U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Iowa > Iowa City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-02-2012, 11:47 AM
 
Location: "Chicago"
1,866 posts, read 2,457,490 times
Reputation: 868

Advertisements

Would anyone use this train on days other than Fridays and Sundays and other school holidays?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2012, 11:48 AM
 
1,114 posts, read 2,124,676 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic_Vega View Post
The cost of establishing the service is not really the big problem here. Half of that route would run on rails already hosting passenger rail service, and it has capacity for more passenger trains without significant investments (with the possible exception of Chicago Union Station). The other half, former Rock Island and now Iowa Interstate Railroad, used to host +100mph passenge trains, most work needed to get that back up to those standards are signal work and passing sidings, and a few bridges that are not in too good of a shape anymore.

The real problem is it doesn't exactly solve any kind of transportation bottleneck. It would be at best a moderate success ridership wise, and at what cost.. compared to the bus lines. Only reason why they are even proposing this, is to eventually extend the route to Des Moines and Omaha. Even with that, i don't see it relieving any kind of a transportation bottleneck.

If this was an area of significant road and highway congestion, the service would already be in place and it would have probably never even shut down in the first place.
That's a much more concise way of saying exactly what I think about that line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 01:48 PM
 
Location: SWE
887 posts, read 1,412,187 times
Reputation: 803
Nexis4Jersey, if the FRA laxed on passenger equipment crash standards, small collisions could turn into deadly disasters. You have all seen what freight trains can do to full-size trucks and buses.

If the crash standard requirements actually were to be laxed for passenger equipment sharing tracks with freight trains, therefore putting rail passengers potentially in greater danger should a collision happen, would the insurance rates for rail passenger operations go a.) up, or b.) down?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2012, 09:01 PM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,381 posts, read 23,955,407 times
Reputation: 4532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic_Vega View Post
Nexis4Jersey, if the FRA laxed on passenger equipment crash standards, small collisions could turn into deadly disasters. You have all seen what freight trains can do to full-size trucks and buses.

If the crash standard requirements actually were to be laxed for passenger equipment sharing tracks with freight trains, therefore putting rail passengers potentially in greater danger should a collision happen, would the insurance rates for rail passenger operations go a.) up, or b.) down?
Well look at Europe and Asia , instead of Crash prevention systems the FRA wants trains to be tanks. If they flipped it , and made Crash prevention systems the norm vs Tanks crashes would be rare.... Canada and Australia recently got rid of the old FRA Based rules and went with there newer crash prevention rules.... The Insurance thing is an FRA thing , which is why you don't see alot of private companies getting into Passenger Rail its too expensive and needs to go. Rail systems already have insurance , The FRA makes them buy even more Insurance for certain lines which is unnecessary. In my opinion the FRA has reached its course and needs to be dismantled... The Railroads will run themselves just fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 11:04 AM
 
Location: SWE
887 posts, read 1,412,187 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
Well look at Europe and Asia , instead of Crash prevention systems the FRA wants trains to be tanks. If they flipped it , and made Crash prevention systems the norm vs Tanks crashes would be rare.... Canada and Australia recently got rid of the old FRA Based rules and went with there newer crash prevention rules.... The Insurance thing is an FRA thing , which is why you don't see alot of private companies getting into Passenger Rail its too expensive and needs to go. Rail systems already have insurance , The FRA makes them buy even more Insurance for certain lines which is unnecessary. In my opinion the FRA has reached its course and needs to be dismantled... The Railroads will run themselves just fine.
Funny thing a Florida real estate company, parent company of Florida East Coast Railway just announced they will invest 1 billion dollars in a high speed rail link between Miami and Orlando, with options to extend it later to Tampa and Jacksonville.

I am here in Europe, and i ride the trains atleast a few times a week. Same locomotives used on the 200km/h passenger trains are used for pulling heavy iron ore freight drags, and the newest passenger cars are comparable to any double decker passenger coach in the US. And the system has run fine since 1862.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2012, 12:02 PM
 
414 posts, read 1,030,218 times
Reputation: 198
If the trains are faster by few hours less, then lot of people will use it between Iowa City/Cedar Rapids to Chicago area. People want big difference in time savings, not shaved off by 30 minutes or a hour in difference. The cost is the problem, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2012, 06:47 AM
MG3
 
14 posts, read 27,318 times
Reputation: 13
Even if its a fast train between Iowa City/Cedar Rapids, people will be unlikely to use it. The problem is the work areas, including the university, are spread out. The train would need to drop people off at their work places in order to be more convenient than a car. It won't. The majority of the workers are not going to want to walk from the train station to their work places and they won't want to pick up a bus from the train station to work places either. The bus system is already heavily subsidized and taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize it any more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2012, 07:25 AM
 
Location: Des Moines
586 posts, read 1,984,744 times
Reputation: 379
Not that I'm a huge proponent of the Iowa commuter rail project until more information can be gathered on its viability, but the road system is also heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Should we stop asking taxpayers to fund roads too?

Not everything that taxpayers fund has to be a direct benefit to YOU. I don't have any kids and would probably rather not pay the education costs for your snot-nosed young'in's (along with subsidizing your tax breaks for having said mongrols) because it would better affect my bottom line. However, I see a tremendous value in paying my share for the education of children because of the greater good to the community. I would pay my fair share for a good transit system, road network, park system, etc.--anything that positively impacts the community.

Hey, I'm as big on government fiscal responsibility as the next guy, but I sure hope this selfish phase of "You keep your hands out of my pockets" blows over someday soon...for the sake of our future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2012, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
219 posts, read 379,743 times
Reputation: 160
There is going to be a Chicago-Moline link which is only about 50 miles away from Iowa City.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2012, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
13,068 posts, read 8,081,581 times
Reputation: 17067
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoias View Post
If the trains are faster by few hours less, then lot of people will use it between Iowa City/Cedar Rapids to Chicago area. People want big difference in time savings, not shaved off by 30 minutes or a hour in difference. The cost is the problem, though.
And significant improvements in speed cost a lot of money -- better signals, and possibly rehabilitation of the track itself. Over the long run, it would make sense, but both the typical politician, and the typical swing-voter twerp to whom the politicoes pander, either have no concept of the high initial investment involved, or conveniently avoid discussing it.

I do believe that the current upsurge in "megabus" service is symptomatic of the economic necessity for new personal transportation options, and not just for the undergraduate-age group. But these need to be phased in, with highway vehicles filling the gap until a properly fine-tuned rail system, built around park-and-ride, can be economically justified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Iowa > Iowa City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:53 PM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top