More on high-speed rail

Following on the excellent diary by BruceMcF, I thought I'd add some of the analysis I've done previously about a potential high-speed rail system in this country. My analysis covers all of North America, and organizes the largest cities of the country into high-speed rail corridors. Then going by size of the counties in and adjacent to the relevant cities, I sketched out a phased implementation of each corridor over a 50-year period that starts with the highest-population cities and expands phase-by-phase to include smaller cities and connections between corridors.

First, a picture of the end-product of my system, which looks a heck of a lot like BruceMcF's sketch with more details added. The one big difference is that I didn't select routes over the Rockies, because those routes are harder to plan.

[Map from Microsoft Streets, edited using MS Paint, click for larger image.]

The regional corridors roughly correspond to populations centered around major watershed basins. These basins include (with rough population estimates):

Atlantic Coast                   90 million people
St. Lawrence River/Great Lakes   50 million people
Mississippi River (except Ohio)  44 million people
Ohio River                       27 million people
Gulf Coast (including Mexico)   100 million people
Mexican Pacific                  50 million people
California Pacific             35.5 million people
Pacific Northwest              14.5 million people

I included all three countries and not just the US in order to emphasize that travel and economic development actually crosses borders, and it makes sense to plan for these connections. It also enables the US to find partners for building difficult cross-continent parts of a high-speed rail system. By the sheer size of the US population, it still represents almost 75% of the entire North American system. Border controls could easily be implemented at the cross-border stations to the extent that is a concern.

On the map, each regional corridor has its own color. Black lines represent connections between corridors, while white lines indicate a series of late-stage inland connections (Edmonton should have a white line, but I made an error in the map). The white circles are the connections where the eventual routes are unclear.

After defining the regional corridors, I considered the priority of actual lines between cities in each corridor. The idea was to build at least one connection for every 25 million people served by a line per stage of the project. Because the Northwest corridor has such a small population compared to the others, I grouped it together with California to create one US-Canada Pacific corridor of about 50 million people. A case could be made for grouping the Ohio River region in with the Mississippi region, but it's such an important point of connections between other regional systems that it seems to work better as its own line. That makes seven regional corridors.

For each line, in each stage, the connection adding the most new riders to the line is added. The first stage includes the largest city and the connection to the largest adjacent city in each corridor. Each subsequent stage adds one city along the line, or a connection from an existing city in the line to a city in another line. Occasionally, things are fudged a little to make a more sensible overall system or anticipate riders later on.

Round 1 (5 years construction for each two station/one connection starter line):
New York-Philadelphia (Atlantic)
Chicago-Detroit (Lakes)
Chicago-Milwaukee (Mississippi)
Indianapolis-Columbus (Ohio)
Houston-San Antonio (Gulf)
Guadalajara- Morelia (Mexico-Pacific)
Los Angeles-San Diego/Tijuana (Pacific)

This betrays a bit of US-centrism by selecting Houston over Mexico City as the starting point. Mexico City is really a connection between coasts in central Mexico, and the Pacific connection grows in that direction quickly enough, so this makes sense in a long-term view even for Mexico. Houston-San Antonio builds a better backbone for future extension, which explains why Dallas is not added in the first stage.

Round 2 (3 years for this and successive rounds):
Philadelphia-Baltimore-DC (Atlantic)
Detroit-Toronto (Lakes)
Milwaukee-Minneapolis (Mississippi)
Columbus-Pittsburgh (Ohio)
Houston-Dallas (Gulf)
Morelia (Mexico)-Mexico City (Mexico Pacific)
Los Angeles-San Francisco (Pacific; 1st of 2 stages: I-5 through San Joaquin)

This makes the connections to Dallas and Mexico City that were deferred in the first step.

