The interstate highway system is already graded for a 100-125 mph train in most places. It only costs ~$3-4 million per mile to lay track if you have the grading sorted out - much cheaper and more realistic for us than any true high speed (sadly).sc4mayor wrote:^^ Lol...this urbanist would rather see $500 million spent on the state’s existing MetroLink (STL) or streetcar (KC) lines instead of a test track for an unproven technology. The idea that Missouri, a state that can’t even properly fund public education would somehow scrape together the estimated $10 billion+ this thing would cost in today’s dollars is maybe the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
And adding a 3rd lane on highway 70 in the rural stretches isn’t about embracing sprawl but addressing the rampant safety issues with that highway. I lived in KC for 13 years and have driven that drive more times than I can count, it’s dangerous and it’s overcrowded (the climbing lanes under construction at Mineola will definitely help). I don’t think a third lane is going to lead to St. Louis (a region with no population growth anyway) to sprawl out into Calloway County or other places.
And bring on high-speed rail. Idai suggested 100+ but you can run a lot faster than that nowadays. Be a hell of lot cheaper than this tube too and WAY, WAY easier to get into the densely populated cores of the cities. Where we gonna build these tubes in the built up regions of St. Louis and KC? Can’t exactly run it down the middle of the highway in the cities.
“Interstate Rail” is an interesting analysis on what could be done for relatively cheap using our existing highway system. The author of that report proposes building over one side of the highway but MO had enough ROW that that isn’t necessary.
http://www.carfree.com/papers/interstaterail.html
