improvement. I wouldn't disagree there is a place for HSR systems, I would just argue that they need not be as extensive or widespread as you would suggest. Conventional rail + Air works for freight + passengers and high priority, it just needs to be expanded as the population expands, and that has not been done.

It seems human nature to create systems 20 years ahead of demand, and then leave them be for 50 years until they are 30 years behind the times. We're just in sore need of an upgrade, not a whole other system.

>>59956

I would use the Milwaukee to Chicago all the time.

>>59988

1) But there's no need to make airports bigger if the alternatives haven't even been explored. High speed rail has been proven effective in Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, Scandinavia...the list goes on. Despite all of the "advantages" of air travel, rail travel is incredibly successful and constantly growing. Furthermore, until America can get land use sorted out and start curbing sprawl, I don't think its a good idea to expand airports or build new ones (since they invariably come with more freeways and cars--even overseas, this is the case).

2) If you need HSR to get to an airport, the airport is serving the wrong city. Countries which currently have HSR stops at airports (like Germany) also have solid HSR networks AND conventional rail networks. The best way to provide a link between an airport and city is with regional rail or subways.

3) Fair enough--you wouldn't spend billions on a safer backup system. But that's not the only perk of HSR. It's just an added bonus--it has been established as the safest method of travel. Besides, the main point here was that it doesn't take much to slow down a plane, whereas trains have been proven time and again to run fine in bad weather (rails can be heated to remove ice, and high winds have little effect).

>>59989

4) Now this is just silly. Running on electricity provided by a clean source, trains would generate NO pollution. I have never heard of a zero-emission airplane capable of what current airplanes are capable of, but a zero emission train would work exactly as well as a modern electric train, since they'd operate on the same power source.

Infrastructure for air travel is in place, but it's been shown to be a flawed system which is extremely wasteful of land and promotes sprawling development. Air travel is hardly more versatile than rail travel, and far less efficient. Rail travel is also faster over short distances due to the incredibly long check in and security process involved in flying.

Air travel would not be eliminated--it serves its purpose well. However, trains can do much of the work that airplanes have to more efficiently. Furthermore, I would never promote HSR over conventional rail--conventional rail is far more versatile and useful than HSR is.

Best of all, this project would take decades to build and employ millions. It would be a godsend to local and national economies, and would bring the US up to date in transportation.

Pic related: my regional rail proposals for the Northeast (incompleted) with a brand new sketch of a dedicated High Speed Rail line. I'll continue to expand this line until it reaches Washington.

This would be a true Shinkansen for the US; a "new trunk line" which runs on its own track, allowing a train to reach speeds that are impossible on the current Acela route.

60K

>>60001

>60K

dammit, lost

>>59998
>2) If you need HSR to get to an airport, the airport is serving the wrong city. [snip] The best way to provide a link between an airport and city is with regional rail or subways.

My nearest airport (Birmingham Semi-National) is 60 miles away. In order to catch any flights to anywhere farther away than Houston requires a 100 mile drive to Atlanta. Pretty good reason to take a HSR to the airport.

What I wish I could have as a HSR network with Atlanta as the hub. Stations with brown infill would be linked to other portions of the network in OP's image.

Orlando > Florida
Memphis/Dallas/Houston > Midwest/Texas
Nashville > Chicago via Louisville or St. Louis
Raleigh > Northeast

>>59999
This is a common fallacy regarding "zero-emission" cars as well. There are no zero-emission cars or trains - just displaced emissions. Not against your argument as a whole; using electricity allows more alternatives that reduce pollution and save money, but that juice is generated and transmitted somehow, and in the US right now that usually means coal.

in during everyone replying crying foul about how their own city is not served

>>60052

this is /n/ nigger.

Los angeles to Las Vegas is all i want

>>60051

I live just outside of Boston in a city served by the T. I've actually got something resembling decent train infrastructure at my disposal. Could always use improvements, though.

i would like to see a basic system that connects new york, dc, atlanta, chicago, dallas, minneapolis, denver, portland and san francisco. then expand it depending on demand.

