There’s something I think you don’t understand about Brightline West. The I-15 corridor that it runs on gets massively congested, especially during weekends. One of the aims is to reduce that congestion and eliminate the air traffic purely between those cities.
And Eugene. Not including the Eugene/Springfield metro is illogical. I understand it, but it isn't reasonable to exclude it. The highest ridership segment consistently on the Amtrak Cascades line is Eugene to Portland. It was also the segment which was relentless to force Amtrak to reinstate service when they continued to ignore doing so after the pandemic. The ridership metrics in that southern 1/3 are dedicated riders and the number of them grows year over year, too. They punch WAY above their weight. It'd be like not including Tacotown in the line. It just doesn't make any sense to exclude.
@@namedtruman Well this is about including Vancouver BC in the line rather than the video's Portland to Seattle concept. So Tacotown (Tacoma) and Olympia are automatically included between Portland & Seattle. So it is just Salem and Eugene that were missing off the concepts of both the video and the OP. And if Portland to Eugene is a part of the corridor, then naturally at least Salem would receive a stop. So the whole line south to north would be: Eugene/Springfield Salem/Keizer Portland Olympia Tacoma or SeaTac (airport) Seattle Bellingham Vancouver BC As for the IC/ICE line, it would go south to north as follows: Eugene/Springfield Albany Salem/Keizer Tualatin/Tigard Portland Vancouver Kelso/Longview Chehalis/Centralia Olympia/Lacey Tacotown SeaTac Seattle Everett Bellingham Surrey Vancouver BC In my mind, that's the most logical, utopian way to set up the HSR and ICE lines for such a rail system for the corridor. The only reason I don't include Vancouver WA on the HSR line is because of how close it is to Portland, and that means it would heavily impact the speed and consistency of the HSR line negatively if added. What's worse is the trade-off is not any better, as it would mean inducing even more demand and congestion on the I-5 Bridge than it's already egregious parking lot congestion levels. So there is just no winning there unfortunately. I suppose we could presume there is a passenger rail bridge or tunnel built specifically for these lines to cross the river, making it entirely proprietary, and that then would likely make it far more feasible to include them on the HSR line, though again, the proximity to Portland station is still going to have a negative impact overall, even if it would be greatly lessened. Logistics are like this though - a pain in the ass.
@@TheCriminalViolin i feel more local stops (woodburn or white rock for example) should be added to the intercity line because the current cascades line tries to be both local and express at the same time, and the addition of a high-speed line could further differentiate the two. additionally, i think that it would make more sense for the intercity train to go to oregon city instead of tualatin, for both the aforementioned local service reason and to not compete with the westside express service.
@@namedtruman It wouldn't compete with the WES at all. The WES has incredibly LOW ridership, is only a 1 or 2 car train, runs 6 times per day each direction), is actually quite slow, especially compared to a ICE line, and without a stop on the west side (where the bulk of the metro populace is), would force westsiders (like myself) to go to Downtown Portland in order to ride it at all, which is itself very slow, especially in the summer give MAX can only go 30mph when it is 90 or above, and for driving, it's not much better given the constant miles long crawl on all the major aerials in and out of the city. I do like the idea of placing a stop in OC though to give the east side a option, however that would be better suited if it was a ICE or IC line that went to PDX instead of downtown. Also just for clarity, ICE is different than IC (Intercity) as the e means Express, as it has limited stops, and functions as the higher speed gap filler between true regional/local/IC routes and true HSR routes. I spend a lot of time in NIMBY Rails, and recently started up a west coast project after focusing on Texas and that region. I have placed stops in more places than I initally anticipated for the ICE route, so in one particular part (Washington) it becomes more of a IC than a ICE. I put stops in Bellingham, Mount Vernon/Arlington, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, West Seattle, Renton, Kent, Auburn, Puyallup, Lacey, Centralia (more central to the surrounding towns), Castle Rock, Kelso/Longview, Woodland and Salmon Creek for the smaller towns. I even slapped one in DuPont because of Joint Base Lewis-McChord. For here in Oregon I added in Beaverton, Wilsonville (replaced Tualatin's HSR station for the ICE line with this), Woodburn, Albany, Corvallis and Junction City for our smaller stations and towns. For BC I tossed in Surrey as it makes perfect sense in every where to make sure they get at least a ICE stop, especially since I opted to not give them a HSR stop. I also considered White Rock, and decided to say "fuck it" and gave them a ICE stop too (thus Blaine as well) since they're border towns, to make it potentially quicker & easier for folks in the region to cross the border. Usually with Border town stations, they integrate the whole security and crossing protocols and checks in ahead of time, which vastly minimizes the actual time it takes to cross the border compared with the usual car, bike or on foot crossings. Theoretically, we could finally do something similar to many other countries and actually implement a "advanced validation and check" system at point of purchase pf tickets and of course arrival at the station, which would take off even more crossing time. So I do make sure to hit up plenty of the smaller towns along the way throughout Oregon & Washington for the ICE route idea. Of course the major issue is, the logistics of actually deciding on where the stations and thus alignments are for these services (HSR & ICE) is, once it's decided, in real life, that's it. There is all but guaranteed nothing more than just the HSR line that would get funded and built out. I doubt they'd even consider anything extra like ICE services (even though they REALLY should for a large number of reasons). So all else goes directly into the "utopian vision" bin where it's all imagination and again... all but fact it'll never ever be. So say we do instead choose to hit up OC over anywhere on the westside for the HSR line - that'd be final and we'd never get another line or station for anywhere else. It would also mean we'd need to do sweeping curves into downtown and out of downtown from/to the Vancouver and OC ends. Downtown is more out of the way than it looks and feels. But that would also mean even more expense in order to navigate under or over the Willamette a second time in the heart of the urbanized area of the eastside. If that station was on the westside, you'd only have the one crossing instead. Again, it's all logistics in the end, and logistics are a royally pain in the ass, as they ALWAYS end up forcing changes most people wouldn't want, sometimes even really destroying a vision or plan completely because of some stupid thing that comes up. in fact, that would actually end up with THREE crossings in the greater metro than just the one if it went to OC, as it would have to cross again around Wilsonville & Canby in order to properly service a logical station in Salem/Keizer And yeah, as you can tell by now, I am a diehard of transit and transit planning, so once I get going, I go DEEP. I could go on and on forever about this kind of thing. haha.
