High Speed Rail (Chicago, Schaumburg, Rosemont: manufacturing, train, estimates)

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by skipcromer

Chet, going by your logic Metra does not do a good job considering many (probably most) of Metra's riders have to drive or take a bus to get to their metra station.

Same with an airport.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by chet everett

I do think subsidies to Amtrak are a negative.

Oh God, not this again... This argument is complete B.S. when the subsidies for our system of private automobiles and roads that can handle them are TREMENDOUS.

You get the city you build. A very basic urban planning principle is that cities tend to grow up around the transportation systems that are put down first. Suburban office parks and shopping malls are where they are because of major highway interchanges or arterial streets. Sure, there is little around the train station in St. Louis today. Why? Because of the car-oriented development that was championed after World War II. And there will continue to be nothing around the train station if decent train service doesn't serve it. And if the last decade in Chicago has proven anything, it has shown that develpment can move at a rapid pace to transform an area if the incentives are there.

I think people may use this rail if it's executed well and not a complete disaster to use. People around the region HATE driving through Chicago. Heck, some people in Wisconsin will drive a much greater distance north over the Mackinaw Bridge to avoid it. They would avoid it at any cost if it were feasible.

[chet everett]

That subsidies for 'private automobiles' exist does not make them any less negative!

In fact, should you really wish to see those subsidies go away today is the day to shout out against them, as those subsidies are going to be even larger with GM in bankruptcy.

In the grand scheme of things there are just not that many people that LOVE trains. People used to love airplanes, but the security measures (and stuff that prompted them...) have cooled that love.

I just do not see how people in the mostly inclement midwest are going to ever move toward trains in sufficient numbers to make them profitable...

[chet everett]

As I continue to say, the operating principles of airlines are far different than commuter rail.

Do you book weeks in advance before getting on Metra train? Wake up early to print a boarding pass? Have a reserved seat? Have luggage? Expect to arrive within a kinda wide window due to weather and other delays?

This is basic stuff people!

What is acceptable when ordeing a "steak dinner" at Ponderosa is generally not tolerable when dining at Gibsons...

[oakparkdude]

Chet, the key question to ask is "Is rail competitive with air?" Obviously, for Chicago to LA, the answer is no. For Chicago to St. Louis and vice versa, the answer is maybe, given the appropriate price point and speed/travel time.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Chet, the key question to ask is "Is rail competitive with air?" Obviously, for Chicago to LA, the answer is no. For Chicago to St. Louis and vice versa, the answer is maybe, given the appropriate price point and speed/travel time.

The "maybe" part is one of those things that is hard to really find out until things are either obviously done very poorly or somebody gets lucky -- how difference was their between some dismal failure like "Old Chicago" vs Mall of America?

What I fear will happen is that enormous sums will be wasted, and there will be not positives. At least in the NY -- DC corridor there is a reasonable chance that ridership would shift from the Acela to real HSR.

In Vegas the casino forces would probable underwrite any loses.

In the Chicago region we have lots to lose if air usage declines and little to gain from HSR...

[reppin_the_847]

With our economy shifting to an information-based economy and away from the old manufacturing & agricultural sectors, I think that Chicago would be a great fit as the Midwestern hub for HSR. I'd have to disagree with "chet everett" on this one, although he certainly brings up valid arguments and is entitled to his opinion of course. Like "Lookout Kid" suggests, I think that we need to emulate the model that the Northeast Corridor has demonstated. When it comes down to it, yeah, our cities are a bit more spread out than out East, but they're way closer to each other than some of the cities between here and the West. And even if you're not exactly in a hurry to catch the next train to St. Louis or Detroit, just remember that there are many thousands of people in Chicago that have roots in other parts of the Midwest. I'm sure that half the yuppies in our city have ties to the region, and wouldn't mind riding an HSR train if it were available. If I was living in the city, I'd rather take the train from downtown than fight traffic to O'Hare or Midway (or take the el), only to get frisked by security, and then have to wait for my flight to depart. And the flight might be uncomfortable, cramped, possibly turbulent, blowing loads of fuel into the sky, etc. I'm confident that high-speed rail CAN work in the Midwest. And I also think that other Midwestern cities need to follow Chicago's example and set up city transit systems & possibly commuter rail to their suburbs for the long-term. I mean, if Baltimore (pretty rough, historically a not-so-thriving city in the East) can do it, I'm sure Detroit can too.

[Lookout Kid]

People who scoff at the advantages of connections to cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, and St. Louis should realize that the entire region would benefit from working together. The Great Lakes cities of the Midwest have been losing economic activity, population, and clout for decades now, and we need stronger connections and cooperation between the cities. In fact, while Chicago continues to be mired in corrupt machine waste, the leadership in Milwaukee has been very forward-thinking in the past decade, and that city is actually becoming quite liveable in spite of the economic devastation that has been wrought on the city by the decline in manufacturing activity there. We should embrace these other nearby cities as allies in a common cause instead of rivals.

[chet everett]

LK:

What common cause? Face it, we all have equally lousy weather, and that is a huge negative. The population shift will continue toward places that are more temperate. I even think "year round school" hurts Chicago, as our brief summer is one of the only decent times for people to visit...

Population density in many midwest cities is going to decline for the foreseeable future. Chicago has many more high-rises than any other city in the region, but really even then there are just too little infrastructure links to get Schaumburg or Rosemont to "work with" Chicago, let alone places in states that are not even adjacent -- OH & MI are hurting bad and going to continue a slide in their manufacturing until the wages are much closer to those of right-to-work states...

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by chet everett

LK:

What common cause? Face it, we all have equally lousy weather, and that is a huge negative...

I would venture to say St. Louis has better all around weather than most if not all medium and large cities in the region. Far less cold and far less snow. Even Indy's overall weather is far better than Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc...