urbanSTL

Grover wrote:I understand the attraction of a Chicago/STL line, but I think that pulling together STL/Indy or Louisville would be a real coup for mid-size Midwest. What would really make sense to me is to have Indy/Cincinnati/Louisville connected via high speed rail. All of a sudden you have 4M+ people separated by a < one hour commute. Bring Columbus, OH in the mix and it's a very major metro area.

Would Illinois support an East/West line that didn't go through Chicago?

Gary Kreie wrote:

Grover wrote:I understand the attraction of a Chicago/STL line, but I think that pulling together STL/Indy or Louisville would be a real coup for mid-size Midwest. What would really make sense to me is to have Indy/Cincinnati/Louisville connected via high speed rail. All of a sudden you have 4M+ people separated by a < one hour commute. Bring Columbus, OH in the mix and it's a very major metro area.

Would Illinois support an East/West line that didn't go through Chicago?

All we have to do is get Effingham and Vandalia on board and we're set. Maybe if there's a stop at the huge freakin' cross we could get some faith-based funding.

Grover wrote:I understand the attraction of a Chicago/STL line, but I think that pulling together STL/Indy or Louisville would be a real coup for mid-size Midwest. What would really make sense to me is to have Indy/Cincinnati/Louisville connected via high speed rail. All of a sudden you have 4M+ people separated by a < one hour commute. Bring Columbus, OH in the mix and it's a very major metro area.

But is there a point other than it being really cool? (Just asking, not trying to imply you're an idiot)

^ Yes. The point is that places like Indy, Cincy, Louisville, Columbus and St. Louis are at a bit of a disadvantage in the new economy where mega-regions are dominating (SFO-LA, Philly-Bos, etc.). What will most likely happen , if anything is for midwest cities to connect to Chicago. My point is that if Columbus, Indy, Cincy and Louisville were better connected they may form more of a mega-region and enjoy some of the benefits - lobbying for corporate headquarters, etc. Indy could say, sure we're just 1M people, but another 3M are less than a one-hour train ride from here.

tbspgr wrote:

For 2 - 3 billion dollars we could have a DOT owned / operated track on dedicated ROW from STL to Chicago with one stop in between (probably Springfield) with a max speed of 250 mph.

I think you are severely underestimating the cost of building a dedicated high-speed track like this.



In the Netherlands they just finished their part of the HSL track that will connect Amsterdam to Paris. This track is 60 miles long, was designed for speeds up to 190 MPH and was built at a cost of 6.7 billion Euro or $ 9.3 billion.



This line needed some very costly tunneling so we would probably be able to do it a little cheaper but it will be a lot more than $ 2-3 billion.



It is very nice though to get into the train in Amsterdam Centraal Station and end up at Paris Gare du Nord three hours later. (About the distance STL-Chicago.) Also, the Dutch line was completely funded with private money.



I believe high speed rail can only be successful if it's faster than driving. If it doesn't offer significant less travel time it will be very hard to get people out of their cars. (or airplanes.)



The main reason we're behind Europe with high-speed rail is the fact that the distances here are much larger and the density much lower. (Except for the North-East corridor and maybe the West-coast.) Also, driving a car in Europe costs about twice as much as it does here.



The Amsterdam-Paris track has a catchment area of around 50 million people. An STL-Chicago track; maybe 12 million. It will be very hard to operate real high-speed rail (150 MPH+) successfully.



I am very much for investment in public transportation but I feel at this time we would be better off investing in regional systems such as the Metrolink. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't improve Amtrak service.

^ That's a good point. It may be less sexy, but imagine if instead of spending say $15-20B on STL-CHI high-speed rail, $15B was giving to Chicago to improve the EL and $5B to St. Louis for Metrolink. Now THAT would have a huge economic impact and serve many more people. High-speed rail only works well when one travels from a high-density are to another. If enough people can walk from their home/office or take a short EL ride to a high-speed rail station and then have their STL destination be served by Metrolink or within walking distance of the terminus station then it makes sense. But that density doesn't exist. A north-south metrolink line and possibly others would help to create that density and then make high-speed rail much, much more efficient.

What are the key cost drivers that differentiate bullet trains from their much slower cousins?

