3 ms·

In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the exist

In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area (which is essentially following the flow of I-95 anyway). Even maximizing the Acela flow would just being eminent domain to the existing private rail lines to allow expansion and enhancement beyond what they have already. Part of the reason in the Northeast and in general in the US that rail is so weird is because so much of it is privately owned while the interstates and roads are public services. You can't compel people to make efficient change for benefit of passenger rail, where as with the interstates they forced eminent domain suits through to make it happen well after initial infrastructure was established. The other major consumer of rail in the US is freight and they don't generally need high speed rail, and so while I would enjoy having more high speed rail lines as an option I haven't been able to rationalize the use case. Private rail permits use by passenger rail but does not prioritize for it. Here was a good slide deck that I had been using as reference for a while that has good data on how Amtrak exists at all: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/freight_planning/talking_freight/september_2017/21/talkingfreight9_21_2017bl.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/freight_planning/talking_f...

dionidium 8y ago
> In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area I wouldn't ignore the routes that connect Chicago to the rest of the Midwest: - Route, FY2015 Passengers, ~Distance (miles) - Chicago – St. Louis, 576,705, 295 - Chicago – Milwaukee, 799,271, 92 - Chicago – Pontiac via Detroit 465,627, 280 These numbers are despite the truly awful experience, in many cases, of waiting long periods for freight traffic to pass. These distances are in the sweet-spot for HSR, which could be quite popular on these routes.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  The Chicago-St. Louis route would be almost entirely over extremely flat agricultural land. If routed correctly, the only challenges would be crossing some rural highways and floodplains. In order to really take advantage of HSR, one would hope that politics wouldn't require silly stops in e.g. Springfield or Champaign. Chicago seems to make a lot of sense as a hub for a new rail network of this sort, but one suspects third-city bias will prevent that.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Hiawatha Service (Chicago<->MKE) does not seem to have issues with freight traffic. It does occasionally have to yield to Metra but is overall pretty reliable. The long pole for speed is lower speed limits in some parts of the route for the benefit of neighbors living along the tracks. Those politics are unlikely to be affected by the technical infrastructure. At ~90 minutes, the journey from Milwaukee is better than the commute from many parts of Chicagoland.

dionidium 8y ago

> In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area I wouldn't ignore the routes that connect Chicago to the rest of the Midwest: - Route, FY2015 Passengers, ~Distance (miles) - Chicago – St. Louis, 576,705, 295 - Chicago – Milwaukee, 799,271, 92 - Chicago – Pontiac via Detroit 465,627, 280 These numbers are despite the truly awful experience, in many cases, of waiting long periods for freight traffic to pass. These distances are in the sweet-spot for HSR, which could be quite popular on these routes.

jessaustin 8y ago
The Chicago-St. Louis route would be almost entirely over extremely flat agricultural land. If routed correctly, the only challenges would be crossing some rural highways and floodplains. In order to really take advantage of HSR, one would hope that politics wouldn't require silly stops in e.g. Springfield or Champaign. Chicago seems to make a lot of sense as a hub for a new rail network of this sort, but one suspects third-city bias will prevent that.
closeparen 8y ago
Hiawatha Service (Chicago<->MKE) does not seem to have issues with freight traffic. It does occasionally have to yield to Metra but is overall pretty reliable. The long pole for speed is lower speed limits in some parts of the route for the benefit of neighbors living along the tracks. Those politics are unlikely to be affected by the technical infrastructure. At ~90 minutes, the journey from Milwaukee is better than the commute from many parts of Chicagoland.