THey cut federal funding for high speed rail which was going to go to Illinois. You know, to help create job, improve our infrastructure and improve our overall transportation needs in this state. Nice job guys!
What a bunch of frickin' morons.
How was this going to be funded?
Oh, and why do we need this?
There never has been a plan for high speed rail. There was a boondogle of a plan for medium speed rail. There is a huge difference.
Please demonstrate any study that says high speed rail is cost-effective. We can debate whether it is worthwhile on many levels, and that is fair. It is never cost-effective though.
(11-21-2011 12:39 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]There never has been a plan for high speed rail. There was a boondogle of a plan for medium speed rail. There is a huge difference.
Please demonstrate any study that says high speed rail is cost-effective. We can debate whether it is worthwhile on many levels, and that is fair. It is never cost-effective though.
I dont know of any studies, but I have personally felt that a High speed rail system that linked local cities, Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Detroit, Indianapolis, St Louis, etc in the midwest would be a great idea.
Something similar for the west coast and east coast.
It may sound good in concept, but I've yet to see anyone make the numbers work. I'm eager for someone to demonstrate otherwise.
High speed rail would require taking a lot of private property too.
(11-21-2011 03:03 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]It may sound good in concept, but I've yet to see anyone make the numbers work. I'm eager for someone to demonstrate otherwise.
High speed rail would require taking a lot of personal property too.
The problem with high speed rail is that it would only be location to location. For example. Chicago to St. Louis.
Serious question. How many people, on this board, have used Amtrak to travel out of town? I have never taken Amtrak. Was on grey hound once. Chicago to San Fran. Flew back home. Long ass trip.
(11-21-2011 03:18 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 03:03 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]It may sound good in concept, but I've yet to see anyone make the numbers work. I'm eager for someone to demonstrate otherwise.
High speed rail would require taking a lot of personal property too.
The problem with high speed rail is that it would only be location to location. For example. Chicago to St. Louis.
Serious question. How many people, on this board, have used Amtrak to travel out of town? I have never taken Amtrak. Was on grey hound once. Chicago to San Fran. Flew back home. Long ass trip.
How is that any different than flying? High speed rail maintains average speeds above 125. That would get you from chicago to detroit in 2hours and 15 minutes or so. That makes it comparable to flying(considering all the time you need to spend at the airport for taxing, security, etc. and not as weather dependent) and twice as fast as driving(assuming no traffic). To me that is very appealing.
edit: found a web site that says average speeds would be much greater than 125. Chicago to st louis in 1 hour 45 minutes.
http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/timesavings.html
(11-21-2011 04:13 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 03:18 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 03:03 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]It may sound good in concept, but I've yet to see anyone make the numbers work. I'm eager for someone to demonstrate otherwise.
High speed rail would require taking a lot of personal property too.
The problem with high speed rail is that it would only be location to location. For example. Chicago to St. Louis.
Serious question. How many people, on this board, have used Amtrak to travel out of town? I have never taken Amtrak. Was on grey hound once. Chicago to San Fran. Flew back home. Long ass trip.
How is that any different than flying? High speed rail maintains average speeds above 125. That would get you from chicago to detroit in 2hours and 15 minutes or so. That makes it comparable to flying(considering all the time you need to spend at the airport for taxing, security, etc. and not as weather dependent) and twice as fast as driving(assuming no traffic). To me that is very appealing.
It is only good for people traveling between Chicago and St. Louis With planes, you can easily increase/decrease to multiple locations. Can't easily decide that Chicago to Des Moines is a better route. Super expensive to change. Tracks run on ground, thru property owned by individuals. Look at the Rt 53 congestion. Has anyone driven thru Algonquin on Rt. 62 recently. took me 20 minutes to go a couple of miles over the river but takes an act of God to widen roads. It is just not feasible.
(11-21-2011 04:19 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 04:13 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 03:18 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 03:03 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]It may sound good in concept, but I've yet to see anyone make the numbers work. I'm eager for someone to demonstrate otherwise.
High speed rail would require taking a lot of personal property too.
The problem with high speed rail is that it would only be location to location. For example. Chicago to St. Louis.
