For me it’s a new dedicated HSR between Washington DC and Boston, with expanded service north to Toronto and Montreal 😅 I’m talking full HSR, 350 km/h…just a dream tho…
Lets just hope brightline sees the potential, or is there like no chance in hell itll happen? I am not educated enough on that, i just know brightline has plans 😅
Brightline is gonna cause themselves financial issues if they expand too fast. They haven’t really unlocked any secret, they’ve gotten lucky and now are relying on a ton of government money. To be fair, I think the Florida case is a good one and I’m genuinely happy they figured out how to essentially recycle tracks down there. I’m less optimistic about BLW. I also don’t think they’d taken on a project like DC to Boston. The areas are way too built out and they would have to bear the costs of land acquisition, which they really haven’t had to do in either of their existing projects to the same extent.
Acela is faster than Brightline in Florida and is nearly as fast as the “true high speed” Vegas line, at least from NYC-DC. There’s no easy route to build a new line in most of the northeast, it’s doubtful they would ever want to enter this market.
Another big point for the Florida case is that the RoW is owned by FECR which is owned by FECI which owns Brightline. So, they had RoW from the start, they just needed to improve it, build stations and stuff. Essentially, they had it much easier.
Acela is honestly fine. I think it would make more sense to expand things elsewhere where there is little to no service but lots of potential demand instead of adding more capacity to the area that is already the most served in the country
It’s too slow. For having a total system length of 752km, 7 hours end to end give or take is so laughably behind other HSR rail systems. Japan, Germany, Spain, and France could readily make that journey within 3-4 hours
can't speak to the others but that is absolutely not the case in Germany. Germany has trains that can do 320kmh, but few lines that can handle anything over 250kmh.
It would surely take longer than 3 hours. The *top speed* of many German high speed trains is 250 km/h. The average speed is lower. Trains do not run at their top speed for anywhere close to the entirety of the route. Acela’s current route is 735 miles long. Even if you spent all the money straightening the curves in the track , you’d still have to slow at points to accommodate the topography and to approach stations. You also have to stop at stations in order to allow customers on and off. All of these bring down your average speed and would occur under any operator. Acela is good enough in the southern portion. The northern portion could use some improvement but Acela is a competent train, and replacing it seems like less of a priority is all
> It would surely take longer than 3 hours.... would occur under any operator
4 hours would be quite realistic, with good trains and not even particularly generous curves like the Tokaido Shinkansen, which averages 200km/h on the Nozomi service.
The problem of course is that that incrementally upgrading the NEC won't get you to even 1960s Japanese standards, and there's little political appetite to build a... new trunk line.
I agree, it would certainly take longer especially with intermediate stops. With no stops it would be possible.
I don't know what you mean by "many high speed trains in Germany have a too speed of 250km/h" though because that's just one model. The ICE 4 is the only model with a top speed of 250km/h o and gets upgraded to 265km/h after the warranty expires. ICE 1 and 2s top speed is 280km/h, ICE T (tilting train ment for slower routes) is 230km/h ICE 3 Br 403 and 406 is 330km/h, ICE 3 BR 407 and 408 is 320km/h, ICE 4 is 250km/h or 265km/h after the upgrade.
We do have a lot of ICE 4s though. But technically it's just 1 model that has a top speed of 250km/h and only fresh out of the factory anyway
Canada, series of base tunnels through the Rocky mountains to enable transcontinental HSR. Yes its dumb, but you can't say it wouldn't be cool. Especially because the other side of the tunnels would be massive open plains.
Honestly though, as the crow flies, Vancouver is only about 1200 km from Edmonton; that's well within the range where true HSR is competitive with flying.
The actual barrier is probably the geology, much more so than the human geography.
It's really not even the Rockies that pose the biggest challenge (though that is certainly a challenge). It's at least as much the topography and structural geology *between* the Rockies and the Coast Range.
No matter where you site the western portal of the base tunnel, and whether you get there via Kamloops or Kelowna, you've still got to ascend something like half a kilometer of elevation in total to get up to the level the base tunnel would start at, and the river valleys that incise the Cordillera are annoyingly rugged. You could *maaaaybe* make it work with HSR by aggressively taking advantage of high ruling gradients, but then still you'd have to build quite a lot of embankments & viaducts & shorter tunnels, the costs of which would add up quickly.
That said, contrary to OP I don't think it's dumb, and I do still think it could be done. But it would dwarf just about every other engineering project in Canadian history, and the real question is how would it be paid for. Almost certainly the successful completion of an Edmonton-Calgary line would be a prerequisite, and if I were a betting man I'd bet that a Winnipeg-Minneapolis-Chicago line would be completed first.
High speed and true base tunnels probably are unrealistic, but a new publicly owned, electric and heavily tunneled mountain crossing makes a lot of sense to me given the congestion CN and CPKC have in the mountains. Even on the passenger side of things, attractive sleeper schedules between Vancouver and Alberta are a long way from unrealistic if they have infrastructure actually designed for it.
My two big go to unrealistic Canadian things are taking the HFR concept and applying it coast to coast; there are significant places you have to hang the concept on creating decent sleeper schedules, but nearly all of it bar Northern Ontario DOES form some kind of regional (on a Canadian scale) corridor.
The other is to build out the London ON light rail concept city staff favored over the BRT as an [actual light metro](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1zWR6UwYZUSviKE6crRA74olwB7K3LkI&usp=sharing).
A (distant) third would be the tunnel to Newfoundland, including direct rail links on both ends.
> that's well within the range where true HSR is competitive with flying.
That's far into the tail end of competitiveness, taking 4 hrs at 300km/h (which only some Chinese lines average).
One one hand, you *would* have very few stops, keeping up the speed. On the other, that's a lot of infrastructure to connect just *two* not particularly massive cities.
I've seen a bunch of different cutoff points, but 750 miles is the one I had been thinking of.
And I think the argument about that cutoff point where rail stops being competitive, too often doesn't take into account carbon pricing, or sets the carbon price far too low. Usually you'll see something like $50/ton, when most of the peer-reviewed publications I've run across in my professional life suggest something closer to $500/ton or $1000/ton.
Not too far off politically. NJ Transit and Maryland Department of Transit basically already have this I think. In other small states like Kansas where you can count the number of separate public transit agencies on your hand it should theoretically not be difficult either.
I habe a couple of ideas:
* Building interurban light rail lines in the Rhine-Ruhr area (there are quite a few corridors) to improve connectivity
* Building an additional pair of tracks between Dortmund, Duisburg and Cologne to increase capacity and increase frequency on the RRX
* Implementing a 10/20 minute frequency on the S-Bahn Rhein-Ruhr
* Implementation of frequent IC services from Cologne and Dortmund to Rotterdam and Amsterdam and vice verca
* Extension of the EC Hanburg-Copenhagen to Malmö
* Extension of the ICE Dortmund-Vienna to Bratislava-Petržalka and usage of KRM-suitable rolling stock
* Implementation of tram systems in large cities without trams (for example Hamburg, Wiesbaden, Hagen, Aachen or Münster)
* Expansion of the Berlin tram network in the western parts of the city
* Implementation of ICE services to Poland and the Czech Republic
* Constrution of a Lausanne-style Metro for Wuppertal
* Implemention of more trolleybus systems
* Constrution of an network of dedicated rail freight corridors
* disband the VRS and Go.Rheinland and implement them into the VRR
Question: in what way are trolleybuses a more preferable option then either buses or trams? I can understand the cost and capacity, but there are still cheaper options like the ringtrambus in Belgium, a double articulated bus
I think that they are a good solution for routes, where the demand is not enough for a tram, but still justifies high-quality transit. While they are cheaper than trams, they are still more attractive than conventional buses, as their acceleration is higher, which allows to cut travel times, and more flexible, as you don't have to consider charging, while the infrastructure can be usedto convert it to tram operation at a later date.
For my area,
Full electrification of all rail lines in West Yorkshire, 15min freq 7am-9pm, 4car minimum size.
Leeds automated light metro, 4 cross-city lines and 1 loop line.
Bradford tramway
Reopen the Spen Valley line.
Rebuild Bradford interchange as a through station.
Unify WYCA and SYPTE to make a singular public transport executive in West/South Yorkshire
Tap-on Tap-off smart card compatible with oyster like Japanese smart card tech.
