Following the excellent news last week that both the House and Senate passed an authorization to expand high-speed passenger rail service, the Tribune's
The ambitious project proposed for the Midwest would cover 3,000 miles in nine states. All lines would radiate from a hub in downtown Chicago. The cost of a fully completed Midwest network is estimated at almost $8 billion.
Planners envision the line running from Chicago up through Milwaukee, Madison, the Twin Cities and eventually Duluth, while separate routes from Chicago would extend east to Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Those planners are officials from the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI). Created in 1996 and consisting of representatives from the Federal Railroad Administration and nine Midwest states (Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin), MWRRI's 2004 plan (PDF) calls for incremental improvements to 3,000 miles of existing rail lines as well as the construction of multi-modal connections and the introduction of modern trains operating at speeds up to 110 miles per hour. A map of the corridor's proposed reach -- which would put 90 percent of Midwesterners within a one hour ride of a high-speed rail station -- is available here. modern, comfortable, double-deck trains with wide seats and large windows." They would also cut down trip times substantially, reducing a jaunt from Chicago to St. Louis from 5.5 hours to 3 hours, 49 minutes, for example.
Of course, transit enthusiasts shouldn't get their hopes up just yet. Congress, who would cover 80 percent of the project's cost, hasn't appropriated any money for the bill. Each state would need to fork over an additional 20 percent worth of matching fees as well, a worry for Illinoians frustrated with gridlock in the captial. But considering that 13.6 million passengers are expected to ride the rails per year by 2025, now is not the time to wait.
Comments
Brian K (not verified) on Mon, 10/06/2008 - 19:29
High speed rail in the Midwest, I've been dreaming for this day to come, and it came when I least expected it. As a rail enthusiast most of my life, I have always felt the rails radiating from Chicago like the spokes of a bicycle wheel had a greater use beyond the movement of freight (of which it does a fine job). High speed rail will cut the typical time it takes for a trip from Chicago to St. Louis, for example, from 7 hours by air (including trip to/from airports, security, etc.) to less than 4 hours (downtown to downtown in both cities). Now is the time for this dream to come reality. Call your congressmen, senators, both U.S. and state to make sure the funding is put in place to make this happen.
The implementation of this will be both an increase in productivity and a reduction in travel costs. An added bonus will be the reduction of oil imports as train travel is vastly more fuel efficient than air travel.
Brian K Montgomery, IL
Kevin (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 08:59
5.5 hours to 3 hours and 49 minutes seems like a modest change at best. California's high speed train proposal has a route going from San Francisco to Los Angeles, in two hours forty mintues. Consider that's some 300 miles traveled. That same trip might take twice as long by air (downtown-to-downtown. including trip to/from airports, whatever that encompasses).
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm
Bullet trains in Japan approach or exceed speeds of 200 mph, why can't America afford the same sort of transportation luxury?
Richard Campbell (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 10:33
Because we wasting trillions of private and public money on the automobile and highways. We must pool our resources to create a great transportation system for the future and catch up with the rest of the world.
Locksmith Services (not verified) on Mon, 08/03/2009 - 05:16
The cost is high but High Speed train could increase productivity and surely it help provide even better communication.
Post new comment
Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
We will not publish comments that we consider:
Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.