The initial push is to get from Detroit to Chicago done. There is a lot of working being done right now on it. I have actually been to some of the meetings for the high speed stuff, as it is going to go right through my hometown.

 

Would be a nice change from the ultra slow speed train that currently goes through your downtown.

Would be a nice change from the ultra slow speed train that currently goes through your downtown.

 

This would be on the Amtrak lines a bit further north, and not on the South Shore lines. These are the ones that are less than a mile from the lakefront up by the powerplant.

Indiana is doing a great job at putting money into roads. Indy is having a hard time getting a local rail system going, but other than that, I like what Indiana is doing.

Rt 65 is a joke, and its one of the main highways through the state.

Rt 65 is a joke, and its one of the main highways through the state.

 

It is better since they went 3 lanes wide from MVille to 94. They still need to go 3 lanes for another 25 miles or so south.

It is better since they went 3 lanes wide from MVille to 94. They still need to go 3 lanes for another 25 miles or so south.

3 lanes all the way to Indy would be nice.

Rt 65 is a joke, and its one of the main highways through the state.

 

Getting 65 (and 70) expanded to 6 lanes is the next priority on the state's list. Getting the US 31 upgrade from SB to Indy and I-69 built from Evansville to Indy are nearing completion so hopefully the 65/70 work will get going in a couple years.

 

I drive 65 between Louisville and Indy at least twice a month, so nobody is more aware of the need for the extra lane than me. Too many jackass semi drivers going 66 in the left lane passing semis going 65 in the right lane, backing everybody else up.

 

I would be all for pumping money into infrastructure. America is so ass backwards compared to some of the other first world countries of the world.

 

What other country can compare to the geographic obstacles we have?

 

We put things off too long, and there's plenty of work to be done, but I don't think it's very easy to compare Europe or Asia to the US.

What other country can compare to the geographic obstacles we have?

 

We put things off too long, and there's plenty of work to be done, but I don't think it's very easy to compare Europe or Asia to the US.

 

We're Murica damn't. We can get it done.

What other country can compare to the geographic obstacles we have?

 

We put things off too long, and there's plenty of work to be done, but I don't think it's very easy to compare Europe or Asia to the US.

I think a lot of them can. Japan, for example, is a geographic nightmare. UK/France has a large salt water body between them.

 

This is one place where you might be able to blame a lot of government-related things so you should like it. It's insanely expensive to build infrastructure in the U.S. compared with the rest of the world. Building the same train in the U.S. costs like 3x or more what it costs in Japan, and they're a much bigger earthquake risk to boot.

 

It's probably a lot of factors. Local/provincial issues (I'm not moving my house!), tax issues, feifdoms, environmental requirements, lots of power in the hands of local issues/leaders (my richest constituents use that road every day, how can you put a train line across it), unions, the federal/state budgeting processes, and I'm sure you can add to it.

 

Of course, one counter-point is that it might be easiest to make things like that happen in a country with an extremely strong central government that can shove people out of the way...which fits very well with why China is able to pull off a variety of projects like this today at dramatically lower costs than we can. That may not be the model we want to follow either.

What other country can compare to the geographic obstacles we have?

 

We put things off too long, and there's plenty of work to be done, but I don't think it's very easy to compare Europe or Asia to the US.

The midwest is flat as a pancake, it should be easy to lay down high speed rail.

I think a lot of them can. Japan, for example, is a geographic nightmare. UK/France has a large salt water body between them.

 

This is one place where you might be able to blame a lot of government-related things so you should like it. It's insanely expensive to build infrastructure in the U.S. compared with the rest of the world. Building the same train in the U.S. costs like 3x or more what it costs in Japan, and they're a much bigger earthquake risk to boot.

 

It's probably a lot of factors. Local/provincial issues (I'm not moving my house!), tax issues, feifdoms, environmental requirements, lots of power in the hands of local issues/leaders (my richest constituents use that road every day, how can you put a train line across it), unions, the federal/state budgeting processes, and I'm sure you can add to it.

 

Of course, one counter-point is that it might be easiest to make things like that happen in a country with an extremely strong central government that can shove people out of the way...which fits very well with why China is able to pull off a variety of projects like this today at dramatically lower costs than we can. That may not be the model we want to follow either.

 

This is where infrastructure projects need to begin with this issue. The insanity is when a commission on this was done they couldn't even figure out a specific reason, it's just...all of it.

The midwest is flat as a pancake, it should be easy to lay down high speed rail.

 

It's not that simple. Maybe 70% of the route is flat farmland that would be easy (but not cheap) to build on, but as soon as you get close to the suburbs it's going to be insanely expensive to acquire/upgrade land and infrastructure near the cities.

 

If it cost a billion dollars to build one stupid football stadium, imagine the cost of building a new high speed line from Chicago to St. Louis.

I think a lot of them can. Japan, for example, is a geographic nightmare. UK/France has a large salt water body between them.

