Another stop on a route to high-speed rail

Do we want this from an environmental point of view? Keep in mind that the average fuel efficiency of a plane is in the range of 20-30 passenger-miles per gallon of kerosene, about the same as a bus--and that of a train is less than that of a bus.

Moreover, the 4 miles of runway needed for a 737 type plane is far less than the 500 miles of rail needed for high speed trains.

In short, high speed rail is an environmental boondoggle--you would be environmentally (and fiscally) better off to simply buy everyone a plane ticket, or even a 3/4 ton diesel powered pickup for the trip.

And they would save time in the deal, too. Trains are a great 19th century technology, but hey--it's the 21st century, and reality is that there are certain economic and ecological disadvantages of steel rails 4'9" apart.

19th century technology that liberals sell as progressive.

and no one rides the choo-choo train being it goes from nowhere to nowhere.

No wonder bother mayors in Mpls and Saint Paul have busted budgets and beg T-Paw for a bailout.

change your own diapers mayors

I think the trains they are talking about are more than 19th century technology. They are high speed trains not steam locomotives.

They want to spend the money to provide trains that can run from St. Paul to Chicago in five and a half hours (vs. about eight and a half hours for today's Amtrak train). In the mid-1930s, two competing railroads were offering St. Paul-Chicago service, twice a day, in six hours, fifteen minutes. One of those railroads was still using steam locomotives! And they weren't using billions of dollars in federal subsidies to do it.

Robogop wrote:

I think the trains they are talking about are more than 19th century technology. They are high speed trains not steam locomotives.

Did you figure that all out by yourself or did your Mommy help you write the post

If they are going to build a high speed train they need to build a MagLev and do it right. 200mph and your in Chicago in 1 1/2 hours tops. Why would anyone pay to get there in 5 1/2 hours when you can drive it in that amount of time for less.

I have a better idea for getting to chicago faster: raise the speed limit through wisconsin

Improved passenger rail expands mobility for travelers. Greater travel mobility and choice lead to greater economic, social and cultural connections between people and regions. The areas around stations become magnets for economic development leading to significant spin-off benefits far in excess of initial government investments. Significant intermediate business, education and population centers become easier to get too. This route would serve Winona State, UW-Lacrosse, UW and Milwaukee. The US Dept of Energy ranks present-day train travel as 17% MORE efficient (2700 btus per pass mile vs. 3200 for planes and 3400 for cars) than either travel by plane or car, so better rail service is good for the environment. I travel this route frequently and marvel at the crowds boarding and alighting at intermediate stations, including business travelers to Lacrosse getting work done while saving a fortune over expensive Chicago to Lacrosse flights.

So-called "high-speed rail" only duplicates what is already available by plane, and at a much higher cost. "High-speed rail" will need to make no stops between MSP and Chicago in order to be truly "high-speed", and it will need to operate on separate tracks.

If MSP-Chicago rail is so important, it should be set up to provide stops every 50-80 miles so that it is convenient for people to use as an alternative to road travel. Let's call it "regional rail".

All the squawking about how efficient and "fast" this choo choo is for getting to chicago in 5 1/2 hours, and nobody has pointed out that you can drive to Chicago in 5 hours by going 80 mph. On top of that, a car gives you absolute freedom to go where you want when you want. No train can ever claim that.

This is the 21st century, not the 19th. Get with it already.

Bike Bubba wrote:

Do we want this from an environmental point of view? Keep in mind that the average fuel efficiency of a plane is in the range of 20-30 passenger-miles per gallon of kerosene, about the same as a bus--and that of a train is less than that of a bus.
Moreover, the 4 miles of runway needed for a 737 type plane is far less than the 500 miles of rail needed for high speed trains.
In short, high speed rail is an environmental boondoggle--you would be environmentally (and fiscally) better off to simply buy everyone a plane ticket, or even a 3/4 ton diesel powered pickup for the trip.
And they would save time in the deal, too. Trains are a great 19th century technology, but hey--it's the 21st century, and reality is that there are certain economic and ecological disadvantages of steel rails 4'9" apart.

This isn't meant to be combative, but can you give me sources for any of the numbers you've posted here? And I don't mean pointing me to a link that says, "A study shows that..." I mean, please give the source material that the study looks at. This is literally the first time I've ever heard the claim that an airplane is more fuel-efficient than a train.

A couple of points I'm thinking about:

1) More cost efficient per number of people? Because every train certainly carries more people than an airplane - and all their freight and with more legroom, I might point out.

2) An airplane has to expend quite a lot of energy to overcome drag and keep itself flying fast enough so that the wings direct enough air downward - lift. In addition, the engines are idling for a lot of additional time on the ground, taxi-ing, and indeed circling the airport, sometimes for an hour or more, waiting in line to land. To be sure, a train idles at the station as well.

But a train, once it gets going, has a very small contact patch of the edge of the steel wheels against the edge of the steel rails. It's a very low-drag situation. And a train - without the need for wings and outboard engine pods, presents about the best cross-section to the wind that you can imagine. To be fair you do encounter more air resistance as you go to a "higher speed" train - but still quite a lot less than an airplane.

Overall, train fuel mileage less than that of an airplane - per person and for its entire operation?

3) Finally, to adress your point about the "4 miles of runway" vs. "500 miles of rail." That's not a bad point, but I might be more pursuaded by it if the rail corridors weren't already in place. Are you arguing the best way forward from two centuries ago, or the best way forward from today? And honestly, even if 200 years ago, I'm not convinced. A rail corridor is simply a roadway between major cities. One that would diminish auto traffic along the same roadway.