>>59957

where the fuck is the one south of Tampa going to?

Also, why do the Florida keys need to be connected by high speed rail? Part of the appeal of going to the keys is the drive. I don't think the speed limit on US1 even goes about 55 mph.

High speed rail is for connecting urban centers together. For example, connect San Francisco and Los Angeles is a really fucking good idea.

However, I also believe that high speed rail should go through developing cities so that the population density can be spread out. For example, you could work in LA county but live somewhere else.

>>60073
They're going to make a maglev for LA <-> LV

What happens if they make a magnetic levitating trains, but instead of using the magnets to push it foward, they use rockets to push it to incredibly high speeds past the speed of sound?

sup

>A transatlantic tunnel is a theoretical tunnel which would span the Atlantic Ocean between North America and Europe and would carry mass transit of some type—trains are envisioned in most proposals. Using advanced technologies, speeds of 300 to 5,000 mph (500 to 8,045 km/h) are envisioned.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_tunnel

>>60098
Probably Sarasota/Bradenton/Ft. Myers.
Also, I agree with the Keys thing. Key West isn't important enough to deserve the cost of 125+ miles of heavily bridged track, and having to probably skirt around most packed islands.
>>60101
The California proposal is against this in some places like Los Banos (nothing town in the central valley) because it would make these small cities explode with people that they have absolutely 0 infrastructure for.

>>60104
of course they have zero infrastructure, they have zero people, and zero people pay zero taxes.

>>60103

How would such a plan deal with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge?

>>60105
Oy vey. The point is, they don't want that area to get swamped with new arrivals, and make it a sprawled out area, just like the cities they left.

>>60107

NIMBAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

>>60106

Why should it have to? One of the ideas for it is not to dig into the seabed, but to support the tunnel on legs which allow the sections to absorb the movement of currents and also to take the impact of a hypothetical submarine crashing into the tunnel.

>>60113

NIMBYism is when you want something (in this case, rail infrastructure), and you will use it, but you don't actually want to build it near you. This is different--60107 is protesting putting a station in the middle of nowhere, encouraging sprawl and growth in a previously quiet area. Population growth is a good thing, but population sprawl is not. If a city is to grow, it should start by growing within its borders, and only then should it expand beyond them.

>>60104

The Tampa South branch goes to Ft. Myers/Cape Coral. And yeah, I wasn't so sure about the Keys branch--that could go if there's no need for it.

>>60125
>population growth is a good thing

too bad population growth is the main underlying cause of most of the worlds problems

>>60101
>They're going to make a maglev for LA <-> LV

despite what they say or you've heard, it will be in the planning stages for the next 60 years. clearly you're not aware how this type of shit works.

>>60136

Without slight, constant population growth, the workforce will die off and shrink, causing all sorts of chaos for a country's economy. No first-world nation has a serious population growth problem. The most developed nation still facing trouble with its population is China, and that won't be for long--the immense male-female imbalance there is going to bring their growth to a crashing halt, and trigger a huge wave of emigration.

Population growth isn't such a big problem, really, and it's certainly not the root of all evil in the world today. Every once and a while, someone writes another book and everyone panics, but really, the world is quite big enough to handle our current population, just so long as we can get production and distribution of food sorted out. If more countries can achieve first-world status, their populations will settle, and they can focus on properly distributing food and resources.

>>60136

No, not really. The world's problems are much the same now as they were when the population was a sixth what it is now.

>>60137
Clearly you don't know what the fuck you're even reading. They're going to make one, nobody said it was going to be up next year.

Fucking idiot

I'm confused. Doesn't the OP pic refer to 80 mph commuter express trains? Doesn't High Speed Rail refer to 300+ mph trains?
Also, does anyone have a link to this rumored train service where you drive your car onto a flatbed, ride in a passenger car to destination, and then drive off -
the so called rail-ferry service?

