Opeens Had Ik Het ... over treinen en ander openbaar vervoer, sinds 2003

Forumoverzicht  • Treinen  • Internationaal en buitenland

Opeens Had Ik Het ... over treinen en ander openbaar vervoer, sinds 2003

Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk

Nieuws, vragen en discussies over internationaal reizigersvervoer en in het buitenland.

Plaats een reactie

Bericht Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Harm » wo 07 nov 2012 09:08

High-speed rail in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For inter-city rail in the United States with top speeds of 90 mph (145 km/h) or more but below 150 mph (240 km/h), see Higher speed rail.

Acela Express trains on the Northeast Corridor, currently the only line used for high-speed rail in the U.S.
High-speed rail in the United States currently consists of one high-speed rail service:[1]:5 Amtrak's Acela Express runs on the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington, D.C. Unlike Asian or European systems, the Acela shares its tracks with conventional rail, and thus is limited to an average speed of 84 mph (135 km/h)[2] for the entire distance with brief segments up to 150 mph (240 km/h). In comparison, high-speed trains between Tokyo and Kyoto run an average speed of 137 mph (220 km/h).[2] In 2012, Amtrak outlined plans to increase top speeds to 220 mph (354 km/h) by reducing train congestion in the Northeast Corridor in coming decades, cutting trips between New York City and Washington, D.C. to 94 minutes.[3][4]

A federal allocation of $8 billion for high-speed rail projects as a part of the 2009 stimulus package has prompted U.S. federal and state planners to coordinate the expansion of high-speed service to ten other major rail corridors,[5] some of whom have cancelled.

America's first dedicated high-speed rail infrastructure is likely to be in California, consisting of a high speed line between Anaheim and San Francisco via Los Angeles and San Jose. The line is scheduled to begin construction by September 2012 in the Central Valley.[6] The new line planned for construction in California would have a top speed in excess of 150 mph (240 km/h) and is classified as a High-Speed Rail–Express corridor.[7]

[hide] 1 Definition in American context
2 History 2.1 The high-speed interurbans 2.1.1 Advanced interurban technology

2.2 Pioneer Zephyr
2.3 Steam or diesel?
2.4 Federal involvement
2.5 Acela Express and recent high-speed interest

3 Current federal efforts 3.1 Strategic plan
3.2 Interim guidance
3.3 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 grants
3.4 Objection to high-speed rail spending
3.5 Fiscal Year 2010 allocation
3.6 Amtrak initiative
3.7 Cancellation of funds for Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida
3.8 Public opinion on federal efforts
3.9 2011 proposal

4 Current state and regional efforts 4.1 The Northeast 4.1.1 New Jersey-New York City
4.1.2 Northeast Corridor: Next Generation High-Speed Rail
4.1.3 Northeast Maglev

4.2 California
4.3 Colorado/New Mexico
4.4 Florida
4.5 New York State
4.6 Ohio
4.7 Pennsylvania
4.8 Illinois and the Midwest
4.9 The Southeast
4.10 Texas
4.11 The Southwest
4.12 The Northwest

5 See also
6 Notes
7 External links

[edit] Definition in American context

In Europe the definition of a minimum speed for newly built high-speed railways is 250 km/h (155 mph); for upgraded high speed railways it is 200 km/h (124 mph). In places where high speed rail programs are in earlier developmental stages or where substantial speed increases are achieved by upgrading current great infrastructure and/or introducing more advanced trains, lower minimum speed definitions of high speed rail are used.[8] This is the case in the United States. For transportation planning purposes focussing on the development of high speed rail, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) distinguishes four types of intercity passenger rail corridors:[9]
High-Speed Rail – Express: Frequent, express service between major population centers 200–600 miles (320–965 km) apart, with few intermediate stops. Top speeds of at least 150 mph (240 km/h) on completely grade-separated, dedicated rights-of-way (with the possible exception of some shared track in terminal areas). Intended to relieve air and highway capacity constraints.
High-Speed Rail – Regional: Relatively frequent service between major and moderate population centers 100–500 miles (160–800 km) apart, with some intermediate stops. Top speeds of 110–150 mph (177–240 km/h), grade-separated, with some dedicated and some shared track (using positive train control technology). Intended to relieve highway and, to some extent, air capacity constraints.
Emerging High-Speed Rail: Developing corridors of 100–500 miles (160–800 km), with strong potential for future HSR Regional and/or Express service. Top speeds of up to 90–110 mph (145–177 km/h) on primarily shared track (eventually using positive train control technology), with advanced grade crossing protection or separation. Intended to develop the passenger rail market, and provide some relief to other modes.
Conventional Rail: Traditional intercity passenger rail services of more than 100 miles with as little as one to as many as 7–12 daily frequencies; may or may not have strong potential for future high-speed rail service. Top speeds of up to 79 mph to as high as 90 mph generally on shared track. Intended to provide travel options and to develop the passenger rail market for further development in the future.

However, the United States Code defines high-speed rail as services "reasonably expected to reach sustained speeds of more than 125 mph (200 km/h)".[10] Additionally, the Congressional Research Service uses the term "higher speed rail" for speeds up to 150 mph (240 km/h) and "very high speed rail" for the rail on dedicated tracks with speeds over 150 mph (240 km/h).[11]

[edit] History

This section needs additional citations for verification. (April 2009)

The EMD FT and similar models became the dominant locomotives of the US streamliner fleet, ushering in the diesel-electric era.
[edit] The high-speed interurbans

When it was discovered that a tram (trolley or streetcar) could run between two towns, the first interurban was created. During the period 1900-1931, some of USA’s interurbans evolved really high-speed service for its time. However, the interurbans were especially exposed to the competition from cars and buses because they were clogged by the growing car congestions in the streets. In addition, many of them were bought and laid down by the General Motors alliance in the Great American streetcar scandal.[12]

"Bullet" No. 206 on display at Steamtown in Scranton, PA. Note the similarity to the Fliegender Hamburger, the German high-speed train from 1933. (Author Peter Van den Bossche)
[edit] Advanced interurban technology