Carbon Bigfoot wrote:

So-called "high-speed rail" only duplicates what is already available by plane, and at a much higher cost. "High-speed rail" will need to make no stops between MSP and Chicago in order to be truly "high-speed", and it will need to operate on separate tracks.

I think you only get that higher cost for rail if you aren't comparing apples to apples. Of course high speed rail will involve start-up costs. But start from scratch, hypothetically, and consider two points. Build and operate airports and maintain air traffic control, or build and operate rail stations and maintain track betwen those two points. Which one is less expensive? I'm not sure I see a clear winner.

If MSP-Chicago rail is so important, it should be set up to provide stops every 50-80 miles so that it is convenient for people to use as an alternative to road travel. Let's call it "regional rail".

I don't see high speed rail as a solution to regional travel - you get diminishing returns energy wise, economically, and ecologically.

I do however see it as a replacement - that's right, a replacement - for hub air travel.

sock wrote:

All the squawking about how efficient and "fast" this choo choo is for getting to chicago in 5 1/2 hours, and nobody has pointed out that you can drive to Chicago in 5 hours by going 80 mph. On top of that, a car gives you absolute freedom to go where you want when you want. No train can ever claim that.
This is the 21st century, not the 19th. Get with it already.

High-speed rail won't replace those travelers that want to go by car, and as I've mentioned in another post, I don't think high speed rail is a reasonable solution for regional travel either.

What high speed rail can do is replace air travel between hubs - which accounts for a great deal of travelers and a great deal of cars on the road as well as planes in the sky.

The point about having the freedom of you car at the other end is a good one - but air travel has the exact same limitation. We solve that by renting cars or being picked up by family, friends or business contacts.

sock wrote:

I have a better idea for getting to chicago faster: raise the speed limit through Wisconsin

If you actually did raise the speed limit through Wisconsin, I assume you are meaning Hwy 94. If true, then you will have to place barricades along the way so the Wisconsin drivers could not access the hwy. This is their only big road, the one they practice driving on. With a higher speed, they would be in grave jeopardy of being killed or maimed.
Then there would have to be Federal subsidies for burials etc. We cannot afford more spending by the Feds. They are spending all of our money now, and even the money we will be earning for many years to come

While the rive route may seem like a good idea because of existing lines, it just wont provide the speed and safety Minnesotans need.

Mr Badger lover wrote:

<quoted text>
If you actually did raise the speed limit through Wisconsin, I assume you are meaning Hwy 94. If true, then you will have to place barricades along the way so the Wisconsin drivers could not access the hwy. This is their only big road, the one they practice driving on. With a higher speed, they would be in grave jeopardy of being killed or maimed.

You have a good point. Minnesota drivers CAN be quite dangerous!

This is the future of travel. We should be jumping all over this instead of just talking about it.

Rail is the safest form of transportation. Trains don't drop from the sky.

Let's fund this now and get on with building the jobs and the green economy. Matching funds from the Federal Government are there. It is like free money and we only need to get on board to get it.

IrishMN wrote:

This is the future of travel. We should be jumping all over this instead of just talking about it.
Rail is the safest form of transportation. Trains don't drop from the sky.
Let's fund this now and get on with building the jobs and the green economy. Matching funds from the Federal Government are there. It is like free money and we only need to get on board to get it.

How do you know that this is a good project. It seem like there are so many other things we could think of to steal money from everybody in the US and waste tax dollars on.

Derrick wrote:

Improved passenger rail expands mobility for travelers. Greater travel mobility and choice lead to greater economic, social and cultural connections between people and regions. The areas around stations become magnets for economic development leading to significant spin-off benefits far in excess of initial government investments. Significant intermediate business, education and population centers become easier to get too. This route would serve Winona State, UW-Lacrosse, UW and Milwaukee. The US Dept of Energy ranks present-day train travel as 17% MORE efficient (2700 btus per pass mile vs. 3200 for planes and 3400 for cars) than either travel by plane or car, so better rail service is good for the environment. I travel this route frequently and marvel at the crowds boarding and alighting at intermediate stations, including business travelers to Lacrosse getting work done while saving a fortune over expensive Chicago to Lacrosse flights.

Gee what logic? How about this, take a walk to the bus stations and train stations right now, today. OK, do you see the folks that will use this type of transportation? Get real. The only thing this boondoggle will do is make it easier and faster to get welfare money in Wis and MN to Chicago folks. That's it. And I would bet somehow those folks would qualify for vouchers so they wouldn't even have to pay for the train ride. We don't need more Chicago here, it's costing us too many tax dollars already. Get it? You aren't going to see anything positive here, nothing. Look are our current LRT, loses money, costs taxpayers more and more each year and who uses it? A very very small percentage of folks. And who pays for it? Taxpayers. Enough.

Johnny Chew wrote:

While the rive route may seem like a good idea because of existing lines, it just wont provide the speed and safety Minnesotans need.

MN don't need safety or speed. We are talking about Chicago folks, neither need either one. It's all about paying dollars back as in PORK spending all along the line. And do you not think this project will not end up like Amtrak? The Post Office? Medicare? Soc Sec? Get it yet? Another blast of govt employees doing little to make money here, just more govt jobs that we all pay for. Sucks.