Which US regions are most in need of High Speed Rail? (ski resorts, transporting)
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.
The areas that are currently under consideration for federal funding are (in order of my own preference)
1) California
2) Chicago Hub Network
3) NEC
4) Empire
5) Southeast
6) Keystone
7) Florida
8) Gulf Coast
9) South Central
10) Pacific Northwest
11) Northern New England
12) Rocky Mtn Front Range (not on map)
Which areas do YOU think are most in need/deserving of a federally funded hi-speed rail?
Here's a map of all but one of those proposed corridors...
The areas that are currently under consideration for federal funding are (in order of my own preference)
1) California
2) Chicago Hub Network
3) NEC
4) Empire
5) Southeast
6) Keystone
7) Florida
8) Gulf Coast
9) South Central
10) Pacific Northwest
11) Northern New England
12) Rocky Mtn Front Range (not on map)
Which areas do YOU think are most in need/deserving of a federally funded hi-speed rail?
Here's a map of all but one of those proposed corridors...
IMHO the Chicago-Twin Cities Corridor is long over due. Personally, I know I would use it all the time if it were to become reality.
As far as anything I've read up on this subject, which is a lot, there is no high-speed rail corridor proposed for the Rocky Mountain Front Range Region. Major cities in that region are too far apart for high-speed rail to be feasible. Denver is 500 miles to Salt lake City, 600 miles to Kansas City, and 800 miles to Phoenix. How would they even go about building something like that in such a rugged terrain? The tracks have to follow a fairly straight path, they can't really be winding all over the place like the roads in the mountains do. And I imagine it would be rather expensive and intrusive to blast gigantic holes through mountains for train tunnels to run through. Not being a hater, just being realistic.
IMHO the Chicago-Twin Cities Corridor is long over due. Personally, I know I would use it all the time if it were to become reality.
As far as anything I've read up on this subject, which is a lot, there is no high-speed rail corridor proposed for the Rocky Mountain Front Range Region. Major cities in that region are too far apart for high-speed rail to be feasible. Denver is 500 miles to Salt lake City, 600 miles to Kansas City, and 800 miles to Phoenix. How would they even go about building something like that in such a rugged terrain? The tracks have to follow a fairly straight path, they can't really be winding all over the place like the roads in the mountains do. And I imagine it would be rather expensive and intrusive to blast gigantic holes through mountains for train tunnels to run through. Not being a hater, just being realistic.
I agree that the CHI hub area is in great need, which is why I placed it second only to CA. I do believe CA's need to be even greater because there are three major metro areas of 3-7 million people to be served in order to link the major contributors of the world's 6th largest economy.
And, regarding the front range corridor, which runs North-South along the FRONT RANGE (eastern slope) of the Rockies: Rocky Mountain Rail Authority
So maybe a little more reading is in order...
I agree that the CHI hub area is in great need, which is why I placed it second only to CA. I do believe CA's need to be even greater because there are three major metro areas of 3-7 million people to be served in order to link the major contributors of the world's 6th largest economy.
And, regarding the front range corridor, which runs North-South along the FRONT RANGE (eastern slope) of the Rockies: Rocky Mountain Rail Authority
So maybe a little more reading is in order...
The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority is completely separate from the Federal Government's high-speed rail proposal. The RMRA would be solely for the benefit of the State of Colorado's tourism economy, providing a way for transporting visitors from Denver's airport to the ski resorts along I-70 and connecting Ft. Collins to Pueblo along I-25.
The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority is completely separate from the Federal Government's high-speed rail proposal.
Not entirely...
High-speed-rail plan surfaces : Local News : The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5251204,00.html - broken link)
None of it is set in stone at this point and, "Briggs anticipates an attempt to link the corridors to each other to create a national high-speed rail system. If that happens, there's a big hole right in the center of the country where there is no corridor. That's where the Ranger Xpress proposal would come in."
So the Front Range corridor is certainly not off the table at this point.
Besides, my original question was. 'Which US regions are most in need of High Speed Rail'? Not, 'Which regions are currently in consideration under the Revitalization and Reinvestment act?' Also, I listed the Front Range Corridor LAST, so what's the problem? Why don't you just list the ones YOU think are most important?
The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority is completely separate from the Federal Government's high-speed rail proposal. The RMRA would be solely for the benefit of the State of Colorado's tourism economy, providing a way for transporting visitors from Denver's airport to the ski resorts along I-70 and connecting Ft. Collins to Pueblo along I-25.