Round 3:
New York-Boston
Toronto-Montreal
Chicago-St. Louis
Pittsburgh-Cincinnati
Dallas-Austin
Mexico City-Puebla, Mexico
Los Angeles-San Francisco (2nd of 2 stages: either I-580 or I-680 from 5)

Round 4:
Atlantic-Ohio connection (DC-Pittsburgh)
Montreal-Ottawa
St. Louis-Memphis
Cincinnati-Louisville
Austin-San Antonio
Guadalajara-Aguascalientes
Los Angeles-Phoenix (1st of 2 stages)

Round 5:
Atlantic-Lakes connection (Montreal-New York)
[Simultaneous Atlantic-Lakes construction]
Mississippi-Ohio connection (Memphis-Nashville)
Louisville-Nashville
San Antonio-Brownsville/Matamoros (1st of 2 stages; to near Laredo)
Guadalajara-Leon, Mexico
Los Angeles-Phoenix (2nd of 2 stages)

Round 6:
DC-Charlotte (1st of 2 stages; to VA/NC state line)
Lakes-Ohio connection (Chicago-Indianapolis)
Memphis-Jackson
Louisville-Indianapolis
To Brownsville/Matamoros (2nd of 2 stages; via Rio Grande)
Guadalajara-Tepic, Mexico
LA-Las Vegas

VA/NC line to Charlotte
Lakes-Ohio connection 2 (Detroit-Columbus)
Memphis-Nashville
Nashville-Knoxville
Brownsville-Monterrey, Mexico
Mexico Pacific-Gulf connection (Aguascalientes-San Luis Potosi)
Los Angeles-Mexicali, Mexico

Round 8:
Charlotte-Atlanta
Toronto-Buffalo
Jackson, MS-New Orleans (via Baton Rouge)
Ohio-Atlantic connection 2 (Knoxville-Charlotte)
Monterrey-Ciudad Victoria, Mexico
Mexico Pacific-Gulf connection 2 (Leon-Queretaro)
Phoenix-Tucson

Round 9:
Atlantic-Gulf connection (Atlanta-Tallahassee)
Buffalo-Cleveland
Mississippi-Gulf integrated line (Houston-Baton Rouge junction; connects New Orleans via Mississippi line)
Ohio-Mississippi connection 2 (Indianapolis-St. Louis)
Ciudad Victoria-San Luis Potosi (Mexico)
San Luis Potosi-Queretaro (Mexico) [completes Pacific loop even though on Gulf line]
Pacific-Gulf connection (Tucson-Juarez/El Paso)

Round 10:
Tallahassee-Orlando [temporary Atlantic line even though it’s in the Gulf system]
Cleveland-Detroit [completes Erie Loop in the Lakes system, via Toledo junction]
New Orleans-Mobile [via Baton Rouge junction]
Nashville-Clarksville
Queretaro-Mexico City
Tepic-Mazatlan
Seattle-Vancouver

Round 11:
Orlando-Miami [completes temporary Atlantic line along Gulf corridor]
Lakes-Atlantic connection 2 (Buffalo-New York)
Mobile-Tallahassee [extends Gulf Line to Orlando]
Mississippi-Ohio connection 3 (St Louis-Clarksville)
Juarez-Chihuahua
Tepic-Mazatlan (Mexico)
Seattle-Portland

Round 12:
Orlando-Jacksonville
Montreal-Quebec City
Orlando-Tampa/St. Pete [completes US portion of Gulf Line]
Charlotte-Savannah [Ohio Line is complete, so this nearby Atlantic section takes the Ohio construction slot]
Monterrey-Saltillo
Mazatlan-Culiacan, Mexico
Chihuahua-Torreon [Pacific Line slot is used to extend connection to Mexico Gulf Line]

Round 13:
Jacksonville, FL-Savannah [completes Atlantic Line]
Calgary-Edmonton [Lakes Line slot used for new Rocky Mountain Line]
Monterrey to San Antonio (via Laredo junction)
Cleveland-Columbus
San Luis Potosi-Tampico
Culiacan-Ciudad Obregon
Torreon-Saltillo [Pacific Line slot is used to complete connection to Mexico Gulf Line]

Round 14:
Virginia Beach extension (via Richmond junction)
Minneapolis-Winnipeg (1st of 2 stages) [Lakes slot used for this Canadian extension]
St. Louis-Kansas City
Kansas City-Denver (1st of 2 stages)
Dallas-Oklahoma City
Ciudad Obregon-Hermosillo
San Francisco-Portland (1st of 2 stages)

Round 15:
Winnipeg-Regina [uses Atlantic slot]
Regina-Calgary [uses Lakes slot]
Kansas City-Denver (2nd of 2 stages) [uses Mississippi slot]
Gulf-Mississippi connection 2 (Oklahoma City-Kansas City) [uses Ohio slot]
Seattle-Spokane [uses Gulf slot]
Mexico City-Puerto Vallarta
San Francisco-Portland (2nd of 2 stages)

Round 16 (final round, 50 years later):
Cross-Rockies connections, such as:
Spokane-Great Falls, MT-Calgary (alternative Vancouver-Calgary)
Las Vegas-Salt Lake City-Denver

Possibly a North/South Pacific connection from Hermosillo to Mexicali (or Hermosillo-Tuscon)

--

A US-only version could be developed, but it would require expensive Tucson-San Antonio and Seattle-Minneapolis connections across relatively unpopulated areas. The Great Lakes line would also have to be rethought, and would serve far fewer people. Other variations might include connections from New York City to upstate New York.

