Rail Transit improvements thread

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't know if we need a seperate thread, but, what the heck.

 

One of the major initiatives people have pushed for this decade is improving rail transit in the US; intercity as well as urban. With intercity/regional/national rail, the benefits of a better infrastructure are many - less use of fossil fuels, less pollution, faster trips and more efficiency of people's time, etc.

 

Obama today was talking about the $13B+ in stimulus money specifically set aside for high speed rail improvements. One of the big candidates for a big chunk of the money is the network of intercity rail lines radiating from Chicago: east to Detroit and Cleveland, southwest to St. Louis, northwest to Milwaukee, Madison and Minneapolis. The idea is to improve infrastructure on those lines to improve speed and reduce entanglements with freight traffic, so that the travel times by train to those cities would be shorter than driving (without the headaches of driving), and even faster than flying when you account for the B.S. of the airports on both ends.

 

I for one think this is a fantastic "green" infrastructure initiative. Lower energy use and pollution, travel by train so you can read or work or sleep instead of driving, reduce traffic on the roads, reduce road maintenance, increase business travel efficiency, increase regional tourism... just great all around.

 

Thoughts?

 

[mr_genius]

I like the idea a lot, but we've blown all our money an crap we didn't need. can it be done for the 13 billion set aside? if so go for it. if it's going to end up being 100 billion, probably not a good idea.

 

I guess it depends on how much high speed rail we get for $13,000,000,0000 as to whether i support the project. yea thats what i'm trying to say

Edited April 16, 2009 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

I like the idea a lot, but we've blown all our money an crap we didn't need. can it be done for the 13 billion set aside? if so go for it. if it's going to end up being 100 billion, probably not a good idea.

 

I guess it depends on how much high speed rail we get for $13,000,000,0000 as to whether i support the project. yea thats what i'm trying to say

Makes sense, and I agree. If $13B gets you 20 minutes' faster service to Detroit and that's it, then it clearly isn't worth it.

 

And it certainly is subject to this funding issue like everything else. I said before, I really was hoping that more of the stimulus bill money was going to just a few true national priorities that would also create jobs and have direct positive return. Specifically, alternative energy, transportation infrastructure (including rail in a big way), and technology fields where we can get ahead of the curve and innovate. Unfortunately, those things were lost in a sea of throw-in-all-my-wishes in Congress, and we got a big pot of small stuff instead.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Actually the line from Chicago to Detroit would be the most cost effective area to do it as Amtrak already owns a good chunk of the line. It seems that the bulk of the costs would come from electrifying the line as well as building over and underpasses to eliminate grade crossings.

 

150 mph trains are a great idea, just not when they are having truck traffic crossing it.

[mr_genius]

Actually the line from Chicago to Detroit would be the most cost effective area to do it as Amtrak already owns a good chunk of the line. It seems that the bulk of the costs would come from electrifying the line as well as building over and underpasses to eliminate grade crossings.

 

150 mph trains are a great idea, just not when they are having truck traffic crossing it.

 

that would be great if tracks just needed modificaion, new trains, and some accomidations for local traffic.

 

but a line form Detroit to Chicago seems kind of... lame. who the hell wants to go to Detroit? lol

 

 

[Y2HH]

I don't know if we need a seperate thread, but, what the heck.

 

One of the major initiatives people have pushed for this decade is improving rail transit in the US; intercity as well as urban. With intercity/regional/national rail, the benefits of a better infrastructure are many - less use of fossil fuels, less pollution, faster trips and more efficiency of people's time, etc.

 

Obama today was talking about the $13B+ in stimulus money specifically set aside for high speed rail improvements. One of the big candidates for a big chunk of the money is the network of intercity rail lines radiating from Chicago: east to Detroit and Cleveland, southwest to St. Louis, northwest to Milwaukee, Madison and Minneapolis. The idea is to improve infrastructure on those lines to improve speed and reduce entanglements with freight traffic, so that the travel times by train to those cities would be shorter than driving (without the headaches of driving), and even faster than flying when you account for the B.S. of the airports on both ends.

 

I for one think this is a fantastic "green" infrastructure initiative. Lower energy use and pollution, travel by train so you can read or work or sleep instead of driving, reduce traffic on the roads, reduce road maintenance, increase business travel efficiency, increase regional tourism... just great all around.

 

Thoughts?

 

I love the idea, I hope they implement something like this -- it'll be a wonderful system to have in place, after all is said and done.

 

However, for me, no thanks -- I like my Jeep. I'll continue to drive my Jeep to work every day...I dislike mass transit as I dislike people. If it were convenient for me, and faster for me, I'd probably take the train, but as it stands, although it would save me money, it would cost me time, and a lot of it. My current commute by Jeep from Des Plaines to downtown Chicago is 30-35 minutes, as I leave by 6:30am every morning. It would take over an hour to get to the train, park, take the train, get off the train and walk. And since I get off work at 3pm, it's still only a 35 minute commute home by Jeep (yes, it's not a regular car so I won't call it one), so although I do hope they implement a system like this, I don't even use the ones we currently have in place, so I wouldn't care to use this one either...but I'm sure it'll be good for everyone else!

Edited April 16, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I love the idea, I hope they implement something like this -- it'll be a wonderful system to have in place, after all is said and done.

 

However, for me, no thanks -- I like my Jeep. I'll continue to drive my Jeep to work every day...I dislike mass transit as I dislike people. If it were convenient for me, and faster for me, I'd probably take the train, but as it stands, although it would save me money, it would cost me time, and a lot of it. My current commute by Jeep from Des Plaines to downtown Chicago is 30-35 minutes, as I leave by 6:30am every morning. It would take over an hour to get to the train, park, take the train, get off the train and walk. And since I get off work at 3pm, it's still only a 35 minute commute home by Jeep (yes, it's not a regular car so I won't call it one), so although I do hope they implement a system like this, I don't even use the ones we currently have in place, so I wouldn't care to use this one either...but I'm sure it'll be good for everyone else!

See, what you've illustrated here is a key part of the problem...our system has built itself up around the car because there's been no other option. A true, solid mass transit system takes time to develop, you need to have a starting point around which development can occur at density levels that are high enough to make the transit worth while. People won't give up their jeeps because it's so inconvenient to get there, but then people never take the train and then there's no reason to fund it!

 

If you want a working rail system, you need a large scale investment to get it started, and then you need time.

[Y2HH]

See, what you've illustrated here is a key part of the problem...our system has built itself up around the car because there's been no other option. A true, solid mass transit system takes time to develop, you need to have a starting point around which development can occur at density levels that are high enough to make the transit worth while. People won't give up their jeeps because it's so inconvenient to get there, but then people never take the train and then there's no reason to fund it!

 

If you want a working rail system, you need a large scale investment to get it started, and then you need time.

 

While I would really like to agree with you, people won't give up their Jeeps because their Jeeps. If it were just a regular old car or truck or something else, I'd rather walk to work...but, it's a JEEP!

 

In all seriousness, our system is laid out in a very stupid way, it's largely inconvenient, and not really any safer considering all the crime/muggings that occur on our train systems, Metra aside, as some of us don't have such an option.

[NorthSideSox72]

So I just read something on the way home, and its related. Pace (Chicago's suburban bus service) is going to start special express bus services using dedicated lanes, for suburbs - to - city transit. The first pilot will be a bus along I-55, that gets exclusive access to a lane on the left shoulder. It would cut an hour off round trip commutes, and is much cheaper and faster to implement than a new train line.

 

I was psyched when I first read the article, and still sort of am. Great idea. But then I saw this:

 

The Chicago Transit Authority had planned to test bus-only lanes on four city corridors beginning this year, but the Daley administration forfeited a $153 million federal grant in January that was supposed to fund the project and pay for new buses and bus rapid transit stations. The lost money was caused by the city missing a deadline to approve a congestion-pricing ordinance aimed at discouraging driving in the central business district during peak hours by raising fees and taxes at parking garages and lots.

