Midwest High Speed Rail

[al-in-chgo]

Been trying for a HST here in California for decades, just wait till the NIMBY's and the BANANA's get involved.

What's a BANANA?  A very 'appealing' person? 

  

 

*******************************

Yes, really, is BANANA a new West Coast acronym of some sort?  - al

 

[Datafever]

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (or Anything)

[UP 829]

...or, we could do it the politicaly expedient way by changing the way we measure things.

i.e.

Change the FRA mandated 79 mph speed for passenger trains to 158 mph.

Create 'Amtrak time' based on a 12 hour day. Since each hour would be 120 minutes, train speed would be doubled. (There is a precedent for this in the form of 'Microsoft months' which are something like 120 days long).

Reprint the schedules and proclaim to the world and the taxpayers that we now have High Speed Rail

Seriously, I doubt that I'll see it in my lifetime. Taxpayers are reluctant to approve additional spending for things like schools and the ROI for private investors is too little too far out.

[n012944]

I think that my biggest reservation about the HSR proposals I've seen thus far, is there always seems to be some private entity that expects the taxpayer to pay for 80+% of the construction, yet the private party expects to control the fare box

Does this include corporations like American, Delta Northwest United? Taxpayers build the airports, staff the controller centers, and build the access roads. The airlines buy the planes and pay the employees pay some landing fees and control the fare box.   Just a thought.

 

And the local goverment makes millions off the taxes sold on each ticket.   The public gets its money back.  Take a look at O'Hare, it is a cash cow for the city of Chicago just on revenue from the airport by itself, let alone the corporations and jobs that locate in the area because of the airline options.

 

Bert

[Suburban Station]

When you say that the train is faster than driving, does that take into account the time spent driving to the station, parking, waiting for the train, and dealing with alternate transportation at the other end of the trip? 

now that depends on the particular situation now doesn't it? Generally speaking, to be equivalent in travel time the train would have to be faster than driving in terms of trip time. So if it's 20 min faster than driving, then the total trip time is about the same if you live ten minutes away from the station by car. Where I live, it's not unusual for people to live within walking distance of a train station. For example, for me, the new Keystone service offers me a 22 min train ride instead of our local commuter service's 50 min. It's an 8 min savings (not taking into account improve reliability) over the old service BUT it's allowed more flexibility in scheduling to taking the Keystone is more convenient. Of course, the track was in such bad shape you couldn't put your coffee down. At any rate, It takes me 10 min to get to the station. My total trip time to the destination is now 35 min (yes, I cut it close). driving is only about 50 min. Now, since I'm unlucky and don't have a job within walking distance of the station so I have to catch a bus. total trip time then is 50 min (including wait for bus, if the bus were scheduled around the train, it coudl be less). those times are even, however it gets me off the extremel unpredictable highway where  bad weather frequently increases trip time. Now, for the longer haul, say Philadelphia to Lancaster, travel time is down to an hour on the morning express. That's probably over two hours driving. Off peak the travel time is 1h13m whereas the drive time is about 90 min. It seems like small potatoes, but 10 min can change people's drive vs train decisions. I also think it's a step toward faster speeds, which really change things. For example, if the NEC were 150 mph, it would be an hour, less on an express, to baltimore or nyc from philadelphia. 30 min from baltimore to DC. these types of speeds change the nature fo the service. In europe when they were introduced, formerly sleepy towns were made commtuer suburbs...for better and for worse I suppose. Drive time between baltimore and dC at rush hour is well in excess of an hour. Philadelphia to NYC in excess of 2 hours.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Another problem is the expectations of the public.  While most of us in the business and/or hobby are aware that even incremental change is going to cost a lot of money, the public expects a big splash of advanced technology for the money spent.  A maximum speed of 100-110 MPH does not require an Acela, but if you spend the money to upgrade the track and signals for 110 MPH operation with relatively conventional equipment, the public will feel that the money has been wasted.

