High Speed Rail

[jlbomega]

While 300 mph travel between KC and STL would be nice, is it really necessary? I don't think so. We could connect the major metro areas of the midwest in a more cost effective way with the plan mentioned above. There is no way the already struggling airline industry in the US would allow an alternative to air travel between regional destinations. If you travel 110 mph that means you could travel from downtown KC to downtown STL in about 2.5 hours, thats not too bad. Along the same line you could do KC to Chicago in 6-7 hours. You could also do Des Moines in about 2 hours.

I think KC needs to worry more about connecting our "economic area" to Kansas City's downtown than connecting KC to other major metro areas.

[mean]

While 300 mph travel between KC and STL would be nice, is it really necessary? I don't think so.

I disagree. It would obviously cost a lot more, but I think it is worth it (if not strictly necessary). Screw the airlines, they are spectacularly inefficient, lumbering beasts of burden compared to high-speed rail. Why should we let them tell us we can't build our 21st Century transportation infrastructure? Because it might threaten their bloated, overpriced existence? Oh no! Wasn't it just half a century ago that airlines killed passenger rail? I find the irony delicious.

And the airlines wouldn't be completely slain anyway, unless we're building bridges over the oceans and high speed rail lines into Canada and Mexico. Airlines would just have to compete for international business.

Anyway, the ability to travel around the region (and eventually the nation) at airplane speeds, in a non-hijackable, mostly non-crashable vehicle that isn't inefficiently fueled by tens of thousands of gallons of powerful explosives, for less than half the price of an airline ticket, is an obvious logical rung on the transportation ladder. If it costs a trillion dollars it is worth it, although I'd ultimately rather see underground, low-pressure tubes with maglev trains running at 2,000 miles an hour coast-to-coast. Now that would be hot!

[Thrillcekr]

Trains would travel at speeds of up to 110 mph, cutting hours off trips between major cities.

This is the only thing I don't like about the whole deal. It's a great idea, great routes, something that is very needed, imo. But there are trains all over Europe and Asia capable of 300+ mph, and this is America dangit, richest country in the world; why should our trains be 1/3 as fast when our distances are 3 times as long?

Exactly. It doesn't make any sense to build a train that slow and expect people are gonna take that to someplace like Chicago. You might as well fly if you're going anywhere that far away instead of burning up all that time sitting on a train. If it were travelling at the speeds of 300 miles per hour like those European trains and it was a little cheaper than flying then it would be better because it would be more comfortable than a plane and you would have the scenery. Give me a train that will make it to St. Louis in an hour and a half or so and I'd be all for a train. As he said though, that is just a study.

I was doing some reading about a company in Germany that designs those magnet trains and it said on their site that the US government was giving them several million for some sort of studies. High speed magnet trains would be much bette for several reasons. They are extremely fast. They are much more energy efficient. They ride much smoother. They are nearly silent inside and cause much less noise pollution on the outside. Finally, they are much less destructive to the environment. I really hope they choose to go that route instead.

[shinatoo]

They are nearly silent inside and cause much less noise pollution on the outside. Finally, they are much less destructive to the environment. I really hope they choose to go that route instead.

Actually you were spot on until you said they cause much less noise pollution outside. High speed trains create high decibel high frequency noise that is very difficult to contain and drive the NIMBY's crazy.

And if you read up a few post you would see some links that show why ultra high speed trains are cost prohibitive.

[jlbomega]

The US government will never invest a great deal of money into high speed trains after investing so much into bailing out the airline industry, not to mention their love affair with the Boeing Corp.

[Thrillcekr]

They are nearly silent inside and cause much less noise pollution on the outside. Finally, they are much less destructive to the environment. I really hope they choose to go that route instead.

Actually you were spot on until you said they cause much less noise pollution outside. High speed trains create high decibel high frequency noise that is very difficult to contain and drive the NIMBY's crazy.

And if you read up a few post you would see some links that show why ultra high speed trains are cost prohibitive.

Not as much as that train running 110 on tracks does though I bet. Any train will be noisy but not as much so with the magnetic ones. The NIMBYS are gonna be unhappy if there is any train of any kind so they're just gonna have to whine. Besides, they are a little bit more expensive now because they are a newer technology but by the time we are ready for one it won't be nearly as costly. Also, the cost difference more than makes up itself when you start figuring in what it costs to maintain and power a regular rail system.

[GuyInLenexa]

There was a similar proposal in 1991 that failed.  It was to connect Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio.  Even with backing from Bombardier, Credit Lyonnaise, and Merril Lynch the state pulled out the franchise for the rail program in 1994. 
Ironic that Fort Worth based American Airlines and Houston Based are backing it this time, in the previos attempt, Dallas based Southwest Airlines was one of the largest groups against it.

http://cbs11tv.com/local/high.speed.train.2.651755.html

[shinatoo]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking ... 69628.html

The airline has canceled more than 900 flights today. On Tuesday, it canceled 460 flights.