Much of the high-speed rail technology stems from the U.S. interurban scene (in Europe, the interurbans didn’t play the same role)
History proves that steam, petrol, diesel, and gas turbines were sidings on the way to the modern high-speed rail: Virtually all the world’s high-speed trains today use electric traction because of better efficiency, less noise, and less air pollution. Therefore, it was possible to build small high-speed electric railcars, while the fastest steam locomitives were big and heavy. And while Ohio alone had about 2,800 mi (4,500 km) interurbans in 1916,[13] most conventional railroads preferred steam till they began using diesel in about 1934 – outside the Northeast Corridor and a few commuter railroads, very few of them were ever electrified. The interurban companies also experimented with different current systems and voltages to maximize efficiency and minimize energy waste.
The traction magnate Henry Huntington’s railcar Alabama, made by St. Louis Car Company, was capable of almost 100 mph (160 km/h) – in 1905.[14]
Lightweight technology
The interurbans were a decade ahead of the steam railroads in lightweight car construction. Lightweight interurban railcars like the Red Devils in Ohio (1929) and the Bullets from J. G. Brill Company in Philadelphia (1931) weighed 22 and 26 tons, respectively, or about ½ ton per seat – and provided their own tractive force. Conventional railroad cars of that time weighed about one ton per seat, and they needed a locomotive of up to 400 tons to haul them. Even the legendary Pioneer Zephyr (1934) weighed more than 700 kg (1,500 lb) per seat (or about 1.1 tons per seat, but 1/3 of its space was reserved for mail and express goods).[15] With four 100-horsepower (75 kW) motors, these high-speed interurbans also had at least twice the power-to-weight ratio as the Pioneer Zephyr. Compared to contemporary steam powered express trains, the ratio was at least 4 or 5 to 1 in the interurbans’ favor. Cincinnati Car Company, which developed the Red Devils for the Cincinnati and Lake Erie Railroad (C&LE), also constructed a truck adapted to run on a rough track at up to 90 mph (145 km/h) in commercial service; during a test run it reached almost 100 mph (160 km/h). As well, their light weight and low axle loads (11–13 tons compared to 20.5 tons for the Pioneer Zephyr and 29.5–33.5 tons for the 30s’ steam express locomotives)[15] resulted in less wear and tear on the infrastructure.
Wind tunnel research and streamlining
At same speed, air resistance is relatively more important for a railcar at twenty-some tons than for a locomotive at 300+ tons. And J.G.Brill was the first to use wind tunnel research to reduce the air resistance of rail equipment. The Bullets are called "ancestors of the TGV, ICE, Shinkansen, and the Acela Express"[16] (in English, the first Shinkansens were named Bullet Trains, though probably not named after the Bullet interurbans). The appearance of Fliegender Hamburger (Flying Hamburger), the first German high-speed train in commercial traffic (1933), was even more similar to Brill’s masterpiece.
Some of the interurbans were also ahead of conventional railroads (at least most of them) in infrastructure construction. In 1907, Philadelphia and Western Railroad (P&W) opened the Upper Darby-Strafford double-track, third rail-operated line without a single grade crossing with roads or other railroads (an essential requirement for modern HSR), and the maximum grades of 2%, in an exceedingly irregular topography.[14] Their extremely long lives were probably explained by both the infrastructure and high quality of the Brill railcars. While most of the high-speed steams and diesels of the '30s were phased out before 1960, some of the Bullets – and even some beefed-up interurbans from the period 1924–27 – ran till 1990.[16] And while most of the US’ public transport disappeared, the Norristown High Speed Line still serves as an interurban,[17] almost a hundred years after it in 1912 was extended from Strafford to Norristown.

[edit] Pioneer Zephyr

Competition between railroads had driven operators to make trains run faster and more efficiently for many years, but 1934 brought some of the biggest jumps in United States history. Fighting to retain customers who began fleeing to automobiles and airplanes after 1920, the Burlington Route's Zephyr and the Union Pacific's M-10000 sought to recapture the public's imagination. They marked the start of a new era of lightweight, streamlined trains, and were a major departure from the conventional, heavyweight beasts of the time. The Zephyr, built especially light due to its underpowered diesel-electric drivetrain, set a speed record of 112.5 miles per hour (181.1 km/h), and averaged 77 mph (124 km/h) on the 1,015-mile (1,633 km) route between Denver, Colorado and Chicago, Illinois on a special "Dawn-to-Dusk Dash"—speeds that could cut hours off of many intermediate- and long-distance train routes. Following a demonstration run to the Twin Cities, three railroads quickly announced they would drop four hours from their Chicago to Saint Paul schedules, a reduction of 38%.[18]

[edit] Steam or diesel?

After the fall of the electric interurbans, the question on the US high-speed rail scene during several decades was: Steam or diesel? The Zephyr calmed to a modest 49 mph (79 km/h) in its first revenue service, but other routes picked up the pace. On the 85 miles (137 km) Between Chicago and Milwaukee, steam locomotives still operated, and were averaging 57 mph (92 km/h) on that stretch by year's end. Beginning January 2, 1935, the Chicago and North Western 400 briefly held the spotlight by running 408.6 miles (657.6 km) at 58.4 mph (94.0 km/h) to Saint Paul—led by an upgraded steam engine originally built in 1923 that was pulling heavyweight cars.[18] In April, a new pair of diesel-powered Twin Zephyrs ticked the average speed up to 65.7 mph (105.7 km/h) on their slightly longer route. In testing, the Milwaukee Road's "speedlined", steam-powered Hiawatha cruised at the Zephyr's year-old record speed of 112.5 mph for 14 miles (23 km).[19]

New and old technologies crossed paths on railroads across the country, and each had their advantages and disadvantages. Short, articulated trainsets were efficient and eye-catching, but could not be expanded easily and had to be replaced by longer articulated sets or trains with conventional passenger cars. Steam locomotives were much more powerful than the diesels, but needed enormous manpower to operate and maintain. Diesels were fairly clean and simple to run, but needed to be ganged together in multiple-unit operation in order to pull bigger trains. Still, many trains had a style all their own, and the locomotives that hauled them, like the NYC Hudson, the Southern Pacific GS-4, and the EMD FT, became railroading icons.

Improvements to streamliners continued through the rest of the 1930s and into the 1940s. The Hiawatha regularly reached 100 mph (160 km/h) in the early years, and easily reached 110 mph (180 km/h) after a 1939 upgrade which claimed the locomotive had a "reserve speed" of 125 mph (201 km/h).[19] Long-distance services also improved, averaging 70 mph (110 km/h) or more on some lines. The original fixed-length streamliners were mostly scrapped during World War II, but not without great influence. In the 1950s, Japan's Odakyu Electric Railway introduced Romancecar service, which was largely patterned after the Zephyr and later Electroliner. It was the Romancecar, operating at 90 mph (140 km/h) on the Japanese narrow-gauge network, which proved the viability of even-faster standard gauge trains, leading Japan to inaugurate the modern high-speed rail era with the Tokaido Shinkansen in 1964.[20]

Streamliners in the US were significantly set back by 1940s and 1950s Interstate Commerce Commission rules which required enhanced safety features for all trains traveling above a 79mph (126 km/h) limit. Since the infrastructure required for cab signaling, automatic train stop and other enhancements was uneconomical in the sparsely-populated American West, this rule effectively killed further development of high speed rail outside the Northeast, where the Pennsylvania Railroad and others had installed cab signaling beginning in the 1930s. No other English-speaking country adopted this rule, and while the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia all operate trains at 100 mph (160 km/h) or higher using conventional lineside signaling, few trains in the United States operate above 79 mph (127 km/h) outside the Northeast Corridor. One exception that survives today is Amtrak's Southwest Chief, which travels up to 90 miles per hour (140 km/h) along various stretches of its Chicago–Los Angeles route.[21]

[edit] Federal involvement

Japan opened its first line of the Shinkansen network in 1964, running its 0 Series "bullet trains" at a top speed of 130 miles per hour (210 km/h)—a speed that was soon improved. The United States Congress responded by passing the High Speed Ground Transportation Act a year later, which led the US DOT to partner with the Pennsylvania Railroad and several industrial manufacturers to develop the Metroliner service, which was capable of traveling at 160 mph (260 km/h).[21] Pennsylvania-operated Metroliners were short-lived, however, as just two years later Amtrak was formed to take over the nation's passenger rail system from the freight operators.

