urbanSTL

Does high speed rail make fiscal sense? I'm not sure it does (even though I want it). Rail/transit can really only work by being subsidized with tax payer money which expands government in a way. It'll cost a lot to build, and we may not see the benefits of the business it stirs for years later. That doesn't seem to run in-line with a conservative mindset. So from that perspective, I wouldn't push for it.

However, if citizens want it and are willing to pay for it, I think HSR can add a lot. It would be a huge benefit. It makes regions smaller and more accessible. In a way its more environment friendly. Its faster.

I hope that politicians (mostly GOP) would not just refute HSR just based on a tenet of their political philosophy (which I think a lot of politicians tend to do) if people want it and it can benefit a region.

^ Well I would think HS Rail can also be looked at as a Hedge against oil prices in relation to Air Travel. Rail should be a LONG TERM strategy. If we have an oil crises due to tension or all out war in the middle east, it might become cost prohibitive to fly anywhere.... or drive.

pat wrote:Does high speed rail make fiscal sense? I'm not sure it does (even though I want it). Rail/transit can really only work by being subsidized with tax payer money which expands government in a way. It'll cost a lot to build, and we may not see the benefits of the business it stirs for years later. That doesn't seem to run in-line with a conservative mindset. So from that perspective, I wouldn't push for it.

However, if citizens want it and are willing to pay for it, I think HSR can add a lot. It would be a huge benefit. It makes regions smaller and more accessible. In a way its more environment friendly. Its faster.

I hope that politicians (mostly GOP) would not just refute HSR just based on a tenet of their political philosophy (which I think a lot of politicians tend to do) if people want it and it can benefit a region.

Good question with a good follow up. Put in Interstate Highway, turn the time dial back to the 1950's and now you have the same argument for supporters of Eisenhower's vision at that time. Of course he had the cold war.

Unfortunately, who knows where the Egypt crisis goes. If it expands you got some nasty oil prices and argument that HSR moves people generated by American power plants using American resources. You might get one of those odd pairings of the greens and coal industry supporting the same thing.

pat wrote:Rail/transit can really only work by being subsidized with tax payer money which expands government in a way. It'll cost a lot to build, and we may not see the benefits of the business it stirs for years later. That doesn't seem to run in-line with a conservative mindset. So from that perspective, I wouldn't push for it.

Highways can really only work by being subsidized with tax payer money which expands government in a way. It'll cost a lot to build, and we may not see the benefits of the business it stirs for years later. That doesn't seem to run in-line with a conservative mindset. So from that perspective, I wouldn't push for it.

^ I agree. HSR should be used where it is most advantageous.

Highways can really only work by being subsidized with tax payer money which expands government in a way. It'll cost a lot to build, and we may not see the benefits of the business it stirs for years later. That doesn't seem to run in-line with a conservative mindset. So from that perspective, I wouldn't push for it.

Good point. But its an already established system. I think creating and entirely new HSR system is going to be hard for Republicans to swallow when they think our current highway network is perfectly fine. Hopefully inevitable increase in the price of oil and its environmental effects can sway their view.

StL to Chi ~300 miles (I think). Top flight HSR can hit 300-330 mph (mag-lev). I know it's a dream, and has pros and cons, but I wonder what the interest would be from people that work in downtown Chi to live in downtown stl (still has an urban feel, but housing is about half the cost) and commute via a hypothetical HSR line.

There is already a large amount of commuters who live in Milwaukee and commute to Chicago to work via the metra, which I think is around an hour and a half (or under) trip. If StL to Chi got a dedicated line capable of getting people from StL to Chi and back in roughly the same amount of time, I would be curious to see if we would begin to see some of this.

Obviously, it would be preferable to have people live and work in downtown StL. Just an interesting thing to think about.

the count wrote: Just for fun: A cool YouTube video with Eurostar, TGV, Thalys and ICE trains.

In the video, it looks like every train has an engine on each end facing opposite ways. Like metro-link, they appear to be designed to go either direction. If we did this with our trains, they could pull into Union Station, and then pull out lead by the other engine.

RobbyD wrote:
...I can see HSR clearly making sense for certain corridors, but never as a national system given the cost...But IMO asking everyone to pay for a system that directly benefits only certain high density regions is going to be a lot harder to get taken seriously than auto or air systems that benefit nearly every American...Both from a public opinion perspective and a "what's in it for me" Congress...

... ...

Nearly every American has a car in the driveway, how many would live within usable range of even a fully built out HSR system?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here!

So let's do a STL-CHI line, a MKE-CHI line, DTW-CHI line, etc. and then get rid of flights from STL-CHI, MKE-CHI, DTW-CHI, etc. (Maybe keep a few flights) We could then eliminate flights from the smaller stops along the way (Springfield, Peoria, Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington-Normal, wherever the train would stop that regularly has air service to CHI). This would clear up 10-20 gates at ORD? 4-5 at MDW? May not sound like a lot, but with the capped flight limits that ORD is already under, every flight counts. This would have a national effect, as there would be less puddle jumpers clogging up the runways at ORD, leaving spots for larger jets.

