Chicago to Milwaukee and then to Minneapolis makes so much sense. The Milwaukee Road Hiawatha still actually has one of the top 10 highest average speed records in the world, for scheduled trains in that corridor. They had Steam engines doing 115mph multiple times a day on that route in 1930!
Do you have any info on what trip times were like for SEA/TAC to Spokane by chance? I’ve been trying to research about the Milwaukee road myself but I either can’t find or can’t read the timetables correctly
In addition to the Milwaukee Road, there were 4 other competitors on the Chicago-Twin Cities route, with the CB&Q (which also set a speed record I believe), the C&NW, as well as the lessor known and used Soo Line and Chicago Great Western. This corridor really should have more service...
I forget if the weighting for air travel includes both transit time from city centers to/from the airports, and time spend in the airports at both ends. And there's a big emotional component, too. I would happily do a weekend mini-vacation by HSR from Minneapolis to Chicago, including staying in a boutique hotel and some fancy shopping. [Why yes, I am female.] I would count the train as part of the adventure - the architecture of the stations, the spaciousness of the train, the scenery. I would not do the trip by air, spending time experiencing the joys of Security Theater, being jammed in a tiny seat, then having to struggle to find transportation to where I want to be, only to do it all again in reverse. Ever since 2002, I travel by air only when there's no alternative, it's so soul draining.
Chicago to the Twin Cities doesn't even need to a sudden HSR transformation...it could take place incrementally. Things like double tracking, electrification, track straightening, grade separations, could take place as incremental upgrades. We have the existing track to run Twin Cities to Chicago as a decent route now. Sadly the Empire builder only services this once a day and Hiawatha while doing a respective 7 round trips only goes to downtown Milwaukee. Hiwawatha could easily be extended to Brookfield (Milwaukee Burb) and to Madison. Madison to the Twin Cities is doable, but some of the track is in poor shape which forces Amtrack to crawl and there is a decent amount of single track in that area (but even this is criminally under-used). A milk run could include Rochester/Winona/La Crosse/Wisconsin Dells which would be popular. Being able to access the MKE airport from this route is big, and not having to worry about parking in Chicago is huge. Electrification though wouldn't be easy in rural Wisconsin...too many short under/overpasses that don't have room for the wires. Probably the most cost effective improvement would be to double track the lines in Central Wisconsin which would open up a ton of scheduling options.
Oh, man. The subtle Not Just Bikes subtweet inherent in "that's probably the nicest thing anyone has said about London, Ontario in the history of TH-cam" just about had me rolling on the floor.
as someone who has been to london ontario several times….the hate is undeserved for their lovely riverside parks, but it is deserved for all the goose poop that’s there.
@@GraemeMacDermid Did you ever go out to the bars? I was there for 4 for undergrad and it was a ton of fun. Didn't have a car, took transit or walked or biked everywhere. GIGANTIC street parties 2 or 3 times a year, a VERY active nightlife scene, lots of bars, endless house parties. Sure, I wouldn't want to live in the suburbs there, but living downtown and near the campus was great. I'm sure most people I went to school with would agree with me.
It's so frustrating to wake up every day as a Wisconsinite who was alive during Scott Walker's stupid time in office as governor. Like they had a shovel-ready project for passenger service between Madison and Milwaukee, the two most important cities in the state (and a notable gap in good current rail infrastructure). Scott Walker canning that project to score cheap conservative political points for his total failure of a 2016 presidential campaign gives me nightmares.
That would have seen hourly fast-ish service Chicago to Milwaukee with every other train continuing to Madison. What's especially insane is Walker's stunt screwed the western Milwaukee suburbs that voted for him....they would have had doorstep rail service instead of having to go downtown. At least they seem to be starting to come around politically, at long last.
An aspect of the upper midwest that might be interesting to add to this discussion is the number of rural-ish college towns with 40K+ students/faculty. These towns are too small to make your list but would probably punch above their weight in creating ridership. I've lived in both Champaign, IL and West Lafayette, IN in my twenties and can attest that one of the worst parts about those towns was needing to drive so far to just get to Chicago or Indy. There is definitely outweighed demand for a convenient way to get to a real airport from these towns and many more fun trips to the "big city" would seem reasonable if you could nap/study/watch CityNerd videos on a high-speed train.
That’s probably how they’re going to build out the network considering that college town to college town generates the more ridership than anything else.
This is one of those things that appears to be a great idea until we take into account it is high speed rail. Even at the lower end of speed for HSR, a stop in smaller towns to board a few passengers is slowing down dozens of passengers meaning they will prefer to travel by air. Note: I live in a 'college town' that does not have a commercial airport. It is 2 to 2.5 hours drive to the nearest airports.
*Extremely mundane* topic suggestion: the underlying mechanism and process of setting the timing for traffic signals in a city. Sometimes lights are clearly timed to keep traffic flowing at a particular speed, but other times they seemed to be randomly timed, or even specifically timed to slow down through traffic. Who makes those decisions, how is it implemented, how often is it changed? Seems like a topic of great complexity.
Traffic signal intersections that are close together like in downtown areas are generally timed for efficiency. Signals in suburban and rural areas that are spaced are generally censored either by metal detectors in the road or by cameras mounted next to the light, which is why they may seem random. They also change sometimes depending on the hour of the day to accommodate rush hour traffic.
As a current Chicago resident, I’ve heard a lot about HSR from Chicago. 1) an argument for Minneapolis has always been the uncompetitive nature of that air market. United and American, with major Chicago hubs, don’t have as many flights to MSP because Delta is the major hub airline at MSP, which also doesn’t have as many flights to ORD and none to MDW. Therefore, flights from Chicago’s major airlines are more expensive than Delta’s but Delta has fewer departure options. When I used to travel a lot for work, I remember the Finance people always complaining about ORD-MSP flights always being more expensive than going to LAX/SFO or LGA/EWR. 2) it also seems that Chicagoans love to travel to Michigan and Wisconsin for short vacations but not as often to the big cities. They like the small towns like Benton Harbor, Galena, the Dells, etc., except Milwaukee, they do like Milwaukee. Chicagoans love those small towns. I never hear many people talking about going to Detroit or St Louis. 3) Amtrak’s busiest Midwestern corridors are the Hiawatha Line (to Milwaukee) at 2500/day, the Lincoln Line (to St Louis) at 1800/day, and the Wolverine Line (to Detroit/Pontiac) at 1500/day. How many people go end to end? I don’t know. These lines do have less ridership than Amtrak’s 280-mile San Joaquins line between Bakersfield and Oakland at 3,000/day. 4) In fact, unlike LAX, SFO, PHX, and Las Vegas, in which each city appears in each other’s top 10 domestic flight destinations, for Chicago, none of the major cities you analyzed appear in ORD’s top 10 domestic destinations but, Minneapolis is in Midway’s Top 10 destinations. However, for each of the major cities you analyzed, Chicago ORD is among their top 10 destinations (probably for connections), with the exception being Detroit. Oddly enough the city pair Chicago-Detroit is not in each other’s top air travel 10 destinations. 5) I did learn that Chgo/Minneapolis is the US's 8th busiest air corridor at 7,600/day, for comparison LAX-SFO (2nd busiest) air traffic is 10,000/day (2015 stats). (statista.com). It seems that, as much as I'd love to see it, HSR from Chicago doesn't make near as much sense as California's HSR.
Very insightful analysis. I'm a proponent of "higher-speed" (110) over "high-speed." The biggest complaint about rail in downstate Illinois is about the time delays. If they could get the schedules down to being closer to 99 percent reliable, the speeds would not matter so much. Many of the riders on the Illinois Service are college students who are from Chicago but choose to attend university downstate (Champaign, Bloomington, Carbondale). Reliability in the Chicago Hub Network is probably more important than speed, not to mention reliable state partners (looking at you, Indiana and Wisconsin! How is Missouri a more reliable partner than Indiana on RAIL???)
@@uisblackcat thanks. I agree. Amtrak's reliability is abysmal because they don't own the tracks and are frequently sidelined for freight services. Reliability will not improve as long as that arrangement exists. That's why any kind of passenger rail infrastructure must absolutely have its own tracks and right-of-way. Simply upgrading the existing freight tracks for higher-speed passenger service doesn't do anything to solve the root problem. Higher-speed doesn't matter if the train is sidelined for an hour or more waiting for a freight train to pass (it might be 100 miles away but because of single track, the Amtrak train must wait). And yeah, I agree, an entire region of states must all be on the same page to really affect any change to the status quo.
Re: 2) this may be a generational thing but there is a lot of cultural exchange that happens between Chicago and Detroit, especially in the music industry. Lots of people my age (college- just graduated) drive between the two and the D is on the up.
Its currently just a frieght hub like how Atlanta is a major frieght air hub. To be a frieght hub has different requirements than being a passenger hub, like not needing a significant local population. (Farming makes massive amounts of bulk goods for very few labourers for instance)
@@katjerouac Sure, that’s why 48 million people live within 300 miles of it. And 57 million within 350 miles. That doesn’t include any of the population of Ontario.
@@katjerouac I guess mostly because your opinion is objectively wrong. Just for fun, I looked up populations within 350 miles of various US cities: LA 38M PHX 24m HOU 33M DFW 36M ATL 48M NYC 70M The only city I found to beat Chicago outside Acela Country was Columbus at 74M. However, Columbus doesn’t have the gravity of Chicago and OH politicians hate rail with a white hot passion, so that’s a non-starter.
Fun Fact: There already is a reasonably popular (I think self-supporting) ~90 mph Amtrak route between Milwaukee and Chicago. Anyway, the gravity model is a great tool but I don't know that it truly catches the inconvenience and irritation of air travel, especially to O'Hare. It's really far outside of Chicago, even if your plane isn't routed to one of the distant runways and doomed to a >40-minute taxi. The time advantage of a train straight into downtown is probably enhanced by at least a further hour.
totally agree. "air travel" should always factor in 1. getting to the airport TWO F*%*ing HOURS early because TSA, 2. actual time on the plane 3. the time it takes to actually leave the airport (baggage claim, anyone?) and begin the taxi ride you'll need to your hotel or back home.
Montreal and Toronto are about 320 miles apart, which means that when you consider all the time wasted and annoyance at the airports and the travel time to get to and from the airports, when you consider the travel time door-to-door from origin to destination, it takes almost as much time to fly as to drive.
Actually O'Hare is nearer the center of population for Chicagoland but not the Loop. Fun fact: pre-epidemic Metra carried more passengers in and out of downtown than combined CTA rail stations.
First off, kudos to you for using the Chicago star on the map! Second, I don't drive, so the highway times at 4:05 don't matter to me, which is why I want more public transportation, no matter the distance. Great video!
Literally it doesn’t even have to be high speed we just want a regular Amtrak route 😪 anything is better than what we have now lol, people forget how populated Ohio is.
Amtrak would be much better liked if it averaged 60-80 for normal regional rail routes. Instead i compare routes in the northeast and i am always way better off just driving. (Like the train is litterally twices as long before considering transfers which can be nearly 3hr layovers) It shouldn't be too much to ask that the train is atleast comparable with the car so its a viable option for some trips. (Obviously all modes have outliers, some people drive Boston to Orlando when flying makes far more sense for instance, but lets design for the typical person who just wants to take the most convient option for their trip which usually is a balance of cost vs time)
@@CityNerd As a Buckeye who was raised in Chicago, lives in Philly, and whose company is headquartered in the Twin Cities, I've been waiting for an Ohio hub since 2010.
My wife and I have been recently discussing taking a trip to Chicago via rail. The potential to leave from our house in St. Paul and take the bus/light rail to Union Depot seems exciting - travel with zero car use. Or even better - ride a bike to the station and bring it along.
Hey! You absolutely should! I did exactly that once (relatively recently) and it was just awesome; totally made the trip so much more enjoyable and fun
Something your mode doesn't take into account is the huge effects of connecting the Big 10 to each other. The 6 line network already includes stops at University of Wisconsin, University of Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State & Michigan State and the cities with University of Iowa, University of Michigan, Purdue, University of Illinois are already on the lines you just need to add stops, and only short extensions would be needed to include IU and University of Nebraska. Connecting the big 10 would provide way bigger traffic than your model can measure. A: many college students don't have a car. B: Most of these cities don't have a big airport. C: There is massive demand for travel too these cities and between these cities due to Big 10 football being a really big deal in the Midwest. So there are massive numbers of people without access to Car or Air travel that specifically want to travel between these cities thus network effects of connecting the Big 10 to each other would be huge, but the model you used doesn't take this into account at all.
Yeah I go to college at UW Madison and don't have a car but would love to be able to see friends at other Big 10 colleges, college towns like Madison and Champaign would benefit a lot from HSR connection.
HSR would be the only game in town for a lot of these places so his model saying network effects don't work due to Air Travel really makes little sence
Great video as always. My $.02 as someone who does not have the background you do is that one of the biggest hurdles to overcome is how train travel is marketed and sold to the masses. I've flown 150+ times in the last 10 years for work, lots of regional trips (BOS/PHI, DC/NYC, etc) and also lots of cross country trips and transatlantic flights. I can count the number of "awesome" flying experiences I've had one one hand, and most of those were when I was able to get upgraded to first class. Flying economy is not a pleasant experience in any way, especially if you are taller than like 5'7. I've taken the Acela many times and those trips are always far more enjoyable and productive, despite "taking longer" in terms of actual travel time. Its nearly impossible to work on a plane in economy class, it isn't an issue at all on a train. If we can really achieve 200+ mph trains here in the US, it would open up a ton of possibilities. People just need to understand what those possibilities are. Your model is obviously mathematical and makes sense and its better than my anecdotal observations. But I can tell you that if I could do Philadelphia to Chicago in 4 hours (its about 750 miles in total distance), I would pick that option every single time over getting on a plane, even if the actual travel time is only ~2 hours. Fewer planes, more trains is the answer, even though I probably won't live long enough to see that become a reality. Free unsolicited idea for a video: top 10 transit systems where an extension to an existing network/system could add the biggest bang for the buck. I was reading about the recent Green Light extension in Boston where I used to live and it seems like a somewhat odd choice. And you can do a dishonorable mention for the Norristown HSL extension to KOP here in Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania Railroad was originally planning to electrify the four-track New York to Chicago mainline, beginning with Philadelphia to Harrisburg (1938), which was the only section of the line east of Philadelphia that ever was electrified. They decided that electrifying a four-track steam locomotive mainline was financially preferable to expanding to 6- or 8-track mainline, in terms of maintenance for steam locomotives ($0.84 per mile, at the time, vs. $0.30 per mile for electric locomotives). Electric locomotives could pull more freight and passenger cars, heavier freight cars, increase average speed, and help to reduce congestion. There were serious plans to electrify Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, with a DD-2 electric locomotive prototype built to haul trains over the Allegheny Mountains. After Pittsburgh, they were going to electrify to Crestline, OH, where the eastbound hills begin, and eventually to Chicago. Pittsburgh to Saint Louis, through Columbus, Dayton, and Indianapolis was seriously considered. With the introduction of the road freight and passenger diesel locomotive, in the 1940's, it put and end to the Pennsylvania Railroad's electrification plans. At $0.34 per mile, the diesel locomotives were a lot cheaper than building expensive catenary for electric trains. And, WWII got in the way. The New York Central Railroad was also seriously considering electrifying its "Water-Level Route" from New York City to Chicago, through New York State, and the Great Lakes. Oh, what might have been possible!
