beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 29, 2022 1:54 pm
The perceptions of Europe being all in on rail travel are a little overstated. Sure, it was the primary means of travel 25 years ago when I took the train around Europe during college. Now, cheap air travel seems to have taken over. Yes, you can get from Paris to Milan by train fairly easily. But, it takes 7 hours, and that's a high speed train. Business travelers especially are choosing to take the 1 hour flight and save the day. While I love train travel, it's quaint and relaxing, I don't think spending ungodly amounts of money to build an old system beyond between a few close major cities makes logical sense. I'd much rather spend that gazillion dollars on commuter rail or streetcars.
And yet.
Europe wants a high-speed rail network to replace airplanes
Ben Jones, CNN • Published 6th July 2022
How Short-Haul Flight Bans Are Transforming European Travel
A growing number of E.U. countries have proposed bans on regional flights where a train route exists to reduce carbon emissions.
In an effort to shrink the region’s carbon output, governments across the European Union are imposing bans on short-haul flights, with new legislation taking effect as early as this spring.
By Elissa Garay
January 6, 2022
...
One country leading such measures is France, which last spring became the world’s first major economy to enact a nationwide ban on short-haul domestic flights on routes where train journeys of two and a half hours or less exist as an alternative. When the law goes into effect in March, it will eliminate 12 percent of French domestic flights, according to The Guardian.
...
beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 29, 2022 1:54 pm
The perceptions of Europe being all in on rail travel are a little overstated. Sure, it was the primary means of travel 25 years ago when I took the train around Europe during college. Now, cheap air travel seems to have taken over. Yes, you can get from Paris to Milan by train fairly easily. But, it takes 7 hours, and that's a high speed train. Business travelers especially are choosing to take the 1 hour flight and save the day. While I love train travel, it's quaint and relaxing, I don't think spending ungodly amounts of money to build an old system beyond between a few close major cities makes logical sense. I'd much rather spend that gazillion dollars on commuter rail or streetcars.
And yet...
Impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. It used to be that my friends in Europe would always complain about no rail network in the United States when they would come to visit. Now, when I visit and say I'm taking a train from Paris to Nice they look at me like I'm crazy when I say I'm taking the train. "Why don't you just fly?" The messaging you're referencing is the complaints of governments that have put huge amounts of resources into train networks that are slowing eroding to air travel. EasyJet and Air Lingus and RyanAir and Wizz and EuroWing...they will dominate intercity travel in Europe going forward. It's too cheap, quick and accessible.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "ban."
France has banned short-haul flights if there is a train journey to that city in under 2 1/2 hours beginning in March 2023. Some other EU countries will likely follow.
Of course, if aircraft get to a point when they can fly on some cleaner technology with little to no emissions, then countries might lift these types of bans.
FangKC wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 4:25 am
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "ban."
France has banned short-haul flights if there is a train journey to that city in under 2 1/2 hours beginning in March 2023. Some other EU countries will likely follow.
Of course, if aircraft get to a point when they can fly on some cleaner technology with little to no emissions, then countries might lift these types of bans.
But, you make that sound like a big deal. That’d be like banning flights from KC to Topeka or St Joe. No one’s going to fly there. Same in France. No one’s going to fly from Paris to Dijon. I guess it’s basically a ban on private aircraft?
Missouri has two cross state, rail banked right of ways that they are in control of. If we were serious about quick, reliable travel between St. Louis and Kansas City, we would be laying tracks for Amtrak on those lines. I'm sure that is the case for much of the country outside the NE corridor. All we need is funding.
The current Missouri River Runner route is really the best one for Amtrak of all the routes that were ever built between STL and KC. Not coincidentally, it was also the first one built.
The Katy was abandoned as a freight route partially due it its propensity for flooding. It had a circuitous route into KC.
The Rock Island was abandoned as a freight route due to its routing (late to the game; other RR's already served the prime markets between STL and KC). It also has a problematic route into KC, which still poses issues for utilizing the RI corridor in Jackson County for transit.