U.S. federal and state governments continued to revisit the idea of fast trains as time went by. The Passenger Railroad Rebuilding Act of 1980 led to funding of high-speed corridor studies in 1984. Private-sector consortia intending to build high-speed lines were created in Florida, Ohio, Texas, California, and Nevada. Maglev trains became a new field of interest. They were officially added to the definition of "railroad" in 1988, and were studied repeatedly. Five high-speed corridors were officially endorsed in October 1992 following passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.[22] TEA-21 and other legislation continued to be passed with mentions of high-speed rail, but lacking funding or real direction.[23]

While Japan continuously improved its Shinkansen network, going from an initial top speed of 130 mph to having many services which operate at 186 mph (300 km/h) today, Amtrak consistently slowed down the Metroliner service, and the Metroliner-based Amfleet passenger car became the mainstay of intermediate-haul Amtrak services. Increasing airport congestion led to a renewed interest in high-speed rail, and in 2001 the Acela Express was inaugurated.

[edit] Acela Express and recent high-speed interest

Tilting technology allows Acelas to negotiate tight curves on the New York to Boston route while maintaining relatively fast speeds. While the trains themselves are capable of 150 mph (240 km/h), improvements to the track have proceeded in a piecemeal manner, and actual speeds are significantly slower. Presently the New York–Washington segment (formerly PRR) is the faster of the two, and only a small portion of the line allows 135 mph (217 km/h) running. The New York–Boston segment contains extensive segments with speeds as low as 90 mph (140 km/h); consequently, most of the recent improvements have focused on this corridor, thus the 150 mph (240 km/h) segment is also found here.

Acela travel time between Washington and New York is 2 hours and 53 minutes (compared to 2 hours and 30 minutes for PRR's nonstop Metroliner in 1969), or an average speed of 79 mph (127 km/h). Schedule between New York and Boston is 3 hours 34 minutes, an average speed of only 63 mph (101 km/h). With a 15-minute layover in New York, the entire end-to-end trip averages 68 mph (110 km/h).[24]

In recent years high jet fuel prices, congested airports and highways, and increasing airport security rules regarding liquids and electronics that force most travelers to check baggage have all combined to make high-speed rail options more attractive. A study conducted by the International Union of Railways indicated that high-speed trains produce five times less CO2 than automobiles and jet aircraft.[25] Most high-speed rail systems use electricity for power, so they lessen dependence on petroleum and can be powered by renewable energy sources, or by nuclear power such as in Japan and France. There has been a resurgence of interest in recent decades, with many plans being examined for high-speed rail across the country, but current service remains relatively limited.

[edit] Current federal efforts

In February 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Congress allocated $8 billion to be granted to states for intercity rail projects, with "priority to projects that support the development of intercity high speed rail service."[26]

[edit] Strategic plan

The ten rail corridors identified for potential high-speed development, with Chicago being a major hub.
In April 2009, as required by ARRA, the FRA released its strategic plan describing the agency's vision for developing high-speed rail in the United States.[9] As potential funding targets, the plan formally identified ten corridors[27]—all previously designated as high-speed rail corridors by several successive Secretaries of Transportation—as well as the existing Northeast Corridor. The ten designated high-speed corridors, together with the major cities served by each, are:
Southeast Corridor—Washington, Richmond, Newport News, Norfolk, Raleigh, Charlotte, Greenville, Atlanta, Columbia, Jacksonville
California Corridor—Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas
Pacific Northwest Corridor—Eugene, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver
South Central Corridor—Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Texarkana, and Little Rock
Gulf Coast Corridor—Houston, New Orleans, Mobile
Chicago Hub Network—Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Springfield, Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati, Kansas City, St. Louis, Louisville, Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul
Florida Corridor—Tampa, Orlando, Miami
Keystone Corridor—Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Harrisburg
Empire Corridor—Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Schenectady and Albany
Northern New England Corridor—Boston, Portland/Auburn, Montreal, Springfield, New Haven[28]

In addition to the $8 billion provided by ARRA, the plan forecasts five years' worth of $1 billion annual budget requests to be used to "jump-start a potential world-class passenger rail system."[1]

[edit] Interim guidance

On June 17, 2009, the FRA issued interim guidance to applicants covering grant terms, conditions, and procedures until final regulations are issued. Under its criteria, the FRA evaluates grant proposals for their ability to make trips quicker and more convenient, reduce congestion on highways and at airports, and meet other environmental, energy, and safety goals.[29]

[edit] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 grants

A summary of the grants awarded by the ARRA.
The FRA received grant applications from states for stimulus funds and FY 2009 intercity capital funds in August and October 2009[30] Over $57 Billion in requests were filed from 34 states. An announcement of which states received these funds was made on January 28, 2010, with 31 states and 13 rail corridors receiving funding.[31][32]

The details of the grants awarded by the ARRA.


Grant received (in millions $)

Chicago Hub/Ohio Hub








Pacific Northwest


Northern New England








The five areas receiving the most funding had originally been designated as high-speed rail corridors in October 1992 following passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.[22]

[edit] Objection to high-speed rail spending

When Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana gave the Republican response to President Obama’s speech to Congress in February 2009, he criticized the money as wasteful spending.[33] The libertarian[34] Cato Institute has taken a strong stance against governmental spending on high speed trains. Cato claims that the Interstate Highway System is used by more people and pays for itself (in the form of tolls and the gasoline tax), while high speed trains would cost the government more money, as ridership fees would not pay for the maintenance of the train, even if the government covered the cost of building the train. Cato also believes that many people will pay for a service only a few will use.[35]

[edit] Fiscal Year 2010 allocation

Congress allocated $2.5 billion in the FY 2010 budget[36] and these funds were allocated on October 28, 2010.[37] Major allocations are listed below.


