Making a case for Midwest high-speed rail — from Spain
"If you could get from the Twin Cities to Chicago in equal the time it takes you to go to the airports and fight through everything and you can end up in downtown Twin Cities or downtown Chicago and it's on a good, new high-speed, comfortable train, then I think you're going to see a lot of demand for it," Doyle told members of the Greater Milwaukee Committee, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report.
That’s exactly the point members of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association have been trying to make for years. This week, some association members are in Spain, touring the country’s high-speed rail and other passenger-rail systems, and pondering how Spain’s rail network could be duplicated in the Midwest. Participants also are meeting with officials from Spanish railways to learn about their rail expansion plans and the progress to date. They’ll also tour Talgo’s manufacturing facility.
“Spain offers the best example for what we should be doing with high-speed rail and rail transit in the Midwest,” according to the association’s Web site.
In addition to its high-speed rail system, which operates trains at speeds up to 220 mph, Spain has doubled its transit network during the past decade, adding new light-rail lines throughout the country. Spain’s commuter-rail lines also are being upgraded to handle 155 mph trains.
In 2005, the Spanish government allocated nearly half of its total transportation budget to railroad construction and improvements. Once the improvements are made, no city in the country (“A territory embracing an expanse equal to the distance from Minneapolis to Pittsburgh and from Kansas City to Detroit,” according to Midwest High Speed Rail Association Executive Director Rick Harnish) will be more than three hours away from Madrid by train.
Tour participants are learning just how convenient Spain’s high-speed rail system could be if it were replicated in the Midwest. Last weekend, they took a day trip to Seville, about 300 miles from Madrid (or, about the same distance between Chicago and Detroit or St. Louis). The group left Madrid at 7:30 a.m., spent five hours sightseeing in Seville, and got back to Madrid in time for dinner.
“This trip illustrates how high-speed rail changes the relationships between cities,” Harnish wrote in his daily wrap-up on Jan. 11. “My summary for the day: We really need high-speed rail in the Midwest.”
As a fellow Midwesterner, I concur.
Posted by: 
Angela Cotey | Date posted: 1/14/2009
Comments
Posted by t l koglin on 1/14/2009 2:10:10 PM
OK Great! Lets get going. We can beat California to the punch. But what are we going to have? A line from Chicago to Green Bay to Minneapolis? It would be productive for the state agency responsible to proivide a little more information to the public about what they plan to do. Is there any P.R. being performed here?
Posted by Peter Oster on 1/14/2009 5:54:13 PM
High-Speed Passenger Rail is the way to go in the Midwest! Let’s get going! We should have had it years ago! Governor Doyle''s comments about the inefficiency of using airlines for short hops to Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, etc. are correct. I have regularly commuted to these cities to work, by air and always thought it would be so nice to be doing it by high-speed rail rather then by air and saving time for sure. High-speed rail in the Midwest would be a huge economic engine for the entire region. Airlines are fine for the long hauls across the country. For years, I have commuted on the Amtrak - Hiawatha from Sturtevant, Wisconsin into Chicago for work. Even though this isn’t high speed rail (79 mph at best) I have always enjoyed the fact that I could commute about 70 miles into Chicago on Amtrak in less time then all the Chicago Metra commuter rail lines could make it in from their most distant Illinois stations. If only Amtrak had some new and clean cars. If there was high-speed rail that would really be something! Since the United States has waited so long for high-speed rail we will be the recipient of a great savings utilizing European, Japanese and Korean fully developed technology. The Republicans have been fighting high-speed rail and funding for Amtrak for years. With the new administration maybe something will be done. Interstate transportation needs Federal government support. The Interstate highway system and the airports have hogged the support for too long. It is time for a change to regional high-speed rail!! Pete
Posted by H.J. Kelly on 1/15/2009 11:40:19 AM
Seems like forever that we have been talking about High Speed Rail. FL, TX, CA and the Midwest. The Northeast is the only place that comes close. This may be a good time for a funding/work stimulas package from the new administration. As painful as it seems keeping gas prices up may finally get some people out of their cars.
