high speed train from St. Louis to Chicago

[badkarma1399]

Originally posted by: mozirry
Read in the paper that this may be the next big thing in the Midwest. I for one (being a resident of St. Louis) would absolutely freaking love it.

Supposedly it is going to get some weight for an infrastructure project due to Obama's knowledge of the region and several other key figures in office.

As a boxer, you absolutely need a strong core in order to survive. The midwest is the core of this country and needs major attention.

I disagree with you on the importance of the Midwest.

I think the northeast corridor and Southern California/Vegas should be priorities for high speed rail. Even then, its not really practical. The northeast is way too built up to allow the long stretches of straight land needed for highspeed rail. We have the Acela, but even that is pretty slow in some areas. Plus to compete with air travel, any sort of rail would need heavy government subsidies, so I don't really know how worth it it would be.

 

[Hacp]

They need to improve the NY->Washington line before anything else gets started.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
SF >-- LA is getting one also, about time we have real infrastructure upgrades that help people get away from cars.

because cars are evil?

We are going to need cars, rail and air travel to support the population growth going forward. Even if car is your preferred method of transport, it is in your interest to get as many people away from cars and into trains, unless you prefer sitting in traffic all day.

The traffic is mostly confined to urban areas though.

I bet if you drove from Chicago to St Louis you would have no problem with doing 80+ for most of the trip.

Ha!

Really...

Let's see... going down I-55 you go through Bloomington and Springfield and that looks to be it.

Bloomington has a population of 75,000 and Springfield has a population of 116,000. Rather small cities.

Are you suggesting that the 300 mile route between these cities is really that congested?

having driven it a couple times, yes it was pretty bad

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: badkarma1399

Originally posted by: mozirry
Read in the paper that this may be the next big thing in the Midwest. I for one (being a resident of St. Louis) would absolutely freaking love it.

Supposedly it is going to get some weight for an infrastructure project due to Obama's knowledge of the region and several other key figures in office.

As a boxer, you absolutely need a strong core in order to survive. The midwest is the core of this country and needs major attention.

I disagree with you on the importance of the Midwest.

I think the northeast corridor and Southern California/Vegas should be priorities for high speed rail. Even then, its not really practical. The northeast is way too built up to allow the long stretches of straight land needed for highspeed rail. We have the Acela, but even that is pretty slow in some areas. Plus to compete with air travel, any sort of rail would need heavy government subsidies, so I don't really know how worth it it would be.

technically airlines get heavy subsidies in the form of airports, runways, and so forth.

 

[Mani]

About damned time.

 

[rchiu]

I don't mind the initial investment as long as the route at least break even. Being a tax payer in Illinois, I am not paying for any future money pit....

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
SF >-- LA is getting one also, about time we have real infrastructure upgrades that help people get away from cars.

because cars are evil?

We are going to need cars, rail and air travel to support the population growth going forward. Even if car is your preferred method of transport, it is in your interest to get as many people away from cars and into trains, unless you prefer sitting in traffic all day.

The traffic is mostly confined to urban areas though.

I bet if you drove from Chicago to St Louis you would have no problem with doing 80+ for most of the trip.

Ha!

Really...

Let's see... going down I-55 you go through Bloomington and Springfield and that looks to be it.

Bloomington has a population of 75,000 and Springfield has a population of 116,000. Rather small cities.

Are you suggesting that the 300 mile route between these cities is really that congested?

Let's just say if you could average even 60 mph, you'd be doing great.

This,
anything else is wishful thinking. I've done Detroit to Miami via I75 and there's virtually no way to average 70 mph with traffic, piss stops etc

 

[Lemon law]

We really have to ask if we want high speed rail to move people, freight, or both at high speeds. And if we really go broke as a nation, and can no longer afford to maintain so many miles interstate highways, railroads would benefit, and can more efficiently move people and freight per unit energy expended.

But since we subsidize the trucking industry by building roads, why is it not fair to subsidize the far greener railroads?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: alchemize
There isn't really that much travel between st. louis and chicago that greyhound or amtrak (lo-speed?) already can't already take care of. Anyone who wants to get there fast takes Southwest.

