Omaha to Chicago (Via Des Moines) Train

[cytech]

To everyone that thinks this should be a private endeavor, do you realize that every single mile of interstate is 100% funded by tax dollars? Seeing as how Europe is completely connect by high speed rail and China can't build them fast enough, I think the US should at least try it in a few locations to see if it's a better alternative then building more roads and runways.

It should be interesting to see how the lobbyists and government wade into this topic, I would assume automakers and airlines are going to fight HSR tooth and nail.

Sure we can fund it through taxes on the diesel fuel locomotives use and a surcharge on passenger tickets. Much like highway funding is paid for through gas taxes.

Certain regions with larger population centers will benefit from rail improvements. I can't see it offer a good cost/benefit ratio in Iowa though

 

[Broodwich]

 

[alarson]

And the fact that Europeans and the Chinese embrace public transit a hell of a lot better than we do doesn't help matters any. I'm too lazy to look but I'd love to see population density figures for Europe versus Central Iowa.

this map says it all. very few places in the US approach the density of europe, much less china.

 

[DurangoCy]

The infrastructure is the biggest cost and it isn't even close. Having one train each direction each day produces barely any cash flow compared to the cost of the project. It would take hundreds of years to pay it back, hence why this project is an awful idea. If it really is a great gig, let a private enterprise take it on instead of tossing the burden on your taxpayers.

Want to get from Omaha to Chicago? Awesome, you have a car. Drive. We also have this great new thing called the airplane and both Chicago and Omaha have decent sized airports offering plenty of options. There isn't nearly enough demand for a project of this scale which will cost more up front than it will provide for the next 50 years. We already have too many roads we can't afford to maintain, don't add to the burden.

And to the above post: the interstate system is overused and under funded. Americans have this sense of urgency that they need to be everywhere as quickly as possible. Instead of planning for a longer commute we complain that there aren't enough roads, then we build roads and complain when we can't afford to maintain them. I love having four lanes of Highway 20 from Dubuque almost all the way across the state, but it's a total waste of money. Same with 4 lanes of Highway 30 from Ogden to Tama?.

And the fact that Europeans and the Chinese embrace public transit a hell of a lot better than we do doesn't help matters any.

There will be way more than 1 train a day using this system. Since we're making up numbers, I would guess it would be hundreds of trains per day, and the payback period would be 1 year. So it's actually a great idea.

The reason no one in the US uses public transportation is that our public transportation system sucks. I spent a few weeks in Europe several years ago and couldn't believe how easy it is to get from city to city and country to county. You can walk up to the station 10 minutes before the train leaves jump on and not sit in a seat made for a toddler. I fly domestically about a dozen times per year and if there was an alternative to it I would pick it every day of the week and twice on sunday.

 

[DurangoCy]

Sure we can fund it through taxes on the diesel fuel locomotives use and a surcharge on passenger tickets. Much like highway funding is paid for through gas taxes.

Certain regions with larger population centers will benefit from rail improvements. I can't see it offer a good cost/benefit ratio in Iowa though

Throw in links to KC and Minneapolis and you've got about 15-20 million in the 5-7 hour travel area, which I think rail is optimal for.

 

[ISUCyclones2015]

Here was the proposed map from Obama a couple years ago.

I'm am 100% for high speed trains. Make them higher than the roads and do maglev and BAM super fast averaging well over 100mph. If they made the cost the same as airlines then these will win all day every day.

How are they gonna fund it? I have no idea but someday we will have a major network on the east side of the Mississippi

 

[IcSyU]

Throw in links to KC and Minneapolis and you've got about 15-20 million in the 5-7 hour travel area, which I think rail is optimal for.

Where is the demand? How many people are going to take a rail Omaha-Des Moines or Omaha-Kansas City or Kansas City-Des Moines or Des Moines-Minneapolis? Not very many because I can drive them faster than a rail can take me, especially if I have multiple travelers with me. If I'm a family of 4 a trip to KC from DSM or Omaha will cost me $75 in gas round trip. Unless I can get round trip tickets for about $10 each I'm going to lose money by the time I pay to take cabs around KC.

Most businesses are still going to pay to fly from Omaha to Chicago because they can fly people from Eppley into O'Hare relatively cheap in the morning and turn around and fly them back that same night. You're stuck paying for a hotel via rail because not many companies are going to tell their employees that you're staying the night in the cabin of a rail. If this was Boston to New York City it would be a lot different, but this isn't the East Coast and the Midwest doesn't have remotely close to the same population density.