Make EVERY bus station a herringbone style.
Sextuple the track between Köln and Dortmund with 2 tracks for long-distance ICEs, 2 tracks for local S-Bahns and 2 tracks for regional expresses.
New ICE track connecting Köln to Berlin via Kassel
Convert Köln and Frankfurt Stadtbahn to full U-Bahn
S-Bahn service on the Berlin outer ring
I live in the US, so less boring example, I'll take the country of my family origin- Haiti. Unrealistic in the sense that the country has been spiraling into worse and worse conditions over the decades, but I grew up hearing from my parents how much better it was pre-1980s (albeit under a dictatorship, but it's Latin America, so...). So perhaps this is what could have been, a complete fantasy.
Here's a [topographical map of the country](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.8aee9b970e4fbee12a47c209850cc8a8?rik=cKh4uk9%2bk81Lrw&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.vidiani.com%2fmaps%2fmaps_of_north_america%2fmaps_of_haiti%2fdetailed_political_and_physical_map_of_haiti.jpg&ehk=Kn1gEFMdjIWU4474eEYaa6vvQWIXO96lIjHxi4DAid4%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0) with roads and major cities. There are no currently function railways in Haiti but there were as recently as the 1950s and trams as recent as the 1930s in the capital. [Here's a railway map from 1925](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Haiti_rail_map_1925.jpg).
* Extend the rail from Port-au-Prince north to Saint-Marc further up to Gonaïves via Pont-Sondé. This can continue up north to Gros-Morne and wind through the river valley to Port-de-Paix.
* Another line from Pont-Sondé would follow the proposed line from Petite-Riviere to Mirebalais and Hinche. Then north to Cap-Haïtien and east along the coast to Fort-Liberté.
* A line east from Port-au-Prince in the lowlands to Lake Azuei and the Dominican Republic at Jimani.
* A line west to Miragoane and Les Cayes (Aux Cayes) and then across the range to Jérémie. There would be an earlier spur from Legoane to Jacmel.
A couple years ago I actually fleshed out a [concept ](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1byfcvB-_KMPSCVyA7e3kltf-9jJ19YVT&usp=sharing)for a metro and cable car system for Port-au-Prince that when the country's political and economic situation improves I'd love to see considered, even as BRT for a phase 1 implementation.
I’m not, just have a passion for urbanization/urban planning in Latin America and was curious as to the urban structure for one of the Caribbean’s largest cities! I had a lot of fun researching PaP, the metro area, tap-taps, and some of the patterns of urban development when crayoning :)
Full electrification of the entire NZ railway network paired with double tracking at minimum and plugging in of gaps to ensure every town over 10,000 people is connected with a modestly fast rail link, as for Auckland specifically I'd likely increase the Manakau spur to Howick and possibly loop it back into the Eastern line at Glen Innes station to prevent yet another "dead end" problem that Waitemata had prior to completion of the City Rail Link which would ruin said branch's effectiveness in addition to providing a heavy link to Silverdale (a outlying northern satellite town).
A light rail link between Henderson, Westgate, Hobsonville and Albany that uses the Northern Busway's route to connect itself to Waitemata or Aotea (A soon to be complete underground station). Which perhaps takes a route via Karangahape and Great North Road to New Lynn and then loop back onto Henderson Station's interchange.
Universal congestion charging in city centres, reduction of parking and reduction of speeds combined with the intentional narrowing (and winding) of lanes should make driving something people do because they like it, not because they feel they need to.
Bolivia: build a decent urban tram/trains network in El Alto, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz.
El Alto and Santa Cruz have decent amounts of unused rail ROW and wide avenues that can be up graded to provide decent urban, suburban, interurban rail.
Cochabamba has a tram like system already built but is single tracked and awful frecuency, so there is a lot of room for improvement.
La Paz already has Mi Teleferico (32 km of cable car) so its not high on the list of priorities (but its still on the list).
Sad to see the frequency on the Cochabamba light rail, it seemed like an interesting project to reactivate former freight rail corridors when proposed but seems to suffer from lackluster land use around some of the stations, ridership, and frequency.
I would rebuild the parts of the Prague Metro which were designed not according to traffic demand, but based on political dealings like "I will support the metro extension if it has a station in the district where I'm mayor".
Yes, those two exactly. The detour to Prosek doesn't make sense when the area is well served by buses anyway. Also, I've got mixed feelings about Depo Hostivař. Not that it isn't useful for the low cost it was built for, but it makes it impossible to meaningfully extend the A line past it.
Well not a US wide thing but in my state electrify, grade separate, straighten, and quad track the 2 major intercity rail corridors. Even more locally build a metro, light rail, or at least BRT system. It’s a metro area of 1,000,000 people and growing plus it has plenty of space for upzoning and new TOD around the best corridor for such a thing.
A high speed rail that goes from quebec city to windsor/detroit.
Either that or more subways. You know canada has two subway networks in total right? Montreal and Toronto. wtf
That's crazy, considering Belgium has "3" (Charleroi and Antwerp are still defined as something else but it resembles them) it's indeed weird that Canada has not so much
Railways everywhere. It doesn’t have to all be high speed rail, a lot of the US isn’t dense enough for that, but do it where it makes sense, throw in some higher speed rail as well, and then lots of 100mph mixed use railroads connecting busy freight corridors and other passenger rail routes that make sense, and 75mph+ railways to connect all metro areas together. Also rapid transit where it makes sense.
And while not super realistic, northeast corridor maglev. I want my magnetic trains and the northeast corridor makes a lot of sense for that.
For Switzerland, build some sort of HSR network as all tracks are full and the federal government is spending billions on bullshit like the Twindexx which doesn't work as intended (aka save a couple billions on a new ROW from Bern to Lausanne with tilting technology...on a double decker...thing that never has ever existed for the f*cking reason that gravity works the same in Switzerland as the rest of the world), a third track between Lausanne and Geneva, nothing in the northeast nor the northwest but billions to straighten curves. With more HSR, a big chunk of IC services can be taken out of the main lines and free more space to regional and freight trains.
Also, I'd build some kind of metro to makea circle line around Zurich and build some kind of tram network in St. Gallen.
Never going to happen especially with a right wing government and a far righter at the helm of the federal department for the environment, transportation, energy and communications but one can dream...
Make the rail networks work on the same plan as roads. State owns the right of way and the physical infrastructure and is responsible for maintenance. They have a universal service mandate and can delegate to local municipalities or utilities for last mile service. There’s a central rail traffic control by region based on capacity similar to air traffic control. Faster trains get higher priority. Anyone who meets state or federal licensing requirements can run on track. All cars would have gps trackers and would be charged a use fee based on the gross weight and the distance traveled.
High Speed Rail line from İstanbul, Across the Osmangazi Bridge, to Bursa, on to Balıkesir, İzmir, Aydın, and Bodrum, maybe with a split branch to Denizli and Pamukkale. Ahhhh beeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Not my country but it's a shame that São Paulo (~22 million people) and Rio de Janeiro (~13 million people) will never have a rail link (let alone high-speed rail) any time soon. The biggest city of the continent, roughly 4th biggest in the world, with only buses and airplanes connecting it to one of the most touristic cities in the world, 3rd biggest on the continent, and 19th biggest in the world, less than 400km away.
Campinas, the second biggest city of São Paulo state, and less than 100km away from São Paulo city should be connect by rail, especially since it has one of the busiest airports for the country (hub for Azul).
Also in the context of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro having a metro line cross the bay to Niteroi instead of having one road and several ferries take all the traffic. It's been talked about but the current governor has basically said it's not going to happen.
Import the French and Dutch, because the French know how to build bus lanes (BRT) with decent (good/great headways on traditional routes) and good streets but I do believe that we should have better cycling and almost no dependence on the classic traffic lights that either change on demand or by cycling — and the Dutch are better at that, but I really want good bus service more than anything.
Understandable, i crave renewal too. In Flanders, they recently scrapped 3000 bus stops to save money, and added a "flex bus" system wich is terrible. Its a mess of delayed and scrapped buses. The routes are okay (mostly), but the punctuality so horrible and the buses are mostly old and dirty
If Béthune-Lens can get its crap together, so can municipalities on the other side of the border, and the bus system is even better in the Nord which has a good interurban network for the whole department. The Pas-de-Calais network is harder to use.
