Via the transport politic, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association just unveiled a proposal for 220 MPH Chicago-St. Louis high speed rail.
Yes, please!
Yes, please!
that would be so incredible i can't stand it. 220 mph from STL to CHI!? urban core to urban core. who would NOT want to make this the way they travel to Chicago? Having a car up there SUCKS! our downtown would only explode with growth if there were to happen. This should be MISSOURI'S priority, just as much as it is in Illinois. a strong urban/downtown St. Louis core = more money in the state coffers. It's funny that people still don't understand this concept.
- 1,610
Just hope there's no more than two stops (if that) between STL and CHI, be it Springfield and Bloomington, or Springfield and Champaign. Sorry Alton, but your best bet is to support MetroLink.
- 11K
^ The proposal lists four stops. Want to know where? Read the proposal.
I glanced at the proposal, but didn't read in depth!
I would like to know what the frequency of service would be
As much as I like to fly (EVEN in THIS day and age), 2 hour rail service to Chicago would be 
INCREDIBLE And if the price is comparable to what you'd pay NOW on Amtrak, it would be IRRESISTIBLE
There'd CERTAINLY be a LOTTA' FULL TRAINS
I would like to know what the frequency of service would be
As much as I like to fly (EVEN in THIS day and age), 2 hour rail service to Chicago would be INCREDIBLE And if the price is comparable to what you'd pay NOW on Amtrak, it would be IRRESISTIBLE There'd CERTAINLY be a LOTTA' FULL TRAINS
Trains are proposed to run hourly. Pales in comparison to California's proposed 8-12 trains per hour, but probably sufficient for Chi-StL.Progress wrote:I glanced at the proposal, but didn't read in depth!
I would like to know what the frequency of service would be
There'd CERTAINLY be a LOTTA' FULL TRAINS
The one thing I would like to see is the addition of Alton and Joliet stations to the western routing; serving local trains only, however, not express trains.
Nothing is said about the ticket price. All in all, it's not a very detailed report. It's more of a quick, cursory glance at what may be feasible.
One wild card the report mentioned is the potential need for a new Mississippi river crossing. Bridge capacity is mentioned as the reason. In my opinion, a new rail crossing would be mandatory as the FRA is unlikely to grant a waiver to allow HSR and heavy freight on the same tracks, particularly a major bridge crossing. Of course, we'll have to see what kind of ruling they make regarding the Anaheim–Fullerton branch of the CAHSR where the HSR authority wants to run on the existing freight tracks due to the narrow right-of-way.
Downloaded the report and glanced rather quickly but didn't read the report in depth. What I'm curious about is why create competing interests right now between two routes and two types of service, 110 mph inter city on the existing amtrak route that would serve Joilet, Blomington versus true HSR @ 220 mph on a different routing. Why not emphasize the current routing for a piece of the stimulus funds and then work off the success of increased rail service.
Finally, the new HSR routing avoids Joilet if not mistaken. That is why Kankakee is listed as a station (the last time I was in Kankakee was years ago to canoe down the river).
Finally, the new HSR routing avoids Joilet if not mistaken. That is why Kankakee is listed as a station (the last time I was in Kankakee was years ago to canoe down the river).
It was kind of pertinent to the discussion because folks were debating the pros/cons of various modes of transportation. It simply isn't reasonable at all to suggest that world flying demand will drop to 1950's level. I mean, the population has more than doubled since then. See the graphic below from the Pew Center on Climate Control for a more realistic view of transportation mode composition over time: http://www.pewclimate.org/technology/ov ... sportationricke002 wrote:innov8ion wrote:^ You're quick to poke fun, but will you put your money where your mouth is? I'm not the one with the ludicrous idea that flying demand will drop to 1950's level. Seriously now...
Just trying to keep the to the topic at hand. Bring up this stuff in a different thread if you feel it to be that important.
Now a 220mph train is high speed. Let's see if there's any political will behind the study.
Dredger wrote:Downloaded the report and glanced rather quickly but didn't read the report in depth. What I'm curious about is why create competing interests right now between two routes and two types of service, 110 mph inter city on the existing amtrak route that would serve Joilet, Blomington versus true HSR @ 220 mph on a different routing. Why not emphasize the current routing for a piece of the stimulus funds and then work off the success of increased rail service.
Finally, the new HSR routing avoids Joilet if not mistaken. That is why Kankakee is listed as a station (the last time I was in Kankakee was years ago to canoe down the river).
At the NARP regional meeting back in April Rick Harnish, of Midwest HSR, said that since everyone is now on board for 110mph on the existing route, this plan was about what to lobby for next. The point of going through Champaign is to make UIUC a part of Chicago.