Actual implementation would face huge political obstacles, which is why starting with a vision and basic principles, and using a staged approach, is important. While I'd prefer an earlier high-speed connection for Seattle, my city, I can recognize that the larger needs outweigh those of my city and region.

As for how this is paid for, perhaps we could consider tolls on interstates, a small tax on cross-border trade within the NAFTA countries, or a redirection of taxes from other parts of our respective national budgets.

I realize that at this time of day, not many people are likely to read this diary, but of those that do, please add your own ideas about how we could implement high-speed rail in this country.

•  Tip Jar

  Just in case...

  by seaprog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:36:26 PM PDT

•  We have had a

  "High Speed Rail Authority" here in California.  Unfortunately, the political will to actually build the high speed rail doesn't seem to exist.

  A certain amount of money is supposed to go to the Public Transportation Account every year, however the legislature or the Governor circumvents this from happening.  Historically, they shunted the money away before it ever got there, now they want to move barely related expenditures into the fund and out of the General Fund, thereby leaving insufficient funds for Public Transportation projects, including high speed rail.

  by Sychotic1 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:48:47 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, we need political leadership on this

    I think a starter system at the state level is one good way to demonstrate the viability of this kind of system. I think the East Coast corridor is the most obvious spot, but it also requires multi-state coordination. California has the advantage of being one state and 10% of the national population, with two major metro areas, three if you count Southern LA and San Diego as two areas and not one huge metro area.

    One advantage of a national or continental plan is that it creates a larger vision that makes smaller-scale portions of the project easier to grasp.

    by seaprog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:14:51 PM PDT

    •  Monorail

      Just do give Seattle a vote on it.  Look what they did to the monorail and the viaduct!

      [e-mail]

      by clark08 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:02:35 PM PDT

      •  Check out the link in my sig

        It's to my intermittent blog, where most recently I pontificate on the local transportation mess, including the viaduct.

        by seaprog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:03:20 PM PDT

      •  Also

        Seattle voters approved the monorail something like four times. There were problems with how the agency and its funding were structured, but the monorail was killed mainly because it was a grassroots project that never had the approval of the powers-that-be.

        Now we have a viaduct corridor with no approved replacement, that really needs in-city rail. Man, a monorail sure would be nice right about now. I'm in favor of light rail extensions to West Seattle and neighborhoods to the north of downtown (Fremont or Wallingford, Greenwood, etc.), but nothing's on the drawing board by city planners.

        Also, voters did finally approve Sound Transit, and polling suggests they'll vote for a Sound Transit expansion, so all is not lost in terms of building urban rail here. We just need to build it much quicker and much more expansively, and tie it into a national high-speed rail network between major urban centers. Hopefully, we can get most of this done while I'm still kicking.

        by seaprog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:10:15 PM PDT

  •  we had it in FL too

    until Jeb! told us we didn't know what we voted for and then he had us re-vote against it.

    by tidalwave1 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:53:42 PM PDT

•  But then them durn Meskins could get in faster!

  Good luck selling that one.

  Good diary though. I love all this train stuff, and although it isn't likely to bear actual fruit immediately, it's a good idea to have people thinking and talking about it while we're waiting for the political will to materialize.  PW only materializes occasionally & for brief periods, and one must be ready to take advantage.

  And the international angle is a good one--I'd think some of those international connections like Toronto-Chicago or Mexico City-San Antonio would carry some fairly major business travel.  But it would be a hard sell in some quarters.

  by Turquine on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:51:53 PM PDT

•  Very interesting diary

  Thanks for the ideas. I know it's got nothing to do with you, but I wonder why the Microsoft Streets map has Lake Winnipeg labeled as "Lake Agassiz". Thought I'd stepped into Bizzaro World for a sec.

  by Wreck Smurfy on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:09:30 PM PDT

  •  At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1

    Well, really more like job version 3.1, Service Pack 3, but you know...

