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 exi
by 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 agoThe 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 agoHiawatha 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.