Grant received (in millions $)





Chicago Hub






[edit] Amtrak initiative

On March 22, 2010, Amtrak announced it had created a dedicated department to pursue the development of high-speed rail. The initial focus of the department will be on the Northeast Corridor (Washington–New York–Boston) with an emphasis on increasing frequency and reducing journey times. The department will also examine the feasibility of raising the maximum speed limit in the aforementioned alignment from 150 mph to 220 mph. The department will also look at the possibilities of collaboration with other state and private initiatives, such as in California or Florida.[38]

[edit] Cancellation of funds for Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida

On December 10, 2010, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced $1.2 billion in grants for Wisconsin and Ohio would be removed, and redirected to other states. This was due to opposition from governors-elect in both states, Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio. From the redirected funds, California received $624 million, Florida $342 million, Washington $161 million, and Illinois $42 million. [39]

On February 16, 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott formally announced that he would be rejecting all federal funds to construct a high-speed railway project in the state, thereby killing the Florida High Speed Rail project. Governor Scott's reasoning behind cancelling the project was that it would be "too costly to taxpayers" and that "the risk far outweigh[ed] the benefits".[40] Those funds were once again redistributed to other states.

[edit] Public opinion on federal efforts

According to a poll released on April 6, 2010, just under half of Americans are in favor of the proposed plan laid out in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Grants, while just above a quarter are opposed and the remainder are unsure. When shown a map of the proposed high speed lines, 32% of the participants said they would rather take a high speed train than fly, drive, or take the bus (which would put high-speed rail a few percentage points behind driving but well ahead of flying and taking the bus). Republicans and Independents who took part in the poll were more likely to state that they would rather drive (40% of Republicans and 38% of Independents), while 44% of Democrats stated they would use the proposed high speed rail system (making it the most popular choice among Democrats).[41] Among Republicans, high-speed rail was competitive with air travel (24% to 24%), while high-speed rail was preferred to air travel among both Independents and Democrats.

[edit] 2011 proposal

In February 2011, Vice President Biden proposed spending $53 billion on improved passenger rail service over six years.[42] The plan drew fire from majority Republicans in the House of Representatives, who preferred private investment rather than government investment.[43] No money was appropriated for passenger rail in either the FY 2011[44] or FY 2012[45] budgets.

[edit] Current state and regional efforts

[edit] The Northeast

[edit] New Jersey-New York City

The NEC south of New Brunswick, NJ is being upgraded for high-speed rail
In February 2011 Amtrak announced plans for the Gateway Project, an 11 mile high-speed right of way across the Meadowlands, the Hudson Palisades, and the Hudson River, between Newark Penn Station and New York Penn Station.[46] In November 2011, US Congress allocated $15 million for engineering work on the project.[47][48][49] It remains unclear how much preliminary work done for the somewhat similar cancelled ARC project will be utilized. In August 2011, the United States Department of Transportation obligated $450 million to a six-year project to support capacity increases on one of the busiest segments on the NEC, a 24 miles (39 km) section in New Jersey between New Brunswick and Trenton. The project is designed to upgrade electrical power, signal systems, and overhead catenary wires to improve reliability and increase speeds up to 160 mph (260 km/h), and after the purchase of new equipment, up to 186 mph (299 km/h). Testing in September 2012 achieved record-breaking speeds for rail in the USA.[50]

Also in 2001 Congress the same obligated $295 million to improvements at Harold Interlocking, the nation's busiest rail junction nearby Sunnyside Yards in Queens, New York so that Amtrak's New England service can avoid congestion and bypass New Jersey Transit and Long Island Railroad trains.[51]

[edit] Northeast Corridor: Next Generation High-Speed Rail

Amtrak officials released a concept report for next-generation high-speed rail within the Northeast corridor on October 1, 2010.[52] The concept report envisions 220 mph trains running on dedicated tracks between Washington, DC, and Boston, Massachusetts. The report suggests the preferred alignment will closely follow the existing Northeast Corridor south of New York City. A number of different alignments will be studied north of New York City, including one through interior Connecticut paralleling Interstates 684, 84, and 90 (via Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford), one following the existing shoreline route (paralleling Interstate 95), and one via Long Island (requiring a bridge or tunnel across Long Island Sound to Connecticut). Amtrak has projected planning and construction of the next generation high speed Northeast Corridor line will cost approximately $117 billion (2010 dollars) and reduce the travel time from New York to Washington, including a stop in Philadelphia, to 96 minutes, and the travel time from Boston to New York to 84 minutes.[53][54] In 2012, Amtrak released the details of the proposal. It included multi-phase planning which split into two major phases called NEC-UP (2015-2025) and NEC NextGen HSR (2030-2040). During the NEC-UP phase, the capacity of Acela trains will be increased by adding 2 cars to each Acela train, bringing its 20-train fleet from the total of 120 cars to 160 cars. The NEC infrastructure will be improved and replaced to allow Acela to operate at higher speeds. At the later part of this phase, new HSR trains will be deployed which will reach 44 trains in 2025 and Acela will be phased out. Although HSR trains have maximum the speed of 220 mph, they will be operated at lower speeds due to the conditions of the NEC network. During the NEC NextGen HSR phase, new track, stations and systems will be constructed separately from the NEC network. The construction will start on the New York to Washington, DC segment first. After the New York to Boston is constructed, the oldest 12 HSR trains will be retired and 14 newer HSR trains will be deployed increasing the total capacity to 46 HSR trains which will operate at the maximum speed of 220 mph, cutting down the travel time from Boston to Washington, DC to 3 hours and 8 minutes. The old NEC network will be used in non-HSR services. The entire initiative is expected to cost $151 billions (2012 dollars).[2]

[edit] Northeast Maglev

In 2012, the Northeast Maglev, a small firm in Washington DC with backing from the Central Japan Railway Company, proposed a new High-Speed rail service along the Northeast Corridor with initial service between Washington, DC and New York City. The proposal calls for the use of maglev technology which will require building the brand new track and systems separately from the Amtrak's NEC and NEC Next Gen networks. The company plans to deploy the JR-Maglev trains with the maximum speed of 311 mph. They plan to have the service from Washington DC to New York City with the travel time of 60 minutes. The expansion from New York to Boston will be considered later.[55]

[edit] California

Main articles: California High-Speed Rail and XpressWest

California Proposition 1A, passed in November 2008, authorizes the state to issue $9.95 billion in bonds to fund the first phase of a planned multi-phase high-speed rail network. Steel-wheel on rail technology is the adopted mode. Los Angeles to San Francisco, via California's Central Valley, will be the first phase of the network. The California High-Speed Rail Authority is the lead agency charged with planning and implementing the system. When the network is built, high-speed trains will be able to travel across California at speeds of up to 220 mph (350 km/h), potentially llinking San Francisco and Los Angeles in as little as two hours and thirty-eight minutes. The state has been awarded $2.35 billion in funding from the federal government.

In addition to the state funded network, a private consortium has proposed building a new high speed line between Las Vegas, Nevada and Victorville, California. This proposal, named XpressWest (formerly known as DesertXpress), is intended to improve transit times between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, which currently has no passenger rail connection. The cost of the initial segment is estimated at between $4bn and $5bn,[56] with trains travelling up to 150 mph (240 km/h) making the 186 mi (299 km) journey in around 84 minutes.[56] The route is not planned to be extended directly to Los Angeles, although there is a further proposal to have it extended as far as Palmdale, where it would interchange with the CHSR network.[57]

[edit] Colorado/New Mexico

The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority is in the process of a high speed rail feasibility study. Primary corridors being studied are the Interstate 70 corridor from Denver International Airport (DEN) to Eagle Airport (EGE) in Eagle County near Vail, and the Interstate 25 corridor from the Wyoming border to the New Mexico border.[58] These corridors however, are not defined as high speed rail corridors by the FRA.