For the Chicago-Detroit HSR potential, there is the Wolverine between those two cities that runs through Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor and is quite popular and features the only tracks Amtrak directly owns outside the NEC (as well as speeds of 110mph up to Battle Creek). I think that alignment would have been better as it shortens the distance and is already along a popular corridor (especially with I-94). From there, you could build a separate HSR or higher speed line to connect Grand Rapids with Detroit and Chicago, with further extensions into Northern Michigan at higher speeds (but not HSR) that may not see as much demand, but still deserves quality service especially during the summer season. The meme that Midwest people will drive 14 hours instead of flying or taking the train really does highlight the lack of transit connectivity and infrastructure in the region.
I actually take that train to/from Chicago multiple times a year. It's a) slow b) never on time and c) pricey--and yet even still, there are always loads of people on those trains. I'd *love* to get a proper high-speed rail connection replacing it; even better if it extends to Grand Rapids.
@@sinisterdesign Even at 110 (which is now supposedly possible all the way to Dearborn), I think it would be a very popular option with increased frequency and on-time performance. Those factors aren’t as sexy as bullet trains, but they would provide far more functionality than shaving a few minutes off with faster top speeds. Also, the usefulness of the Wolverine is highly directional as all trains originate from Pontiac, MI, meaning the first eastbound train is the earliest returning westbound train. That makes a one-day eastbound round trip virtually impossible. Also, the train needs a stop at DTW to interconnect with flights.
To add to this and why I think this route makes more sense is that politically Michigan has shown it's willing to invest in the line. MDOT has purchased more of the rail (up to Dearborn) and is investing in making more of the route higher speed (first to Albion, and then I think Ypsilanti is planned). and recently added back frequency. To me Amtrak should invest in places where people and governments want to invest.
@@dmrr7739 I believe they're slowly working towards making it 110 to Dearborn. Seems like it's been in the works for a decade now. But the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek portion finally his 110 earlier this year. I doubt we would see the Wolverine diverted to DTW, but a local rail connection that goes from Detroit-Dearborn-DTW might be an option, with a station that directly links the two. I have taken the morning eastbound train from Niles to A2 and Dearborn before and then returned on the same train in the evening. It is possible, but as you mentioned your time at the destination is short. Plus, the 351 is nonstop to Chicago after Kalamazoo, so if you want to go westbound to Niles or New Buffalo in the morning, you need to transfer onto the Blue Water in Battle Creek or Kalamazoo or take a much later train. Would be nice if they could run a special Michigan-only train between New Buffalo/Kalamazoo and Detroit that could fill in some of those gaps, especially before the 350 and after the 355. Lots of potential there.
While the amount of demand may be lower that wanted I can think of five main reasons transit people want it. 1) history, The mid west was built with rail originally why should we not have it back but modern. 2) terrain, The land is mostly just flat plains and farmland that should make rail easier to build. 3) Rust Belt come back, there are theories that the mid west will rise in popularity again because it is cheap and is less effected from climate change (most of your most underrated cities are here). 4) it has been talked about for a while, every now and then you see plans either from advocacy groups or foreign rail companies of building this (or the hyperloop thing). 5) transit people like trains, If you like a thing you may overstate its potential value.
When it comes to transit hubs, I think it would be beneficial to directly address how one of the goals of HSR corridors isn't just to connect major cities together, but to serve as a backbone connecting local and regional transit systems. I would imagine those smaller systems would be much larger beneficiaries of the "network effect" brought by HSR connections - though they may not be as conducive to a first order analysis providing simple numbers for comparisons.
Yeah, Amtrak has rail systems from Seattle, The Bay area, and going down to Texas all coming from Chicago. Just mimicking that alone could increase the value of the western bound rail lines from Chicago.
Exactly. HSR should serve as the main trunk line that higher-speed regional and slower local trains branch out from. US high speed rail needs to follow the integrated network approach, connecting all transit together into one seamless, comprehensive, and easy to use system. China may be a great example of this, as having dedicated and shared track for HSR trains also helps speed up other routes by reducing the time it takes to get between cities, even if your origin or destination city isn't on the HSR line.
I live in Madison and having high speed rail (or any rail) would be extremely useful. As a college town, intracity public transportation is at a higher demand than it might be for another city its size. If high speed rail ever was implemented here, it would easily replace many of the very slow bus routes to chicago, milwaukee, and the twin cities. I was happy you made this video, the midwest often gets left out of the high speed rail conversation :(
There are also "fun" little bits right now. For example, let's say you want to go from Madison to Chicago, using Milwaukee as an intermediary? Well, if you take the earliest Badger Bus from Madison to the intermodal station in Milwaukee, you arrive at 8:05 a.m. and the next bus gets you there at 11:30 a.m.. When do the Hiawatha trains leave from that station going to Chicago? They leave at 8:05 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. So, if you want to go from Madison to Chicago, unless you want to spend more money and wait for the next train from 8:05 and 11 a.m., you MUST take the direct bus line between Madison and Chicago via Greyhound/Van Galder/Flixbus.
I think the Midwest has the greatest argument for High Speed Rail of any Region. I also think this value rating of each city connection needs to consider the 40yr, 80yr projected growth of cities as to how (increasingly) valuable rail will be. Especially to Minneapolis, Milwaukee, & Columbus (w/ Chicago as the central hub of course).
outside of the northeast yeah... the midwest however is more than one primary corridor its a large web. though some corridors like chicago-detroit are obvious
As someone who would drive from Chicago to Columbus to Philadelphia, I would prefer a rail line there if we could. Same with Chicago to the Twin Cities.
I'd gladly take a HSR connection from STLCHI. It's flat ground for the most part and has no real reason to not exist. The current Lincoln Service is meant to operate at 110mph but rarely does.
dallas-austin-houston-san antonio could also happen if TX wasnt so opposed to trains as well. Flat land as well, many people need to travel between them. No reason it shouldnt exist as well
absolutely, this city pair would have a lot more demand than pure population/distance numbers will show. both cities' major airports are ~15 miles from downtown tourist destinations, so while the plane ticket might be competitive by price alone, after the expensive taxi/rideshare or long transit ride to the city center in addition to however you got to the airport at home, the pure convenience of each train station being right downtown would be huge for ridership. I can imagine tons of St. Louis families skipping the stressful trip to the airport and taking a much more comfortable 2.5hr train instead for their weekend vacation with the kids to Chicago.
I feel like their us a really under appreciated demand for rail between cities in the Midwest. The FLIGHT between chicago and St. Louis might be short but door to door it’s like 5-7 hours and that’s if the flight isn’t delayed or cancelled which is almost sure happen because the small local flights are the first yo get screwed. Next … no one and I mean no one wants to DRIVE between chicago and St. Louis from about Oct to March Cold, grey, rain, ice, snow … it’s long, boring, tedious, and dangerous And again, all that bad weather has an outsized effect on regional flights, which are the first to be delayed and cancelled
The reason Racine and Kenosha are on different "networks" is because Racine(Sturtevant Train station) is part of the Milwaukee to Chicago Hiawatha line, but Kenosha is actually part of the Kenosha to Chicago Metra line... It's very strange, but seems to workout ok.. Spent many years riding on both, they are both great, for different reasons....Love your videos!!
There were also studies for a Milwaukee Area commuter rail line that connects the Milwaukee suburbs including Kenosha as well. Commuter rail would also definitely help with Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Twin Cities high speed rail ridership. But, that project got shut down in 2011 but is now slowly being revived.
The worst part of taking Metra from Kenosha to Chicago is you hit every single stop. There are no express or semi express runs. Most of the Metra North line actually stages out of Kenosha. The Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee commuter project got killed due to stupidity. Shortly after the UP (not to be confused with the other UP) reduced that line to single track. Scott Walker's idiocy also caused Taglo to kill plans to open a Milwaukee manufacturing facility.
Not really an urban design topic, but I'd love to see the career path to doing something about the problems talked about on this channel. I am currently thinking about changing career field into urban design public policy.
Connecting Kalamazoo in the Chicago and Detroit would be a big plus, that is the largest city in southwest Michigan and is one of the US's highest in the medical manufacturing industry, which in a weighted business trip, also it is Michigans second largest college town behind Ann Arbor.
There has been some talk of upgrading Union Station in Chicago and making the tracks connect through the station on both sides instead of ending at the station. This would allow Amtrak routes to continue on through without changing trains, or Metra trains to go from the far north suburbs down to the south and southwest suburbs. Though in the case of Metra routing, I'm not sure how they would incorporate the lines which end at the Ogilvie Transportation Center three blocks to the north of Union Station. But as I said earlier, it's really only talk right now.
It is possible to through-run Metra and Amtrak service through Union station using the old post office tracks. Unfortunately, I don't think the UP lines out of Ogilvie would be able to be connected.
Love the video! I would like to point out that if we are talking idealistically, and the goal is to lower emissions as much as possible, some policy changes would actually make all of these routes make more sense - for example a gas tax similar to the one we have here in Germany(67 cents per liter, unlike the 40 cents per gallon there is in Illinois), train ride subsidies and tax deductions, banning short flights that would make transferring between the modes maybe enough of a hassle that people would just ride a single train service, rather than transfer a bunch of times. So while in the current "free market" comparison between plane and train a lot of these routes dont make sense, I believe it would be great if we could focus on emission reductions per passenger, rather than just the fastest way to move people between points.
It isn't fair to people on those short haul flight corridors to ban air travel *UNLESS* there's going to be a viable alternative. Putting them on Greyhound buses is not that.
@@alexnishimoto8654 1) We've long passed the point of dealing with climate change in a fair way. Welcome to the next 50 years. 2) That's the point. Offering high speed rail, then banning or heavily taxing short haul flights is the way to go.
As a Michigander/Detroiter, I would be really pleased with the route you proposed. I think it's important to include our smaller metro areas and I think it would be great to have quick transport to Lansing, GR and Chicago
I think a Michigan route is more likely to go via Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor because of the more direct route, the amount of colleges, and because the route is more lined with larger towns
I agree that adding stops there could be great, the more the riders the better. Although I wouldn’t skip Grand Rapids because there are a lot of colleges there and they take the train a lot already to Chicago and would appreciate a more convenient option. Although I am biased as a GR resident, lol.
@@micahvandam9658 while I think ridership between Grand Rapids and Chicago would be good. I think a Kalamazoo to Detroit route would get more ridership than Grand Rapids to Detroit
Grand Rapids to Chicago is a popular route via car for vacationers. GR to Lansing and on would be good for in state, especially connecting the capital. The route going thru Kalamazoo already exists, even though it is a problematic slow plod.
@@selin8274 The Wolverine line is one of the fastest, most reliable lines outside of the NE corridor. Amtrak/MDOT own most of the track between Chicago and Detroit and trains run at 110mph.
It would be so great if you could train to Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Detroit/Toronto from Chicago. To be able to hop on a smooth running train and relax without having to deal with airports and luggage issues would be a dream. Sure, it may add on time as compared to driving, but just from a personal stance, I would be much more inclined to take weekends via train vs car to simply be able to read and relax vs deal with driving (traffic/weather/construction/bad drivers) and air travel (too many obvious irritations to list).
I know it's not for everyone, but the last 2 times I've gone to Boston from Maryland I got on an overnight train. Leave at 3 or 5AM, wake up at 12 or 2 in time for check in at the hotel. It's not for everyone though.
I'd love to see an analysis of Vancouver-Eugene, including statistical analysis and discussion of other challenges/advantages. The main cities are all fairly transit-focused and decent-sized. Also the region is seriously land-challenged and ROW challenged.
that corridor fits 110-160mph running. it really doesn't need to hit 200MPH+ Eugenie to Longview could take over the better alignment and upgrade the parallel route for freight. north of that a new alignment maybe best till dupont. then upgrade dupont and farther north
@@gdrriley420 The current slow services are already popular. Any incremental improvement will add to that. Give us 110 mph with reliability and frequency and it would be a huge improvement. But since we're talking new ROW regardless, maybe it's not that much extra to do higher speeds?
To Europeanise the lines, you can look into combining some. For example, make a main line with 220mph top speed to Toledo and have branches of upgraded 125mph lines out to Detroit and Cleveland. This way you still have fast travel, but far lower costs.
"For example, make a main line with 220mph top speed to Toledo and have branches of upgraded 125mph lines out to Detroit and Cleveland. This way you still have fast travel, but far lower costs." ok first of all 220 is a maximum speed not average. Nobody runs wheel on rail over 200 regularly because it's hard on the mechanical system. They have run the French TGV at 340 but they wouldn't want to do that on a regular basis, there's problems with the wheels slipping and keeping the tap in contact with the overhead wire. If you want to average over 200 you want maglev. :) The average speed of the TGV in France is 173. I firmly support Higher Speed Rail since it is a lot cheaper and results in something not that much slower but I don't support the expense of upgrading things to 220 max.
Top Rail Speed is not nearly as important as average speed. Thus the reason CHI-MKE is a good rail corridor is that trains can run at full speed from Lake Tower in Milwakuee to Tower A-5 in Chicago. As a result, despite only having a top speed of 79 MPH, Amtrak service is about 60 MPH between MKE and CHI, and an hour faster than Greyhound
As a Des Moines resident, I can very confidently relay that unless I-80 is widened to three lanes, a rail connection to Chicago would be immensely popular simply because of the surprisingly inconvenient truck traffic on the Interstate. So many people in Des Moines have business in that city, and the mind-numbing pace of trucks passing each other on that corridor will bring you to tears.
As a student in Lincoln who uses I-80 to go across the state, I wholeheartedly agree. Trucks always end up clogging traffic and many would use High Speed Rail instead if city infrastructures supported them once arriving
Unfortunately, I think, like the Titanic and the iceberg, there is a grim inevitability of three-lane-dual I-80 at least from DM to Davenport. Look at what they're already doing with every bridge they update at least between IC and the Quad Cities. But given how people treat the IC bypass, which is already widened, I'm not entirely sure it will really fix much of anything....it just seems to make driving even more frenetic.
The Milwaukee-Saint Paul Hiawatha route is I believe one of Amtrak's extremely popular routes. Especially given that while it's only an hour-and-change to get to Chicago by air, a high speed train would be better since you don't have to deal with O'Hare or Midway. Plus it drops you downtown in Chicago vs. basically in the suburbs like O'Hare is, and well...the meh part of Chicago Midway is in.
