• 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.

Midwest-GAF: High-speed rail line from Columbus to Chicago being considered

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I read the thread I was interested because of the implications for the Midwest.

But it's just eastern time zone crap.

And just a basic passenger rail train. Most of the Midwest like KC, STL and Chicago have had that for many decades.

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.
 
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.
 

kick51

Banned
I am totally ambivalent on this cause I will be going to approximately zero cities in Indiana or Ohio in the future, but hey, more trains is good I guess?
 

iamblades

Member
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

injurai

Banned
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.
 

iamblades

Member
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'.
 
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.
 
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.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
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.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Top Bottom