Comments on: LaHood, Biden Meet With Governors on High-Speed Rail

By: john

john — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:03:13 +0000

There are a few miles of light rail in St Louis but most of it fails to link where visitors want to go like the Botanical Gardens, Zoo, Grants Farm, InBev-BUD, St Charles, etc. However it does serve the Arch, Bush, BJC-WashU and East St Louis. In addition, Metro severely overpaid for an Extension and the result is a major reduction in bus services and route frequency. Best thing to do to get around the Lou is to bike but the region is very anti-cycling. Even Metro eliminated the planned pedestrian-cycling path along the Extension.

It would be nice though to have HSR to Chicago so the locals could learn something about creating a city that works.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:01:08 +0000

@AlanKHG:

The high-speed rail plan is designed to use existing right-of-way, which is already pretty flat, even when it goes through the mountains. There is plenty of right-of-way between Ohio and Pittsburgh, so extending the network into Pennsylvania, if that's what wanted to do, would not break the bank.

The suggestion of a route through Southern Ontario is interesting. When I was an undergraduate, long ago, I used to take the Wolverine (a definitely non-high-speed New York Central train) from Grand Central to Kalamazoo. The train cut from upstate New York to Michigan via Ontario. There were no scheduled stops in Canada, so there was no delay for Customs at the border.

However, an Ontario route bypasses Cleveland and South Bend, so it's probably less useful (and less attractive to at least four Senators) than a south-of-Lake-Erie route.

By: Paz

Paz — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:57:23 +0000

AlanKHG, it's a good point, but it's not as though there aren't trains that do this already. And the terrain in Europe isn't always level either, particularly in Germany and Austria. Joby, fair point but two details. One, the Keystone Corridor is almost half done already (it's electrified from Harrsiburg to Philadelphia). Two, wouldn't a 10-state proposal be even better in Congress?

By: Chris in Sacramento

Chris in Sacramento — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:01:46 +0000

California, baby.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:45:53 +0000

@Steve: the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul) are also on a pretty aggressive path with light rail right now. Both downtowns, the airport, the University of MN (50,000+ students), all four professional sport teams' stadiums, the state capitol building, the Mall of America, and many of the regions largest suburbs are all either linked together by light rail, or will be within 5 years. High-speed rail (if this proposal really deserves that title) would definitely complement this growing metro transit network.

By: Goat314

Goat314 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:15:16 +0000

To Steve

St. Louis has about 50 miles of light rail already. Not exactly screwed when you get there. Do some research before you start spewing ignorance.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:47:01 +0000

I think HSR for the Midwest would be nifty, but the problem is that Midwestern cities, outside Chicago, have basically no quality public transportation available. You can take the magic bullet train to Detroit or St. Louis, but once there, if your destination isn't within walking distance of the train station, you're screwed.

By: Joby

Joby — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:36:51 +0000

AlanHKG,
I dont know how feasible it will be but you could run the high speed trains from kalamazoo to detroit through southern ontario to buffalo which is a relatively flat landscape. I don't know if stopping for customs will slow down the trip much though.

By: Joby

Joby — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:31:26 +0000

correction,
the project "involves nine Midwest states (Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin)" (from MnDOT website). http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passengerrail/onepagers/midwest.html

so thats 18 votes in the senate.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:31:13 +0000

The entire Midwest Network is estimated to cost $3.4 billion. Can you get the government to focus on such a tiny sum?

By contrast, Wisconsin is planning to rebuild the Zoo Interchange in Milwaukee, at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion.

By: Joby

Joby — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:28:16 +0000

Paz,
the way our senate works, the more states that will be benefiting from a project the higher the likelihood a project will be funded, so a "less complex" system like keystone corridor which benefits PA (2 guaranteed votes in the senate), is less likely to get mega-funding than an 8-state program (which has 16 senate votes, which is more than 25% of the votes needed to push it through).

By: AlanKHG

AlanKHG — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:04:43 +0000

Paz:
Adding Pittsburgh to that proposed network probably would be pretty expensive, considering that the entirety of the Midwest network proposed is on flat even ground and Western Pennsylvania is quite hilly and requires all manner of startling bridgework and terrain modification (at least to a Midwesterner) to run rail across it.

Not that I wouldn't appreciate being able to take the train between home in Milwaukee and school in Pittsburgh.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:50:50 +0000

From what I understand and see on the ground as a Chicagoan, the Midwest is in good shape right now becuase they have done the work. Specifically, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association has done an excellent job for the past several years fighting for incrementally better service that produces results politicians can see. Along the way, they have been more than aggressive about planting the seed about high speed rail. Their efforts are starting to pay off.

By: Paz

Paz — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:27:31 +0000

It will certainly help the Midwest to have both Obama and LaHood in such important posts. However, I think that the Midwest is an extremly complicated proposal because it is going to pull from such a large area. The Keystone Corridor only has to deal with one state, the Midwest has at least half a dozen.

The Midwest proposal would be smart to bring Pennsylvania and/or New York on board as well so there is a high speed connection between the East Coast and the Midwest. Pittsburgh or Buffalo could be that critical East-West link, though I am obviously biased to the Steel City.