Today's (actually, tomorrow's) News-Gazette:
The Midwest High Speed Rail Association believes that a possible future high-speed rail line linking Chicago and St. Louis should pass through Champaign.
Such a line would see trains traveling at 220 mph, would cost about $12 billion to construct and would cut travel time between Chicago and St. Louis to less than two hours, said Rick Harnish, executive director of the association, at a news conference at the Illinois Terminal this morning.
More information here.
Discuss.
I'm ready. 45 minute train to Chicago. 5 hour train to New York (via Chicago). I am ready indeed. I very much hope this goes somewhere. So far all of the talk about high speed rail has bypassed Champaign-Urbana in favor of an I-55 type route from Chicago to St. Louis.
This is terrific. About time this country stopped neglecting its train system so shamefully.
I can hear Turpin now, "Clang clang clang went the trolley ..."
We don't need this, this is another transportation boondoggle. Who pays the balance after the Feds, who pays the maintainance? We do, the Illinois taxpayers.
Just like the Champaign Urbana MTD trolley.
"I can hear Turpin now"
Auditory hallucinations are a bummer, aren't they.
a waste.
To start with - all transporation systems are government supported in one way or the other. Canals and railroads in the 1800's - roads and airlines in the 1900's - the goverment - and the taxpayers have long supported such efforts.
If we are serious, and interested in building a seperate passenger rail only system linking Chicago and St. Louis 0- it can be done for a price less per mile then a mile of interstate highway - and use less land.
Rail systems designed for high speed passenger service are built to a different set of standards then those used by the CN to drag 120 cars of freight - as has happened in Europe in France, Spain, Germany etc.
Chicago in 45 minutes - that would be very possible.
Greg Novak
I think this is worth looking at. Unlike the MTD trolley, this would serve a real need, and would serve a greater number of people.
Unlike the MTD trolley, this would serve a real need, and would serve a greater number of people.
agree 100%
Conceptually high-speed rail through Champaign appeals to me. What worries me is the cost--not just the initial cost, but the sustaining cost. My taxes, food costs, power bills, etc. are all going up--thanks to out-of-control government in large part. I'd like to see the brakes set on that.
My taxes, food costs, power bills, etc. are all going up--thanks to out-of-control government in large part. I'd like to see the brakes set on that.
Please list in order of priority the specific government services and/or programs that you would like to see cut. No generalities, please.
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
Radio station WJBC in Bloomington reported on this today. I heard them interview the mayor of Normal who claimed to be completely blind-sided by this and not a little annoyed. The Town of Normal and the City of Bloomington have both provided financial support to the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. The Town of Normal has been planning a "Multi-modal Transportation Center" no doubt premised in part on being a future high-speed rail terminal.
" Unlike the MTD trolley, this would serve a real need, and would serve a greater number of people."
What need, go faster? If you want to go to Chicago, go. If you want to go to Urbana, go. Not fast enough for you, not enough people on your train or trolley? That is a need by golly!
Oh, I see. If you like it, it's good, but if it doesn't "serve a real need" (in your mind) it is bad.
The very same logic applies to the high speed rail as it did to the trolley, only much bigger, much more expensive. If the trolley was bad, high speed rail is worse. If the high speed rail is good, the trolley is good, just not so much.
Pick your favorite project, and spend spend spend!
How about this idea. If you support the high speed rail, you change your mind and support the light rail for CU. Deal?
"If you support the high speed rail, you change your mind and support the light rail for CU."
This is the most nonsensical thing I have read all year.
While high speed rail will be very beneficial to the small population riding them, there are very real, and mostly hidden, costs to the areas where it will be built. In much of Central and Southern Illinois, it is not at all uncommon to find trucks with 60 foot trailers hauling just about everything, including most of the grain produced in this part of the country. For a truck that size to cross a safety zone on each side of the tracks after stopping, a train at 120 mph will run about a mile. So one of three things will happen, either townships (with extremely limited tax bases) will have to pony up huge amounts to money to maintain rural crossings, most rural crossings will close, or train/truck collisions will become a regular occurrence. Which of these seems most likely? Farmers (and most other commercial traffic) will have to pay more to detour around closed crossings in much the same way that interstate highways close a lot of crossroads.
If we are serious, and interested in building a seperate passenger rail only system linking Chicago and St. Louis 0- it can be done for a price less per mile then a mile of interstate highway - and use less land.
Except that the interstate already exists. And it serves others besides passengers. and I don't believe the numbers on the rail. And you left out the cost per passenger mile traveled.
boondoggle. which probably means a done deal
I think it would be great. Having Chicago an easy hour (or less!) away would change the relationship of the two.
Of course, I was spoiled growing up with a good train system... considered to be a necessary cost, every bit as much as the roads are. Build a city, it comes with rail. It's all part of the deal.
To answer the thoughtful criticism, a good high speed rail is built without crossings--that's part of what makes it high speed. This is part of why the initial construction is so expensive.
But there should be no danger of unintentional vehicle-train collisions.
I don't think I'd get to use the high speed rail, but I'd love for us to have it...
Several points on construction - trackage would for the most part be elevated on a pillar and glider basis - which would eliminate any grade crossing - whether road or rail. The amount of dirt needed to be moved would be less then that needed for an interstate mile. The key is to not use the existing rail system - but rather to create a new one
As to cost and tax issues - Central Illinois taxpayers already support at least five regional airports which compete against each other as the means of getting travelers to major airports - would they be needed if one could get to Chicago in an hour or less by rail? According to the Department of Transportation's 2009 Pocket Guide to Transportation in 2006 - the most recent year with complete figures Transportation Revenues from all sources - Federal, State and Local were $150.4 billion - expenses were $199.4 billion. That means that the public has had to come up with the $49 billion needed to close the gap.
For example - air transportation costs from all government sources in 2006 were $41.4 billion - running airports, air traffic control network, direct subsidies, etc - but revenues from fuel taxes, passenger fees, landing fees, etc were only $27 billion dollars.
You are correct that those interstate highways already exist - but they were paid for by taxpayers - with the Defense Department providing most of the money from the 1950's to the 1970's - so you might argue that there is is an indirect federal subsidy on every truckload of traffic hauled by them - again tax payer dollars at work. The cheapest way to move freight is by water - but again the taxpayer supports the system as fees charged in no means cover the cost of the lock and dam system. Expenses, Sate and federal $10 billion - Revenue - $5 billion
my .02
Greg Novak
of course all freight on highways has a subsidy, as does my garbage hauler, my aunt who comes to visit, etc. what is the point? we have one subsidized system so let's build another? You are offering speed, with no particular demonstration that it's necessary. 12 billion to take how many people from st louis to chicago? and they won't use it to get to ohare, unless you're building another high speed rail to do that.
it's remarkable that anyone can be talking about shelling out this type of money at a time when we are desperately in debt. on the radio the guy said this was essential. give me a break. we will do plenty well without this, and probably better.
