Midwestern High Speed Rail Network - Chicago thoughts? (Washington, Detroit: cul-de-sac, real estate)

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by chet everett

In Japan it means "the taxpayers will finance the EXPENSIVE half of building "Bullet Trains" and then after a few decades of support maybe we can spin off a firm that sorta has enough cash flow to not totally shut em down: -- 9020:Tokyo Stock Quote - East Japan Railway Co - Bloomberg East Japan Railway Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

French math is even more curious, there they get their own over taxed citizens to do about half and suckers from neighboring countries to pick up the slack, no private industry at all -- LGV Rhin-Rhône - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those systems operate a profit enough to Expand with Japan's case....France has exploded over the past 5 years and has operated profits since 1994... Japan carry's about 2.5 Million people on its HSR and France about 470,000...Both investments have paided off , freeing up congested airways and highways and generating billions in economic growth... You seem very convinced that HSR won't work in the Midwest or anywhere in the US when it seems to work in the Northeast and overseas the gaps between the cities in Europe and the Midwest are the same...the terrain is easier to build here then there. They only invest in things that big overseas if they'll get a return within 10 years , Highways , Railways , Power stations...

[chet everett]

Hmm, why not google " Japan's Shrinking Economy" or "Euro-Zone Economic Contraction" and then when your are done with million or so papers by economists and journalists we can talk about "make work" and other failed policies...

There is reason the believe that ridership on either Japan's or Europe's surface rail system which have been fostered by centuries of push cart style migration would bear any resemblance to the post Jet Age lifestyles of Americans. When I hear about rail buffs in America I can't help but think of the Talking Heads song "Stay Up Late"...

Mommy had. A little baby.*
There he is. Fast asleep.*
He's just. A little plaything.*
Why not. Wake him up?*
Cute. Cute. Little baby.*
Little pee pee. Little toes.*
Now he's comin' to me.*
Crawl across. The kitchen floor.*

Baby, baby, please let me hold him*
I wanna make him stay up all night*
Sister, sister, he's just a plaything*
We wanna make him stay up all night*
Yeah we do*
See him drink. From a bottle.*
See him eat. From a plate.*
Cute. Cute. As a button.*
Don't you wanna make him. Stay up late.*
And we're having fun. With no money.*
Little smile. On his face.*
Don't cha' love. The little baby.*
Don't you want to make him. Stay up late.*

CHORUS*

Here we go (all night long)*
Sister, sister (all night long)*
In the playpen...woo...(all night long)*
Little baby goes, ha! (all night long)*
I know you want to leave me...*

Why don't. We pretend.*
There you go. Little man.*
Cute. Cute. Why not?*
Late at night. Wake him up.*

CHORUS*

Here we go (all night long)*
Sister, sister...woo...*
(with the television on)*
Little baby goes...woo! (all night long)*
Hey, hey, baby! (all night long)*
And he looks so cute (all night long)*
In his little red suit (all night long)

[reppin_the_847]

While the bullet trains Nexis4Jersey referenced in his diagram may not appear here any time soon, I can assure you that key sections of the Midwest corridor is being converted over to 110 MPH at least. I know for a fact that the train runs 110 MPH between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan on two of their Michigan routes (Wolverine & Blue Water) except for the couple stops in between.

Also, I believe much of the downstate Illinois line from Chicago to St. Louis is being switched over to 110 MPH (might be in effect for a lot of it already). They're utilizing a technology for Michigan and Illinois called Positive Train Control. The one in Michigan is specifically the "Incremental Train Control System" from General Electric.

We're nowhere near the East Coast yet, but we're slowly getting there. I think that we need higher frequency on a lot of the routes out of Chicago. Especially routes like Hiawatha to Milwaukee (add more late night runs since this is practically a commuter route), Hoosier service to Indiana, Michigan can use more (an Overnight would be nice!), Ohio definitely needs more, Minneapolis, etc. Amtrak needs to gain right of way from the freight companies and gain support from politicians in anti-rail states like Wisconsin & Ohio in order to make it happen. This doesn't need to be a political issue. This is about infrastructure, quality of life, and legitimate transit options that Generation X and Generation Y will gladly embrace if the train is comfortable, on-time, and has wi-fi on board.

Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO

I dont want to go that fast.. I'll take Amtrak .. thank you! 65 miles perr hour is fine for me.