It's unfortunate that the route from Chicago to the Twin Cities was deemed not worth it by this metric, because the Twin Cities metro is more populated than majority of the other cities you tested, and some of those smaller ones ranked higher in viability simply because they happened to be closer. We are in an unfortunate position because we are more populous than most people expect us to be but surrounded by...not a whole lot, in any direction, and Chicago is our closest major lifeline. Relatively speaking, we're thriving, but everyone's leaving us alone lol
I think a video about the public transit at Disney World could be pretty interesting since they have a lot of transit modes (buses, boats, trains, gondola, maybe more). It could be interesting to see how Disney compares against major cities or just get some commentary on their transit system and walkability. All the modes seem to have pretty fast service, and Disney World is really walkable once you're inside (not counting parking initially). I think it might be a lot of people's only good public transit experience so they might not realize that walkability isn't just confined to a resort
A sad statistic about Disney, they didn't want people littering so the did a study by observing other parks to see how far people were willing to walk to a trashcan vs just dropping trash. End result, trash cans every 20ft because Americans apparently are too lazy to walk over 10ft to throw something away. (10ft = 3m)
Like everything about Disney is very carefully calculated as far as I know, so I'm under the impression that careful calculation extends to their transit
@@andrewmoffatt3948 Disney is a very designed experience, and the thing about the trash cans is less about the effort to prevent littering more about how pathetic it is that the need trash cans every 20ft to prevent littering. Otherwise resorts like Disney are a great example of how to make walkable areas. Another option are skywalks which is just an enclosed bridge between buildings (make them firebreaks of course) which lets you go between buildings without going outside which has 2 benefits. Firstly it makes walking easier in extreme climates like Canadian Winter or Southern Summer, and secondly by reducing the amount of door opening/closing to the outside you have lower energy bills. (My college had these and they were great, and reduced the time spent with the ground floor doors held wide open as a stream of students moving between classes moved through) Obviously this system isn't exactly easy to impliment city wide for obvious reasons and a tunnel network is more common.
Also am incredibly frustrated by how the Chicago -> STL "High Speed Rail" project went down, it wound up being like 8 years past schedule and we wound up with 90 instead of 110 mph as originally promised :/. IMO its a good arguement against incrementalism, because if they had gone bigger / had a more agressive timeline maybe we'd actually have a developed world level corridor between those two cities...
Really enjoyed this video. As a Midwesterner though, it's important to note our collective tendency to drive over fly even if the destination is 10+ hours away. May want to adjust the metric based on this philosophy since midwesterners are the likely occupants using the rail system the most.
I thought I’d this too but it might even out because driving might eat into the low end. I guess it just depend I’d the driving preference is do to aversion to flying or attraction to driving. I would think trains could travel better in bad weather than either cars or planes.
You don't necessarily get a time penalty for transfers. If you schedule your trains right, you can have two through running trains stop right opposite of one another at the same platform, and people can easily transfer within less than five minuets. This is done e.g. in Mannheim in Germany I believe, where two different north/south ICE lines meet. Also the Deutschlandtakt, a project for a country wide integrated schedule like in Switzerland, is built exactly on that idea. Get the trains in at the same time, allow people to transfer quickly, then send them all on their way.
The way to compete with air travel for longer routes like Chicago to NYC is overnight sleeper trains that beat an airplane ticket plus one night in a hotel.
Thanks for looking at this topic realistically and objectively. In the transit space we need to be more honest with ourselves when assessing the likelihood of someone taking a train trip vs driving or flying. Some people don’t like the idea that a train trip could be considered less competitive but it is important to understand that many riders choose trips based on what mode is most convenient first and foremost Have you look at SEA-PDX? I’m not super confident about it but I think it could at the very least support modest speed upgrades like the ones highlighted in the mid 2000’s cascades long range plan
Very true. But soft factors should be in the equation as well. Although many Americans love to drive, traffic in the US is far from convenient, especially around large cities. More than often people end up in traffic jams and also you have to pay attention to the traffic; that is actually a plus for the train because you can relax or be productive during the ride. Flights as competitor are more interesting. When thinking about a connection from the Midwest to the East coast for example, the picture regarding time and profitability gets better if you skip the 500k cities. For example Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Washington. Thats roughly 700 kilometers. If the US would talk about the latest technology of high speed trains, this can be done in between 2-3 hours. I would say the potential to compete with flights on this route is definitely there but there are tons of other factors and tbh i dont see that happen in large scale in the US anytime soon.
There are also soft factors of branching connections to smaller nearby cities and the overall cost of each mode that weighs in this discussion. He talked about college towns like South Bend and Ann Arbor (while even showing them by the colleges located there) which are some of the main demographic in other countries of who utilizes the train systems the most. College students tend to not use their vehicles as much in everyday life due to policies placed on under-classman and how the universities are designed to begin with. So another form of transportation that doesn’t involve getting rides from others may be beneficial to consider connections to. Also, the cost makes a big difference. If I could fly from Chicago to NY in 2 hours and it costs me $250 a ticket, versus I could take HSR for 6-7 hours and it costs me $100, there are many who would take the option of the few extra hours to save half the cost. That stuff all determines on how much they charge to ride but if it’s low enough then it will generate interest from that.
@@TheRayzerBandit I completely agree, I think this sort of weighting is more accurate for business or other last minute travel. Most people making plans for a vacation or something would probably be okay with HSR that’s a little slower than flying but gets rid of a lot of flying or driving’s problems. I’ve always wondered why not run an overnight “express” between major city pairs and then another during the day so that you don’t lose daytime if you don’t want, but don’t have to be up at 2am to catch the train like some Amtrak long distance routes that run today
I think there's still momentum on the Ultra High Speed Ground Transportation project or whatever they're calling it (Vancouver-Eugene). Will definitely discuss at some point!
@@91djdj " Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Washington. Thats roughly 700 kilometers. " Actually Chicago to Washington DC is 1121 km dude not 700. A plane can fly it in 1 hr 40 min so the 4 hours that a TGV would take is not "competitive". But then I see silly Europeans acting like 10 hours is acceptable for London to Venice so I can see the logic in your mind, but in North America and Australia we don't sit on a train for four hours when we could have flown it in less than two.
Interesting that you should think that Chicago to Minneapolis would be eaten into that much by air travel. I used to travel for work extensively and the rule of thumb was pretty much unless there was some overriding weather concern like winter storms if you could drive there in under six hours you’re better off than flying. Flying out of O’Hare is a very time-consuming process. With driving to the airport, check-in, security, boarding, flight, deplaning, getting your rental car, and finally going to your destination you can easily eat up about 5 to 6 hours. although you lose the flexibility of driving with the train at three hours it’s a very attractive option.
@@TimothyHalkowski I think it might have something to do with people who don’t come from cities with majorly large airport hubs. I imagine people that travel out of Atlanta have a similar point of view on air travel. Traveling out of someplace Minneapolis or even Las Vegas is far less stressful and time-consuming. Anytime your local airport is a hub it needs to be a consideration. All locations are not equal when it comes to air travel.
First off, love this video. Second, gravity model notwithstanding, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Kitchener(-Waterloo) generated more passengers than Hamilton. I went to high school in Hamilton and university in Kitchener-Waterloo. The former is a notoriously anti-transit city that has spent several decades refusing offers of funding from higher levels of government to build light rail (although I think they're finally getting around to it now), and the latter is a tech hub filled with students and yuppies that has already built a light rail system despite being considerably smaller.
I’m surprised Milwaukee to Chicago isn’t higher. A lot of people use Hiawatha to commute on a regular basis and it was for a time at least before Covid either the busiest or tied for the busiest Amtrak line outside of the Northeast. I guess work from home changes a lot but it would have been interesting seeing commuting patterns if the line went from 1:20 minutes to something like 45 minutes. You can get an unlimited monthly pass between Milwaukee and Chicago for around $400 which I think is reasonable to spend on a commute.
VIDEO IDEA: Please make a video on transportation ballot measures! Both the successes and failures or what works and doesn't work. Along with if one is not ambitious enough or very ambitious. Im curious on your take and opinion on this topic. Im sure you have your opinions on this.
Since you asked: could you analyze some corridors of high-speed sleeper trains? (Eg. That Chinese sleeper between Beijing and Guangzhou: 2400km/ 2000mi in around 11 hours.) It would be awesome to leave from LA or Seattle in the evening and arrive in the morning in NY or DC after a good night of sleep…
@@robojimtv people hate flying coast to coast too, there’s tons of awful flights that require connections and take more than 11h in a way less comfortable way than a single seat or bed coast to coast journey would be
that's like 2800-2900 miles. even averaging 160mph, that would be 18 hours, so if you left in the evening from the WC, you would arrive in NYC the afternoon or evening the next day
so I would prefer to leave in the morning from LA, see the interesting part of the country, then sleep once the flatlands are reached (at night). that would be a nice trip
@@alquinn8576 I would love that! 18 hours would be a mássive improvement from the current 69 to 89 hours it's taking right now without delays (I checked the Amtrak-site...)
For a more micro scale network, I'd love to see a breakdown of the Bay Area's transit system. You have SF Muni, Bart, Caltrain, VTA, and the Amtrak Capitol Corridor to Sacramento. There are also the ferries, busses, trolleys, etc. These service are good, but they're quirky and many parts of the Bay are chronically unwalkable, so these can be difficult to really take advantage of. Particularly in the South, there's a very meandering VTA line from Bart in Milpitas to Caltrain in Mountain view (which has hour+ waits). From SF, you can take Bart down to Millbrae to connect to Caltrain, but then you have to wait up to an hour in the Millbrae station, which isn't super inviting due to a lot of adjacent parking compared to other stations which instead plop you right in downtown areas. Also Bart has a station in SFO, but you have to take a bus to get to Caltrain (don't miss it). I wonder how high the ceiling could be for living car free in the Bay Area if the transit system were unified. We have a lot of low density areas and large office complexes, so maybe there really isn't a great way to reasonably connect everyone without restarting from scratch.
We should consider university towns as important places along these lines. Champagne/Urbana, Ann Arbor, Madison, Lansing, Columbia MO, Lexington KY, et al would attract a lot of students and parents with low cost and safety.
I would love to see a metric added that takes into effect emissions per transportation method. How much more viable would high speed (or literally any) rail become if all the negative externalities of cars and airplanes were included in?
@@itsjonny1744 Yes, true, I believe we should implement more green energy along with Nuclear power plants to stabilize a cleaner production of energy but that is a topic for another discussion. As for the HSR emissions discussion. Just trains alone, not even electric HSR, uses less fuel than all of the vehicles needed to transport all of the passengers to and from their desired location. 1 vehicle may be less than 1 train but typically there are hundreds of passengers who commute by train that otherwise would each be using a vehicle. All that totals up to a dramatic reduction in fuel consumption before we even get into the more dramatic reduction when converted over to electricity.
Hi Ethan! From a scientific paper comparing several scenarios in Europe (mainly Italy), the total power consumption for an airline is about 0.27 kWh per passenger km (including airport operations), with HST at about 0.04 kWh per passenger km. HST numbers are calculated for the engines themselves, not including the entire way from a power plant and fuel. Roughly estimating the total efficiency from a thermal powerplant to the train at 40 %, would put the HST to airliner energy ratio at about 40 % as well. In the case of dense rail networks (in Europe) and high-tech power supply, the HST efficiency can be increased by power regeneration achieved with proper scheduling. Train braking can send the generated electrical power to a different unit accelerating. This effect would be achieved only on dense networks though, so I would not consider it in the case of the US HS rail.
As a once and future Londoner, I love hearing my city referred to as something other than “Fake London” on urbanist TH-cam ☺️ (Not Just Bikes is awesome and his criticisms of London line up 100% with my lived experience, but I guess I have a soft spot and choose to see potential?)
I think the model you're using significantly undersells the value of longer trips compared to air-travel. I don't fly regularly - but when I do, I have the following time costs: 60min to get to the airport via local transit (bus + rail). 120 minutes early arrival for security, walking across the airport, and generally not being late. 60 minutes boarding the plane X minutes of flying. Noisy, crowded, uncomfortable. 60-90 minutes at the other end for getting from the airport to wherever I need to be. A hypothetical high-speed rail connection through my city would save me almost three hours of transit-related time, cutting getting local travel at both ends in half and removing 120 minutes of security, waiting, and boarding. Four hours of travel is *nothing* when flying literally anywhere is hassle-filled an all-day affair.
10:47 "That's probably the nicest thing anyone's ever said about London, Ontario in the history of TH-cam." As someone who has had to try and drive to/through/from London, this had me rolling.
I was really looking forward to this one! And it is excellent, if the conclusion that the chicago hub concept might not be great because of transfer times is a bit deflating. I really love these gravity model rail videos, and I hope you will make ones about other continents too! I would personally especially be interested in such a video about the eastern EU, as HSR didn't yet really manage to cross the former iron curtain. I also had an idea about an alternative to the gravity model while reading the competitiveness section of the HSR wikipedia page (which probably means it isn't a great idea but whatever) 1. "European data indicate that air traffic is more sensitive than road traffic (car and bus) to competition from HSR, at least on journeys of 400 km (249 mi) and more. TGV Sud-Est reduced the travel time Paris-Lyon from almost four to about two hours. Market share rose from 40 to 72%. Air and road market shares shrunk from 31 to 7% and from 29 to 21%, respectively. On the Madrid-Sevilla link, the AVE connection increased share from 16 to 52%; air traffic shrunk from 40 to 13%; road traffic from 44 to 36%, hence the rail market amounted to 80% of combined rail and air traffic. This figure increased to 89% in 2009, according to Spanish rail operator Renfe." From this we can draw the conclusion that on it's nominal optimal distance HSR has a much more severe effect on air travel than car travel (likely because the lower perveived cost of car travel), and thus it could mainly be considered an air travel alternative. The space where HSR is more attractive than car but airplane isn't is likely very narrow, if it is a relatively small effect at it's nominal ideal distance 2."In Japan, there is a so-called "4-hour wall" in high-speed rail's market share: If the high-speed rail journey time exceeds 4 hours, then people likely choose planes over high-speed rail. For instance, from Tokyo to Osaka, a 2h22m-journey by Shinkansen, high-speed rail has an 85% market share whereas planes have 15%. From Tokyo to Hiroshima, a 3h44m-journey by Shinkansen, high-speed rail has a 67% market share whereas planes have 33%. The situation is the reverse on the Tokyo to Fukuoka route where high-speed rail takes 4h47m and rail only has 10% market share and planes 90%" The conclusion here is that unlike the current linear multiplier the air/rail market the rail still dominates almost up to 3 hours and then drops off drastically. 3. Based on the spanish HSRs with a track speed of 200mph(I looked at Madrid to Barcelona and Madrid to Seville as an example) means a non-stop average speed of c. 130 mph, revised down to 120mph to account for an indeterminate number of stops(I know very rigorous) would combined with the last point would mean that HSR is incredibly competivive against air up to 300 miles , maybe even 360 miles, splits equally with it at 480 miles, and stops being at all viable at 600 miles (the same number that you keenly identified, but with a sharper(and more curvy) dropoff) 4. A problem I have with the gravity model is that you also mentioned in the acela video that it treats attractiveness of cities as a constant, while having a 2-3h high speed rail downtown to downtown would make the cities seem "closer, so to say. 5. This, combined with the lower competitiveness against car and the longer dominant period against air means that the current model might be erring on the near side. My proposed alternative would be the following: if (and this is a big if, as this in necessary for the whole thing) data could be aquired for how many passengers fly between cities, you could make a model based on air passengers×multiplier. The number of air passengers would, whitout directly looking at the cities would tell us about a mix of their population, wealth and attracticeness towards eachother, as more populous, richer and more connected cities have higher air traffic between them, while it would penalize cities close enough where most people chose the car over the airplane, most of whom would largely chose it over the rail too. You only need to modify this with the train/air competitiveness(something we seem to have fairly good data about) the get the possible rail passenger count. Is this any sane or viable? Does this fit any real world data? I have no idea, but I am hopeful that you or someone will disect it in the replies. TLDR:Great video!, make eastern EU., do you have any intercity airplane data?