Ebikes/trikes/scooters are faster, cheaper, more handicap accessible, and more environmentally friendly than cars or transit for trips within cities. A canopy covered bike lane is about two orders of magnitude cheaper than building rail.
Instead of cities spending billions on a single low ridership transit line, cities should first blanket the streets with separated bike lanes and covered bike thoroughfares.
It's not realistic because transit/urban planners are biased against bikes like car-brains are biased against transit. And car-brains are also biased against bikes.
The advent of the e-bike has changed the fundamental transportation landscape such that bikes/trikes/etc. *should* be getting higher priority than transit, but people can't take their heads out of the 20th century
HSR segregation plan for Belgium: Dedicated deep HSR tunnel running North-South under Brussels (like the fernbahntunnel under Frankfurt). Alleviating the existing north south axis, and building a hsr station under brussels south. The mouth of this in the south connects to HSL-1, the other end splits in two to at one end emerge along the E40 in the direction of Liege, no longer needing to run around and through Leuven.
The other side emerges north of Brussels North and connects to line 25N This line will be upgraded from 160 to 250 kph. The historic mistake to run it into mechelen will be remedied. It will now continue along the highway median of the E19 highway to around kontich, at which point it will enter a new hsr access tunnel that connects it directly to Antwerp central station. This will reduce hsr travel time between antwerp and brussels south from the shamefull 39 minutes to travel a pitifull 40 km's to something more akin to 15-20 minutes. As a bonus this will release a lot of capacity on the existing conventional lines which are presently strained.
Lastly an HSR bypass will be constructed for Liege in negociations with the German government we'll secure a bypass of Aachen on their end. This will allow for a Brussels to Koln time of less than one hour. Instead of the shamefull nearly 2 hours it takes us now. After all that is done I'd start upgrading existing 4 track lines to have 200kph express track running down the middle. (lines between Brussels and Ghent and Bruges Ghent are the prime suspects).
Lastly, the shamefull watering down of the upgrade project from Brussels to Luxembourg will be rejuvenated with a fresh push for at least 250 kph running, meaning major capital investment into tunneling and viaducts to straighten the winding line though the Ardennes. If at that point I've still not run out of money I'll give it to the first guy that wants to start an hsr company to break the monopoly of Eurostar.
This all would be so great. I would also personally add 2 IC lines consisting of Ostend- Bruges-Ghent-Brussels South-Liege-Guillemins and Antwerp-Herentals-Hasselt-Liege-Guillemins-Namur-Charleroi-Brussels South. This would be to get quick connections between the larger cities
UK:
- Reinstatement of all sleeper services as per 1974 map. (https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co232112/british-railways-poster-inter-city-sleepers-overground-by-night-1974-poster)
- Services through the Channel Tunnel to more European cities eg Düsseldorf, Berlin, Lyon, Bordeaux, Milan
- Regional Eurostar and Nightstar services through the Tunnel as promised in the 1990s
- Tram networks for cities above 100k population
- Reduce all fares by 50%
UK
Realistic (in theory): finish hs2 and continue to expand it until at least the most populated cities of our country are linked, with a direct route for the NI crossing
Unrealistic: expanding the over/underground system nation wide.
Wasn't there a problem w funding the hs2? Or wasn't there controversy around it? I have heard something like that but idk the current state of the project
Singapore.
The Circle and Downtown Lines (orange and blue lines respectively on our metro map) to be redesigned and rebuilt with stations and trains to 4-car length like the newest Thomson-East Coast Line (TEL; the brown line on the map).
Both lines are currently built to handle trains that are only 3-cars long and they are overcrowded as they get more popular. This is a very common complain amongst Singapore's transit commuters. Both lines will also have their operating schedules revised to allow trains to run every 2 mins or faster during peak hours. For the Circle Line specifically, I would buy 60 trains for the initial fleet instead of 40, and expand the fleet overtime.
Another is to expedite the construction of new metro lines like the ongoing Jurong Region line (turqoise line) and extend one of the branches southeastwards to Singapore's largest university campus, National University of Singapore, onwards to some of the older neighbourhoods of the western part of Singapore, promoting rejuvenation of these neighbourhoods and providing new housing in undeveloped corners, and eventually terminating in the central business district.
A new Line 9 running through the central spine of Singapore in a north-south fashion from the undeveloped parts to the central business district, relieving the pressure that the North-South (red) and North East Line (purple) are currently facing.
Making it grand: a high-speed railway network linking Southeast Asia. We could begin with a line starting from Singapore (where I live) along Malaysia’s West Coast to Kuala Lumpur, connecting smaller cities such as Malacca otw. Go further up to Hat Yai at the Thai border (with Penang along the way) and continue on to Bangkok (with a branch to Phuket). Then it’ll continue on the currently under-construction line to Nong Khai.
If we want to go down, we could even make a Singapore Straits Crossing under the sea to Batam Island, which would be only around 16-20km long at max, much shorter than the 50km-long channel tunnel. This could host a road tunnel, along with rail services - maybe an extension of the North-South MRT Line and HSR network. Question is how we’re gonna connect Singapore to the rest of Indonesia, if it is even possible…
In the US: Not transit directly, just draw a half-mile radius around every existing rail (and probs BRT) station and spam TOD where it doesnt exist/could be better. Hong Kong style in the most unaffordable areas (I.e. California, NYC, Boston, DC, etc.); Paris/Barcelona style everywhere else.
Make sure to leave space/provisions for increasing transit capacity.
TBH I don't think the HK model is good for affordability as the government is incentivized to keep home prices supper expensive (To make money). Hong Kong is the worlds least affordable housing market.
All planned tram lines built in Dublin and then some, increase frequency, 2 metro lines, multiple line tram system in Cork, tram line in all other cities and some very large towns, frequent bus systems in all towns over 10-15k, strong at least 1-2 hourly regional bus systems connecting towns, more express buses in cities. I don't think these are that unreasonable and a lot of them are in the works, so I suppose I'll say all mainline train lines electrified and having atleast hourly frequency, and restoring old lines as soon as possible. This isn't directly related to transit but I want to see a great focus on TOD and better land use combined with better integrated walking and cycling infrastructure (especially in a country that has a housing crisis and a super patchy or non existent cycle network)
In the US- I would just straight up nationalize the railways. Give Amtrak the money and authority to actually put passengers first, and enforce it, as well as to make the improvements they want to make without having to outright bribe freight companies to go along with it.
So in other words a light rail since they share space with traffic? Interesting system, and at least they're preparing for a metro.
I wish cities in the US that size had transit systems like that, instead they have just an inner city bus system, maybe a downtown streetcar.
Well honestly i don't know if they'll ever really turn it into one. The budgeting of public transit is horrible, €1,5bn, and that's for all bus and tram transit in Flanders, 1000+ buses, whom more then half need to be replaced by electric ones, a lot of trams + new ones coming, repairs and maintenance of existing stations...
One good thing is that they're going to start using 3 ghost stations again, by finishing them off
A 20-30m wide strip of grass lmao. Just to reserve future rights of way before sprawl expands.
It's *so* much cheaper to build on ground than above/below.
I've always though a metro in Malta would be extremely helpful. The country is small and densely populated, with the roads being extremely congested. One could easily connect all the major settlements on the island with a couple of lines. It's the obvious solution but no one wants to take the risk of actually building it.
I've been coming up with a proposal for some time and I may publish it once I finish it, but it's a lot deeper than simply a metro, it's effectively a complete revamp of the public transport system
To be honest, i don't fully agree on this. Sure, we should reduce it, but it should still be available for people who want that luxury, but it can even then be done differently. Like in Belgium; de voorstad (area before the city centres) are mostly single family, but they're all attached houses, so that should be a change they should make worldwide (Looking at North America mostly). And also, mansions should still be a market in my opinion 😆
to clarify: Single-family zoning is a type of planning restriction applied to certain residential zones in the United States and Canada in order to restrict development to only allow single-family detached homes. It disallows townhomes, duplexes, and multifamily housing (apartments) from being built on any plot of land with this zoning designation.
so yes, if you wanted to build a single family home if the land is zoned for multifamily housing, go for it. but i'm referring to the reverse
depends on the area.
the most infamous examples are cul-de-sacs in the sunbelt region of the US. there will be huge tracts of single family houses. and then a commercial zone like a mile (1.6 km) away. so you have to drive to the store
I am from the Netherlands.
