TheAntiGates wrote: 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 pendingI 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.
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 read INDOT's web-site a while back and I'm not surprised. South Bend already has the South Shore electrified interurban into Chicago. It's on a private, dedicated R/W (for the most part). It provides a reasonable service. South Bend also has a 4-lane interstate highway to Chicago. Too bad it's a toll-road, but it's an interstate non the less.
Fort Wayne has a 4-lane non-interstate highway to Chicago. Period. Fort Wayne has a greater need for HSR and therefore should be selected. They assign "points" for each aspect considered in a decision like this and like in many things in life, the most points win.
If it were up to me, I would look into using the former Pennsy Main to Chicago at least as far as Gary. You have a ready-made alignment waiting for a new track by replacing the westbound track that was removed by Conrail. That would save a lot on sub-grade preparation. The draw-back is that it is not grade separated, i.e. lots of highway grade crossings. The existing eastbound main track is currently operated by the Chicago FortWayne & Eastern, and they run one or two trains a day each way. Re-timing the crossing gates for higher speeds is cheaper than a new installation, another plus for Fort Wayne. Either way installing a new track signaling system would have to be done no matter where HSR is built.
TheAntiGates wrote: CG9602 wrote: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.
CG9602 wrote: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.
jeaton wrote: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.
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.
CG9602 wrote:, while the gas tax is pooled by the State, and not distributed exactly back to my city. I think of them as being similar.
Well man, if they are not keeping up the roads around where you live, then I think you have a legitimate beef, and should complain .
Where I am at I have the exact opposite concern. Seems to me that my community strives a bit too hard to stay one step ahead of the game, my suspicions are that "politically well connected paving contractors" have more to do with that than any real forward thinking vision is concerned.
We've got a lot of 4 lane roads to nowhere, around my area
spokyone wrote: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.
I am basicly in the same position you are. Under existing plans, HSR won't be doing me much good, except I could make use of a Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati service. Problem with that one is that while Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri actuall pay for existing regional service, Indiana does not and may not until the proverbial cold day. (The existing daily Chicago-Indy Amtrak service is three days of the Cardinal and four days of a train that exists mainly to ferry equipment from the Beech Grove, IN shops for connections everywhere from Chicago. Might as well carry passengers, too.)
A big chunk of my transportation related tax money is going to the almost $1 billion rebuild of the Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee. I use that maybe twice a year. I still favor the development of regional "higher speed" 110 MPH or so service, because I think the indirect benefits to me probably will exceed the portion of my tax bill that goes to that service.
Almost all of Amtrak's regional routes had big increases last year, but most likely due to increases in fuel prices. I suspect that in most cases the best car vs.train travel times on these routes are a toss-up. Just my opinion but if these routes went to the higher speed operation and had attractive frequency, suitable departure/arrival schedules and high on-time performance, there would be very big leaps in usage. And yes, those are big "ifs".
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
It seems to me that a relatively cheap way to "approach" HSRS is being overlooked. Most AMTRAK schedules are well padded with time allowances for interference with host railroad freight trains and the myriad of other delays that regularly occur on their present routes. Even with this contingency padding they are notorious for regularly running from one hour up to one day late. If they could just consistently average anywhere approaching the present 79mph limit many scheduled times would be cut nearly in half. This would not require the massive expense of 4-gate protection at every rural grade crossing, in cab signalling, longer signal blocks, super,super elevation of curves, and new equipment required for 110 mph operation. There are many opportunities to relocate stations onto bypass lines thus eliminating the slow approaches to old downtown depots in decaying areas of the cities which are often stub ended and must be backed into. The airlines don't fly into downtown airports but into ones that are most often located in the boondocks; why doesn't AMTRAK do the same. For years now businesses have been fleeing high tax downtown areas in favor of campus locations in the suburbs so mid-city to mid-city service is no longer the asset it once was.
AMTRAK schedules using the speed capability of present equipment could be greatly reduced to the point of making them an attractive alternative to driving or flying. It just requires spending some bucks to realign curves, eliminate (or at least greatly reduce) slow orders, install more passing tracks, reinstall some former segments of double track, relocate stations, etc. All of these measures would be required any way but only involve a fraction of the cost of full HSRS.
At least equally important is dependable, on time performance. With tardiness the norm today rather than the exception it once was, no business man in his right mind would risk travelling to a 10am meeting on a train scheduled to arrive at 8am.