- 1,364
Mill204 wrote:Via the transport politic, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association just unveiled a proposal for 220 MPH Chicago-St. Louis high speed rail.
Yes, please!
Here's another link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/3 ... 23500.html
110 mph will be the "high speed"?! too bad we had trains that could do that in the US in 1934! This is a JOKE! can they really not do HSR with trains that go at LEAST 200 mph?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Zephyr
On May 26, 1934, it set a speed record for travel between Denver, Colorado, and Chicago, Illinois, when it made a 1,015-mile (1,633 km) non-stop "Dawn-to-Dusk" dash in 13 hours 5 minutes at an average speed of 77 mph (124 km/h). For one section of the run it reached a speed of 112.5 mph (181 km/h), just short of the then US land speed record of 115 mph (185 km/h). The historic dash inspired two films and the train's nickname, "Silver Streak"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Zephyr
- 46
Mill204 wrote:Trains are proposed to run hourly. Pales in comparison to California's proposed 8-12 trains per hour, but probably sufficient for Chi-StL.Progress wrote:I glanced at the proposal, but didn't read in depth!
I would like to know what the frequency of service would be
There'd CERTAINLY be a LOTTA' FULL TRAINS
The one thing I would like to see is the addition of Alton and Joliet stations to the western routing; serving local trains only, however, not express trains.
Nothing is said about the ticket price. All in all, it's not a very detailed report. It's more of a quick, cursory glance at what may be feasible.
One wild card the report mentioned is the potential need for a new Mississippi river crossing. Bridge capacity is mentioned as the reason. In my opinion, a new rail crossing would be mandatory as the FRA is unlikely to grant a waiver to allow HSR and heavy freight on the same tracks, particularly a major bridge crossing. Of course, we'll have to see what kind of ruling they make regarding the Anaheim–Fullerton branch of the CAHSR where the HSR authority wants to run on the existing freight tracks due to the narrow right-of-way.
I hate these sorts of high speed reports because people don't stop to realize how expensive true high speed rail can be. Don't get too excited. We have a long way to go and true high speed rail is years away. Not to say it isn't worthwhile, but it IS a BIG step.
The cost of this plan will be at least $12 billion and that does not include support facilities or, as mentioned elsewhere a possible new crossing of the Mississippi. You'll need to do something about congestion at Chicago Union station, likely a new terminal...very expensive.
By comparison, 110 mph is much more affordable...probably about $1.3 billion. Yes, we are going to have an endpoint to endpoint running time of about four hours, but that's much faster than the current 5-1/2 hr running time. Once you get above 110 mph, you have to be on completely new, dedicated right of way that is grade separated and engineeered for much higher speeds. New right of way is also subject to much more exhaustive and expensive environmental reviews as well.
So, as a general rule of thumb, a true 220 mph HSR line would cost ten times as much as 110 mph service on the Chicago-St. Louis route. We have to balance the need for this against the cost. Keep in mind also that the vast majority of travel is by car. 110 mph beats the car's running time at a far lower cost. In addition, $12 billion would build the entire Midwest high speed system at 110 mph.
One other thing: You can't go 220 mph and stop in every town along the way. The time and distance required for a stop would likely add at least ten minutes to the running time. Add 5 stops and you've added nearly an hour to the schedule and that defeats the whole purpose of an HSR line. This service is meant to be in addition to what will exist at the time of its opening, not as a substitute.
At some point in the future we will have a rail passenger program that allows for true HSR. We aren't there yet. This study lays the groundwork for that day by being prepared when the money does come. This is one reason why Chicago-St. Louis is an early candidate for ARRA (stimulus) money. The preliminary work was already done, so the line qualified.
To be honest, if I had to spend $12 billion on Chicago-St. Louis, I'd spend $1.3 to $2.0 billion on 110 mph service and the rest on making sure we have transit connections at each end. This is about mobility, not just high speed.
Mill204 wrote:Trains are proposed to run hourly. Pales in comparison to California's proposed 8-12 trains per hour, but probably sufficient for Chi-StL.Progress wrote:I glanced at the proposal, but didn't read in depth!
I would like to know what the frequency of service would be
There'd CERTAINLY be a LOTTA' FULL TRAINS
The one thing I would like to see is the addition of Alton and Joliet stations to the western routing; serving local trains only, however, not express trains.
Nothing is said about the ticket price. All in all, it's not a very detailed report. It's more of a quick, cursory glance at what may be feasible.