I am actually surprised you didn’t use some of the proposed Brightline routes shown at Orlando opening. Portland to Vancouver, than just Seattle Chicago - St. Louis Charlotte - Atlanta somehow a Boston - NYC - DC. I don’t know how feasible some of these proposals you have if some of them will be running on Interstate highways cause that would have either a lot of tunnels and viaducts due to many interchanges. Also unless they use some railway right of ways to have a parallel passenger line like Brightline Florida, would be complicated having it to connect to some current train terminals. The Chicago to Detroit might just become an extra service or express service on the Wolverine corridor that’s already 110mph upgraded on a huge segment of Amtrak & Michigan DOT. The deviation would just how to connect to Chicago and Detroit terminals without having to go through freight lines. Also, some of these proposed Brightline stations are built nearby or using either station of other commuter or intercity station. Miami, Orlando and LA for example. Brightline gets their own new station at Las Vegas due to large land real estate. Which is probably one of the key factors for proposing routes, having good land to use for redevelopment and leasing around the stations. HSR is very expensive too seeing that LV to LA is single tracked with some passing sidings, which limits its frequency and capacity. Though still able to double track later on if demand grows exponentially but it’ll be more expensive. Seeing CAHSR is very expensive due to the service and segments it has built up and connect, the SF to SD would be just as hard or harder using interstate highways. Unless they beat Texas Central - Amtrak to building a Texas Traingle HSR service in Texas, it will just be redundant. Key problem too is having to connect with rapid transit lines in Austin, Houston, and Dallas. Dallas proposed station for Texas Central is by a DART station and Houston is by a dilapidated mall, still room for expansion for METRO.
A lot of these are difficult routes for a private company to acquire. Brightline got the FEC RR and then got the Freeway Corridor to Orlando. Same with I-15 to Vegas. They need abandoned rail corridors and freeway right of ways.
One of the things you kind of miss is that the Brightline experiment has been purposed off of using already existing infrastructure. The first leg of the Florida Brightline used the existing trackage of the Florida-East Coast railroad. The Brightline West project is using the right-of-way of the Interstate. Conversely, the projects that have tried to build completely new infrastructure (specifically the Texas High Speed Rail project) has struggled. Out of all your proposals, only the Milwaukee-Chicago has the already existing infrastructure to make use of. And even that already has Amtrak service.
Why can’t brightline build new rail? One of the biggest problems with amtrak throughout the country is that they own a very small percentage of rail track and are at the mercy of cargo and other passenger rail services, causing hours of cumulative delays sometimes. Yes it would bring an upfront cost for brightline to build their own rail, but at the end of the day the customer is going to be happier and keep coming back when they don’t constantly have to stop for whoever owns the rail and has first priority.
@@fourth_place, they "CAN" build new rail, but it's expensive. They built new, dedicated rail between Orlando and Coco Beach (the only, true "high speed" section) but that's 40 miles of the entire length. The rest was able to capitalize on existing trackage. If Brightline had to build the entire length of "new" and dedicated railway, they wouldn't have been able to do it. And just look at the headaches with all the "at grade crossings" Brightline has to deal with down through Fort Lauderdale and Miami. If they could afford to, of course they would love to pay for the grade-separations and dedicated bridges, etc... But then "Brightline" would never be able to afford it and there'd be no "Brightline" at all.
@@pastorjerrykliner3162 fortunately, building on their Florida success, Brightline West will be true new built high speed rail. Of course, now the nay sayers have moved the goal posts and are complaining about not being able to completely double track. I do believe they will continue to build on their successes.
@@PapillonTraining, I don't want to take anything away from Brightline... My point is that, really, they did things in a way that was responsible and sustainable. I think that, sooner than later, they WILL double track the whole Orlando-Coco section; they built that into the plans.
The Southeast triangle would be phenomenal. Connecting Nashville, Charlotte, and Atlanta is an amazing idea. As you noted it would heavily impact Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Asheville.
A Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Chicago link has been talked about for decades. And with Chicago being a major possible future hub, along with a Pittsburgh = Philadelphia extension opening up the East Coast, this seems like a sure fire bet.
As a detroit native, I was hoping to see a DET-CHI pairing in this list. It’s a no brainer. Whenever I visit chicago, I take the Amtrak. The 5.5hrs is tough, and a high speed option would be incredible. The amount of folks that already do this via Amtrak (due to driving/parking annoyance) definitely makes this appealing, especially if it’s quick. A weekend trip to either city would be way more appealing and we’d see a boost economically & culturally between two of the Great Lakes best.
You're right about there being a demand for rail between Denver and the mountain west along I-70, but high speed rail isn't the answer. The real demand is for the weekend warriors who want to ski and do other outdoor recreational activities between the Front Range and the ski areas along I-70, like you say, but I don't think it extends beyond that. During the winter the interstate is choked with hours of bumper to bumper traffic, imitating the economic conditions that make the LA->LV Brightline West corridor economically viable (though numbers-wise, not sure if it's the same scale). But the demand for fast travel between Denver and SLC, much less Boise? Eh, don't think the interchange serves a big enough market, aside from more skiing opportunities.
I'd say go to Tampa/ St. Petersburg would be awesome, maybe a line to Atlanta ? Also, bring the train to LA Union station, I don't wanna take another train to LA from Vegas !
How about. Nashville, Huntsville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Greeneville, Charlotte, Asheville, Knoxville to Nashville Those cities are the fastest growing cities in the south right now. You can even argue Raleigh. But those cities are growing tremendously wild and they deserve something like thus and you can link up to Atlanta and Charlotte's airport one of the biggest airports in the nation and you have Nashville and Raleigh the fastest growing airport in the nation or even the fastest growing airports in the world which would be amazing. A Delta hub (Atlanta), A American hub (Charlotte), Southwest hub (Nashville). Raleigh is also growing there International Airport into a hub so a International hub (Raleigh)
Brightline should be expanded to Atlanta and Raleigh on two routes, with the branches diverging at Brunswick, Georgia. One branch would run from Brunswick to the Five Points station in Atlanta via a stop in Macon, and one branch would run from Brunswick to Raleigh with stops in western Savannah, northern Charleston, Florence, and Fayetteville before terminating at a station in downtown Raleigh.
