Amtrak proposal to create new rail passenger connections for major cities

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Why does Hiawatha need to be high-speed rail for daily commuting? This doesn't make sense. High speed rail is not for daily commuting.

Not true HSR (200 mph), but "higher" speed than what's there. If you can cut a 90 minute train ride into 45 minutes, you have a great option that transforms 2 metros.

And therein lies my point: any decision to do such things should start, first and foremost, at considering the practical benefits for each region given the costs.

Instead of starting out focusing on speed (lets create a 200 mph network everywhere), we should start out asking ourselves, what train lines, if any, could benefit from speed upgrades that would deliver a great service for our region?

So a 200 mph line in one region may work, while a 120 mph line in another one could do just as well.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Instead of starting out focusing on speed (lets create a 200 mph network everywhere), we should start out asking ourselves, what train lines, if any, could benefit from speed upgrades that would deliver a great service for our region?

So a 200 mph line in one region may work, while a 120 mph line in another one could do just as well.

How about trains that run every day, rather than every other day, and stop some time between 7am and 11pm?

You don't seem to realize just how bad Amtrak service is in much of the country because a)it often doesn't exist at all or b)it's a myth and a legend for locals because the trains only pass through in the middle of the night so almost nobody has actually ridden one and c)the station facilities are often no better than a bus stop (an no, not a Greyhound station - like a bus bench with an awning).

What if the NFL only played its games at 2am? Would fewer people show up and watch on TV? What if NFL games took 30 minute time-outs for passing freight trains?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Not true HSR (200 mph), but "higher" speed than what's there. If you can cut a 90 minute train ride into 45 minutes, you have a great option that transforms 2 metros.

And therein lies my point: any decision to do such things should start, first and foremost, at considering the practical benefits for each region given the costs.

Instead of starting out focusing on speed (lets create a 200 mph network everywhere), we should start out asking ourselves, what train lines, if any, could benefit from speed upgrades that would deliver a great service for our region?

So a 200 mph line in one region may work, while a 120 mph line in another one could do just as well.

HSR is analogous to flying. If it's not a distance that reasonable people would consider getting on an plane to cover, then it's not really suitable for HSR. This shouldn't be mixed in with talk about upgrading regional rail. Both are valid discussions that can be had in isolation.

I also don't think you really need to upgrade local transit in order for HSR to be useful. A HSR terminal is more like an airport terminal than it is to a subway station. It makes sense to build HSR terminals in city centers for a variety of reasons, but if you put them next to airports that wouldn't necessarily diminish the usefulness of a HSR line. If it weren't for safety issues, just about every airport would've been built near a city center.

[mhays]

Some corridors are capacity-strained for ALL forms of transportation -- air, roads, and existing trains. We need to do something in these places, or they'll stagnate. Rail should be part of the solution.

The PNW Van-Sea-Por corridor is exactly this, along with the smaller cities from Eugene northward. The airports need capacity, the freeway and secondary roads jam, and the existing regular-speed Amtrak services are popular but limited.

HSR is estimated at $50 billion. Adding a lane to I-5 is $100 billion. The three main airports are all growing with many billions in projects underway or planned, and in Seattle's case we might choose to build a second major one in 2040 or so at a cost in the many billions. We also just started passenger service at one of our general aviation + Boeing fields.

I-5 will never be wholesale expanded. Maybe we build that additional major airport, along with whatever the other cities plan.

Improving train service makes a ton of sense for a bunch of reasons. One is that all three cities are relatively transit-oriented, and rail benefits from and supports that. All of us are paying attention to climate as well.

The $50 billion idea would be ideal. But we could do sooo much with 10% of that to improve the frequency, reliability, and speed of the existing services. The main problems are busy track and landslides. Some additional sidings, some grade separations, some retaining walls, and some rolling stock would do wonders.

[SIGSEGV]

You guys are arguing against a straw man that's not being proposed.

[badrunner]

Seems like the detractors know very little about what is actually being proposed, or about railroads in general.

[mhays]

The fact that highways have been popular doesn't mean people didn't want alternatives too. Even in the 50s-70s at the height of the switch to car-everything.

And now the public mood has shifted, at least in many areas. A new highway in my region would be a non-starter.

[ue]

Originally Posted by mhays

The fact that highways have been popular doesn't mean people didn't want alternatives too. Even in the 50s-70s at the height of the switch to car-everything.

And now the public mood has shifted, at least in many areas. A new highway in my region would be a non-starter.

This is also important to consider as well. I’m not denying that there was a massive adoption of automobiles which people (particularly middle and upper class white people, for whom the suburban ideal was marketed) generally viewed as positive. I am saying that those positive attitudes were only possible via public and private re-engineering. Obviously, in the first decades of this policy, from the ‘40s to the ‘70s, during the height of the Keynesian era, car culture was a new ideology and people went into it naively. For the earliest years, the issues surrounding it weren’t as apparent, although there were issues with household matriarchs being isolated on the cul-de-sac during the work day. So it continued to be seen as a net good, particularly if you were in the classes that could afford a car and to live in a “nice” suburban home. There was a novelty to this new way of living.

But since the ‘70s, there have been ramifications of these policies which have become only more apparent as time as gone on, such that public opinion has and continues to shift away from being pro-cars wholeheartedly.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by ue

This is also important to consider as well. I’m not denying that there was a massive adoption of automobiles which people (particularly middle and upper class white people, for whom the suburban ideal was marketed) generally viewed as positive. I am saying that those positive attitudes were only possible via public and private re-engineering. Obviously, in the first decades of this policy, from the ‘40s to the ‘70s, during the height of the Keynesian era, car culture was a new ideology and people went into it naively. For the earliest years, the issues surrounding it weren’t as apparent, although there were issues with household matriarchs being isolated on the cul-de-sac during the work day. So it continued to be seen as a net good, particularly if you were in the classes that could afford a car and to live in a “nice” suburban home. There was a novelty to this new way of living.