Posted by A Railroader Who Remembers Things on 1/15/2009 1:54:51 PM
High speed rail in the Midwest makes a lot of sense. However, Governor Doyle is probably not the individual to get too specific about it. The important thing to remember is that High Speed rail needs a route that approximates a straight line as closely as possible. The old Milwaukee Road Hiawathas between Chicago and Milwaukee demonstrate this. The distance by rail from Union Station in Chicago to the Milwaukee Road Station in Milwaukee is about 86 miles by rail and nets out to about 81 miles "crow-fly". The best schedules 50 to 70 years ago between the stations were 75 minutes. That required top speeds of 100 miles per hour or more to reliably achieve. Yet the net average speed would be just under 65 miles per hour. Trains that made two stops added 10 minutes to the schedule. That dropped the average net speed to under 58 miles per hour. Why did this occur? Because when a passenger train leaves Union Station it travels at a slow speed for about a half mile until it goes around a sharp curve to the west. Then it travels west for over two miles without making any real progress towards Milwaukee at a moderately slow speed. At Western Avenue, it then turns northwest and begins to make some progress towards its destination. Finally, in Milwaukee, it slows and curves back and forth a few times before again making a slow speed, sharp turn to the west into the station there. How does this relate to the proposal for trains between Chicago and Minneapolis? (Although politically I might have said "the Twin Cities". The Minnesota state capital city, St Paul, has its pride, too.) The net distance between Downtown Chicago and Minneapolis is about 355 miles. Passing through Madison adds a negligible distance. Passing through Milwaukee adds nearly 30 miles. Milwaukee plus Madison would add about 37 miles, for a total end to end distance of about 392 miles. Routing the trains by way of Green Bay and Milwaukee, but not through Madison, would result in a distance of 445 miles or more, an increase of about 25% to the distance to be travelled end to end. Why does this matter? Because the person travelling does not care how long the track is. That traveller cares how far the destination is from where the trip starts and the time it takes from leaving to arriving. To make the same overall trip time, the vehicle must travel that much faster on average to make-up for the added distance and the top speed must increase even more to make up for the time spent in stops along the way. An increase in the length of the tracks makes them that much more expensive to build initially. It also leaves the system with that much more track to maintain. The faster and farther the trains need to operate increases the amount of energy that will be consumed. And increasing the speed also increases the amount that will be needed to maintain the track and the train equipment. Curved track further increases the amount and cost of maintenance needed for both the track and the equipment. Then there is the matter of the technology. The high-speed network in Spain, I believe, was conceived with a specific intent that trains would someday be able to be operated through into France on their TGV network. The French rail network also is designed to allow some operations through into Belgium, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and other European Countries, even Great Britain. This does not mean that it will not operate in Wisconsin. Far from it. Rather, it means that the Spanish technology borrows freely from that in other countries. Even the Acela trains that Amtrak operates in the USA share some of the technology. It would appear, therefore, that a more appropriate statement on technology would be to look at the many variations around the world and see if trains such as those in Spain, France, Germany, Great Britain, Norway and Sweden do not have a great deal to offer for service northwest out of Chicago. They obviously do. But I mention Norway and Sweden because the climate in Spain is so much warmer in winter than that in Wisconsin. Canada, too, has points to offer. It is simply too early to lock onto one set of solutions. We should be looking for the best the world has to offer.
Posted by James Swidergal on 1/16/2009 12:57:35 PM
If it the best solution your looking...for ...comparably with temperature,topographical,and similar attributes, perhaps we need to look at China's high speed system that runs tween'Bejing and the former capital of Tibet (I think) they've accomplished many obstacles by using a raised trackbed bridgelike structure, for more on the specifics and to view the building of this high speed system I believe it was on Discovery Channel, or possibly History Channel,about 6 months ago.