The expansions would require the line would be expanded north of Cocoa station with stops in St Augustine and Jacksonville before crossing the border into Georgia.
Love to see a Boston to Montreal high speed line. Normal drive time would take like 6 hours including customs stop! A high speed line could take way less than 4 hours including customs stop!
LA to Vegas is a no brainer. No idea why you’re against it. Tourism is the main reason for long distance travel. Most people aren’t commuting between big cities for work. The Vegas strip doesn’t require a car and I’m sure there will be bus stops between the strip and Brightline station. Maybe even a car rental nearby.
Ngl, though it would be nice to have the option to ride Brightline, it's just their ticket prices are just so HIGH, too high, I think, for the average person to afford them.
The main reason why brightline west looks like it would be completed faster than CA HSR is because of California’s topography and how expensive tunneling is to connect the Central Valley section (from Gilroy to Madera & Bakersfield to Lancaster). Brightline west does NOT require any tunneling and is mostly single tracked meanwhile CA HSR is building a double tracked line mostly from scratch. But I would’ve done SF to Sacramento and from LA to SD cause it would’ve cost the same as from SF to LA to begin with lol
Considering all the railroad infrastructure has been taken for US 1, I don't ever see this happening. One thing that KW has going for it is the water. There is already a high-speed ferry route that runs from Fort Myers to KW and, if there isn't already such a service from Miami, that would make more sense than re-building the "Overseas Railroad."
@@pastorjerrykliner3162 If Key Largo for example would have a station, it would have Amtrak, Brightline and Tri-Rail. You'll have a major connection and then have Amtrak and Brightline stop at Marathon in Middle Keys But another thing about the Florida Keys route is the concern of the environment that could impact the coral reefs and the potential risk of hurricanes
Detroit could use both light rail and high-speed rail. Light rail going from a redeveloping downtown to the northern suburb of Pontiac- high speed rail running from downtown out to Detroit Metropolitan airport then on to Chicago.
14:00 As a long time Angeleno, I have to disagree with characterizing LA as "trending in the wrong direction" with respect to transit and transportation development. Our level of car dependency is painfully high of course, but the continued expansion of transit from LA Metro, Metrolink, and Amtrak services as well as more TOD and revised parking mandates are all signs that things are moving in the right direction. Fortunately our high speed rail connection between LA and SF is well underway and when complete will be publicly owned, not private. I applaud Brightline for all of the work they're doing to modernize the image of train travel for the modern American passenger, but more than anything I want to see Amtrak get the proper investment that it needs to continue expanding and improving it's services.
Cascadia High Speed Rail is a project that I badly wish would actually happen, rather than just being a lose concept like it still is. There's no real focus, push or priority for planning it out. It's predictable and annoying. That said, the ulimate goal should be to have the connection that goes from Chula Vista to Vancouver BC. Have it completely multi-tracked so that it not only allows passing, but also multiple trains running on two separate lines - The main HSR line only stopping in the main cities, and of course a ICE/Regional line stopping in the main cities AND smaller cities and towns, too. Think cities like Stockton, Redding, Medford/Ashland, Eugene/Springfield, Salem/Keizer, Tualatin, so on. And in all honesty, the entire sun belt needs HSR lines. A line that would run from either SD or LA to Phoenix, a Phoenix to Albuquerque line, ABQ to DFW, the connect between DFW and Houston would be taken care of by the most needed which is the Texas Triangle (I've called it the Texas Eagle in NIMBY Rails myself), then from Houston to New Orleans with branches from there where one stays along the gulf and goes to Tallahassee, which then would have a line that'd go to Jacksonville, with options to have two other lines go from there, with one going to Orlando with a stop in Gainesville, and the other continuing along the gulf down to Tampa/St. Pete. The northern branch at New Orleans would of course be the main line most everyone thinks of and talks about, which would connect up to Birmingham, another line from there to A-Town, and possibly one from there which would connect up to a different set of lines which would go up and down the eastern seaboard. I think that would make a lot of sense. Obviously the city pairs I listed would function as their own lines, or part of their own. But yeah, the Texas Triangle needs to happen, and I'll always advocate for connectivity with true HSR from A-Town up through Richmond at least, and of course the main great lakes corridors too.
The reason why Brightline exists is because of the way Amtrak routes are funded. While the Northeast Corridor and the long distance routes are federally funded, anything else has to have funding from the states it runs through to get any federal funding, which is why they are called State Supported Routes. This is why Brightline exists in places like Florida where the state has no intentions on paying for the service. That is why any route you brought up that is funded by Amtrak Midwest (Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and to a lesser extent Missouri and Minnesota) will always be Amtrak. The issue isn't the funding, it's getting the right-of-way cleared for more passenger trains. The same can be said with Pennsylvania, Seattle, Oregon and Carolina routes as they are putting heavy investment into those. Even states that we're against Intercity rail like Ohio and Texas are looking or get back in the rail game. Also there is a High Speed Rail being built right now between San Francisco and San Diego, the first true High Speed Rail project in America, California High Speed Rail. It's already billions of dollars in so Brightline would have no reason to build that.
Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City Maybe add Indianapolis to the Cincinnati proposal Only other route I can think of would have involve connecting Dallas to Oklahoma City and Tulsa, though not sure what the demand would be
The Rancho Cucamonga to LV rout is kind of like shooting your feet off. Its real value would be from L.A. Union Station to a LV Strip location or possibly adjacent to LV International. Rancho Cucamonga, really? SF to L.A. is being built by the CAHSR Authority already. Yes, it is happening at a snail's pace and is, to say the least, seriously expensive but, they are building it at the highest standards, a completely grade-separated, 220mph (350Kph) train that will be able to maintain those kinds of speeds throughout most of its rout. It is not a half-assed, compromised system. It is being engineered to be a true, state-of-the-art high-speed train that will take you from city center to city center. I don't see any other HSR proposals or projects anywhere else in the US that is going full-out, balls-to-the walls, true high speed rail like CAHSR is building. It will be worth it in the end. Cascadia, YES!! I'm an L.A. native who had to leave L.A. for oh so many reasons, chief among them being, I cannot stand L.A. I moved up to first, Tacoma WA, then to Longview WA and I ain't ever going back. Longview would be the second stop northbound out of Portland OR. I find myself going to Seattle and Portland for varying reasons several times a year and would love to have an at least 125mph train. Portland is close enough that I could commute there from Longview. I think 160mph, on up to 186mph is quite feasible albeit, a bit spendy too though, not as bad as CAHSR is. And, yes, it should go on up to Vancouver BC as well. I would also love to see L.A. to Phoenix, it would be a natural extension to L.A. to SF.
About sportsfans. Here in Poland association football fans can get quite rough if not violent... so some of them get their own special train service for the games :P
When it comes to building a railroad, especially on the west coast there is a major problem. Politics, environmental issues, land owners against these projects, etc. Why the plagued HSR in California has had its problems leading to cost overruns, delay, etc. While a private company like Brightline would do a better job, other factors must be considered.
Your Denver/Salt Lake idea would be much better routed thru Cheyenne, then west. Much easier topgraphy for grading, etc and much less issues with obtaining land for the R.O.W. The current Cali Zephyr route would be better served with another coach-only day train between the two cities, but the U.P. HATES passenger rail of any kind!
I am 100% all for a national Interstate Rail system using Interstate corridors to save both costs and legal issues of trying to secure right's of way... 125 MPH/200 KMH would be the minimum average operating speed with higher sections possible as well as slower passing sections like is the plan for the Brightline West project... If you can't get existing rail operators to come on board you might as well start fresh with new tracks along public corridors anyway...
Brightline West is using an existing interstate right of way and ending at Rancho... it's not that impressive. If they had to acquire all of the right of way and built into downtown LA the project would be unprofitable (like almost all transportation infrastructure is)
@@StefanWithTrains3222 true however you have to remember this is a private company, unlike the government that makes Trillions so it needs a income source.
I appreciate your enthusiasm but a very specific set circumstances and serendipity fell into place to make Brightline Florida happen. It is highly unlikely to happen again.
@@StefanWithTrains3222, fine...it "shouldn't have to be profitable," but it should make sense and be usable. Building, for the sake of building, has gotten us transit options that don't actually work for people, so they get low ridership. The low ridership/usage numbers then get "they shouldn't have to be profitable" thrown as an excuse--rather than addressing the issues--which then causes the problem to repeat. The desire to "build high speed rail" just to build it, rather than asking "will it actually get used" and "is it sustainable" isn't the answer.
Not convinced about a Waco stop? Let me convince you haha Baylor University and Magnolia. Majority of Baylor students are from the 3 major Texas cities, but out of state students have to fly into either Dallas or Austin just to take a minimum 1 hr 45 min drive to campus. Same for all the tourists who want to go to Magnolia aka Disneyland for white suburban moms lol
Texas already has its own HSR plans, which involves Houston to Dallas (with a stop near College Station), then through Arlington to Ft. Worth and eventually down through Austin and San Antonio. The plan is to use the Japanese Shinkansen. Not Brightline.
The first one lacks the population to work. Atlanta to Savannah doesn't even make the top 20. What can work? Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-Milwaukee (your 2nd) - connecting at PIT, CLE, DET, possibly ORD Houston-DFW-Austin-San Antonio - connecting at IAD, DFW, AUS, SAT DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte-Atlanta - possibly going to Nashville - connecting at DCA, RDU, CLT, ATL, (BNA) Regular rail would make more sense Knoxville to Nashville and Asheville to Charlotte or Greenville, SC NYC-Albany-Montreal-Toronto-Detroit LA-Vegas-Phoenix (LA-Vegas is under construction) and SFO - LA - San Diego (planned/under construction) Portland-Seattle-Vancouver Add on. Cincinatti-Columbus-Cleveland - connects to the first one I listed, makes Cleveland a HS rail hub. Denver would have to be a Front Range express (Cheyanne, Boulder, Denver, Colo Springs, Pueblo), but even that's a tough one. the Rockies are just too expensive to traverse. In the end, your h.s. rail hub cities would be Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Orlando, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, NYC and each of those airports would be stops. The main thing is to eliminate high-frequency, short-haul flights and driving. Leverage the airports for longer-haul connections, using synergy between rail and airlines.
![[Watch Party] APL 2024 รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย ไทยต้องแชมป์ !](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NctOkvaex-Y/mqdefault.jpg)
minor correction* there is currently no high speed rail between philly and pittsburgh, make that expansion route #11 on this countdown! :)
Lol, I went to fact check this when I saw it in the video.
How can we trust anything in this video if the producers think Pittsburgh has Acela service to Philly? It hardly even has decent slow Amtrak service.
There’s something I think you don’t understand about Brightline West.
The I-15 corridor that it runs on gets massively congested, especially during weekends. One of the aims is to reduce that congestion and eliminate the air traffic purely between those cities.
And it's not "business travelers" or commuters. It's people going from CA to LV for the weekend, pleasure trip.
@@pastorjerrykliner3162 I can hardly wait to try it.
The Cascadia line proposal should definitely include Vancouver BC as well
And Eugene. Not including the Eugene/Springfield metro is illogical. I understand it, but it isn't reasonable to exclude it. The highest ridership segment consistently on the Amtrak Cascades line is Eugene to Portland. It was also the segment which was relentless to force Amtrak to reinstate service when they continued to ignore doing so after the pandemic. The ridership metrics in that southern 1/3 are dedicated riders and the number of them grows year over year, too. They punch WAY above their weight. It'd be like not including Tacotown in the line. It just doesn't make any sense to exclude.
@@TheCriminalViolin salem and olympia or tacoma too to further bolster ridership
@@namedtruman Well this is about including Vancouver BC in the line rather than the video's Portland to Seattle concept. So Tacotown (Tacoma) and Olympia are automatically included between Portland & Seattle. So it is just Salem and Eugene that were missing off the concepts of both the video and the OP. And if Portland to Eugene is a part of the corridor, then naturally at least Salem would receive a stop.