[chet everett]

I can text and drive. Not legally of course, but then it's not like I am advocating toking on a fatty while barrelling down the Stevenson. Hey, that's an idea -- is there an overlap between rail fanatics and the NORML crowd? Gotta figure if I can do one of them Google Set searches or go dig into Wolfram's search engine for that...
But seriously. 110MPH is barely fast enough to make up for Amtrak stopping in some dead town where the truck stop is the only employer but some congres critter's mom lives. What is the max MPG for a train? It has to way worse running at 110 that at half that. Bullet trains make no economic sense.

Originally Posted by reppin_the_847

While the bullet trains Nexis4Jersey referenced in his diagram may not appear here any time soon, I can assure you that key sections of the Midwest corridor is being converted over to 110 MPH at least. I know for a fact that the train runs 110 MPH between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan on two of their Michigan routes (Wolverine & Blue Water) except for the couple stops in between.

Also, I believe much of the downstate Illinois line from Chicago to St. Louis is being switched over to 110 MPH (might be in effect for a lot of it already). They're utilizing a technology for Michigan and Illinois called Positive Train Control. The one in Michigan is specifically the "Incremental Train Control System" from General Electric.

We're nowhere near the East Coast yet, but we're slowly getting there. I think that we need higher frequency on a lot of the routes out of Chicago. Especially routes like Hiawatha to Milwaukee (add more late night runs since this is practically a commuter route), Hoosier service to Indiana, Michigan can use more (an Overnight would be nice!), Ohio definitely needs more, Minneapolis, etc. Amtrak needs to gain right of way from the freight companies and gain support from politicians in anti-rail states like Wisconsin & Ohio in order to make it happen. This doesn't need to be a political issue. This is about infrastructure, quality of life, and legitimate transit options that Generation X and Generation Y will gladly embrace if the train is comfortable, on-time, and has wi-fi on board.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Those systems operate a profit enough to Expand with Japan's case....France has exploded over the past 5 years and has operated profits since 1994... Japan carry's about 2.5 Million people on its HSR and France about 470,000...Both investments have paided off , freeing up congested airways and highways and generating billions in economic growth... You seem very convinced that HSR won't work in the Midwest or anywhere in the US when it seems to work in the Northeast and overseas the gaps between the cities in Europe and the Midwest are the same...the terrain is easier to build here then there. They only invest in things that big overseas if they'll get a return within 10 years , Highways , Railways , Power stations...

The terrain isn't the issue and the gaps are roughly the same. The problem is twofold: 1) gas is cheaper here, so there is disincentive to take a train vs. a 2-5 hr drive and 2) the core densities in the US in general and in particular the MW and SE are much, much, lower.

Urban area pops per sq mi: Cleveland 2300, Cincinnati 2100, Indianapolis 2200, Columbus 2700, Detroit 2800, Milwaukee 2500, St. Louis 2400, KC 2300, Mpls 2600. All between 2100 and 2700. Chicago is the anomaly at only 3400.

Similarly sized German cities as an example: Stuttgart 8000, Munich 7500, Hamburg 6500, Cologne 5700, Berlin 9100, Frankfurt 8800, even smallerish places like Hannover and Dresden are 5000 to 7000.

Lower density in the US has a detrimental impact in terms of a) how many people live within X miles of the departing hub b) how many final destinations are within x miles of arriving hub and c) connectivity to that hub (greater density = greater connectivity via public transit to arrive at a hub).

I might want to take the train if I live in DT Chicago and am heading to DT Detroit or Indy or even a connected location like Clayton, Mo on business. But what if my destination is an office park in Carmel, IN or one in Auburn Hills, MI. How do I get there? What if I live in Merrillville, IN or Olympia Fields, IL rather than in DT Chicago? Am I willing to take a fairly long commuter train or car ride DT. I would be halfway to Indy and 1/3 of the way to Detroit by the time I got there, waited, boarded, and the train departed.

If you gave Indy the density of a similarly size European city, that office park on the periphery of the urban area isn't 15 miles away. It's 8.5 miles away. And it's not an office park. It's a walkable mini-downtown. And it isn't car dependent. It has regular BRT or rail service to/from downtown every 20 minutes.