Exactly. So do you think the I-25 high speed rail would be one of the most needed in the country?
I'm not sure that we need high speed rail as much as other regions, but the Pacific Northwest High Speed Rail from Eugene, OR to Vancouver, BC would probably be highly utilized by all the greenies out here. High-speed rail really is something that we, as a country, need to be greatly considering now for the future when all the oil starts drying up and it's too expensive for our grand-children to afford to burn tons of fossil fuels to fly or drive all over the country when they want or even need to.
I personally think the Southeast makes the most sense first since it is a logical expansion of the existing line to DC and could alleviate a lot of congestion on the I-95 and I-85 corridors.
Next in line I'd put California followed by CHI and the NW. From there I'd want to expand the SE line to Florida.
Exactly. So do you think the I-25 high speed rail would be one of the most needed in the country?
Yes. 12th most needed, to be exact. If only to help 'bridge the gap' for any kind of transcontinental plans in the future.
Interestingly, it will probably not be the area most IN NEED that gets construction going first. More likely, it will be areas that can offer the best balance of user demand, project cost and land usage rights, that will get their funding first. For example, in CA, one of the most needy corridors in the country, a HSR has been under investigation for decades, but the land usage debate is just an absolute nightmare, especially when the egos of three giant metros are involved.
That said, I could see the NEC and other Easter corridors getting first bill because, as a previous poster mentioned, they already have an existing infrastructure which needs expansion and have a more proven user base.
No doubt California has the most right market and the need. Besides, their plan is the only one that is a real high speed rail. The speed of other plans are not that attractive.
The areas that are currently under consideration for federal funding are (in order of my own preference)
1) California
2) Chicago Hub Network
3) NEC
4) Empire
5) Southeast
6) Keystone
7) Florida
8) Gulf Coast
9) South Central
10) Pacific Northwest
11) Northern New England
12) Rocky Mtn Front Range (not on map)
Which areas do YOU think are most in need/deserving of a federally funded hi-speed rail?
Here's a map of all but one of those proposed corridors...
Not entirely...
High-speed-rail plan surfaces : Local News : The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5251204,00.html - broken link)
None of it is set in stone at this point and, "Briggs anticipates an attempt to link the corridors to each other to create a national high-speed rail system. If that happens, there's a big hole right in the center of the country where there is no corridor. That's where the Ranger Xpress proposal would come in."
So the Front Range corridor is certainly not off the table at this point.
Actually... since this article is from 2007, the Front Range Corridor is off the table. Did you even read the article you posted? Right before the caption you quoted, the article stated:
Quote:
"But it starts with getting the federal government to designate the Front Range as a high-speed rail corridor. There are 11 such corridors and 10 already have been named - leaving one more."
If you look at the map you posted, all 11 corridors have already been named. The Front Range is mysteriously absent.
Quote:
"The designated corridors are eligible for federal assistance. Those that have been named generally connect highly populated areas, but not all of them do. The Northern New England corridor, for instance, has two spurs running north out of Boston, one to Auburn, Maine, and the other to Montreal. The Empire corridor connects New York City with Albany and Buffalo. The South Central Corridor connects San Antonio, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Tulsa and Little Rock."
This part of the article is really stupid IMO. Montreal has nearly 4 million people, Buffalo has over 1 million people and is a stone's throw from Toronto which has 6 million people, Albany is also home to over 1 million people, San Antonio 2 million people, Dallas 6 million people, OKC over 1 million people, Tulsa 900,000 people, and Little Rock 900,000 people.
The Front Range, on the other hand, only has Denver which is home to 3 million people, Fort Collins has 300,000 people, Colorado Springs has 600,000 people, Santa Fe has 130,000 people, and Albuquerque has 900,000 people. The Front Range is far less populated and spread over a much larger area in comparison to the Northern New England, Empire, and South Central Corridors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treedonkey
Besides, my original question was. 'Which US regions are most in need of High Speed Rail'? Not, 'Which regions are currently in consideration under the Revitalization and Reinvestment act?' Also, I listed the Front Range Corridor LAST, so what's the problem? Why don't you just list the ones YOU think are most important?
Here's my list in order of need/potential:
1. NEC
2. Chicago Hub Network
3. California
4. Northern New England
5. Pacific Northwest
6. Southeast
7. Florida
8. Keystone
9. South Central
10. Empire
11. Gulf Coast
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.