One wild card the report mentioned is the potential need for a new Mississippi river crossing. Bridge capacity is mentioned as the reason. In my opinion, a new rail crossing would be mandatory as the FRA is unlikely to grant a waiver to allow HSR and heavy freight on the same tracks, particularly a major bridge crossing. Of course, we'll have to see what kind of ruling they make regarding the Anaheim–Fullerton branch of the CAHSR where the HSR authority wants to run on the existing freight tracks due to the narrow right-of-way.
I hate these sorts of high speed reports because people don't stop to realize how expensive true high speed rail can be. Don't get too excited. We have a long way to go and true high speed rail is years away. Not to say it isn't worthwhile, but it IS a BIG step.
The cost of this plan will be at least $12 billion and that does not include support facilities or, as mentioned elsewhere a possible new crossing of the Mississippi. You'll need to do something about congestion at Chicago Union station, likely a new terminal...very expensive.
By comparison, 110 mph is much more affordable...probably about $1.3 billion. Yes, we are going to have an endpoint to endpoint running time of about four hours, but that's much faster than the current 5-1/2 hr running time. Once you get above 110 mph, you have to be on completely new, dedicated right of way that is grade separated and engineeered for much higher speeds. New right of way is also subject to much more exhaustive and expensive environmental reviews as well.
So, as a general rule of thumb, a true 220 mph HSR line would cost ten times as much as 110 mph service on the Chicago-St. Louis route. We have to balance the need for this against the cost. Keep in mind also that the vast majority of travel is by car. 110 mph beats the car's running time at a far lower cost. In addition, $12 billion would build the entire Midwest high speed system at 110 mph.
One other thing: You can't go 220 mph and stop in every town along the way. The time and distance required for a stop would likely add at least ten minutes to the running time. Add 5 stops and you've added nearly an hour to the schedule and that defeats the whole purpose of an HSR line. This service is meant to be in addition to what will exist at the time of its opening, not as a substitute.
At some point in the future we will have a rail passenger program that allows for true HSR. We aren't there yet. This study lays the groundwork for that day by being prepared when the money does come. This is one reason why Chicago-St. Louis is an early candidate for ARRA (stimulus) money. The preliminary work was already done, so the line qualified.
To be honest, if I had to spend $12 billion on Chicago-St. Louis, I'd spend $1.3 to $2.0 billion on 110 mph service and the rest on making sure we have transit connections at each end. This is about mobility, not just high speed.
Some good points, Most of our urban cores and cities really lack strong local transit systems. The other thought is that we already have a high speed transportation network in this country. I used it yesterday when I flew back home. HSR will have the same trouble that airports have and what really consumes the most time. How do you get to your destination after disembarking. Not all city centers are as strong as Chicago and a lot of people will still prefer to live outside the center. Instead, most cities in the Midwest are like St. Louis. Employment centers and institutions are dispersed.
With $2 billion alone you could build out Metrolink in the county, street car lines in the city and better bus service overall. Service that would essentially connect most employment and institutional centers without having to use a car. I would love to see the 110 mph trains as well as a serious investment in our transit before will go spend $12 billion on the HSR line.
With $2 billion alone you could build out Metrolink in the county, street car lines in the city and better bus service overall. Service that would essentially connect most employment and institutional centers without having to use a car. I would love to see the 110 mph trains as well as a serious investment in our transit before will go spend $12 billion on the HSR line.
- 2,005
Illinois Gov. Quinn is expected to sign a capital bill that includes $850 toward rail projects in Illinois. This includes $400 million for high speed rail, $150 million for Amtrak, and $300 million for CREATE(Chicago rail projects).
Link
Link
eastside, you make a lot of valid points. i'll take the 110 mph. St. Louis will gain a lot from this i think. i'd dream of a 220 mph rail to Chicago though. how f ing cool would that be? live in STL , work in Chicago!
You can do that now in one of them newfangled aeroplanes.JCity wrote: i'd dream of a 220 mph rail to Chicago though. how f ing cool would that be? live in STL , work in Chicago!
Rather than speed, what the system needs to be more viable is reliability (of schedule) and frequency... with out those you can go 220 mph and no one would ride it except as a novelty.
- 1,610
innov8ion wrote:You can do that now in one of them newfangled aeroplanes.JCity wrote: i'd dream of a 220 mph rail to Chicago though. how f ing cool would that be? live in STL , work in Chicago!
Seemingly a good point which brings to mind 2 questions I've had about HSR.
What is the cost comparative to an airline ticket?
Also, many people on here are making assumptions that you'd be able to hop on a train minutes before departure and everything would be fine. Is there a reason that security on a train would be that much less involved (or more efficient) than on an airplane? I get that a train could only be directed to stuff on the track whereas a plane could be guided anywhere, but it could still be slammed into something or forced off the tracks, right?
