Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the best way to go about this is to require all highway/expressway re/construction projects to provide enough median space to accomodate high speed rail. Once the whole expanse has been rebuilt (over a few decades probably), you can begin to “think about” building the rail. The only way you will get people to switch from cars to rail is if they see a train wiz by them while they are going 75 mph down the expressway.
I think the best way to go about this is to require all highway/expressway re/construction projects to provide enough median space to accomodate high speed rail. Once the whole expanse has been rebuilt (over a few decades probably), you can begin to “think about” building the rail. The only way you will get people to switch from cars to rail is if they see a train wiz by them while they are going 75 mph down the expressway.
Yes, and I any new expressway in a city or rebuilt .... have space saved for it or it added when the road is built. To accommodate some kind of rail. At least in the future.
Not going 75 mph and passing for sure .... but when I lived in Chicago and on my visits still. Last growth of its L lines were in the center of the expressways. It worked well to expand its blue-line to O'Hare and has one too Midway airport too.
The L certainly isn't high-speed. But even on this youtube video .... from the window if the train in its expressway stretch. Shows it passing the cars crawling. There are park and ride stations it passes too. But certainly can't accommodate all the drivers too.
The view side is looking at the traffic going the same direction.
But then doesn't show most stations it stops.
I am a fan of trains but I'm not so sure high speed rail between Detroit and Chicago is worth the cost.
My reasoning is....
1. I'm not convinced the demand warrants it. Right now the primary demand is on the weekend. Westbound to Chicago on Friday and east bound back to Detroit on Sunday.
2. I'm not sure how fast it can be:
a. how fast can a train get up to speed? A run like that would minimully want to stop in Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo. What about Battle creek? How fast does a train get to speed and how soon does it have to slow down?
b. Seperate from stops along the way Chicago is the busiest rail city in America. Amtrak often has to slow down and wait their turn in and out of Chicago. Its not about passenger service but freight.
Yea, I don't think current demand warrants this either, but that's primarily because I don't think downtown Detroit is quite a strong enough anchor nor has good enough mass transit at this point (though uber/lyft helps with that last mile bit after the station). I think I'm suggesting it now simply because these kinds of projects generally takes decade(s) to get off the ground in the US and if planning and development doesn't try to account for potential right-of-ways and stations, then it becomes far harder to make it work further down the line.
Trains can get up to speed really quickly if it's by the electrified multiple unit standards that virtually everyone else uses for high-speed rail these days. If you look at any of Japan's lines, for example the main high-speed rail line, there are several intermediate stops and some of them are placed fairly close together.
Chicago is a massive rail hub and it has a lot of issues that it's solving. The CREATE program is part of that and has miraculously been able to move forward on parts of its project of untangling the mass of freight and passenger line bottlenecks in Chicago. That's definitely one thing that will need to be solved. There is headway being made there, and so it's not crazy to think they'll have improved things by the time a high-speed rail line from Chicago to Toronto via Detroit with an improved and more populous Detroit comes online.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopygirlmi
I also have to ask what about the Amtrak service the area already has. A lot of those smaller towns on the Amtrak route only have the one set of tracks and there isn't room to build more.
So, it really comes down to demand.
Personally, I think it's a great idea, but people in our state are accustomed to driving every where. A lot of the older people really make an effort to support the Big 3 because they major employers for the region.
It makes sense that you'd want a train along 94 or whatever, but who's going to pay for it is going to be the next question.
Our government doesn't even want to pay to build another bridge at the border to meet increased traffic demands. So, I'm not sure how you'd convince them to build out a high speed train between Toronto and Chicago.
The Amtrak Michigan services received funding to make significant improvements and acquisitions. Making those improvements meant some delays and trackwork especially in 2016 where that work significantly depressed ridership, but the bulk of it (or all?) is done now and so ridership last year rebounded. I haven't seen 2018 numbers yet as the year hasn't finished, but it's likely the 2018 numbers will also increase over 2017 as 2016 did over 2017 due to service improvements and lack of downtime from construction. Here's a pdf from MDOT. It's interesting that the top travel pair along the route is Ann Arbor-Chicago and Kalamazoo-Chicago which points to students and academia playing a large part in ridership. Chicago appears in all top ten pairs and Detroit only appears in the top ten once--in a pairing with Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig11152
Right now the high speed rail project in California is a mess bordering on a disaster.