So the whole line south to north would be:
Eugene/Springfield
Salem/Keizer
Portland
Olympia
Tacoma or SeaTac (airport)
Seattle
Bellingham
Vancouver BC
As for the IC/ICE line, it would go south to north as follows:
Eugene/Springfield
Albany
Salem/Keizer
Tualatin/Tigard
Portland
Vancouver
Kelso/Longview
Chehalis/Centralia
Olympia/Lacey
Tacotown
SeaTac
Seattle
Everett
Bellingham
Surrey
Vancouver BC
In my mind, that's the most logical, utopian way to set up the HSR and ICE lines for such a rail system for the corridor.
The only reason I don't include Vancouver WA on the HSR line is because of how close it is to Portland, and that means it would heavily impact the speed and consistency of the HSR line negatively if added. What's worse is the trade-off is not any better, as it would mean inducing even more demand and congestion on the I-5 Bridge than it's already egregious parking lot congestion levels. So there is just no winning there unfortunately. I suppose we could presume there is a passenger rail bridge or tunnel built specifically for these lines to cross the river, making it entirely proprietary, and that then would likely make it far more feasible to include them on the HSR line, though again, the proximity to Portland station is still going to have a negative impact overall, even if it would be greatly lessened. Logistics are like this though - a pain in the ass.
@@TheCriminalViolin i feel more local stops (woodburn or white rock for example) should be added to the intercity line because the current cascades line tries to be both local and express at the same time, and the addition of a high-speed line could further differentiate the two. additionally, i think that it would make more sense for the intercity train to go to oregon city instead of tualatin, for both the aforementioned local service reason and to not compete with the westside express service.
@@namedtruman It wouldn't compete with the WES at all. The WES has incredibly LOW ridership, is only a 1 or 2 car train, runs 6 times per day each direction), is actually quite slow, especially compared to a ICE line, and without a stop on the west side (where the bulk of the metro populace is), would force westsiders (like myself) to go to Downtown Portland in order to ride it at all, which is itself very slow, especially in the summer give MAX can only go 30mph when it is 90 or above, and for driving, it's not much better given the constant miles long crawl on all the major aerials in and out of the city.
I do like the idea of placing a stop in OC though to give the east side a option, however that would be better suited if it was a ICE or IC line that went to PDX instead of downtown.
Also just for clarity, ICE is different than IC (Intercity) as the e means Express, as it has limited stops, and functions as the higher speed gap filler between true regional/local/IC routes and true HSR routes.
I spend a lot of time in NIMBY Rails, and recently started up a west coast project after focusing on Texas and that region. I have placed stops in more places than I initally anticipated for the ICE route, so in one particular part (Washington) it becomes more of a IC than a ICE. I put stops in Bellingham, Mount Vernon/Arlington, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, West Seattle, Renton, Kent, Auburn, Puyallup, Lacey, Centralia (more central to the surrounding towns), Castle Rock, Kelso/Longview, Woodland and Salmon Creek for the smaller towns. I even slapped one in DuPont because of Joint Base Lewis-McChord.
For here in Oregon I added in Beaverton, Wilsonville (replaced Tualatin's HSR station for the ICE line with this), Woodburn, Albany, Corvallis and Junction City for our smaller stations and towns.
For BC I tossed in Surrey as it makes perfect sense in every where to make sure they get at least a ICE stop, especially since I opted to not give them a HSR stop. I also considered White Rock, and decided to say "fuck it" and gave them a ICE stop too (thus Blaine as well) since they're border towns, to make it potentially quicker & easier for folks in the region to cross the border. Usually with Border town stations, they integrate the whole security and crossing protocols and checks in ahead of time, which vastly minimizes the actual time it takes to cross the border compared with the usual car, bike or on foot crossings. Theoretically, we could finally do something similar to many other countries and actually implement a "advanced validation and check" system at point of purchase pf tickets and of course arrival at the station, which would take off even more crossing time.
So I do make sure to hit up plenty of the smaller towns along the way throughout Oregon & Washington for the ICE route idea. Of course the major issue is, the logistics of actually deciding on where the stations and thus alignments are for these services (HSR & ICE) is, once it's decided, in real life, that's it. There is all but guaranteed nothing more than just the HSR line that would get funded and built out. I doubt they'd even consider anything extra like ICE services (even though they REALLY should for a large number of reasons). So all else goes directly into the "utopian vision" bin where it's all imagination and again... all but fact it'll never ever be.
So say we do instead choose to hit up OC over anywhere on the westside for the HSR line - that'd be final and we'd never get another line or station for anywhere else. It would also mean we'd need to do sweeping curves into downtown and out of downtown from/to the Vancouver and OC ends. Downtown is more out of the way than it looks and feels. But that would also mean even more expense in order to navigate under or over the Willamette a second time in the heart of the urbanized area of the eastside. If that station was on the westside, you'd only have the one crossing instead. Again, it's all logistics in the end, and logistics are a royally pain in the ass, as they ALWAYS end up forcing changes most people wouldn't want, sometimes even really destroying a vision or plan completely because of some stupid thing that comes up. in fact, that would actually end up with THREE crossings in the greater metro than just the one if it went to OC, as it would have to cross again around Wilsonville & Canby in order to properly service a logical station in Salem/Keizer
And yeah, as you can tell by now, I am a diehard of transit and transit planning, so once I get going, I go DEEP. I could go on and on forever about this kind of thing. haha.
*Rancho Cucamonga not San Bernardino
I know I said the “city” of san bernardino, but I was really referring to sb county as a whole, which Rancho Cucamonga is included in.
The state of California is already building high-speed rail between San Diego and Northern California.
Yea and it won't be available until 2099
@@lunchmeatkingpin2567 2099 I think is a bit optimistic if we are leaving it up to CAHSR.
@@PapillonTraining He was putting it into PR's terms. What that translates to in American Transit Planning is approximately 2247
It will be finish by 2030.
@@TheCriminalViolin 2244, we would have Earth Space dock finish.
Sadly, There is no Acela from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, just some limited somewhat high speed conventional service from Harrisburg to Philadelphia.
No mention of the Orlando to Tampa Bay extension, well then.....
I am actually surprised you didn’t use some of the proposed Brightline routes shown at Orlando opening.
Portland to Vancouver, than just Seattle
Chicago - St. Louis
Charlotte - Atlanta
somehow a Boston - NYC - DC.
I don’t know how feasible some of these proposals you have if some of them will be running on Interstate highways cause that would have either a lot of tunnels and viaducts due to many interchanges. Also unless they use some railway right of ways to have a parallel passenger line like Brightline Florida, would be complicated having it to connect to some current train terminals.
The Chicago to Detroit might just become an extra service or express service on the Wolverine corridor that’s already 110mph upgraded on a huge segment of Amtrak & Michigan DOT. The deviation would just how to connect to Chicago and Detroit terminals without having to go through freight lines.
Also, some of these proposed Brightline stations are built nearby or using either station of other commuter or intercity station. Miami, Orlando and LA for example. Brightline gets their own new station at Las Vegas due to large land real estate.
Which is probably one of the key factors for proposing routes, having good land to use for redevelopment and leasing around the stations.
HSR is very expensive too seeing that LV to LA is single tracked with some passing sidings, which limits its frequency and capacity. Though still able to double track later on if demand grows exponentially but it’ll be more expensive. Seeing CAHSR is very expensive due to the service and segments it has built up and connect, the SF to SD would be just as hard or harder using interstate highways.
Unless they beat Texas Central - Amtrak to building a Texas Traingle HSR service in Texas, it will just be redundant. Key problem too is having to connect with rapid transit lines in Austin, Houston, and Dallas. Dallas proposed station for Texas Central is by a DART station and Houston is by a dilapidated mall, still room for expansion for METRO.
I live in the UK but I gonna give my opinion here
Brightline is something that makes feel proud off you lot
A lot of these are difficult routes for a private company to acquire. Brightline got the FEC RR and then got the Freeway Corridor to Orlando. Same with I-15 to Vegas. They need abandoned rail corridors and freeway right of ways.
One of the things you kind of miss is that the Brightline experiment has been purposed off of using already existing infrastructure. The first leg of the Florida Brightline used the existing trackage of the Florida-East Coast railroad. The Brightline West project is using the right-of-way of the Interstate. Conversely, the projects that have tried to build completely new infrastructure (specifically the Texas High Speed Rail project) has struggled.
Out of all your proposals, only the Milwaukee-Chicago has the already existing infrastructure to make use of. And even that already has Amtrak service.
Why can’t brightline build new rail? One of the biggest problems with amtrak throughout the country is that they own a very small percentage of rail track and are at the mercy of cargo and other passenger rail services, causing hours of cumulative delays sometimes. Yes it would bring an upfront cost for brightline to build their own rail, but at the end of the day the customer is going to be happier and keep coming back when they don’t constantly have to stop for whoever owns the rail and has first priority.
@@fourth_place, they "CAN" build new rail, but it's expensive. They built new, dedicated rail between Orlando and Coco Beach (the only, true "high speed" section) but that's 40 miles of the entire length. The rest was able to capitalize on existing trackage. If Brightline had to build the entire length of "new" and dedicated railway, they wouldn't have been able to do it. And just look at the headaches with all the "at grade crossings" Brightline has to deal with down through Fort Lauderdale and Miami. If they could afford to, of course they would love to pay for the grade-separations and dedicated bridges, etc... But then "Brightline" would never be able to afford it and there'd be no "Brightline" at all.
@@pastorjerrykliner3162 fortunately, building on their Florida success, Brightline West will be true new built high speed rail. Of course, now the nay sayers have moved the goal posts and are complaining about not being able to completely double track. I do believe they will continue to build on their successes.
@@PapillonTraining, I don't want to take anything away from Brightline... My point is that, really, they did things in a way that was responsible and sustainable. I think that, sooner than later, they WILL double track the whole Orlando-Coco section; they built that into the plans.
The Southeast triangle would be phenomenal. Connecting Nashville, Charlotte, and Atlanta is an amazing idea. As you noted it would heavily impact Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Asheville.
A Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Chicago link has been talked about for decades. And with Chicago being a major possible future hub, along with a Pittsburgh = Philadelphia extension opening up the East Coast, this seems like a sure fire bet.
Chicago already has metra a stop in Naperville seems redundant
It goes much farther and isn't a local line like Metra.
As a detroit native, I was hoping to see a DET-CHI pairing in this list. It’s a no brainer.
Whenever I visit chicago, I take the Amtrak. The 5.5hrs is tough, and a high speed option would be incredible. The amount of folks that already do this via Amtrak (due to driving/parking annoyance) definitely makes this appealing, especially if it’s quick.
A weekend trip to either city would be way more appealing and we’d see a boost economically & culturally between two of the Great Lakes best.
You're right about there being a demand for rail between Denver and the mountain west along I-70, but high speed rail isn't the answer. The real demand is for the weekend warriors who want to ski and do other outdoor recreational activities between the Front Range and the ski areas along I-70, like you say, but I don't think it extends beyond that. During the winter the interstate is choked with hours of bumper to bumper traffic, imitating the economic conditions that make the LA->LV Brightline West corridor economically viable (though numbers-wise, not sure if it's the same scale). But the demand for fast travel between Denver and SLC, much less Boise? Eh, don't think the interchange serves a big enough market, aside from more skiing opportunities.
Love this. Keep up the great work. Would love to see a video of a video of a coast to coast route for brightline and if that is even feasible
I'd say go to Tampa/ St. Petersburg would be awesome, maybe a line to Atlanta ?
Also, bring the train to LA Union station, I don't wanna take another train to LA from Vegas !
How about. Nashville, Huntsville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Greeneville, Charlotte, Asheville, Knoxville to Nashville Those cities are the fastest growing cities in the south right now. You can even argue Raleigh. But those cities are growing tremendously wild and they deserve something like thus and you can link up to Atlanta and Charlotte's airport one of the biggest airports in the nation and you have Nashville and Raleigh the fastest growing airport in the nation or even the fastest growing airports in the world which would be amazing. A Delta hub (Atlanta), A American hub (Charlotte), Southwest hub (Nashville). Raleigh is also growing there International Airport into a hub so a International hub (Raleigh)
wholeheartedly agree
Brightline should be expanded to Atlanta and Raleigh on two routes, with the branches diverging at Brunswick, Georgia. One branch would run from Brunswick to the Five Points station in Atlanta via a stop in Macon, and one branch would run from Brunswick to Raleigh with stops in western Savannah, northern Charleston, Florence, and Fayetteville before terminating at a station in downtown Raleigh.