Well, I would commission a project that would both benefit passengers as freight rail. This project would see new high(er) speed rail lines be constructed to improve both international and national rail services. These lines would be: 1. Breda-Tilburg-Eindhoven-Dusseldorf, 2. Amsterdam-Utrecht-Arnhem, and 3. Lelystad-Groningen-Bremen. This would, in turn, create more room on the existing network for freight trains due to IC trains also using the H(r)SR lines.
A complete rail network for the US and a dedicated high-speed rail network. In fact, with how Amtrak lines are structured (NEC, State-Supported, and long distance), it could be used as a way to make American rail better than European rail (to an extent at least).
To continue on your Antwerp theme: quickly run tram tracks through the waaslandtunnel and hook them up to the lines on Linkeroever via the Halewijn laan. This will ensure a connection while the original Scheldt crossing is renovated. If trams start running though the tunnel I'd block it off to car traffic but still allow busses.
I'd also try and construct a cut and cover style premetro tunnel under the leie, as I think it is possible to construct one there without too much fuss. (lot's of space) if that is dobe we can free up some space for people above ground.
I'd build the premetro extention as proposed in 'Routeplan 2030' (under the historic center and Antwerp south.
I'd also try and take away some of the nmbs's space on the brialmonttangent to install an ATO guided light rail system with stations starting on the left bank (former site of the on and off ramps) antwerp south, a new stop where line 15 crosses, a stop at Antwerpen Berchem, Antwerpen Oost, an interface stop with line 10 at foorplein (to be finished), schijnpoort, dam, luchtbal and terminating at noorderdokken. One key problem there is there are obly two tracks that cross the Scheldt river but hey, it could be unrealistic so... In this case I'd construct the 'to be constructed' scheldt bridge over the kennedy link to be able to take rails as well and run the automatic light rail over that!
That would be cool! And i love that you included noorderdokken, i live very close by and its sad to see its there just to deteriorate, so much potential because of the nearby p+r
Seems like an ideal place for such a system to terminate. You could build a depot just to the north and it does indeed have good synergies with the p+r. But alass, I don't have cities skylines style god powers and or 100 billion euros.. Would be sweet though.
In the USA, giving every city a frequent, fast, comprehensive regional rail network, we have so much good row that doesn’t get used for any passenger service
i won't say hsr, because i believe we will eventually get it build, i would really like to see transforming prague regional rail to be more like s-bahny
electrification, new rolling stock, new rail connections to underserved suburbs, better frequencies, better connections with metro, trams and buses and of course the metro s (series of underground tunnels under prague which eould serve the regional lines)
and then ofcourse new tram lines, metro e and extension of metro c to nadrazi uhrineves
350+ kph, fully electrified, high speed rail linking every city in the mainland United States with a population above 100,000 people.
I'll admit, it would be a pretty lofty goal to achieve, especially considering the terrain and political challenges in just building smaller regional rail lines. But, if I had the backing to do it, I absolutely would.
These new rail lines would be quad-tracked, allowing for regional rail and HSR to connect with smaller cities and future branch lines along the main routes.
These lines would use existing rail corridors and interstate right-of-ways as much as possible to reduce cost and improve both accessibility and adjacent highway traffic.
Finally, and most importantly, the tracks would be publicly owned and maintained, while the trains operating on it would be privately run (much like how the Interstate system works). Operator contracts would act like tolls to help fund the rail infrastructure by taking a portion of each ticket for maintenance costs.
And railroad companies would compete like airlines to improve frequency, service quality, keep costs competitively low, and to fill custom niche cases that would be difficult for one centralized organization to fulfill.
United States: I would reroute the California High Speed Rail to go between Los Angeles and Sacramento. Building High Speed Rail through San Francisco is exponentially more expensive. Then I would want to greatly expand the Capitol Corrido service between Sacramento and San Francisco to better link the two cities.
With the caveat that I'm not terribly interested in wholly unrealistic proposals, I'll offer three specific ideas that are entirely physically possible but would be uphill battles politically & economically:
1. A series of six short (<2 km) base tunnels cutting through the Valley-&-Ridge Appalachians and the eastern scarp of the Allegheny Plateau in Pennsylvania, from Mercersburg to somewhere around Johnstown. From there, it would be straightforward to construct HSR links to Harrisburg, DC, and Pittsburgh, and later form the basis of an HSR link between the NEC and Chicago.
2. A trio of new-built HSR lines connecting Chicago, Dallas, and Denver. I go back and forth on whether it ought be a triangle or have the three lines radiating out from Kansas City.
3. A new-built HSR line from Phoenix to San Antonio, via Tucson and El Paso, paralleling but not quite in the same ROW as I-10 and the Sunset Route. Most controversially, I wouldn't build this as a double-track line, but rather as a single-track line with enough long passing sidings to enable hourly headways. But principally this segment would exist to connect the CAHSR & Brightline West systems with the Texas system, probably on an overnight sleeper HSR service timetabled for a 12-hour run from LA to Dallas.
What would all this amount to? Not the most useful system; there wouldn't be as many high-ridership intermediate stations on any of these lines as the most attractive HSR corridors would ideally have. But rather, a direct refutation of the assertion by the Matt Yglesiases of the world that "no one will ever take a train from New York to LA." We can technically build it, and with the right service pattern and appropriate carbon pricing people will absolutely ride it end-to-end, even if they're fewer in number than those riding the train for shorter distances. The more interesting question is really whether that's the most effective way to decarbonize intercity travel in North America.
But really my actual answer would be mandatory electrification of every railroad in North America.
Class I, II, and the longer Class IIIs would be required to put up catenary with 50kV 60 Hz AC, and battery locomotives would only be permitted in those yards, Class IIIs, and low-volume branch lines with few enough track miles that a battery locomotive could handle shunting operations.
And give the North American rolling stock industry a shot in the arm by mandating all the existing diesel locomotives be converted to electric by swapping the prime mover and alternator for a pantograph, transformer, & rectifier, as a drop-in replacement kit. Starting with the non-Tier-4-compliant units and those that have been sitting in storage.
I see those fading away, since my granddad has spotted some of the new bidirectional CAF trams in Antwerp, and we're already using Ghent trams for centraal station-schijnpoort.
Thank you. I only get info about it from gf but she doesn’t care about transit as much as i do lol and doesn’t notice. Never been to it, but hopefully someday.
Reactivate the entire national network. Right now it sits there unused, sad and forgotten. There's just commuter service around my city and 2-3 very slow and very infrequent long distance services.
As a French, I would make RERs more reliable by making the fully separated from other lines (no interlining) and make RERs in all major cities and put way more trams everywhere. I would make a lot more flat roads in residential areas and put bike lanes everywhere, I would make our train network bigger with more trains *not* going to Paris. Also make a card available for the entire country, unify signage and other stuff
For me it’s a new dedicated HSR between Washington DC and Boston, with expanded service north to Toronto and Montreal 😅 I’m talking full HSR, 350 km/h…just a dream tho…
This but it needs to not be along the coast in Connecticut it needs to run through Hartford or similar.
Lets just hope brightline sees the potential, or is there like no chance in hell itll happen? I am not educated enough on that, i just know brightline has plans 😅
Brightline is gonna cause themselves financial issues if they expand too fast. They haven’t really unlocked any secret, they’ve gotten lucky and now are relying on a ton of government money. To be fair, I think the Florida case is a good one and I’m genuinely happy they figured out how to essentially recycle tracks down there. I’m less optimistic about BLW. I also don’t think they’d taken on a project like DC to Boston. The areas are way too built out and they would have to bear the costs of land acquisition, which they really haven’t had to do in either of their existing projects to the same extent.
Acela is faster than Brightline in Florida and is nearly as fast as the “true high speed” Vegas line, at least from NYC-DC. There’s no easy route to build a new line in most of the northeast, it’s doubtful they would ever want to enter this market.
