East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit
Post Number: 1953 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 7:45 am: | |
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
|
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 940 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 7:57 am: | |
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. |
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine
Post Number: 1721 Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 8:27 am: | |
still wish there was a way to travel by rail from detroit to points east without having to bus to toledo |
Bob Member Username: Bob
Post Number: 1244 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 8:46 am: | |
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. |
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 1069 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 9:35 am: | |
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! |
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 941 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 9:39 am: | |
upinottawa, ball park figure. How much would it cost to build something like that South Korean track between New York and LA? |
Stosh Member Username: Stosh
Post Number: 36 Registered: 01-2009
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 9:46 am: | |
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 |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4407 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 9:54 am: | |
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. |
Stosh Member Username: Stosh
Post Number: 37 Registered: 01-2009
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:02 am: | |
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. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3793 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:17 am: | |
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". |
Big_baby_jebus Member Username: Big_baby_jebus
Post Number: 68 Registered: 09-2008
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 10:22 am: | |
How relevant is this link that was posted? It says that it is from 2005. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1815 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:11 am: | |
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. |
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 942 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:21 am: | |
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. |
Bob Member Username: Bob
Post Number: 1246 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:40 am: | |
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. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4408 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:46 am: | |
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. |
Bob Member Username: Bob
Post Number: 1248 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:51 am: | |
Just the fact that we actually talking about improving rail in the US and there is money behind it is a great thing. |
Urbanophile Member Username: Urbanophile
Post Number: 24 Registered: 11-2008
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 11:55 am: | |
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. |
Hooha Member Username: Hooha
Post Number: 133 Registered: 06-2005
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 12:06 pm: | |
Where does it say this project might be part of the stimulus bill? |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1106 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 12:18 pm: | |
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. |
Scs100 Member Username: Scs100
Post Number: 1461 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 2:34 pm: | |
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. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3538 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 2:48 pm: | |
Top speed of 95 mph? Finally, an American passenger train that can go as fast as a Yugo. :P |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4409 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 2:53 pm: | |
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. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3539 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:05 pm: | |
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!) |
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal
Post Number: 327 Registered: 10-2007
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:06 pm: | |
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. |
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 944 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:06 pm: | |
Detroitnerd, Lakeviews cost money. I'd rather it be fast and efficient than pretty. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3540 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:08 pm: | |
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. |
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine
Post Number: 1722 Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:16 pm: | |
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) |
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 945 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:20 pm: | |
Detroitnerd, I agree with you though. That route is UGLY at times. |
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal
Post Number: 330 Registered: 10-2007
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 3:34 pm: | |
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. |
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 346 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 - 4:22 pm: | |
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. |