Now Vegas and LA would make sense...

I'd definitely prefer to take a faster train rather than drive if I have to go downstate. Depending on the time of day/weather you can waste a good amount of time just getting out of the metro area.

110mph rail between STL-CHI-MIL would have a lot of takers.

Not enough to justify the funding. You really need full trains (multiple) every day to cost justify high speed rail. You'll get it for cubs/cards games, but other than that - "it would be convenient" as you said.

How many non-stops a day does southwest have from CHI-STL? Looks like 10...That's the competition. No more than 1,500 travelers per day I'm guessing.

Exactly and how much does Southwest charge for this service? I am willing to bet the true cost will be less than any high speed train will present. So we will spend billions of dollars to accomodate ~2000 people. Sounds like a great allocation of resources to me!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: badkarma1399

Originally posted by: mozirry
Read in the paper that this may be the next big thing in the Midwest. I for one (being a resident of St. Louis) would absolutely freaking love it.

Supposedly it is going to get some weight for an infrastructure project due to Obama's knowledge of the region and several other key figures in office.

As a boxer, you absolutely need a strong core in order to survive. The midwest is the core of this country and needs major attention.

I disagree with you on the importance of the Midwest.

I think the northeast corridor and Southern California/Vegas should be priorities for high speed rail. Even then, its not really practical. The northeast is way too built up to allow the long stretches of straight land needed for highspeed rail. We have the Acela, but even that is pretty slow in some areas. Plus to compete with air travel, any sort of rail would need heavy government subsidies, so I don't really know how worth it it would be.

technically airlines get heavy subsidies in the form of airports, runways, and so forth.

Airlines pay landing fee's, gate fee's, routes, and taxes on using airports. If that doesnt cover the cost, then the airport comissions should raise the rates.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

:thumbsdown: yippie... more waste.

I've talked at length with many people about mass transit in the Midwest and unless you are in a metropolis (Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis) and live and work there - you won't be able to effectively use mass transit systems. Yes, within a city you can have it and it might be OK at best but regional travel just won't work. First off, mid-westerners are more individualist than the coasters. Second, there just isn't the local infrastructure in place to support not driving on both ends. Maybe for this chicago to STL there would be(I don't know if STL has a good bus/light rail system) some users but who commutes between those two places? As someone said, it's likely going to just be a convenience thing but IMO likely more hassle than jumping in a car.


Someone also mentioned freight. IMO, moving to a high speed (because everyone is JIT now) for freight would be the way to go. Just imagine if we could take 50% of the regional semis off the road... Why does the mail need to be on a semi? It could easily be put on a HSR, offloaded and then transported locally via semi. The same could/would be true for most couriers and even some freight haulers. I for one would love to see our semi traffic slashed - especially since they do the most damage to the roads and get atrocious fuel mileage.

 

[Genx87]

I dont see how a train could realistically compete with semi-trucks or planes for JIT. They take too long to load\unload. And even with this highspeed version is getting to a destination a few hours earlier going to make the system work? With a semi-truck they drive right upto the JIT factory. With a train it would need to be unloaded onto a truck and then driven to the factory. With a plane it is there within a few hours.

I wouldnt mind seeing more trains used for frieght. Especially non-critical stuff. But I think it will take a change in the train system to make this possible.

/shrug

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:thumbsdown: yippie... more waste.

I've talked at length with many people about mass transit in the Midwest and unless you are in a metropolis (Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis) and live and work there - you won't be able to effectively use mass transit systems. Yes, within a city you can have it and it might be OK at best but regional travel just won't work. First off, mid-westerners are more individualist than the coasters. Second, there just isn't the local infrastructure in place to support not driving on both ends. Maybe for this chicago to STL there would be(I don't know if STL has a good bus/light rail system) some users but who commutes between those two places? As someone said, it's likely going to just be a convenience thing but IMO likely more hassle than jumping in a car.

