| Ryan Lantzy wrote on Tue, 04 January 2011 12:35 |
From what I know of the European system (specifically German) nearlly all of the passenger lines were exclusively built for high speed service. While they may carry less freight over rail per capita than the US that's not the point really. When they started to offere high speed rail, they built new tracks. The contstruction of high speed lines is much different, requiring super-elevated curves, fewer and gentler curves in general, and more moderate grades (i.e. more tunnels and bridges).
--------------
It is expensive, but AFAIK grading and building a rail line is MUCH cheaper than highways. Also, given the amount of abandoned right of way in the US, much of that could probably be reclaimed for use on high speed lines (once the curves are removed and tunnels/bridges are built).
|
The highest EU speed lines were "greenfield" projects using primarily new alignments. There were also some upgrades of existing lines that allowed higher speeds to be used.
Grading and building a "greenfield" true HSR line on new alignment in the USA is extremely expensive - the California HSR project is looking at upwards of $40 billion to connect SF and LA, somewhere on the order of $100 million a mile. There are not many new highways comparable that are being built, but I-69 between Indianapolis and Evansville, IN is coming in around $8 million a mile. Where new rail competes most favorably with new highways is in tight urban areas, where a double set of tracks can be elevated and require much less urban destruction than a new highway, whether elevated or at ground level. Building new urban freeways such as was done in the 1960's where entire neighborhood blocks were razed for construction is a complete non-starter, regardless of the extreme expense it would take.
Abandoned or little used rail lines do indeed present a redevelopment opportunity, provided they go where people want to go. But the NIMBY issue will always be there. Heck, there were all kinds of lawsuits, counter-studies, etc. when the Canadian National bought a lightly used rail line around Chicago and started running a few more trains on it. The line was in existence 100 years before the complainers lived there and was always active to some extent. You'd think, if you live near a set of tracks, that a train might occasionally pass by? D'oh!
The larger issue is that there is scarce public money to go around to build new stuff, regardless of the mode you prefer. That's why there are so many quasi-public/private initiatives floating around these days, where the government would kick in some money and the remainder would be kicked in by a private franchise, which would lease and operate the facility for a profit. SNCF, the French railway, is even proposing to franchise some such HSR projects in the USA.