Passed in 2008 it was going to cost 33 billion and be done by 2020. Its now projected at 77 billion and looking at 2033 for a completion....if it gets completed. Jerry Brown, the outgoing governor was arguably the biggest proponent. There is certainly a possibility the next Governor will decide to stop spending money on it.
In my opinion the biggest drawback to widespread high speed rail in the USA is an overall lack of population density. When you look at countries with successful high speed rail they all have population densities 3 to 12 times that of the US. You need that so when a train stops there is significant bodies ready to get on or off the train.
Rail like that can work on the east coast, California that it could work but right now there is a significant groundswell of people ready to bail on it .
Well, I think California is an example of how insane are funding mechanisms for infrastructure is in this country. In order to receive and keep a large portion of that federal money, California needed to have spent it within a certain period of time. However, the plan was a large and ambitious one and simply did not have enough time to adequately plan things out given the funding commitment deadline and the amount of political infighting that occurred in the run up to getting things up and running (there were and still are quite a few lawsuits and a lot of money poured into opposing the plan) so it had to make a lot of decisions without enough information early on and without things like land acquisition already completed in order to spend the federal money in time which wasn't a system that made sense for a plan as large as a completely new rail line through California within that time period. In regards to the other rail investments that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) tried, hobbled as they were by being a much smaller than originally envisioned plan and slow and even refused starts by Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin, what did actually end up getting done has generally worked out even the lower tier plans such as the Hartford Line in Connecticut which only received funding due to the blocking of the train lines in other states--well, except for the Pacific Northwest Cascade line which had a spectacular failure on its maiden voyage though will supposedly be up and running next year.
I agree that the USA does lack the overall population density especially for something like coast to coast high speed rail, but from a sheer comparison of distances between major cities, California, the western Pacific Northwest, eastern Florida, and the Northeast/Upper Midwest/Windsor Corridor (Canada) seems to have several paths and cities that make sensible high-speed networks though they'd be discontiguous from each other. The largest potential network is the Northeast/Upper Midwest/Windsor Corridor network which can run from the Northeast to the Upper Midwest through four routes: the Windsor Corridor via Buffalo through the Windsor Corridor to Detroit (also usable from Toronto and the rest of the Windsor Corridor), the Lake Erie Shoreline via Buffalo to Cleveland, the Keystone Line via Pittsburgh to Cleveland, and the Cardinal line via DC through Virginia and West Virginia to Cincinnati. Given the massive growth of the southern Eastern seaboard states, it's possible that parts of the Southeast US could also be part of this larger network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
I think the best way to go about this is to require all highway/expressway re/construction projects to provide enough median space to accomodate high speed rail. Once the whole expanse has been rebuilt (over a few decades probably), you can begin to “think about” building the rail. The only way you will get people to switch from cars to rail is if they see a train wiz by them while they are going 75 mph down the expressway.
That's a real interesting thought--would've been great when we were building more highways and expressways!
----
Essentially, it takes a long time to get something like this up and running with planning, funding, building and bilateral agreements for the crossing. A decade if somehow everything goes incredibly smoothly, but likely decades as things don't always go so smoothly. Essentially, I believe Detroit's rallying is not a flash in the pan, but that it is headed towards a much brighter future with population growth and a healthy and robust downtown. If there's a belief in that, then I think it makes sense for the city to get the ball rolling and prepare for it a bit in case planning and development accidentally cuts off the most reasonable routes or in case there's some local transit planning and there should be a siting of local mass transit service with a high speed rail service station.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-02-2018 at 11:13 AM..
It would have been nice if the People Mover could have an extension that goes over to Windsor and connect to the possible Windsor - Toronto High Speed rail. It would only take 2 hours to get to Toronto. However, it seems as if the high speed rail from Windsor to Toronto might not go forward...sigh...
Wow, if I were just happening onto this thread, I'd swear I was reading the comments section of FOX-News...
