High-Speed Rail In The Midwest (college, live, cost)
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.
Heres what some High Speed Lines in the Midwest might look like. High Speed Rail in the Northeast is 110-180mph. Each region of the USA has different standards. The Northeast Corridor at the moment is getting upgrades so it can handle top speeds of 180mph and average speeds of 150-70mph. Work should be done by 2025 , becuz its happening in small small upgrades.
SF to LA in 2 1/2 hours! Can't wait for that. Its normally a 5 to 6 hour drive between the two cities so it makes it hard to do a day trip to either cities unless you are flying.I can leave for LA in the morning and make it back to the Bay Area before dinner.However last night on the news I saw that some cities like Palo Alto were actually fighting the train because they were worried about the fast speed...someone always has to ruin the party.
that's great for California, that's true high speed rail and will be used by the citizens.
Regarding the Midwest, it's rather disapointing that top speed is only 110MPH. That's not true high speed rail. Using your example, Chicago to St. Louis is about a 5 hour car trip. With a train going no faster than 110MPH , including stops, your train trip is around 4 hours. People, when given the option, will drive 5 hours and have the comfort and freedom of their own cars for the one hour difference. If the train were to be 200-220MPH and take about 2.5 hours people would take it. As it is I don't see people using the trains as much in the Midwest.
does anybody know why top speed is so much slower in the Midwest? Does it have anything to do with having to share lines with transport trains? not being able to upgrade existing lines?
whenever I hear the phrase "high speed rail" being used in the Midwest I have to laugh, and I'm a big believer in it, it just doesn't seem like it will be nearly as good or efficient.
Regarding the Midwest, it's rather disapointing that top speed is only 110MPH. That's not true high speed rail. Using your example, Chicago to St. Louis is about a 5 hour car trip. With a train going no faster than 110MPH , including stops, your train trip is around 4 hours. People, when given the option, will drive 5 hours and have the comfort and freedom of their own cars for the one hour difference. If the train were to be 200-220MPH and take about 2.5 hours people would take it. As it is I don't see people using the trains as much in the Midwest.
I agree, it is a disappointing figure, but also the reason why the upgrade needs to happen. I think that part of the reason why the Midwest has taken such a positive position toward high speed rail is the prospect that these lines will make many Midwestern cities competitive with the coasts. Although tourists may not see the benefits of shaving an hour off of their trip, business people, willing to work on their projects en-route or people visiting family in the area of arrival will. The high-speed network will also create more competition between airfare and train lines, dropping prices (this is all theoretical, obviously) and creating a more interesting business dynamic within the Midwest. Of course, if one looks at the current projections though, s/he will also notice that 110 is no longer the limit. Currently, the Midwest Regional High-speed Network includes trains traveling at 220mph between Chicago, Minneapolis, Saint Louis, Detroit, and Ohio. It is just going to take time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metamucil
does anybody know why top speed is so much slower in the Midwest? Does it have anything to do with having to share lines with transport trains? not being able to upgrade existing lines?
whenever I hear the phrase "high speed rail" being used in the Midwest I have to laugh, and I'm a big believer in it, it just doesn't seem like it will be nearly as good or efficient.
Also, top speeds are so much slower because the tracks are out of date with the rest of the nation. The Midwest has had no real infrastructure improvements since the advent of Amtrak so they're working with older stuff. This is also why, if you noticed, that the combined value of Wisconsin's and Illinois's HSR money was quite high; it's an effort to catch up with the rest of the nation.
I think the positives of using HSR in the Midwest outweigh the negatives. We have many medium-sized cities placed relatively close to each other where a plane is illogical but congestion discourages the use of a car. The network is simply trying to cut out the middle man.
In order to entice people away from the Badger Buslines and Van Galder, the speeds are going to have to be fairly impressive, IMHO. If memory serves me correctly, from Madison to O'Hare, Van Galder makes stops in South Beloit and Rockford, IL, before heading to O'Hare, with each stop taking perhaps 15 minutes to complete ( maybe a little longer for Rockford). Badger Buses stop, I believe, at Dutch Landing, Oconomowoc, 94th Street in Milwaukee, and downtown Milwaukee, with an option to General Mitchell Airport ( that last stop may have been cancelled?). In order to make a rapid-rail trip competitive from Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison, the trains would have to move at a pretty good clip, with minimal/quick stoppages; otherwise, the bus lines will keep their customers. But, if the Madison-MSP train segment is quick and efficient, this would entice more customers away from the buslines.
The KRM, if it is built between Milwaukee and Kenosha, will NOT be highspeed rail. The time from Milwaukee to Kenosha will be an estimated 57 minutes or longer. I can leave the south east side of Kenosha, jump on the Interstate and be in Milwaukee in 47 minutes and find all sorts of free parking.
