Discuss Detroit » DISCUSS DETROIT! » High speed rail corridors include Detroit » Archive through February 19, 2009 « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

East_detroit
Member
Username: East_detroit

Post Number: 1953
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 7:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The stimulus bill may include completion of these high speed rail corridors. Detroit to Chicago... too bad there is no way to get from Detroit to Austin.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203



Top of pageBottom of page

El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo

Post Number: 940
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 7:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

you can get to Austin from Detroit now. That map only shows the high speed corridors. There are routes connecting Texas and Chicago. To get to Austin now, you would take the Wolverine line to Chicago and then change trains and get onto the Texas eagle.

The only difference after the high speed corridors are built is that stretch of track between St. Louis and Little Rock will move slower than the other portions of the trip that are part of high speed corridors.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 1721
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 8:27 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

still wish there was a way to travel by rail from detroit to points east without having to bus to toledo
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1244
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 8:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There were talks of bring the Toledo to Detroit train back in the 1990s, but that fizzled away, probably due to money. Amtrak even went so far as too have test trains running on the route. The high speed rail from Detroit to Chicago would be awesome. We already have a stretch that is 110 MPH from Kalamazoo to the Indiana state line, so we have a head start on it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 1069
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 9:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It appears that "high speed" in North America has a slightly different definition than than in, say, the rest of the world. It would appear that "high speed" is only 110 MPH. Of course, if that was a highway speed, I think most people would agree 110 MPH is pretty fast. But 110 MPH in a train? That is about half the speed of the TGV/Thalys/KTX (South Korea). We should probably call this new faster train: "Regular Speed Rail".

I can't wait to ride the RSR! :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo

Post Number: 941
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 9:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

upinottawa,

ball park figure. How much would it cost to build something like that South Korean track between New York and LA?
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 36
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 9:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah that speed IS rather disappointing in the Chicago hub, especially.

Minneapolis to Chicago 445 110 mph 5:52 hr
Detroit to Chicago 279 110 mph 3:49 hr
St. Louis to Chicago 282 110 mph 3:50 hr
Kansas City to St. Louis 283 90 mph 4:14 hr
Cincinnati to Chicago 319 110 mph 4:03 hr
Cleveland to Chicago 341 110 mph 4:23 hr
Cleveland, Columbus to Cincinnati 254 110 mph 3:28 hr
Indianapolis to Louisville 111 79 mph 4:00 hr

But then again, if one were to live between NY and Boston, well that's different!

Washington to New York 225 150/135 mph 2:50/2:43
New York to Boston 231 150/150 mph 4:10/3:24
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4407
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 9:54 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A top speed of 110 mph is still a lot better than the current 79 mph (over most of the Amtrak system). I'll take incremental improvements over nothing at all.

There are plans in the works to upgrade the DC-NYC corridor to "true" high-speed rail service, and California is planning (and has passed funding for) a 200 mph line from Los Angeles to the Bay Area. Let's hope the technology keeps trickling to the rest of the country.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 37
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

For the money that we are throwing at this problem, we should be getting better. I know that upgrading the existing track is a problem. No money for new right of ways.

What I'd really like to see is a East West TRUE high speed rail line, central to the US and feeding off of these regional lines. Coast to Coast. That would be worth the money.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 3793
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:17 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

It appears that "high speed" in North America has a slightly different definition than than in, say, the rest of the world. It would appear that "high speed" is only 110 MPH. Of course, if that was a highway speed, I think most people would agree 110 MPH is pretty fast. But 110 MPH in a train? That is about half the speed of the TGV/Thalys/KTX (South Korea). We should probably call this new faster train: "Regular Speed Rail".



That's because in this country we have something called "property rights".
Top of pageBottom of page

Big_baby_jebus
Member
Username: Big_baby_jebus

Post Number: 68
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How relevant is this link that was posted?

It says that it is from 2005.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1815
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In order to get to higher speeds, we would have to eliminate at-grade crossings, which is why we aren't planning for that. With 110 MPH, we can continue to have signalized crossings; much faster and every road would have to go over or under the railway. Big change in expense.
Top of pageBottom of page

El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo

Post Number: 942
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

to piggyback on professorscott's statement, perhaps that extreme high speed/maglev technology could work out west where population density is much lower (like the proposed maglev route connecting LA and Las Vegas). However, it would be much more difficult to implement east of the Mississippi.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1246
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And signaling needs to be upgraded (which the Kalamazoo to Indiana section was a test for this system), but also the track condition needs to be improved so it can meet this level.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4408
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

In order to get to higher speeds, we would have to eliminate at-grade crossings, which is why we aren't planning for that.