Posted by Peter Cooper on 1/17/2009 12:03:31 PM
I wonder if the people that have submitted comments supporting high-speed rail are ready to buy stock in the venture instead of goading the government to fund the project at 7 times the cost necessary to do the job! The only practical way to build passenger rail is to phony up the money our selves. Please contact me at the Pan-American Railway Inc. if you are ready to particpate.
Posted by Larry Krieg on 1/18/2009 7:48:57 AM
The Chinese line from Golmud to Lhasa, Tibet, is not a high-speed line. Its distinction is its altitude, highest in the world at 16,460 ft. above sea level through Tanggula Pass. Much of it is constructed over tundra with special engineering to protect the permafrost. Seventy-eight of the locomotives are diesels specially built by GE in Eire, PA; the passenger cars, equipped with oxygen for passengers, are a joint venture between Bombardier and China''s Sifang Group, which built the cars in China. There are three originators of true high-speed rail technology: Japan, France, and Germany. Spain uses French (TGV) technology, and Korea has developed its own trains based on the TGV; China so far has opted for German technology. Taiwan has adopted the Japanese Shinkansen system. The US''s Acela is a hybrid based on Swedish X2000 and Bombardier designs, though with a top speed of 240 km/h it is hardly in the same league as the German, Japanese, and French systems, all of which operate trains at 300 km/h or higher. Speaking realistically, it is unlikely that we in the Midwest will get high-speed service in the same category as Germany, Japan, and France. California will undoubtedly beat us on that, since these systems take decades to plan and build. But let''s not give up: more important than speed is reliability. If we can work for reasonably rapid service with 99% on-time reliability, trains will become the mode of choice for intermediate regional travel in the Midwest. Having recently returned from a three-week exploration of Japan''s rail system, I know there are really good technologies and operating techniques for rail systems of the type we have in the US - 19th century ROW, freight+passenger service, as opposed to specially-built high speed lines for passenger-only service. We have a lot to learn from Japan and Europe, if only we can overcome our "not invented here" prejudice. And the best news is, it can be applied in the near term.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 1/19/2009 10:22:57 AM
There are just a few problems with the idea that we "pony" (not phoney) up the money ourselves for high speed rail. Most obvious is that passenger service doesn't make money anywhere in the world. It certainly does not in the U.S. Amtrak has been starved for funds throughout its 38-year existence. I wonder if the advocates of diesel-electric propulsion had to face the same kind of opposition to the converstion from steam that high-speed advocates must face. There probably are some corridors with sufficient density that could justify the public investment in high-speed rail, but most will not and we really ought to focus on providing good, reliable passenger service through much of the country, whether simultaneously or separately.
Posted by Vincent B. Mottola on 1/19/2009 11:19:26 AM
I also concur with the proposal for high speed trains in the Midwest; particularly from Chicago thru Milwaukee and on to Minneapolis, MN as the governor suggested; this would enhance business calls by salesmen and sve an enormous amount of money spent on gas and auto expenses...a huge part of a salesman''''s monthly expenses. In addition, there will be more of an insentative for the average every day travelers to vist relatives and friends that live in the areas designated. Why procrastenate? What do you suppose progress is all about? Lets put our engineers and lay people to work that will create the jobs our elected President Obama has been talking about for the past several months...just do it! Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion!