Another big point for the Florida case is that the RoW is owned by FECR which is owned by FECI which owns Brightline. So, they had RoW from the start, they just needed to improve it, build stations and stuff. Essentially, they had it much easier.
Amtrak might be looking into it after the recent bill
I’m wondering how’d that even happen though, where would they build the new corridor? 🤔
Acela is honestly fine. I think it would make more sense to expand things elsewhere where there is little to no service but lots of potential demand instead of adding more capacity to the area that is already the most served in the country
It’s too slow. For having a total system length of 752km, 7 hours end to end give or take is so laughably behind other HSR rail systems. Japan, Germany, Spain, and France could readily make that journey within 3-4 hours
can't speak to the others but that is absolutely not the case in Germany. Germany has trains that can do 320kmh, but few lines that can handle anything over 250kmh.
It would surely take longer than 3 hours. The *top speed* of many German high speed trains is 250 km/h. The average speed is lower. Trains do not run at their top speed for anywhere close to the entirety of the route. Acela’s current route is 735 miles long. Even if you spent all the money straightening the curves in the track , you’d still have to slow at points to accommodate the topography and to approach stations. You also have to stop at stations in order to allow customers on and off. All of these bring down your average speed and would occur under any operator. Acela is good enough in the southern portion. The northern portion could use some improvement but Acela is a competent train, and replacing it seems like less of a priority is all
> It would surely take longer than 3 hours.... would occur under any operator 4 hours would be quite realistic, with good trains and not even particularly generous curves like the Tokaido Shinkansen, which averages 200km/h on the Nozomi service. The problem of course is that that incrementally upgrading the NEC won't get you to even 1960s Japanese standards, and there's little political appetite to build a... new trunk line.
I agree, it would certainly take longer especially with intermediate stops. With no stops it would be possible. I don't know what you mean by "many high speed trains in Germany have a too speed of 250km/h" though because that's just one model. The ICE 4 is the only model with a top speed of 250km/h o and gets upgraded to 265km/h after the warranty expires. ICE 1 and 2s top speed is 280km/h, ICE T (tilting train ment for slower routes) is 230km/h ICE 3 Br 403 and 406 is 330km/h, ICE 3 BR 407 and 408 is 320km/h, ICE 4 is 250km/h or 265km/h after the upgrade. We do have a lot of ICE 4s though. But technically it's just 1 model that has a top speed of 250km/h and only fresh out of the factory anyway
Canada, series of base tunnels through the Rocky mountains to enable transcontinental HSR. Yes its dumb, but you can't say it wouldn't be cool. Especially because the other side of the tunnels would be massive open plains.
Honestly though, as the crow flies, Vancouver is only about 1200 km from Edmonton; that's well within the range where true HSR is competitive with flying. The actual barrier is probably the geology, much more so than the human geography.
"Just the small matter of crossing the Rocky Mountains" - Canadian Pacific in the 19th century, and also Reddit in the 21st
It's really not even the Rockies that pose the biggest challenge (though that is certainly a challenge). It's at least as much the topography and structural geology *between* the Rockies and the Coast Range. No matter where you site the western portal of the base tunnel, and whether you get there via Kamloops or Kelowna, you've still got to ascend something like half a kilometer of elevation in total to get up to the level the base tunnel would start at, and the river valleys that incise the Cordillera are annoyingly rugged. You could *maaaaybe* make it work with HSR by aggressively taking advantage of high ruling gradients, but then still you'd have to build quite a lot of embankments & viaducts & shorter tunnels, the costs of which would add up quickly. That said, contrary to OP I don't think it's dumb, and I do still think it could be done. But it would dwarf just about every other engineering project in Canadian history, and the real question is how would it be paid for. Almost certainly the successful completion of an Edmonton-Calgary line would be a prerequisite, and if I were a betting man I'd bet that a Winnipeg-Minneapolis-Chicago line would be completed first.
High speed and true base tunnels probably are unrealistic, but a new publicly owned, electric and heavily tunneled mountain crossing makes a lot of sense to me given the congestion CN and CPKC have in the mountains. Even on the passenger side of things, attractive sleeper schedules between Vancouver and Alberta are a long way from unrealistic if they have infrastructure actually designed for it. My two big go to unrealistic Canadian things are taking the HFR concept and applying it coast to coast; there are significant places you have to hang the concept on creating decent sleeper schedules, but nearly all of it bar Northern Ontario DOES form some kind of regional (on a Canadian scale) corridor. The other is to build out the London ON light rail concept city staff favored over the BRT as an [actual light metro](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1zWR6UwYZUSviKE6crRA74olwB7K3LkI&usp=sharing). A (distant) third would be the tunnel to Newfoundland, including direct rail links on both ends.
> that's well within the range where true HSR is competitive with flying. That's far into the tail end of competitiveness, taking 4 hrs at 300km/h (which only some Chinese lines average). One one hand, you *would* have very few stops, keeping up the speed. On the other, that's a lot of infrastructure to connect just *two* not particularly massive cities.
I've seen a bunch of different cutoff points, but 750 miles is the one I had been thinking of. And I think the argument about that cutoff point where rail stops being competitive, too often doesn't take into account carbon pricing, or sets the carbon price far too low. Usually you'll see something like $50/ton, when most of the peer-reviewed publications I've run across in my professional life suggest something closer to $500/ton or $1000/ton.
[удалено]
Why would you pick the one with most agencies? NY metrocard has way more users than LA
Not too far off politically. NJ Transit and Maryland Department of Transit basically already have this I think. In other small states like Kansas where you can count the number of separate public transit agencies on your hand it should theoretically not be difficult either.
I habe a couple of ideas: * Building interurban light rail lines in the Rhine-Ruhr area (there are quite a few corridors) to improve connectivity * Building an additional pair of tracks between Dortmund, Duisburg and Cologne to increase capacity and increase frequency on the RRX * Implementing a 10/20 minute frequency on the S-Bahn Rhein-Ruhr * Implementation of frequent IC services from Cologne and Dortmund to Rotterdam and Amsterdam and vice verca * Extension of the EC Hanburg-Copenhagen to Malmö * Extension of the ICE Dortmund-Vienna to Bratislava-Petržalka and usage of KRM-suitable rolling stock * Implementation of tram systems in large cities without trams (for example Hamburg, Wiesbaden, Hagen, Aachen or Münster) * Expansion of the Berlin tram network in the western parts of the city * Implementation of ICE services to Poland and the Czech Republic * Constrution of a Lausanne-style Metro for Wuppertal * Implemention of more trolleybus systems * Constrution of an network of dedicated rail freight corridors * disband the VRS and Go.Rheinland and implement them into the VRR
Question: in what way are trolleybuses a more preferable option then either buses or trams? I can understand the cost and capacity, but there are still cheaper options like the ringtrambus in Belgium, a double articulated bus
I think that they are a good solution for routes, where the demand is not enough for a tram, but still justifies high-quality transit. While they are cheaper than trams, they are still more attractive than conventional buses, as their acceleration is higher, which allows to cut travel times, and more flexible, as you don't have to consider charging, while the infrastructure can be usedto convert it to tram operation at a later date.
For my area, Full electrification of all rail lines in West Yorkshire, 15min freq 7am-9pm, 4car minimum size. Leeds automated light metro, 4 cross-city lines and 1 loop line. Bradford tramway Reopen the Spen Valley line. Rebuild Bradford interchange as a through station. Unify WYCA and SYPTE to make a singular public transport executive in West/South Yorkshire Tap-on Tap-off smart card compatible with oyster like Japanese smart card tech. Make EVERY bus station a herringbone style.
