QuoteToo expensive to build systems with trains going 200 m.p.h., Amtrak boss tells Illinois lawmakers
By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporter
May 12, 2009
Introducing ultra-fast passenger trains to the Midwest is less important than the need for more frequent service between cities, reliable schedules that beat the time spent driving and rail connections that permit travel across the United States, Amtrak's chief official said Monday in Chicago.
True high-speed rail clipping along at 200 m.p.h. or faster would be prohibitively expensive to build on the scale needed to serve the U.S., and such systems work best only when the number of stops are limited, Joseph Boardman, president and chief executive officer of Amtrak, told Illinois lawmakers at a hearing in the Thompson Center on the passenger railroad's agenda.
"It's really not about the speed. It's about reduced travel times and more frequency," he told the Illinois House Railroad Industry Committee. "The competitive advantage is with the train."
Boardman said plans in the Midwest for trains traveling up to 110 m.p.h. on corridors stretching over nine states make more sense. He said the immediate focus must be on modernizing infrastructure to increase train speeds in the Chicago area that currently are as slow as 5 m.p.h. because of freight-train congestion and antiquated track and signaling equipment.
Getting up to even 40 m.p.h. on stretches between Chicago and cities less than 50 miles away, such as Joliet, would be a big improvement, Boardman said.
"One hundred and ten is double the national speed limit" of 55 m.p.h. on highways, noted Boardman, who was administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration during several years of the Bush administration.
"The key to going fast is to not go slow," added Tom Carper, chairman of the Amtrak board and a former mayor of the Downstate city of Macomb.
A proposed 3,000-mile high-speed rail network using Chicago as the hub is in the running for a share of $13 billion in federal investment over the next five years. The network, estimated to cost at least $8 billion to build, would serve major Midwestern cities from Chicago.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is expected to start awarding grants in September to develop high-speed corridors. About a dozen projects, including the Midwest initiative, are competing.
The idea in the Midwest is to operate comfortable trains with wide seats and large windows at 110 m.p.h. instead of the current top speed of 79 m.p.h. in most places, shaving hours off trips and delivering passengers from one downtown to another hundreds of miles away.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-amtrak-boss-12-may12,0,1724722.story
He happens to be right. With moderate upgrades we can run 90 - 110mph trains on our existing tracks. 200mph requires a completely new right of way and is incompatible with freight trains.
The tracks through Jacksonville are already 80mph.
Do Dah, LA LA LA LA, Do Dah, Yadda Yadda, Hey Y'all? Sound familiar? Quote"I predict that HSR or High Speed Rail will become Higher Speed Rail"
OCKLAWAHA
In 2007 Metro Jacksonville did an Amtrak ride-along through Jacksonville.
Here is the video:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/videos/flvplayer.swf?file=/videos/westside_rail_tour.flv&autoStart=false;
of course there is no "national speed limit" anymore...that said, trains that can average 79+ mph (the definition of high speed) would still be faster than uncongested highways
Quotetrains that can average 79+ mph (the definition of high speed) would still be faster than uncongested highways
:D Trains don't run at 79 mph the entire length of the trip. Take a trip in the meteor down to Winter Park, stop in certain towns along the way, slow down for the numerous bridges, and from Jax to Winter Park, on AMTRAK, the stated time the trip takes 2 hours and 39 minutes, driving along at 60 MPH on I-95 and I-4 takes a mere 2 hours and 13 minutes (probably less if you have a heavier foot). :o
That is of course, if the train is on time.