[wjstix]

Well I don't know how many people would be going from Duluth to Cincinnati. I don't think you can fly from Duluth/Superior to many major cities anyway. I assume the idea is to get Duluth people to the Twin Cities and from there they would go by train or fly to where they go (to go overseas for example, they would need to get to Mpls/St.Paul.) Actually, reinstating rail service between Duluth and M/SP wouldn't be a bad idea, enough Twin Citians might want to go 'up north' for a weekend, and people at the lakehead wanting to visit the 'big city' for shopping etc. that there would be enough traffic to justify it.

 BTW unfortunately, construction uses fuel, so probably by the time gas prices are high enough that people get serious about building highspeed rail, the price of construction will be too high to do it.

[spokyone]

I think that my biggest reservation about the HSR proposals I've seen thus far, is there always seems to be some private entity that expects the taxpayer to pay for 80+% of the construction, yet the private party expects to control the fare box

Does this include corporations like American, Delta Northwest United? Taxpayers build the airports, staff the controller centers, and build the access roads. The airlines buy the planes and pay the employees pay some landing fees and control the fare box.   Just a thought.

 

And the local goverment makes millions off the taxes sold on each ticket.   The public gets its money back.  Take a look at O'Hare, it is a cash cow for the city of Chicago just on revenue from the airport by itself, let alone the corporations and jobs that locate in the area because of the airline options.

 

Bert

You have a point, but this taxpayer on opposite side of state does not see benefit. But my state and federal taxes support their economy just the same. Of course I chose to live here. Now back on topic. Do you think the MWHSR is going to be beneficial? And again, how about me? I could not use it if it was to be completed tomorrow.

[rrnut282]

I think one thing missing from this discusstion is this:  Chicago is the hub for all of the proposed spokes of the MidWest HiSpeed Rail Network.  Without the support/cooperation/etc of the State of Illinois, the spokes would not be able to connect with other HSR services.  Without the connections, the network is of lesser value to everyone, making funding MUCH LESS likely.

 

The glass may be empty, but at least now someone is thinking about filling it up.

[rrnut282]

As for the example cited of Duluth to Cincy, according to the NWA website, travel time is 3.7 - 4 hours (50 minutes DLH-MSP and 119 minutes MSP-CVG flight time), depending upon the connection time in MSP.  That's just airport to airport.  Did you check luggage?  Wait at the carasel to collect your bags and head for the rental car counters and wait some more.  Then there is drive time to downtown.  Let's not forget the "recommended two-hour wait" for TSA to reasure the chicken littles among us at the start of the trip.  Now we're talking 7-8 hours.  What time does HSR promise?  Without a definition of "a trip", we are all comparing apples to oranges that don't exist, yet when trying "to sell" HSR to the public and those that control the government's purse-strings.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have HSR as a travel option. 

[Anonymous]

.  Without the connections, the network is of lesser value to everyone, making funding MUCH LESS likely.

 

The glass may be empty, but at least now someone is thinking about filling it up.

 

Well that's just the thing, rrnut282 .  Remember when Amtrak was removed from Fort Wayne, and they offered bus service to connect at waterloo?  Where is that bus, today?

"The bus connection" is just a ploy, IMO, to make people who aren't getting train service, think that they are, at least through some convolution.

All those squiggley lines offering a bus connection is just a ploy to get taxpayer support from people who otherwise wouldn't want to open up the pocketbook.

In fact, if you look at the proposed bus routes between  Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati, Indy, and FW,  Doesn't that seem a little out of hand? It would seem to me that  the connections from Dayton to Lima and from Datyton to Indy serve very little purpose, unless we are offering high speed bus service too

Wonder if riding just the bus from Dayton to columbus is an option? 

 That is why I suspect the bus routes proposed are just a political way to play "connect the dots" with the taxpayer base 

 

Do you think  that people living in the affected areas could ever reneg on the obligation to help fund the project if the promised bus connection is ever terminated?  fair is fair.