I’d love to see a video on state rail lines. What I mean by that is rail lines that primarily run within a single state. Lots of travel tends to actually stay within state lines, and I think Ohio and Alabama could be good examples of this. A Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland line would be very beneficial as would a Mobile-Montgomery-Birmingham-Huntsville line. Other states that have some cities arranged in a straight line could be California (San Diego-LA-all the central valley cities-San Jose-San Francisco), Georgia (Chattanooga-Atlanta-Macon or Augusta/Athens-Savannah), South Carolina (Charleston-Columbia-Greenville), or Missouri (St. Louis-Jefferson City-Columbia-Kansas City). I would also love if you included college towns and major tourist destinations in your calculations, as those would let relatively small cities like Savannah or Athens in GA to punch above their weight.
My train travel could be longer than my flight+security by several hours, but not having to deal with the TSA or flight delays would still make me more inclined to travel by train. I had a trip to Chicago from NYC recently, and I desperately wanted to justify getting there any way except for flying, but traveling by train would have taken like 20 hours in each direction.
A Chicago-Acela HSR Corridor through Pittsburg would be a great opportunity for a night train service. Especially since both sides of Pittsburg would have a high speed element with the upgrading of the Keystone Corridor and the plans for the Pennsylvanian.
I went to California's Great America (right next to Levi's Statdium) from San Fransisco using a combination of BART and VTA. The way back was much worse but overall it wasn't too bad of a trip and way way cheaper than taking an Uber. It was nice being able to take public transit to a park, some parks you basically can't get to if you didn't drive (looking at you Cedar Point)
I'm just questioning the idea of 600 mile routes having a 0 modifier: if im correct, the 600 mile mark is where the rail and air travel times are roughly comparable, so air is not immediately a faster choice. Given the hassle of air compared to rail, I think you'd see plenty of rail riders at that point: They may even continue up to 700 miles, where the convenience of air will start to take greater effect.
i think here it gets more complicated than CityNerd wants to bugger with. In my case, I would take the flight if and only if it were a direct nonstop flight and then secondarily based on the airports involved (some have easy access and reliably fast security). For a good airport pair, flying would be 3h total and train would be 4+ hours. If I had to put up with ORD bullshit, yes, I'm taking the train
I don’t want to deal with air travel headaches, airliner’s abuse of economy, and travel nausea for 2 days, I’m taking the train even if it’s a 1000 miles
I vote for Chicago-Indy-Cincinnati and Indy-Louville. Then watch other cities and states experience TGV envy as Indianapolis benefits from becoming a mini hub. That would power demand for extensions as Nashville, Columbus and other cities would lobby hard to get connected.
I used to love the train from Chicago to Lafayette (I think it also went to Indy) Indiana to visit my husband when he was there for work but Indiana stopped the funding. It was fun especially for someone who doesn’t like to drive.
I've been trying to express this exact point, it all starts with one then it would take on a life of its own, reaching smaller towns making an extension of larger cities.
Here's an idea for a topic. I come from Los Angeles with big boulevards, 3 lanes sometimes 4 in each direction. Now, I live in Chicago where major streets may be 2 lanes but often 1 lane in each direction. When I first got here I was stunned. This can't be. These streets are so small and with so many stop signs every few blocks! Yet, traffic seems to flow better in Chicago than in Los Angeles. Chicago freeways can be as jammed as LA's but, the streets aren't. Why would that be? Can it be that street size affects how people choose to drive? Do they walk more? It can't be just because of transit use. Lots and lots of people drive in from the suburbs. If LA streets were as small as Chicago's, would the city shut down? Or would traffic adjust and still flow? I think it's worth an analysis.
It might be due to the streets here in Chicago stick to the grid system more than L.A. Less dead ends and winding roads and the ability to move north and south, east and west on a straight line. We also have several major thoroughfares that run on an angle which cuts down on the zig zag effect. Western Ave. runs a straight 24 mile long north and south line from one end of the city to the other. There are a lot of streets like this that cross the city uninterrupted.
It seems like the state of Colorado does a high speed rail feasibility study on the Front Range (I-25) every ten years or less, I have to wonder how it would hold up to these metrics. Same goes for ski rail to the mountains, but that kind of recreation/tourism transport probably relies on very different factors than population of both ends. Always a good relaxer to watch one of your videos, thanks for what you do.
It's should be from Milwaukee, Waukegan, Chicago, and St. Louis. Waukegan will provide a station between Chicago and Milwaukee for surrounding successful villages and a high populace.
If the Chicago - St Louis stops in BloNo and Springfield, I can see it doing reasonably well. I live in Peoria and, depending on the cost, speed,a nd frequency of service, could see myself driving to BloNo to go to Chicago or St Louis, which are both about a 2 1/2 or 3 hour drive for me. Assuming a one hour train from BloNo and a little under an hour drive, park, etc, I'd save 3o minutes or more if the timing works. For similar reasons you might get some people from CU.
I would be curious as to what the weightings look like with air taken out of the picture - reason being that a great many folks living in the Midwest (myself included) just won't consider air travel if it's less than a day's drive. How many of these people will consider trains over driving is up for debate, but I can say for sure that there's a general willingness to spend a while traveling in the Midwest.
This is the most educational/entertaining channel I’m subscribed to. You’re really spreading some important knowledge whenever you give any input, so thanks for that.
I think realistically a Milwaukee-Chicago-Detroit Line could be possible, most other Midwest cities are a bit too far to be completive with air travel.
Ok hold on a second. As someone who takes the train from Chicago to STL frequently, I have to disagree with your assessment on its competitiveness with flying. You’re not taking into account travel to the airport (or train station) and time require inside the facility. Takes 5 hrs 20 min (usually on-time btw) to get to STL by train. No wait time at the the train station. Just travel there. For most of Chicago, travel-to-terminal-times cancel out. However, you may need to be at O’Hare 2-3 hours before your flight. Take into account how long you have to wait on the tarmac, getting out of the airport, and getting your checked bags, the travel time difference between the two isn’t much at all.
Usually when I explain this to folks and couple it with more space in your seat, freedom of movement, generally free luggage, and price of the ticket ($25/one way is I what usually pay), they gladly switch to train. Considering that the time isn’t that much different, it’s very easily the better option. And that’s only at 90mph!
He actually meant Detroit to St Louis but he mistakenly said Chicago to St Louis. The flights he shows on the video for comparison are from Detroit to St Louis.
Although I would live in the middle of that west radial, I still dream of being able to take HSR to Chicago. Even though it doesn't meet your 500k criteria, The Quad Cities (380k+) and Iowa City-Cedar Rapids Corridor (450k+) would be decent stops as well. Also being a college town, there are a lot people from Chicago in Iowa City
Yeah, adding the Quad Cities and Iowa City/Cedar Rapids to the West Radial would make a lot of sense. The combined statistical area of the QC is 475k and Iowa City CSA (which includes Cedar Rapids) is 500k. The university and it's hospital system would get a ton of traffic.
One thing not really captured in your criteria that I think would significantly boost the Chicago to Milwaukee number is the % of car ownership. You say Chicago to Milwaukee doesn't score that highly because driving is an attractive option. While that is true if you have a vehicle to drive, if you have to rent a car in order to do that then it's no longer a very attractive option. Something like 30% of Chicago (city) residents don't have a car. That's nearly a million people. It's also interesting to compare your potential routes with the current Amtrak route ridership. These are the top destinations by ridership from Chicago: 1. Milwaukee, WI 86 mi 2. St. Louis, MO 284 mi 3. Milwaukee Airport, WI 78 mi 4. Normal, IL 124 mi 5. Champaign, IL 129 mi 6. Ann Arbor, MI 243 mi 7. Springfield, IL 185 mi 8. Kalamazoo, MI 138 mi 9. Sturtevant, WI 62 mi 10. Dearborn, MI 273 mi
As someone who has lived in chicago most my life, and then Ohio for a year, and DC for 2.5 years, this video feels made for me lol I wish there was a little bit more hope vs. hesitation in the video for a connection to DC & the Acela Corridor b/c in my opinion if America is ever going to have any form of a HSR network that’s gonna be critical. (Instead of random isolated segments of HSR) But I get what you are saying about it being so far it’ll be hard to compete with flying.
That usefulness of hsr trunks connecting local markets is super important and tbh I don’t like Alon levy or this video because of this gravity model not relying on that
Passenger rail investment in the Midwest should focus on speeding traffic into Chicago. Bottlenecks like Englewood are being relieved, but building a flyover and realignment at Tower A-5 is a much more cost effective option than building a new super railroad between Glenview and Milwaukee. A grade separation at Mayfair would be the next project for CHI-MKE.
09:54 - Hey, Kitchener-Waterloo is a pretty big tech hub, and we have had a local light rail system since 2019, while Hamilton keeps punting the idea of building one their.
Chicago and Toronto are the two great lakeshore cities of the continent. If I could shuttle between them I would love that. But us rail fans may not be all that representative!
As someone from Toledo, or would be really nice to have that Detroit to Columbus route (obviously stopping in Toledo). It would make it much easier to get to Detroit (where I go for flights) and Columbus (where I go for college). Unfortunately, I don't see it get brought up much, so I'll probably be long gone from Toledo before it ever gets built.
I think you might underestimate other factors other than travel time. HSR is usually cheaper than flying and a lot less stressful, both in terms of booking and boarding. Also climate awareness drastically extends the willingness to sit longer in a train. I am from germany and domestic flights are pretty much no valid option for most of the people. Yes there still are domestic flights but most people here are also willing to sit 6hrs+ in a train. So I think some of the cities that might not make sense to connect in the model definitely do make sense to connect.
Im skeptical of the the SW radial. As someone who took the Lincoln service (Stl-Chi) to hop the Hiawatha (Chi-MKE) for the better part of a year, the Lincoln service is almost always heavily utilized, runs multiple times a day on at least 2 trains, each going N-S and S-N. Im not sure how much more it would pick up from KC, but I feel its score suffers from the raw numbers game without looking at current ridership. I know the curve presented isnt meant to be a hard and fast representation but if you took the current Lincoln service route - the 3 Chicago area stops (Chi, Summit, Joliet) decent sized Central IL metro stops (Bloomington-Normal [Illinois State University and State Farm HQ] and Springfield [Capital]) and ending in StL (minus the couple smaller stops) easily punches far above its weight and could probably rival the SE or even the NE route (though I have no real experience with the Wolv service that is currently ran). Thats to say nothing of the current Hiawatha route which while also heavily used, I feel as if under-performs and would benefit a lot from an extra stop or two in Racine/Kenosha before getting to MKE and continuing to the Twin Cities In short, what exists already is heavily utilized. Putting it on real high speed will only increase use in a significant way.
For an interesting network the following corridors would be interesting: Acela as baseline NYC-Montreal (3 stops) Boston-Toronto (via Buffalo) Quebec - Detroit (covers nearly half of Canada's population) Unfortunately the transfer hubs of Montreal, Albany, Toronto, and NYC would add a time penalty. (Maybe scheduling somehow allows key nodes to be less penalized such as Albany & NYC) Either way its a lot of cities and probably a lot of work (assuming you haven't just set up an excel sheet to do the math for you yet). I assume NYC and Montreal would be the big travel demand generators.
A Detroit, Toledo, Ann Arbor line they call the T is supposedly being talked about, it would connect Detroit to Philly and The Acela Corredor without having to go through Chicago, which I would love
You made a lot of great points that a lot of people forget when discussing HSR, I'm not sure why people think we need HSR to every city possible. People often forget how much more spread out the U.S. is compared to countries that have successful HSR networks. I'm still baffled that someone out there thinks that HSR to Quincy, IL would be a good idea.
So - in terms of future videos, I'd be interested to see this weighting system applied to other successful high speed rail corridors, in Japan or Western Europe for example - to see if it still holds up, or whether some assumptions need changing.
I think you’re overestimating the penalty due to changing trains. If it’s an intended transfer that’s timetabled well the penalty can be zero, especially for a same-platform change. (I’m also not sure what your issue with through-running Grand Rapids - Chicago - Indianapolis is. Changing direction at a station costs a few minutes but is otherwise trivial with suitable rolling stock)
i never imagined someone so monotone, speaking a monologue about probably-not-gonna-happen high speed rail lines in the midwest, could actially maintain my attention and provide quality entertainment for 15 whole minutes
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
Chicago to Milwaukee and then to Minneapolis makes so much sense. The Milwaukee Road Hiawatha still actually has one of the top 10 highest average speed records in the world, for scheduled trains in that corridor.
They had Steam engines doing 115mph multiple times a day on that route in 1930!
Do you have any info on what trip times were like for SEA/TAC to Spokane by chance?
I’ve been trying to research about the Milwaukee road myself but I either can’t find or can’t read the timetables correctly
In addition to the Milwaukee Road, there were 4 other competitors on the Chicago-Twin Cities route, with the CB&Q (which also set a speed record I believe), the C&NW, as well as the lessor known and used Soo Line and Chicago Great Western. This corridor really should have more service...
Agreed re: the popularity of the Hiawatha.
I forget if the weighting for air travel includes both transit time from city centers to/from the airports, and time spend in the airports at both ends. And there's a big emotional component, too.
I would happily do a weekend mini-vacation by HSR from Minneapolis to Chicago, including staying in a boutique hotel and some fancy shopping. [Why yes, I am female.] I would count the train as part of the adventure - the architecture of the stations, the spaciousness of the train, the scenery.
I would not do the trip by air, spending time experiencing the joys of Security Theater, being jammed in a tiny seat, then having to struggle to find transportation to where I want to be, only to do it all again in reverse. Ever since 2002, I travel by air only when there's no alternative, it's so soul draining.
Chicago to the Twin Cities doesn't even need to a sudden HSR transformation...it could take place incrementally. Things like double tracking, electrification, track straightening, grade separations, could take place as incremental upgrades. We have the existing track to run Twin Cities to Chicago as a decent route now. Sadly the Empire builder only services this once a day and Hiawatha while doing a respective 7 round trips only goes to downtown Milwaukee. Hiwawatha could easily be extended to Brookfield (Milwaukee Burb) and to Madison. Madison to the Twin Cities is doable, but some of the track is in poor shape which forces Amtrack to crawl and there is a decent amount of single track in that area (but even this is criminally under-used). A milk run could include Rochester/Winona/La Crosse/Wisconsin Dells which would be popular. Being able to access the MKE airport from this route is big, and not having to worry about parking in Chicago is huge. Electrification though wouldn't be easy in rural Wisconsin...too many short under/overpasses that don't have room for the wires. Probably the most cost effective improvement would be to double track the lines in Central Wisconsin which would open up a ton of scheduling options.
Oh, man. The subtle Not Just Bikes subtweet inherent in "that's probably the nicest thing anyone has said about London, Ontario in the history of TH-cam" just about had me rolling on the floor.