 

Because Daley couldn't get the city council to pass congestion charging for the city in time to meet a deadline, the area lost $150M that could have gotten all these and more in place right away. That pissed me off a bit.

 

Still though, the idea is solid, and I can see it being very successful with a very small investment.

 

Link to article.

 

This kind of thing, little efforts at making mass transit better for more people, are just great.

 

 

[mr_genius]

So I just read something on the way home, and its related. Pace (Chicago's suburban bus service) is going to start special express bus services using dedicated lanes, for suburbs - to - city transit. The first pilot will be a bus along I-55, that gets exclusive access to a lane on the left shoulder. It would cut an hour off round trip commutes, and is much cheaper and faster to implement than a new train line.

 

I was psyched when I first read the article, and still sort of am. Great idea. But then I saw this:

 

 

 

Because Daley couldn't get the city council to pass congestion charging for the city in time to meet a deadline, the area lost $150M that could have gotten all these and more in place right away. That pissed me off a bit.

 

Still though, the idea is solid, and I can see it being very successful with a very small investment.

 

Link to article.

 

This kind of thing, little efforts at making mass transit better for more people, are just great.

 

wouldn't shutting down an entire lane for bus use completely cause traffic chaos? the roads seem bad enough without taking away a lane.

Edited April 17, 2009 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

wouldn't shutting down an entire lane for bus use completely cause traffic chaos? the roads seem bad enough without taking away a lane.

Read the article. The bus will use the shoulder, where no cars currently ride.

 

[mr_genius]

Read the article. The bus will use the shoulder, where no cars currently ride.

 

i read the part you quoted, thought it said 'lane to the left of the shoulder'. anyways, maybe we should open that lane up for normal traffic if it's not needed as a safety precation for broken down vehicles or used as a bus lane.

Edited April 17, 2009 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

So I just read something on the way home, and its related. Pace (Chicago's suburban bus service) is going to start special express bus services using dedicated lanes, for suburbs - to - city transit. The first pilot will be a bus along I-55, that gets exclusive access to a lane on the left shoulder. It would cut an hour off round trip commutes, and is much cheaper and faster to implement than a new train line.

 

I was psyched when I first read the article, and still sort of am. Great idea. But then I saw this:

 

 

 

Because Daley couldn't get the city council to pass congestion charging for the city in time to meet a deadline, the area lost $150M that could have gotten all these and more in place right away. That pissed me off a bit.

 

Still though, the idea is solid, and I can see it being very successful with a very small investment.

 

Link to article.

 

This kind of thing, little efforts at making mass transit better for more people, are just great.

 

Yeah, I am not too upset about that loss. They wanted Daley to institute London like taxes to be able to drive a vehicle downtown. That's not a good thing, especially for a city that depends so much on tourism.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

In answer to the question about what we'd get for the money... the Trib updated their article, and it says that for the entire Chicago hub network improvements on all five of those lines, would be $8B. You'd get rail service that was faster than driving and possibly even flying, and cheaper than flying and possibly than driving, to all those cities.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

In answer to the question about what we'd get for the money... the Trib updated their article, and it says that for the entire Chicago hub network improvements on all five of those lines, would be $8B. You'd get rail service that was faster than driving and possibly even flying, and cheaper than flying and possibly than driving, to all those cities.

It would only be faster in the "check-in to walk-out" sense. Departure to arrival is faster by plane, but it takes FOREVER to check in.

[NorthSideSox72]

It would only be faster in the "check-in to walk-out" sense. Departure to arrival is faster by plane, but it takes FOREVER to check in.

Well... duh. Planes go a lot faster than 110 mph. Besides, the only useful measure of travel time from A to B is including everything - you can't fly on an airline but skip all the check in, security and baggage nonsense. Also, I addressed this topic in my first post.