Building a dedicated high-speed track is very expensive. All materials have to be high grade and it needs extensive built-in safety measures. There can be no at-grade crossings. This means viaducts or tunnels will have to be build, adding to the cost.



High-speed is only possible with electric trains (for now). This means not only the track needs to be build but also the electric wiring. For high-speed this electric wiring is far more expensive than for traditional electric trains.



The trains itself are much more expensive and running a train at twice the speed quadruples the energy needed.

High Speed Rail IMHO is an investment in infrastructure for our future. There are always better, more economic short term alternatives. But it will never happen if we don't take the hit and just do it. It may be exorbitantly expensive, but in the long run, we would be building an important network that would allow individual cities to link together and grow in ways that they can not right now. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be.

I support any investment in passenger rail. High-speed, local, whatever. It's all underfunded and we need all of it we can get.



But I agree with some earlier posters: if it were up to me, I'd sooner see this money spent on expanding the passenger rail network to more cities. It doesn't make any sense that if you want to take the train to Indianapolis or Pittsburgh, you have to go to Chicago first. It also makes the fare prohibitively expensive.

Here are pros and cons of the hub and spoke network model as compared to point-to-point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hub_and_spoke



Analysis of the model



The hub-and-spoke model is most frequently compared to the point-to-point transit model.



[edit] Benefits



* For a network of n nodes, only n - 1 routes are necessary to connect all nodes; that is, the upper bound is n - 1, and the complexity is O(n). This compares favorably to the (n(n - 1))/2 routes, or O(n2), that would be required to connect each node to every other node in a point-to-point network.



* The small number of routes generally leads to more efficient use of transportation resources. For example, aircraft are more likely to fly at full capacity, and can often fly routes more than once a day.



* Complicated operations, such as package sorting and accounting, can be carried out at the hub, rather than at every node.



* Spokes are simple, and new ones can be created easily.



* Customers may find the network more intuitive. Scheduling is convenient for them since there are few routes, with frequent service.



[edit] Drawbacks



* Because the model is centralized, day-to-day operations may be relatively inflexible. Changes at the hub, or even in a single route, could have unexpected consequences throughout the network. It may be difficult or impossible to handle occasional periods of high demand between two spokes.



* Route scheduling is complicated for the network operator. Scarce resources must be used carefully to avoid starving the hub. Careful traffic analysis and precise timing are required to keep the hub operating efficiently.



* The hub constitutes a bottleneck in the network. Total cargo capacity of the network is limited by the hub's capacity. Delays at the hub (caused, for example, by bad weather conditions) can result in delays throughout the network. Delays at a spoke (from mechanical problems with an airplane, for example) can also affect the network.



* Cargo must pass through the hub before reaching its destination, requiring longer journeys than direct point-to-point trips. This is often desirable for freight, which can benefit from sorting and consolidating operations at the hub, but not for time-critical cargo and passengers.

Isn't this why Indianapolis should be the hub for Midwest HSR? Then anyone traveling to or from St. Louis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Columbus and Chicago would have relatively direct travel. It seems likely that Chicago will be the hub, but then to go from St. Louis to Louisville you must travel through Chicago . . .

^ Ok, but Chicago is running the Executive Branch. Perhaps they could utilize a hybrid approach. You know, like the Missouri Compromise.

Don't forget, unfortunately for the rest of us, that Chicago has by far the most international flights coming and going from the country as well as the largest metro area in population for the midwest. Those two items alone make a strong case as a hub. Unfortunately, we are not like the northeast where the majority of metro centers are along a line (Boston, NY, Baltimore, DC). Give it some time and development and the old passenger rail routes will come back.

Hi everybody. It's been a while since I last posted and I see quite a discussion going on about what the Obama Administration is doing and what High Speed Rail is. From what I have seen, the Obama Admin. wants to do incremetal improvements (i.e., up to 90 mph). The reason is that you get more for your dollar and can get more service running in a shorter timeframe than would otherwise be possible.



What is high speed rail (HSR)? The official FRA designation is 110 mph and above. Any faster than that and you need to be on your own tracks separate from other passenger and freight operations. These tracks have to be designed for higher speeds---wider curves, higher superelevation (banking)---and that means existing right of way might not work. This is why the idea of building in highway medians usually does not work. Roads are not engineered for speeds above 70 mph.