London ON will always be the real London to me
@@CityNerd 😆
as someone who has been to london ontario several times….the hate is undeserved for their lovely riverside parks, but it is deserved for all the goose poop that’s there.
I went to university in London for two years. Horribly dull city. NJB knows it.
@@GraemeMacDermid Did you ever go out to the bars? I was there for 4 for undergrad and it was a ton of fun. Didn't have a car, took transit or walked or biked everywhere. GIGANTIC street parties 2 or 3 times a year, a VERY active nightlife scene, lots of bars, endless house parties. Sure, I wouldn't want to live in the suburbs there, but living downtown and near the campus was great. I'm sure most people I went to school with would agree with me.
It's so frustrating to wake up every day as a Wisconsinite who was alive during Scott Walker's stupid time in office as governor. Like they had a shovel-ready project for passenger service between Madison and Milwaukee, the two most important cities in the state (and a notable gap in good current rail infrastructure). Scott Walker canning that project to score cheap conservative political points for his total failure of a 2016 presidential campaign gives me nightmares.
I feel you
-fellow Wisconsinite
Similar story in Ohio: John Kasich trashing a federally funded project for the 3C line in Ohio in 2010 still haunts me
Why do conservatives hate rail so much but are happy to spend billions on highways? It makes no sense to me
Nobody ever accused most politicians of being forward thinking and intelligent. It’s up to all of us to hold them accountable. Gotta show up and vote!
That would have seen hourly fast-ish service Chicago to Milwaukee with every other train continuing to Madison. What's especially insane is Walker's stunt screwed the western Milwaukee suburbs that voted for him....they would have had doorstep rail service instead of having to go downtown. At least they seem to be starting to come around politically, at long last.
An aspect of the upper midwest that might be interesting to add to this discussion is the number of rural-ish college towns with 40K+ students/faculty. These towns are too small to make your list but would probably punch above their weight in creating ridership. I've lived in both Champaign, IL and West Lafayette, IN in my twenties and can attest that one of the worst parts about those towns was needing to drive so far to just get to Chicago or Indy. There is definitely outweighed demand for a convenient way to get to a real airport from these towns and many more fun trips to the "big city" would seem reasonable if you could nap/study/watch CityNerd videos on a high-speed train.
That’s probably how they’re going to build out the network considering that college town to college town generates the more ridership than anything else.
This is one of those things that appears to be a great idea until we take into account it is high speed rail. Even at the lower end of speed for HSR, a stop in smaller towns to board a few passengers is slowing down dozens of passengers meaning they will prefer to travel by air. Note: I live in a 'college town' that does not have a commercial airport. It is 2 to 2.5 hours drive to the nearest airports.
@@lagautmd Amtrak has some systems with trains that only run “express” routes alongside the regular routes to accommodate both.
Lots of ISU students take Amtrak to and from Chicago
Ann Arbor is the city in Michigan with the most ridership on amtrak
*Extremely mundane* topic suggestion: the underlying mechanism and process of setting the timing for traffic signals in a city. Sometimes lights are clearly timed to keep traffic flowing at a particular speed, but other times they seemed to be randomly timed, or even specifically timed to slow down through traffic. Who makes those decisions, how is it implemented, how often is it changed? Seems like a topic of great complexity.
Ugh, this has to be one of the most frustrating observations I've had while driving. I would love to know more about this as well!
Check out Road Guy Rob! He have several videos about block signaling.
I thought I was crazy
This is the kind of mundane but super interesting topic I come here for. Great suggestion
Traffic signal intersections that are close together like in downtown areas are generally timed for efficiency. Signals in suburban and rural areas that are spaced are generally censored either by metal detectors in the road or by cameras mounted next to the light, which is why they may seem random. They also change sometimes depending on the hour of the day to accommodate rush hour traffic.
As a current Chicago resident, I’ve heard a lot about HSR from Chicago.
1) an argument for Minneapolis has always been the uncompetitive nature of that air market. United and American, with major Chicago hubs, don’t have as many flights to MSP because Delta is the major hub airline at MSP, which also doesn’t have as many flights to ORD and none to MDW. Therefore, flights from Chicago’s major airlines are more expensive than Delta’s but Delta has fewer departure options. When I used to travel a lot for work, I remember the Finance people always complaining about ORD-MSP flights always being more expensive than going to LAX/SFO or LGA/EWR.
2) it also seems that Chicagoans love to travel to Michigan and Wisconsin for short vacations but not as often to the big cities. They like the small towns like Benton Harbor, Galena, the Dells, etc., except Milwaukee, they do like Milwaukee. Chicagoans love those small towns. I never hear many people talking about going to Detroit or St Louis.
3) Amtrak’s busiest Midwestern corridors are the Hiawatha Line (to Milwaukee) at 2500/day, the Lincoln Line (to St Louis) at 1800/day, and the Wolverine Line (to Detroit/Pontiac) at 1500/day. How many people go end to end? I don’t know. These lines do have less ridership than Amtrak’s 280-mile San Joaquins line between Bakersfield and Oakland at 3,000/day.
4) In fact, unlike LAX, SFO, PHX, and Las Vegas, in which each city appears in each other’s top 10 domestic flight destinations, for Chicago, none of the major cities you analyzed appear in ORD’s top 10 domestic destinations but, Minneapolis is in Midway’s Top 10 destinations. However, for each of the major cities you analyzed, Chicago ORD is among their top 10 destinations (probably for connections), with the exception being Detroit. Oddly enough the city pair Chicago-Detroit is not in each other’s top air travel 10 destinations.
5) I did learn that Chgo/Minneapolis is the US's 8th busiest air corridor at 7,600/day, for comparison LAX-SFO (2nd busiest) air traffic is 10,000/day (2015 stats). (statista.com).
It seems that, as much as I'd love to see it, HSR from Chicago doesn't make near as much sense as California's HSR.
Very insightful analysis. I'm a proponent of "higher-speed" (110) over "high-speed." The biggest complaint about rail in downstate Illinois is about the time delays. If they could get the schedules down to being closer to 99 percent reliable, the speeds would not matter so much. Many of the riders on the Illinois Service are college students who are from Chicago but choose to attend university downstate (Champaign, Bloomington, Carbondale). Reliability in the Chicago Hub Network is probably more important than speed, not to mention reliable state partners (looking at you, Indiana and Wisconsin! How is Missouri a more reliable partner than Indiana on RAIL???)
@@uisblackcat thanks. I agree. Amtrak's reliability is abysmal because they don't own the tracks and are frequently sidelined for freight services. Reliability will not improve as long as that arrangement exists.
That's why any kind of passenger rail infrastructure must absolutely have its own tracks and right-of-way. Simply upgrading the existing freight tracks for higher-speed passenger service doesn't do anything to solve the root problem. Higher-speed doesn't matter if the train is sidelined for an hour or more waiting for a freight train to pass (it might be 100 miles away but because of single track, the Amtrak train must wait).
And yeah, I agree, an entire region of states must all be on the same page to really affect any change to the status quo.
Re: 2) this may be a generational thing but there is a lot of cultural exchange that happens between Chicago and Detroit, especially in the music industry. Lots of people my age (college- just graduated) drive between the two and the D is on the up.
I agree. Chicago is well positioned to be a massive HSR hub just like it used to be and prolly still is a huge rail hub period
Except nobody actually lives or wants to live in it's surrounding cities.
Its currently just a frieght hub like how Atlanta is a major frieght air hub.
To be a frieght hub has different requirements than being a passenger hub, like not needing a significant local population. (Farming makes massive amounts of bulk goods for very few labourers for instance)
@@katjerouac Sure, that’s why 48 million people live within 300 miles of it. And 57 million within 350 miles. That doesn’t include any of the population of Ontario.
@@dmrr7739 Why take my comment literally? You know what i meant.
@@katjerouac I guess mostly because your opinion is objectively wrong.
Just for fun, I looked up populations within 350 miles of various US cities:
LA 38M
PHX 24m
HOU 33M
DFW 36M
ATL 48M
NYC 70M
The only city I found to beat Chicago outside Acela Country was Columbus at 74M. However, Columbus doesn’t have the gravity of Chicago and OH politicians hate rail with a white hot passion, so that’s a non-starter.
Fun Fact: There already is a reasonably popular (I think self-supporting) ~90 mph Amtrak route between Milwaukee and Chicago. Anyway, the gravity model is a great tool but I don't know that it truly catches the inconvenience and irritation of air travel, especially to O'Hare. It's really far outside of Chicago, even if your plane isn't routed to one of the distant runways and doomed to a >40-minute taxi. The time advantage of a train straight into downtown is probably enhanced by at least a further hour.
totally agree. "air travel" should always factor in 1. getting to the airport TWO F*%*ing HOURS early because TSA, 2. actual time on the plane 3. the time it takes to actually leave the airport (baggage claim, anyone?) and begin the taxi ride you'll need to your hotel or back home.
Montreal and Toronto are about 320 miles apart, which means that when you consider all the time wasted and annoyance at the airports and the travel time to get to and from the airports, when you consider the travel time door-to-door from origin to destination, it takes almost as much time to fly as to drive.
Actually O'Hare is nearer the center of population for Chicagoland but not the Loop. Fun fact: pre-epidemic Metra carried more passengers in and out of downtown than combined CTA rail stations.
First off, kudos to you for using the Chicago star on the map! Second, I don't drive, so the highway times at 4:05 don't matter to me, which is why I want more public transportation, no matter the distance. Great video!
I hear you -- I didn't look up the bus (or low-speed train?) options, but that's part of what I consider "highway" for the non-drivers!
I really want to see the Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland line come to life. Even if it's slow I'd ride the heck out of it.
Literally it doesn’t even have to be high speed we just want a regular Amtrak route 😪 anything is better than what we have now lol, people forget how populated Ohio is.
Amtrak would be much better liked if it averaged 60-80 for normal regional rail routes.
Instead i compare routes in the northeast and i am always way better off just driving. (Like the train is litterally twices as long before considering transfers which can be nearly 3hr layovers)
It shouldn't be too much to ask that the train is atleast comparable with the car so its a viable option for some trips. (Obviously all modes have outliers, some people drive Boston to Orlando when flying makes far more sense for instance, but lets design for the typical person who just wants to take the most convient option for their trip which usually is a balance of cost vs time)
It's kind of an obvious one! Maybe I'll do a more detailed video on it at some point. Just gotta get the politics right!
@@CityNerd As a Buckeye who was raised in Chicago, lives in Philly, and whose company is headquartered in the Twin Cities, I've been waiting for an Ohio hub since 2010.
@@CityNerd On the topic of the Ohio Hub, I think a video about cancelled rail lines / barriers to building HSR in the US would be interesting
My wife and I have been recently discussing taking a trip to Chicago via rail. The potential to leave from our house in St. Paul and take the bus/light rail to Union Depot seems exciting - travel with zero car use. Or even better - ride a bike to the station and bring it along.
At French TGV average speed the travel time (with stop in Madison and Milwaukee) will be less that 3 hours. With a great comfort and luggage space!
@@LaHypeDuTrain peut être en 2100 ça sera possible
Book it and try it out!
Hey! You absolutely should! I did exactly that once (relatively recently) and it was just awesome; totally made the trip so much more enjoyable and fun
That sounds romantic as hell
Something your mode doesn't take into account is the huge effects of connecting the Big 10 to each other. The 6 line network already includes stops at University of Wisconsin, University of Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State & Michigan State and the cities with University of Iowa, University of Michigan, Purdue, University of Illinois are already on the lines you just need to add stops, and only short extensions would be needed to include IU and University of Nebraska. Connecting the big 10 would provide way bigger traffic than your model can measure. A: many college students don't have a car. B: Most of these cities don't have a big airport. C: There is massive demand for travel too these cities and between these cities due to Big 10 football being a really big deal in the Midwest. So there are massive numbers of people without access to Car or Air travel that specifically want to travel between these cities thus network effects of connecting the Big 10 to each other would be huge, but the model you used doesn't take this into account at all.
Yeah I go to college at UW Madison and don't have a car but would love to be able to see friends at other Big 10 colleges, college towns like Madison and Champaign would benefit a lot from HSR connection.
HSR would be the only game in town for a lot of these places so his model saying network effects don't work due to Air Travel really makes little sence
football is gay and there are like just 8 games per team per year, right?
@@alquinn8576 I think it's like 12 regular season and then potentially more during the the post season
This is huge point, yes!
Great video as always. My $.02 as someone who does not have the background you do is that one of the biggest hurdles to overcome is how train travel is marketed and sold to the masses. I've flown 150+ times in the last 10 years for work, lots of regional trips (BOS/PHI, DC/NYC, etc) and also lots of cross country trips and transatlantic flights. I can count the number of "awesome" flying experiences I've had one one hand, and most of those were when I was able to get upgraded to first class. Flying economy is not a pleasant experience in any way, especially if you are taller than like 5'7. I've taken the Acela many times and those trips are always far more enjoyable and productive, despite "taking longer" in terms of actual travel time. Its nearly impossible to work on a plane in economy class, it isn't an issue at all on a train. If we can really achieve 200+ mph trains here in the US, it would open up a ton of possibilities. People just need to understand what those possibilities are. Your model is obviously mathematical and makes sense and its better than my anecdotal observations. But I can tell you that if I could do Philadelphia to Chicago in 4 hours (its about 750 miles in total distance), I would pick that option every single time over getting on a plane, even if the actual travel time is only ~2 hours. Fewer planes, more trains is the answer, even though I probably won't live long enough to see that become a reality.
Free unsolicited idea for a video: top 10 transit systems where an extension to an existing network/system could add the biggest bang for the buck. I was reading about the recent Green Light extension in Boston where I used to live and it seems like a somewhat odd choice. And you can do a dishonorable mention for the Norristown HSL extension to KOP here in Pennsylvania.
10:46 Not Just Bikes call out, gettin' punchy in this one!
The Pennsylvania Railroad was originally planning to electrify the four-track New York to Chicago mainline, beginning with Philadelphia to Harrisburg (1938), which was the only section of the line east of Philadelphia that ever was electrified. They decided that electrifying a four-track steam locomotive mainline was financially preferable to expanding to 6- or 8-track mainline, in terms of maintenance for steam locomotives ($0.84 per mile, at the time, vs. $0.30 per mile for electric locomotives). Electric locomotives could pull more freight and passenger cars, heavier freight cars, increase average speed, and help to reduce congestion. There were serious plans to electrify Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, with a DD-2 electric locomotive prototype built to haul trains over the Allegheny Mountains. After Pittsburgh, they were going to electrify to Crestline, OH, where the eastbound hills begin, and eventually to Chicago. Pittsburgh to Saint Louis, through Columbus, Dayton, and Indianapolis was seriously considered. With the introduction of the road freight and passenger diesel locomotive, in the 1940's, it put and end to the Pennsylvania Railroad's electrification plans. At $0.34 per mile, the diesel locomotives were a lot cheaper than building expensive catenary for electric trains. And, WWII got in the way. The New York Central Railroad was also seriously considering electrifying its "Water-Level Route" from New York City to Chicago, through New York State, and the Great Lakes. Oh, what might have been possible!
