Chicago to St. Louis proposed High-Speed Rail (Kansas City: how much, buying)

[flynavyj]

Well, it was more WWII that pulled us out of the recession that the building of the Hoover Dam. One of the largest building endeavors "the national interstate system" is a post war design and was done under Eisenhower.

[DinsdalePirahna]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

Well, it was more WWII that pulled us out of the recession that the building of the Hoover Dam. One of the largest building endeavors "the national interstate system" is a post war design and was done under Eisenhower.

No real arguments. Hoover dam was not a Roosevelt Era Project, although it was completed during the FDR Administration.

Many New Deal policies were extensions the Hoover Administration's Reconstruction Refinance Programs.
The Roosevelt Eras TVA (which many opponents called "Socialist" at the time, even though many were hoover era extensions) brought jobs and power to many rural areas of the South. The WPA built Bridges, Tunnels, High speed parkways (precursors of the interstate system) and other public structures.

I think the current government (repubs and dems) is dropping the ball on some key opportunities to build and rebuild. Both sides lack testicles and imagination.

One of the more ridiculous projects is starting a high speed rail project in CA with 70-80 miles of a track to nowhere in CA's central valley. Seems like an LA-SF or LA-SD or LA - LV link would have actually been better and would have at least created some public excitement.

[flynavyj]

Yea, a rail to nowhere should probably be derailed...In all honesty, i've stared at way to much politics recently and i'm getting really sick of it. It seems that the reps have forgotten that they should be representing the people...Now THAT would be a novel idea.

[booknut]

Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna

One of the more ridiculous projects is starting a high speed rail project in CA with 70-80 miles of a track to nowhere in CA's central valley. Seems like an LA-SF or LA-SD or LA - LV link would have actually been better and would have at least created some public excitement.

Respectfully, I disagree that this is a ridiculous project. You may have been listening too much to the "intelligent" analysis of the projects political opponents.

The section of the California high speed rail corridor targetted for first construction is ultimately a part of the corridor between Sacramento and LA and a large portion of it is also on the LA-SF corridor. With FRA decree that all funding be targetted for one specific project they had to choose one to start and this was most likely the portion with the most preliminaries in place (routing, land availability, etc..)

I agree with you that the country has to start dreaming and thinking big. I think California is doing it.

[DinsdalePirahna]

Originally Posted by booknut

Respectfully, I disagree that this is a ridiculous project. You may have been listening too much to the "intelligent" analysis of the projects political opponents.

The section of the California high speed rail corridor targetted for first construction is ultimately a part of the corridor between Sacramento and LA and a large portion of it is also on the LA-SF corridor. With FRA decree that all funding be targetted for one specific project they had to choose one to start and this was most likely the portion with the most preliminaries in place (routing, land availability, etc..)

I agree with you that the country has to start dreaming and thinking big. I think California is doing it.

Never said it was a riduculous project. Just the starting point seems a bit odd.
Its more about creating jobs in a very depressed area of the state.
That being said. it would make so much sense to use existing right of ways when ever possible) along freeway and other highway corridors (through out the country).

[desperad0stl]

Hmm...having been a resident of St. Louis, Chicago, and China this has always interested me. We have done little to improve our infrastructure since the days of Eisenhower and it shows...simple things like defining broadband as a higher speed and approving fiber lines being laid around the country would increase our GDP by 1 Trillion dollars.
When I was living in China none of those high speed trains existed (2007, 2008). Now they are all over the place and they are even building tracks and linking themselves with the networks of Southeast Asia, India, and Europe. The Chinese are going to do the actual building of the tracks for the countries in Southeast Asia and as you probably heard they recently broke the high speed record.

More efficient and better infrastructure = more revenue but the initial investment is high...but it will create jobs and boost the economy...I would love to see some massive building programs in this country just like when we were spending 40+% of our cash on the war effort during WWII pulling us out of the depression. I'd like to see us having a high speed train system that is the envy of the world, instead of letting that title go to China.


As for the STL to Chicago route I hear the trains are going to be slow. Reminds me of our internet...while we had the highest speeds at one point at fair prices, countries like Japan and South Korea offer 100mbps+ internet at the same price we pay for 3 or 5 mbps here...We need some progressive thinkers in Congress and the Senate...these old men can't seem to get much done these days.

[aragx6]

You won't see any real spending on infrastructure until the debt fears are alleviated. The combination of epic EU issues and rampant media fear mongering about the current state of our budget and how to fix it are going to keep any real progress from occuring, sadly.

[aragx6]

^That said, I see no reason to crap all over this. Anyone who has taken Amtrak from St. Louis to Chicago knows how desperately these railways need improvement.

A train that goes 100 mph to Chicago must cut at least an hour off the current trip, finally make it faster than driving, and become a real competitor to Southwest's fun fares.

[Dis99]

I take Amtrak from Chicago to St.Louis several times a year because I hate driving and I would rather sit on the train and watch movies, or hang out in the snack car and drink beer.

The trips aren't usually that bad, although occasionally they have to do something annoying like putting the train in reverse to back onto a side track to allow another train to go by and this takes like 30 minutes. A few trips we have had to slow down to a crawl because of high wind advisories. Most of the time the train is right on schedule though.

While a speed increase would be nice, I don't necessarily feel the need to go 300MPH on the ground

Chinese Train Hits 302 MPH, Breaks Commercial Speed Record - Transportation - GOOD

[CoffeeAndBeer]

Originally Posted by aragx6

^That said, I see no reason to crap all over this. Anyone who has taken Amtrak from St. Louis to Chicago knows how desperately these railways need improvement.

A train that goes 100 mph to Chicago must cut at least an hour off the current trip, finally make it faster than driving, and become a real competitor to Southwest's fun fares.

Over the past year there has been considerable construction on I-55 north of Troy, IL and in the vicinity of Joliet, not to mention typical friday night inbound Stevenson traffic. Long story short, the last 3 times I've driven to Chicago it's been around a 6.5 to 7.5 hour drive, this was before temps really dropped. Typically Amtrak has been around 6 hours, fairly consistently, maybe a tad faster sometimes...getting it under 5 will be a huge improvement, really bringing it into the realm of a reasonable weekend getaway for a lot of people. The St. Louis Amtrak station already has one of the highest yearly boarding numbers outside of Chicago in the midwest. I think only Milwaukee is higher, and there is a huge drop off after St. Louis.

Riding Amtrak to Chicago from St. Louis is typically a great experience already, I'm really excited to see these improvements go forward.