>>60186

Do you mean the Auto Train? There's an Amtrak service like that going from Virginia to Florida...don't know if there are any others like it in the US.

HSR refers to trains which go above 200 km/h, or about 125 mph. No high speed train can operate regularly at 300+ mph, although the TGV was once clocked at something like 360 mph in a test run. The fastest HSR systems operate at around 200 mph right now, and Japan is planning to pull itself into the #1 spot with 225 mph service on the Tohoku Shinkansen. The proposed California HSR is meant to operate at similar speeds, when it's finished.

The Acela is a joke because its top speed is only 150 mph, and it almost never goes that fast anyway due to speed restrictions and tight corners. The average speed on the line, if I recall, is something between 80 and 100 mph--way, way less than a typical HSR line.

Most of the problem is huge subsidies for cars and planes. Planes are good. This poor management is always been driven by the government of course.

If we had rail between cities, traffic within cities could be limited to 35 mph, and car weight could be greatly reduced by lessened safety requirements. (This does sorta require that trains carry cars as passengers between cities.) Then we put a punitive tax on gasoline-burning vehicles to drive a shift into electric vehicles, which are competitive at those speeds. All it requires is redesign of our cities to support different transportation paradigms. So, while we lay out new track, I'd like to add bike lanes, secure bike parking garages, and exterior rated outlets at every parking space in every parking area.

>>60312

Pretty much, but I promise there's no need to rig trains to carry cars. If the train service is good, people will give up their cars to ride, at least for some trips (I don't think we can really get rid of all cars just like that). HSR should only be used in very high traffic corridors, and conventional rail (with speeds from 50 to about 100 mph) should be used in other situations. Villages get a station, towns get a couple, and cities get multiple stations.

Developing new bike lanes and other alternatives is important, but it's even more important to make sure that cities, towns, and villages can function on a walkable level. This basically just means dense development, allowing lots of people to live near stations while also being able to walk to do their shopping.

My hometown is currently growing at a rate of 22%--the highest in the county (and one of the highest in the state). However, the town is very sparse and spread out, and most new construction takes place in huge, random plots in the woods, forcing almost everyone to drive to get anywhere (the town is often referred to as being 20 minutes from anything). If growth continues at a 22% rate, then we'll still be seeing plenty of construction, so all that needs to be done is to restrict new construction to designated development areas, building those areas up into real "towns," instead of suburban sprawl.

Has anyone ever seen Zeitgeist Addendum? Yes, I know, mostly BS, but the vaccuum tube idea that they presented as a means of high speed travel is feasible and would cost less than any form of transportation we have now, and it could be powered by a multitude of clean sources.

I think the California transport secretary said that upgrading the air and road system would cost 150 billion. Building high speed rail would not only cost only 40 billion, but would upgrade a lot of existing railroad crossings.

Obamas address to the nation only mentioned roads and bridges, I raged so hard.
And its easy to figure out why, read what the wikipedia page on highspeed rail in the USA says about the attempt in Texas in the early 1990s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States#Texas
But anyway you cant just have highspeed rail in and of itself, the places it connects need their own regional rail, mass transit, comuter rail, etc. Europe and Japan have that, USA doesn't.

>>59970
>trams
National City Lines would like to have a word with you in private

>>60344

>Judge Doom would like to have a word with you in private

fix'd

>>60093
> would like to see a basic system that connects new york, dc
Haven't ridden the Acela?

>>60345
orsonwellesclapping.gif
bravo sir

regarding energy efficiency of different modes of transportation: http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html & http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/energy.shtml

>>60344

Goddammit, now I don't know if I should rage or lol.

But here's a quick pic of potential trams for Boston...

>>60319
Would you care to explain how they use vacuum tubes for high speed travel?

>>60405
He means air-pressure powered transport. Think Bureaucrat tubes.

>>60407
are you talking about atmospheric railways, that used air pressure to provide power for propulsion? Isambard Kingdom Brunel attempted that, failed.

>>59971

What the fuck is that? Work of Fiction?

As an employee of the Railroad I can say most of those lines do not exist.

>>60412

That map was entirely accurate as of 1918, and remained accurate until sometime after WWII. Best thing is, most of the grades for these railways still exist (most are abandoned, some are completely overgrown, but still visible from satellite). Rebuilding them would be a cinch.

>>60414

Fukken saved. Thank you, good sir.

>>60415

mmmm No. That map includes lines from 1918, and new lines. Washington State, shows a line that follows the Snake River. That line went away in the 1980s. It was way old.

But It also shows the new line, slightly to the west. That line opened up in the late 70s.


Lots of the diagonal lines in Washington can not be rebuilt, they are totally gone. All that is left is some gravel and some housing developments.

Montana? It is all gone. You have the High-Line (Whitefish) at the very north part running on the current track, and the Low Line running to Laural and Missoula.

The rest of those lines are scrap metal.

>>60415

Hell! That map does not even show the Oregon Trunk!

>>60419

It might just be that the map is kinda shoddy, and bad at showing precision. I could barely find Wichita on it, even though it was a major railroad junction.

The source is Wikipedia, btw. And I don't really know anything about the lines in Montana, but in almost every part of the country I've looked at (mostly on this side of the Mississippi), traces of old rail lines exist. I don't mean that the track is down, bright and shiny--I mean that there are still distinct lines across the ground, some with old track, some with active track, and some with nothing but trees. My point is that the lines themselves haven't been (for the most part) blurred out of existance, and wouldn't be hard to salvage. It would be expensive...but not difficult.

>>60414
why only 240km/h? Going to ride the Acela across the country are you? Go with the faster in Europe and Japan.

>>60396
potential? this is how its done for real.

>>60405
If we are talking about a transatlantic tunnel, evacuating the air from it avoids all sorts of problems.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oy7I3NRgAeQ

>>60445

I'm jealous D:

Unfortunately, America haet trams

>>60491

No we don't.

>>60491

Not so much anymore. If even Phoenix can get trams, streetcars, and light rail, I'd say there's still hope.

>>60520

True--Phoenix especially. But even there, it's just one line. America still hates public transit, it's just more willing to make token gestures to it now. Notice that light rail or BRT is often chosen over heavy rail, not because of poor demand or lack of track, but because it's just cheaper. No American city has really demonstrated a solid commitment to providing serious, high-quality public transit. Even light rail, which I don't like nearly as much as heavy rail, is being actively destroyed in Boston. It's a disgrace. I'd rather Boston have Tokyo's rail system than Melbourne's, but I'd rather it have Melbourne's system than nothing. The same applies for most other cities in America (some are really just too sparse for a subway, so extensive trams are required).

>>60511
forget light rail, the future is in subterranean rail.

>>59956
Goddamnit Alex, I hear about this enough when you're in the room, and now your thread is on the damned frontpage.

>>60524

Boston is smaller than Baltimore. Comparing it to Tokyo or Melbourne is just ridiculous.

>>60527

Goddammit Colin, what the hell are you doing on my board?

Of course you'd hear about this here. It's where I vent.

>>60528

True, but Baltimore and Boston do have one thing in common--an underdeveloped rail network.

I haven't worked out Baltimore yet, but I'll post what I have later tonight.

>>60529
Well, I log to 4chon, you see, and in "Popular Threads" there's this thread. So I think "Oh, hey, Alex will be interested, I will open a tab and have a look." and then it's the exact same charts you showed me earlier this week.

>>60530

Baltimore worked itself out just great in theory. They won't ever be able to fund it, however. They are working on the Red Line seen in this picture, but are going to make it light rail instead of heavy :(

They really blew it by building a partial heavy rail line, and by cheaping out and running their light rail along the old NCR ROW instead of through populated areas.

>>60544

Are they likely to get back on track? Most of those should really be heavy rail instead of LRT...