For the Chicago-Detroit HSR potential, there is the Wolverine between those two cities that runs through Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor and is quite popular and features the only tracks Amtrak directly owns outside the NEC (as well as speeds of 110mph up to Battle Creek). I think that alignment would have been better as it shortens the distance and is already along a popular corridor (especially with I-94). From there, you could build a separate HSR or higher speed line to connect Grand Rapids with Detroit and Chicago, with further extensions into Northern Michigan at higher speeds (but not HSR) that may not see as much demand, but still deserves quality service especially during the summer season.
The meme that Midwest people will drive 14 hours instead of flying or taking the train really does highlight the lack of transit connectivity and infrastructure in the region.
I actually take that train to/from Chicago multiple times a year. It's a) slow b) never on time and c) pricey--and yet even still, there are always loads of people on those trains. I'd *love* to get a proper high-speed rail connection replacing it; even better if it extends to Grand Rapids.
@@sinisterdesign Even at 110 (which is now supposedly possible all the way to Dearborn), I think it would be a very popular option with increased frequency and on-time performance. Those factors aren’t as sexy as bullet trains, but they would provide far more functionality than shaving a few minutes off with faster top speeds.
Also, the usefulness of the Wolverine is highly directional as all trains originate from Pontiac, MI, meaning the first eastbound train is the earliest returning westbound train. That makes a one-day eastbound round trip virtually impossible.
Also, the train needs a stop at DTW to interconnect with flights.
To add to this and why I think this route makes more sense is that politically Michigan has shown it's willing to invest in the line. MDOT has purchased more of the rail (up to Dearborn) and is investing in making more of the route higher speed (first to Albion, and then I think Ypsilanti is planned). and recently added back frequency. To me Amtrak should invest in places where people and governments want to invest.
@@dmrr7739 I believe they're slowly working towards making it 110 to Dearborn. Seems like it's been in the works for a decade now. But the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek portion finally his 110 earlier this year. I doubt we would see the Wolverine diverted to DTW, but a local rail connection that goes from Detroit-Dearborn-DTW might be an option, with a station that directly links the two.
I have taken the morning eastbound train from Niles to A2 and Dearborn before and then returned on the same train in the evening. It is possible, but as you mentioned your time at the destination is short. Plus, the 351 is nonstop to Chicago after Kalamazoo, so if you want to go westbound to Niles or New Buffalo in the morning, you need to transfer onto the Blue Water in Battle Creek or Kalamazoo or take a much later train.
Would be nice if they could run a special Michigan-only train between New Buffalo/Kalamazoo and Detroit that could fill in some of those gaps, especially before the 350 and after the 355. Lots of potential there.
It’s really just the section between Michigan City Indiana and Chicago that often sucks. The ride through Michigan is smooth.
While the amount of demand may be lower that wanted I can think of five main reasons transit people want it. 1) history, The mid west was built with rail originally why should we not have it back but modern. 2) terrain, The land is mostly just flat plains and farmland that should make rail easier to build. 3) Rust Belt come back, there are theories that the mid west will rise in popularity again because it is cheap and is less effected from climate change (most of your most underrated cities are here). 4) it has been talked about for a while, every now and then you see plans either from advocacy groups or foreign rail companies of building this (or the hyperloop thing). 5) transit people like trains, If you like a thing you may overstate its potential value.
Great video. As someone who live in Madison I'm hoping that some day we'll get rail...not just highspeed but any rail service to Chicago
When it comes to transit hubs, I think it would be beneficial to directly address how one of the goals of HSR corridors isn't just to connect major cities together, but to serve as a backbone connecting local and regional transit systems. I would imagine those smaller systems would be much larger beneficiaries of the "network effect" brought by HSR connections - though they may not be as conducive to a first order analysis providing simple numbers for comparisons.
Yes. It doesn't seem like an accident to me that the countries that have high speed rail also have high quality rail networks in general.
Yeah, Amtrak has rail systems from Seattle, The Bay area, and going down to Texas all coming from Chicago. Just mimicking that alone could increase the value of the western bound rail lines from Chicago.
But generally regional comes first. Hsr works better when it is the last tier implemented, because it should bring you to hubs
A hsr line that just connects 2 parking lots is doomed to fail.
Exactly. HSR should serve as the main trunk line that higher-speed regional and slower local trains branch out from. US high speed rail needs to follow the integrated network approach, connecting all transit together into one seamless, comprehensive, and easy to use system.
China may be a great example of this, as having dedicated and shared track for HSR trains also helps speed up other routes by reducing the time it takes to get between cities, even if your origin or destination city isn't on the HSR line.
I live in Madison and having high speed rail (or any rail) would be extremely useful. As a college town, intracity public transportation is at a higher demand than it might be for another city its size. If high speed rail ever was implemented here, it would easily replace many of the very slow bus routes to chicago, milwaukee, and the twin cities. I was happy you made this video, the midwest often gets left out of the high speed rail conversation :(
There are also "fun" little bits right now. For example, let's say you want to go from Madison to Chicago, using Milwaukee as an intermediary? Well, if you take the earliest Badger Bus from Madison to the intermodal station in Milwaukee, you arrive at 8:05 a.m. and the next bus gets you there at 11:30 a.m.. When do the Hiawatha trains leave from that station going to Chicago? They leave at 8:05 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. So, if you want to go from Madison to Chicago, unless you want to spend more money and wait for the next train from 8:05 and 11 a.m., you MUST take the direct bus line between Madison and Chicago via Greyhound/Van Galder/Flixbus.
I think the Midwest has the greatest argument for High Speed Rail of any Region.
I also think this value rating of each city connection needs to consider the 40yr, 80yr projected growth of cities as to how (increasingly) valuable rail will be. Especially to Minneapolis, Milwaukee, & Columbus (w/ Chicago as the central hub of course).
outside of the northeast yeah... the midwest however is more than one primary corridor its a large web. though some corridors like chicago-detroit are obvious
As someone who would drive from Chicago to Columbus to Philadelphia, I would prefer a rail line there if we could. Same with Chicago to the Twin Cities.
I'd gladly take a HSR connection from STLCHI. It's flat ground for the most part and has no real reason to not exist. The current Lincoln Service is meant to operate at 110mph but rarely does.
dallas-austin-houston-san antonio could also happen if TX wasnt so opposed to trains as well. Flat land as well, many people need to travel between them. No reason it shouldnt exist as well
absolutely, this city pair would have a lot more demand than pure population/distance numbers will show. both cities' major airports are ~15 miles from downtown tourist destinations, so while the plane ticket might be competitive by price alone, after the expensive taxi/rideshare or long transit ride to the city center in addition to however you got to the airport at home, the pure convenience of each train station being right downtown would be huge for ridership. I can imagine tons of St. Louis families skipping the stressful trip to the airport and taking a much more comfortable 2.5hr train instead for their weekend vacation with the kids to Chicago.
I feel like their us a really under appreciated demand for rail between cities in the Midwest.
The FLIGHT between chicago and St. Louis might be short but door to door it’s like 5-7 hours and that’s if the flight isn’t delayed or cancelled which is almost sure happen because the small local flights are the first yo get screwed.
Next …
no one and I mean no one wants to DRIVE between chicago and St. Louis from about Oct to March
Cold, grey, rain, ice, snow … it’s long, boring, tedious, and dangerous
And again, all that bad weather has an outsized effect on regional flights, which are the first to be delayed and cancelled
The reason Racine and Kenosha are on different "networks" is because Racine(Sturtevant Train station) is part of the Milwaukee to Chicago Hiawatha line, but Kenosha is actually part of the Kenosha to Chicago Metra line... It's very strange, but seems to workout ok.. Spent many years riding on both, they are both great, for different reasons....Love your videos!!
There were also studies for a Milwaukee Area commuter rail line that connects the Milwaukee suburbs including Kenosha as well. Commuter rail would also definitely help with Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Twin Cities high speed rail ridership. But, that project got shut down in 2011 but is now slowly being revived.
The worst part of taking Metra from Kenosha to Chicago is you hit every single stop. There are no express or semi express runs. Most of the Metra North line actually stages out of Kenosha.
The Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee commuter project got killed due to stupidity. Shortly after the UP (not to be confused with the other UP) reduced that line to single track.
Scott Walker's idiocy also caused Taglo to kill plans to open a Milwaukee manufacturing facility.
Not really an urban design topic, but I'd love to see the career path to doing something about the problems talked about on this channel. I am currently thinking about changing career field into urban design public policy.
@Luci1st seconded!
Yeah, I probably will do something like that at some point!
Connecting Kalamazoo in the Chicago and Detroit would be a big plus, that is the largest city in southwest Michigan and is one of the US's highest in the medical manufacturing industry, which in a weighted business trip, also it is Michigans second largest college town behind Ann Arbor.
There has been some talk of upgrading Union Station in Chicago and making the tracks connect through the station on both sides instead of ending at the station. This would allow Amtrak routes to continue on through without changing trains, or Metra trains to go from the far north suburbs down to the south and southwest suburbs. Though in the case of Metra routing, I'm not sure how they would incorporate the lines which end at the Ogilvie Transportation Center three blocks to the north of Union Station. But as I said earlier, it's really only talk right now.
It is possible to through-run Metra and Amtrak service through Union station using the old post office tracks. Unfortunately, I don't think the UP lines out of Ogilvie would be able to be connected.
Love the video! I would like to point out that if we are talking idealistically, and the goal is to lower emissions as much as possible, some policy changes would actually make all of these routes make more sense - for example a gas tax similar to the one we have here in Germany(67 cents per liter, unlike the 40 cents per gallon there is in Illinois), train ride subsidies and tax deductions, banning short flights that would make transferring between the modes maybe enough of a hassle that people would just ride a single train service, rather than transfer a bunch of times. So while in the current "free market" comparison between plane and train a lot of these routes dont make sense, I believe it would be great if we could focus on emission reductions per passenger, rather than just the fastest way to move people between points.
It isn't fair to people on those short haul flight corridors to ban air travel *UNLESS* there's going to be a viable alternative. Putting them on Greyhound buses is not that.
All excellent points
@@alexnishimoto8654 1) We've long passed the point of dealing with climate change in a fair way. Welcome to the next 50 years.
2) That's the point. Offering high speed rail, then banning or heavily taxing short haul flights is the way to go.
As a Michigander/Detroiter, I would be really pleased with the route you proposed. I think it's important to include our smaller metro areas and I think it would be great to have quick transport to Lansing, GR and Chicago
Ann arbor 2 Traverse City is also being worked on! ^^
There is already a region train (DB/OBB terms) from Detroit to Chicago. It is actively used.
I think a Michigan route is more likely to go via Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor because of the more direct route, the amount of colleges, and because the route is more lined with larger towns
Students are indeed more likely to want to ride the trains.
I agree that adding stops there could be great, the more the riders the better. Although I wouldn’t skip Grand Rapids because there are a lot of colleges there and they take the train a lot already to Chicago and would appreciate a more convenient option. Although I am biased as a GR resident, lol.
@@micahvandam9658 while I think ridership between Grand Rapids and Chicago would be good. I think a Kalamazoo to Detroit route would get more ridership than Grand Rapids to Detroit
Grand Rapids to Chicago is a popular route via car for vacationers. GR to Lansing and on would be good for in state, especially connecting the capital. The route going thru Kalamazoo already exists, even though it is a problematic slow plod.
@@selin8274 The Wolverine line is one of the fastest, most reliable lines outside of the NE corridor. Amtrak/MDOT own most of the track between Chicago and Detroit and trains run at 110mph.
The London Ontario (fake London ) comment was hilarious. I hope not just bikes watches your videos.
It would be so great if you could train to Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Detroit/Toronto from Chicago. To be able to hop on a smooth running train and relax without having to deal with airports and luggage issues would be a dream. Sure, it may add on time as compared to driving, but just from a personal stance, I would be much more inclined to take weekends via train vs car to simply be able to read and relax vs deal with driving (traffic/weather/construction/bad drivers) and air travel (too many obvious irritations to list).
It's awesome to see something focusing on Midwest/wisconsin! Always seemed overlooked as these topics tend to focus on big coastal population centers.
Chicago to New York needs to be just fast enough for a decent night train service.
That would be really cool.
Much better than being shoulder to shoulder on an airplane for a few hours and remembering every second of it
@@jarjarbinks6018 I think you overestimated the number of people who would agree with you on that.
I know it's not for everyone, but the last 2 times I've gone to Boston from Maryland I got on an overnight train. Leave at 3 or 5AM, wake up at 12 or 2 in time for check in at the hotel. It's not for everyone though.
I'd love to see an analysis of Vancouver-Eugene, including statistical analysis and discussion of other challenges/advantages. The main cities are all fairly transit-focused and decent-sized. Also the region is seriously land-challenged and ROW challenged.
He addressed cascadia HSR in the vid about 10 key stations for HSR and (sadly, as a resident of the region) the numbers weren't all that impressive.
that corridor fits 110-160mph running. it really doesn't need to hit 200MPH+
Eugenie to Longview could take over the better alignment and upgrade the parallel route for freight. north of that a new alignment maybe best till dupont. then upgrade dupont and farther north
Newish to this space: what is ROW?
@@johnsmiff8328 right of way
@@gdrriley420 The current slow services are already popular. Any incremental improvement will add to that. Give us 110 mph with reliability and frequency and it would be a huge improvement. But since we're talking new ROW regardless, maybe it's not that much extra to do higher speeds?
To Europeanise the lines, you can look into combining some. For example, make a main line with 220mph top speed to Toledo and have branches of upgraded 125mph lines out to Detroit and Cleveland. This way you still have fast travel, but far lower costs.
Those would both still be main lines though, imo. Detroit connection goes to Toronto and Cleveland would link up with Acela
"For example, make a main line with 220mph top speed to Toledo and have branches of upgraded 125mph lines out to Detroit and Cleveland. This way you still have fast travel, but far lower costs."
ok first of all 220 is a maximum speed not average. Nobody runs wheel on rail over 200 regularly because it's hard on the mechanical system. They have run the French TGV at 340 but they wouldn't want to do that on a regular basis, there's problems with the wheels slipping and keeping the tap in contact with the overhead wire.
If you want to average over 200 you want maglev. :)
The average speed of the TGV in France is 173.
I firmly support Higher Speed Rail since it is a lot cheaper and results in something not that much slower but I don't support the expense of upgrading things to 220 max.
It would make more sense to do HSR from Chicago to Cleveland than Toledo
Top Rail Speed is not nearly as important as average speed. Thus the reason CHI-MKE is a good rail corridor is that trains can run at full speed from Lake Tower in Milwakuee to Tower A-5 in Chicago. As a result, despite only having a top speed of 79 MPH, Amtrak service is about 60 MPH between MKE and CHI, and an hour faster than Greyhound
As a Des Moines resident, I can very confidently relay that unless I-80 is widened to three lanes, a rail connection to Chicago would be immensely popular simply because of the surprisingly inconvenient truck traffic on the Interstate. So many people in Des Moines have business in that city, and the mind-numbing pace of trucks passing each other on that corridor will bring you to tears.