 

[Havs]

The population demographic of train use will definitely be younger, especially for Iowa St and Iowa students from the Chicago area.

 

[DurangoCy]

Where is the demand? How many people are going to take a rail Omaha-Des Moines or Omaha-Kansas City or Kansas City-Des Moines or Des Moines-Minneapolis? Not very many because I can drive them faster than a rail can take me, especially if I have multiple travelers with me. If I'm a family of 4 a trip to KC from DSM or Omaha will cost me $75 in gas round trip. Unless I can get round trip tickets for about $10 each I'm going to lose money by the time I pay to take cabs around KC.

Most businesses are still going to pay to fly from Omaha to Chicago because they can fly people from Eppley into O'Hare relatively cheap in the morning and turn around and fly them back that same night. You're stuck paying for a hotel via rail because not many companies are going to tell their employees that you're staying the night in the cabin of a rail. If this was Boston to New York City it would be a lot different, but this isn't the East Coast and the Midwest doesn't have remotely close to the same population density.

You can't drive 100mph (if it's true highspeed we're talking 150mph+), it's not an over night train ride, and there is time value to not driving all day that companies and individuals will be willing to pay. Driving is optimal for short distances, Rail for mid, and Air for long distances.

 

[isuforlife]

it would be a great way to get to Chicago for a week end ............do it

 

[alarson]

You can't drive 100mph (if it's true highspeed we're talking 150mph+), it's not an over night train ride, and there is time value to not driving all day that companies and individuals will be willing to pay. Driving is optimal for short distances, Rail for mid, and Air for long distances.

There are no trains that will average 100mph either, not on freight rail at least. And going on new rail would be a lot more expensive. It makes no sense to build up an entirely new infrastructure when there are other options. I understand some may like train more than bus for mass transit, but bus runs on existing infrastructure and is cheap, and doesnt require massive federal subsidy.

 

[Havs]

You can't drive 100mph (if it's true highspeed we're talking 150mph+), it's not an over night train ride, and there is time value to not driving all day that companies and individuals will be willing to pay. Driving is optimal for short distances, Rail for mid, and Air for long distances.

I really like the idea for a weekend in Chicago, especially since Chicago has numerous other mass transit options once I reach the city. I'm a lot more refreshed when I don't have to do the driving somewhere compared to hauling everyone everywhere. Driving can be tiring, especially hitting Chicago at rush hour or a construction zone.

 

[DurangoCy]

There are no trains that will average 100mph either, not on freight rail at least. And going on new rail would be a lot more expensive. It makes no sense to build up an entirely new infrastructure when there are other options. I understand some may like train more than bus for mass transit, but bus runs on existing infrastructure and is cheap.

New infrastruture does make sense if it's more efficient then old infrastructure.

I've personally never understood why the US didn't expand on our canal system from the 1800's, but that's just my opinion.

 

[alarson]

New infrastruture does make sense if it's more efficient then old infrastructure.

I've personally never understood why the US didn't expand on our canal system from the 1800's, but that's just my opinion.

Not if any efficiencies are vastly outweighed by the massively increased costs.

 

[cygrads]

This country needs to stop pouring money down the toilet - Amtrak has never came close to breaking even, the USPS is close to going under, Fannie, Freddie and on and on... Just because something appears to work in one place doesn't mean it works everyplace.

 

[Clonefan94]

There will be way more than 1 train a day using this system. Since we're making up numbers, I would guess it would be hundreds of trains per day, and the payback period would be 1 year. So it's actually a great idea.

The reason no one in the US uses public transportation is that our public transportation system sucks. I spent a few weeks in Europe several years ago and couldn't believe how easy it is to get from city to city and country to county. You can walk up to the station 10 minutes before the train leaves jump on and not sit in a seat made for a toddler. I fly domestically about a dozen times per year and if there was an alternative to it I would pick it every day of the week and twice on sunday.

It didn't used to suck though. Everyoen used to take the train when the traveled, then cars became accessible to just about everyone, along with cheap gas. So now, instead of taking a train to Chicago, to then board a bus for an hour and a half ride to Aunt Betties in Dekalb, you could just hop in your car and drive to Aunt Betties in the same amount of time, if not less.

