90 minutes? I live in Milwaukee proper. Before I retired in 2007 I spent the last 3 months of my career commuting to Madison four days a week. It took 63 minutes. The trip is purely on the interstate with 95% of it in 65 mph speed limit zones.
Had I had to take a stupid train it would have taken at least 2 hours with having to drive to a train station, parking, boarding, and all the stops they had planned.
The money offered to the states for that boondoggle is like giving a bag lady a gift certificate worth $20,000 towards the purchase of a Rolls Royce.
It probably depenends on where exactly you are in the Milwaukee and where you are going to, how fast your are driving etc… I have to admit, I’ve lived in Milwaukee all my life and even though I’ve driven past Madison countless times, I’ve only been in the city 2 or 3 times in my life. I’ve never actually paid attention to how long it takes to get there. Having said that, Yahoo Maps from “Milwaukee, WI” to “Madison, WI” which would be from the center of one city to the center of the other, which no doubt will add on some time, says 79 miles and 1 hour 27 minutes.
Using Miller Park (with it’s very close freeway entrance) brings it down to 1 hour 22 minutes.
Either way, 90 minutes, 63 minutes, it still shows the same thing. Most people would rather just take their car (or the Badger Bus) from Milwaukee to Madison then take the train and still have to get a cab at the other end. Also, as I mentioned above, I had heard somewhere along the line that the train fare from Milwaukee to Madison was going to be very expensive.
That’s exactly right. And that’s why high-speed rail isn’t competitive today. All of those other infrastructure systems already exist, and are used to great effectiveness in commerce and trade. A high-speed rail is a passenger line, and redundant. For it to be competitive in the future, it has to be a better option, and right now, it’s just not a better option.
This is in essence the big problem with creating high speed rail in many parts of the country, especially in the Midwest and the South - you still need some way to get around when you reach the other end. That means either renting a car, taking an expensive cab ride, or relying on a public transportation system that might not even go near where you need to be (and let’s face it, public transportation in many places outside the northeast sucks balls).
Will it be like Amtrak? Because here is my experience with Amtrak (NYC to Baltimore):
Reasonable price and speed. Lots of trains offered for my route, so I can pick the best time for me. Often on time.
Track often not announced until two minutes before the train leaves, so there is a mass rush of hundreds of people to jostle for position in line. Surely they can determine at least five minutes in advance what track a train will use?
Tickets often not checked when you get on, or scanned briefly in the pandemonium, and then twenty minutes out of the station, someone realizes they are on the wrong train. I’ve seen this many times. When I am stepping on to the train there is generally no employee or written indication to say what train it is or where it is going. It’s unnerving. I can’t recall getting on a train at Penn Station where I didn’t hear one passenger ask another “Is this the train going to DC?” or whereever.
During peak times such as Thanksgiving, too many tickets sold. Forget sitting with your companion, I have several times had to sit on the floor for a good portion of the trip. Then a conductor comes around to harass the passenger for sitting on the floor and insists the passenger drag their suitcase all the way from one end of the train to the other to confirm that there are no actual seats. I have also heard announcements at peak times, “The train is crowded, so if you are planning to get off at the next stop, you need to be aggressive in getting to the doors.” This is not a pleasant experience for me, so I can only imagine being an elderly person or a parent wrangling a kid.
I’m picturing the proposed high speed rail being similar but more expensive, with fewer time options per day. Maybe I am wrong.
This has already been addressed in other mass transit threads. The interstate highway system is paid for by fuel taxes, not general revenue. It was designed to be revenue neutral right from the get go.
Of course, today we could design a nationwide system of electronic tolls and eliminate the fuel taxes. We might end doing that anyway, if CNG and electric cars become popular.
Air travel is even better, since all the costs of running the air traffic system all end up in the ticket prices.
The more likely answer is, if enough states opt out, then the whole program will be canceled. High speed rail is already on the Republican list of projects to be cut.
