25 replies to this topic

[Anderson]

Now, it would be nice if the Feds were willing to say "If a line going from state A to state C passes through state B and states A and C want it, then A and C can get the project if B is only marginally involved, whether or not B supports". I wish..

Example of this: Boston to Portland, Maine.

The HSR plan that goes to Atlanta is another possible case: VA and NC are on board, and I think you could get GA on board. SC, on the other hand, gets virtually no benefit from such a project compared to everyone else. It feels like giving Delaware a veto over the Acela.

Of course, it's also a shame that, if MA and ME felt strongly enough about it, that they couldn't just do a backwards deal with the Feds to cover the cost in their states and then have them buy the linking track in NH and do that themselves. Granted, I'm all too familiar with the political issues of that ("You're building something just barely outside our state! How dare you!"), but still...

Edit: This is actually one advantage of declaring a "national system" like Amtrak started with: You get a partial end-run on the states on at least some routings.

Edited by Anderson, 24 July 2011 - 10:40 PM.

[amtrakwolverine]

So make it high-speed in Michigan and screw the other states. Why pay to make the line highspeed in states that don't want to play ball.The Line NS crippled runs between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo so no need to involve the other states.

[Anderson]

So make it high-speed in Michigan and screw the other states. Why pay to make the line highspeed in states that don't want to play ball.The Line NS crippled runs between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo so no need to involve the other states.

No, but Michigan HSR is screwed over by the bottleneck in northern Indiana (which IN went along with improving only reluctantly). Also, it's kinda hard to run a train from CHI-MSP without passing through WI (at least in a timely manner).

[Trogdor]

So make it high-speed in Michigan and screw the other states. Why pay to make the line highspeed in states that don't want to play ball.The Line NS crippled runs between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo so no need to involve the other states.

No, but Michigan HSR is screwed over by the bottleneck in northern Indiana (which IN went along with improving only reluctantly). Also, it's kinda hard to run a train from CHI-MSP without passing through WI (at least in a timely manner).

Wisconsin isn't relevant to the discussion of fixing up 30 mph track slowdowns in Michigan (nor is Indiana, for that matter).

[Anderson]

So make it high-speed in Michigan and screw the other states. Why pay to make the line highspeed in states that don't want to play ball.The Line NS crippled runs between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo so no need to involve the other states.

No, but Michigan HSR is screwed over by the bottleneck in northern Indiana (which IN went along with improving only reluctantly). Also, it's kinda hard to run a train from CHI-MSP without passing through WI (at least in a timely manner).

Wisconsin isn't relevant to the discussion of fixing up 30 mph track slowdowns in Michigan (nor is Indiana, for that matter).

Indiana is relevant insofar as the Hammond-area bottleneck kills your timetables (I recall a comment to the effect of "Why worry about running a train at 125 MPH in Michigan if you lose all the time in Indiana?") and potentially harms the viability of CHI-DET(and CHI-anywhere-in-MI for that matter) routing. Wisconsin is relevant in the same way as New Hampshire is, regarding similar examples of headaches like this (i.e. where one disinterested state can make a real headache of something several other states want).

[DET63]

Regarding CHI-MSP and Wisconsin: there may be a "Robin Hood's barn" route between Chicago and the Twin Cities that avoids Wisconsin, but I believe it would have be upgraded immensely to be competitive with the far shorter route that is now used.

Regarding CHI-DET, there is no "Robin Hood's barn" or other routing that connects the two cities yet avoids Indiana (unless you're talking about going all the way to Kentucky, then back through Ohio). However, any route through Indiana will only go through a small corner of the state, so the state has a great incentive not to get involved in a project that would stand to benefit comparatively few Hoosiers.

Edited by DET63, 26 July 2011 - 01:47 PM.