On July 9, 2009 the governors of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas announced plans to jointly seek federal designation of a high-speed rail corridor linking Denver, Albuquerque, and El Paso and request up to $5 million in federal funding for a feasibility study.[59]

[edit] Florida

Main article: Florida High Speed Rail

Development of a high-speed rail system in Florida was mandated by a constitutional referendum in 2000, but taken off the books by another referendum in 2004.[60] However, Florida resurrected its high speed rail authority to capitalize on the nationwide effort to build a high speed rail network. Florida legislature approved Sunrail in a special session in late 2009, which along with work already completed on the originally proposed line between Tampa and Orlando, was instrumental in the state winning a significant amount of the total amount allotted to high speed rail. Only California received more high speed rail funding than Florida. In February 2011, Florida's newly elected governor chose to cancel the project.[61] Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood then announced he would be redirecting the funds intended for Florida to other states.

In 2012, a plan for a 240-mile (390 km) inter-city rail from Miami to Orlando to be operated by a privately owned developer was announced. The plan called "All Aboard Florida" included a 40-mile (64 km) segment that is a high-speed rail between Cocoa and Orlando with a top speed of 125 mph (201 km/h).[62]

[edit] New York State

Main article: New York high-speed rail

New York State has been actively discussing high-speed rail service since the 1990s, but thus far little progress has been made. Amtrak Acela service between Washington, D.C., and Boston, Massachusetts, is available to New York City, but the cities in Upstate New York and Western New York remain isolated from high-speed rail service. Further, destinations outside the New York metropolitan area have been plagued by delayed service for decades. Nonetheless, New York has been quietly endorsing and even implementing rail improvements for years.

Closer and faster railroad transportation links between New York City and the rest of the state are frequently cited as a partial solution to Upstate's stagnant economic growth.

[edit] Ohio

Main article: Ohio Hub

The Ohio Hub is a project created by the Ohio Department of Transportation that is intended to connect Ohio with four other states, as well as Canada, by a passenger rail network. The main proposal is a four-corridor system based in Cleveland with branches terminating in Detroit, Toronto, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. Both a 79 mph (126 km/h) and 110 mph (176 km/h) high-speed rail network have been proposed, costing a total $2.7 billion and $3.32 billion, respectively.

[edit] Pennsylvania

Main article: Keystone Corridor

The Keystone Corridor is a 349 mile (562 km) rail line between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, composed of two different segments. Between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, the line, which is owned by Amtrak, is fully electrified and almost completely grade separated. Between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, the line is owned by Norfolk Southern, and is heavily used for freight transportation, with mountainous terrain. In 1999, the Keystone Corridor was formally recognized as a "designated high speed corridor" by the Federal Railroad Administration. The Keystone Corridor was upgraded in 2006 with two segments of 110 mph (176 km/h) operation between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, with express service taking 90 minutes over 103.6 miles (165.8 kilometres), which is the fastest average speed outside the North East Corridor. While the infrastructure already exists for high-speed rail between Harrisburg and Philadelphia, substantial infrastructure improvements would be necessary to provide high-speed rail between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Currently, one passenger train per day runs in each direction on the segment west of Harrisburg.

[edit] Illinois and the Midwest

Main article: Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative or Midwest Regional Rail System (MRRI, MWRRI, or MWRRS) is a plan to implement a 220 mph (354 km/h) (on some key corridors) to 110 mph (177 km/h) passenger rail network in the Midwestern United States, using Chicago, Illinois as a hub and including 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of track. Primary routes would stretch across Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, possibly reaching Kentucky. Secondary routes would operate at a somewhat slower speed across Missouri and Iowa, just touching Nebraska and nearly reaching Kansas. Existing Amtrak routes would probably be upgraded as part of this plan, which has been in development since 1996. Michigan has begun upgrading track and signals, already resulting in increased service speeds for Amtrak's Wolverine service. However, similar efforts in Illinois have met with considerable technical difficulties.

Construction on a high-speed rail line between Chicago and St. Louis is taking place.[63] Illinois has been one of the most aggressive at pursuing highspeed rail, getting $1.1 billion in 2010.[64] Governor Quinn told says that "we want to make this corridor the pre-eminent one in America". The Chicago-St.Louis rail line is being upgraded to include speeds of over 100 miles per hour (160 km/h). Plans have been such that they originated from the southern part of the state going up north. The first installment of funds provided for construction between Alton and Lincoln. In March 2011, the next installment of funds ($685 million) provided for another section to go from Lincoln to Dwight.[65] In May 2011, some $186 million additional got allocated, allowing for further construction between Dwight and Joliet.[66] Plans called for eventually investing in true high-speed travel that would boost train speeds to 220 mph (354 km/h).[67]

In June 2011, Governor Quinn of Illinois approved a 1.25 million dollar study on implementing 220 mph service between Chicago and Champaign-Urbana.[68] If implemented it would be the fastest train in the United States. The train may also go as far as Rockford, on tracks along Interstate 90.[69]

Michigan had received more than $161 million for high-speed rail and $40 million for Amtrak stations in Troy, Battle Creek and Dearborn.[70] On May 9, 2011, the state received $196.5 million to help retrofit a 135-mile (217 km) section of the Kalamazoo-to-Dearborn track for high-speed rail service.[71] The work should wrap up by the end of 2013 and cut the travel time between Detroit and Chicago by 30 minutes from the current 5 hours and 45 minutes.

About 30 miles (50 km) of the Chicago-Detroit route passes through northwestern Indiana along Lake Michigan's south shore.[72] In early 2010 the federal government authorized some $71.4 million for this project.[73]

In Minnesota, there is a proposed high-speed rail service from Rochester to the Twin Cities called Zip Rail. The trains will run on a dedicated track at speeds between 150 mph (240 km/h) and 220 mph (350 km/h).[74] This is proposed to be a public–private partnership with public funding for capital costs and private investment for operations, maintenance and growing ridership.[75]

[edit] The Southeast

Main article: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

The Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor is a passenger rail transportation project to extend high speed passenger rail services from Washington, DC south through Richmond and Petersburg in Virginia through Raleigh and Charlotte in North Carolina and connect with the existing high speed rail corridor from DC to Boston, Massachusetts known as the Northeast Corridor. Since first established in 1992, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has since extended the corridor to Atlanta and Macon, Georgia; Greenville, South Carolina; Columbia, South Carolina; Jacksonville, Florida; and Birmingham, Alabama.

Incremental improvements to existing rail lines have been taking place while the environmental impact study required under the National Environmental Policy Act is being completed. The two-tiered EIS began in 1999, and completion is expected in 2011, with passenger service expected by 2015 to 2020, depending upon funding availability.