[rrnut282]

Well that's just the thing, rrnut282 .  Remember when Amtrak was removed from Fort Wayne, and they offered bus service to connect at waterloo?  Where is that bus, today?

"The bus connection" is just a ploy, IMO, to make people who aren't getting train service, think that they are, at least through some convolution.

Yes, I remember.  I said to myself, I'm paying to ride a train, not a bus, and didn't take it.  But that's just me.  I have a 45 minute drive to the Fort Wayne train station, so the thought of riding another hour on the bus just didn't sit well.  A two-hour drive + 4 hour train ride vs. a four hour drive = no sale. 

And I agree about the political manuvering that is going on as well.  If politicians would spend less time pandering to the masses and make the decisions that they were placed in office to make, we just might have HSR.  If it makes sense, do it, not wait for the focus group to look at the polling numbers.

[Anonymous]

And I agree about the political manuvering that is going on as well.  If politicians would spend less time pandering to the masses and make the decisions that they were placed in office to make, we just might have HSR.  If it makes sense, do it, not wait for the focus group to look at the polling numbers.

 

The big sticking point for some time has been the proposed routing the train would take from Toledo to Chicago.

 One faction wants passenger rail back in Fort Wayne. The other want's Southbend/Mishawaka to stay on the route.

Most maps I've seen before have pussyfooted around the squabble by just showing two "possible alternate" routes, one going through either, with an explanation that the final choice was still pending

I saw that as a ruse as well, hoping to keep the taxpayers in both locales on thesupportive side.

Now,  from this newer map  they seem to be claiming that FW has won out. Which is great news, but I'm a little suprised. 

 

I notice there is still a foot note specifying that a route through Southbend is still being evaluated

I guess they are proposing to use the old Wabash for the path from Toledo to FW?

Perhaps a convoluted political solution to the South Bend dilemma would be to  reuse the old Fishing line roadbed  from FW to Kendalville, and then riding the more traditional route on into South Bend?

Political because it would offer both locales a connection, seemingly making everybody happy. Except for the stupidity of the meandering course having a high speed train having to hit both SB and FW on it's way to Toledo.  Not the shortest distance by a long shot.

 

 

[Suburban Station]

Another problem is the expectations of the public.  While most of us in the business and/or hobby are aware that even incremental change is going to cost a lot of money, the public expects a big splash of advanced technology for the money spent.  A maximum speed of 100-110 MPH does not require an Acela, but if you spend the money to upgrade the track and signals for 110 MPH operation with relatively conventional equipment, the public will feel that the money has been wasted.

the keystone is now 110 mph with metroliner equipment. I do wish they sold beer.

[Lyon_Wonder]

Here in Illinois the state has been talking about high speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis for years, since the mid 1990s at least.

[Suburban Station]

Here in Illinois the state has been talking about high speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis for years, since the mid 1990s at least.

why is that the proposed route instead of chicago milwaukee or chicago-KC?

[n012944]

Here in Illinois the state has been talking about high speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis for years, since the mid 1990s at least.

why is that the proposed route instead of chicago milwaukee or chicago-KC?

I would think the biggest reason is that the route between Chicago and St Louis, has very little traffic to get in the way. 

 

Bert

[n012944]

I think that my biggest reservation about the HSR proposals I've seen thus far, is there always seems to be some private entity that expects the taxpayer to pay for 80+% of the construction, yet the private party expects to control the fare box

Does this include corporations like American, Delta Northwest United? Taxpayers build the airports, staff the controller centers, and build the access roads. The airlines buy the planes and pay the employees pay some landing fees and control the fare box.   Just a thought.

 

And the local goverment makes millions off the taxes sold on each ticket.   The public gets its money back.  Take a look at O'Hare, it is a cash cow for the city of Chicago just on revenue from the airport by itself, let alone the corporations and jobs that locate in the area because of the airline options.