Anon 9:50: By your logic we never shoud have bothered building the interstate highway system. Heck I guess we should have just kept using the old reliable horse and buggy. We were doing plenty well without those pesky automobiles.
Your position on this is laughable.
We've already seen that by increasing the frequency of Amtrak trains along both the I-57 and I-55 corridors, ridership has increased substantially each of the past few years. Current Amtrak doesn't serve O'Hare, so obviously someone needs to get to Chicago.
Sure we'll be OK without it, but if someone (Obama/Quinn) have laid out high speed rail as a priority and are planning on providing funding for it, why shouldn't we try to get in line for some of it? The benefits to our area would be tremendous so the last thing we should do is sit back and watch someone else take the funding.
Stop enforcing the 65 mph speed limit and I can be in Chicago in less than an hour.
To learn more about high speed rail go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail
No one can drive to Chicago safely in 45 minutes on today's designed highways, the 65 mpr speed limit not withstanding.
Here is the GAO Report on High Speed Rail http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf
There are other reports that you can find by doing a google search--one done by the Cato Institute and another written by David Levinson, U of Minnesota, 1999, Transportation Quarterly.
Pattsi Petrie
Anonymous 9:50PM says: "and they won't use it to get to ohare, unless you're building another high speed rail to do that."
No need. The Blue Line "L" goes directly into the basement of O'Hare (and the Orange Line "L" will get you across the street from Midway, connected via an indoor aerial walkway). O'Hare to downtown (or vice versa) takes roughly 45 minutes, and the trains come very frequently.
Any high speed rail, made new, would connect up with both the "L" and Metra at some point (unless the designers are completely brain dead) so people will just transfer.
I know when I'm on the Blue Line going from O'Hare to downtown, usually I'm laughing at all the people stuck in their bumper-to-bumper traffic on the expressway.
The annoyance factor in getting to O'Hare currently isn't the last bit from downtown, it's getting to Chicago - Amtrak is just way too late way too often for a lot of flights (it's okay for me, my flight doesn't leave until 1:05 PM usually, but these days I tend to fly out of Willard).
People may not be used to high speed trains. Real high speed trains, with dedicated service and track, are WORLDS away from anything we have now. The US is completely backward when it comes to passenger train service. Trains showing up 10, 20 minutes late doesn't happen on a good system (never mind the hour or more late that Amtrak can get). You can actually depend on them, and they're very much more convenient than flying, due to the lack of security hassles and the straight ticket pricing. Want to go catch a Cubs game? Just walk up to the counter, buy a ticket and get the train in 15 minutes[1]. And as others posted too, they don't have grade crossings, no - they don't share tracks with slower trains, either.
Ideally, you take a plane for a really long distance (across country, half the country, etc), high speed trains for intercity, and local transit in town - unless you're leaving the bounds of urban areas, in which case you go as far as you can, and then (gasp!) rent a car/truck/SUV/whatever you need and drive. Unless, of course, your whole POINT is to make a road trip or you need to haul things/go camping/whatever it is. No one says you can't or shouldn't drive, just that you don't HAVE to if all you're trying to do is get from point A to point B. You can sit and surf the internet instead...
[1] or when it's next scheduled, I don't assume it'd be that often for quite some time if ever, here, but even Amtrak from San Diego to LA came once an hour...
When you weigh the costs of this, compare it to the costs we will pay for conventional highways. When you weigh the benefits, consider the value of the productive time of each and every occupant of that train, the peace and quiet of every community that no longer has to endure train whistles at grade crossings and sitting in a stopped car waiting for a train to cross.
High speed rail (and high quality rail) is truly a conservative approach. Wasteful expenditures on automobiles, and the much higher risk to human life is the liberal approach. Conservatives should love the return to conservation of time and fuel, consistent with real conservative values.
so now we're at an hour and a half to get to Ohare, plus the hassles once I get there. but someone here suggested that this would somehow supplant the regional airports.
Hi speed rail in low density areas is a boondoggle.
People don't only go to Chicago to go to O'Hare, you know. It's actually a destination city.
45 minutes to downtown Chicago is way faster than you can get there now, and that's including FLYING, once you figure in all the time spent going through security and getting to the airport early.
I agree that high speed rail is not a substitute for Willard Airport. I use Willard Airport all the time and likely will continue to - when my destination is Tokyo, or DC, or California. When my destination is CHICAGO, I do not fly there from Willard, that would be insane. (The Willard leg is cheap only as an add-on to a "real" ticket.)
Lets see were going to spend billions on a high speed train when we have planes that are much faster when we don't have the funding to keep open DSC sure good idea.
I think the real question is what has it cost our economic competitiveness that we are spending more money per trip, for fewer trips, and slower trips compared to Europe and Asia? What will it cost our country if we do not invest in better infrastructure? Will we become a second tier economic power while Europe and Asia take over as the major world powers? Europe and Asia have been spending billions on high speed rail. Up until this administration we have spent ZERO. The consequence is that they can move people much more quickly and inexpensively than we do as we continue to depend on air and auto for our transportation. In addition, having a century old rail system means our freight trains are slower and more expensive than theirs and we are using much more fossil fuel and emitting much higher levels of greenhouse gases and carcinogens.
Thank goodness folks some foresight and long range thinking are running our country.
Connecting major cities with high-speed trains makes a lot more sense than spending $100 million to connect Champaign and Urbana with a low-speed trolley.
The planes AREN'T faster, idiot. That's the point.
These trains have an expected speed of 220 MPH much slower then planes traveling at 600 MPH. The trains because of safety concerns won't get anywhere near 220 MPH maybe 100 MPH if you’re lucky and only if they can gain that speed between stops. Wenalway you are the fool if you think these trains will not be required to stop almost continually at every town they go by slowing their travel time considerably between here and Chicago. There will also be few of the trains and there will be a limited schedule so expect it take time to load and unload at all those stops so it will take much more time not less. 45 minutes to Chicago yeah if you don't include travel time outside of Chicago.
It will be a huge waste of money that could be spent helping people that could really use it.
New way of thinking yeah right.
It would be great if it was in place for the Olympics (if Chicago is chosen).
The downside is that I would be tempted to re-up my season tickets for the Bears. An expensive addiction, but 60 minutes to Soldier Field is faster than my family in the 'burbs can get there.
