Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I realize that if one hasn't seen HSR in operation, this is a difficult concept to grasp. Once the HSR train sets exit the dedicated HSR trackage, they operate at the same speed limits as normal passenger and freight rail. The freight railroads don't have to "host HSR" - because at that point, they aren't HSR. Exactly the way it operates in Germany, France, and the UK.
I've been in the passenger rail business for 25+ years. Believe me, I've "seen HSR in operation". Union Pacific will not allow any service classified as HSR (whether it's running at 220 mph or 60 mph) into its right of way. The mistake you make is assuming that the mode changes with speed. It does not. Commuter rail doesn't become light rail, for example, because it slows down to 30 mph. In the same way, HSR does not become conventional intercity rail just because it happens to be moving slower at a given moment in time. HSR is HSR.
Again, it's hair-splitting, but that's the way it is. The federal government, with its HSR program, has created a risk-averse atmosphere amongst the Class I freight railroads with their heavy-handed approach. Freight railroads will not let the camel's nose under the tent by allowing an HSR service, even one operating at sub-HSR speeds, onto their tracks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scm53
If the freight railroads allow 60 MPH Amtrak trains to use their tracks to get to a station, they will allow 60 MPH TGVs to use their tracks to get to and from a station.
Really? Then why won't Union Pacific support more Amtrak frequencies on the line between Austin and San Antonio?
Not too terribly long ago there was some sort of article......somewhere.... hchron, I guess......advocating a speed rail from Dallas to Houston. And I said,"Really? What about down the I-35 Corridor between DFW and San Atone?" THAT makes sense. I-45 Dallas to Houston.......not so much Oh.....My.......the replies.......Lots of Resistance! What is up with that?
If the freight railroads allow 60 MPH Amtrak trains to use their tracks to get to a station, they will allow 60 MPH TGVs to use their tracks to get to and from a station.
They "allow" Amtrak because that was the legal requirement of the agreement which divested the railroads of passenger operations and created Amtrak. Absent that requirement (as in this case, with the new HSR) no railroad will "allow" passenger rail without significant compensation. It costs them money, taking timeslots on the rail they would rather use for freight, increased maintenence, and as noted by someone else, increased liability.
And you still haven't addressed the usage of the railroad ROW outside of the urban core (which the railroads will inevitably want to keep for themselves, in case they ever want to add their own 2nd freight track).
The future for faster and safer commuting between cities (or even from your house to work destination), is not high speed rail. It is the Autonomous Vehicles. See this excellent video from TED Talks. We are already "developing robotic race cars that can drive at 150 mph while avoiding every possible accident":
I believe this is the future. It is a far more realistic alternative then rail. Autonomous automobiles can use already existing highway and public street infrastructure. Nevada has issued its first license for a Google Autonomous Car and California is on the verge of doing so.
California state senators have voted 37-0 in support of a bill that would allow self-driving vehicles on California streets and highways as long as a licensed driver is aboard, CBS reports.
Self-driving cars, which were pioneered by Google's autonomous Prius in 2010, are designed to be safer than human-driven vehicles.
"Human error is the cause of almost every accident on the road today. If autonomous technology can reduce the number of accidents, then we also reduce the number of injuries and fatalities on California's roads," sponsor of the bill, State Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), explained to the Los Angeles Times. "For me this is a matter of safety."
The timeline for autonomous cars hitting the road en masse keeps getting closer. GM’s Cadillac division expects to produce partially autonomous cars at a large scale by 2015, and the automaker also predicts it will have fully autonomous cars available by the end of the decade. Audi and BMW have also shown self-driving car concepts, with the former working with Stanford to pilot a modified TT up Pikes Peak. Meanwhile, Google is ripping along at its own rapid pace with a fleet of fully autonomous Toyota Prius hybrids that have logged over 300,000 miles. And the company has pushed through legislation that legalizes self-driving cars in Nevada. California is close behind, and Google has also been busy lobbying joyriding lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
The future for faster and safer commuting between cities (or even from your house to work destination), is not high speed rail. It is the Autonomous Vehicles. See this excellent video from TED Talks. We are already "developing robotic race cars that can drive at 150 mph while avoiding every possible accident":
I believe this is the future. It is a far more realistic alternative then rail. Autonomous automobiles can use already existing highway and public street infrastructure. Nevada has issued its first license for a Google Autonomous Car and California is on the verge of doing so.
Meanwhile Japan is planning to go Auto by 2020 , but is still investing in Transit which is what we should do....Texas would be very stupid not to build HSR or Transit networks what happens when more people move into the State which is expected to add another 20 million by 2040? Auto Cars can't solve congestion...hence why Japan is still investing in Rail same with most of the world. Even in the Middle East , their Rail Network will be up and running by 2025.... Next year all Countries combined will spend close to 12 Trillion on Rail and Transit projects , while the US will only spend 70 billion... Embarrassing , and you have the auto makers to blame as well as Big oil. What happens when gas becomes closer to 10$ a gallon...with a billion more drivers on the road by 2020 demand is going to increase and prices...even if you drill here. Where will that leave the US or you since Texas and the West aren't planning the future like the Northeast. The Northeastern states plan on investing in all modes of Transit to the tune of 170 billion by 2025....and 1 trillion by 2050...which will prepare us for the estimated 20-30 million new residents set to move in by 2050. So will revisit this done the road , Texas and West Coast will have alot of congestion issues due to their car lifestyle while the Northeast has less and better quality of life....even while gas hits 10$ or more. This who auto car stuff is a way of distracting and is one of the reasons this country can't fix itself because of instead of acknowledging the problem we come up with band aids which push it down the road like the Debt.