Fact is, it's totally bogus to state this particular region lacks the population density to support HSR. Little South Africa is building HSR from Johannesburg to Pretoria. And as noted, Canada is studying a Toronto-to-Windsor line (btw I have not heard this project is in jeopardy; please share where you found this)...
Chicago and Detroit are 2 gigantic metro areas (9M and 5M, respectively) including a number of substantial small-to-moderate metros in between... Downtown-to-downtown from Detroit to Chicago is only 280 miles -- well within acceptable/comfortable HSR distance, even allowing for easy day trips from end-to-end...
South Africa and Canada are tiny, comparatively, with Canada's 37 million across an area larger than the USA, but with only 1/10th our population. Fact is, if you formed a nation centered on the Chicago-to-Detroit corridor, you would have a relatively large nation, population-wise, with substantial density.
Wow, if I were just happening onto this thread, I'd swear I was reading the comments section of FOX-News...
Fact is, it's totally bogus to state this particular region lacks the population density to support HSR. Little South Africa is building HSR from Johannesburg to Pretoria. And as noted, Canada is studying a Toronto-to-Windsor line (btw I have not heard this project is in jeopardy; please share where you found this)...
Chicago and Detroit are 2 gigantic metro areas (9M and 5M, respectively) including a number of substantial small-to-moderate metros in between... Downtown-to-downtown from Detroit to Chicago is only 280 miles -- well within acceptable/comfortable HSR distance, even allowing for easy day trips from end-to-end...
South Africa and Canada are tiny, comparatively, with Canada's 37 million across an area larger than the USA, but with only 1/10th our population. Fact is, if you formed a nation centered on the Chicago-to-Detroit corridor, you would have a relatively large nation, population-wise, with substantial density.
Okay, a few things here. It's totally reasonable for people to mention certain concerns about the idea and pretty much any criticism has been civilly expressed as uncertainties rather than as inalienable truths. I don't understand how you read the same thread and then got the impression that it's as heated as news article comment sections get. In fact, a good chunk of people here have expressed that they are generally fans of rail.
It's not just the sheer population size of Detroit, but its transit infrastructure and the density/centrality of the current station is as part of the main convenience that high-speed rail offers is that it brings you into the city center though the current train station in Detroit is not in the city center and currently being dropped off in downtown Detroit doesn't make it easy to access much of the rest of the area as mass transit isn't exactly fantastic right now (and since you came by train rather than drove, you will likely not have a car).
Yes, Detroit to Chicago is well within acceptable HSR distances as is Detroit to Toronto and even Chicago to Toronto is as well. This is why I think this is a reasonable idea though the soft spot in the argument isn't Chicago or Toronto, but where to put Detroit's station and its crossing over to Windsor. Again, my opinion is that even if the argument is that Detroit does not currently have the density and transit infrastructure to support high-speed rail, the vital signs of downtown Detroit seem to be looking good and getting transit infrastructure like a bi-national high-speed rail line generally takes the US quite a bit of time to work out which means if the ball gets rolling now, then downtown Detroit is likely going to be in a much better position by the time the high-speed rail line opens.
Johannesburg to Pretoria is 34 miles, and with train speeds up to 100 mph, Gautrain generally does not fall in the definition of high-speed rail. It's more of a commuter rail service, though a speedy one.
Okay, a few things here. It's totally reasonable for people to mention certain concerns about the idea and pretty much any criticism has been civilly expressed as uncertainties rather than as inalienable truths. I don't understand how you read the same thread and then got the impression that it's as heated as news article comment sections get. In fact, a good chunk of people here have expressed that they are generally fans of rail.
It's not just the sheer population size of Detroit, but its transit infrastructure and the density/centrality of the current station is as part of the main convenience that high-speed rail offers is that it brings you into the city center though the current train station in Detroit is not in the city center and currently being dropped off in downtown Detroit doesn't make it easy to access much of the rest of the area as mass transit isn't exactly fantastic right now (and since you came by train rather than drove, you will likely not have a car).