All of this massively decreases the rate of HSR ridership. That's the real problem. I do think it is a worthwhile venture to implement certain routes, but it is going to take an increased focus on intracity transit and development patterns for the whole thing to bear fruit.

[chet everett]

Density and existent commute radii are the sine qua non that dooms the fantasies of rail buffs, but I generally like to think of them with big floppy engineer caps and those huge square wooden multi-pitch whistles that they sell at craft fairs. Cute cute. As a button.

Originally Posted by Chicago76

The terrain isn't the issue and the gaps are roughly the same. The problem is twofold: 1) gas is cheaper here, so there is disincentive to take a train vs. a 2-5 hr drive and 2) the core densities in the US in general and in particular the MW and SE are much, much, lower.

Urban area pops per sq mi: Cleveland 2300, Cincinnati 2100, Indianapolis 2200, Columbus 2700, Detroit 2800, Milwaukee 2500, St. Louis 2400, KC 2300, Mpls 2600. All between 2100 and 2700. Chicago is the anomaly at only 3400.

Similarly sized German cities as an example: Stuttgart 8000, Munich 7500, Hamburg 6500, Cologne 5700, Berlin 9100, Frankfurt 8800, even smallerish places like Hannover and Dresden are 5000 to 7000.

Lower density in the US has a detrimental impact in terms of a) how many people live within X miles of the departing hub b) how many final destinations are within x miles of arriving hub and c) connectivity to that hub (greater density = greater connectivity via public transit to arrive at a hub).

I might want to take the train if I live in DT Chicago and am heading to DT Detroit or Indy or even a connected location like Clayton, Mo on business. But what if my destination is an office park in Carmel, IN or one in Auburn Hills, MI. How do I get there? What if I live in Merrillville, IN or Olympia Fields, IL rather than in DT Chicago? Am I willing to take a fairly long commuter train or car ride DT. I would be halfway to Indy and 1/3 of the way to Detroit by the time I got there, waited, boarded, and the train departed.

If you gave Indy the density of a similarly size European city, that office park on the periphery of the urban area isn't 15 miles away. It's 8.5 miles away. And it's not an office park. It's a walkable mini-downtown. And it isn't car dependent. It has regular BRT or rail service to/from downtown every 20 minutes.

All of this massively decreases the rate of HSR ridership. That's the real problem. I do think it is a worthwhile venture to implement certain routes, but it is going to take an increased focus on intracity transit and development patterns for the whole thing to bear fruit.

[aragx6]

Yup, I'm all for HSR because I like to smoke joints on the train, Chet.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Yup, I'm all for HSR because I like to smoke joints on the train, Chet.

And whizz through suburbia directly into the vibrant city core (couldn't help it, been lurking and enjoying. Remember it's OK to eat ketchup on your hot dog even as an adult)

[williepotatoes]

Today's Trib weighs in:

Higher and higher - chicagotribune.com

[reppin_the_847]

I beg to differ here. Consistent 110 MPH service is a heck of a lot better than the subpar performance that Amtrak has suffered from for years. Constant freight delays, breakdowns, and weather related issues. It was not uncommon for train rides to be an hour or two late. Even a FEW hours late. I recall a couple Michigan-bound trains in December of 2009 or so that took ALL NIGHT to travel from Chicago to Detroit (below zero temperatures, frozen switches, mechanical issues forced the train to depart 3 hours late and travel at an average speed of 30 MPH). I think it's realistic for there to be a few trains a day between the key Midwest cities & the Midwest hub (Chicago). It is unfortunate that the railroad is sort of closed off to private competitors, however. The other good thing about 110 MPH service is it's not nearly as expensive to upgrade to this speed as opposed to the real bullet trains. The fleet is already capable of 110 MPH speeds. It's just that the infrastructure and freight interference hasn't exactly been conducive to this type of performance until recently.

Originally Posted by chet everett

I can text and drive. Not legally of course, but then it's not like I am advocating toking on a fatty while barrelling down the Stevenson. Hey, that's an idea -- is there an overlap between rail fanatics and the NORML crowd? Gotta figure if I can do one of them Google Set searches or go dig into Wolfram's search engine for that...
But seriously. 110MPH is barely fast enough to make up for Amtrak stopping in some dead town where the truck stop is the only employer but some congres critter's mom lives. What is the max MPG for a train? It has to way worse running at 110 that at half that. Bullet trains make no economic sense.