The expansions would require the line would be expanded north of Cocoa station with stops in St Augustine and Jacksonville before crossing the border into Georgia.
All 10 routes are needed! Yes!!
Love to see a Boston to Montreal high speed line. Normal drive time would take like 6 hours including customs stop! A high speed line could take way less than 4 hours including customs stop!
LA to Vegas is a no brainer. No idea why you’re against it. Tourism is the main reason for long distance travel. Most people aren’t commuting between big cities for work. The Vegas strip doesn’t require a car and I’m sure there will be bus stops between the strip and Brightline station. Maybe even a car rental nearby.
That first photo you have up when speaking of Chattanooga is not Chattanooga. The second one was correct.
Texas Triangle for sure! 🙌
Ngl, though it would be nice to have the option to ride Brightline, it's just their ticket prices are just so HIGH, too high, I think, for the average person to afford them.
They are building a high speed line between Dallas and Houston.
The main reason why brightline west looks like it would be completed faster than CA HSR is because of California’s topography and how expensive tunneling is to connect the Central Valley section (from Gilroy to Madera & Bakersfield to Lancaster).
Brightline west does NOT require any tunneling and is mostly single tracked meanwhile CA HSR is building a double tracked line mostly from scratch.
But I would’ve done SF to Sacramento and from LA to SD cause it would’ve cost the same as from SF to LA to begin with lol
I would love to see a Brightline expansion from Miami to Key West
Considering all the railroad infrastructure has been taken for US 1, I don't ever see this happening. One thing that KW has going for it is the water. There is already a high-speed ferry route that runs from Fort Myers to KW and, if there isn't already such a service from Miami, that would make more sense than re-building the "Overseas Railroad."
@@pastorjerrykliner3162 If Key Largo for example would have a station, it would have Amtrak, Brightline and Tri-Rail.
You'll have a major connection and then have Amtrak and Brightline stop at Marathon in Middle Keys
But another thing about the Florida Keys route is the concern of the environment that could impact the coral reefs and the potential risk of hurricanes
Detroit could use both light rail and high-speed rail. Light rail going from a redeveloping downtown to the northern suburb of Pontiac- high speed rail running from downtown out to Detroit Metropolitan airport then on to Chicago.
How about Seattle and Portland but extended north to Vancouver.
YES please! lowkey needs to be nationalized tho lol, but love what Brightline is doing
14:00 As a long time Angeleno, I have to disagree with characterizing LA as "trending in the wrong direction" with respect to transit and transportation development. Our level of car dependency is painfully high of course, but the continued expansion of transit from LA Metro, Metrolink, and Amtrak services as well as more TOD and revised parking mandates are all signs that things are moving in the right direction. Fortunately our high speed rail connection between LA and SF is well underway and when complete will be publicly owned, not private. I applaud Brightline for all of the work they're doing to modernize the image of train travel for the modern American passenger, but more than anything I want to see Amtrak get the proper investment that it needs to continue expanding and improving it's services.
We need Atlantic City to New York really bad.
Chicago-Detroit I would see as a real Acela HST with a potential link to the NEC…
Toronto, Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Chicago
Cascadia High Speed Rail is a project that I badly wish would actually happen, rather than just being a lose concept like it still is. There's no real focus, push or priority for planning it out. It's predictable and annoying. That said, the ulimate goal should be to have the connection that goes from Chula Vista to Vancouver BC. Have it completely multi-tracked so that it not only allows passing, but also multiple trains running on two separate lines - The main HSR line only stopping in the main cities, and of course a ICE/Regional line stopping in the main cities AND smaller cities and towns, too. Think cities like Stockton, Redding, Medford/Ashland, Eugene/Springfield, Salem/Keizer, Tualatin, so on.
And in all honesty, the entire sun belt needs HSR lines. A line that would run from either SD or LA to Phoenix, a Phoenix to Albuquerque line, ABQ to DFW, the connect between DFW and Houston would be taken care of by the most needed which is the Texas Triangle (I've called it the Texas Eagle in NIMBY Rails myself), then from Houston to New Orleans with branches from there where one stays along the gulf and goes to Tallahassee, which then would have a line that'd go to Jacksonville, with options to have two other lines go from there, with one going to Orlando with a stop in Gainesville, and the other continuing along the gulf down to Tampa/St. Pete. The northern branch at New Orleans would of course be the main line most everyone thinks of and talks about, which would connect up to Birmingham, another line from there to A-Town, and possibly one from there which would connect up to a different set of lines which would go up and down the eastern seaboard. I think that would make a lot of sense. Obviously the city pairs I listed would function as their own lines, or part of their own.
But yeah, the Texas Triangle needs to happen, and I'll always advocate for connectivity with true HSR from A-Town up through Richmond at least, and of course the main great lakes corridors too.
i think it would make more sense if the brightline west terminated at tucson instead of phoenix
The reason why Brightline exists is because of the way Amtrak routes are funded. While the Northeast Corridor and the long distance routes are federally funded, anything else has to have funding from the states it runs through to get any federal funding, which is why they are called State Supported Routes. This is why Brightline exists in places like Florida where the state has no intentions on paying for the service.
That is why any route you brought up that is funded by Amtrak Midwest (Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and to a lesser extent Missouri and Minnesota) will always be Amtrak. The issue isn't the funding, it's getting the right-of-way cleared for more passenger trains.
The same can be said with Pennsylvania, Seattle, Oregon and Carolina routes as they are putting heavy investment into those. Even states that we're against Intercity rail like Ohio and Texas are looking or get back in the rail game.
Also there is a High Speed Rail being built right now between San Francisco and San Diego, the first true High Speed Rail project in America, California High Speed Rail. It's already billions of dollars in so Brightline would have no reason to build that.
Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City
Maybe add Indianapolis to the Cincinnati proposal
Only other route I can think of would have involve connecting Dallas to Oklahoma City and Tulsa, though not sure what the demand would be
The Rancho Cucamonga to LV rout is kind of like shooting your feet off. Its real value would be from L.A. Union Station to a LV Strip location or possibly adjacent to LV International. Rancho Cucamonga, really?
SF to L.A. is being built by the CAHSR Authority already. Yes, it is happening at a snail's pace and is, to say the least, seriously expensive but, they are building it at the highest standards, a completely grade-separated, 220mph (350Kph) train that will be able to maintain those kinds of speeds throughout most of its rout. It is not a half-assed, compromised system. It is being engineered to be a true, state-of-the-art high-speed train that will take you from city center to city center. I don't see any other HSR proposals or projects anywhere else in the US that is going full-out, balls-to-the walls, true high speed rail like CAHSR is building. It will be worth it in the end.
Cascadia, YES!! I'm an L.A. native who had to leave L.A. for oh so many reasons, chief among them being, I cannot stand L.A. I moved up to first, Tacoma WA, then to Longview WA and I ain't ever going back. Longview would be the second stop northbound out of Portland OR. I find myself going to Seattle and Portland for varying reasons several times a year and would love to have an at least 125mph train. Portland is close enough that I could commute there from Longview. I think 160mph, on up to 186mph is quite feasible albeit, a bit spendy too though, not as bad as CAHSR is. And, yes, it should go on up to Vancouver BC as well.
I would also love to see L.A. to Phoenix, it would be a natural extension to L.A. to SF.
About sportsfans. Here in Poland association football fans can get quite rough if not violent... so some of them get their own special train service for the games :P
europeans dont know how to behave at sporting events
When it comes to building a railroad, especially on the west coast there is a major problem. Politics, environmental issues, land owners against these projects, etc. Why the plagued HSR in California has had its problems leading to cost overruns, delay, etc. While a private company like Brightline would do a better job, other factors must be considered.
California is the NIMBY Capital of the U.S., indeed.
Your Denver/Salt Lake idea would be much better routed thru Cheyenne, then west. Much easier topgraphy for grading, etc and much less issues with obtaining land for the R.O.W.
The current Cali Zephyr route would be better served with another coach-only day train between the two cities, but the U.P. HATES passenger rail of any kind!
HOLD .. so Tampa alone .. Okidoki fine
The LA to Phoenix would be ideal...there's literally no connection between these 2
Exactly, the entire state of AZ is a one big prison.
Pittsburgh-Columbus-Indi-Springfield, IL-St. Louis
El Paso, TX-Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM-Denver
San Diego-Phoenix-Albuquerque-Denver
I am 100% all for a national Interstate Rail system using Interstate corridors to save both costs and legal issues of trying to secure right's of way... 125 MPH/200 KMH would be the minimum average operating speed with higher sections possible as well as slower passing sections like is the plan for the Brightline West project... If you can't get existing rail operators to come on board you might as well start fresh with new tracks along public corridors anyway...
I think that minimum of 125mph/200 km/h average isn't realistic. A minimum of a 125mph/200 km/h top speed should be more realistic.
You forgot California High Speed Rail Authority
This is a Brightline dedicated video, not CAHSR.
first they built the orlando to tampa bay.mami to jacksonville,pa .
For brightline west extend to St George UT.
Brightline West is using an existing interstate right of way and ending at Rancho... it's not that impressive. If they had to acquire all of the right of way and built into downtown LA the project would be unprofitable (like almost all transportation infrastructure is)
And public transit shouldn't have to be profitable.
@@StefanWithTrains3222 true however you have to remember this is a private company, unlike the government that makes Trillions so it needs a income source.
I appreciate your enthusiasm but a very specific set circumstances and serendipity fell into place to make Brightline Florida happen. It is highly unlikely to happen again.
@@StefanWithTrains3222, fine...it "shouldn't have to be profitable," but it should make sense and be usable. Building, for the sake of building, has gotten us transit options that don't actually work for people, so they get low ridership. The low ridership/usage numbers then get "they shouldn't have to be profitable" thrown as an excuse--rather than addressing the issues--which then causes the problem to repeat. The desire to "build high speed rail" just to build it, rather than asking "will it actually get used" and "is it sustainable" isn't the answer.
@@maestromecanico597 This!
Not convinced about a Waco stop? Let me convince you haha
Baylor University and Magnolia. Majority of Baylor students are from the 3 major Texas cities, but out of state students have to fly into either Dallas or Austin just to take a minimum 1 hr 45 min drive to campus. Same for all the tourists who want to go to Magnolia aka Disneyland for white suburban moms lol
125 mph is too slow of an operation speed for HSR in a country as huge as the US is with its massive states to traverse.
which is why we use planes that go 500mph for long distanxes
Swag
Texas already has its own HSR plans, which involves Houston to Dallas (with a stop near College Station), then through Arlington to Ft. Worth and eventually down through Austin and San Antonio.
The plan is to use the Japanese Shinkansen. Not Brightline.
The first one lacks the population to work. Atlanta to Savannah doesn't even make the top 20.
What can work?
Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-Milwaukee (your 2nd) - connecting at PIT, CLE, DET, possibly ORD
Houston-DFW-Austin-San Antonio - connecting at IAD, DFW, AUS, SAT
DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte-Atlanta - possibly going to Nashville - connecting at DCA, RDU, CLT, ATL, (BNA) Regular rail would make more sense Knoxville to Nashville and Asheville to Charlotte or Greenville, SC
NYC-Albany-Montreal-Toronto-Detroit
LA-Vegas-Phoenix (LA-Vegas is under construction) and SFO - LA - San Diego (planned/under construction)
Portland-Seattle-Vancouver
Add on. Cincinatti-Columbus-Cleveland - connects to the first one I listed, makes Cleveland a HS rail hub.
Denver would have to be a Front Range express (Cheyanne, Boulder, Denver, Colo Springs, Pueblo), but even that's a tough one. the Rockies are just too expensive to traverse.
In the end, your h.s. rail hub cities would be Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Orlando, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, NYC and each of those airports would be stops.
The main thing is to eliminate high-frequency, short-haul flights and driving. Leverage the airports for longer-haul connections, using synergy between rail and airlines.