    Actually, after initially thinking this was a bug, I think I figured out what happened there. The brown text indicates mountain ranges or other land-based features. I think the intent is to label the larger area Lake Agassiz, which is the ancient lake basin of which the modern Lake Winnipeg is the largest remnant. The old lake bed in Utah and Nevada, of which the Great Salt Lake is the largest remnant, is labeled "Great Basin" in the same font.

    by seaprog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:02:06 PM PDT

•  When I lived in CO the locals wanted

  ...to get a maglev high-speed train from Denver to Grand Junction.

  I-70 comes to a stop most weekends, so putting a high-speed train in the I-70 median was believed to be a great way to get lots more visitors to/from ski-country. Certainly the Summit County (ski country) folks would love to take a train to DIA (airport) rather than drive.

  I know the technology isn't ready yet for mag-lev, but from what I've heard it carries a lot of promise.

  by B12love on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:01:51 PM PDT

•  We want it in NW Florida

  We have to fly to Memphis or Atlanta to get to Orlando.  At 200 mph, the ride to Jacksonville would only take 2 hours.   Driving on Interstate 10  in Florida is terrible.  Nothing but trucks.

  It's very difficult to plan anything in NW Florida.  This will take leadership.

  by Literacy on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:31:45 PM PDT

•  Funding ideas.

  1. The first thing to do is indirect: Require that all funding for highways be paid for solely out of fuel taxes and registration fees for heavy trucks. Currently, a lot of general tax revenues go to highway construction. Making this change would substantially increase the cost of travel by car or truck, making rail more competitive.

  2. I suspect, but do not know, that airports are largely funded out of general tax revenues, or from bonds to be repaid out of general tax revenues. I would change this to require airports to be funded solely by aircraft fuel taxes and auctioning of landing times to the highest bidder. I suspect the cost of air travel would then go up, making rail more attractive.

  3. Require rail projects to receive federal subsidies at the same rate as highway projects -- currently 80% federal, 20% local, I believe.

  by HeyMikey on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:30:56 AM PDT

  •  Alas - interstate highways & major airports

    are financed thorugh "user" fees. In the case of highways, the taxes generated on the sale of gasoline & other vehicle fuels are earmarked for highways, with some revenues set aside for mass transit (the highway trust fund is the recipeient of more than $20B each year in "user" funds, BTW). In the case of airports, there is a passenger tax that produces revenues for airport projects. These dedicated funding sources are why airport and highway construction is essentially on autopilot.  

    The trick is to drag transportation funding into the global warming debate and start allocating  funds to transportation projects based on the project's ability to minimize CO2 emissions in the transportation arena. I suspect that high-speed rail (and other forms of rail) would be the big winners with such an approach.

    Right now the highway and the airport lobbies have a lock on transportation funds, which is why we continue to deploy the most inefficient and polluting transportation projects possible.

    by alba on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:11:42 PM PDT

•  Very well done.

  I hope, with the cooperation of some other interested Kossacks, you can give this project some real momentum.

  by pico on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:35:23 PM PDT

•  Great diary, BTW, but

  as a resident of the northeast, I can tell you that it does not make much sense to break the NY-Phillie corridor into one phase and the Phillie-DC corridor into another. The corridor is DC-NYC and is currently served by the Acela train. I believe that it is far and away the most heavily trafficked rail corridor in the US. With truly reliable high-speed connections between NYC and DC, you could probably eliminate air traffic between NYC and DC.

  Also trains have recently been extended from Boston to Portland, Me, with various stops in NH. Both Maine and NH could easily be outer suburbs of Boston (southern NH already is) with genuine high-speed train service. You should think about running some trains up there. Or maybe there should be a series of super-high-speed trains (TGV-type speed) between the major cities (hubs) and slower (but still fast) trains radiating from each of the hubs the is interconnected by high-speed trains.

  Finally, politics does matter in creating political support for a national train system. IMO, all states should be part of any planned system - the more rural states could be connected later but it's best to plan to serve them. I do know that in the Amtrak debate it does matter in ensuring the survival of support for federal funding that the trains still do run across the county and stop in some pretty out of the way spots (like the Dakotas.

  Anyway this is a great subject, and lets wrap it into the global warming debate.

  by alba on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:27:30 PM PDT