Yes, Detroit to Chicago is well within acceptable HSR distances as is Detroit to Toronto and even Chicago to Toronto is as well. This is why I think this is a reasonable idea though the soft spot in the argument isn't Chicago or Toronto, but where to put Detroit's station and its crossing over to Windsor. Again, my opinion is that even if the argument is that Detroit does not currently have the density and transit infrastructure to support high-speed rail, the vital signs of downtown Detroit seem to be looking good and getting transit infrastructure like a bi-national high-speed rail line generally takes the US quite a bit of time to work out which means if the ball gets rolling now, then downtown Detroit is likely going to be in a much better position by the time the high-speed rail line opens.
Johannesburg to Pretoria is 34 miles, and with train speeds up to 100 mph, Gautrain generally does not fall in the definition of high-speed rail. It's more of a commuter rail service, though a speedy one.
As I clearly noted, my comments are based on the same, tired old American excuse that has kept this country in the dark ages of mass transit and high-speed passenger trains: there's not enough density. You're talking 2 of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation that are 200 miles apart -- 280 downtown-to-downtown. It is undeniable that the United States, for all its most-powerful-country-in-the-world bravado, is far behind the curve, and even regressive, when it comes to transit. It's not a density thing, it's a brainwashing thing... Too many Americans, as reflected by some of these comments, have bought hook, line and sinker Big Oil and Big 3 arguments for years, namely the so-called Love Affair with the Automobile and, concomitantly, you need near NYC density to support quality mass transit.
As I clearly noted, my comments are based on the same, tired old American excuse that has kept this country in the dark ages of mass transit and high-speed passenger trains: there's not enough density. You're talking 2 of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation that are 200 miles apart -- 280 downtown-to-downtown. It is undeniable that the United States, for all its most-powerful-country-in-the-world bravado, is far behind the curve, and even regressive, when it comes to transit. It's not a density thing, it's a brainwashing thing... Too many Americans, as reflected by some of these comments, have bought hook, line and sinker Big Oil and Big 3 arguments for years, namely the so-called Love Affair with the Automobile and, concomitantly, you need near NYC density to support quality mass transit.
Simple thing here--high-speed rail has different conditions from a lot of mass transit such as light rail, rapid transit rail, or commuter rail. Now, I'm clearly on the side that high-speed rail makes sense here and think rail lines in general are a good idea, and a lot of other posters here have said the same, but there are very different conditions for high-speed rail in comparison to conventional rail or mass transit.
I totally believe the US is behind the curve in terms of rail transit and high-speed rail and the mentality behind high-speed rail isn't great even when it makes sense and that mentality can offer some costly roadblocks in implementing high-speed (see my earlier post about California's high-speed rail program), but I also think it makes sense to discuss this with people to see if there are issues that I never even considered. High speed rail is dependent on quite a few things to work because it does take quite a bit of infrastructure investment to make it work. High speed rail is not always worth the investment and I think a lot of posters are right in saying that a nationwide high-speed rail network at this point isn't sensible due to population distribution/density and the vast expanse of land this country covers. What is sensible are certain regions and/or corridors to have high-speed rail.
I think in this case, the investment can make a lot of sense as a Chicago to Toronto line via Detroit, because even that length is within the sweet spot of high-speed rail and both Chicago and Toronto have strong enough mass transit networks now to make it work. Basically, the chief advantages that high-speed rail has compared to planes are that it goes into city centers and it can have more than one set of stops so there are multiple endpoint pairings. Compared to cars, there is the ability to not have to stare at the road or be in traffic and the latter is terrible in both Chicago and Toronto downtowns and they have adequate means to get around as well as a lot of the main attractions and business districts near their stations. Detroit is nicely placed in the middle and the downtown certainly hosts a lot of the attractions of the area and has a lot of business headquarters, but the Detroit station isn't located all that close to downtown and its transit system isn't great which is what makes Detroit currently not "add" that much to the rail line and keeps Chicago to Toronto as the main rationale for high-speed rail which may be adequate by itself. In this case, for many more people in regards to the Chicago to Detroit trip or Toronto to Detroit trip, driving is often more sensible (though perhaps not the Chicago to Toronto trip that passes through Detroit, but the benefits are pretty limited to Detroit itself if most people are just passing through).
