http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...0857.story
In general is this needed?
Does it provide "options" desired by constituents as stated at end of article?
Is this a fix to a particular problem?
Will the fix be temporary or permanent?
Is there a cost benefit perspective on this?
Would those from Grand Rapids motor down to Kalamazoo to pick up the "Zephyr" to walk the "Miracle Mile or that Great Street, State Street"?
Personally, I would love this.
We already have it..........sort of.
A few years back they spent millions to prep the tracks for high speed. If you look down the tracks that go through WMU they are perfectly straight. Problem is, too many stops, and too many areas where the so called high speed train has to go slow. If it were a straight shot with no slow downs, they said back then the train could average 110 mph and make the run in just over an hour.
I've heard people say it took them 3-4 hours to get to Chicago, and other times around 2 and a half. I can do it by car in 2.
Problem is that fright currently has the right-of-way, so if there happens to be a train full of cars that's coming up beside you... the Amtrak train has to pull over and wait.
Dedicated lines and passenger priority seems to be the most important roadblock to consistent rail between Detroit and Chicago.
I agree that all the at-grade crossings are a definite issue. Having taken high-speed rail all over Europe, the first thing you notice is just how few crossings there are... we need to address that before we really make the push (and it's a push I think we should be making) towards high-speed rail in the US.
Can the estimated price tag and future costs of maintenance, upgrades, labor, etc be justified when there already exists utilized interstates and tollroads) and under utilized (Amtrak) existing assets?
If so, what happens to these other assets? Their maintenance? Even existence?
Are those who dont use Amtrak going to flock to a high speed alternative? Will the cost to those be justifiable in their minds?
Considering the alternatives will this pay for itself or become another subsidized entity like Amtrak, likely costing a lot more than it brings in?
There is high speed rail that is used a lot in the northeast, from Boston to DC I believe. As stated before a primary problem is the number of stops, in order to be feasible high speed rail must be an express type service the fewer stops the better. Also the tracks through this area are owned by a freight line giving their freight traffic the priority. Amtrak must improve it's on time record and be a cost/time effective alternative to the interstate in order to be successful and high speed rail is a major step in that direction (not the on time bit, though it might help some).
Others?
There was to be a similar rail line from Milwaukee to Minneapolis with a stop in Madison, WI.
The last election stopped that. Was to save 15-20 minutes on the commute from Brewtown to Buckyville.
I dont think the "wish" is necessarily going to go away but I truely wonder if it is both expedient and costly? You read #'s but I'm not sure what to believe.
Do you invest in roads and highways or in high speed rail. I don't believe that both can be economically done in any environment, let alone this but I'm still open minded to be persuaded.
I don't know, if we can get a light rail to actually deliver and be on time, the model could compete with air lines between cities of 1000 miles apart or less. People throw around the "two hour flight" metric without taking in account the commute to the airport and wasted time through security, boarding, checking in, etc. Top that with the deplaning, getting to your transportation on the other end and there is almost no savings, a day is wasted around that "short two hour flight".
Personally, I drive it and would consider a rail if available and they didn't take 24 hours to do something that takes "two hours".
(10-06-2011 09:43 PM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know, if we can get a light rail to actually deliver and be on time, the model could compete with air lines between cities of 1000 miles apart or less. People throw around the "two hour flight" metric without taking in account the commute to the airport and wasted time through security, boarding, checking in, etc. Top that with the deplaning, getting to your transportation on the other end and there is almost no savings, a day is wasted around that "short two hour flight".
Personally, I drive it and would consider a rail if available and they didn't take 24 hours to do something that takes "two hours".
As I listen to train whistle in the background, I agree. The train would necessitate the same "security" I would imagine (I havent done Amtrak in over 10 years).
For me I'd need to commute into Chicago via commuter train and likely walk to Union Station I assume the site center and then the same waiting etc. Debarking a train is much simpler than aircraft.
