Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

[afiggatt]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Democrats can be just as sneaky as Republicans.

They have him just where they want him.

Walker is damned if he do, damned if he don't. I imagine there isn't a worse place to be in politics.

Gov. Elect Walker is in a bind of entirely his own making to an extent not often seen in politics. He could have run on a platform of being non-committal about the Milwaukee to Madison extension instead of the No Train campaign. But, nope, he ran on a platform of rejecting $810 million of federal funding to save a possible $7.5 million of year of operating subsidy. If Walker follows through and rejects the funds, I hope the FRA awards a lot of the $810 million to IL and MI for the Chicago-St Louis & Chicago-Detroit corridors just to rub it in a bit.

[Busy Bee]

It's madness. Or just plain stupidity. Either of which tends to be neither here nor there when it comes to minting a new Republican congressperson.

[ChiPsy]

It's definitely both.

This guy's a real prize too:

But before joining his GOP colleagues in calling high-speed rail a "boondoggle," Rep. Tom Petri of Fond du Lac [WI] last year co-chaired a bipartisan group of Midwestern lawmakers that sought to bring such projects to their home states.

In a letter to colleagues about the newly formed Midwest High Speed Rail Caucus in Congress, Petri and Minnesota Democrat Jim Oberstar said of high-speed rail: "This investment will strengthen the surrounding Midwest economies through new rail and construction jobs, while also increasing development and connectivity from rural to urban areas."

Yet this week, Petri joined Wisconsin Republican Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner and Paul Ryan in a joint statement declaring: "This high-speed rail project is a bad investment for taxpayers and our state simply cannot afford it."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...108742854.html

Hyperbole makes for very poor governance.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by afiggatt

But, nope, he ran on a platform of rejecting $810 million of federal funding to save a possible $7.5 million $750,000 of year of operating subsidy.

Fixed that for you.

I've heard that LaHood offered to cover 90% of the operating subsidy with Federal dollars, at least for the first few years.

[Busy Bee]

^Absolutely true. And a FACT that I'm sure Walker made sure didn't get much publicity, since raging fanaticism doesn't get along too well with those pesky facts and figures that might erode the validity of one's position.

[LMich]

Is the world nearing an end. Newly minted Birther congressman Tim Walberg of Michigan, whose district is bisected by the Wolverine, has come out at least with tentative support for the high-speed line through the district:

Walberg supports Michigan high-speed rail

U.S. Representative-elect Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, said he doesn't plan to block efforts to build a high-speed rail line across Michigan as long as the project continues to make economic sense.

Republicans victorious in elections in other states this month have said they want to block federal money for rail improvements pushed by President Barack Obama and other Democrats as part of infrastructure improvements tied to stimulus dollars.

But Walberg, a fiscal conservative who campaigned for limited government spending, said he would support a high-speed rail line between Chicago and Detroit "if it's economically justifiable and not an economic burden on our state."

He said he would work to see that Michigan is no longer a so-called donor state, where the tax money sent to Washington for transportation projects is more than the amount given back to the state.

"If this is funding that has come back and is slated for the development of high-speed rail, I certainly wouldn't stand in the way of it, and I would be there to encourage it as long as it is economically viable," he said.

...

Not exactly a full-throated endorsement, but this coming from one of Michigan's most conservative congressmen is shocking.

[GregBear24]

I'm sick of all the talk of HSR being built from milwaukee to madison, or from chicago to st.louis. Both projects are a total waste of resources. Connecting major metros like chicago and milwaukee while integrating mitchell field, o'hare and midway would be a far better use of our time and money. Not to mention it would just kick ass and strengthen the regional transportation hub tremendously. Shorter distances + stronger markets = more bang for buck.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by GregBear24

I'm sick of all the talk of HSR being built from milwaukee to madison, or from chicago to st.louis. Both projects are a total waste of resources. Connecting major metros like chicago and milwaukee while integrating mitchell field, o'hare and midway would be a far better use of our time and money. Not to mention it would just kick ass and strengthen the regional transportation hub tremendously. Shorter distances + stronger markets = more bang for buck.

The projects you would support are definitely beneficial, but the other proposed HSR lines are definitely not a waste of resources. I also don't know where you get the idea that Milwaukee is a stronger market than St. Louis.

[JivecitySTL]

St. Louis is a much larger market than Milwaukee.

[VivaLFuego]

Yeah, but flying will always have a substantial market share of Chicago-St. Louis travel. Chicago-Milwaukee is right at that awkward distance (~90 miles) at which flying is horribly uneconomical, but driving is undesirable due to the possibility of congestion and the relative discomfort of driving versus the train.

Point being, quality rail service can thoroughly own and dominate a 100-mile route in a way it never will on a 250-mile route, short of massive government intervention to discourage or favor one mode or the other.

Of course, a Chicago to St. Louis route also serves Joliet, Bloomington-Normal, Springfield, and Alton, so there would be several submarkets that would dramatically benefit from a quality rail service.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Point being, quality rail service can thoroughly own and dominate a 100-mile route in a way it never will on a 250-mile route, short of massive government intervention to discourage or favor one mode or the other.

I don't know where you get your information about saying rail service will never dominate a 250 mile route. You only need to look at France where or the Chunnel where TGV or Eurostar have drastically reduced the airline share of intercity transportation. Yes, the government had to provide the start up capital but the lines generate a profit which is repaying the debt. It can be done if you want to do it. Never say never.

[drifting sun]

Could you cite some sources that include profitability figures of Eurostar (or any commuter or hsr in any country). I'm not trying to be argumentative, in fact, I believe public infrastructure should be supported and expanded, regardless of the "economics" (a lot of the externalities, like environmental degradation, that we ignore while going about our incredibly wasteful lifestyles don't give a damn about our petty economics, but that is for a different rant).