Great possibilities! Let's hope the luddites and curmudgeons don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Planes may fly faster than 220 mph, but the train pulls to a stop loads by having lots of doors open and leaves the station one or two minutes after it arrived. The plane takes an hour from landing to take off on a good day. Can you imagine how many more people can fit in a train than in a plane? And if the day before the run the reservations suddenly increase you just add cars to the train, not possible with air travel. Trains cannot be hijacked and because the terrorism risks are much lower, the security screening can be much less and folks can load quicker.
This is one farmer who wants to see us return to trains of which we can be proud, like the good old days in America.
Planes may fly faster than 220 mph, but the train pulls to a stop loads by having lots of doors open and leaves the station one or two minutes after it arrived. The plane takes an hour from landing to take off on a good day.
Trains cannot be hijacked and because the terrorism risks are much lower, the security screening can be much less and folks can load quicker.
Those two ideas seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Loading quickly is a clear security issue. And this doesn't consider sabatoge to the rail line itself. I don't mean to be argumentative for the sake of it. This is just one more reason to really, really hate terrorists who changed our world on 9-11.
Several points
I always enjoy reading Tom Kacich's 50 years ago and 100 years ago columns in the News Gazette. In the last two months - some of the columns in the 50 years ago section dealt with the opposition to the interstate highway system - the proposed Decatur - Champaign interstate was deemed totally uneeded - and Rantoul and Urbana were successful in their effort to stop I-57 from proceeding down the east side of Rantoul and Urbana - effecticely along High Cross Road - instead I-57 was built to the west of Rantoul and Champaign with effects on the economic growth of Champaign.
The role of government in promoting or hurting transportation systems is long established - the State of New York built the Erie Canal over federal opposition - and by doing so established New York City as the nations economic powerhouse. That set off a canal boom nation wide - which was followed by the railroad. Land grant railroads - including the IC were pushed by Illinois' own Stephen Douglas as a means of opening the American midwest and west - again with government aid. As mentioned the interstate highway system was built with defense dollars
The end of passenger rail service in the 1960's was pushed by a decision of the US government to move intercity postage traffic from rail to air - if you look at pictures of passenger trains in the early - mid 1960's there are often as many "head end" cars hauling mail and packages as there are cars hauling passengers. The shift to air service was not made to improve time or cost - it was made to give an additional subsity to the airlines for defense reasons - air line pilots and crews made up almost all of the reserve pilots needed for the US Air Force - they flew transports, tankers, and other aircraft - and the hours they flew for air line service helped them do their reserve job - after all the 707 airline and the KC-135 tanker are the same aircraft. Other pilots flew combat aircraft - in fact the majority of the A-10 pilots today are reserve officers most of whom are airline pilots.
My point is that government directly or indirectly plays a role in transportation though not always for the purpose of transportation. The sad fact is that there is NO national transportation plan - our interstate system is in need to being rebuilt - our airlines are going under - and our rail system is need of renewal as well. Yet there is no master plan to address these issues - that needs to be addressed
Now as far as a purpose built high speed rail system between Champaign, Chicago and St. Louis. The right of way would lack ANY grade crossing - be elevated for much of the way - and feature a mixture of trains - locals which might stop en route - and express trains that would not stop between Chicago and Champaign. At peak times trains might leave every hour - at other times trains might leave several hours apart. Internet services would be possible on the train. Power would be most likely be electric - reducing the weight of the trains and allowing for reduced cost. Side effects would include the fact that the number of cars on I-57 would be reduced - alllowing for more use by freight hauling vehicles without having to incur the need to add a third lane on I-57 from Chicago to Champaign. The U of I become even more attractive as a global university due to its proximity to Chicago.
Is there going to be an infrastruture cost by the goverment - yes - the same was there was with the canals, railroads, and airlines
Do we look at the possibilities and go forward - or do we do nothing and continue to fall behind the rest of the world.
My .02
Greg Novak
This will not happen unless it stops at the MTD "castle" in downtown Champaign as the MTD king and his appointed "knightly" Board will fight it will their substantial political and financial tax treasure. They might come around if their 'light rail' system is included. RL and his Urbana clan might even support----a real change over when the RR came the first time.
This is all so silly. High speed rail will be the stuff of history, just like the Erie Canal. What we need is either slot car type rails buried in the pavement with electric powered cars and trucks being commanded by computers in some far off place, or just put enough government money into updating tele-transportation. The ability to de-materialize and re-materialize has been around for years, I saw it on TV in the late 60's.
Trains cannot be hijacked and because the terrorism risks are much lower, the security screening can be much less and folks can load quicker.
Tell that to the people of Madrid or the Londoners who ride the Underground.
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
This is all so silly. High speed rail will be the stuff of history,
Luddite. Curmudgeon. Quit raining on the parade.
If this train were to be built, it would be a common thing to go to a business meeting in Chicago, or go up there to do negotiations, and return the same day. No advance planning, no suitcases, just you, your suit, and your laptop.
If things were really as they are abroad, you would be able to buy a fancy boxed lunch on the train (and enjoy a beer, but this is the US so I suppose we won't expect too much).
The trains will be built on new tracks, so NO, they will not have to limit to 100MPH for safety or any nonsense. The trains are electric and completely segregated off from any other modes of transit, there are no grade crossings, so no need to ring the bells. Yes, if you live right next to the tracks you hear the trains rushing by, of course.
Smaller cities don't get stops, instead they have a local express (train, or bus, or whatever) to take people to the closest high speed rail station. Among the high speed trains, there are super express which doesn't stop anywhere other than the largest cities, and some regular express which stops at a few more places, but still pretty big towns.
You really need to ride on a modern high speed train and see how fast, smooth, and luxurious it is. It's nothing at all like Amtrak.
I just hope they get some Japanese to come over here and run the high speed rail system for us. I couldn't imagine the "workers" from the CTA or Amtrak running this.
I just think it's so amazing that there is such a fast, smooth, and luxurious way to travel that is so much better than anything else we have here, yet no greedy SOB has picked up on this idea. I mean, it's so obvious! Somebody should totally tell Bill Gates that high speed trains are awesome, and he can build them for us and make tons of money that he can give to schools.
That just goes to show you, one smart liberal is better than a country full of capitalists.
Akibare - I've not traveled to Japan but I have enjoyed the marvelous train system in Europe. I recall once when the train was *gasp* about 20 minutes late, staff met the train and handed out vouchers worth a few euros. It was impressive how the whole public transportation system was so well knitted together.
My last experience on Amtrak was pathetic.
I am so glad that The Champaign County Chamber of Commerce isn't distracted by the Luddites. Their support for this high speed rail line shows the importance of this to the business community. And at the same time it improves the quality of life for folks who live in CU and along the route.