In order to entice people away from the Badger Buslines and Van Galder, the speeds are going to have to be fairly impressive, IMHO. If memory serves me correctly, from Madison to O'Hare, Van Galder makes stops in South Beloit and Rockford, IL, before heading to O'Hare, with each stop taking perhaps 15 minutes to complete ( maybe a little longer for Rockford). Badger Buses stop, I believe, at Dutch Landing, Oconomowoc, 94th Street in Milwaukee, and downtown Milwaukee, with an option to General Mitchell Airport ( that last stop may have been cancelled?). In order to make a rapid-rail trip competitive from Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison, the trains would have to move at a pretty good clip, with minimal/quick stoppages; otherwise, the bus lines will keep their customers. But, if the Madison-MSP train segment is quick and efficient, this would entice more customers away from the buslines.
Except for major stations, Amtrak trains stop just long enough to board and discharge passengers. For most stops, it's barely a minute or two. For example, between Chicago and Mpls/St. Paul, the longest stop is maybe 5-10 minutes in Milwaukee, the station with the highest passenger volume on that segment. For stops where they change crews (Mpls/St Paul, Minot, Havre, Spokane) it is scheduled to stop for up to 45 minutes, but 4 stops over 2200 miles ain't too bad.
Why not just make them go 300 mph? 300mph or bust is my motto. For me to ever use a rail line I need to get there remarkably fast, or else I'm enjoying the comforts of MY vehicle, thank you very much.
You think I'd take a rail from Minneapolis to Chicago if I could get there in 5 hours? Ha, I can get there in 7 driving, those 2 hours are well worth it to me
Why not just make them go 300 mph? 300mph or bust is my motto. For me to ever use a rail line I need to get there remarkably fast, or else I'm enjoying the comforts of MY vehicle, thank you very much.
How in the world would driving be more comfortable? You can read, take a nap, or listen to headphones on a train. You can't really do that in your car, or at least you shouldn't. It takes roughly the same amount of time to take the Hiawatha from Downtown Milwaukee to Chicago Union Station as it does to drive, but that's only if there isn't any traffic, which never happens in Chicago, unless you're driving there at 3am. Once you get to Chicago, you have to pay astronomical parking fees wherever you go. It's much easier, and less stressful, for me to take a train down there for the weekend than it is to drive and try to find parking. The last place I stayed at down in Chicago charged $45 a night for parking, meanwhile a roundtrip on Amtrak from Chicago to Milwaukee is only $44. So it's either 2 days of parking at $45 a pop, or 2 roundtrip tickets at $44 per person. I'll go with the latter.
How in the world would driving be more comfortable? You can read, take a nap, or listen to headphones on a train. You can't really do that in your car, or at least you shouldn't. It takes roughly the same amount of time to take the Hiawatha from Downtown Milwaukee to Chicago Union Station as it does to drive, but that's only if there isn't any traffic, which never happens in Chicago, unless you're driving there at 3am. Once you get to Chicago, you have to pay astronomical parking fees wherever you go. It's much easier, and less stressful, for me to take a train down there for the weekend than it is to drive and try to find parking. The last place I stayed at down in Chicago charged $45 a night for parking, meanwhile a roundtrip on Amtrak from Chicago to Milwaukee is only $44. So it's either 2 days of parking at $45 a pop, or 2 roundtrip tickets at $44 per person. I'll go with the latter.
You have a history of attacking people's opinions, so I'm not surprised. Regardless, it's still an opinion, so each their own. I'd rather be able to play music over a stereo (I hate headphones and I have $50 Bose ones) I can sing. Stop at places I WANT to stop at. If I see a cool site or a place I can stop. I can stop and stetch. Being confined to a train with a bunch of other people, potentially annoying kids, isn't worth saving 2 hrs of travel time. If it were 3 hours, then for sure.. But it's just not THAT much quicker to keep me from having my car.
Althought, last summer my GF and I took a trip to Chicago from MPLS and parked DT and stayed at a hotel, which was $150 for parking! We didn't even use the car when we werre ther. If i were to do that again, I would most definitely use a rail. That would be a perfect situation. I think Chicago would see a HUGE tourist influx from a rail line that was high speed. If one could travel from MPLS to Chicago in or around 4 hours, you could almost see people making day trips even. I'd love to hop on a train to Chicago at 8am, sleep til we arrive at noon, catch a Cubs or Sox game grab a hotel and ship back to MPLS 8am the next day. So many people would do that.
People LOVE Chicago, at least from what I've seen (MPLS people) many people don't really trek to Chicago since the drive is so boring
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.