True high speed rail would rely on the I-70 median. It's already controlled by the government. Just lay the tracks and skip the silly widening project. Put out an RFP for builders and operators and see what happens. Maybe we'd get the Brightline Mule!
DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Sat Dec 31, 2022 9:57 am
True high speed rail would rely on the I-70 median. It's already controlled by the government. Just lay the tracks and skip the silly widening project. Put out an RFP for builders and operators and see what happens. Maybe we'd get the Brightline Mule!
For how much it will cost to widen I-70, maybe we should sneak it in as a line item. I don't remember where I saw this, but it was noted that one big differentator between Brightline West and CA HSR was decision to run in the median. For all the legal BS CA has had to run through with land acquisition, it seems like absolutely they should have moved forward with utilizing previously owned ROW much more.
Median is pretty tight in many places, lots of overpasses. It was suggested to me recently that a better path might be to go about a half mile outside the current I-70 and acquire new ROW through mostly fields. Unclear the merit, but it seemed to make some sense to me rather than figuring out how to get through all the exits/gas station/fast food developments along the corridor.
smh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:50 am
Median is pretty tight in many places, lots of overpasses. It was suggested to me recently that a better path might be to go about a half mile outside the current I-70 and acquire new ROW through mostly fields. Unclear the merit, but it seemed to make some sense to me rather than figuring out how to get through all the exits/gas station/fast food developments along the corridor.
All based on feeling but many overpass bridges look like they could use replacing anyways. most of those bridges will need to be replaced if you widen the highway.
Buying new ROI is expensive and time consuming. Especially since MO, unlike other states doing this, has many more land owners.
smh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:50 am
Median is pretty tight in many places, lots of overpasses. It was suggested to me recently that a better path might be to go about a half mile outside the current I-70 and acquire new ROW through mostly fields. Unclear the merit, but it seemed to make some sense to me rather than figuring out how to get through all the exits/gas station/fast food developments along the corridor.
All based on feeling but many overpass bridges look like they could use replacing anyways. most of those bridges will need to be replaced if you widen the highway.
Buying new ROI is expensive and time consuming. Especially since MO, unlike other states doing this, has many more land owners.
MoDot has been replacing bridges on I-70 for years. I would guess they are 70% done. They were mostly rebuilt for 3 lanes in each direction.
We have not driven to KC in few years. We chose to drive this time. 70 is pretty busy between Columbia and Stl and not very busy at all between Columbia and KC. Traffic still drops way off west of Columbia. I'm not even sure it really needs to be widened between Odessa and Columbia.
This biggest problem with 70 is by far is lane etiquette. Drivers across the entire country are terrible at how to properly use highway lanes and that significantly reduces capacity and increases road rage, crashes etc.
I honestly would not spend another dime on highway widening in this country till the federal gov clamps down on state driving requirement skills and people learn how to drive, especially on rural highways.
GRID wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 3:47 pm
We have not driven to KC in few years. We chose to drive this time. 70 is pretty busy between Columbia and Stl and not very busy at all between Columbia and KC. Traffic still drops way off west of Columbia. I'm not even sure it really needs to be widened between Odessa and Columbia.
Traffic on 70 is largely dependent on university traffic. So, on Fridays you’ll get lots of traffic going to KC and St. Louis directions. On Sundays, you’ll get traffic going towards Columbia. I’m guessing you were driving on a Sunday if traffic was strong from St. Louis to Columbia but not Columbia to KC.
Does anyone know whether the cost of additional River Runner service has ever been calculated in a public facing document? Has it ever actually even been seriously evaluated?
Actually this wreck is on the River Runner route from KC to St. Louis. The other fatal injury was on the Super Chief, which runs from KC to Chicago. Both, however are in Missouri so maybe the state of Missouri might need to update the rail crossings in the state.