The main issues with this would be the legality of decreeing some flight routes un-flyable (not sure how the routes are regulated, if at all) and getting people to the actual airports in Chicago. Someone who jumps on the HSR in Springfield trying to get to ORD to catch a flight to Seattle needs to get from Union Station in (just outside of, actually) the Loop to ORD/MDW. Taking the Blue Line to ORD or the Orange to MDW tacks on an hour of EL riding, which is not the answer. Is there a way to bring the rail in from the Southwest Suburbs making a stop at MDW, continue on to the Loop/Union Station & then head out to ORD in the Northwest Suburbs? Or just tack on another billion to the project total & build 2 express lines from downtown to ORD & MDW? I think the CTA is already "studying" an express line out to ORD from downtown.


Somewhat/mostly off topic, but this just came to me. Does anyone know of an instance where rails are double stacked a la I-64 downtown? Would it be cheaper/feasible to build a new set of HSR-only tracks ABOVE existing ROW? Not sure how much of the 3 billion cost of the STL-CHI line is spent on land acquisition, or how much more per mile it would be to build elevated tracks. Where the existing rails twist an turn too much, the HSR could split off & follow a more linear path & meet up with the existing ROW wherever possible. I'm sure thats a much more expensive/prohibitive idea, but it just came to me.

Adding structure, elevated line, or tunnels is expensive endeavor and a big reason why California wants to start in the Central Valley with at grade ROW. Preliminary/budget estimates for San Fran costs in trying to accomondate space concerns either by elevated structrures or tunnels was through the roof. The other problem with structures or tunnel is more maintenance, more operational costs and eventually a replacement cost gets in the life cycle. It doesn't help on the cost end that tolerances and other technical/structural issues will increase versus your run of the mill highway bridge.

The best example/analogy I can provide locally is the cross county extension. The original estimate $500-510 mil was for at grade line along FP. The overrun that always comes up was the increased cost to use tunnels and elevated structures that was approved after the original estimate was floated. I believe the costs jumped by 25 to 35%.

What would the possible issues be of running the track down the median of I-55, where available? The land is already relatively flat, straight & owned. When stops need to be made (Springfield, Bloomington-Normal & Joliet only), the existing tracks could be used at a lower speed. Is the median wide enough to allow for trains? At what speed does turbulence/air wash create issues for vehicles on the adjacent highway? Don't know where state troopers would hang out to catch speeders or what would be done when construction pushes all traffic to one side of the interstate. The issues brought up against a track down I-64 for Metro would not be valid for intercity travel.

^ Think about how many bridges and crossings there are over and under 55 from to Chicago. They would be a lot of construction cost for 200mph trains

pat wrote:^ Think about how many bridges and crossings there are over and under 55 from to Chicago. They would be a lot of construction cost for 200mph trains

The tracks would still have to cross other roads/creeks/lakes elsewhere. What's the difference?

gone corporate wrote:Beyond Bridges: Interstate highways have mandatory turns built into them, forcing the driver to pay attention to what he's doing / how he's driving. This was a conscious decision in highway design, done to prevent excessively straight drives leading to "road hypnosis".

With the need of rail systems, especially HSR, to have straight lines for many miles, paring a HSR line with, or onto, I-55 or any other interstate highway would not work.

It's my understanding that gradual curves are acceptable up to XXX mph. I have no clue what speed that is, but its gotta be faster than 110 mph. And on parts where the highway gets too "turny," the tracks could take a more necessary linear path & meet up with 55 on the other side of the curve.

I will likely be seeing a presentation by Robert D. Yaro on Monday. Yaro is Co-Chair of America 2050 and the President of Regional Plan Association. His lecture is called “Making High Speed Rail Work for the United States”. With any luck, I will be able to provide a summary of his presentation.

Take a look at their interactive HSR map... http://www.america2050.org/maps/hsr-phasing/ Hover over the map for more info.

DaronDierkes wrote:^just want to repeat that the Chicago-Memphis line should be rerouted through St. Louis to Carbondale and on to Memphis. Why fund an extra long trip through the cornfields when you could double your investment in the Chi-Stl line?

As per the America 2050 map, there is no HSR line going from Chicago to Memphis. That line is a traditional rail/Amtrak like line. I am guessing that the thought behind this not being a HSR line is that it would not makes sense to develop being as flying is the better option form a time efficiency standpoint.

Isn't flying more time efficient for most routes anyway? I just figured they didn't see enough potential ridership from Memphis. Long term, I envision Memphis and STL serving as three spoke mini-hubs:
STL to Chi, STL to KC (and OK line), STL to Mem
Memphis to STL, Mem to New Orleans, Mem to Little Rock (and Texas)