And why the emphasis on Chicago? For starters, the rail infrastructure was never abandoned there, unlike places like St. Louis. For another, it still has a lot of service to build on. Finally, Chicago is a world class city. It makes sense to start from a place where you'll have a lot of strengths.



There's also only so much money to go around this first time. Those funds have to be spent where there is a high probablility of success. The Obama people want to see an early return on this investment for political reasons and also to justify further inprovements later on. Remember, this is just a down payment on a fundamental shift in US transportation policy.



An early benficiary will be Chicago-St. Louis. The Governor is pushing for (and got) $400 million in state money for rail, on top of another $150 million (for cars and locomotives). They also are asking for another $750 million in stimulus money. This means Chicago-St. Louis will have at least ten daily round trips at speeds up to 110 mph, with the line upgraded with double tracks and signaling to allow the higher speeds.



So rejoice. St. Louis is first in line for corridor service because it's on a corridor getting early focus. You could be in a backwater area (even if it's a large city), such as Columbus or Dayton, OH, which will not get their service for years. The best thing we can do is build on the success of this corridor by pushing for more St. Louis-Kansas City service or lateral service to Indianapolis and the east.

Eastsidewillie wrote: Finally, Chicago is a world class city. It makes sense to start from a place where you'll have a lot of strengths.

Substitute the words "St. Louis" for Chicago, and it could be a quote straight from the 1860s on why everything should converge at St. Louis. But that's OK. Let's get the Chicago to St. Louis line established.



And eventually, maybe everyone will realize that we don't need to route all East / West train traffic far to the North to get across the more narrow Mississippi River at Rock Island. We have bridges further South now. And slowly the main commerce paths will return to the center of the country through St. Louis where they used to run and more logically can again. So let's just get the high speed rail started and the rest will take care of itself eventually.

I don't understand the big deal in getting from Chicago to St. Louis 15 minutes faster than we do now. Am I missing something? Ref : http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009 ... fasttrains

^ I gotta say that this is a 100% classic inno post. I mean you're citing the Chicago Tribune, a reputable news source which by your post seems to conclude that high-speed rail from Chicago to St. Louis will only save 15mins. I mean, who wants to pay $billions for 15mins?!?!? Aha, but you like to a story which quotes various people, including a man who rants and raves against US rail travel and has written a book about the abject failures of AMTRAK. Who knows, he could end up being right, but he is just one relatively extreme voice in this whole debate. So you asked what you're missing? You're missing all the other voices that state either that the upgraded rail line will save more than 15mins and you're missing the larger picture argument which states that we should invest much, much more in passenger rail as it is a key to future economic health, and the pragmatic approach that sees upgrading current lines as simply a start to introduce true high-speed rail in the future.

God forbid people have opinions...



Take a closer look. It's stated that it would likely cost far more to accomplish this project than what's projected. When all is said and done (and there is no high-speed train), the "improvements" are likely to shave 15 minutes off the Chicago-St. Louis commute.



A pretty reasonable viewpoint.

Now you're stating (seemingly as fact) that after all the improvements that only 15mins will be saved. Again, that's just the opinion of one person who is a long-time rail travel critic. One more time: he could be right, but you're only putting forth one viewpoint.

With all due respect, that's not what I said. I said the project will likely cost much more than is projected, and it won't be completed as originally scoped. In the end, they are likely to spend $x on track improvements, which will shave 15 minutes off travel time.



It is my opinion, after all -- one tempered with the knowledge that our government has not performed well in projecting the cost of implementing high speed train networks.

Ok, lets do some basic math.



STL - CHI about 300 miles.

STL-Chicago about 330(5.5 hours) mins via train.

Average speed = 55MPH



Lets say we can upgrade that to 90MPH.



STL-CHI about 300 miles

STL-CHI about 200 mins(3.3 hours) via train



So with basic, wouldn't it be 2 hours saved, not 15 mins?

^ I think we can all do the math, Zink! You and Grover apparently have more faith in our government than I do. There's nothing wrong with that... If they can do it, then great!

innov8ion wrote:You and Grover apparently have more faith in our government than I do.

Well, that's not difficult!

^ To be clear, I didn't have much faith in the last administration either. I'm just skeptical of large government projects like this.