Posted by Al Holleuffer on 1/21/2009 6:52:24 PM
This country should hang its head in shame. We should have had high speed trains before the Japanese built the first line there. Several third world countries are currently building their own systems while we still do little more than talk about how great these things are. Hopefully the new administration will give it the push needed not just in the midwest but other corridors throughout the nation. We must lose the hyway mentality that has prevailed for too long strangling our metropolitan areas and polluting our atmosphere.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 1/22/2009 11:25:35 AM
Sorry, but I do not choose to hang my head, either in shame nor dismay, at the lack of high-speed rail in the United States. Nor am I anti-high-speed rail, either. I like to think I'm just pragmatic. Japan, France, Germany, and other countries that already have high-speed operations are not at all like the United States. For one thing, their governments own and control all rail rights of way in those countries, and frequently own and control the operations, as well. Anyone want to see the U.S. government own the rail rights of way in this country and/or the operations? I didn't think so. Second, having ridden the Shinkansen in Japan and having found it a most efficient way to get from one city to another in that country, I suggest that the dissimilarities are greater than the similarities. Few Japanese or Europeans have multiple cars; distances are significantly different than in this country and make high-speed rail more economical than here; and there is much greater willingness on the part of the citizenry to have their governments operate transportation systems. Let me know when Americans truly support government provision of high-speed rail. Until then, this is just so much chit-chat, as the private sector certainly will not put its money into a venture that cannot earn a return on investment - nor should it. Remember, passenger operations, whether high- or low-speed, do not make money anywhere in the world. Sign me "holding my head up with no shame."
Posted by tahoevalleylines.org on 1/26/2009 4:44:54 PM
Pan American Railway is in Boise Idaho; they are one of few entrepreneurial (not an existing rail operator)approaches to railway expansion currently putting out feelers. Another is Suntrain Transportation Corporation, in California. Both companies have been looking at combination branchline rehab & upgraded mains,; creation of railway SYSTEMS to bring rail back to local interface, as seen in the pre-WWII USA model. An interesting discussion of these ideas can be found in Christopher C. Swan''s book: "ELECTRIC WATER". Larry Kaufman''s comments are good, I do take exception on the pros & cons of Public Ownership (of rights of ways)... Airports, Highways, Navigable waterways are public owned. Maybe case by case will sort out an expedient path to re-establishing US "Second Dimension Surface Transport Logistics Platform" -railway matrix. Consultancies and political staff & agencies looking at rail mode in the Peaking Oil Solution Set would move this enterprise forward ASAPO by getting an electronic map of all the US rail lines past & present. This map should show existing lines and track capacity, branchlines extant and rebuildable, and former corridor. Next level, all previous rail and Interurban Electric Rail corridor should be evaluated, including warehousing and truck interface facilities, like military bases, etc. Many warehousing complexes have rail access, but paved over, etc. Baby step into this railway redux by re-commissioning all the State National Guard, other services, "Railroad Operating & Maintenance Battalions" as functioned from the Civil War into the Vietnam Era. Not just a drill, these assets were/will be invaluable for disaster recovery, and shall provide pool of rail savvy men & women for the US Rail companies. Modest plans on a page can be seen at the Association For The Study Of Peak Oil & Gas, (peakoil.net) articles 374 & 1037. US Rail Map Atlas volumes for all 48 states can be obtained at (spv.co.uk). Nonetheless, this mapwork should be made into an electronic archives as well, so any of the 3066 US County Planning Bureaus can search & print out map of their respective rail footprint, warehousing track geometry, and thus determine priority for rehab & re-connect. Substantial increase of handling facilities for containers is an obvious adjunct to this shift back to rail emphasis, helpful along mains where smaller (now runthrough)stations and load/unload sidings were the rule. Alaska & Hawaii had some freight rail and opportunity/need to expand same. The Spreckels Empire, Pacific Electric Railway is a useful study for the day passenger, night freight/victuals sort of rail operations needed as trucking falters in an energy crisis. Cal Trans Division of Rail (Will Kempton) has copies of the I-80/US50 Reno-Tahoe Rail Corridor study, (Unabridged) which is a useful textbook for planners used to highway thinking. the 1995 CaDOT study noted explains upgrading existing (80 Corridor)rail lines, as well as rehabbing unused (Truckee to Tahoe City) branches, and engineering brand new US 50 Corridor) railway line. Other details in Federal RR Rehab guidelines should include period of stockpiling portion of ferrous scrap export volume, as US ramps up railway track hardware and rail manufacturing capacity. Inventory tax, a big factor in the rails-to-trucking shift, should be relaxed in favor of rail warehousing methodolgies. "Just-in-time" is going to be an early casualty in the energy crisis. Last comment in HSR here: Hiogh Speed Rail is a vanity, unless it is done in a greater planning process that includes freight movement, terminal development keyed to public not private transport, and renewable power as much and as early as practicable.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 1/27/2009 4:38:29 PM
Lord save us from zealots who know not what they are talking about. The website tahoevalleylines.org does not exist. tahoevalleylines.com does, however. Pan Am Railway may or may not be in Boise, Idaho, but Pan American Railways in New England is the former Guilford Transportation Industries, which changed its name in 2006. It had acquired the name Pan Am by purchasing it from the estate of the bankrupt Pan American World Airways. The credibility of the writer above is open to question as he wasn't able to get his own identity correct.