I think the big deterrent here is that this has been tried before. Our Rail system didn't always suck. Go to any transportation Museum and you'll see the remnants of a once great passenger rail system. I really see very little that tells me America (I'm not talking the select few, like myself who would love to travel this way and are tired of driving the family because I'm the only one who ever drives) I'm talking Americans in general will latch on to the idea. Plus, much like Electric cars, the price of gas is still relatively low compared to the rest of the 1st world. It's just flat out cheper to drive a family cross country than it is going to be to buy them tickets, for the most part. And that is a hurdle to over come as well

Then the Airline industries, what happens to them? No way they wouldn't fight this tooth and nail. They are all struggling like mad as it is. What happens when they start losing passengers to trains? The government just throw some money at them then, like they do to Amtrak now?

Wow, would I love for this to happen. It would almost be a dream come true for me to be honst, a dedicated passenger rail system. I'm just afraid that America still isn't ready for it. I'd be all for trying if we weren't talking about Billions and billions of dollars here. I'd hate to see all that money thrown at it, only to be wasted when everyone is still driving around in their cars instead.

 

[CycoCyclone]

I would love to have DSM to CHI and DSM to MSP....I'd use it a dozen times a year

 

[DurangoCy]

Not if any efficiencies are vastly outweighed by the massively increased costs.

I massively disagree.

 

[Havs]

It didn't used to suck though. Everyoen used to take the train when the traveled, then cars became accessible to just about everyone, along with cheap gas. So now, instead of taking a train to Chicago, to then board a bus for an hour and a half ride to Aunt Betties in Dekalb, you could just hop in your car and drive to Aunt Betties in the same amount of time, if not less.

I think the big deterrent here is that this has been tried before. Our Rail system didn't always suck. Go to any transportation Museum and you'll see the remnants of a once great passenger rail system. I really see very little that tells me America (I'm not talking the select few, like myself who would love to travel this way and are tired of driving the family because I'm the only one who ever drives) I'm talking Americans in general will latch on to the idea. Plus, much like Electric cars, the price of gas is still relatively low compared to the rest of the 1st world. It's just flat out cheper to drive a family cross country than it is going to be to buy them tickets, for the most part. And that is a hurdle to over come as well

Then the Airline industries, what happens to them? No way they wouldn't fight this tooth and nail. They are all struggling like mad as it is. What happens when they start losing passengers to trains? The government just throw some money at them then, like they do to Amtrak now?

Wow, would I love for this to happen. It would almost be a dream come true for me to be honst, a dedicated passenger rail system. I'm just afraid that America still isn't ready for it. I'd be all for trying if we weren't talking about Billions and billions of dollars here. I'd hate to see all that money thrown at it, only to be wasted when everyone is still driving around in their cars instead.

The oil and auto lobby in congress is still too strong for our mass transit systems to truly work well. To make things worse, development has now built around auto transportation, rather than transit. The main reason I want this to happen is because the train will bring new transit-oriented development to areas that have a station, such as Downtowns of Omaha and Des Moines, plus Iowa City and Davenport. Building a train like this is a step in the right direction because gas prices are only going to rise.

 

[4429 mcc]

Where is the demand? How many people are going to take a rail Omaha-Des Moines or Omaha-Kansas City or Kansas City-Des Moines or Des Moines-Minneapolis? Not very many because I can drive them faster than a rail can take me, especially if I have multiple travelers with me. If I'm a family of 4 a trip to KC from DSM or Omaha will cost me $75 in gas round trip. Unless I can get round trip tickets for about $10 each I'm going to lose money by the time I pay to take cabs around KC.


Most businesses are still going to pay to fly from Omaha to Chicago because they can fly people from Eppley into O'Hare relatively cheap in the morning and turn around and fly them back that same night. You're stuck paying for a hotel via rail because not many companies are going to tell their employees that you're staying the night in the cabin of a rail. If this was Boston to New York City it would be a lot different, but this isn't the East Coast and the Midwest doesn't have remotely close to the same population density.

Have you ever tried to do this? It sucks balls. The one day turn around business trip is a nightmare, what if my outgoing flight is delayed (missed meeting? Grrrreaat), worse what if my return flight is delayed or cancelled (Cancel my entire next day). Sucks balls sitting in Ohare at 10pm wondering if the plane from Columbus is going to get clearance around a thunderstorm.

Now lets say there is a high speed rail, with on time arrivals in the 95%. I'm taking that thing every time.