Serious question. How many people, on this board, have used Amtrak to travel out of town? I have never taken Amtrak. Was on grey hound once. Chicago to San Fran. Flew back home. Long ass trip.
How is that any different than flying? High speed rail maintains average speeds above 125. That would get you from chicago to detroit in 2hours and 15 minutes or so. That makes it comparable to flying(considering all the time you need to spend at the airport for taxing, security, etc. and not as weather dependent) and twice as fast as driving(assuming no traffic). To me that is very appealing.
It is only good for people traveling between Chicago and St. Louis With planes, you can easily increase/decrease to multiple locations. Can't easily decide that Chicago to Des Moines is a better route. Super expensive to change. Tracks run on ground, thru property owned by individuals. Look at the Rt 53 congestion. Has anyone driven thru Algonquin on Rt. 62 recently. took me 20 minutes to go a couple of miles over the river but takes an act of God to widen roads. It is just not feasible.
agreed it is only good for traveling between major cities....but why should that be limiting? that's where the vast majority of air travel is.
(11-21-2011 12:39 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]There never has been a plan for high speed rail. There was a boondogle of a plan for medium speed rail. There is a huge difference.
Please demonstrate any study that says high speed rail is cost-effective. We can debate whether it is worthwhile on many levels, and that is fair. It is never cost-effective though.
honestly I dont know how it would be implemented...would it be AMTRACK? Something similar? Certainly nothing this large can be undertaken without government assistance, if not entirely government funded..would it save money elsewhere such as Airport expansions, TSA, FAA, etc?
Could the government fund the construction of the railways then lease them to private enterprise?
(11-21-2011 04:26 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 12:39 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]There never has been a plan for high speed rail. There was a boondogle of a plan for medium speed rail. There is a huge difference.
Please demonstrate any study that says high speed rail is cost-effective. We can debate whether it is worthwhile on many levels, and that is fair. It is never cost-effective though.
honestly I dont know how it would be implemented...would it be AMTRACK? Something similar? Certainly nothing this large can be undertaken without government assistance, if not entirely government funded..would it save money elsewhere such as Airport expansions, TSA, FAA, etc?
Could the government fund the construction of the railways then lease them to private enterprise?
If it as such a great idea, people like Warren Buffet would be investing in this. All the money comes from the tax payers. That is what upsets me about the pipeline. All of it would be done with private investment.
(11-21-2011 04:28 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 04:26 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 12:39 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]There never has been a plan for high speed rail. There was a boondogle of a plan for medium speed rail. There is a huge difference.
Please demonstrate any study that says high speed rail is cost-effective. We can debate whether it is worthwhile on many levels, and that is fair. It is never cost-effective though.
honestly I dont know how it would be implemented...would it be AMTRACK? Something similar? Certainly nothing this large can be undertaken without government assistance, if not entirely government funded..would it save money elsewhere such as Airport expansions, TSA, FAA, etc?
Could the government fund the construction of the railways then lease them to private enterprise?
If it as such a great idea, people like Warren Buffet would be investing in this. All the money comes from the tax payers. That is what upsets me about the pipeline. All of it would be done with private investment.
so tell me how this is different than the interstate highway system
As I understand, nothing proposed in Illinois is high speed rail. It is higher speed rail. It uses existing freight tracks, or the same right of ways. It does not use separate rights of way that would allow for high speeds. You can't have high speed trains going over at grade crossings, for example. You have to build all those grade separations along the line. You need different/new rails. They can't be shared with freights.
Here is the IDOT website on high speed rail projects, plus another article on the IDOT plans.
http://www.thetelegraph.com/news/idot-61...racks.html
http://www.idothsr.org/
Nothing in Illinois is close to meeting those true high speeds. And, there is already talk of Amtrak going to TSA level security, so you won't have a time savings there.
(11-21-2011 04:35 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ]so tell me how this is different than the interstate highway system
Remember that the interstate system was created to facilitate the movement of military vehicles/equipment. It was Eisenhower's dream after he took that trip from coast to coast right after WWI and saw it was nearly impossible to do that in a reasonable time. Of course, I'm sure it was planned to have a tremendous civilian use.
