high speed train from St. Louis to Chicago

[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.

 

[Steeplerot]

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

 

[Harvey]

Sorry to take this briefly off course, but your post reminded me of this humor piece from the old "Omni" Magazine...

When a cat is dropped, it always lands on its feet.

When toast is dropped, it always lands with the buttered side face down.

Therefore, it should be possible to strap buttered toast to the back of a cat such that the two will hover, spinning inches above the ground.

Given a sufficiently large buttered cat array, a high-speed monorail could easily be built to link New York with Chicago.

The energy crisis has been resolved. :beer: :thumbsup: :laugh:

 

[K1052]

Well if it gets funded most of the STL-CHI run will allow trains to do 110mph instead of the current 79mph max. A lot of the rail/crossing improvements had already been done by IL and the Feds but the cash ran out when they tried to develop a reliable signaling system that would accommodate the higher speed trains. They also need to buy some new locomotives and passenger cars.

Unfortunately we probably aren't going to be seeing any 200+ mph trains like the California system will for quite a long while due to the enormous expense.

 

[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

 

[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?

 

[StageLeft]

LOL Harvey, although I give big props for a person relating the strength of their abs to the benefits of a commuter train in the midwest.

 

[theeedude]

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.

 

[Double Trouble]

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?

Cars represent individualism and freedom in America -- in other words, they represent all that is evil to the left wing fringe

Still, a good train service between major cities is a good thing, it would be nice if more high-speed connections were available.

 

[halik]

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

This!
One of the greatest things about east coast... the rest of the country needs the same. NYC to Stamford is 6 hour drive last time I tried, train does it in half.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Cars represent individualism and freedom in America -- in other words, they represent all that is evil to the left wing fringe

lol, indeed individualism and freedom are always foremost on my mind when I'm crawling down Chicago expressways at .5 mph

 

[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...

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Sacrilege]

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. Midwesterns may feel deprived but the middle of the country isn't like Europe. There just isn't enough travel to justify expensive trains. The money would be better spent on the coasts, beefing up the northeast corridor and the trains serving NYC. I even have my doubts about the train serving the length of Cali. Wouldn't it make more sense to beef up the rail lines serving LA and San Fran from their suburbs??? People can fly if they want to go from LA to San Francisco.

 

[K1052]

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.

According to Amtrak corridor ridership is currently about 550,000 a year. If you figure in the MIL-CHI run that's another 750,000. Amtrak is competing with cars not airlines at these service speeds.

 

[CPA]

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.

I doubt it.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

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. Midwesterns may feel deprived but the middle of the country isn't like Europe. There just isn't enough travel to justify expensive trains. The money would be better spent on the coasts, beefing up the northeast corridor and the trains serving NYC. I even have my doubts about the train serving the length of Cali. Wouldn't it make more sense to beef up the rail lines serving LA and San Fran from their suburbs??? People can fly if they want to go from LA to San Francisco.

The HSR for California could cover a non-stop LA-SF run in about two hours. You'll spend that much time dicking around at LAX.

 

[Andrew1990]

This would actually be nice. It would allow me to go down south more often. I am all for it, better than giving all the money to CEOs....

 

[miketheidiot]

I endorse this plan, but of course it really can't work until there is a coherent nation system.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
I endorse this plan, but of course it really can't work until there is a coherent nation system.

Regional systems make the most sense for the time being. Longer distance travel is better served by airlines for the costs involved.

 

[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.

 

[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!

 

[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?

 

[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.