Indiana's thoughts on Midwest High Speed Rail?

[key4lp]

Originally Posted by domergurl

no kidding.

It's embarrassing how far behind we are on passenger rail.

Agree. Other countries seem to do it. Just review the history of the US rail system & how it
affected the US.

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

Good lord.......Indianans Hoosiers who cares? I'll take Indianan over Hoosier, thanks.

Never could understand the "Hoosier" thing.

Midwest High Speed Rail, I would welcome this with open arms to Chicago, even more so now that Southwest is cutting back on their direct Indy-Chicago flights. High speed rail would not do me a lot of good to any other cities, and they would generally require a car to get around once there. I guess it would depend on what my plans are in my destination.

Also agree.

[quote=ischyros;29030235]Except all the money from the toll road lease is gone.

It was a short term money gain by the governor and it's crazy how much future revenue will be lost
because of that decision. Illinois also did that. "America for sale."

[domergurl]

[quote=key4lp;29048451]Agree. Other countries seem to do it. Just review the history of the US rail system & how it
affected the US.



Also agree.

Originally Posted by ischyros

Except all the money from the toll road lease is gone.

It was a short term money gain by the governor and it's crazy how much future revenue will be lost
because of that decision. Illinois also did that. "America for sale."

Yep, Mitch took Daley's lead on that lease crap! I guess that makes us like Chicago

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

Midwest High Speed Rail, I would welcome this with open arms to Chicago, even more so now that Southwest is cutting back on their direct Indy-Chicago flights. High speed rail would not do me a lot of good to any other cities, and they would generally require a car to get around once there. I guess it would depend on what my plans are in my destination.

And the part in bold is why rail no longer works well in the US in most places. We've sprawled with the automobile, so it is very difficult to rely upon any form of transportation other than a car for a sub 5 hour trip. Once you get there, visitors tend to need a car to get around.

Europe has great systems, but they only exist because the built environment of the cities they connect is walking and transit friendly. If Indianapolis had the density of those places, the urban area (now over 700 miles--almost 2 Marion counties of development from a size perspective) would fit into less than half of Marion County. No developed part of the area would be further than 6 or 7 miles from the train station and there would be all sorts of ways to get from A to B to C within the city after you arrived.

Every city other than Chicago in the Midwest can't really function as a rail hub for this reason. A network of radial spokes from Chicago to places like Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati/Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Detroit may work. But connecting Indy to St. Louis or Indy to Columbus will not.

[linicx]

I think the first step is to rationalize why it is needed in the Midwest? The second need would be to determine which towns would benefit the most?

To me it seems like sports is the driving force. Every town mentioned has a pro team. It is unlikely Chicagoans will ride a train for 5 hours to shop in St. Louis. or any other place on the planet.

The real problem with the Chicago plan is smoke and mirrors. It is impossible to arrive in St. Louis much faster than it is now due to the whistle stops and freight that take precedence over passenger. There are already 2-3 trains that cover from Chicago to southern Illinois, and Chicago to St. Louis. And a train from Princeton to Chicago. The only way to create a fast train to St. Louis is not 150 miles an hour. It is 150 mph on new rail with no stops for passengers or freight trains.

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Every city other than Chicago in the Midwest can't really function as a rail hub for this reason. A network of radial spokes from Chicago to places like Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati/Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Detroit may work. But connecting Indy to St. Louis or Indy to Columbus will not.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by linicx

To me it seems like sports is the driving force. Every town mentioned has a pro team. It is unlikely Chicagoans will ride a train for 5 hours to shop in St. Louis. or any other place on the planet.

I don't think sports is the driving force, it just so happens that the major cities in the Midwest all have sports teams. Chicago is in effect the capital of the Midwest, it attracts a lot of visitors and a lot of those visitors come from the other big Midwest cities.

Originally Posted by linicx

The only way to create a fast train to St. Louis is not 150 miles an hour. It is 150 mph on new rail with no stops for passengers or freight trains.

I thought this was the original plan.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

And the part in bold is why rail no longer works well in the US in most places. We've sprawled with the automobile, so it is very difficult to rely upon any form of transportation other than a car for a sub 5 hour trip. Once you get there, visitors tend to need a car to get around.

Europe has great systems, but they only exist because the built environment of the cities they connect is walking and transit friendly. If Indianapolis had the density of those places, the urban area (now over 700 miles--almost 2 Marion counties of development from a size perspective) would fit into less than half of Marion County. No developed part of the area would be further than 6 or 7 miles from the train station and there would be all sorts of ways to get from A to B to C within the city after you arrived.

Every city other than Chicago in the Midwest can't really function as a rail hub for this reason. A network of radial spokes from Chicago to places like Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati/Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Detroit may work. But connecting Indy to St. Louis or Indy to Columbus will not.

No only that (underlined/bold statement above) but fuel is taxed A LOT more in Europe so there is more incentive for people to use other modes and rely heavily on public transit. If we paid $5-$7+ a gallon consistently it might be different. If fuel taxes covered a greater % of the road costs, the difference the government currently prioritizes towards roads could go to trains and public transit giving people more options.

[linicx]

It might have been the original plan but it seems they are using old route, same stops, faster engine. In the first 165+/- miles between Chicago and St. Louis there are 5 stops including Springfield. Passengers will be very tricky to run 120mph for 300+ miles with no freight stops. At 90mph you might gain 60 minutes but I don't think it's realistic.

Your point is well taken. I will buy into a MPLS, MLW, CHI, INDY, CINCY spoke a lot quicker than I will the Chi-StL pie-in-the-sky light rail.

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

I don't think sports is the driving force, it just so happens that the major cities in the Midwest all have sports teams. Chicago is in effect the capital of the Midwest, it attracts a lot of visitors and a lot of those visitors come from the other big Midwest cities.



I thought this was the original plan.