Also, if anybody has any data on farebox recovery ratios for any metro systems besides the limited info found on Wikipedia, that would be great (I know that in some years certain systems were making profit). Again, I am interested in these factoids and figures, but not as a prime justification for public transit, it is just the icing on the cake.

Sorry to get the discussion off track......

[afiggatt]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Yeah, but flying will always have a substantial market share of Chicago-St. Louis travel. Chicago-Milwaukee is right at that awkward distance (~90 miles) at which flying is horribly uneconomical, but driving is undesirable due to the possibility of congestion and the relative discomfort of driving versus the train.

Point being, quality rail service can thoroughly own and dominate a 100-mile route in a way it never will on a 250-mile route, short of massive government intervention to discourage or favor one mode or the other.

What, high speed rail can't beat air travel in terms of market share at 250 miles? The Chicago to St. Louis distance is practically ideal for true HSR to dominate air vs rail.

Even in the US, we have some examples. Amtrak claims to have 65% of the air-rail market between Washington DC and New York City and this with not all that fast Acela and Regional service. Have not heard any airlines disagree with them on the market share numbers.

The track distance from Penn Station in NYC to Union Station in DC is 225 miles. The Acela takes a typical 2 hour 46 minutes for an average speed of 84 mph. The Northeast Regionals which also draw a lot of business travelers take around 3 hours 20 minutes on average. I know because I have been taking both the Acelas and NE Regionals on businees on a regular basis for the past year. The NYC to DC segment has around 36 Acelas and NE Regionals each way on weekdays, so it has the advantage of frequency. If Amtrak ever gets the Acela NYC to DC travel times down to the 2:20 or 2:15 achievable by improvements to the current NEC, their 65% share of the rail-air market probably goes to 90% or more.

The track distance from Chicago to St. Louis is listed as 284 miles. The Mid-West Regional Rail plan calls for Chi-StL 110 mph service with travel times of hours 50 minutes for an average speed of 74 mph and 8 trains a day. If IL can get the additional several billion to double track the entire route, those travel times will get a decent share of the air-rail Chi-StL market and a good piece of the auto or bus ridership. If the double track capacity and < 4 hour times are in place, I expect they will quickly find that they will need more than 8 trains a day service.

The proposed 220 mph service between Chicago and St Louis with travel times down to maybe 2 hours? Good bye Chi-StL shuttle flights, except for people traveling to destinations close to the airports or making connecting flights.

In the backdrop to all this, I would be careful in saying "flying will always have a substantial market share" unless you define always as less than 10 years. Unless the airlines somehow manage to find large quantities of affordable bio-fuel to run their airplanes in 10, 15, 20 years, the fuel costs for the airlines will go way up as price of oil goes up and the available supply falls. Flying will cost more, a lot more, in the coming decades especially for the less efficient (on a air mile basis) shorter range flights.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by afiggatt

Good bye Chi-StL shuttle flights, except for people traveling to destinations close to the airports or making connecting flights.

Well, you're ignoring the large suburban segment of the population in Chicago and St. Louis that lives closer to a major airport than a rail terminal.

It's also massively easier to drive to and park at an airport than a rail terminal. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

What could help are the perimeter stations - Joliet for Chicago and Alton for St. Louis. Joliet is expanding to handle this potential traffic, but Alton is not.

[ChiPsy]

Not good news from Wisconsin -- 52% oppose the Milwaukee-Madison HSR:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/109587044.html

[Busy Bee]

Of the 52% opposed, what do you bet 10% oppose on the grounds of informed but rigid ideological opinion and 42% hypnotized by the toxic right wing media misinformation machine?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I don't know where you get your information about saying rail service will never dominate a 250 mile route. You only need to look at France where or the Chunnel where TGV or Eurostar have drastically reduced the airline share of intercity transportation. Yes, the government had to provide the start up capital but the lines generate a profit which is repaying the debt. It can be done if you want to do it. Never say never.

Oh, of course rail can be a major player in a 250-mile-long travel market, but air will always be a major player in such markets, too.

What I'm talking about is how, at travel markets of about 100 miles, rail becomes the market killer --- the absolutely, positively best option for most travelers.

For people traveling between Frankfurt and Cologne, or between London and Birmingham, how many fly?
For people traveling between Chicago and Milwaukee, between New York City and Philadelphia, how many fly?

These are markets where a rail service can practically own the market, rather than merely share a decent chunk. Rail is perfect for these, specifically because it's an awkward distance for other modes of travel: it's uneconomical for air travel, as the bulk of domestic flight costs are fixed costs and thus a 100-mile flight will be priced similarly as a 500-mile flight. The high airborne price for such a "short" trip would make people consider driving, but then there are serious issues of traffic (adding unpredictability and possibly a very long travel time) and parking (rapidly escalating cost by the hour). If rail service can be quick and reliable, with some accommodations made for regional distribution at either end (as ardec says, suburban stations, such as Glenview, Sturtevant, and MKE for the Chicago-Milwaukee route), rail can be dominant.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ChiPsy

Not good news from Wisconsin -- 52% oppose the Milwaukee-Madison HSR:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/109587044.html

^ You omitted the other part of that poll:

That only 1% actually give a shit.

In other words, those who oppose it aren't particularly passionate about it. Basically, that bodes well for pro-rail advocates.

[ChiPsy]

Wisconsin to lose HSR money -- announcement soon.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...111602539.html

[Steely Dan]

^ the double whammy is the fact that the VAST bulk of that HSR money will now be leaving the midwest entirely and going to california, florida and washington for their HSR projects, with only about 40 of the 810 million making its way down to illinois, according to that article.

and i thought illinois elected retards to govern. way to go cheeseheads.