 

Bert

You have a point, but this taxpayer on opposite side of state does not see benefit. But my state and federal taxes support their economy just the same. Of course I chose to live here. Now back on topic. Do you think the MWHSR is going to be beneficial? And again, how about me? I could not use it if it was to be completed tomorrow.

Benificial to who?  I don't see how it would be beneficial to anyone except the people that need to get between the cities served and people than gain employment from it. 

 

Bert

 

[jeaton]

Here in Illinois the state has been talking about high speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis for years, since the mid 1990s at least.

why is that the proposed route instead of chicago milwaukee or chicago-KC?

The state of Illinois pushed for and put up most of the money to make the Chicago-Springfield a "higher speed" 110MPH operation.  All of the track work and upgrades for highway crossing protection from just south Joliet to Springfield have been completed and that part of the project has been completed for almost two years. 

Meanwhile back at the signal part.  Everybody is waiting.   

[CG9602]

As for the example cited of Duluth to Cincy, according to the NWA website, travel time is 3.7 - 4 hours (50 minutes DLH-MSP and 119 minutes MSP-CVG flight time), depending upon the connection time in MSP.  That's just airport to airport.  Did you check luggage?  Wait at the carasel to collect your bags and head for the rental car counters and wait some more.  Then there is drive time to downtown.  Let's not forget the "recommended two-hour wait" for TSA to reasure the chicken littles among us at the start of the trip.  Now we're talking 7-8 hours.  What time does HSR promise?  Without a definition of "a trip", we are all comparing apples to oranges that don't exist, yet when trying "to sell" HSR to the public and those that control the government's purse-strings.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have HSR as a travel option. 

Let's also remember that when one sets up a network, one should be able to connect to anywhere else in the network, and not just the ends of the lines. What about, say, Duluth to Madison, WI ? or Duluth to Springfield ? Or Duluth to Indianapolis ?

[CG9602]

I think that my biggest reservation about the HSR proposals I've seen thus far, is there always seems to be some private entity that expects the taxpayer to pay for 80+% of the construction, yet the private party expects to control the fare box

Does this include corporations like American, Delta Northwest United? Taxpayers build the airports, staff the controller centers, and build the access roads. The airlines buy the planes and pay the employees pay some landing fees and control the fare box.   Just a thought.

 

And the local goverment makes millions off the taxes sold on each ticket.   The public gets its money back.  Take a look at O'Hare, it is a cash cow for the city of Chicago just on revenue from the airport by itself, let alone the corporations and jobs that locate in the area because of the airline options.

 

Bert

You have a point, but this taxpayer on opposite side of state does not see benefit. But my state and federal taxes support their economy just the same. Of course I chose to live here. Now back on topic. Do you think the MWHSR is going to be beneficial? And again, how about me? I could not use it if it was to be completed tomorrow.

Benificial to who?  I don't see how it would be beneficial to anyone except the people that need to get between the cities served and people than gain employment from it. 

 

Bert

 

With that sort of logic, one should not have to pay gas tax, as this goes towards roads and highways that he would not drive on in other parts of the State.

[Anonymous]

With that sort of logic, one should not have to pay gas tax, as this goes towards roads and highways that he would not drive on in other parts of the State.

 

NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME THING,   other  than offroading, boats, and lawnmowers (and another small handful of incidental uses) the gasoline tax is a "pay as you go" arrangement. 

 

Let's not forget also that we already have mass transit via the highways and airplanes, so essentially we are talking about adding an add-on 3rd mode, for a considerable expenditure.

[spokyone]

My county gets its share of road repairs. It may not be a fair share, but the state provides a service to me in return for tax money. My problem is a traveler on the opposite side of the state wants me to kick in for HSR so he can get home earlier. Commuter rail is great because its use keeps the state from building a new freeway into Chicago. And the construction cost for HSR is only a start. The fare charged the users will not cover operating costs. If someone thinks it will, I would like to know.

[vsmith]

Been trying for a HST here in California for decades, just wait till the NIMBY's and the BANANA's get involved.

What's a BANANA?  A very 'appealing' person? 