 

This is one place where you might be able to blame a lot of government-related things so you should like it. It's insanely expensive to build infrastructure in the U.S. compared with the rest of the world. Building the same train in the U.S. costs like 3x or more what it costs in Japan, and they're a much bigger earthquake risk to boot.

 

It's probably a lot of factors. Local/provincial issues (I'm not moving my house!), tax issues, feifdoms, environmental requirements, lots of power in the hands of local issues/leaders (my richest constituents use that road every day, how can you put a train line across it), unions, the federal/state budgeting processes, and I'm sure you can add to it.

 

Of course, one counter-point is that it might be easiest to make things like that happen in a country with an extremely strong central government that can shove people out of the way...which fits very well with why China is able to pull off a variety of projects like this today at dramatically lower costs than we can. That may not be the model we want to follow either.

 

Japan is how big compared to the US though. And it certainly doesn't have the sprawling suburban model that we do. UK/France it took one tunnel. You're not building 1000-3000 mile lines like you would here.

 

The bolded paragraph is also a huge issue. How long did it take to get the pink line up and running here in Chicago? And the infrastructure was basically already there.

 

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, but I just don't think our situation is comparable to anywhere else.

Japan is how big compared to the US though. And it certainly doesn't have the sprawling suburban model that we do. UK/France it took one tunnel. You're not building 1000-3000 mile lines like you would here.

 

The bolded paragraph is also a huge issue. How long did it take to get the pink line up and running here in Chicago? And the infrastructure was basically already there.

 

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, but I just don't think our situation is comparable to anywhere else.

China though is comparable in size to the U.S. and has obstacles that in some cases make ours look small and weak. They're getting it done better than we are also.

 

Whether it's mountains or size of the country or climate conditions or a tongue of the ocean, other countries keep doing this and we can't.

China though is comparable in size to the U.S. and has obstacles that in some cases make ours look small and weak. They're getting it done better than we are also.

 

Whether it's mountains or size of the country or climate conditions or a tongue of the ocean, other countries keep doing this and we can't.

 

This. There is absolutely no excuse.

This. There is absolutely no excuse.

I'd say there's lots of excuses that add up to the full reason.

I'd say there's lots of excuses that add up to the full reason.

 

Well yeah, we have inept politicians for starters. I would probably have a heart attack if you found an honest bone in any of their bodies.

China though is comparable in size to the U.S. and has obstacles that in some cases make ours look small and weak. They're getting it done better than we are also.

 

Whether it's mountains or size of the country or climate conditions or a tongue of the ocean, other countries keep doing this and we can't.

 

Most of China's major cities are on one side of the country though. We're spread out in every direction. Plus, China is, generally speaking, building from scratch. We're updating/modernizing.

 

And this sort of ignores the economic differences. China's propping up its economy with all this building, and when its done, the whole thing will come crashing down.

Worth pointing out... when the billions of federal dollars became available for making the Chicago-hubbed train lines capable of high speeds trains, some states gladly took the money (Illinois, Michigan). But one of the key routes, Chicago-Minneapolis, goes mostly through Wisconsin. The Feds were going to dump $2B worth of money there to rebuild and add rail for high speed trains, in exchange for the state of Wisconsin to take on $8M worth of yearly maintenance costs.

 

They turned it down. Because, Scott Walker.

 

There you have part of the problem - state politics.

 

Well yeah, we have inept politicians for starters. I would probably have a heart attack if you found an honest bone in any of their bodies.

Thats part of it. Every piece of land from Chicago to St Louis would have a politician wanting his cut and his population's cut.

I just don't think it's a priority for America since we all have our big cars and such. What the hell does America stand for anymore? Something like creating jobs and providing a solid infrastructure sounds like the job of the government. Having a modernized infrastructure might help cut costs for business' too. I personally think it's a win a win but I guess we need that new MOAB instead.

Edited January 9, 201412 yr by pettie4sox

Getting 65 (and 70) expanded to 6 lanes is the next priority on the state's list. Getting the US 31 upgrade from SB to Indy and I-69 built from Evansville to Indy are nearing completion so hopefully the 65/70 work will get going in a couple years.

I drive 65 between Louisville and Indy at least twice a month, so nobody is more aware of the need for the extra lane than me. Too many jackass semi drivers going 66 in the left lane passing semis going 65 in the right lane, backing everybody else up.

 

This is true on any interstate though.

The midwest is flat as a pancake, it should be easy to lay down high speed rail.

 

The problem is that the population density out there is nil compared to many other places in the world that have high speed rail.

[/b]

 

This is true on any interstate though.

 

Well, I think just about any interstate that carries as much truck traffic as 65 is already 3+ lanes in each direction, and when an interstate has 3+ lanes in each direction, semi trucks are not allowed in the left lane (at least that's the law in every state that I'm aware of). So it's more of a problem on 65 than anywhere else.

 

China though is comparable in size to the U.S. and has obstacles that in some cases make ours look small and weak. They're getting it done better than we are also.

 

Whether it's mountains or size of the country or climate conditions or a tongue of the ocean, other countries keep doing this and we can't.

 

China 352.5 people per square mile

US 79.5 people per square mile