Is there any federal, "build it" program this community won't support. Maybe the rail can stop off at the GEN factory and pickup some coal. What a complete waste of money...first we'll need tons of studies, along with all the technocrats, and administrative assistants,etc. Wow, if the taxpayers have a dime left after all this, it would suprise me. Should we spend money on the upcoming shuttle to the moon and assorted planets, since this is in the future too? Oh, I forgot ...the French have a high speed train....
There's plenty more to waste money on, how about john dummits idea to spend 25K on climate change effect on champaign county? Huh?
To Heathen @ 9:48 A-I, too, am perplexed as to why Dimit's is urging spending of $25,000 on a study of which there is already so much data for Illinois that this would only be repetitious.
Pattsi Petrie
Gotta love "the stools at Taffies" comment
Do we look at the possibilities and go forward - or do we do nothing and continue to fall behind the rest of the world.
We became the greatest economic and military power in the world without high speed rails. I think we'll survive without it.
We became the greatest economic and military power in the world without high speed rails.
So did Rome!
So did Great Britain!
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
Through the benefits of high speed rail if less expensive housing is now 45 minutes from a major city center instead of 2 hours from a major city center won't it encourage urban sprawl by making it advantageous for workers to move further out from the city center and commute via high speed rail?
"Workers" probably won't be able to afford the commute. CEOs probably will.
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
Keith Hays has essentially nailed it. This is a 12 billion dollar play thing for the rich. the average family will never be using this. I still haven't heard anyone even talk about the price. it's cheaper to go by plane than by amtrak to new orleans. that's with amtrak not buying the line itself. imagine if they owned the line.
"Workers" probably won't be able to afford the commute. CEOs probably will.
Where can one see the fare schedule so one can make this determination? Has the fare schedule been established yet?
Exactly, guys in suits going to lunch meetings downtown. Just the kind of thing that working people should subsidize. But don't executives deserve a luxurious and smooth and fast trip to Chicago?
This high speed train won't be used to transport goods, like the interstate. So these comparisons of land impact are nonsensical. Big deal that the train line which transports 1% of the mass of an interstate uses half the land.
Exactly, guys in suits going to lunch meetings downtown.
If this is to be the case then why is the administration supportive of such a system that would seemingly be of little benefit to those who the administration lays claim to representing? Shouldn't the "guys in suits" telecommute to these kind of meetings? That is technology in use isn't it?
Funny, considering "regular people" can and do ride the high speed trains elsewhere, all the time.
Of course most people don't have a high speed rail COMMUTE, but going to the city or visiting family on a weekend? Sure.
Again, it's nothing at all like Amtrak.
Of course most people don't have a high speed rail COMMUTE
Yes but if one could buy a bigger house on a bigger lot for less money further away from the city center but still be able to commute in less than an hour as a result of high speed rail wouldn't one consider moving further out from the city center? And couldn't that potentially cause urban sprawl that would convert productive farmland to tract housing?
Here is an interesting ppt presentation done by Stanford University looking at the BTUs per passenger mile and CO2 emissions of trips taken by Stanford personnel http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sustainability/documents/stanford_airtravel.pdf
Maybe part of this thread is apples and oranges--the conversation has compared high speed rail, which normally goes distances 500 miles or less, to Amtrak, which goes more than 500 miles, usually coast to coast. The efficiency calculations are much different when comparing these mileage differences tilting toward air travel being a better ecological footprint coast to coast than rail; whereas 500 miles and less by rail produces a better ecological footprint.
Part of the calculation as to whether it would allow lower income citizens to live 45 minutes, by high speed rail, from a job is the total cost of living in these communities. This might reinstill rural communities and open up job opportunities for those living in Tolono, as an example, if they could get a job in the Chicago area, even with the cost of travel. This is counter balanced by property taxes, housing costs, reduced gas and car maintenance cost because they would drive less in the smaller community. Just think if the Metra expands to service Kankakee.
Pattsi Petrie
Yes but if one could buy a bigger house on a bigger lot for less money further away from the city center but still be able to commute in less than an hour as a result of high speed rail wouldn't one consider moving further out from the city center? And couldn't that potentially cause urban sprawl that would convert productive farmland to tract housing?
And those big houses on a big lot are the kind of development that the recent study told us makes money for the community. Who needs the worlds most productive farmland taxed way below market value when we can have more and more Trails of Brittany right here.
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
This might reinstill rural communities and open up job opportunities for those living in Tolono, as an example, if they could get a job in the Chicago area, even with the cost of travel.
Right, and if I live in DeKalb and commute now via car or train but can only afford a small place there perhaps now I can afford a larger place in Tolono or Mahomet or St. Joseph and then ride the train to Chicago in potentially less time than it took me to commute by train or car from DeKalb. So in this case this kind of urban sprawl is ok and in this instance it is ok to not insist on infill development in cities? I don't get it. Why should we work to enable people from rural areas to commute and have jobs in urban areas? Why not instead encourage affordable infill developments in cities or bring the jobs to the rural areas where the people need the jobs?
I'm not sure I see the usefulness of a system designed for business travels of 500 miles or more. How many business travellers go from St. Louis to Chicago in a day? What about leisure travel? For instance, if I want to go to the Dells am I supposed to hop on the high speed train to Milwaukee and then rent a car to drive to the Dells?
It sounds really cool and I know it is used in Europe & Japan and I really want to be in favor of it but at this point I don't get it - it apparently isn't going to be useful for commuting, and if it is it may promote urban sprawl further from the city centers and according to Keith Hays is going to be priced in such a fashion that only the country club crowd can use it for business or leisure travel. What am I missing?
To Son of a Barrelmaker @ 12:13 P--you bring up solid points. One does not just jump on the band wagon for high speed rail without integrating many of the questions posed so far, especially about sprawl. On the other side, good planning could integrate this HSR concept with longer distant travel, as is the case in Europe. Just a reminder, this country was interconnected via various means of transportation once upon a time that got destroyed/torn out throughout various policies on the federal level. I was engaged in a conversation yesterday about the merits of HSR through C-U as compared to Bloomington/Normal. Heresy, the concensus was best through B-N because of the massive amount of work that would be needed on tracks through C-U, especially the 90 degree turn. Then there is the logistic of connectivity from downtown Chicago out to O'Hare or Midway since Block 37 plans have gone by the wayside. As an aside. there are plans for building CTA mass transit to connect the various CTA routes raidiating out of downtown Chicago. There is a 100-year anniversay display about the Burnham Plan at the Chicago Architecture Foundation, across from the Art Institute including information about the CTA expansion plans. This display will be available through October.