[edit] Texas

In 1991 the Texas High Speed Rail Authority awarded a 50-year high speed rail franchise to the Texas TGV Corporation — a consortium of Morrison Knudsen (USA), Bombardier (Canada), Alstom (France/UK), Crédit Lyonnais (France), Banque IndoSuez (France), Merrill Lynch (USA), and others. Texas TGV won the franchise after more than two years of litigation instigated by a rival consortium backing German ICE technology.

The plan was to connect the "Texas Triangle" (Houston - Dallas/Fort Worth - San Antonio) with a privately financed high speed train system which would quickly take passengers from one city to the next at prices designed to compete with or beat other transport options. This was the same model Southwest Airlines used 20 years earlier to break in to the Texas market where it served the same three cities.

Funding for the project was to come entirely from private sources, since Texas did not allow the use of public money. The original estimated cost was $5.6 billion, but the task of securing the necessary private funds proved extremely difficult.

Southwest Airlines, with the help of lobbyists, created legal barriers to prohibit the consortium from moving forward and the entire project was eventually scuttled in 1994, when the State of Texas withdrew the franchise.[76] Several hotel chains like Days Inn, Best Western, and La Quinta Inn. As well as fast food establishments like McDonalds and Burger King lobbied against the plan.[76]

Another proposal for high-speed rail in Texas was part of a larger proposed, state-wide super-infrastructure, the Trans-Texas Corridor. In 2002, Governor Rick Perry proposed the project, but it was eventually canceled by the legislature in 2009.[77]

In 2002, the Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation (THSRTC), a grass roots organization dedicated to bringing high speed rail to Texas was established. In 2006, American Airlines and Continental Airlines formally joined THSRTC, in an effort to bring high speed rail to Texas as a passenger collector system for the airlines. The Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation developed the Texas T-Bone and Brazos Express corridors to link Central Texas.[76]

In 2010, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) received a federal grant to study a high-speed rail corridor linking Oklahoma City with Dallas–Fort Worth.[78] The state also received another grant in 2011 to start engineering and environmental work on a high-speed link between Houston and Dallas.[79] Another study was being conducted in 2012 by TxDOT on a possible link between Houston and Austin.[80]

While the preliminary work was in progress by TxDOT for the Houston to Dallas line, an unrelated project to build a high-speed railway between the two cities was announced in 2011 by a private company, Lone Star High Speed Rail. The company was founded in 2009 by U.S. Japan High Speed Rail to market the use of N700-I bullet train in Texas.[81] In 2012, the company with a new name, Texas Central Railway Company, announced that Central Japan Railway Company signed up to be the primary investor in the project with the total estimated cost of $10 billion to be privately funded. The preliminary engineering, market and financing studies have been started for the service with maximum speed of 205 miles per hour and travel time of 90 minutes. The current plan is to seek additional investors in late 2012, start the construction in 2014, and begin the service in 2024.[82]

See also: South Central Corridor

[edit] The Southwest

The cities of Denver, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix and Salt Lake City have recently formed the Western High Speed Rail Alliance, which is slated to spend $11 million over three years to study the feasibility of building railway links between the major cities of the southwestern United States, as well as linking to the California high-speed corridor via Las Vegas.[83][84] All four states represented are in the top ten fastest growing states, with Utah and Colorado topping the list. New Mexico is considering joining in order to include Albuquerque and Santa Fe in the network by upgrading and extending its recently-completed Rail Runner Express. Major obstacles to high speed rail in the region include highly competitive airline fares, rugged geography, and funding. Critics argue that high-speed rail works best in densely populated regions (such as the various large cities of the East Coast and the eastern Midwestern United States), and will not be feasible in the sparsely populated West[85]

In June 2012, the developer of XpressWest, formerly known as DesertXpress, announced that they expanded the planned high-speed rail network to include links to Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Denver. The XpressWest plan was supported by the Western High Speed Rail Alliance.[86]

See also: XpressWest

[edit] The Northwest

Main article: Pacific Northwest Corridor

On January 27, 2010 the federal government announced it would be awarding $590 Million of ARRA Stimulus funds to Washington State for infrastructure improvement.[87] This will be used to build high speed trains connecting the Pacific Northwest Corridor between Eugene, OR and Vancouver, BC going through Portland and Seattle.

Bron: Wikipedia

Gaat het nu dan echt gebeuren? Er zijn al zeer veel plannen gemaakt maar het kwam er niet van. Tegenwerking van luchtvaartmaatschappijen die niet wilde dat de HST ging concurreren met de vliegtuig op bepaalde traces. Boeren die naar de rechter gingen als bekend dat de spoorlijnen hun gebied doorsneden. Politieke onwil en desinteresse zorgden ook voor dat in Amerika zeer lang geen HSL werden aangelegd. Republikeinen die de Democraten onder leiding van President Obama ook dwars lagen. De enigste spoorlijn die echt concreet geschikt gemaakt worden voor hoge snelheden is de Northeast corridor (Washington - New York - Boston). Dit jaar volgt Californie waar ze nu eindelijk serieuze plannen hebben voor een HSL. President Obama legde in april 2009 een plan voor een Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk. Ambitieus voor een land waar auto en vliegtuig veel populairder zijn dan passagierstreinen.
Goederentreinen stellen in U.S.A wel wat voor. Bekend zijn de soms 2000 meter lange goederentreinen. Daar is het grootste deel van de Amerikaanse spoorinfrastructuur voor gemaakt. Als ze daadwerkelijk HSL wil aanleggen met een maximumsnelheid van 350 km p/u zullen ze de kennis nodig hebben van Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens, Hitachi enz. We zullen zien of het er echt van komt.

Berichten: 3391
Geregistreerd: ma 23 jan 2012 22:28
Woonplaats: zwolle
Heeft Bedankt: 25 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 12 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Gereke » wo 07 nov 2012 11:48

Is die hele lap tekst nou echt nodig?

Verder is het niet zo zeer politieke onwil, maar onwil onder de gehele bevolking. Nouja prima, ik zit er niet mee. Het volk daar moet lekker zelf beslissen wat ze willen. Blijkbaar is is het gevolg dat er weinig overheidsgeld voor infra is, want de overheid vertrouwen ze niet. Aan de andere kant zie je dat er ook geen geld voor wegen is, die liggen er vaak erbarmelijk bij. Uitbreidingen die er zijn betreffen bijna zonder uitzondering tolstroken waar geen overheidsgeld bij komt kijken. En aangezien ongesubsidieerde HSL-producten pepersduur zijn zie ik die er ook niet van komen. glimlach

Berichten: 2239
Geregistreerd: ma 14 feb 2011 23:41
Woonplaats: Amsterdam
Heeft Bedankt: 3 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door SuperGhost » wo 07 nov 2012 12:06

Vergeet niet dat de afstanden daar ietsjes groter zijn dan in Nederland, zodat een HSL daar veel makkelijker rendabel te krijgen is dan in ons kikkerlandje.