This is regional transportation, not commuter rail. Nobody is taking a daily one way 4 hour train trip to work.

 

[TheSlamma]

St Louis sucks.. is it a 1 way train OUT?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: alchemize
There isn't really that much travel between st. louis and chicago that greyhound or amtrak (lo-speed?) already can't already take care of. Anyone who wants to get there fast takes Southwest.

Now Vegas and LA would make sense...

I'd definitely prefer to take a faster train rather than drive if I have to go downstate. Depending on the time of day/weather you can waste a good amount of time just getting out of the metro area.

110mph rail between STL-CHI-MIL would have a lot of takers.

Not enough to justify the funding. You really need full trains (multiple) every day to cost justify high speed rail. You'll get it for cubs/cards games, but other than that - "it would be convenient" as you said.

How many non-stops a day does southwest have from CHI-STL? Looks like 10...That's the competition. No more than 1,500 travelers per day I'm guessing.

Exactly and how much does Southwest charge for this service? I am willing to bet the true cost will be less than any high speed train will present. So we will spend billions of dollars to accomodate ~2000 people. Sounds like a great allocation of resources to me!

Bad analogy...you're forgetting all of the people who drive, and could instead take Rail.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I'm all for improving the rails and using it more. It is probably the most cost effective way of moving people and cargo that exist. I really wish they would look at opening more passenger lines across the USA.
Not saying this lightly either. I live about 1200ft from a railroad line that has two trains a day, one at 6:30am and another at 9:30PM. Annoying at first to have to listen too, it is really loud ! but you get used to it

Are you by some chance in Arizona?

 

[heyheybooboo]

:thumbsup: High Speed Rail :thumbsup:

High speed rail from Charlotte to Washington, DC - current plans are looking like 6 hours or less. We've been working on it for over 10 years. North Carolina owns the rail line corridor in the state and has closed over 40 rail crossings so far IIRC.

While those Socialist Europeans are working to provide broadband on their rail lines folks in the States are still complaining "" ...buh buh buh but you can drive faster ...""


:disgust:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: alchemize
There isn't really that much travel between st. louis and chicago that greyhound or amtrak (lo-speed?) already can't already take care of. Anyone who wants to get there fast takes Southwest.

Now Vegas and LA would make sense...

I'd definitely prefer to take a faster train rather than drive if I have to go downstate. Depending on the time of day/weather you can waste a good amount of time just getting out of the metro area.

110mph rail between STL-CHI-MIL would have a lot of takers.

Not enough to justify the funding. You really need full trains (multiple) every day to cost justify high speed rail. You'll get it for cubs/cards games, but other than that - "it would be convenient" as you said.

How many non-stops a day does southwest have from CHI-STL? Looks like 10...That's the competition. No more than 1,500 travelers per day I'm guessing.

Exactly and how much does Southwest charge for this service? I am willing to bet the true cost will be less than any high speed train will present. So we will spend billions of dollars to accomodate ~2000 people. Sounds like a great allocation of resources to me!

Bad analogy...you're forgetting all of the people who drive, and could instead take Rail.

From what it sounds like there is already train service that does 79mph. You think that going 11mph is going to change people's behavior? How many more riders are going to jump on a train instead of driving? How many will ditch SW to jump on a train?

A lot of people drive because of costs. Cost to take a plane\train. Cost of transportation once in your destination. I dont think a train going faster is going to change that dynamic.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Another liberal fantasy. Another train that will cost 10x as much as originally planned and have 1/10th the riders. A taxpayer black hole. But we can all jump up and say YES WE CAN that we have 'High Speed Rail'.

A waste of money that we don't have.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

From what it sounds like there is already train service that does 79mph. You think that going 11mph is going to change people's behavior? How many more riders are going to jump on a train instead of driving? How many will ditch SW to jump on a train?

A lot of people drive because of costs. Cost to take a plane\train. Cost of transportation once in your destination. I dont think a train going faster is going to change that dynamic.