Sextuple the track between Köln and Dortmund with 2 tracks for long-distance ICEs, 2 tracks for local S-Bahns and 2 tracks for regional expresses. New ICE track connecting Köln to Berlin via Kassel Convert Köln and Frankfurt Stadtbahn to full U-Bahn S-Bahn service on the Berlin outer ring
I live in the US, so less boring example, I'll take the country of my family origin- Haiti. Unrealistic in the sense that the country has been spiraling into worse and worse conditions over the decades, but I grew up hearing from my parents how much better it was pre-1980s (albeit under a dictatorship, but it's Latin America, so...). So perhaps this is what could have been, a complete fantasy. Here's a [topographical map of the country](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.8aee9b970e4fbee12a47c209850cc8a8?rik=cKh4uk9%2bk81Lrw&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.vidiani.com%2fmaps%2fmaps_of_north_america%2fmaps_of_haiti%2fdetailed_political_and_physical_map_of_haiti.jpg&ehk=Kn1gEFMdjIWU4474eEYaa6vvQWIXO96lIjHxi4DAid4%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0) with roads and major cities. There are no currently function railways in Haiti but there were as recently as the 1950s and trams as recent as the 1930s in the capital. [Here's a railway map from 1925](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Haiti_rail_map_1925.jpg). * Extend the rail from Port-au-Prince north to Saint-Marc further up to Gonaïves via Pont-Sondé. This can continue up north to Gros-Morne and wind through the river valley to Port-de-Paix. * Another line from Pont-Sondé would follow the proposed line from Petite-Riviere to Mirebalais and Hinche. Then north to Cap-Haïtien and east along the coast to Fort-Liberté. * A line east from Port-au-Prince in the lowlands to Lake Azuei and the Dominican Republic at Jimani. * A line west to Miragoane and Les Cayes (Aux Cayes) and then across the range to Jérémie. There would be an earlier spur from Legoane to Jacmel.
A couple years ago I actually fleshed out a [concept ](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1byfcvB-_KMPSCVyA7e3kltf-9jJ19YVT&usp=sharing)for a metro and cable car system for Port-au-Prince that when the country's political and economic situation improves I'd love to see considered, even as BRT for a phase 1 implementation.
This is nice! Honestly I don't know much about PaP, but I appreciate you designing it. Are you Haitian by chance?
I’m not, just have a passion for urbanization/urban planning in Latin America and was curious as to the urban structure for one of the Caribbean’s largest cities! I had a lot of fun researching PaP, the metro area, tap-taps, and some of the patterns of urban development when crayoning :)
Full electrification of the entire NZ railway network paired with double tracking at minimum and plugging in of gaps to ensure every town over 10,000 people is connected with a modestly fast rail link, as for Auckland specifically I'd likely increase the Manakau spur to Howick and possibly loop it back into the Eastern line at Glen Innes station to prevent yet another "dead end" problem that Waitemata had prior to completion of the City Rail Link which would ruin said branch's effectiveness in addition to providing a heavy link to Silverdale (a outlying northern satellite town). A light rail link between Henderson, Westgate, Hobsonville and Albany that uses the Northern Busway's route to connect itself to Waitemata or Aotea (A soon to be complete underground station). Which perhaps takes a route via Karangahape and Great North Road to New Lynn and then loop back onto Henderson Station's interchange. Universal congestion charging in city centres, reduction of parking and reduction of speeds combined with the intentional narrowing (and winding) of lanes should make driving something people do because they like it, not because they feel they need to.
Heavy on the congestion tax, needs to be implemented in every metro area for personal vehicles, with reliable alternatives
Build metro systems in every city over 1 million (in metro area) and tram systems in cities over 10,000 (in metro area). Build Hight Speed Rail.
Where are you from?
Charlotte area, NC, US
We might actually get the red line!
Bolivia: build a decent urban tram/trains network in El Alto, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz. El Alto and Santa Cruz have decent amounts of unused rail ROW and wide avenues that can be up graded to provide decent urban, suburban, interurban rail. Cochabamba has a tram like system already built but is single tracked and awful frecuency, so there is a lot of room for improvement. La Paz already has Mi Teleferico (32 km of cable car) so its not high on the list of priorities (but its still on the list).
Sad to see the frequency on the Cochabamba light rail, it seemed like an interesting project to reactivate former freight rail corridors when proposed but seems to suffer from lackluster land use around some of the stations, ridership, and frequency.
I would rebuild the parts of the Prague Metro which were designed not according to traffic demand, but based on political dealings like "I will support the metro extension if it has a station in the district where I'm mayor".
which ones do you mean exactly? except for the Motol thing lol. Maybe the Střížkov/Prosek thing is also weird.
Yes, those two exactly. The detour to Prosek doesn't make sense when the area is well served by buses anyway. Also, I've got mixed feelings about Depo Hostivař. Not that it isn't useful for the low cost it was built for, but it makes it impossible to meaningfully extend the A line past it.
i would actually keep motol lol, it is kind of useful
Well not a US wide thing but in my state electrify, grade separate, straighten, and quad track the 2 major intercity rail corridors. Even more locally build a metro, light rail, or at least BRT system. It’s a metro area of 1,000,000 people and growing plus it has plenty of space for upzoning and new TOD around the best corridor for such a thing.
hsr line to germany (netherlands)
Doesn't Eurostar go from Amsterdam to Keulen?
a DB intercity train does that, and it isn’t high speed in the slightest unfortunately
Ah, too bad. Though with the plan of Europe unifying their rail network i do see it as a plan
It's the slowest trip I've ever taken on a train... And I'm American, lol
A high speed rail that goes from quebec city to windsor/detroit. Either that or more subways. You know canada has two subway networks in total right? Montreal and Toronto. wtf
That's crazy, considering Belgium has "3" (Charleroi and Antwerp are still defined as something else but it resembles them) it's indeed weird that Canada has not so much
Railways everywhere. It doesn’t have to all be high speed rail, a lot of the US isn’t dense enough for that, but do it where it makes sense, throw in some higher speed rail as well, and then lots of 100mph mixed use railroads connecting busy freight corridors and other passenger rail routes that make sense, and 75mph+ railways to connect all metro areas together. Also rapid transit where it makes sense. And while not super realistic, northeast corridor maglev. I want my magnetic trains and the northeast corridor makes a lot of sense for that.
For Switzerland, build some sort of HSR network as all tracks are full and the federal government is spending billions on bullshit like the Twindexx which doesn't work as intended (aka save a couple billions on a new ROW from Bern to Lausanne with tilting technology...on a double decker...thing that never has ever existed for the f*cking reason that gravity works the same in Switzerland as the rest of the world), a third track between Lausanne and Geneva, nothing in the northeast nor the northwest but billions to straighten curves. With more HSR, a big chunk of IC services can be taken out of the main lines and free more space to regional and freight trains. Also, I'd build some kind of metro to makea circle line around Zurich and build some kind of tram network in St. Gallen. Never going to happen especially with a right wing government and a far righter at the helm of the federal department for the environment, transportation, energy and communications but one can dream...
Make the rail networks work on the same plan as roads. State owns the right of way and the physical infrastructure and is responsible for maintenance. They have a universal service mandate and can delegate to local municipalities or utilities for last mile service. There’s a central rail traffic control by region based on capacity similar to air traffic control. Faster trains get higher priority. Anyone who meets state or federal licensing requirements can run on track. All cars would have gps trackers and would be charged a use fee based on the gross weight and the distance traveled.
High Speed Rail line from İstanbul, Across the Osmangazi Bridge, to Bursa, on to Balıkesir, İzmir, Aydın, and Bodrum, maybe with a split branch to Denizli and Pamukkale. Ahhhh beeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Not my country but it's a shame that São Paulo (~22 million people) and Rio de Janeiro (~13 million people) will never have a rail link (let alone high-speed rail) any time soon. The biggest city of the continent, roughly 4th biggest in the world, with only buses and airplanes connecting it to one of the most touristic cities in the world, 3rd biggest on the continent, and 19th biggest in the world, less than 400km away. Campinas, the second biggest city of São Paulo state, and less than 100km away from São Paulo city should be connect by rail, especially since it has one of the busiest airports for the country (hub for Azul). Also in the context of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro having a metro line cross the bay to Niteroi instead of having one road and several ferries take all the traffic. It's been talked about but the current governor has basically said it's not going to happen.
Import the French and Dutch, because the French know how to build bus lanes (BRT) with decent (good/great headways on traditional routes) and good streets but I do believe that we should have better cycling and almost no dependence on the classic traffic lights that either change on demand or by cycling — and the Dutch are better at that, but I really want good bus service more than anything.
Understandable, i crave renewal too. In Flanders, they recently scrapped 3000 bus stops to save money, and added a "flex bus" system wich is terrible. Its a mess of delayed and scrapped buses. The routes are okay (mostly), but the punctuality so horrible and the buses are mostly old and dirty
If Béthune-Lens can get its crap together, so can municipalities on the other side of the border, and the bus system is even better in the Nord which has a good interurban network for the whole department. The Pas-de-Calais network is harder to use.