Amtrak Acela costs as much as an airplane ticket. There's no cost advantage at all.ricke002 wrote:Is there a reason that security on a train would be that much less involved (or more efficient) than on an airplane? I get that a train could only be directed to stuff on the track whereas a plane could be guided anywhere, but it could still be slammed into something or forced off the tracks, right?
Your point about transportation security reminds me of this serious interview between Ali G and a federal bureaucrat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDQNpr2RnFI. And do you remember the Madrid train bombings?
We make the assumption of significantly less to no security because that is the reality of every other HSR line in the world with the exception of Eurostar. People think you're crazy if you want to be at the train station more than 15 minutes before your departure time.ricke002 wrote:Also, many people on here are making assumptions that you'd be able to hop on a train minutes before departure and everything would be fine. Is there a reason that security on a train would be that much less involved (or more efficient) than on an airplane? I get that a train could only be directed to stuff on the track whereas a plane could be guided anywhere, but it could still be slammed into something or forced off the tracks, right?
Security exists in the form of PTC, Positive Train Control. If anything with the train goes wrong, or the operator makes a mistake and overshoots a stop signal or gets too close to the next train up the line or simply falls asleep, the train slams on the brakes and comes to a stop. The train simply will not take a 30mph curve at 200 mph, no matter what.
innov8ion wrote:You can do that now in one of them newfangled aeroplanes.JCity wrote: i'd dream of a 220 mph rail to Chicago though. how f ing cool would that be? live in STL , work in Chicago!
Sorry, mate, but that just doesn't compare. Yes, it is faster in travel time to fly vs. train.
Train does have noticeable differences:
1. Leaves from downtown, which saves me 30 minutes going to Lambert
2. No security crap like on the planes, which saves 1 hour (security + boarding + etc.)
3. Takes 1 hour longer to get to Chicago than flying. -1 hour
4. Arrives downtown Chicago vs. O'Hare, cutting out the trip downtown, 1 hour
5. Let's not even start with checking luggage, electronics off, etc.
6. Airport delays in Chicago are sick
Live in St. Louis, work in Chicago doesn't work now, at ALL. There are just too many inefficient, non-value added activities involved in flying, plus airports have to be far out of the city center for air and noise pollution purposes. I'd much rather be in Chicago downtown in 2 hours than in O'hare in 3.
For these types of short, point to point connections, fast trains are far superior to flying. I fly a lot, and hate it. 79 segments so far this year.
^ Which goes to show that transportation diversity is a good thing.
Agree completely! Now if we had any options other than car or plane.
A little competition on HSR funds as noted by the following Engineering News Record story. Also, If I find a story to post, the a House committe upped Obama's yearly request of $1 billion to $4 billion for 2010.
http://enr.construction.com/infrastruct ... lFunds.asp
Demand for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grants for high-speed rail far outstrips the $8 billion available. The U.S. Dept. of Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration reported on July 16 that it had received 278 "pre-applications" for the rail grants, with applicants requesting a total of $102 billion. The department expects to award the first batch of economic-stimulus rail grants in the fall.
I think will see the initial 110 mph proposed Midwest routes fully funded as part of the stimulus funds this fall. Those routes being Chicago-St Louis, Chicago-Madison, Chicago-Detriot for a couple of reasons. Illinois with Quinn signing the Capital plan is far beyond what any other state will support for intercity rail. Wisconsin is purchasing two Talgo Trainsets @ $50 million (what is used for Seatle, Tacoma, Portland rail service), Amtrak owns the majority of the rails for the Detriot route and politics. Politics favoring a Presidents home state, an Olympic bid and Michigan hurting big time.
http://enr.construction.com/infrastruct ... lFunds.asp
Demand for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grants for high-speed rail far outstrips the $8 billion available. The U.S. Dept. of Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration reported on July 16 that it had received 278 "pre-applications" for the rail grants, with applicants requesting a total of $102 billion. The department expects to award the first batch of economic-stimulus rail grants in the fall.
I think will see the initial 110 mph proposed Midwest routes fully funded as part of the stimulus funds this fall. Those routes being Chicago-St Louis, Chicago-Madison, Chicago-Detriot for a couple of reasons. Illinois with Quinn signing the Capital plan is far beyond what any other state will support for intercity rail. Wisconsin is purchasing two Talgo Trainsets @ $50 million (what is used for Seatle, Tacoma, Portland rail service), Amtrak owns the majority of the rails for the Detriot route and politics. Politics favoring a Presidents home state, an Olympic bid and Michigan hurting big time.