As a student in Lincoln who uses I-80 to go across the state, I wholeheartedly agree. Trucks always end up clogging traffic and many would use High Speed Rail instead if city infrastructures supported them once arriving
Unfortunately, I think, like the Titanic and the iceberg, there is a grim inevitability of three-lane-dual I-80 at least from DM to Davenport. Look at what they're already doing with every bridge they update at least between IC and the Quad Cities. But given how people treat the IC bypass, which is already widened, I'm not entirely sure it will really fix much of anything....it just seems to make driving even more frenetic.
The Milwaukee-Saint Paul Hiawatha route is I believe one of Amtrak's extremely popular routes. Especially given that while it's only an hour-and-change to get to Chicago by air, a high speed train would be better since you don't have to deal with O'Hare or Midway. Plus it drops you downtown in Chicago vs. basically in the suburbs like O'Hare is, and well...the meh part of Chicago Midway is in.
rt
It's unfortunate that the route from Chicago to the Twin Cities was deemed not worth it by this metric, because the Twin Cities metro is more populated than majority of the other cities you tested, and some of those smaller ones ranked higher in viability simply because they happened to be closer. We are in an unfortunate position because we are more populous than most people expect us to be but surrounded by...not a whole lot, in any direction, and Chicago is our closest major lifeline. Relatively speaking, we're thriving, but everyone's leaving us alone lol
I think a video about the public transit at Disney World could be pretty interesting since they have a lot of transit modes (buses, boats, trains, gondola, maybe more). It could be interesting to see how Disney compares against major cities or just get some commentary on their transit system and walkability. All the modes seem to have pretty fast service, and Disney World is really walkable once you're inside (not counting parking initially). I think it might be a lot of people's only good public transit experience so they might not realize that walkability isn't just confined to a resort
A sad statistic about Disney, they didn't want people littering so the did a study by observing other parks to see how far people were willing to walk to a trashcan vs just dropping trash. End result, trash cans every 20ft because Americans apparently are too lazy to walk over 10ft to throw something away. (10ft = 3m)
I did not know that but I believe it, it has very Disney vibes
Like everything about Disney is very carefully calculated as far as I know, so I'm under the impression that careful calculation extends to their transit
@@andrewmoffatt3948 Disney is a very designed experience, and the thing about the trash cans is less about the effort to prevent littering more about how pathetic it is that the need trash cans every 20ft to prevent littering.
Otherwise resorts like Disney are a great example of how to make walkable areas.
Another option are skywalks which is just an enclosed bridge between buildings (make them firebreaks of course) which lets you go between buildings without going outside which has 2 benefits. Firstly it makes walking easier in extreme climates like Canadian Winter or Southern Summer, and secondly by reducing the amount of door opening/closing to the outside you have lower energy bills. (My college had these and they were great, and reduced the time spent with the ground floor doors held wide open as a stream of students moving between classes moved through) Obviously this system isn't exactly easy to impliment city wide for obvious reasons and a tunnel network is more common.
That's interesting. I can see the benefit of sky bridges especially for really high traffic paths
Also am incredibly frustrated by how the Chicago -> STL "High Speed Rail" project went down, it wound up being like 8 years past schedule and we wound up with 90 instead of 110 mph as originally promised :/. IMO its a good arguement against incrementalism, because if they had gone bigger / had a more agressive timeline maybe we'd actually have a developed world level corridor between those two cities...
Really enjoyed this video. As a Midwesterner though, it's important to note our collective tendency to drive over fly even if the destination is 10+ hours away. May want to adjust the metric based on this philosophy since midwesterners are the likely occupants using the rail system the most.
I thought I’d this too but it might even out because driving might eat into the low end. I guess it just depend I’d the driving preference is do to aversion to flying or attraction to driving. I would think trains could travel better in bad weather than either cars or planes.
It's the most important... and the most undervalued. This is CityNerd, for Channel 6, now to the weather.
Never thought I would see my hometown being slandered 🥺 Kitchener is smooshed together with Cambridge and Waterloo, so its a three for one kinda deal.
Pretty sure he's joking about the intense dislike for London, Ontario appearing throughout videos on the Not Just Bikes channel 😂
@@sinisterdesign Hometown is Kitchener.... I don't care about Fake London 😂
You don't necessarily get a time penalty for transfers. If you schedule your trains right, you can have two through running trains stop right opposite of one another at the same platform, and people can easily transfer within less than five minuets.
This is done e.g. in Mannheim in Germany I believe, where two different north/south ICE lines meet. Also the Deutschlandtakt, a project for a country wide integrated schedule like in Switzerland, is built exactly on that idea. Get the trains in at the same time, allow people to transfer quickly, then send them all on their way.
The way to compete with air travel for longer routes like Chicago to NYC is overnight sleeper trains that beat an airplane ticket plus one night in a hotel.
Thanks for looking at this topic realistically and objectively.
In the transit space we need to be more honest with ourselves when assessing the likelihood of someone taking a train trip vs driving or flying. Some people don’t like the idea that a train trip could be considered less competitive but it is important to understand that many riders choose trips based on what mode is most convenient first and foremost
Have you look at SEA-PDX? I’m not super confident about it but I think it could at the very least support modest speed upgrades like the ones highlighted in the mid 2000’s cascades long range plan
Very true. But soft factors should be in the equation as well. Although many Americans love to drive, traffic in the US is far from convenient, especially around large cities. More than often people end up in traffic jams and also you have to pay attention to the traffic; that is actually a plus for the train because you can relax or be productive during the ride.
Flights as competitor are more interesting. When thinking about a connection from the Midwest to the East coast for example, the picture regarding time and profitability gets better if you skip the 500k cities. For example Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Washington. Thats roughly 700 kilometers. If the US would talk about the latest technology of high speed trains, this can be done in between 2-3 hours. I would say the potential to compete with flights on this route is definitely there but there are tons of other factors and tbh i dont see that happen in large scale in the US anytime soon.
There are also soft factors of branching connections to smaller nearby cities and the overall cost of each mode that weighs in this discussion.
He talked about college towns like South Bend and Ann Arbor (while even showing them by the colleges located there) which are some of the main demographic in other countries of who utilizes the train systems the most. College students tend to not use their vehicles as much in everyday life due to policies placed on under-classman and how the universities are designed to begin with. So another form of transportation that doesn’t involve getting rides from others may be beneficial to consider connections to.
Also, the cost makes a big difference. If I could fly from Chicago to NY in 2 hours and it costs me $250 a ticket, versus I could take HSR for 6-7 hours and it costs me $100, there are many who would take the option of the few extra hours to save half the cost. That stuff all determines on how much they charge to ride but if it’s low enough then it will generate interest from that.
@@TheRayzerBandit I completely agree, I think this sort of weighting is more accurate for business or other last minute travel. Most people making plans for a vacation or something would probably be okay with HSR that’s a little slower than flying but gets rid of a lot of flying or driving’s problems. I’ve always wondered why not run an overnight “express” between major city pairs and then another during the day so that you don’t lose daytime if you don’t want, but don’t have to be up at 2am to catch the train like some Amtrak long distance routes that run today
I think there's still momentum on the Ultra High Speed Ground Transportation project or whatever they're calling it (Vancouver-Eugene). Will definitely discuss at some point!
@@91djdj
" Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Washington. Thats roughly 700 kilometers. "
Actually Chicago to Washington DC is 1121 km dude not 700.
A plane can fly it in 1 hr 40 min so the 4 hours that a TGV would take is not "competitive".
But then I see silly Europeans acting like 10 hours is acceptable for London to Venice so I can see the logic in your mind, but in North America and Australia we don't sit on a train for four hours when we could have flown it in less than two.
Interesting that you should think that Chicago to Minneapolis would be eaten into that much by air travel. I used to travel for work extensively and the rule of thumb was pretty much unless there was some overriding weather concern like winter storms if you could drive there in under six hours you’re better off than flying. Flying out of O’Hare is a very time-consuming process. With driving to the airport, check-in, security, boarding, flight, deplaning, getting your rental car, and finally going to your destination you can easily eat up about 5 to 6 hours. although you lose the flexibility of driving with the train at three hours it’s a very attractive option.
Agreed. Time/hassle costs of airport travel don't seem fully captured in this analysis.
@@TimothyHalkowski I think it might have something to do with people who don’t come from cities with majorly large airport hubs. I imagine people that travel out of Atlanta have a similar point of view on air travel. Traveling out of someplace Minneapolis or even Las Vegas is far less stressful and time-consuming. Anytime your local airport is a hub it needs to be a consideration. All locations are not equal when it comes to air travel.
First off, love this video. Second, gravity model notwithstanding, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Kitchener(-Waterloo) generated more passengers than Hamilton. I went to high school in Hamilton and university in Kitchener-Waterloo. The former is a notoriously anti-transit city that has spent several decades refusing offers of funding from higher levels of government to build light rail (although I think they're finally getting around to it now), and the latter is a tech hub filled with students and yuppies that has already built a light rail system despite being considerably smaller.
I’m surprised Milwaukee to Chicago isn’t higher. A lot of people use Hiawatha to commute on a regular basis and it was for a time at least before Covid either the busiest or tied for the busiest Amtrak line outside of the Northeast. I guess work from home changes a lot but it would have been interesting seeing commuting patterns if the line went from 1:20 minutes to something like 45 minutes. You can get an unlimited monthly pass between Milwaukee and Chicago for around $400 which I think is reasonable to spend on a commute.
Agreed.
VIDEO IDEA: Please make a video on transportation ballot measures! Both the successes and failures or what works and doesn't work. Along with if one is not ambitious enough or very ambitious. Im curious on your take and opinion on this topic. Im sure you have your opinions on this.
Since you asked: could you analyze some corridors of high-speed sleeper trains? (Eg. That Chinese sleeper between Beijing and Guangzhou: 2400km/ 2000mi in around 11 hours.) It would be awesome to leave from LA or Seattle in the evening and arrive in the morning in NY or DC after a good night of sleep…
Biggest challenge for that is boring through a mountain. I don't think a coast to coast train trip will ever be popular anyway.
@@robojimtv people hate flying coast to coast too, there’s tons of awful flights that require connections and take more than 11h in a way less comfortable way than a single seat or bed coast to coast journey would be
that's like 2800-2900 miles. even averaging 160mph, that would be 18 hours, so if you left in the evening from the WC, you would arrive in NYC the afternoon or evening the next day
so I would prefer to leave in the morning from LA, see the interesting part of the country, then sleep once the flatlands are reached (at night). that would be a nice trip
@@alquinn8576 I would love that! 18 hours would be a mássive improvement from the current 69 to 89 hours it's taking right now without delays (I checked the Amtrak-site...)
For a more micro scale network, I'd love to see a breakdown of the Bay Area's transit system. You have SF Muni, Bart, Caltrain, VTA, and the Amtrak Capitol Corridor to Sacramento. There are also the ferries, busses, trolleys, etc. These service are good, but they're quirky and many parts of the Bay are chronically unwalkable, so these can be difficult to really take advantage of. Particularly in the South, there's a very meandering VTA line from Bart in Milpitas to Caltrain in Mountain view (which has hour+ waits). From SF, you can take Bart down to Millbrae to connect to Caltrain, but then you have to wait up to an hour in the Millbrae station, which isn't super inviting due to a lot of adjacent parking compared to other stations which instead plop you right in downtown areas. Also Bart has a station in SFO, but you have to take a bus to get to Caltrain (don't miss it). I wonder how high the ceiling could be for living car free in the Bay Area if the transit system were unified. We have a lot of low density areas and large office complexes, so maybe there really isn't a great way to reasonably connect everyone without restarting from scratch.
We should consider university towns as important places along these lines. Champagne/Urbana, Ann Arbor, Madison, Lansing, Columbia MO, Lexington KY, et al would attract a lot of students and parents with low cost and safety.
I would love to see a metric added that takes into effect emissions per transportation method. How much more viable would high speed (or literally any) rail become if all the negative externalities of cars and airplanes were included in?
Considering High Speed rail in many countries runs on electricity I’m sure it’s going to run away with that.
@@TheRayzerBandit i mean source of the electricity matter
@@itsjonny1744 Yes, true, I believe we should implement more green energy along with Nuclear power plants to stabilize a cleaner production of energy but that is a topic for another discussion.
As for the HSR emissions discussion. Just trains alone, not even electric HSR, uses less fuel than all of the vehicles needed to transport all of the passengers to and from their desired location. 1 vehicle may be less than 1 train but typically there are hundreds of passengers who commute by train that otherwise would each be using a vehicle. All that totals up to a dramatic reduction in fuel consumption before we even get into the more dramatic reduction when converted over to electricity.
Maybe something like a metric showing the subsidy needed for HSR tickets or the carbon tax you’d have to put on flying that same route
Hi Ethan! From a scientific paper comparing several scenarios in Europe (mainly Italy), the total power consumption for an airline is about 0.27 kWh per passenger km (including airport operations), with HST at about 0.04 kWh per passenger km. HST numbers are calculated for the engines themselves, not including the entire way from a power plant and fuel. Roughly estimating the total efficiency from a thermal powerplant to the train at 40 %, would put the HST to airliner energy ratio at about 40 % as well.
In the case of dense rail networks (in Europe) and high-tech power supply, the HST efficiency can be increased by power regeneration achieved with proper scheduling. Train braking can send the generated electrical power to a different unit accelerating. This effect would be achieved only on dense networks though, so I would not consider it in the case of the US HS rail.
As a once and future Londoner, I love hearing my city referred to as something other than “Fake London” on urbanist TH-cam ☺️
(Not Just Bikes is awesome and his criticisms of London line up 100% with my lived experience, but I guess I have a soft spot and choose to see potential?)
I think the model you're using significantly undersells the value of longer trips compared to air-travel. I don't fly regularly - but when I do, I have the following time costs:
60min to get to the airport via local transit (bus + rail).
120 minutes early arrival for security, walking across the airport, and generally not being late.
60 minutes boarding the plane
X minutes of flying. Noisy, crowded, uncomfortable.
60-90 minutes at the other end for getting from the airport to wherever I need to be.
A hypothetical high-speed rail connection through my city would save me almost three hours of transit-related time, cutting getting local travel at both ends in half and removing 120 minutes of security, waiting, and boarding.
Four hours of travel is *nothing* when flying literally anywhere is hassle-filled an all-day affair.
10:47 "That's probably the nicest thing anyone's ever said about London, Ontario in the history of TH-cam."
As someone who has had to try and drive to/through/from London, this had me rolling.
Great video. As someone from the grand rapids area I greatly appreciate the hypothetical Chicago -grand rapids -lansing-detroit line.
Haha same!
I like this guy. He thinks about cities the way I do and gives me information that I want.
I was really looking forward to this one!
And it is excellent, if the conclusion that the chicago hub concept might not be great because of transfer times is a bit deflating.
I really love these gravity model rail videos, and I hope you will make ones about other continents too! I would personally especially be interested in such a video about the eastern EU, as HSR didn't yet really manage to cross the former iron curtain.
