Join the discussion on the following article:
Dignitaries turn out for Illinois 110 mph run
What’s the point? Texas is demonstrating in liberal infested Austin, of all places, how to run the automobile safely at 85 MPH. Texas is already letting them run 80 MPH is certain counties. In order to compete, Amtrak would have to do at least three times that speed, if not faster. Talk about being a few decades late. Besides, back in the 1930’s, the Milwaukee, the Burlington, and the North Western were doing 110+. Amtrak is once again playing government run catch-up using almost 100 year old technology and calling it 21st century, while Chicago politicians put lipstick on a pig.
This is a step in the right direction, but there is so much more that needs to be done, and done quickly. All cities in the midwest with 100,000 need to be interconnected with hourly or better service. Our modern Interstate road system is obsolete and a waste of billions of man-hours of dull driving, not to mention resources. Hopefully we will follow France’s example and commitment, and be able to zip between major metropolitan areas at 220 mph soon.
At least Mr. LaHood sees this as an incremental step. Fifteen miles at 110 mph won’t do much to offset 15 or so miles at 10 mph getting to and from end point stations. However, Mr LaHood needs to recognize that if you cannot afford to buy a car you are not very concerned about the high cost of gas, and he also should realize that Mitt probably is not concerned about your problem.
Intermodality/interconnectivity are the obstacles to be addressed now. It does me no good to zip really fast between points if I waste time waiting to unload/deplane at the terminal. Should not we be making conventional service more reliable and frequent, then begin to reduce travel times between points? And can I connect to airports, light rail, or other rail options once I get there? One good note, conventional diesels CAN run faster.
Intermodality/interconnectivity are the obstacles to be addressed now. It does me no good to zip really fast between points if I waste time waiting to unload/deplane at the terminal. Should not we be making conventional service more reliable and frequent, then begin to reduce travel times between points? And can I connect to airports, light rail, or other rail options once I get there? One good note, conventional diesels CAN run faster.
One can always tell an unbiased commentator when he/she starts our with “liberal infested”. Now here’s a person who checks the facts carefully, NOT
Secretary LaHood is diplomatic! Republicans have always fought to eliminate any succsessful activities, so any changes will take place id President Obama is not relected!!
There are so many things that could go wrong with the faster speeds and operating on the same track as fraight…I certainly have my reservations. A slow buildout of an above ground Maglev system sounds like a better way to go, especially through the plains states. I read somewhere where the operational cost is about the same as the Acela. I know the railroads have their own weather depts and tracking systems…How fast does a tornado move on the ground? If I was to travel, I think I would like something that can leave a tornado in the dust and could travel above crossings avoiding any chance for a grade crossing accident.
Hey, we have a huge budget deficit and “meds for Grandma” is going to trump passenger trains except in a few markets. Best we hunker down and protect what we have. Besides, CA has proven that frequency is more important than speed. That is the role model.
It is always a matter of priorities and for most folks outside of the Northeast, cars and planes are the mode of choice. Heck, I fly to the Coast a lot and one Airbus 321 carries as many people as the SW Chief and does it in five or so hours; then turns back with the same crew.
Love trains, but the numbers do not work in most markets.
Jim
Gosh, a whole 110 mph! Back in 1960 when I moved to Peterborough ON, scheduled service by the CPR was 80 minutes to Toronto, using Budd Cars (Dayliners on CP). For the heck of it I clocked the RDC between Locust Hill and Agincourt and we were doing 93mph. Talked with a retired CN Engineer in 1965. He remembered piloting a 4-8-4 on a passenger train in the mid '50’s from Belleville to Toronto and he slacked off when his watch showed him doing mileboards every 31 to 32 seconds. Now we’re celebrating 110 mph???
There will always be partt of the US population that will not
drive due handicap, age, etc. One of the best alternatives
to highway is passenger railroad travel. Those that fight against improving this service do a disservice to the people
that need good efficient rail service. Air travel is great, but
it never should be the only good wasy transverse this great
nation.
Still need to head est at Dwight to Kankakee and come north on the ex-IC where there are NO grade crossings for the last 29 miles and plenty of room for a three-track main into a new Millenium Park Station.
Still need to head east at Dwight to Kankakee and come north on the ex-IC where there are NO grade crossings for the last 29 miles and plenty of room for a three-track main into a new Millenium Park Station.
Dear Mr. Guse,
100 to 1,500 power plants on a highway are extremely less efficient than one engine pulling the same amount of people. It is simply an issue of thermodynamics.
Lookout Europe and China The USA is on the move.
Lookout Europe and China The USA is on the move.
Amtrak has officially (amtrak.com/ccurl/214/393/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail-in-the-Northeast-Corridor) put the Capital Construction Cost for a new 220 mph 417 mile line between Washington and Boston at approx. $120 billion or $300 million/per mile. This document is now two years old and did not take into account any cost over-runs ( of course not but remember Boston’ Big Dig project) . It also states that the NEC has 12 times the population per sq. mile than the average for the rest of the US population corridors as well as a per capita income that is almost 30% higher than the rest of the USA. Even if we accept Amtrak’s capital cost at $300 mil/per mile with no cost overages, the NEC line will never be rebuilt because no one will ever be able to come up with a fraction of the capital funding needed. If we can’t fund the NEC how could any other project in the US possibly be funded given the demographics of the NEC. Do the math for your particular project ($300+ million per mile) and tell me how you are going to be able to fund them.
I’ver seen plenty of the aftermath of high-speed collisions for all the years I drove big trucks over-the-road. Raising speed limits and building toll roads to please the interests of speeding jackasses don’t solve transportation problems Mr. Guse. On the contrary, they are only a conduit for speculative land devleopers and greedy orperators of caSINos. The new toll road did nothing to solve traffic woes in Austin along I-35, while the new commuter rail service has been quite popular. If it was not, then Texas would not be persuing plans to start new corridor service between Ft. Worth and Shreveport, LA.
Mr. Guse, your rants resemble those of the lamebrains at the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party’s Reason Foundation. Toll roads are for third world transportation systems like those found in Mexico, where there is no intercity rail to speak of.Toll roads may keep gas cheap, but they make driving more expensive and sink our government deeply in debt. If you don’t believe me, I can understand because you have done nothing to refute my comments or those of the others have made posts against your tirades.
So Jeffrey you are suggesting that trains would have to go 240 MPH to compete with auto travel at 80 MPH. I believe that you just put lipstick on yourself!