The future for faster and safer commuting between cities (or even from your house to work destination), is not high speed rail. It is the Autonomous Vehicles. See this excellent video from TED Talks. [b]We are already "developing robotic race cars that can drive at 150 mph while avoiding every possible accident":
Well, the technology is one thing (it's pretty amazing). The problem, though, is not really human drivers, it's demand. The existing infrastructure does not have enough capacity to support the demand now, let alone in 20 to 30 years.
We're still back to talking about 12 to 14 additional lanes added to north-south highways like I-35 and MoPac, and if you think that's going to happen in the next 20 to 30 years, I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya in Brooklyn.
Well, the technology is one thing (it's pretty amazing). The problem, though, is not really human drivers, it's demand. The existing infrastructure does not have enough capacity to support the demand now, let alone in 20 to 30 years.
We're still back to talking about 12 to 14 additional lanes added to north-south highways like I-35 and MoPac, and if you think that's going to happen in the next 20 to 30 years, I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya in Brooklyn.
That's with human drivers. Existing infrastructure can handle loads more traffic if you remove the inconsistent, error-prone human element. Of course, that ain't happening anytime soon, but still.
That's with human drivers. Existing infrastructure can handle loads more traffic if you remove the inconsistent, error-prone human element. Of course, that ain't happening anytime soon, but still.
Define "loads more traffic". I understand that stopping distances can be shortened a bit from those commonly accepted under human operation, but these machines will still not be operating on the "bleeding edge", so to speak. There will always be fudge factor introduced into slowing and stopping distance calculations to provide safety margin to account for things like variable road condition, brake system efficiency variations, and system failures.
So I doubt that there will be quantum increases in provided capacity from the addition of driverless vehicles; marginal increases, no doubt. But will those marginal increases make up for the lack of infrastructure in total? No way. In the end, the system still needs to provide the equivalent of 12 additional lanes of capacity from the north, and 14 from the south. Taking the driver out of the mix improves performance - there is no doubt about that - but it will simply not be enough to make up for the huge demand.
There is also the "interim" period to be thought of - at some point (in fact for a long time), there will be a mix of human-controlled and driverless vehicles on the road. The safety margins will *really* have to be ratcheted up on the driverless vehicles during that time. In fact, until every single vehicle on the road is equipped with the technology, the stopping and slowing margins will need to be large to account for as you call it the "error-prone human element".
Waiting around for this to be the transportation system's equivalent of the messiah would be a huge mistake. Great technology, should be developed and deployed, but it's not the answer to our transportation problem; it's one part of a greater solution.
Define "loads more traffic". I understand that stopping distances can be shortened a bit from those commonly accepted under human operation, but these machines will still not be operating on the "bleeding edge", so to speak. There will always be fudge factor introduced into slowing and stopping distance calculations to provide safety margin to account for things like variable road condition, brake system efficiency variations, and system failures.
So I doubt that there will be quantum increases in provided capacity from the addition of driverless vehicles; marginal increases, no doubt. But will those marginal increases make up for the lack of infrastructure in total? No way. In the end, the system still needs to provide the equivalent of 12 additional lanes of capacity from the north, and 14 from the south. Taking the driver out of the mix improves performance - there is no doubt about that - but it will simply not be enough to make up for the huge demand.
There is also the "interim" period to be thought of - at some point (in fact for a long time), there will be a mix of human-controlled and driverless vehicles on the road. The safety margins will *really* have to be ratcheted up on the driverless vehicles during that time. In fact, until every single vehicle on the road is equipped with the technology, the stopping and slowing margins will need to be large to account for as you call it the "error-prone human element".
Waiting around for this to be the transportation system's equivalent of the messiah would be a huge mistake. Great technology, should be developed and deployed, but it's not the answer to our transportation problem; it's one part of a greater solution.
I think you underestimate the increased volume possible with automated cars. If the cars today are driving at an average of 10mph at rush hour and they can drive at 65 on mopac because there is no braking then you can handle much more traffic than a rail system. In addition, electric cars today can charge in 20 minutes at a high speed charging station.
Finally you can have automated busses which would carry the same density of passengers as a train.
That's with human drivers. Existing infrastructure can handle loads more traffic if you remove the inconsistent, error-prone human element. Of course, that ain't happening anytime soon, but still.
Exactly!
Doubling the speed of travel is, at minimum, doubling the capacity of the infrastructure, without having to add any lanes. Perhaps more! No accidents, no fender benders clogging the main arterial's, no rush hour slow downs. Just smoothly flowing safe transitions from one part of town to another. From one part of the State to another!
Last edited by CptnRn; 09-18-2012 at 04:40 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