Posted by J.C.Hare on 1/28/2009 12:54:18 PM
Is Spain part of the US now? Let's spend the "New Found Money" in the US.... Spain??? High Speed Trains???? J. C. Hare CEO... Transit Systems management, Inc.
Posted by michael willis on 1/28/2009 5:22:48 PM
'AMTRAK I' The new Presidential locomotive and passenger and coach set. AMTRAK I will be as technologically advanced and equipped for travel as Air Force I and will be the most secure and comfortable train set ever conceived. All necessary communications, dining, conference, sleeping and private office facilities will be provided for President Obama to conduct official business en-route. Think of AMTRAK I as a WHITE HOUSE ON RAILS. As was expressed during the Inaugural Train excursion, President Obama & Vice President Biden made a very statement for their support of a vibrant US RAILWAY SYSTEM and the vital RAILROAD INDUSTRY.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 1/29/2009 10:46:17 AM
If the U.S. ever gets an Amtrak 1 as described (or is it phantasized?) by Michael Willis, that would be very reassuring for all citizens. Sorry, but trains simply will not beat air for time from origin to destination, with the possible exception of a few corridors like NY-Washington. So, if President Obama ever really travels by rail on Amtrak 1, we all can rest assured that the world is in good hands and that there are no crises that require the President's personal attendance.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 2/4/2009 1:09:21 PM
Now that CN has closed on its purchase of the EJ&E and is planning the integration of the outer-belt railroad around Chicago into its system, some suburban Chicago interests still are trying to negate the transportation efficiency that results from the CN transaction. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), one of a band of Illinois legislators who tried everything in the book and a few things not in the book to block the EJ&E purchase (their constituents were waging a classic NIMBY - not in my back yard - fight). Under the guise of support for a new Metra commuter line connecting Chicago suburbs and O'Hare International Airport, Roskam has introduced legislation to support the so-called STAR route. It doesn't take a too terribly close look to see that Roskam and whoever will support him really are trying to undo the CN acquisition of a more efficient route for its traffic around Chicago. STAR has been hanging around for some 30 years and no one - including Roskam - showed any inclination to fund it for Metra until now. The draft legislation would declare a commuter corridor and freight could be tossed off the commuter corridor. Aha! See where they are going with this one? These are the same Illinois politicians who stiffed the CREATE public-private partnership that some day may alleviate much of the rail congestion in Chicago by funding construction of four freight and one passenger corridor through the city along with over- and under-passes that will help truck and auto traffic. CREATE was the result of several years of negotiation between the railroads that serve Chicago, Amtrak, Metra, Illinois DOT and FRA. Rather than fund the federal share, though, Illinois pols "stiffed" it and chose to fund their favorite pork projects in the last surface transportation authorization. The sudden conversion of Mr. Roskam to being a supporter of METRA rings kind of hollow. If they hadn't tried to throw their political weight around and block the CN transaction, their miraculous conversion might be a bit more believable. As it is, it isn't believable at all.