Maar dat de infra daar slecht is is ook logisch als je bedenkt dat daar weinig belasting wordt geheven (vooral op de rijken), dus dan heb je ook weinig om aan infra(onderhoud) uit te geven. Al helemaal als je 700 miljard per jaar aan defensie uitgeeft (ter vergelijking, de nummers 2 t/m 27 op de lijst met hoogste defensieuitgaven hebben samen nog een kleinere uitgave dan de VS en daarvan zijn overigens 25 van de 26 landen een bondgenoot van de VS, dus dat zijn belachelijke uitgaven).
regelmatige gebruiker van de stations Nijmegen Heyendaal, Nijmegen, Arnhem, Zutphen, Lichtenvoorde-Groenlo en Zevenaar

Berichten: 14731
Geregistreerd: vr 01 aug 2008 15:36
Woonplaats: Nijmegen/Eibergen
Heeft Bedankt: 2 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 12 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door PvdO » wo 07 nov 2012 13:50

Infrastructuur is bij mijn weten een staatsverantwoordelijkheid, niet federaal. Dat heeft dus in het geheel niks met defensie te maken.
In de VS zijn de afstanden misschien zelfs te groot om welke HSL dan ook rendabel aan te leggen. Ik zou een transcontinentaal HSL-netwerk een fantastisch idee vinden, maar de concurrentie van de luchtvaart is enorm en het investeringsklimaat in de VS is op het moment, nouja, niet briljant. Zeker niet voor zulke grote infrastructuurprojecten ten behoeve van een vervoermiddel waar de gemiddelde Amerikaan nooit van zijn leven in heeft gezeten. In Californië, een vrij linkse staat waar het OV zelfs soort van werkt, hebben ze het al jaren en jaren over de HSL. Laat Californië ook net de staat zijn met een van de begrotingstekorten en weinig budget voor infrastructuur - iets dat iedereen die over de Interstate 5 is gereden zal kunnen bevestigen.

Harm, kan je volgende keer enkel het relevante deel van het Wikipedia-artikel posten met een link, de rest kan ik dan eventueel zelf wel lezen knipoog

Berichten: 593
Geregistreerd: vr 18 mei 2012 16:24
Woonplaats: Lund (S)
Heeft Bedankt: 1 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 2 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door en-es » wo 07 nov 2012 20:06

Een HSL in de VS is alleen nuttig voor de realatief korte afstanden tussen grote steden. Bijv. vanuit Chicago naar Saint Louis en Minneapolis. Of Los Angeles-San Francisco. Met een HSL van New York naar Los Angeles gaat gewoon niet. Of dergelijke HSL's rendabel te krijgen zijn is een andere vraag. Niet alleen vliegtuig maar ook bus is een concurrent. Alhoewel de peperdure acelea's toch rendabel lijken ondanks de lowcost busmaatschappijen.

Berichten: 2949
Geregistreerd: zo 09 apr 2006 13:17
Woonplaats: Baarn
Heeft Bedankt: 1 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 2 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Harm » wo 07 nov 2012 20:29

Acela Express rijdt in de dichtstbevolkste deel van de U.S.A. Dan kan een dure HST rendabel zijn ondanks concurrentie van goedkope bussen, vliegtuigen. Bovendien zijn de afstanden tussen de verschillende grote steden niet al te groot.

Berichten: 3391
Geregistreerd: ma 23 jan 2012 22:28
Woonplaats: zwolle
Heeft Bedankt: 25 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 12 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door SuperGhost » wo 07 nov 2012 20:32

Wat noem je niet al te groot?
regelmatige gebruiker van de stations Nijmegen Heyendaal, Nijmegen, Arnhem, Zutphen, Lichtenvoorde-Groenlo en Zevenaar

Berichten: 14731
Geregistreerd: vr 01 aug 2008 15:36
Woonplaats: Nijmegen/Eibergen
Heeft Bedankt: 2 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 12 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Harm » wo 07 nov 2012 20:53

Ruim 600 km tussen Washington - New York - Boston. Dat is voor Amerikaanse begrippen niet al te groot en er zijn een aantal grote steden. Hiervan een overzicht:

Acela Express

Boston - New Haven - New York - Philadelphia - Baltimore - Washington, DC

Amtrak (Amerikaanse nationale passagiersspoorbedrijf ) is de vervoerder van Acela Express.

Berichten: 3391
Geregistreerd: ma 23 jan 2012 22:28
Woonplaats: zwolle
Heeft Bedankt: 25 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 12 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Vinny » wo 07 nov 2012 22:43

En aangezien ongesubsidieerde HSL-producten pepersduur zijn zie ik die er ook niet van komen
De HSL heeft zichzelf als concept overleefd. Voor de budget reizigers is het te duur, voor zakenreizigers te inflexibel, voor mensen die snel ergens willen wezen heeft het een te lage penetratiegraad en super milieuvriendelijk is het ook al niet meer.

Avatar gebruiker
Berichten: 6989
Geregistreerd: wo 14 dec 2005 23:54
Woonplaats: Heeg
Heeft Bedankt: 1 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 3 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Reiziger Delft » do 08 nov 2012 09:16

Je hebt het zeker over Nederland nu tong naar buiten ? In Frankrijk, Spanje, Duitsland, Italië en Japan is het namelijk wel een groot succes.

Avatar gebruiker
Reiziger Delft
Berichten: 2240
Geregistreerd: di 19 okt 2004 12:52
Woonplaats: Delft
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Harm » do 08 nov 2012 10:27

In landen waar de HSL wel succesvol is blijkt dat

- inwoners trots zijn op hun HSL/HST zoals Frankrijk (TGV), Duitsland (ICE), Spanje (AVE)
- in bepaalde delen een zeer hoge bevolkingsdichtheid te zijn zoals in China (Beijing - Shanghai), Japan (Tokyo - Osaka), Zuid Korea en Taiwan
- een aantal zeer grote steden met elkaar verbonden worden. Goed voorbeeld is Londen - Parijs. Afgezien van Lille ligt er op de HSL Parijs - Londen geen echt grote steden.
- uitbreiding van extra (hogesnelheids) spoorlijnen in een bepaald gebied noodzakelijk is. Beroemdste voorbeeld is natuurlijk de LGV Parijs - Lyon. De succes van deze eerste Europese HSL heeft veel navolging gekregen
- Waar afstanden tussen grote steden niet te groot zijn zoals de HSL corridor Londen/Parijs - Brussel - Amsterdam/Köln - Frankfurt

In Amerika kijken ze daarom vooral naar Chicago - Minneapolis (600 km)/Detroit (450 km)/Indianapolis (240 km)/Cincinnati (420 km)/St. Louis (420 km)/Omaha (750 km) waar een grote bevolkingsdichtheid is, waar HSL redelijk eenvoudig en niet te duur aangelegd kan worden omdat het niet in een bergachtige omgeving is. De Canadese miljoenenstad Toronto ligt op 800 km afstand van Chicago.