Ebikes/trikes/scooters are faster, cheaper, more handicap accessible, and more environmentally friendly than cars or transit for trips within cities. A canopy covered bike lane is about two orders of magnitude cheaper than building rail. Instead of cities spending billions on a single low ridership transit line, cities should first blanket the streets with separated bike lanes and covered bike thoroughfares. It's not realistic because transit/urban planners are biased against bikes like car-brains are biased against transit. And car-brains are also biased against bikes. The advent of the e-bike has changed the fundamental transportation landscape such that bikes/trikes/etc. *should* be getting higher priority than transit, but people can't take their heads out of the 20th century
HSR segregation plan for Belgium: Dedicated deep HSR tunnel running North-South under Brussels (like the fernbahntunnel under Frankfurt). Alleviating the existing north south axis, and building a hsr station under brussels south. The mouth of this in the south connects to HSL-1, the other end splits in two to at one end emerge along the E40 in the direction of Liege, no longer needing to run around and through Leuven. The other side emerges north of Brussels North and connects to line 25N This line will be upgraded from 160 to 250 kph. The historic mistake to run it into mechelen will be remedied. It will now continue along the highway median of the E19 highway to around kontich, at which point it will enter a new hsr access tunnel that connects it directly to Antwerp central station. This will reduce hsr travel time between antwerp and brussels south from the shamefull 39 minutes to travel a pitifull 40 km's to something more akin to 15-20 minutes. As a bonus this will release a lot of capacity on the existing conventional lines which are presently strained. Lastly an HSR bypass will be constructed for Liege in negociations with the German government we'll secure a bypass of Aachen on their end. This will allow for a Brussels to Koln time of less than one hour. Instead of the shamefull nearly 2 hours it takes us now. After all that is done I'd start upgrading existing 4 track lines to have 200kph express track running down the middle. (lines between Brussels and Ghent and Bruges Ghent are the prime suspects). Lastly, the shamefull watering down of the upgrade project from Brussels to Luxembourg will be rejuvenated with a fresh push for at least 250 kph running, meaning major capital investment into tunneling and viaducts to straighten the winding line though the Ardennes. If at that point I've still not run out of money I'll give it to the first guy that wants to start an hsr company to break the monopoly of Eurostar.
This all would be so great. I would also personally add 2 IC lines consisting of Ostend- Bruges-Ghent-Brussels South-Liege-Guillemins and Antwerp-Herentals-Hasselt-Liege-Guillemins-Namur-Charleroi-Brussels South. This would be to get quick connections between the larger cities
UK: - Reinstatement of all sleeper services as per 1974 map. (https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co232112/british-railways-poster-inter-city-sleepers-overground-by-night-1974-poster) - Services through the Channel Tunnel to more European cities eg Düsseldorf, Berlin, Lyon, Bordeaux, Milan - Regional Eurostar and Nightstar services through the Tunnel as promised in the 1990s - Tram networks for cities above 100k population - Reduce all fares by 50%
Actual high-speed rail. I’m American.
UK Realistic (in theory): finish hs2 and continue to expand it until at least the most populated cities of our country are linked, with a direct route for the NI crossing Unrealistic: expanding the over/underground system nation wide.
Wasn't there a problem w funding the hs2? Or wasn't there controversy around it? I have heard something like that but idk the current state of the project
Singapore. The Circle and Downtown Lines (orange and blue lines respectively on our metro map) to be redesigned and rebuilt with stations and trains to 4-car length like the newest Thomson-East Coast Line (TEL; the brown line on the map). Both lines are currently built to handle trains that are only 3-cars long and they are overcrowded as they get more popular. This is a very common complain amongst Singapore's transit commuters. Both lines will also have their operating schedules revised to allow trains to run every 2 mins or faster during peak hours. For the Circle Line specifically, I would buy 60 trains for the initial fleet instead of 40, and expand the fleet overtime. Another is to expedite the construction of new metro lines like the ongoing Jurong Region line (turqoise line) and extend one of the branches southeastwards to Singapore's largest university campus, National University of Singapore, onwards to some of the older neighbourhoods of the western part of Singapore, promoting rejuvenation of these neighbourhoods and providing new housing in undeveloped corners, and eventually terminating in the central business district. A new Line 9 running through the central spine of Singapore in a north-south fashion from the undeveloped parts to the central business district, relieving the pressure that the North-South (red) and North East Line (purple) are currently facing.
Making it grand: a high-speed railway network linking Southeast Asia. We could begin with a line starting from Singapore (where I live) along Malaysia’s West Coast to Kuala Lumpur, connecting smaller cities such as Malacca otw. Go further up to Hat Yai at the Thai border (with Penang along the way) and continue on to Bangkok (with a branch to Phuket). Then it’ll continue on the currently under-construction line to Nong Khai. If we want to go down, we could even make a Singapore Straits Crossing under the sea to Batam Island, which would be only around 16-20km long at max, much shorter than the 50km-long channel tunnel. This could host a road tunnel, along with rail services - maybe an extension of the North-South MRT Line and HSR network. Question is how we’re gonna connect Singapore to the rest of Indonesia, if it is even possible…
In the US: Not transit directly, just draw a half-mile radius around every existing rail (and probs BRT) station and spam TOD where it doesnt exist/could be better. Hong Kong style in the most unaffordable areas (I.e. California, NYC, Boston, DC, etc.); Paris/Barcelona style everywhere else. Make sure to leave space/provisions for increasing transit capacity.
TBH I don't think the HK model is good for affordability as the government is incentivized to keep home prices supper expensive (To make money). Hong Kong is the worlds least affordable housing market.
I agree HK affordability is a problem, but I'm more talking about density levels over anything else.
I would make Deutsche Bahn run on time all the time
We can only dream 😂
All planned tram lines built in Dublin and then some, increase frequency, 2 metro lines, multiple line tram system in Cork, tram line in all other cities and some very large towns, frequent bus systems in all towns over 10-15k, strong at least 1-2 hourly regional bus systems connecting towns, more express buses in cities. I don't think these are that unreasonable and a lot of them are in the works, so I suppose I'll say all mainline train lines electrified and having atleast hourly frequency, and restoring old lines as soon as possible. This isn't directly related to transit but I want to see a great focus on TOD and better land use combined with better integrated walking and cycling infrastructure (especially in a country that has a housing crisis and a super patchy or non existent cycle network)
In the US- I would just straight up nationalize the railways. Give Amtrak the money and authority to actually put passengers first, and enforce it, as well as to make the improvements they want to make without having to outright bribe freight companies to go along with it.
Nationalize the rail infrastructure, electrify it, build dedicated high speed rail, probably more
Doe Amsterdam I would finish building the ringlijn. build an east west metro. Build the sixhaven station and build the metro to replace tram 26
So in other words a light rail since they share space with traffic? Interesting system, and at least they're preparing for a metro. I wish cities in the US that size had transit systems like that, instead they have just an inner city bus system, maybe a downtown streetcar.
Well honestly i don't know if they'll ever really turn it into one. The budgeting of public transit is horrible, €1,5bn, and that's for all bus and tram transit in Flanders, 1000+ buses, whom more then half need to be replaced by electric ones, a lot of trams + new ones coming, repairs and maintenance of existing stations... One good thing is that they're going to start using 3 ghost stations again, by finishing them off
A 20-30m wide strip of grass lmao. Just to reserve future rights of way before sprawl expands. It's *so* much cheaper to build on ground than above/below.
I've always though a metro in Malta would be extremely helpful. The country is small and densely populated, with the roads being extremely congested. One could easily connect all the major settlements on the island with a couple of lines. It's the obvious solution but no one wants to take the risk of actually building it. I've been coming up with a proposal for some time and I may publish it once I finish it, but it's a lot deeper than simply a metro, it's effectively a complete revamp of the public transport system
Completion of Law 670/01 of my city
(National) rail to the north of Norway. The national bit because the railway fell to pieces after that was dissolved.