Due to old design standards the top speed is 79mph - not average. The new rail design standard is for the trains to average 100mph primarily by bringing curve design speed to 80mph and straights to 120mph (or maybe a little more if conditions allow for it).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Another liberal fantasy. Another train that will cost 10x as much as originally planned and have 1/10th the riders. A taxpayer black hole. But we can all jump up and say YES WE CAN that we have 'High Speed Rail'.

A waste of money that we don't have.

Nobody batted an eye when congress shoved $8B into the insolvent Highway Trust Fund last year. The fund is going to run dry again this year and guess what's going to happen.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

From what it sounds like there is already train service that does 79mph. You think that going 11mph is going to change people's behavior? How many more riders are going to jump on a train instead of driving? How many will ditch SW to jump on a train?

A lot of people drive because of costs. Cost to take a plane\train. Cost of transportation once in your destination. I dont think a train going faster is going to change that dynamic.

Due to old design standards the top speed is 79mph - not average. The new rail design standard is for the trains to average 100mph primarily by bringing curve design speed to 80mph and straights to 120mph (or maybe a little more if conditions allow for it).

Either way the my question still stands. Will the rise in avg speed bring people who dont already use the current system over? I'd be really surprised if it was a sizeable %.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:thumbsdown: yippie... more waste.

I've talked at length with many people about mass transit in the Midwest and unless you are in a metropolis (Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis) and live and work there - you won't be able to effectively use mass transit systems. Yes, within a city you can have it and it might be OK at best but regional travel just won't work. First off, mid-westerners are more individualist than the coasters. Second, there just isn't the local infrastructure in place to support not driving on both ends. Maybe for this chicago to STL there would be(I don't know if STL has a good bus/light rail system) some users but who commutes between those two places? As someone said, it's likely going to just be a convenience thing but IMO likely more hassle than jumping in a car.

This is regional transportation, not commuter rail. Nobody is taking a daily one way 4 hour train trip to work.

:roll: no shit it's regional. Yes, I shouldn't have used "commute" but rather "travels". Meaning - why that stretch? Why those two places? Is there really THAT much traffic between those two exact locations? The answer is likely no. If you actually read what I wrote you'd see the purpose of my statement was about REGIONAL.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont see how a train could realistically compete with semi-trucks or planes for JIT. They take too long to load\unload. And even with this highspeed version is getting to a destination a few hours earlier going to make the system work? With a semi-truck they drive right upto the JIT factory. With a train it would need to be unloaded onto a truck and then driven to the factory. With a plane it is there within a few hours.

I wouldnt mind seeing more trains used for frieght. Especially non-critical stuff. But I think it will take a change in the train system to make this possible.

/shrug

You are thinking conventional trains/high speed trains. I am not, I'm talking about a rail system that doesn't rely on 1 engine and a string of cars. Obviously I've not posted all the details of what I'd like to see regarding HSR to replace much of the semi traffic. Oh, and I'm not going to post it here...I should probably just float the idea to BHO and maybe get me some Fed pork money to do it...

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:thumbsdown: yippie... more waste.

I've talked at length with many people about mass transit in the Midwest and unless you are in a metropolis (Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis) and live and work there - you won't be able to effectively use mass transit systems. Yes, within a city you can have it and it might be OK at best but regional travel just won't work. First off, mid-westerners are more individualist than the coasters. Second, there just isn't the local infrastructure in place to support not driving on both ends. Maybe for this chicago to STL there would be(I don't know if STL has a good bus/light rail system) some users but who commutes between those two places? As someone said, it's likely going to just be a convenience thing but IMO likely more hassle than jumping in a car.

This is regional transportation, not commuter rail. Nobody is taking a daily one way 4 hour train trip to work.

:roll: no shit it's regional. Yes, I shouldn't have used "commute" but rather "travels". Meaning - why that stretch? Why those two places? Is there really THAT much traffic between those two exact locations? The answer is likely no. If you actually read what I wrote you'd see the purpose of my statement was about REGIONAL.

Actually yes and x2 for CHI-MIL. If two snowflakes hit the Edens/I-94 it will take you 2 hours to reach Milwaukee by car.