Amtrak ridership hits record high...again

[EagleKeeper]

Agreed - but ticket prices aren't set by G-d. I can see partially financing the initial construction with appropriations, but there is absolutely not excuse for setting ticket prices below that needed to run the system.


Gas taxes certainly need to go up to reflect higher mileage vehicles, but diverting money into a system that doesn't come close to paying for itself simply makes things worse. The more Amtrak we have, the more we must spend to subsidize it.

One thing on which I'd agree - whenever we build a new Interstate highway, we should also acquire land for two to four parallel high speed tracks, ideally one long haul and one commuter in each direction. Inevitably the land next to an Interstate gets built up, at least at access points, which makes it much more difficult to add rail lines and makes new rail lines much less suitable for high speed rail. Pick the straightest, most level route feasible and plan from the start on highways and rail. Worse case we'll have a bit more green space.

Most interstates roads outside of the actual heavy populated urban areas have enough right of way to support a pair of rail lines.

The main issue is the demand for commuter rail between those urban areas to even attempt to justify the build cost. Example; build between Chicago, Indianapolis and St Louis. Roughly 300 miles apart. the Indiana leg could do with 4 stops; including Lafayette and Gary.
The Indy-> St Louis may make to with three stops, including Terra Haute.
the St Louis-> Chicago may make do with 5 stops, including Springfield, Peoria and Joliet.

However, hoy many smaller towns/cities along those routes will want their fingers in the pie. Each one ensures a half hour or more delay along the Route.

And inside the Indy Circle, Joliet north and the East St Louis across the river; where is there any right of way for speed; the trains would have to switch to existing heavy rail.

 

[K1052]

Most interstates roads outside of the actual heavy populated urban areas have enough right of way to support a pair of rail lines.

The main issue is the demand for commuter rail between those urban areas to even attempt to justify the build cost. Example; build between Chicago, Indianapolis and St Louis. Roughly 300 miles apart. the Indiana leg could do with 4 stops; including Lafayette and Gary.
The Indy-> St Louis may make to with three stops, including Terra Haute.
the St Louis-> Chicago may make do with 5 stops, including Springfield, Peoria and Joliet.

However, hoy many smaller towns/cities along those routes will want their fingers in the pie. Each one ensures a half hour or more delay along the Route.

And inside the Indy Circle, Joliet north and the East St Louis across the river; where is there any right of way for speed; the trains would have to switch to existing heavy rail.

Real 220mph high speed rail in the Chicago hub would be limited stop, probably no more than two between major cities. You can do more stops by altering the station layouts and going to quad or passing tracks to let express trains bypass standing trains.

There should be 4 true HSR lines in such a model radiating from Chicago outward to St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit, and Minneapolis. Build cost in the 45-60 billion range all in depending on a bunch of stuff.

 

[Doppel]

I'm guessing you don't have a long commute. If you did you'd be all for trains that cut it to half or less.

You are right. I am honestly holding out for driverless cars.

 

[werepossum]

Most interstates roads outside of the actual heavy populated urban areas have enough right of way to support a pair of rail lines.

The main issue is the demand for commuter rail between those urban areas to even attempt to justify the build cost. Example; build between Chicago, Indianapolis and St Louis. Roughly 300 miles apart. the Indiana leg could do with 4 stops; including Lafayette and Gary.
The Indy-> St Louis may make to with three stops, including Terra Haute.
the St Louis-> Chicago may make do with 5 stops, including Springfield, Peoria and Joliet.

However, hoy many smaller towns/cities along those routes will want their fingers in the pie. Each one ensures a half hour or more delay along the Route.

And inside the Indy Circle, Joliet north and the East St Louis across the river; where is there any right of way for speed; the trains would have to switch to existing heavy rail.

That is indeed the problem. If light rail doesn't serve the smaller communities, then it's almost useless to ease freeway congestion. If light rail does serve the smaller communities, then it's almost useless because it's so slow. Ideally we would have four tracks for bi-directional service both with limited stop long haul and multiple stop commuter. But since we can't even break even with the current system and record ridership, I see little chance of that becoming practical any time soon. I just don't think light rail works unless you have a high density population that's too poor to drive.

 

[K1052]

That is indeed the problem. If light rail doesn't serve the smaller communities, then it's almost useless to ease freeway congestion. If light rail does serve the smaller communities, then it's almost useless because it's so slow. Ideally we would have four tracks for bi-directional service both with limited stop long haul and multiple stop commuter. But since we can't even break even with the current system and record ridership, I see little chance of that becoming practical any time soon. I just don't think light rail works unless you have a high density population that's too poor to drive.

The only place we have that kind of system it works and is profitable. Those people also aren't using it because they are poor....they're using it because it's faster than any other mode.