This all makes common sense to me but feel free to address any fallacies you find in my logic.
Mark
AntiGates-
Which do you think would get more riders from Fort Wayne, a 79 mph train on the CFW&E to Chicago (2.5 hrs?), or 79 mph through Muncie to Indianapolis (2 hrs?)?
nanaimo73 wrote:AntiGates-Which do you think would get more riders from Fort Wayne, a 79 mph train on the CFW&E to Chicago (2.5 hrs?), or 79 mph through Muncie to Indianapolis (2 hrs?)?
try going north out of indie after five on friday
spokyone wrote: We have some trouble funding Amtrak here in Illinois unless it is between Springfield and Chicago.
Personally, I would like to see a high speed corridor running from Harrisburg to chicago via Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, South Bend. Harrisburg to Philly (and the NEC) is already high(er) speed. I think it woudl serve those cities' well.
Suburban Station wrote: Personally, I would like to see a high speed corridor running from Harrisburg to Chicago via Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, South Bend. Harrisburg to Philly (and the NEC) is already high(er) speed.
Personally, I would like to see a high speed corridor running from Harrisburg to Chicago via Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, South Bend. Harrisburg to Philly (and the NEC) is already high(er) speed.
To travel from Philadelphia to Cleveland, you would have a 4 hour layover in Pittsburgh, and arrive in Cleveland at 2:30 AM.
Ohio talks about HSR, but they won't pay to extend the Pennsylvanian to Cleveland, or reinstall the connection in Ravenna so Amtrak can serve Youngstown.
.....Dale & Suburban Station.....I'm sure it would be welcomed by many of the HSR from Harrisburg to Chicago....but there is a stretch of mountainous territory say from about Altoona through Johnstown...{maybe 40 miles, and I'd bet you know about}, that would be a challance for doing so.....
Suppose cubic money could take it through the ranges as it does at the top of the summit at Gallitizin for a short distance, but oh so much more would be needed.
Years ago speed limits down the east slope were in the range of 35 mph but I don't really know what it is now....It is a slow area with the grade and curves down that way...That is if the HSR would be following the original Pennsylvania route.
Wish we could do it all though.
Quentin
Probably the Indy route, but I don't think that route could sustain itself.
I recall reading in Trains Mag a while back, that in order for new passenger corridors to "work", endpoints are key. You have to have an attractive destination at either end of the project, to get the traffic necessary to support the route. with the points in between being secondary. And that made a lot of sense to me.
Endpoints such as Chicago-New York, Los Angeles-Las Vegas, etc
Chicago-Cleveland probably isn't good enough, nor is Chicago-Columbus
Fort Wayne is NOT a real destination. And I don't think that Detroit-Indianapolis (with Ft Wayne as a point in between) could draw the patronage needed to make it work, either.
......The Detroit to Indy {via Muncie}, route would have to use several different railroads {if using current routes}, to accomplish such a run. NS to Muncie and from Muncie to Indy...CSX. Surely not impossible though.
I've always wondered about having a {rapid commuter type run}, between Muncie and Indy....Really flat territory and should allow rather fast running. Lots of traffic heads south from here {Muncie}, to go to work in Indy each business day.
NYC used to run at least 4 passenger trains each way through here {on what is now CSX}, and I suppose they had pretty fast running avail. to them.
And that is just since I've been in this area of 45 plus years....
Anti, That makes sense, but California runs several trains a day to Bakersfield, while Illinois has routes to Quincy and Carbondale.
Quentin, I just think the services should be put in place (Philadelphia-Cleveland), and then speeds and frequencies could be increased as (hopefully) ridership increases. The incremental approach of California, Illinois and Washington State seems more realistic than the pie in the sky approach of Ohio and Indiana.
spokyone wrote:Los Angeles to Las Vegas sounds promising with a diner and 2 bar cars.
Yep, you could call it the "Hedonist's Express"
nanaimo73 wrote:Anti, That makes sense, but California runs several trains a day to Bakersfield, while Illinois has routes to Quincy and Carbondale.
Those Bakersfield trains are "caltrans" correct? Do they pay their own way, or are they subsidized?
Dale....Yes, one can't hope for too much to be done at one project when speaking of HSR.
