BertramCooper
Banned
Considering it involves the largest and third-largest cities in the Midwest, I definitely see it as newsworthy.
But I live in Columbus, so I'm obviously biased.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Midwest-GAF: High-speed rail line from Columbus to Chicago being considered
- Thread starter BertramCooper
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Considering it involves the largest and third-largest cities in the Midwest, I definitely see it as newsworthy.
But I live in Columbus, so I'm obviously biased.
BertramCooper
Banned
I think it's thread worthy. Just hits upon my shit in the Eastern time zone shouldn't be labeled Midwest theory.
For what it's worth, I don't really think of Kansas as a Midwest state.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
OTOH, I think Midwest extends to the Western parts of New York and Pennsylvania. Buffalo has a lot more in common with the Midwest than it does with NYC.
Then we are at odds. I've always seen it as if St Louis was the gateway to the West, MO and KS are the things sitting in between that and the West. Hence Midwest.For what it's worth, I don't really think of Kansas as a Midwest state.
Real high speed rail isn't going to happen outside of the Northeast and California, Amtrak is already losing money running every line except for their current not so high speed line in the Northeast Megalopolis.
Well, rail travel is never going to catch on unless it is exponentially better than driving. This kind of thing doesn't qualify, so they may as well not bother if they aren't going to do it right.
It's just going to be a waste of money to spend billions building a system that is not going to be used by anyone because it provides insubstantial advantages. If you are going to spend billions, you have to make it worth using. 110 mph is not worth using to the vast majority of people.
Amtrak isn't profitable because it's shit. Even the Acela is not even close to a proper high speed train, and it's still more expensive than flying. Who the fuck would want to use such a shitty service?
GoldenEye 007
Member
Maaaan Fuck Rick Scott.
He's such a dumbfuck douchebag. The people that voted him in are...something else too.
Imagine linking Tampa-Orlando-Jacksonville at min via. high speed rail...
bucknuticus
Member
Then we are at odds. I've always seen it as if St Louis was the gateway to the West, MO and KS are the things sitting in between that and the West. Hence Midwest.
I like to call Kansas and west the plains, MO-PA is midwest to me.
BertramCooper
Banned
Then we are at odds. I've always seen it as if St Louis was the gateway to the West, MO and KS are the things sitting in between that and the West. Hence Midwest.
The term itself is antiquated, and refers to the land that was the Middle West of the United States back in the early 19th century.
In its earliest form, it referred to the Northwest Territory, so these are the states I primarily think of as being "Midwestern."
Also, I'll admit my definition is impacted by the Big Ten - at least the old school Big Ten.
BertramCooper
Banned
Well, rail travel is never going to catch on unless it is exponentially better than driving. This kind of thing doesn't qualify, so they may as well not bother if they aren't going to do it right.
It's just going to be a waste of money to spend billions building a system that is not going to be used by anyone because it provides insubstantial advantages. If you are going to spend billions, you have to make it worth using. 110 mph is not worth using to the vast majority of people.
Amtrak isn't profitable because it's shit. Even the Acela is not even close to a proper high speed train, and it's still more expensive than flying. Who the fuck would want to use such a shitty service?
Columbus to Chicago in four hours via train would be infinitely better than driving, especially when you consider Chicago traffic.
Anyone who has driven this particular route can attest to that.
Columbus to Chicago in four hours via train would be infinitely better than driving, especially when you consider Chicago traffic.
Anyone who has driven this particular route can attest to that.
They need to get Elon Musk to install his hyperloop instead though.
Columbus to Chicago in four hours via train would be infinitely better than driving, especially when you consider Chicago traffic.
Anyone who has driven this particular route can attest to that.
It's almost certainly not going to be 4 hours though, not even close when you add in the time it takes to get to the station, board, all the stops along the way, etc. Even assuming terrible traffic, driving shouldn't take more than 6-7 hrs. Google Maps says 5 and a half.
It's still going to be slower than flying even counting the TSA clusterfuck, so it better be substantially cheaper to be even remotely viable.
It should be illegal to even call 110 mph 'high speed rail'.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It's almost certainly not going to be 4 hours though, not even close when you add in the time it takes to get to the station, board, all the stops along the way, etc. Even assuming terrible traffic, driving shouldn't take more than 6-7 hrs. Google Maps says 5 and a half.
It's still going to be slower than flying even counting the TSA clusterfuck, so it better be substantially cheaper to be even remotely viable.
Realistic trip to Columbus from Chicago assuming you hit the traffc is 6.5-7 hours.
bucknuticus
Member
All my trips to Chicago have been 5.5-6 hours, but still being able to sit on a train and chill out beat driving.
BertramCooper
Banned
It's almost certainly not going to be 4 hours though, not even close when you add in the time it takes to get to the station, board, all the stops along the way, etc. Even assuming terrible traffic, driving shouldn't take more than 6-7 hrs. Google Maps says 5 and a half.
It's still going to be slower than flying even counting the TSA clusterfuck, so it better be substantially cheaper to be even remotely viable.
It should be illegal to even call 110 mph 'high speed rail'.
The plan apparently includes both a local train, which would stop at the smaller stations, and an express train.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yes. Please yes.
People are going to wish there is high speed rail everywhere when the price of gas is exponentially higher. But we're the USA, we love our cars and we don't like to think 3 weeks into the future let alone 3 decades.
And yeah, fuck Scott Walker too.
And yeah, fuck Scott Walker too.
People are going to wish there is high speed rail everywhere when the price of gas is exponentially higher. But we're the USA, we love our cars and we don't like to think 3 weeks into the future let alone 3 decades.
Most driving is commuting, not intercity travel.
Rail is far more efficient for freight than passengers.
Heavy and Commuter rail are what people should be striving for not the fuck-ton-waste-of-money that HSR is outside of the North East.
It's almost certainly not going to be 4 hours though, not even close when you add in the time it takes to get to the station, board, all the stops along the way, etc. Even assuming terrible traffic, driving shouldn't take more than 6-7 hrs. Google Maps says 5 and a half.
It's still going to be slower than flying even counting the TSA clusterfuck, so it better be substantially cheaper to be even remotely viable.
It should be illegal to even call 110 mph 'high speed rail'.
No one should count on HSR travel times excluding TSA security theater lines. There is no reason that Airports have TSA security lines and intercity rail does not and no reason it will continue as such.
BertramCooper
Banned
Most driving is commuting, not intercity travel.
Rail is far more efficient for freight than passengers.
Heavy and Commuter rail are what people should be striving for not the fuck-ton-waste-of-money that HSR is outside of the North East.
To be sure, if I had to choose between commuter rail and intercity rail for Columbus, I would take commuter rail in a heartbeat.
Light rail has been discussed for ages and we've still seen nothing. It sucks.
Valkyr Junkie
Member
People are going to wish there is high speed rail everywhere when the price of gas is exponentially higher. But we're the USA, we love our cars and we don't like to think 3 weeks into the future let alone 3 decades.
And yeah, fuck Scott Walker too.
When gas gets that pricey, electricity and therefore just about everything else will follow suit. In countries and regions with great rail infrastructure, flying can still be as cheap if not cheaper.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.