rrnut282 wrote: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.
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.
Suburban Station wrote: Lyon_Wonder wrote: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?
Lyon_Wonder wrote: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.
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.
"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
spokyone wrote: n012944 wrote: spokyone wrote: TheAntiGates wrote: 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 boxDoes 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. BertYou 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.
n012944 wrote: spokyone wrote: TheAntiGates wrote: 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 boxDoes 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
spokyone wrote: TheAntiGates wrote: 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 boxDoes 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.
TheAntiGates wrote: 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
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
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
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.
An "expensive model collector"
I would think the biggest reason is that the route between Chicago and St Louis, has very little traffic to get in the way.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: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.
rrnut282 wrote: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.
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.
TheAntiGates wrote: 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.
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.
rrnut282 wrote:. 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.
. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Datafever wrote: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.
...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.
blhanel wrote: vsmith wrote: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?
vsmith wrote: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
LOL!
Curses!! foiled again
spokyone wrote:]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. And if the pension load is too great to bear, let government take care of it. Just a thought.
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
Have fun with your trains
High Speed Rail in the Midwest is a long, long ways off. And right now, it isn't really needed. You know what's really needed? How about bringing passenger service back to places where it is not provided right now? All you need is track (and you already have that), stations, and a little fleet of modern doodlebugs. Yes, that requires money. But I think it would be better to get some trains running rather than waiting to aquire enough money (and the freight railroad's patience) for high speed rail. If a lot of people ride the new routes, buy higher-capacity trains. If even more people ride it, then think about providing additional trips. If even MORE people want to ride, then maybe high speed rail should be brought into consideration. But right now, I think we should focus on getting passenger services back to these areas.
Suburban Station wrote:most likely. decisions are made at the margin. For example, although the keystone cut off 15-30 min off the travel time, those 15-30 min made it faster than driving thus making the option more attractive than driving. Ridership is way up. I think the original thinking was that if you could string together enough of these "money routes", the long distance trains woudl be able to travel over them at higher speeds as well. however, putting in the money to upgrade rail for the relatively few riders on those trains doesn't make sense alone whereas these corridor trains serve many more people on a more regular basis. Also, I'd imagine that eventually the Hiawathas will be extended beyond it's current route. Faster speeds also let you utilize a given pool of a equipment better.
most likely. decisions are made at the margin. For example, although the keystone cut off 15-30 min off the travel time, those 15-30 min made it faster than driving thus making the option more attractive than driving. Ridership is way up. I think the original thinking was that if you could string together enough of these "money routes", the long distance trains woudl be able to travel over them at higher speeds as well. however, putting in the money to upgrade rail for the relatively few riders on those trains doesn't make sense alone whereas these corridor trains serve many more people on a more regular basis. Also, I'd imagine that eventually the Hiawathas will be extended beyond it's current route. Faster speeds also let you utilize a given pool of a equipment better.
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?
zardoz wrote:What I cannot figure out is why all the hype for HSR on such short routes. The Milwaukee-Chicago trip is only 86 miles, and takes over 90 minutes with 3 station stops. If the train could do 110mph on even 60 of those 86 miles, the time savings would amount to only about 15 minutes. Is a mere 15 minutes quicker trip going to attract that many more riders? And is 15 minutes of time saving worth the huge costs involved in track maintenance and signal upgrades?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.