  

 

*******************************

Yes, really, is BANANA a new West Coast acronym of some sort?  - al

 

[wallyworld]

G Mack..I share your overiding sense of resignation in regard to the clock running out in the face of the slow pace of "progress" toward the goal of accomplishing what we had long ago and far away. I have very distinct memories of being pushed back in my seat as we accelerated onto roaring along at 80 mph on the Skokie Valley Route along The Road of Service on the CNSM. Ah progress...I am one of those saps who visited GM's The World of Tommorrow, the massive exihibit at The New York Worlds Fair who sat in immersed in eye popping awe at the vision of remotely controlled cars efficently whizzing along on broad eight lane byways...I read about the perennial reinvention of Amtrak, the debates on global warming, the fading success of our American automobile industry, countless feasilibilty proposals on rail that are unfunded, and of course, sit on the crumbling infrastructure of the over-capacity I-95 stuck in traffic, burning overpriced gas..and ask myself, Where Are The Flying Cars They Promised Us?   

[jeaton]

Seems to me that those of you who are arguing against HSR plans have adopted the conservative school of government thought that if you don't get a direct benefit from your tax dollars, then the expenditure should not be made.  You seem to want to discredit any arguements that the tax dollars can or are being spent for the good of the society.  Depending on the standard you set for "the good of society", one could carry the argument to almost any point.  Don't farm?, down with ag subsidies;  no kids in school?, privatize education;  Don't go to National Parks?, kill the US Park Service expenditure;  don't drive on the Interstate Highways?, don't pay Federal Gas Tax.

The arguments could go on.  Unless you have a subsistence life style of a hermit, he reality is that you get some direct or fairly direct benefits from the majority of you tax dollars.  There are a couple of possible direct benefits from HSR.  Everytime someone uses a train instead of driving, a few less gallons of gas are consumed.  In the aggregate, the lower demand for gas may help keep gas prices a little lower.  Each person riding the train instead of driving is one less car on already overcrowded highways.  If you have to drive in the area or along the route of that train, your drive time might be just a little better.  Is your time worth money?  Longer travel times for truckers and others who use the highways for business travel, mean higher costs for those services.  That higher cost may well trickle down and be extracted from your pocket.

I am not going to argue that a regional HSR service is suddenly empty the adjacent highways.  However, it might just keep those of us in the hinterlands from having to shell out a few more tax dollars to pay billions to add new lanes and rebuild interchanges for the big city dwellers.  Remember, you pay the federal gas tax even if you only drive up and down your driveway.  Even if you drive that rural interstate that goes through your farm a skirts around your small town, most of that tax money is going for improvements to the freeways that serve the big cities.

 Pretty nice deal for the person who commutes by car from the 'burbs to downtown.  

[spokyone]

J  Will you address my statement about High Speed Rail? It is very expensive and does only cater to those who want to get home a little earlier. I stated that I like commuter rail. But I truly believe that HSR will accomplish very little to ease congestion on the roads. We have some trouble funding Amtrak here in Illinois unless it is between Springfield and Chicago.

[n012944]

J  Will you address my statement about High Speed Rail? It is very expensive and does only cater to those who want to get home a little earlier.

Couldn't the same statement be made about interstates in urban areas?

 

Bert

[spokyone]

J  Will you address my statement about High Speed Rail? It is very expensive and does only cater to those who want to get home a little earlier.

Couldn't the same statement be made about interstates in urban areas?

 

Bert

Not really. Sometimes I do drive to Chicago.

[Datafever]

J  Will you address my statement about High Speed Rail? It is very expensive and does only cater to those who want to get home a little earlier.

Couldn't the same statement be made about interstates in urban areas?

 

Bert

Yes, but those urban interstates also provide infrastructure for trucks which supply the urban areas with goods for all of those urbanites to buy.  Or sometimes, those trucks are transporting goods from the urban industry to rural areas.  Non-congested roads not only help commuters, but they help commerce in general.