The Indiana - Ohio part would be the easy part though from a route stand point....all that flat country as compared to the western Pennsylvania route up and through {a bit at the top}, of the mountains.
TheAntiGates wrote: nanaimo73 wrote:Anti, That makes sense, but California runs several trains a day to Bakersfield, while Illinois has routes to Quincy and Carbondale.Those Bakersfield trains are "caltrans" correct? Do they pay their own way, or are they subsidized?
I believe that he is referring to the Amtrak "San Joaquin" trains that run from Sacramento/Oakland down to Bakersfield.
Datafever wrote:I believe that he is referring to the Amtrak "San Joaquin" trains that run from Sacramento/Oakland down to Bakersfield.
OK thanks. The State subsidizes the San Joaquins, correct?
TheAntiGates wrote: Datafever wrote:I believe that he is referring to the Amtrak "San Joaquin" trains that run from Sacramento/Oakland down to Bakersfield. OK thanks. The State subsidizes the San Joaquins, correct?
Does California subsidize Amtrak? Yes. Very much so.
I don't believe it is possible to operate any intercity scheduled passenger train in America other than Amtrak's Auto Train without a subsidy.
Well then, I'd probably be in favor of NO additional trains that required a subsidy to remain in operation
Ft Wayne to Indy or FW to Chicago.
TheAntiGates wrote:Well then, I'd probably be in favor of NO additional trains that required a subsidy to remain in operationFt Wayne to Indy or FW to Chicago.
So you would prefer that the subsidy be used to build more roads instead?
why can't we charge the users of rail a fair price that covers the cost of their use?
Because they will refuse to pay, and use the highways instead?
There is your answer.
TheAntiGates wrote:why can't we charge the users of rail a fair price that covers the cost of their use? Because they will refuse to pay, and use the highways instead? There is your answer.
There is an answer.
Another solution would be to charge highway users the full cost of maintenance and building new roads. Toll roads come to mind. That would probably drive enough commuters off of the highways and onto trains, even if they had to pay the full cost of trains. Of course, with more train travellers, the cost per passenger mile would be less than it is now.
Datafever wrote:There is an answer.
Well, considering you asked me I gave you my answer .
Toll roads everywhere? That is your answer? repealing the gas tax too? Or I suppose you want to keep the gas tax in place to fund the restoration of heritage steam, and the reconstruction of coal docks along the transcons?
TheAntiGates wrote: Datafever wrote:There is an answer. Well, considering you asked me I gave you my answer .Toll roads everywhere? That is your answer? repealing the gas tax too? Or I suppose you want to keep the gas tax in place to fund the restoration of heritage steam, and the reconstruction of coal docks along the transcons?
Toll roads? No, I am not generally in favor of toll roads - the create congestion at the point of entry. Perhaps as technology to auto-deduct toll fees becomes wide-spread enough, toll fees would work.
Repeal the gas tax? Good heavens! What for? Quite frankly, it would probably be possible to raise sufficient revenue for all road projects (city streets, county roads, highways, interstates, etc.) through the use of gas taxes. Of course, that might leave gas at $5.00 a gallon or so...
nanaimo73 wrote: OK thanks. The State subsidizes the San Joaquins, correct? I don't believe it is possible to operate any intercity scheduled passenger train in America other than Amtrak's Auto Train without a subsidy.
actually, the most profitable trains to run are on the NYP-WAS corridor not the auto train. the auto train requires it's own facilities.
At any rate, Extending the Pennsylvanian would be expensive without improving travel speeds since Amtrak woudl need new facilities in Cleveland. Perhaps it could go on to buffalow (existing facility). Perhaps you'd be better off with a new route, Toronto-Pitt via Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland. Higher speeds from Harrisburg to Chicago woudl mean a higher speed corridor from chicago to nyp.
KCS had a post about a cheaper way. Let's just concentrate on Amtrak being reliable. Once that is accomplished, then let's see if HSR would have an advantage. I have seen over and over in all layers of government, we can appropriate money for a new project but never seem to have enough money to operate it properly. It starts out OK but then budget constraints mandate less service and less maintenence.
Datafever wrote:Toll roads? No, I am not generally in favor of toll roads - the create congestion at the point of entry. Perhaps as technology to auto-deduct toll fees becomes wide-spread enough, toll fees would work.
That would be real swell, that way you couldn't drive without a credit card account to track the charges to.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.