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsie:
Maybe you should read the report before making your mind up about the best routes and making definitive statements..
http://www.midwesthsr.org/docs/Chicago_StLouis_HSR_Study_June_2009.pdf
To Anonymous @ 2:08 P--thanks for posting the url. Do you also have a url for a report analyzing the route through Bloomington-Normal? Otherwise, the information is rather one sided.
Pattsi Petrie
"And those big houses on a big lot are the kind of development that the recent study told us makes money for the community." Private single family homes initially do make money for communities but long term they have to be subsidized. A community needs commercial and manufacturing to make up this deficit.
The problem with both routes in my opinion for what's it worth is that they both attempt to use existing trackage - which means that it won't be high speed rail. You can't mix the high speed rail and freight - the Federal Railroad Administration will not allow speeds of 125 mph on joint freight rail routes.
On both routes the issues of grade crossings, - both road and rail - continue to exist. Better to start from zero - and do it right.
The best example of the inability of the two types of service (passenger & freight) to coexist can be seen locally. A recent ruling by the Federal Railroad Administration has reduced speeds on the current Amtrak route through Champaign. In areas where grade crossings are controlled by gated crossing - passenger rail speed is limited to 60 miles unless trains are longer then 8 cars. If there are no gated crossing in the area - speed can be maintained at 79 mph.
If you set the gates for passenger service - there is too long of a delay before freight trains show up - and people are tempted to drive around the gates- so reduce the speed of passenger trains.
My .02
Greg Novak
Sorry, folks, this is not going to happen. Champaign is off the beaten path. High speed rail will happen between Chicago and St Louis, and that route may very well include Kankakee. But you won't see dedicated right-of-way high-speed rail coming to Champaign. There may be incremental improvements, and we may get back to the ~100 mph service which happened before the mainline was single-tracked, but you can forget about TGV/ICE-level service coming to this dumpy little town. Not gonna happen.
Given the logistics and the basic 'shortest distance between two points' rule on costs, Anonymous 10:02 is probably right, except for the name calling.
Don't sell AMTRAK short. If you aren't in a hurry, long train rides are comfortable and offer some of the benefits of an ocean cruise. I've ridden Amtrak to Portland, Oregon, Washington, D. C. and New Orleans within the past few years and enjoyed every minute. Admitedly you do need to be something of a contortionist to get into an upper berth. Ralph Langenheim
I think they would be better served putting back in both sets of rail on those routes that have higher ridership like from Chicago to New Orleans. They should improve there road bed, use bridges rather then crossings and have fewer stops and increase there speed to 125 miles an hour. They could put Freight on either set of track but with both sets of track they should not have to slow the passenger trains or the freight trains. I think if they used there money wisely and upgraded the right routes they might even make money some day.
We took a trip out west and the train was slow and uncomfortable. It was slow because it had to wait many times for freight trains to go by which have right of way. It was uncomfortable because sleeping in what isn't a bad seat was made uncomfortable because the ride was made long because of delays. There are so many trains now because they can use freight trains more cost effective now that it slows the Passenger trains even more. The cost of putting back the other set of tracks is expensive but on some lines like the Chicago to Denver and west they are talking about putting in the rail anyway.
After being gone a while, I just took the time to read this thread - who says this is a conservative site? Wow!
who says this is a conservative site?
No one.
People with a variety of views post here
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
Starting with Greg Novak's July 5 10:52 comment and anonymous July 7, 10:02, let me clarify. Of course the high speed train and the slower freight trains do not share the same set of rails. They do share the same right of way. And acquiring new right of way is very expensive. So that reason the Chicago-Champaign-Decatur-Springfield-St Louis route was selected was because the curves in the right of way for the Chicago- Bloomington-Springfield run are too severe to accomodate 220 mph, but they can handle 110 mph on new rails. Only the new route using existing ROW through CU can accommodate 220 mph.
It is too late now to simply pick the shortest route between two points. Unlike the 1860's aquiring a straight line of new ROW would be cost-prohibitive. But since some idiot from the Illinois Central pulled up the second set of rails 20 years ago, we now have the existing right of way, virtually ready to go. The curve at Tolono would be new, but beyond that this project could be done in 7 years.
"But since some idiot from the Illinois Central pulled up the second set of rails 20 years ago..."---That IDIOT saved a lot of current dollars since those rails were too light even to handle today's train let alone a 'high speed rail' unit.
I don't understand the cost of land issue in the sense that public utilities aquire land for power lines all the time. We are talking about a 100 foor wide strip - perhaps less. Yes it will split fields but as an elevated line would not block as many roads as the interstate does. The problem for any freight line is to avoid grades and reduce bridges - which is not an issue if you are building a line for lighter trains -
Consider an example the issue of running a high speed rail line on the existing ROW through a town like Gillman. We have to deal with several grade crossings within the town - a rail grade crossing of the TP&W, the fact that the Springfield branch of the CN breaks off here to the west - and industries on both sides of the main that need to be reached will require them to cross the high speed rail line.
Do we build a flyover to permit the train to move through the town at speed? Its a solution - but will that require more land then the existing right of way?? Do we have to do it for every town along the way or built up area on the way - or grade crossing for that matter - and what happens if a freight on the adjacent line derails.
Railroads which have removed track did so to reduce (among other things) the property tax issues - and some are starting to put in back - the old C&NW line across Iowa was single tracked in the 1980's- but now under the ownership of the UP they are starting to lenghten the passing sides with a goal of replacing the second track. The CN has considered doing the same for the Chicago - Edgewood line - with the same goal of adding passing sidings and making longer sections of double track main
If you look at the old IC it did not have just one way to get from southern Illinois to Chicago. The Carbondale to Chicago main was set up for 100 mph service for passenger and fast freight service - while much of the heavy freight went up the old Spine line. That's no longer possible - so the main line needs to carry freight - and remember that since the IC has been taken under the control of the CN - train service on this line has been upped greatlyy. Under the old IC one never saw trains of auto racks - and the amount of grain moving from Canada to New Orleans has been upped as well. They may well put the second track back - but its to handle more frieght.
My .02
Greg Novak
The second track on the Illinois Central (now Canadian National) was pulled up 20 years ago because dedicated northbound and southbound tracks were no longer justified by traffic levels. Each of the tracks on the old double-track IC were only signaled in one direction, and did not allow, say, one high speed southbound train to pass another low-speed southbound train efficiently. The infrastructure costs associated with a railroad line are astronomical, and the double-track configuration of the IC main line was inefficient and costly. While many traditionalists (including this writer) were sorry to see the second track go, the IC in 1989 was for all intents and purposes a 1950s-style railroad trying to earn a profit in 1980s conditions. This didn't cut the mustard, and the removal of the second track was entirely justified economically. As much as the traditionalists hated change, the new single-track IC began to turn a healthy profit and achieve record operating ratios out of a property that in the 1980s was moribund and headed for bankruptcy.