Pic related--all metro extensions from your map plus an unfinished regional rail. I haven't done any streetcars yet :P

>>60551

Red line is on track for 2012 assuming people don't sue over trains going through historic neighborhoods. It will be a mix of above ground and tunneled LRT.

Solid green is heavy rail, solid light blue is LRT. Yellow is the next one to be built, but they aren't planning on touching it until Red is operational.

Nice map!

>>60528
Boston Metropolitan area: 4.48 million people.
Baltimore Metropolitan area: 2.67 million people.
Melbourne Mertopolitan area: 3.8 million people.
>>60524
Almost every city here in America isn't dense enough to support a major subway.

>>60562

I was going by actual city population because the metro area statistics bother me. The statistical area for Baltimore and DC bleed together and they don't count that for Bmore's metro.

Anyways, point being, 2 rail lines in Baltimore is a travesty, and other cities suffer a similar fate.

The new admin better invest in some transit oriented development and infrastructure.

Ok, as a disclaimer, I don`t actually live in the United States, so if I am stupid for putting rail line where I do, let me know.

I just took a list of city population and tried to link together cities based on how congested the roads and air must be between them. I also tried to serve multiple big cities with one continuous line, so that it is not being wasted on extremely short routes unless necessary, as I doubt the government would put a metric fuckton of money into this. However, there is still rail in 43 states.

>>60524
true, Melbournes is falling apart. The state government is in bed with the roads lobby so cant build new lines or extend existing, and too terrified of the 'P' word to order more trains be built locally right now, so a bare 19 will be built some time next year in Poland - nowhere near enough to match the overcrowding.

>>60586
thats talking about the trains btw, not the trams seen here >>60445

>>60567
Agreed. Just look at Atlanta. Even the Olympics couldn't get us to build a decent subway. With Obama and a coming depression we might actually have a decent chance of getting some infrastructure money as a anti-unemployment tool.

>>60590
didn't you see or hear his address to the nation about this a few days ago? In the topic of transport roads and bridges were what was mentioned

>>60590

Atlanta's subway has always been there, predating even the Olympic bid. It did the job of moving fucktons of people around during the 96 Games, but it could have been better.

Also "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta", "I'MMA BEAT YO ASS ON DIS TRAIN!", etc.

Moving on, perhaps Obama could do a "Works Progress Administration" kind of thing while he's at it, not only authorizing money for bridges, roads, and other transportation, but also giving people jobs building it. The government's already socializing and bailing out left and right; might as well bail out the common fucker and give him something to ride his bike on.

>>60594

>Public Works

THIS--the cost of building a huge and intricate rail network for the US (HSR, Regional Rail, Subways, and Trams) would be less important than the sheer amount of work it would generate. It would be the New Deal 2.0, providing countless jobs and setting up a transportation system which would let America function better in the future, while also investing in small towns and large cities simultaneously.

The prospect of such a program is half of why I voted like I did. I was hoping for another New Deal, ideally without another Great Depression.

Crazy Norwegians!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jshe65EE0So

>>60620
I hope that rail infrastructure expansion will account for a great part of the Obama plans. It fits perfectly into what he keeps repeating about short-term injection of capital for longterm results.

Imagine the huge potential of building High Speed Rails across America. California as much as we know usually have one of the most powerful influence because we can feel the effect of its laws from California over here in the East Coast (Flame standards for furniture, environment standards, etc.)

By using the California's effect, we can push the rest of America into believing that High Speed Rail is the best way to go for long term. Look at Europe and Asia with already sophisticated system of high speed rails and fast subways/trams.

I understand as an American, United States is a fucking huge nation, bigger than Europe and Asia in country-country comparison. It would take tremendous amount of resources, time, and money to get it done. Now, Obama has an epic opportunity to use this plan and actually turn the economy around and allow everyone to have jobs for the next decade or two in construction of the HSR.

I am now find having HSR to be the most important issues than anything else because bringing HSR in is going to solve majority of all other issues. It is a great two-way street solution.

-Your fellow anon
>:3