I hate taking the train. Sometimes it's up to TWO HOURS late.


&

[TheBigChuckbowski]

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/green/Lo ... _Rail.html

It looks like California voters are saying "full stream ahead" to the idea of a high speed rail system between the Bay Area and Southern California.

"It would take a little over two hours to go from San Jose to L.A.," Reed said. "It's the fastest, most efficient route -- if you want to have high-speed rail, it's got to go fast."

The plan would sanction a 700-mile rail system linking the state's major cities with trains running at top speeds of more than 200 mph.

Very very exciting. It would be the first high speed rail system in the country.

And, I'm thinking about moving out there which makes it even better.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... e=politics

The system would be the largest public works project in California history - bigger than the California Aqueduct - and would cost $32 billion for the main line between San Francisco and Los Angeles and another $10 billion to $12 billion to complete the network with extensions to San Diego, Sacramento and Riverside County. The state is banking on getting about a third of the construction budget from state taxpayers, a third from the federal government and a third from private investors.

The bulk of the bond revenues - $9 billion - would be spent on planning and building the system, and the remaining $950 million would be devoted to connecting rail service, such as BART, the Altamont Commuter Express and the Capitol Corridor.

[ComandanteCero]

wow, that's pretty awesome!

I had no idea that was even under consideration.  Man, i wish we had something similar so we could connect to St. Louis and Chicago.

[KCMax]

wow, that's pretty awesome!

I had no idea that was even under consideration.  Man, i wish we had something similar so we could connect to St. Louis and Chicago.

Perhaps its success will spur other developments. Of course, it will be a decade before we can see its success, so maybe it will be here in 2050 or so?

[DaveKCMO]

Perhaps its success will spur other developments. Of course, it will be a decade before we can see its success, so maybe it will be here in 2050 or so?

the new 80/20 federal match for state-sponsored passenger rail expansion and improvements will also help. the one good thing bush did in his final days.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Pretty negative article by the Boston Globe about the stimulus money going to high speed rail but there are some pretty good comments.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles ... ck/?page=1

If we expected highways and air travel to be self-sufficient it would be an even playing ground. Instead, we dump billions in to both and then balk at a relatively small amount for rail. The amount in the stimulus for rail nationwide appears to be less than we spent to bury a highway through Boston. We have decimated our rail infrastructure and then look at slow trains as a reason why rail doesn't work. It's time to make a real investment in true high speed rail. This is something that will pay off for generations.

[KCMax]

Yea, I don't think residents of the biggest federally subsidized highway improvement project in the history of mankind should really be complaining about federal spending on rail transit.

[shinatoo]

According to this report KCY-STL route isn't even in the top 50 for high speed rail. Right now it's listed as a third phase project (i.e. never going to happen in our lifetime). STL-CHI is listed as #14 and is a phase one recommendation, and is the third ranked Chicago connection behind Detriot and Columbus.

http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf

[DaveKCMO]

According to this report KCY-STL route isn't even in the top 50 for high speed rail. Right now it's listed as a third phase project (i.e. never going to happen in our lifetime). STL-CHI is listed as #14 and is a phase one recommendation, and is the third ranked Chicago connection behind Detriot and Columbus.

http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf

thankfully for us, "2050" isn't the federal railroad administration.

since there isn't an elaborate formula or process for rewarding the HSR money in the stimulus, expect the tables to be tilted toward the states that have had reliable ($) state-sponsored routes and plans to improve them on the books for awhile. that leaves:

- illinois
- california
- wisconsin
- michigan
- missouri
- washington
- oregon
- north carolina
- pennsylvania

once a dedicated Title for HSR gets added to the transportation authorization next year, you'll see a long-term plan develop more like what 2050 indicates.

[shinatoo]

Thanks Dave. You seem to be "in the know" so where would you place your chances/time-line for having a HSR line connecting KC to STL? Or not to be overly optimistic but directly to CHI on the Southwest Chief route.

[dangerboy]

KC-STL is low on the list because it needs extensive work to be brought up to HSR condition.  States that are higher on the list have been improving their lines for several years.  Illinois has been spending tens of millions per year improving the CHI-STL line, so that line is position for further HSR investment.

Only in the last two years has the State of Missouri started committing to spend its own money improving the KC-STL line, so we are very far behind the curve.

[shinatoo]

So will the fund be distributed as most miles for the money, or best miles for the money?