The IC's outmoded double-track configuration was upgraded to technology called centralized traffic control. This setup allows trains to move with protection of signals in both directions on a single track. Pieces of the second main track about two to three miles long were retained as passing sidings about 10 to 20 miles apart, and were connected to the new single-track main line with remote-controlled track switches. The sale of the excess rail, ties, ballast, and track hardware paid for the fail safe control and communication hardware to run the modernized railroad.
Lots of folks said the single-tracking was a mistake. What happens, they asked, if traffic levels increased to the point that the "slim" IC no longer had the capacity to handle that traffic? The answer to that is that, if a sustained increase in traffic levels takes place, the railroad can add capacity where needed by adding new sidings or lengthening existing ones. Perhaps an analogy is in order. Keeping that excess capacity in place not earning return on investment for 20+ years is akin to a recent college graduate buying a 4,000 square foot home in anticipation that he'll become wealthy, marry and need the space for his future family of 5. Sure he may be right in the long run, but why spend the capital and pay taxes on excess property? It's much more prudent not to spend the capital and commit to many years of taxes and upkeep costs until the extra capacity is really necessary.
The statement about the IC's old rails being too light to handle today's trains is incorrect. Much of the rail removed 20 years ago was 132 lb/yard continuous welded rail, which remains the mainstream rail weight today on the IC and elsewhere. Old-timers would remind you that the Illinois Central ran trains in excess of 100 mph as long ago as the Thirties on 115 lb/yard jointed rail, some of which survived in sections until the single-tracking between 1989 and 1991.
You might be surprised to know that Japan's Shinkansen and most European high speed rail use lighter rail (typically 60 kg/m rail) than is currently used on today's Canadian National (ex-Illinois Central) main line through Champaign-Urbana. The freight tonnage that a rail line handles is a more critical factor in determining the rail weight than the passenger traffic, even if it is high speed. Passenger trains are extremely light compared to today's freight cars. A typical modern freight car can weigh up to 143 tons loaded and a modern passenger coach weighs well below half that figure even fully loaded. While heavy rail is not key for high speed passenger rail as it is freight, for safety and ride quality, more rigorous standards of maintenance of track are required for higher operating speeds.
I certainly don't want to come across as a luddite or a curmudgeion, and as I've stated before I think high speed rail is really cool, but I also can't help but wonder what will happen to airlines flying regional routes like St. Louis to Chicago if a high speed rail connection is developed. Will they be subsidized, will they be bought out by the government or will they just be allowed to fail? Also, significant taxpayer resources have been put into developing regional airports such as Willard. Willard is underutilized as is. What happens to Willard when no one flies from Champaign to St. Louis or Champaign to Chicago anymore because they can get to the downtown areas of those cities faster by high speed rail?
Son of a barrelmaker said "What happens to Willard when no one flies from Champaign to St. Louis or Champaign to Chicago anymore because they can get to the downtown areas of those cities faster by high speed rail?"
I doubt that many people are flying out of Willard when there final destination is downtown Chicago or St. Louis. I checked a random date in August and the fare was $252 r/t to Chicago and you still have to get from O'Hare to downtown. You could go Amtrak on that same date for $26 r/t. There are no flights out of Willard to St. Louis. The fare on that same random date in August from Willard to St. Louis by way of O'Hare was $390 r/t. I live in McLean County so I use BMI for the most part although I don't fly all that often. I have yet to meet someone who was flying from BMI to Chicago and their final destination was Chicago.
What happens to Willard when no one flies from Champaign to St. Louis or Champaign to Chicago anymore because they can get to the downtown areas of those cities faster by high speed rail?
The fact is one can get to Downtown Chicago faster by Amtrak than to fly Willard to Ohare then take surface transport to the Downtown area. Flying to Chicago now is only sensible if it is the first leg of a flight to somewhere else.
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
Let's do a little math on this whole project, you know, like this was a real business considering a capital project.
$12 billion investment - if you divide that over 1 million riders per year for 100 years, with no accounting for the cost of money, you have to charge $120 per passenger just to recover your building costs.
Right, you can go Amtrak to DT Chicago right now for $26 round trip but how much will the high speed train fare be? Will the cost be competetive with that fare or with the round trip air fare/taxi ride to DT or will the flights to cities from so-called regional airports go away? If you can take the train to a city center and then another one to a major airport why have any flights there at all and if it is so easy to get to a major airport by train doesn't that render so-called regional airports superflous? And if the fare on the high speed train is as low as the Amtrak fare won't that contribute to flight from the city centers and urban sprawl by making it more convenient for people to live as far out as 150 miles from the city center and still be able to commute in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable cost?
1 million riders per year for 100 years
Are there currently that many travellers per year travelling over the same direct city to city routes?
On July 10th, 2009 at 09:05 AM, redstatewannabe said:
Let's do a little math on this whole project, you know, like this was a real business considering a capital project.
I view myself as a conservative and am all in favor of letting business pay for themselves - but lets face the facts - When has ANY US transportation system been asked to pay for itself as a real business??
As has been pointed out - all over Central Illinois taxpayers subsidize local airports - Champaign County put quite a few dollars into Willard in an attempt to keep Chanute open - and look what happened - we have Bloomington and Springfield and Decatur and Peoria - all of which use taxpayer money to compete against one another
US Flagged merchant ships get a payment from the US government - without it there would be no US flagged ships. Barge traffic pays less then half the costs of running the existing system - and nothing towards replacement costs
How is the cost of the Curtiss road interchange paid for by the people that use it? I love having it open - but how do we justify the cost over the number of users?
Do trucking companies pay their fair share of highway costs? The difference between the pavement needed to carry a truck - and that needed to carry an auto is huge - yet both pay the same rate of tax on a gallon of fuel.
So why is it that a rail system must be held to a different standard - the business standard
My .02
Greg Novak
So why is it that a rail system must be held to a different standard - the business standard
Red may be saying that but I'm not. I'm just trying to point out if one subsidizes high speed rail to make it affordable one should be prepared to either further subsidize regional airports and airlines to keep them competitive or be prepared for them to fail if it is cheaper, faster and more efficient to travel by high speed rail between cities. And if one can live further out from the city centers and still commute reasonably one should be prepared for more urban sprawl and further inner city decline. It seems like it would be smarter for America to have an overall transportation plan for all transportation modes rather than to approach transportation in such a piecemeal fashion. Let's implement high speed rail and phase out regional airports and/or regional interstates at the same time rather than nurse the system that can't cut the competition along for decades at taxpayer expense and then bemoan it's demise.