I'm not defending Klake specifically, but roads are significantly funded with gas taxes. There is no equivalent for high speed rail, since the cost charged to passengers isn't even close to the cost for providing the service. The two models just aren't comparable.
(11-21-2011 04:41 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 04:35 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ]so tell me how this is different than the interstate highway system
Remember that the interstate system was created to facilitate the movement of military vehicles/equipment. It was Eisenhower's dream after he took that trip from coast to coast right after WWI and saw it was nearly impossible to do that in a reasonable time. Of course, I'm sure it was planned to have a tremendous civilian use.
I'm not defending Klake specifically, but roads are significantly funded with gas taxes. There is no equivalent for high speed rail, since the cost charged to passengers isn't even close to the cost for providing the service. The two models just aren't comparable.
I was referring to the funding for the initial construction of the interstate system. I am not very informed on it all but in general it sounds pretty similar.
In the end could they not get a ROI by leasing the railways, a passenger tax, etc?
(11-21-2011 04:35 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 04:28 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 04:26 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ] (11-21-2011 12:39 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]There never has been a plan for high speed rail. There was a boondogle of a plan for medium speed rail. There is a huge difference.
Please demonstrate any study that says high speed rail is cost-effective. We can debate whether it is worthwhile on many levels, and that is fair. It is never cost-effective though.
honestly I dont know how it would be implemented...would it be AMTRACK? Something similar? Certainly nothing this large can be undertaken without government assistance, if not entirely government funded..would it save money elsewhere such as Airport expansions, TSA, FAA, etc?
Could the government fund the construction of the railways then lease them to private enterprise?
If it as such a great idea, people like Warren Buffet would be investing in this. All the money comes from the tax payers. That is what upsets me about the pipeline. All of it would be done with private investment.
so tell me how this is different than the interstate highway system
It is very similar. Is the interstate system effective and efficient. In some areas it is others not so much. Build it and they will come is not a good way to spend money. Studies should be done to see if it makes sense. Have you ever use amtrak? Do you use amtrak regularly? I am not saying it i a good or bad idea just don't build it to build it We have the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Don't need more of this crap. We lent $500 million dollars to Solyndra. Can't afford these mistakes anymore.
(11-21-2011 04:53 PM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ]I was referring to the funding for the initial construction of the interstate system. I am not very informed on it all but in general it sounds pretty similar.
In the end could they not get a ROI by leasing the railways, a passenger tax, etc?
As a useless fact, the initial clearances for bridges (overpasses) and the such on the interstate were based on the size of military equipment.
If there was money to be made on this, private enterprise would be all over it already.
Our local commuter lines are already a goverment/private partnership. Metra owns very little track. And, they don't do operations on most of it. The Metra West from downtown to Geneva is a U.P. line (which makes it always a second priority to the freight traffic) and it is actually operated by U.P. employees. Those "Metra" conductors work for U.P. And, we see how the costs are going of late for Metra.
I'm not sure I understand your passenger tax idea. What passenger would you tax? The rail rider?
Here is an interesting article on high speed rail in California. Costs have tripled and it will take decades to build out.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1LP9SQ.DTL
A multi-billion dollar investment in hi-speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis. Yeah, that makes LOADS of sense. I commuted back and forth to St. Louis for 3 years nearly every week. It was either a 1 hour flight or a 5 hour car drive. Amtrak has service too.
Yet the tax and spend liberals think hi-speed rail (that will still take a minimum 3 hours commute for the 300 mile distance) is the way to spend taxpayer dollars.
Obama is criminal.
(11-21-2011 03:03 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote: [ -> ]It may sound good in concept, but I've yet to see anyone make the numbers work. I'm eager for someone to demonstrate otherwise.
High speed rail would require taking a lot of private property too.
High speed rail functions quite well in Europe. France has had the TGV for years and bullet trains in Japan link the country from north to south.
The real issue with American rail is that freight and passenger traffic use the same rails which isn't the case in Europe or Japan. If the current rail system didn't have to support both, Amtrak's speed would increase significantly. Unfortunately America decided to pump billions into highway construction at the almost complete expense of rail which doesn't require anywhere near the maintenance cost of roads.
Having spent 2 weeks on the rails of Europe 2 years ago, I did not miss driving my car one bit.