Chicagoist: Chicago to be a High-Speed Rail Hub?

jackson92186

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:12:09 -0600

(

jackson92186

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:10:39 -0600

jackson92186

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:05:09 -0600

Investing in rail is essentially subsidizing urban development, which, I guess isn't a terrible thing given how much the federal government subsidizes suburban development with highway infrastructure. However, I wish that neither were subsidized. Over a hundred years ago, every city in this country boasted an interurban transit network that was far more comprehensive, faster, and in fact profitable compared to any system that exists in Europe or any other country today. 115 mph? We had steam trains over a century ago that went over 100 mph; its a big achievement for us to go 115 in 2020? The fact is is that we have the technology right now to make every other form of transportation that currently exists seem antiquated in comparison, and technology developed right here in this country. One such company, Fastransit, uses stabilized permanent magnet suspension, which is essentially magnet "rails" which can easily be integrated with existing rail infrastructure with absolutely no disruption to existing service at low cost (

Navin

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:39:42 -0600

Obviously I don't think they are "easy" to enact, that's why I made my earlier post about not being able to have nice things. Our conversation with Craig is example enough about how hard talking sense is to people. That said I think the policies are sound and the actual size of the country doesn't matter. Political will is another thing, granted.

matilda

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:34:34 -0600

Of course not, Navin, but you must keep those different factors in mind when trying to export good ideas from Europe, or even Japan, into the USA. Demographics and geography obviously matter a great deal in forming policies. If you have a small, relative non-diverse population, some policies (not all) are much, much easier to enact and fund.

lamgray

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:23:18 -0600

I work in the rail industry (we lease out railcars and manage them). . .I will say for the sake of the country and the economy, it makes more sense for a plan to improve the movement of goods through Chicago more rapidly. Chicago is a hub, and just to get through the city with all the traffic can take some time. Improvements here and in the security of cargo transport on cars invested by companies means more companies can rely on rail for shipping goods. . which is WAY more cost effective from planes/trucks. Less cost to distribute means companies can compensate for the rise in the cost of manufacturing goods and commodities, meaning prices won't go up for us, the consumer. Adding more traffic through Chicago will only add more issues in a already problematic area.

Navin

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:12:34 -0600

But I also don't think size is really an excuse for some of the better policies those country's have and let's face it, they are healthier, wealthier and have a better overall quality of life than us. Same is true for most of Western Europe and Canada (bigger than the U.S.) for that matter.

Navin

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:49:45 -0600

^ I'd settle for Canada's policies.

matilda

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:42:47 -0600

Absolutely right. When comparing ourselves to other developed countries, more people in the USA need to consider the following: Geography; population size; and ethnic mix. For instance, some would argue that we need more Scandinavian-style socialism, or socialism-lite, in the USA, without considering that countries such as Sweden have much smaller populations with relatively little ethnic variety, and which are spread out in much smaller areas, which means differences in the types of political disputes and demands from the population. That matters a lot. That said, I hope we can get these regional corridors. We need more efficient travel options between densely populated areas.

Navin

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:38:43 -0600

Considering the time spent getting to the airport or waiting in line to have your shampoo confiscated, maybe it's not so unrealistic.. I'd rather spend that time, sipping a beer in the club car and watching the scenery.

Navin

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:33:05 -0600

Our sad lot as Americans, never getting to enjoy the nice things the rest of the developed world has.

Slaphappy

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:27:34 -0600

Sorry, that should be: Building regional corridors is the best we can hope for.

Slaphappy

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:22:57 -0600

The US is too large to have a train system like Japan, France and others. Regional corridors is the best we can hope for. But I'm skeptical that non-business travelers will consider trains a realistic option for travel, at least in high enough numbers to avoid this project becoming a money pit. I'd love to be wrong, though.

ricky

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:27:13 -0600

until then, long live MegaBus

JDole84

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:55:33 -0600

I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and by gum, it put them on the map!

via chicago

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:43:07 -0600

Well, the listed speed is 110mph. But that means nothing if you dont upgrade tracks, switching equipment..or if you're stopped waiting for freights to pass The Accela line (boston to NY) averages 80mph..which is really only slightly better than the normal Amtrak service. I believe it arrives 20 minutes earlier...and a ticket costs twice as much. Again, if people are picturing Japanese bullet trains, think again. This is more a "higher speed", rather than true high speed proposal. And dont get me wrong, any progress on this issue Im a huge proponent of. But I also think if we're going to do this, it should be done right. And as long as we share passenger lines with freights, you can keep dreaming about the true high speed the rest of the developed world enjoys.

artdude75

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:30:56 -0600

Great! I love it! I wonder how fast these trains will go. In order for it to be successful, these trains need to make a trip faster than an airflight--or at least comparable.

Napoleon

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:23:25 -0600

I propose waiting in their cars at a railroad crossing in the middle of an Indiana corn field while a two mile long freight train inches by slowly as punishment for balking and/or gnashing.

heyrocc

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:21:22 -0600

Every time I hear about this highspeed rail I can't help but to think of the Simpsons episode when Springfield gets sold a Monorail

matilda

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:16:56 -0600

"Balk and gnash...and then enjoy the benefits to the economy and ease of travel." And you nailed it.

JessNevins

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:01:14 -0600

Balk and gnash...and then enjoy the benefits to the economy and ease of travel. Curse you socialism! And your improvements to quality of life!

matilda

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:36:28 -0600

I share your hopes and skepticism, but $8 billion will pay for more than just a few surveys. That amount, in fact, puts you somewhat close to actual commitment--not quite there, of course, but at the doorstep, ready to ring the bell.

via chicago

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:11:29 -0600

Oh, believe me, balk and gnash teeth they will. The fact is NOTHING will change until we stop running passenger trains on freight lines. And make those lines grade-seperated.

doppler

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:08:11 -0600

I want this as badly as the next Midwestern urbanite, but has anyone seen a pricetag? In the realm of national infrastructure, $8 billion is good for a survey or two. Here's to hoping the teabaggers don't balk at the tens (hundreds?) of billions a national rail system will cost.