Monorail, monorail, monorail....
Greg-Business Standard-now your not talking trains your talking politics.
Son of a barrel-I don't think we should try to subsidize everything to keep it competitive. I think we should try to support those modes of transportation that the public beleive are most viable in areas that are most used.
Run4cvrlib-please learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
Run, I would agree with you on that but I think you can expect those entities that can't compete effectively to request further subsidization. And if a transportation system is not going to be affordable and useful to the citizenry as a whole why build it with taxpayer money if only the affluent are able to use it?
So why is it that a rail system must be held to a different standard - the business standard
I am not necessarily saying that high speed rail must be held to a pure return-on-investment standard, but it always helps to look at the cost/benefit of any expenditure. It is also prudent to look at the cost of doing nothing.
Planes do fly from Chic to St. Louis, and Amtrak is currently running. There are highways and buses. Is saving x minutes/hours per trip for y riders really worth $12 billion? And that doesn't even figure in the operating subsidy that would surely follow (we can't spend $12 billion on a train line, then not have anyone ride because the operating costs are too high).
I need a little something more than the cool factor, the nostalgia factor, or the 'Europe and Japan all have these' argument.
Son of a Barrelmaker-RSW- what I want and what everyone else wants never happens because what I wrote is what would happen in a make believe world where I could control everything. Of course there is no such place and in this world there are too many outside force's that pressure any program to keep them from working the way they should. I don't think public programs are made to work well they are made to make someone look good, unless you're the opponent of the person developing the program then you're working to ensure it doesn't work.
The biggest thing that should be done - end all federal transportion taxes and grants. It is time for states and cities to deal with their own problems. I don't want to pay for Chicago's or NY's trains, and people from Rockford shouldn't be paying for the CUMTD. New highway exits should be funded by the localities that will benefit.
All this overspending comes because the money is coming from the federal pot, and "someone is going to get it". Just like our current health insurance system, purchasing decisions are being distorted.
redstatewannabe said: "The biggest thing that should be done - end all federal transportion taxes and grants."
Given that, as has already been pointed out, all major forms of transportation are subsidized, it is interesting to contemplate what the landscape might look like with this line of thinnking. Would I-74 and I-72 even exist let alone almost all of the rural interchanges? Amtrak would disappear as would probably commercial passenger operations at all the airports in central Illinois. Forget about barge traffic on the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers.
Barge traffic and the creation of the interstate system seem like legit federal roles - I can concede those.
But the interstate system seems to be pretty built out at this point. Additions and interchanges should be state decisions at this point.
Amtrak, regional airports - let the states and cities decide if they are worthy of tax subsidy. There is no national interest in keeping an airport open in Bloomington, Decatur, Spfld, or Champaign. There is no national interest in a passenger train from Champaign to Chicago.
Even swapping fed gas taxes for state gas taxes would push the decision making closer to the people. And we could get away from that whole blackmail game the feds play with those dollars (seat belt laws, speed limits, dui laws).
But the interstate system seems to be pretty built out at this point.
You need to spend some time outside of Central Illinois if this is what you think.
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
"Do trucking companies pay their fair share of highway costs? The difference between the pavement needed to carry a truck - and that needed to carry an auto is huge - yet both pay the same rate of tax on a gallon of fuel."
The owner of a truck pays way more in sales tax on the truck.
The truck uses much more gas than the car.
Also, commercial licenses cost more, and registration, etc. is more I'm sure.
So I'd go out on a limb and say that trucking companies pay their fair share.
But the interstate system seems to be pretty built out at this point.
You need to spend some time outside of Central Illinois if this is what you think.
Wasn't this process started by Ike in the 50's? That means the Feds have had 50 years to build roads to promote interstate commerce. If the job is not done by now, it should be. Time to pull the plug.
One does not even need to leave central Illlinois to realize the interstate system is not built out. Have you ever driven from C-U to Macomb or from Quincy to Peoria? This does not mean I am arguing for more interstate. When we worked with the counties surrounding Effingham, every charrette that we held, the participants wanted the highways expanded to their particular part of Illinois and this has happened around Effingham.
Pattsi Petrie
Have you ever driven from C-U to Macomb or from Quincy to Peoria?
Those are not inter-state trips - my whole point. If Illinois thinks those routes need improvement, Illinois should pay for it. And I am sure there are examples of this situation all over the country. Better to keep it out of the hands of Congress.
To RSW @ 4:49P--this makes no sense because one has to plan for connectivity. This does need to be done on the federal level or the road to nowhere gets built. Also this is the reason that there are different levels of roadway.
Pattsi Petrie
You can get to Macomb now, and out of Macomb. If the state upgrades a road to Macomb, the traffic won't be stranded.
Decatur to Bloomington is a state road.
US Route 51 from Decatur to Bloomington is a state route?
my bad
is it part of the "Interstate" system? (it doesn't have that same blue-red shield on the map)
No, but it is a federal highway. Like US Route 45. For it to be part of the interstate highway system it would have to be limited access. I think the plan is or was to extend Interstate 39 along that route to Decatur.
fyi - from Bloomington to Decatur US 51 is four-lane divided with somewhat limited access. The limits on access are not to interstate standards. US 51 follows I-72 part way around Decatur and has now been built to four-lane for some miles south of Decatur.
Federal funding is not only used to build new interstate highway; it is also used for maintenance on existing interstate and federal highways. If that system of funding were to disappear it is likely that in some areas - particularly those rural areas where there is not a clear connection between major cities - the maintenance would disappear also.
My parents remembered what it was like before the "hard road" was built. I remember what it was like before the interstates when US 66 was two-lane in rural areas of Illinois. I remember as a young child traveling a stretch of US numbered highway in North Dakota that was gravel for miles and miles. Without the federal funding mechanism we would not have the highway system that we do today. Arguably, if that mechanism were removed we would eventually devolve decades back to a more primitive condition in rural areas that could not possibly afford to maintain those highways on their own.
On both routes the issues of brand crossings, - both alley and abuse - abide to exist. Better to alpha from aught - and do it right. The best archetype of the disability of the two types of account (passenger & freight) to coexist can be apparent locally. A contempo cardinal by the Federal Railroad Administration has bargain speeds on the accepted Amtrak avenue through Champaign. In areas breadth brand crossings are controlled by gated bridge - commuter abuse acceleration is bound to 60 afar unless trains are best again 8 cars. If there are no gated bridge in the breadth - acceleration can be maintained at 79 mph. He botheration with both routes in my assessment for what's it account is that they both attack to use absolute trackage - which agency that it will not be top acceleration rail. You can't mix the top acceleration abuse and bales - the Federal Railroad Administration will not acquiesce speeds of 125 mph on collective bales abuse routes.