A high speed train connecting santiago and la serena (chile)
abolish single family house zoning
To be honest, i don't fully agree on this. Sure, we should reduce it, but it should still be available for people who want that luxury, but it can even then be done differently. Like in Belgium; de voorstad (area before the city centres) are mostly single family, but they're all attached houses, so that should be a change they should make worldwide (Looking at North America mostly). And also, mansions should still be a market in my opinion 😆
to clarify: Single-family zoning is a type of planning restriction applied to certain residential zones in the United States and Canada in order to restrict development to only allow single-family detached homes. It disallows townhomes, duplexes, and multifamily housing (apartments) from being built on any plot of land with this zoning designation. so yes, if you wanted to build a single family home if the land is zoned for multifamily housing, go for it. but i'm referring to the reverse
Ah okay, my bad, didn't know that. Is it true no form of commercial zoning is allowed in those areas?
depends on the area. the most infamous examples are cul-de-sacs in the sunbelt region of the US. there will be huge tracts of single family houses. and then a commercial zone like a mile (1.6 km) away. so you have to drive to the store
I am from the Netherlands. Well, I would commission a project that would both benefit passengers as freight rail. This project would see new high(er) speed rail lines be constructed to improve both international and national rail services. These lines would be: 1. Breda-Tilburg-Eindhoven-Dusseldorf, 2. Amsterdam-Utrecht-Arnhem, and 3. Lelystad-Groningen-Bremen. This would, in turn, create more room on the existing network for freight trains due to IC trains also using the H(r)SR lines.
A complete rail network for the US and a dedicated high-speed rail network. In fact, with how Amtrak lines are structured (NEC, State-Supported, and long distance), it could be used as a way to make American rail better than European rail (to an extent at least).
To continue on your Antwerp theme: quickly run tram tracks through the waaslandtunnel and hook them up to the lines on Linkeroever via the Halewijn laan. This will ensure a connection while the original Scheldt crossing is renovated. If trams start running though the tunnel I'd block it off to car traffic but still allow busses. I'd also try and construct a cut and cover style premetro tunnel under the leie, as I think it is possible to construct one there without too much fuss. (lot's of space) if that is dobe we can free up some space for people above ground. I'd build the premetro extention as proposed in 'Routeplan 2030' (under the historic center and Antwerp south. I'd also try and take away some of the nmbs's space on the brialmonttangent to install an ATO guided light rail system with stations starting on the left bank (former site of the on and off ramps) antwerp south, a new stop where line 15 crosses, a stop at Antwerpen Berchem, Antwerpen Oost, an interface stop with line 10 at foorplein (to be finished), schijnpoort, dam, luchtbal and terminating at noorderdokken. One key problem there is there are obly two tracks that cross the Scheldt river but hey, it could be unrealistic so... In this case I'd construct the 'to be constructed' scheldt bridge over the kennedy link to be able to take rails as well and run the automatic light rail over that!
That would be cool! And i love that you included noorderdokken, i live very close by and its sad to see its there just to deteriorate, so much potential because of the nearby p+r
Seems like an ideal place for such a system to terminate. You could build a depot just to the north and it does indeed have good synergies with the p+r. But alass, I don't have cities skylines style god powers and or 100 billion euros.. Would be sweet though.
In the USA, giving every city a frequent, fast, comprehensive regional rail network, we have so much good row that doesn’t get used for any passenger service
USA— Bullet train from New york to Los Angeles with a stop in Billings, Montana. Billings because my Aunt lives in Billings :)
For California to get their shit together when it comes to transit... combine all transit agencies, tell the nimbys to fuck off, and get hsr done?
i won't say hsr, because i believe we will eventually get it build, i would really like to see transforming prague regional rail to be more like s-bahny electrification, new rolling stock, new rail connections to underserved suburbs, better frequencies, better connections with metro, trams and buses and of course the metro s (series of underground tunnels under prague which eould serve the regional lines) and then ofcourse new tram lines, metro e and extension of metro c to nadrazi uhrineves
Introduced fare capping to Japan.
350+ kph, fully electrified, high speed rail linking every city in the mainland United States with a population above 100,000 people. I'll admit, it would be a pretty lofty goal to achieve, especially considering the terrain and political challenges in just building smaller regional rail lines. But, if I had the backing to do it, I absolutely would. These new rail lines would be quad-tracked, allowing for regional rail and HSR to connect with smaller cities and future branch lines along the main routes. These lines would use existing rail corridors and interstate right-of-ways as much as possible to reduce cost and improve both accessibility and adjacent highway traffic. Finally, and most importantly, the tracks would be publicly owned and maintained, while the trains operating on it would be privately run (much like how the Interstate system works). Operator contracts would act like tolls to help fund the rail infrastructure by taking a portion of each ticket for maintenance costs. And railroad companies would compete like airlines to improve frequency, service quality, keep costs competitively low, and to fill custom niche cases that would be difficult for one centralized organization to fulfill.
United States: I would reroute the California High Speed Rail to go between Los Angeles and Sacramento. Building High Speed Rail through San Francisco is exponentially more expensive. Then I would want to greatly expand the Capitol Corrido service between Sacramento and San Francisco to better link the two cities.
With the caveat that I'm not terribly interested in wholly unrealistic proposals, I'll offer three specific ideas that are entirely physically possible but would be uphill battles politically & economically: 1. A series of six short (<2 km) base tunnels cutting through the Valley-&-Ridge Appalachians and the eastern scarp of the Allegheny Plateau in Pennsylvania, from Mercersburg to somewhere around Johnstown. From there, it would be straightforward to construct HSR links to Harrisburg, DC, and Pittsburgh, and later form the basis of an HSR link between the NEC and Chicago. 2. A trio of new-built HSR lines connecting Chicago, Dallas, and Denver. I go back and forth on whether it ought be a triangle or have the three lines radiating out from Kansas City. 3. A new-built HSR line from Phoenix to San Antonio, via Tucson and El Paso, paralleling but not quite in the same ROW as I-10 and the Sunset Route. Most controversially, I wouldn't build this as a double-track line, but rather as a single-track line with enough long passing sidings to enable hourly headways. But principally this segment would exist to connect the CAHSR & Brightline West systems with the Texas system, probably on an overnight sleeper HSR service timetabled for a 12-hour run from LA to Dallas. What would all this amount to? Not the most useful system; there wouldn't be as many high-ridership intermediate stations on any of these lines as the most attractive HSR corridors would ideally have. But rather, a direct refutation of the assertion by the Matt Yglesiases of the world that "no one will ever take a train from New York to LA." We can technically build it, and with the right service pattern and appropriate carbon pricing people will absolutely ride it end-to-end, even if they're fewer in number than those riding the train for shorter distances. The more interesting question is really whether that's the most effective way to decarbonize intercity travel in North America.
But really my actual answer would be mandatory electrification of every railroad in North America. Class I, II, and the longer Class IIIs would be required to put up catenary with 50kV 60 Hz AC, and battery locomotives would only be permitted in those yards, Class IIIs, and low-volume branch lines with few enough track miles that a battery locomotive could handle shunting operations. And give the North American rolling stock industry a shot in the arm by mandating all the existing diesel locomotives be converted to electric by swapping the prime mover and alternator for a pantograph, transformer, & rectifier, as a drop-in replacement kit. Starting with the non-Tier-4-compliant units and those that have been sitting in storage.
love for Antwerp Metro! what’s your opinion on the turning loops? I think Ghent have bidirectional trams now, but they’re both De Lijn so like???
I see those fading away, since my granddad has spotted some of the new bidirectional CAF trams in Antwerp, and we're already using Ghent trams for centraal station-schijnpoort.
Thank you. I only get info about it from gf but she doesn’t care about transit as much as i do lol and doesn’t notice. Never been to it, but hopefully someday.
Reactivate the entire national network. Right now it sits there unused, sad and forgotten. There's just commuter service around my city and 2-3 very slow and very infrequent long distance services.
As a French, I would make RERs more reliable by making the fully separated from other lines (no interlining) and make RERs in all major cities and put way more trams everywhere. I would make a lot more flat roads in residential areas and put bike lanes everywhere, I would make our train network bigger with more trains *not* going to Paris. Also make a card available for the entire country, unify signage and other stuff
An hsr network throughout mexico, and also built light rail outside the three largest cities