Midwest High Speed Rail

[Datafever]

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. 

[Anonymous]

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?

[Datafever]

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. 

[Modelcar]

 

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Los Angeles to Las Vegas sounds promising with a diner and 2 bar cars.

Yep, you could call it the "Hedonist's Express"

[nanaimo73]

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.

 

[Modelcar]

 

......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....

[spokyone]

Los Angeles to Las Vegas sounds promising with a diner and 2 bar cars.

[Anonymous]

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?)?

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.

 

 

 

 

[Modelcar]

 

.....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.

[nanaimo73]

 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. 

[Suburban Station]

We have some trouble funding Amtrak here in Illinois unless it is between Springfield and Chicago.

well, it is the home of the simpsons.

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.

[snagletooth]

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?)?

Indie, definently. theirs alot of people that commute indie to chicago, and lafayette too.

try going north out of indie after five on friday 

[nanaimo73]

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?)?

[KCSfan]

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 

[jeaton]

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".

[Anonymous]

, 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 

[CG9602]

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.

And my purchase of an Amtrak ticket is "pay as I go," at least in my perspective, while the gas tax is pooled by the State, and not distributed exactly back to my city. I think of them as being similar.

I concede your points regarding mass transit.

jeaton makes my argument better than I did:

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.  

[rrnut282]

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. 

[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. 

[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.

[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. 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.

[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.  

[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?   

[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

 

[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.

[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.

[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.