I guess my big concern is that it not being private it will become a black hole for waste, fraud and abuse. The on-going costs would outpace the purported initial outlay. And at the end of the day, is GR Punk or Whinney or Brovol going to drive down to a stop off point so they can get on a train. If you drove to the pick up point and I-94 is right there why not just drive it? Again, just thinking out loud.
Quote:I guess my big concern is that it not being private it will become a black hole for waste, fraud and abuse.
Oh, you mean like our interstate construction program that is in perpetual motion if I try to drive through Chicago?!
I think that the price of gas would have to be about twice what we pay now, and the standard of owning a car that is capable of making reliable road trips would have to be diminished somewhat, right now with the way things are, I can get in any of my cars, and drive to Michigan without a second thought. If wages keep dropping, and fuel costs keep rising, there will more than a second thought. In fact, for my old Tahoe, it isn't even a consideration, that's been reduced to the "U" portion of SUV.
Amtrak tries to run a national rail service that in many ways is no longer feasible, our nation is simply to large to make rail service work on the national level. That said, on a regional level like the Eastern Corridor I mentioned and in many foreign nations high speed rail works. But one additional consideration MUST be designed into the system: connectivity.
High speed rail must connect easily and seamlessly into existing local and national transportation networks. Overseas major airports are also major rail stations, connecting national and international flights into regional and national rail networks that feed into local rail networks. For a Chicago to Detroit line to be be highly successful it needs to connect to O'hare and Metro airports. In Chicago it can use the established light rail system to do so, though is not ideal. For Metro, lying along the path of the tracks as it is, build a new stop with easy connections into Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti on what ever public bus system they have there.
This formula has been successful overseas because it simplifies and streamlines travel, why struggle with Chicago or Ann Arbor traffic and parking at the airport when you can get dropped off in Kalamazoo and ride the train direct to your airport in less (or even equivalent) time than driving? If the state could step up and get an additional line to go Detroit-Pontiac-Flint-Lansing-Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo to complete a loop with Battle Creek and Jackson stops on the Detroit/Chicago line we would really have something. Unfortunately with out a good public transport option for metro Detroit this plan falls apart because of the need of a car to get around at the destination. People can't take a day and head to the city for shopping or a game or a museum because the distances are too far to easily walk and there is no good public transport. Maybe someone who lives over there could shed more light on the existing bus system but my understanding is that it's unreliable and infrequent.
Chicago is unique (for many undesireable reasons) as it applies to rail.
The fact there is no "east side" helps. Everything comes in like a spoke and stops right in downtown (I-90, I-94, I-88, I-290). With Chicago being as metropolitan the suburbs feed into downtown with commuter rail serving millions.
Chicago had rail before the car was invented due to the stock yards and canals built to run "stuff" in and out. So the infrastructure is here.
Detroit has much of it's core divided and outlying if I remember correctly. Very disjointed. So you'd need to start all over, which is very expensive.
Which underlys my major concern, ROI.
Europe is like the Midwest. You can travel from London to Rome like your flying from Chicago to Pittsburgh. You might go over 3-4 countries but it is short and sweet. Since Europe is highly divided by nationality (WW I and WW II) they are very provincial. Rail is one mode of transport that provided equal benefit, equal access and everyone thought their needs were being served. Cars are just not as used in Europe and or they don't have the interstate network (Eisenhower's idea to facilitate rapid response during the Cold War) that we do.
So back here I cant envision the demand like in Europe. I understand the NE corridor is unique, the primary element is population concentration. But I don't see the demand hence the ability to pay for a HS route between Chicago and Detroit.
Your 'start over' comment is exactly right, the best airports for inter connectivity of transportation modes are new and were built in areas that had high use of public transportation options. In the US there isn't a place where we could just build new infrastructure we have too much put into what we have, and need to continue putting more in it to maintain it so there is never enough money to truly 'start over' let alone a place where there is high use of alternate transportation.