 

Here is an example. If you want to travel to, say, LaCrosse, by plane. The flight itself is only an hour, but if you have to be there 90 minutes ahead to deal with everything, and have to deal with baggage on the back end, etc., now its a 3 hour trip. On the current Amtrak line, Chicago to LaCrosse is about 4.5 hours, but would be 3.5 with the improvements. So they'd be very close in terms of actual time - 3 versus 3.5.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Well... duh. Planes go a lot faster than 110 mph. Besides, the only useful measure of travel time from A to B is including everything - you can't fly on an airline but skip all the check in, security and baggage nonsense. Also, I addressed this topic in my first post.

 

Here is an example. If you want to travel to, say, LaCrosse, by plane. The flight itself is only an hour, but if you have to be there 90 minutes ahead to deal with everything, and have to deal with baggage on the back end, etc., now its a 3 hour trip. On the current Amtrak line, Chicago to LaCrosse is about 4.5 hours, but would be 3.5 with the improvements. So they'd be very close in terms of actual time - 3 versus 3.5.

Oh I know. What I shoudl have elaborated on is that there will need to be a BIG PR push to explain this to the public. I fear too many people will look at a Chicago to St. Louis flight and go, "see, under 2 hours. And the train is 5 hours". But they dont factor in wait time, delays, so on and so forth. It just has to be a PR push.

[BigSqwert]

Where are we getting the 110mph figure from? Is that all that these so called "high speed" rail options are going to offer? What a gip. How about getting a true high speed rail option.

[NorthSideSox72]

Where are we getting the 110mph figure from? Is that all that these so called "high speed" rail options are going to offer? What a gip. How about getting a true high speed rail option.

Obama prefers improving existing rail lines to allow for the max speed the equipment can handle - 110 mph. Right now many of the rail segments only allow 70 or 80 or whatever. Going this way is cheaper and faster than building entirely new rail, acquiring right of ways, etc. I tend to agree with him.

 

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Obama prefers improving existing rail lines to allow for the max speed the equipment can handle - 110 mph. Right now many of the rail segments only allow 70 or 80 or whatever. Going this way is cheaper and faster than building entirely new rail, acquiring right of ways, etc. I tend to agree with him.

meh

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama prefers improving existing rail lines to allow for the max speed the equipment can handle - 110 mph. Right now many of the rail segments only allow 70 or 80 or whatever. Going this way is cheaper and faster than building entirely new rail, acquiring right of ways, etc. I tend to agree with him.

Yea. Ideally it would be nice to start over, but we have such a massive country and so much of that land is already taken up in urban areas, that a whole new, independent, system is almost impossible.

[BigSqwert]

Just reminds me of this piece of crap CTA train system in Chicago.

 

"We're going to fix the current train system that was established in 1905 so that trains can now go to the maximum speed of 55 mph. And in 2 years when we have no funding to upkeep the tracks the trains will go back to 25mph and we'll be forced to increase fares 50%"

 

Whoopie!

[NorthSideSox72]

meh

It would be orders of magnitude more expensive and more time-consuming to go full boat on this - acquiring new right of way property, planning, testing, constructing new rail, buying new equipment, etc. It would be great in the end, but cost a fortune.

 

The future of real, new, super-high speed rail will be in having some regional legs built here and there, and work up to it. And actually, you can still use existing rail to go up to 150mph if you upgrade it this way, and then slowly buy new engines that can do that.

 

We don't have hundreds of billions of dollars laying around to build an all new, truely super-high speed rail network around Chicago.

 

[BigSqwert]

Then how do countries in Europe and Japan get it done. It's not like we're trying to do something that only Dubai is doing. We don't need to do an NY to LA high speed rail but a few regional systems would be a blessing.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I think it's all about scale. It's MUCH easier to build high speed rail in countries like Japan, because it's a much smaller country. It's would be like running a total high speed rail network in say... California, which would be possible. And in Europe, the countries are the size of American states. So, the scale is VERY different.

 

To create a true high speed rail system coast to coast, city to city, would cost an unfathomable amount of money. I would argue parts of our current system were only cost efficient to build in the 1800's because they used cheap immigrant labor. Good luck trying that today.