Elon Musk wins bid to construct high speed passenger train from downtown to O'Hara (Chicago: mover, credit)

[2nd trick op]

From the Blomberg Article:

It is unclear exactly what the Boring Co. high-speed airport link would involve, but last year Musk tweeted about his ideas for Chicago.
he wrote. "Electric pods for sure," he wrote. "Rails maybe, maybe not."

So what we have here is a mélange of untested technologies foisted upon a gullible public (and with the most basic, tested and reliable components downplayed in the name of "trendiness") -- by pitchmen who probably possess only a limited knowledge of the basics of the industry for which they're trying to advocate -- on their own terms.

Time to lock up anything that can't be bolted down.

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

From the Blomberg Article:



So what we have here is a mélange of untested technologies foisted upon a gullible public (and with the most basic, tested and reliable components downplayed in the name of "trendiness") -- by pitchmen who probably possess only a limited knowledge of the basics of the industry for which they're trying to advocate -- on their own terms.

Time to lock up anything that can't be bolted down.

What stake do you have in this matter? Do you even live in Illinois?

[bobsell]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

What stake do you have in this matter? Do you even live in Illinois?

Your Location: First Hill, Seattle

The poster you're criticizing can ask the same thing.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

What stake do you have in this matter? Do you even live in Illinois?

I'm a Business Logistics graduate, former railroad employee, and lifelong (pragmatic) railroad buff; also an Operation Lifesaver (railroad safety) volunteer. The (freight) rail industry handles nearly twice the volume of business today as it did in 1955 with about 1/4 of the workforce. In short, it is highly efficient, when it is confined to the tasks for which it is physically and economically best-suited.

The problems begin when the politicians, and their dream-merchant allies, show up and begin to emphasize overly-futuristic (and untried) concepts, and sell them to the kiddies in the back row whose "thinking" is grounded in fantasy, rather than "hard" science (which is called that for a reason).

We saw a perfect demonstration of this when our former President (a veteran of Illinois graft-trading, no less) took a one-time train ride from New York to his inauguration some nine-plus years ago; no sitting President has since made a single rail journey.

Underneath all the juvenile-oriented hype, the rail industry, including passengers and commuters in a handful of suitable markets, is improving and performing well in those roles to which it is naturally drawn by market conditions; but no thanks to the fantasies of the likes of Elon Musk.

[UnderTheLiveOaks]

The famous O'Hara International Airport. Named for Scarlett O'Hara, as I recall.

[fusillirob1983]

Originally Posted by japster28

I think some people are missing the possibility that people in the North/Northwest suburbs or even in the far Northwest Chicago neighborhoods would rather drive into O'Hare to take this express line over sitting in traffic for an hour.

Someone in Bensenville could be in The Loop in half or a third of the time it would take to drive downtown during rush hour. From a cursory Google Maps search someone could potentially cut their 1 hour drive from Northbrook to the Loop into a 30-45 minute affair. This commute would also be fairly painless compared to driving.

I'm not saying this will work, but if it does, there's a chance it could be successful.

How many people would be willing to pay $25 each way to do that for a regular commute? People already complain how expensive Metra is. Even with increased speed, I can't see someone doing that unless they're wealthy. Say someone takes 2 weeks vacation per year plus gets 10 holidays off and spends the rest of the time working 5 days a week. That'll cost $12k per year to commute to work.


Bensenville isn't the most high income area, so I can't see that working unless the underlying demographics change.


Wouldn't someone from Northbrook likely just take a Metra from Northbrook rather than drive to the Loop, or driving from Northbrook down to O'Hare? Second, if they plan to take the new Elon Musk train, they have to drive 20 minutes (assuming there's no traffic or accidents) or so from Northbrook to O'Hare, park, walk to the train, take the train downtown in 12 minutes and then walk to their office. How much time are they really saving for the additional expense?


Also what additional traffic issues will occur if suddenly there's a new train station near O'Hare that is supposedly going to attract people from surrounding N/NW suburban neighborhoods and surrounding suburbs stretching from Bensenville to Northbrook?

[lepoisson]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

In Europe and Asia they have discovered that you really don't need to go at 150 mph to get from downtown to the airport. Sometimes even 60 mph is fine, as long as you don't have to change trains.

Number of stops is an important factor as well. The 18 stops between O'Hare and downtown is painful at times, especially when the train stops in some of the busiest neighborhoods in the city.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by UnderTheLiveOaks

The famous O'Hara International Airport. Named for Scarlett O'Hara, as I recall.

some may find that funny, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

[My Kind Of Town]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

I'm a Business Logistics graduate, former railroad employee, and lifelong (pragmatic) railroad buff; also an Operation Lifesaver (railroad safety) volunteer. The (freight) rail industry handles nearly twice the volume of business today as it did in 1955 with about 1/4 of the workforce. In short, it is highly efficient, when it is confined to the tasks for which it is physically and economically best-suited.

The problems begin when the politicians, and their dream-merchant allies, show up and begin to emphasize overly-futuristic (and untried) concepts, and sell them to the kiddies in the back row whose "thinking" is grounded in fantasy, rather than "hard" science (which is called that for a reason).

We saw a perfect demonstration of this when our former President (a veteran of Illinois graft-trading, no less) took a one-time train ride from New York to his inauguration some nine-plus years ago; no sitting President has since made a single rail journey.

Underneath all the juvenile-oriented hype, the rail industry, including passengers and commuters in a handful of suitable markets, is improving and performing well in those roles to which it is naturally drawn by market conditions; but no thanks to the fantasies of the likes of Elon Musk.

Pretty sure most would have said the same thing about air travel in the early 20th century - overly futuristic and untried... I bet a company like WAVE seemed overly futuristic just a decade ago.

Home - WAVE, Inc.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by My Kind Of Town

Pretty sure most would have said the same thing about air travel in the early 20th century - overly futuristic and untried... I bet a company like WAVE seemed overly futuristic just a decade ago.

Home - WAVE, Inc.

Comparing WAVE with something like Hyperloop is like comparing apples and oranges -- the essential difference being that Hyperloop would have to provide its own (expensive and immovable) right of way; this disparity is the salient point expressed in any basic course in the economics governing transportation.

Most early "internal improvements" -- canals and the first railroads -- were financed by private subscription. A few, most notably the famous Erie Canal, which reduced the per-ton cost of shipping grain (a raw material for most human progress of the day) from the Great Lakes to the East Coast by over 90 percent, were fabulously successful. But too much enthusiasm spawned a number of less-practical projects, usually financed at least in part with public funds, which were sometimes squandered.

The disparity between public vs. private financing also played a large part in the development of alternatives to the railroads' near-monopoly on freight transportation, Superhighways, airports, and an improved version of barge canals (courtesy of the U S Army Corps of Engineers) all provided more competition for freight traffic, and for a time (roughly 1945-1985) so severely affected the sustainability of rail service that outright nationalization was a possibility. Fortunately, deregulation allowed for the development of previously-unexploited advantages in some fields, and we now have healthy carriers in several modes offering more alternatives to shippers.

But the point raised here is that Musk's project is both completely untried, and likely to engender large construction costs, so much so that no private financing is likely to be forthcoming. I also have doubts about the complete acceptance of "self-driving" cars by the public, for example, but again, these will use a right-of-way that's already in place, and large portions of the technology can be refitted for other purposes. This simply doesn't hold true (at this point) for most of Musk's hopefully-visionary ideas.