However, as I've said before, I firmly believe Detroit's downtown and the city in general is going to see brighter days and I also believe that getting both the US and Canada to upgrade its lines and to figure out a system for crossing is going to take at the very least a decade if not a few decades (and then tack on at least two if not six years because the current federal government has not shown itself to be keen on infrastructure investment, rail investment in particular, or even binational cooperation with Canada). I believe Detroit will be in much better shape by the time high-speed rail launches which is why I pose the question now, because I think it makes sense to start thinking and planning for it now both because I think it will work when it opens and because having such a goal helps concretize the development plans for downtown Detroit.
I think I've tried to address the very legitimate criticisms that other posters have put out in terms of saying what I think and why I believe this doesn't dispel the idea of setting up high-speed rail so far, but am definitely open to more criticism for what is a substantial investment, and in my eyes, the conversation has been very civil and pragmatic. I answered as I believe is pragmatic in turn and am interested in what people think are the best approaches, not just legislatively but actual steel in the ground infrastructure approaches, for this to happen as in what and where the rail link should be to make the most sense. In my mind so far, I think Michigan Central and the existing unused rail tunnel makes sense for various reasons, but that does need at the very least the people mover to be extended there in conjunction with building such a line to be practical. If not that, then maybe the building of a new tunnel that somehow connects to existing rail tracks as right now the Windsor station is to the east of its city center and south of Lafayette Park. Perhaps it does operationally make more sense to build a new bridge or tunnel, preferably the latter, that goes northwest of the current Windsor station and then hits downtown Detroit directly underground before rising up to hit the tracks on Bagley Street and 15th Street though if that happens, then Detroit and the region in general will need to also use those tracks for through-running commuter rail to make sense.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-04-2018 at 08:19 PM..
Is there a need for speed if the rails are equipped with Wifi & food and somewhat decent timing? If you can get your work done with on Amtrak & grab some food & be in Chicago in 4 hours, then I don't see a need for improving it.
I have not personally taken it because I never go to Chicago for "Fun" alone & its more cost effective to share car. But I know people who have & lately the timing on Amtrak has not been bad. If they can get the reliability back on, there is no need for high speed. But I would love a train track to goes up to Northern Michigan & connects to Wisconsin. That would make Pure Michigan stronger
I don't pretend to be an expert at all on the topic but I have done some research/reading over the last couple days.
A couple things I've learned or in some cases been reminded of...
1. population density IS an issue for a nationwide system according to several people who are experts.
2.The USA has far and away more miles of track than any other country (twice as much as #2 China)
2a. A vast majority of our track is privately, built, owned and maintained.
3. Our rail system was built more to move freight long distances than people.
4. If you combine the 4 ways generally used to measure freight movement by rail we are #2 behind Russia
5. Because we move so much freight by rail sharing existing tracks with high speed trains is not practical. Freight trains chug along slowly as they do not have time constraints.
So it seems to me a high speed rail system to be effective and efficient needs its own tracks as opposed to sharing track with freight. In this country we are fond of property rights more than most other countries. That makes it problematic and expensive to acquire the land for new tracks. So that takes me to what stretches of the country make sense for the cost.
Certainly Detroit/Chicago meets some criteria in terms of distance and somewhat population. But on the negative side for the cost is the options already in place.
Sitting here in Ann Arbor I have 4/5 options to get to Chicago.
I can drive in 4-4.5 hours.
I can take a Mega bus for as little as $10 if I buy in advance (one way) 4-4.5 hours
I can ride the Amtrak for as little as $31 in advance (one way) 4-4.5 hours
I can fly in a plane for $165 round trip if I either plan in advance .
I can take a Greyhound bus for $22-$30. But since a Megabus is cheaper it is not the best bus option
Given all those options is the cost to build a true high speed train worth it?
As for Toronto in the mix going through customs would add time to the trip. Of course that is true no matter the form of travel.
I can find flights Chicago to Toronto and back for under $200 round trip. Nonstop under 1:45.
Flights from Detroit to Toronto seem to cost a bit more at $223 round trip.
That brings us to the Airport infrastructure in the United States which is the largest in the world. For fast travel in this country the prefered mode is airplanes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