I see that as a red herring--we certainly built tons of over/under passes to accommodate the Interstate highway system. I think at first, though, it may be smarter to make smaller, incremental improvements (and in some cases, actually *establish* rail service) before going balls-out TGV.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1248
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just the fact that we actually talking about improving rail in the US and there is money behind it is a great thing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Urbanophile
Member
Username: Urbanophile

Post Number: 24
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi. I conveniently just wrote an extended epistle on high speed rail. It is focused on Indy and Milwaukee, but the same logic applies to Detroit. I think 110MPH service is not going to do much for us. We need to think about ways to create game changing journey time reductions:

http://theurbanophile.blogspot .com/2009/02/chicago-reconnect ing-hinterland-part-1b.html

By the way, please don't take away from that that I think HSR to Detroit is a waste of money. Rather, I think we need to do some serious analysis of benefits and look to put in place a system to capture them, not just rely on simplistic arguments. My personal belief is that to get big benefits, we need true HSR.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hooha
Member
Username: Hooha

Post Number: 133
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 12:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Where does it say this project might be part of the stimulus bill?
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1106
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 12:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The stimulus bill includes 8 billion for high speed rail projects and the Detroit-Chicago corridor would qualify for funding. Contrary to the lies spread by the likes of Candace Miller, there was no earmark for the line between Las Vegas and LA for Senator Reid. In fact, the Detroit-Chicago line is probably the farthest advanced HSR corridor outside of the NE corridor with an existing 110 MPH segment in western Michigan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 1461
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 2:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I haven't been to Chicago in a while via Amtrak, so can someone tell me when they upgraded to 110 MPH on that stretch? Last I heard it was still at 95 MPH.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd

Post Number: 3538
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 2:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Top speed of 95 mph? Finally, an American passenger train that can go as fast as a Yugo. :P
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4409
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The truth is, we'll never get true high speed rail, like TGV or ICE, until our rail lines are fully electrified. And some trainsets capable of higher speeds might help too. This is definitely one area in which the French have out-engineered us.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd

Post Number: 3539
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also, I think we'd have to come up with new ROW for that kind of high-speed train. Even the NE corridor's "big four" isn't straight enough to breach 100 mph except on rare straightaways.

(Plus, I'm kind of sick of traveling on the Lakeshore Limited only to see the derelict industrial sidings of Erie, Schenectady and Rochester. Some lake views!)
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsideal
Member
Username: Eastsideal

Post Number: 327
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

8 billion is better than nothing, but in the greater scheme of things it really is a pitiful and shameful drop in the bucket. If we put even a rather small percentage of the money into modern rail transportation that we put into the interstate highway system we could have an actually useful rail system.

But the posts above are correct, in order to have a system that's in any way comparable to those in the rest of the developed world we would need full-scale electrification, very significant roadbed rebuilding, and much more grade separation. Other countries do this because they have a commitment to it, we don't because we have a commitment to continue lining the pockets of those who live off of highway use and construction. Not to mention, of course, the obscene countless billions we are wasting every week to expensively brutalize people halfway around the world.
Top of pageBottom of page

El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo

Post Number: 944
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitnerd,

Lakeviews cost money. I'd rather it be fast and efficient than pretty.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd

Post Number: 3540
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

El_jimbo: Oh, I know. Besides, nobody wants to tie up lakeshore with rail. That's a mistake. I'm sort of joking about taking the LSL and seeing graying industrial yards, vacant brick factories and very little in the way of lakes. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 1722
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

But the posts above are correct, in order to have a system that's in any way comparable to those in the rest of the developed world we would need full-scale electrification, very significant roadbed rebuilding, and much more grade separation. Other countries do this because they have a commitment to it, we don't because we have a commitment to continue lining the pockets of those who live off of highway use and construction.



i don't mean to argue with that last point you make, but let us not disregard the fact that our country is in most cases several orders of magnitude larger in area than most of the other countries with well developed and fully electrified high speed rail systems. just like with detroit, our size as a country makes building and maintaining complex infastructure such as that much more difficult and costly

(Message edited by gravitymachine on February 19, 2009)
Top of pageBottom of page

El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo

Post Number: 945
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitnerd,

I agree with you though. That route is UGLY at times.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsideal
Member
Username: Eastsideal

Post Number: 330
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

let us not disregard the fact that our country is in most cases several orders of magnitude larger in area than most of the other countries with well developed and fully electrified high speed rail systems. just like with detroit, our size as a country makes building and maintaining complex infastructure such as that much more difficult and costly



I agree with that, of course. It's an obvious matter of geography. But that geography sure didn't stop us from building the world's largest and most expensive, by several orders of magnitude, highway system. One that serves every decent sized city in the country, no matter how remote from other population centers.

We don't really need that in a rail system, but a commitment to connecting the major population centers of the country with modern high-speed rail would cost far less than the mammoth interstates (especially since most of the rights-of-way are already extant) and would be more beneficial on a number of levels.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 346
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 4:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

one way for detroit to "hub" itself somewhat would be to eliminate the redundant Chicago --> Toledo link and for costs to be redirected so that the US and Canada can work together to offer high speed rail between Detroit and Toronto.