Berichten: 3391
Geregistreerd: ma 23 jan 2012 22:28
Woonplaats: zwolle
Heeft Bedankt: 25 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 12 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Dennenboom » do 08 nov 2012 16:28

Voor de budget reizigers is het te duur

Budget airlines concurreren juist op vluchten van meer dan 500 km waar geen (rechtstreekse) snelle treinen rijden. Het voor en natransport is wel duur of belabberd. En de naamgeving van de gebruikte luchthavens is volksverlakkerij, zoals Frankfurt Hahn, dat 125 kilometer van Frankfurt ligt.

Berichten: 104
Geregistreerd: vr 23 jul 2010 20:23
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door R-K » do 08 nov 2012 17:41

VS is gewoon te rechts om te investeren in openbaar vervoer. Daar reist iedereen met de auto of met het vliegtuig. Denk niet dat men daar zo snel HSL's gaan aanleggen.

Avatar gebruiker
Berichten: 2612
Geregistreerd: zo 06 maart 2011 15:48
Woonplaats: Doetinchem
Heeft Bedankt: 4 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 4 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Harm » do 08 nov 2012 21:05

Tot nu heeft U.S.A weinig gedaan aan aanleg van nieuwe (hogesnelheids)lijnen. Alleen de Northeast Corridor tussen Washington - New Heaven is grondig gemoderniseerd waardoor de Acela Express 200 km p/u of meer kan rijden en tussen New Heaven - Boston rijdt de Acela Express op echte nieuwe spoorlijn 240 km p/u. Het is een initiatief van Amtrak (Amerikaanse staatsspoorwegen voor reizigersvervoer) geweest. Aanleg van andere HSL of plannen voor aanleg van HSL in U.S.A. kwamen niet van de grond omdat de overheid weinig interesse had, luchtvaartmaatschappijen en boeren naar de rechter stapten of door de staten waar de HSL zou worden aangelegd de aanleg van de HSL schrapte omdat uit onderzoeken bleek dat de HSL niet kostendekkend was. En als ze in de U.S.A.de HSL niet rendabel/kostendekkend zoals hier bij de HSL Zuid dan beginnen ze niet aan de aanleg van een HSL.
President Obama presenteerde in 2009 de plannen voor een Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk. De eerste reden daarvoor was dat er een financiële crisis. President Obama wilde door aanleg van nieuwe spoorinfrastructuur de financiële crisis bestrijden. De tweede reden is indirect dat supermacht China inmiddels ver voor ligt met het aanleggen van HSL. De U.S.A. is geen nr. 1 op het gebied van spoorwegen.

Berichten: 3391
Geregistreerd: ma 23 jan 2012 22:28
Woonplaats: zwolle
Heeft Bedankt: 25 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 12 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door groentje » do 08 nov 2012 21:25

In Spanje rijden behoorlijk wat AVE's vrij leeg, hoor. Omwille van de lage frequenties en de hoge prijzen nemen veel mensen de (goedkopere) bus, want ander treinverkeer wordt er veelal verwaarloosd...

Medewerker Infrabel
Medewerker Infrabel
Berichten: 1530
Geregistreerd: vr 09 jan 2004 01:35
Woonplaats: Brussel, België
Heeft Bedankt: 1 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 2 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Harm » do 08 nov 2012 22:01

De andere breedspoortreinverkeer (1668 mm) doen ze in Spanje weinig meer aan. In Spanje streven ze zoveel mogelijk naar normaalspoor (1435 mm). In Spanje hadden ze zeer lang niet of weinig geinvesteerd in spoorlijnen. Het lijkt wel of ze een enorme inhaalslag willen maken. Qua aanleg van aantal km hogesnelheidsspoor staat Spanje op de tweede plaats achter China! En dat terwijl zoals je al aangaf de frequentie niet zeer hoog is zoals in Frankrijk.
Had gelezen dat de AVE populair was in Spanje. Niet dus. In Amerika zullen ze dat vast niet willen. Een aangelegde HSL moet zichzelf kunnen terugverdienen.

Berichten: 3391
Geregistreerd: ma 23 jan 2012 22:28
Woonplaats: zwolle
Heeft Bedankt: 25 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 12 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door groentje » do 08 nov 2012 22:55

De AVE's zijn bijna volledig op de leest geschoeid van vliegverkeer (inclusief bagagechecks, metaaldetectoren, etc). Er worden nieuwe stations gebouwd, vaak buiten de stad, maar zonder ketendenken, waardoor aansluitingen vaak slecht of eerder toevallig zijn. Het plan was dat alle provinciehoofdsteden per AVE met Madrid verbonden moeten zijn. Mij lijkt dat eerder een politieke wens dan een economisch of zelfs een verkeerskundig concept. Het is dan ook geen toeval dat Renfe een heel aantal AVE-stellen aan de kant heeft gezet en de frequenties heeft afgebouwd bij de laatste besparingen. Zowat de enige verbinding die zichzelf opbrengt, is Madrid-Toledo, een zijtakje van de lijn naar Sevilla, een slordige 15 km lang...
Toegegeven, die dingen zijn behoorlijk stipt en comfortabel, maar voor veel minder geld had het bestaande net grondig hertimmerd kunnen worden, met slechts lokaal nieuwe secties, en dat had alle spoorverkeer ten goede gekomen.
Volgens mij wou Spanje teveel, te snel...

Medewerker Infrabel
Medewerker Infrabel
Berichten: 1530
Geregistreerd: vr 09 jan 2004 01:35
Woonplaats: Brussel, België
Heeft Bedankt: 1 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 2 keer
Bericht Re: Amerikaanse hogesnelheidsnetwerk door Harm » do 08 nov 2012 23:40

Spane heeft een enorme staatsschuld. Ben benieuwd of ze met dezelfde snelheid nieuwe HSL blijven aanleggen in Spanje. In Frankrijk, Duitsland werd/wordt stap voor stap nieuwe HSL aangelegd. Meestal doen ze dat om bestaande infrastructuur te ontlasten. Weet niet waarom in Spanje vanaf 2000 ineens zoveel HSL tegelijk worden aangelegd. In Spanje wordt sommige breedspoorlijnen gemoderniseerd en aangepast voor hogere snelheden. Sommige breedspoorlijnen worden omgevormd tot normaalspoorlijnen en aangepast voor hogere snelheden. Het lijkt niet op te kunnen. Het lijkt Real Madrid wel. Enorm veel geld investeren ondanks forse schulden.

Berichten: 3391
Geregistreerd: ma 23 jan 2012 22:28
Woonplaats: zwolle
Heeft Bedankt: 25 keer
Ontvangen Bedankjes: 12 keer

Plaats een reactie


Keer terug naar Internationaal en buitenland

Wie is er online

Gebruikers op dit forum: Ahrefs en 1 gast