But since the ‘70s, there have been ramifications of these policies which have become only more apparent as time as gone on, such that public opinion has and continues to shift away from being pro-cars wholeheartedly.

Agreed on all points. And we were naive about the inevitable traffic jams, the isolation of anyone without a license in these suburban places, the need for our foreign policy to emphasize dominance of oil regions...

[ChiSoxRox]

Yes, HSR in most of the country is a waste.

Which is why this proposal is not HSR. It's an expansion of the current running rights on freight tracks (and a proposal I hope fervently comes to pass.)

(Although running interstates through the likes of Wyoming is the same argument, and the US did it anyway.)

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Yes, HSR in most of the country is a waste.

Which is why this proposal is not HSR. It's an expansion of the current running rights on freight tracks (and a proposal I hope fervently comes to pass.)

(Although running interstates through the likes of Wyoming is the same argument, and the US did it anyway.)

These interstates also serve trucking and freight commerce. So access to resources are another reason to run large highways throughout the country.

HSR is literally a passenger service that only serves cities. That's fine and all, but again, it would only make sense for dense, large, walkable cities that are already fairly close to eachother.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

HSR is literally a passenger service that only serves cities. That's fine and all, but again, it would only make sense for dense, large, walkable cities that are already fairly close to eachother.

No, it actually doesn't need that at all. There is no reason why a HSR line would require a more densely built environment than a major airport, as I have pointed out several times in this thread.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

These interstates also serve trucking and freight commerce. So access to resources are another reason to run large highways throughout the country.

HSR is literally a passenger service that only serves cities. That's fine and all, but again, it would only make sense for dense, large, walkable cities that are already fairly close to eachother.

Like say, Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis, Portland to Seattle, so on. This proposal beefs up the national "snail rail" network, and provides a nice template for getting higher ridership (and higher awareness) along future HSR corridors.

To take Minneapolis as an example, the enhanced service in the OP is multiple daily trains to Chicago, perhaps using Madison as an intermediate stop. Also, getting the train back to Duluth. That's three high frequency routes from MSP, relieving the air routes. Meanwhile, the Twin Cities have ambitious expansion plans for their light rail, which will enhance connectivity between Random Lake Suburb and the station in downtown St. Paul (as well as to MSP airport), which takes more cars off the expressways into downtown...

I digress somewhat, but this proposal isn't flinging tax dollars at getting a Shinkansen running through Bumbledee, Nebraska. It's about putting Amtrak and thus intercity rail on a firmer footing, and bulking up feeder networks.

[ue]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

These interstates also serve trucking and freight commerce. So access to resources are another reason to run large highways throughout the country.

HSR is literally a passenger service that only serves cities. That's fine and all, but again, it would only make sense for dense, large, walkable cities that are already fairly close to eachother.

Again, this proposal is NOT HSR. And rail can go to rural areas, towns, national parks, etc. It isn’t just an inter-urban service, or at least, it doesn’t have to be. There’s already a proposal to return passenger service between Calgary and Banff to offload congestion issues in the park. There is already a bus service to many popular sites in the park.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ue

Again, this proposal is NOT HSR. And rail can go to rural areas, towns, national parks, etc. It isn’t just an inter-urban service, or at least, it doesn’t have to be. There’s already a proposal to return passenger service between Calgary and Banff to offload congestion issues in the park. There is already a bus service to many popular sites in the park.

Yeah, I've taken the bus to/from YYC to Lake Louise and it sold out.

[ue]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Yes, HSR in most of the country is a waste.

Which is why this proposal is not HSR. It's an expansion of the current running rights on freight tracks (and a proposal I hope fervently comes to pass.)

(Although running interstates through the likes of Wyoming is the same argument, and the US did it anyway.)

If only ‘the urban politician’ could read more than a few sentences and understand this. I don’t think anybody on this thread has argued for a widespread HSR network in the US with multiple transcontinental routes.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Yes, HSR in most of the country is a waste.

Which is why this proposal is not HSR. It's an expansion of the current running rights on freight tracks (and a proposal I hope fervently comes to pass.)

(Although running interstates through the likes of Wyoming is the same argument, and the US did it anyway.)

This is the other side of the coin:

Simply making a train go from an average of 55 mph to 70 mph simply isn't worth the money spent.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

This is the other side of the coin:

Simply making a train go from an average of 55 mph to 70 mph simply isn't worth the money spent.

It might be worth a lot, but that's not the whole story. Most improvements to existing rail have a variety of benefits -- speed, reliability, safety, less disruption to the local areas, and so on. Also, faster trains can also mean more trips for each.

[subterranean]

Rail between Portland and Seattle currently works very well. It's about as fast as driving (sometimes faster) and I don't have to worry about my car for however long I'm there. It's also super stress free. I've taken that route many times.

HSR between Vancouver BC and Portland are being studied, outside of whatever infrastructure plan this conversation is about.

[ue]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Rail between Portland and Seattle currently works very well. It's about as fast as driving (sometimes faster) and I don't have to worry about my car for however long I'm there. It's also super stress free. I've taken that route many times.

HSR between Vancouver BC and Portland are being studied, outside of whatever infrastructure plan this conversation is about.

Yeah, I remember the train between Portland and Seattle being quite pleasant (and scenic). I have heard you can still deal with delays on the track, but I never had any while I'd ridden it.