I remember when I was looking at going home from grad school for the winter break a few years back. After examing the options, I found that the train would cost more than a plane and be slower than a bus. I always that would make for a good ad…
The West is pretty spread out. ISTM that the East Coast is more like Western Europe, and more suited to that sort of train service. In the West, you’ve got San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Eugene, Portland/Vancouver, Olympia, Seattle, and Vancouver, BC. Sacramento? Maybe. But unlike the other cities listed (except Las Vegas), it’s a bit of a detour.
Light rail seems popular between L.A. and Orange County. No need for HSR there. San Diego to L.A./Orange County? It’s 140 miles or less. And in the case of L.A., the station is inconveniently downtown. Better to drive or use the existing train. I doubt anyone would live in San Diego and commute to Orange, or vice versa. I could see HSR from L.A. to San Francisco (with a stop in Santa Barbara), San Francisco to Portland/Vancouver, and Portland/Vancouver to Seattle and Vancouver, BC. If I still lived in L.A. I would probably make use of a line from L.A. to Las Vegas. Just about 300 miles. SWA fares, checked today, are $121 each way. Could HSR compete with that price?
high speed rail is similar to low speed rail to air line in that it might take you close but not near to where you want to go. you need mass transit, cab or rental car after that.
immediately high speed rail may not compare well with air. in 10 years with the cost of fuel, rail transit may be the way the common person could find affordable long distance transit.
A train would be great if it was within a half a block of my house and where I was going was within a half a block of a rail station. Otherwise, I have to drive to the station, park and hope that the car won’t be stolen for however long I’m gone. Wait for the scheduled arrival. Stop at 34 intermediate stops for other passengers and then when I reach my “destination” I need to rent a car, take a cab, take a bus. I then have to plan the reverse trip for when the train is available and reverse the whole process
OR
I could just drive my own vehicle and leave when I want, stop when I want, and go home when I want without having to juggle different schedules.
We had high speed rail 100 years ago. They were called interurbans and were faster than the “high speed rail” that was proposed in my state. Interurbans ran on their own tracks at speeds up to 100 mph. The proposed 3C rail system in Ohio would involve rail upgrades to average 50 mph with top speeds of 79 mph (Phase 1).
Phase 2, If it ever got built, would start with negotiating rights on dedicated freight lines for faster trains and then the tracks and infrastructure would have to be upgraded for speeds up to 110 mph. So that gives us maybe an average speed of 65 mph in most of the corridors because of the close proximity of cities. Only the Columbus to Cleveland run would benefit from longer distance runs and that assumes few stops in between.
All this revolves around schedules that would not justify late evening runs so that eliminates anybody who doesn’t want to get stuck 3 hrs away from home on days they work late.
So what it comes down to is an expensive rail system that isn’t very fast and would require transportation to and from the origin destination which would involve waiting for buses or taxis.
So while it would be fun to hop on a train and go to a Browns game once a year the reality of the costs involved don’t justify the system.
They’ve been trying to get a high speed rail going in Pittsburgh for some time now, and thankfully it’s been shot down every time. We can’t even get funding for our bus and light rail service, and they’re currently threatening another round of cuts that will cripple a service that’s been getting worse and worse since the 80’s. Every few years they try to get a high speed rail from Oakland (large medical/student part of the city) to downtown (approx 2 miles?). I have no confidence at all that this would be anything other than a huge money sink.
City to City would work better but would still be a huge disruption to build, suck up tons of money, and would not be used by the majority of the population. I think all this high speed rail money would be much better used to improve our light rail and bus services, which would be used by many more people and be cheaper to build and service. Especially buses, which can use existing roadways.
So you WANT the governors to say, “Gee, let’s screw the airlines and buses and support Obama”? How do you think those employed in those areas will react to that?
Well, as pointed out, it is. But if it weren’t, we need ANOTHER subsidized system?
Numbers on the high speed train, anyone?
Spending money we don’t have?
Taxpayers having no choice other than propping up what the actual intended users freely won’t pay for is “the public good”?
Are you people serious? I mean, really?
I’m beginning to think your idea of “the public good” is a lot different from mine.
I guess we have a lot of the intelligentsia present.