Wow. Run has competition.
Arguably, if that mechanism were removed we would eventually devolve decades back to a more primitive condition in rural areas that could not possibly afford to maintain those highways on their own.
Yes, I think that is RSW's whole point: things were much better before the big, bad federal government (who can't do anything right, btw) built this expensive, bloated and horribly inefficient national highway system. Sure you can drive from C/U to Seattle in two days, but think of the tax money you could be saving if we had gravel roads!
This thread is a good example of what happens when ideologues speak from their ideology instead of thinking things through. There may be no other federal expenditure that has created more jobs in this history of this country than the federal highway system. Tear it down, toss it to the states and hope for the best and you'll have another dust bowl in 30 years.
Have you ever driven from C-U to Macomb or from Quincy to Peoria?
Pattsi, sometimes you need to remember that not everyone shares your view of how things should be. Frankly, I think a billion dollar highway it not a wise use of funds in Western Illinois.
www.nix336.org
Sure you can drive from C/U to Seattle in two days, but think of the tax money you could be saving if we had gravel roads!
GRAVEL ROADS?!
By God who is wasting good money on GRAVEL? The dirt of the Oregon Trail was good enough for Great Grand Daddy and it is good enough for You all!
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
To Anonymous @ 10:04 A--as we engage in this thread, a highway connecting Quincy and Peoria is being built with one off ramp exit into Macombon the west side completed and two more in in the wings one directly into WIU and the second on the east side.
Pattsi Petrie
You know, I was thinking, the big advantage for us liberals in these kinds of arguments is that it is impossible to see what would have happened if the federal government did not intervene. Therefore, we can always point to the very tangible results of government action, whereas our opponents cannot point to an alternative universe in which the government did not take action and demonstrate that things would actually be even better.
So we only have to point to some benefits of a government action, and assert that those benefits would not exist otherwise, we don't have to do the much harder task of proving that the benefits of the government action were greater and at less cost than what would have happened otherwise.
I really think this is why so many people agree with us (liberals, that is).
Actually, this works both ways. What is fun about being a conservative is pointing out all the ways our limited government philosophy has helped make America great. Why, take a look at Reagan's "trickle-down economics," for example. We've made the wealthy in this country even wealthier and look at what a great benefit that has been for most Americans! Look at day care, for example. Since wages have stagnated and real buying power of an hour of labor has plummetted, more Americans are forced to have both parents work all day. And now we have new businesses like Day Care Centers that take care of children from about 3 months old through age 4. Yay! What a great thing for our country!
Or take a look at the results of deregulation. Sure, the economy collapsed, but think of all those Americans who were allowed to achieve the American Dream for a year or two before the bank foreclosed. Would they ever have achieved those years with sensible regulations? I doubt it!
And then there's Iraq. Remember how all those ignorant liberals kept protesting and saying this would be a long, bloody war that would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians? Ha! We sure showed them. We probably only killed 150,000 civilians and, last I checked, that is NOT hundreds of thousands. Pinko morons.
Yes, rest assured that when conservatives ideas have been put into practice they have usually produced great results. From foreign policy triumphs to the genius of trickle down tax cuts, conservatives know how to govern better than those stupid liberals any day of the week. And if the media wasn't so biased toward "facts" and "statistics," everyone would no doubt agree.
I feel better already.
How many of you are aware of the fact that the first national programs to pave roads in this country were a result of the efforts of cyclists? Yes, you read it right. Cyclists are the reason the federal govenment got into the business of paving roads across state lines.
"The League was founded as the League of American Wheelmen in 1880. Bicyclists, known then as "wheelmen", were challenged by rutted roads of gravel and dirt and faced antagonism from horsemen, wagon drivers, and pedestrians.
In an effort to improve riding conditions so they might better enjoy their newly discovered sport, more than 100,000 cyclists from across the United States joined the League to advocate for paved roads. The success of the League in its first advocacy efforts ultimately led to our national highway system.
Read more about the League's history here."
Interesting how we have exchanged antagonism from horsemen, wagon drivers, and pedstrians to motorists.
Not really so. The first national program to construct a paved road was the National Road - modern US route 40 - built in the 1830s from Cumberland Maryland to Vandalia, Illinois using the Macadam method. Some of the original Macadamized pavement is still in use. The first use of the Macadam system in America was a section of the Maryland Turnpike between Boonsboro and Hagerstown, constructed in 1823. By 1880 most of the nation's intercity post road and turnpike network was already paved by the Macadam method.
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
To Anonymous @ 10:04 A--as we engage in this thread, a highway connecting Quincy and Peoria is being built with one off ramp exit into Macombon the west side completed and two more in in the wings one directly into WIU and the second on the east side.
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsi, let me correct you again. The highway connecting Quincy to Macomb has been built. I'm not sure how good your geography is, but Macomb is about 75 miles west of Peoria. No four lane exists connecting Macomb to Peoria. 336 west of Macomb will connect to 67 that heads north out of Macomb. The rest of the route for 336 is still in planning stages, as it has been for the past few decades. If it ever gets built, it'll cost about a billion dollars of tax money to make a road that will get very little use.
To Anonymous @ 6:39 P--a helpful correction. Thank you. Pattsi Petrie
Here are a couple of urls that give a bit of the history of the development of roads--
http://www.triplenine.org/articles/roadbuilding.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_road_transport
Seems as if bicyclists might have had some influence, but the farmers had a bigger "say" along with a lot of influence from across the Atlantic Ocean.
Pattsi Petrie
Yes, I think that is RSW's whole point: things were much better before the big, bad federal government (who can't do anything right, btw) built this expensive, bloated and horribly inefficient national highway system.
No, that is not my point. The national highway system - connecting states together with limited access, high-speed roads- is a great asset for our nation.
But at this point, the connections between the states are built. I think the federal gas tax funds would be better spent if it was a state gas tax, and allocated at a more local level. (This is a theoretical argument at this point, as advocating that the current Ill. GA and Gov would be "better" at administering anything is really hard to do with a straight face.)
The Federal Gas Tax is sent out almost entirely to the states - who get to spend it - The current tax of 18 cents a gallon was set in the late 1960's early 1970's IIRRC - when it made up almost a quarter of the cost of a gallon of gas.
50 years ago people opposed the interstate highway system as unneeded and expensive - what will people say 50 years from now on high speed rail
My .02
Greg Novak
Greg, if you post the same thing twice, does that make it your .04? :-)