A High Speed Rail System, Updated 8-18-2012

High-speed railsystems ARE part of an American transportation system. Currently teh notion of high-speed rail is basically a joke in the USA, but ignoring it and its implications for the USA's future is to accept America as a second rate country. While most think of high-speed rail in the context of passenger travel, commodity movement would significantly benefit from a high-speed railsystem.

 After all, railroads built this country, with significant government help on the Federal, state and local level, and dominated this country for more than 150 years. Passenger rail traffic, including street car service was the only system for 120 years until the automobile and aircraft, also heavily subsidized subplanted passenger rail.   But why did America abandon the railroads as a major people mover system in favor of the airplane? I'm not here to debate this point, but to offer that the most effective way to revitalize America is to invest in its infrastructure, and the most effective infrastructure expenditure is rail/mass transit systems. Railroads since the 50's have been relegated it to a second tier product distribution system (primarily inter-regional) and the principal bulk/heavy-commodity distribution system. These two uses will also benefit significantly from high-speed rail corridors.

 But what works 'best' in a world of ever increasingly expensive energy is a high-speed passenger and freight rail system. An airplane system makes sense only in the context of certain distances, but convenient is the other  most important in deciding which system is best for America. Air travel is increasingly becoming too expensive and time consuming to be effective within certain parameters, the time/distance matrix. and consolidation and the long-term profit generation potential of this industry over time indicate this.
 Could rail do certain distances quicker and more effectively? For the obvious reasons absolutely! Particularly distances that currently take 1 to 3 hours by air are prefect for rail service. Adding 1 1/2 hours on the front and another 1 hour on the back would have travel times of 3 1/2 to 5 1/2 hours. In addition, certain air routes in this time range are served by any where from 2 to 24 flights per day.

 Freight requires trans-continental to 1 day distance to be cost-effective, would benefit from a coast-to-coast network. More on that sytem later.

So,  Using this criteria I would recommend that  America needs two systems - regional systems based upon  five regions, another five/six secondary regions  & several continental interlinks.
The trans-continental interlinks would best serve commodity shipping and provide America with a robust secondary continental passenger transportation network besides air and highway.

Here's what I would imagine.While, I'm not alone here, as this parallels the thinking of most transportation experts about our railroad future.

The five primary regional networks:
1) the West Coast/primarily California (2 routes) + Seattle-Portland.
2) Texas
3) Chicago Hub
4) Florida
5) Northeast Corridor / Boston, Providence, Connecticut, New York City, New Jersey,

The ______ secondary regional networks:
(6) Atlanta Hub
(7) Boston hub
(8) Mississippi Valley corridor

The continental interlinks:
East -
West -



. He called Chicago the capital of the mid-west. And, of course, sure enough he's right - Chicago is the capital of the mid-west and a high-speed rail system centered on Chicago would cement this position and serve to tie Chicago with the rest of the mid-western states - downstate Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa.
A hub and spoke network system with lines running:
9-1) Milwaukee, on to Green Bay
9-2) Madison, Wisc.
9-3) Dubuque, on to Minneapolis
9-4) Peoria, Springfield, on to St. Louis
9-5) Indianapolis, on to Cincinnati
9-6) Detroit, on to Toledo, on to Cleveland, on to Erie, Pa, on to Buffalo, NY.
9-7) Evansville, Ind on to Louisville, KY.
9-8) Fort Wayne, on to Columbus, on to Pittsburgh

In Addition to the Chicago hub, I envision other hubs and corridors throughout the US. With a network of 20 or so hubs and corridors, it would be easy to create several long-haul passenger runs that would be competitive in both price and time. For example, I would describe them as trunk lines - interlinked to the Chicago hub.  I envision two eastern interlinks -
6) Great Lakes - Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo,NY.
8) Fort Wayne,Columbus, Pittsburgh.

The other hubs and corridors:
3) NY State Interlink - New York City, Albany, Buffalo / with Rochester & Syracuse.
4) Pennsylvania Interlink - Philadelphia,Harrisburg, Pittsburgh,PA
5) North Carolina network - Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Chapel Hill, Winston-Salem, Wilmington
6) Atlanta Hub - Chattanooga, Savannah, Columbia,SC, Charleston,SC, Charlotte,NC, Birmingham,AL
8) Ohio Cross-cross - Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati & Toledo-Columbus-SE Ohio
9) Chicago Hub (see above)
10) Chicago-Louisville-Memphis-Vicksburg-New Orleans
11) Long-Haul - Chicago to 1-Northwest 2-Denver,Salt Lake,SF 3-LA
12) Long-Haul - New Orleans-Texas-NM-Arizona-LA
15) The Boston hub