I also had an idea about an alternative to the gravity model while reading the competitiveness section of the HSR wikipedia page (which probably means it isn't a great idea but whatever)
1. "European data indicate that air traffic is more sensitive than road traffic (car and bus) to competition from HSR, at least on journeys of 400 km (249 mi) and more. TGV Sud-Est reduced the travel time Paris-Lyon from almost four to about two hours. Market share rose from 40 to 72%. Air and road market shares shrunk from 31 to 7% and from 29 to 21%, respectively. On the Madrid-Sevilla link, the AVE connection increased share from 16 to 52%; air traffic shrunk from 40 to 13%; road traffic from 44 to 36%, hence the rail market amounted to 80% of combined rail and air traffic. This figure increased to 89% in 2009, according to Spanish rail operator Renfe."
From this we can draw the conclusion that on it's nominal optimal distance HSR has a much more severe effect on air travel than car travel (likely because the lower perveived cost of car travel), and thus it could mainly be considered an air travel alternative. The space where HSR is more attractive than car but airplane isn't is likely very narrow, if it is a relatively small effect at it's nominal ideal distance
2."In Japan, there is a so-called "4-hour wall" in high-speed rail's market share: If the high-speed rail journey time exceeds 4 hours, then people likely choose planes over high-speed rail. For instance, from Tokyo to Osaka, a 2h22m-journey by Shinkansen, high-speed rail has an 85% market share whereas planes have 15%. From Tokyo to Hiroshima, a 3h44m-journey by Shinkansen, high-speed rail has a 67% market share whereas planes have 33%. The situation is the reverse on the Tokyo to Fukuoka route where high-speed rail takes 4h47m and rail only has 10% market share and planes 90%"
The conclusion here is that unlike the current linear multiplier the air/rail market the rail still dominates almost up to 3 hours and then drops off drastically.
3. Based on the spanish HSRs with a track speed of 200mph(I looked at Madrid to Barcelona and Madrid to Seville as an example) means a non-stop average speed of c. 130 mph, revised down to 120mph to account for an indeterminate number of stops(I know very rigorous) would combined with the last point would mean that HSR is incredibly competivive against air up to 300 miles , maybe even 360 miles, splits equally with it at 480 miles, and stops being at all viable at 600 miles (the same number that you keenly identified, but with a sharper(and more curvy) dropoff)
4. A problem I have with the gravity model is that you also mentioned in the acela video that it treats attractiveness of cities as a constant, while having a 2-3h high speed rail downtown to downtown would make the cities seem "closer, so to say.
5. This, combined with the lower competitiveness against car and the longer dominant period against air means that the current model might be erring on the near side.
My proposed alternative would be the following:
if (and this is a big if, as this in necessary for the whole thing) data could be aquired for how many passengers fly between cities, you could make a model based on air passengers×multiplier. The number of air passengers would, whitout directly looking at the cities would tell us about a mix of their population, wealth and attracticeness towards eachother, as more populous, richer and more connected cities have higher air traffic between them, while it would penalize cities close enough where most people chose the car over the airplane, most of whom would largely chose it over the rail too. You only need to modify this with the train/air competitiveness(something we seem to have fairly good data about) the get the possible rail passenger count.
Is this any sane or viable? Does this fit any real world data? I have no idea, but I am hopeful that you or someone will disect it in the replies.
TLDR:Great video!, make eastern EU., do you have any intercity airplane data?
I’d love to see a video on state rail lines. What I mean by that is rail lines that primarily run within a single state. Lots of travel tends to actually stay within state lines, and I think Ohio and Alabama could be good examples of this. A Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland line would be very beneficial as would a Mobile-Montgomery-Birmingham-Huntsville line. Other states that have some cities arranged in a straight line could be California (San Diego-LA-all the central valley cities-San Jose-San Francisco), Georgia (Chattanooga-Atlanta-Macon or Augusta/Athens-Savannah), South Carolina (Charleston-Columbia-Greenville), or Missouri (St. Louis-Jefferson City-Columbia-Kansas City). I would also love if you included college towns and major tourist destinations in your calculations, as those would let relatively small cities like Savannah or Athens in GA to punch above their weight.
My train travel could be longer than my flight+security by several hours, but not having to deal with the TSA or flight delays would still make me more inclined to travel by train. I had a trip to Chicago from NYC recently, and I desperately wanted to justify getting there any way except for flying, but traveling by train would have taken like 20 hours in each direction.
I can make it work because of work from home, but even then I have to fly one way sometimes
A Chicago-Acela HSR Corridor through Pittsburg would be a great opportunity for a night train service. Especially since both sides of Pittsburg would have a high speed element with the upgrading of the Keystone Corridor and the plans for the Pennsylvanian.
I went to California's Great America (right next to Levi's Statdium) from San Fransisco using a combination of BART and VTA. The way back was much worse but overall it wasn't too bad of a trip and way way cheaper than taking an Uber. It was nice being able to take public transit to a park, some parks you basically can't get to if you didn't drive (looking at you Cedar Point)
I'm just questioning the idea of 600 mile routes having a 0 modifier: if im correct, the 600 mile mark is where the rail and air travel times are roughly comparable, so air is not immediately a faster choice. Given the hassle of air compared to rail, I think you'd see plenty of rail riders at that point: They may even continue up to 700 miles, where the convenience of air will start to take greater effect.
i think here it gets more complicated than CityNerd wants to bugger with. In my case, I would take the flight if and only if it were a direct nonstop flight and then secondarily based on the airports involved (some have easy access and reliably fast security). For a good airport pair, flying would be 3h total and train would be 4+ hours. If I had to put up with ORD bullshit, yes, I'm taking the train
I don’t want to deal with air travel headaches, airliner’s abuse of economy, and travel nausea for 2 days, I’m taking the train even if it’s a 1000 miles
I vote for Chicago-Indy-Cincinnati and Indy-Louville. Then watch other cities and states experience TGV envy as Indianapolis benefits from becoming a mini hub. That would power demand for extensions as Nashville, Columbus and other cities would lobby hard to get connected.
Nashville wouldn't lobby for a train connection--they can't even agree on building their own light rail network.
I used to love the train from Chicago to Lafayette (I think it also went to Indy) Indiana to visit my husband when he was there for work but Indiana stopped the funding. It was fun especially for someone who doesn’t like to drive.
@@sinisterdesign Maybe they can change their mind when they see benefits to Indy? I beleive in redemption :-)
I've been trying to express this exact point, it all starts with one then it would take on a life of its own, reaching smaller towns making an extension of larger cities.
Here's an idea for a topic. I come from Los Angeles with big boulevards, 3 lanes sometimes 4 in each direction. Now, I live in Chicago where major streets may be 2 lanes but often 1 lane in each direction. When I first got here I was stunned. This can't be. These streets are so small and with so many stop signs every few blocks! Yet, traffic seems to flow better in Chicago than in Los Angeles. Chicago freeways can be as jammed as LA's but, the streets aren't. Why would that be? Can it be that street size affects how people choose to drive? Do they walk more? It can't be just because of transit use. Lots and lots of people drive in from the suburbs. If LA streets were as small as Chicago's, would the city shut down? Or would traffic adjust and still flow? I think it's worth an analysis.
I'm getting flashbacks of all the stalled LA traffic, both freeway and streets! and the smell of exhaust 🥴🦨
It might be due to the streets here in Chicago stick to the grid system more than L.A.
Less dead ends and winding roads and the ability to move north and south, east and west on a straight line.
We also have several major thoroughfares that run on an angle which cuts down on the zig zag effect.
Western Ave. runs a straight 24 mile long north and south line from one end of the city to the other.
There are a lot of streets like this that cross the city uninterrupted.
As a person who lives inbetween detroit and Chicago, PLEASE MAKE THIS HAPPEN!
It seems like the state of Colorado does a high speed rail feasibility study on the Front Range (I-25) every ten years or less, I have to wonder how it would hold up to these metrics.
Same goes for ski rail to the mountains, but that kind of recreation/tourism transport probably relies on very different factors than population of both ends.
Always a good relaxer to watch one of your videos, thanks for what you do.
It's should be from Milwaukee, Waukegan, Chicago, and St. Louis. Waukegan will provide a station between Chicago and Milwaukee for surrounding successful villages and a high populace.
If the Chicago - St Louis stops in BloNo and Springfield, I can see it doing reasonably well. I live in Peoria and, depending on the cost, speed,a nd frequency of service, could see myself driving to BloNo to go to Chicago or St Louis, which are both about a 2 1/2 or 3 hour drive for me. Assuming a one hour train from BloNo and a little under an hour drive, park, etc, I'd save 3o minutes or more if the timing works. For similar reasons you might get some people from CU.
I would be curious as to what the weightings look like with air taken out of the picture - reason being that a great many folks living in the Midwest (myself included) just won't consider air travel if it's less than a day's drive. How many of these people will consider trains over driving is up for debate, but I can say for sure that there's a general willingness to spend a while traveling in the Midwest.
This is the most educational/entertaining channel I’m subscribed to. You’re really spreading some important knowledge whenever you give any input, so thanks for that.
I think realistically a Milwaukee-Chicago-Detroit Line could be possible, most other Midwest cities are a bit too far to be completive with air travel.
Ok hold on a second. As someone who takes the train from Chicago to STL frequently, I have to disagree with your assessment on its competitiveness with flying. You’re not taking into account travel to the airport (or train station) and time require inside the facility. Takes 5 hrs 20 min (usually on-time btw) to get to STL by train. No wait time at the the train station. Just travel there. For most of Chicago, travel-to-terminal-times cancel out. However, you may need to be at O’Hare 2-3 hours before your flight. Take into account how long you have to wait on the tarmac, getting out of the airport, and getting your checked bags, the travel time difference between the two isn’t much at all.
Usually when I explain this to folks and couple it with more space in your seat, freedom of movement, generally free luggage, and price of the ticket ($25/one way is I what usually pay), they gladly switch to train. Considering that the time isn’t that much different, it’s very easily the better option. And that’s only at 90mph!
Very thought insights, Dustin. I agree with your assessment that he needs to account for the time it takes to go through ORD.
He actually meant Detroit to St Louis but he mistakenly said Chicago to St Louis. The flights he shows on the video for comparison are from Detroit to St Louis.
Although I would live in the middle of that west radial, I still dream of being able to take HSR to Chicago. Even though it doesn't meet your 500k criteria, The Quad Cities (380k+) and Iowa City-Cedar Rapids Corridor (450k+) would be decent stops as well. Also being a college town, there are a lot people from Chicago in Iowa City
Yeah, adding the Quad Cities and Iowa City/Cedar Rapids to the West Radial would make a lot of sense. The combined statistical area of the QC is 475k and Iowa City CSA (which includes Cedar Rapids) is 500k. The university and it's hospital system would get a ton of traffic.
One thing not really captured in your criteria that I think would significantly boost the Chicago to Milwaukee number is the % of car ownership. You say Chicago to Milwaukee doesn't score that highly because driving is an attractive option. While that is true if you have a vehicle to drive, if you have to rent a car in order to do that then it's no longer a very attractive option. Something like 30% of Chicago (city) residents don't have a car. That's nearly a million people. It's also interesting to compare your potential routes with the current Amtrak route ridership. These are the top destinations by ridership from Chicago:
1. Milwaukee, WI 86 mi
2. St. Louis, MO 284 mi
3. Milwaukee Airport, WI 78 mi
4. Normal, IL 124 mi
5. Champaign, IL 129 mi
6. Ann Arbor, MI 243 mi
7. Springfield, IL 185 mi
8. Kalamazoo, MI 138 mi
9. Sturtevant, WI 62 mi
10. Dearborn, MI 273 mi
As someone who has lived in chicago most my life, and then Ohio for a year, and DC for 2.5 years, this video feels made for me lol
I wish there was a little bit more hope vs. hesitation in the video for a connection to DC & the Acela Corridor b/c in my opinion if America is ever going to have any form of a HSR network that’s gonna be critical. (Instead of random isolated segments of HSR) But I get what you are saying about it being so far it’ll be hard to compete with flying.
That usefulness of hsr trunks connecting local markets is super important and tbh I don’t like Alon levy or this video because of this gravity model not relying on that
Passenger rail investment in the Midwest should focus on speeding traffic into Chicago. Bottlenecks like Englewood are being relieved, but building a flyover and realignment at Tower A-5 is a much more cost effective option than building a new super railroad between Glenview and Milwaukee. A grade separation at Mayfair would be the next project for CHI-MKE.
09:54 - Hey, Kitchener-Waterloo is a pretty big tech hub, and we have had a local light rail system since 2019, while Hamilton keeps punting the idea of building one their.
Chicago and Toronto are the two great lakeshore cities of the continent. If I could shuttle between them I would love that. But us rail fans may not be all that representative!
As someone from Toledo, or would be really nice to have that Detroit to Columbus route (obviously stopping in Toledo). It would make it much easier to get to Detroit (where I go for flights) and Columbus (where I go for college). Unfortunately, I don't see it get brought up much, so I'll probably be long gone from Toledo before it ever gets built.
The animations you put in are so subtle but done so well - really captivates my attention .
I think you might underestimate other factors other than travel time. HSR is usually cheaper than flying and a lot less stressful, both in terms of booking and boarding. Also climate awareness drastically extends the willingness to sit longer in a train. I am from germany and domestic flights are pretty much no valid option for most of the people. Yes there still are domestic flights but most people here are also willing to sit 6hrs+ in a train. So I think some of the cities that might not make sense to connect in the model definitely do make sense to connect.
Thank you from this British commentator for a very informative and thought provoking video.
Im skeptical of the the SW radial. As someone who took the Lincoln service (Stl-Chi) to hop the Hiawatha (Chi-MKE) for the better part of a year, the Lincoln service is almost always heavily utilized, runs multiple times a day on at least 2 trains, each going N-S and S-N. Im not sure how much more it would pick up from KC, but I feel its score suffers from the raw numbers game without looking at current ridership. I know the curve presented isnt meant to be a hard and fast representation but if you took the current Lincoln service route - the 3 Chicago area stops (Chi, Summit, Joliet) decent sized Central IL metro stops (Bloomington-Normal [Illinois State University and State Farm HQ] and Springfield [Capital]) and ending in StL (minus the couple smaller stops) easily punches far above its weight and could probably rival the SE or even the NE route (though I have no real experience with the Wolv service that is currently ran). Thats to say nothing of the current Hiawatha route which while also heavily used, I feel as if under-performs and would benefit a lot from an extra stop or two in Racine/Kenosha before getting to MKE and continuing to the Twin Cities
In short, what exists already is heavily utilized. Putting it on real high speed will only increase use in a significant way.
For an interesting network the following corridors would be interesting:
Acela as baseline
NYC-Montreal (3 stops)
Boston-Toronto (via Buffalo)
Quebec - Detroit (covers nearly half of Canada's population)
Unfortunately the transfer hubs of Montreal, Albany, Toronto, and NYC would add a time penalty. (Maybe scheduling somehow allows key nodes to be less penalized such as Albany & NYC)
Either way its a lot of cities and probably a lot of work (assuming you haven't just set up an excel sheet to do the math for you yet). I assume NYC and Montreal would be the big travel demand generators.
A Detroit, Toledo, Ann Arbor line they call the T is supposedly being talked about, it would connect Detroit to Philly and The Acela Corredor without having to go through Chicago, which I would love
You made a lot of great points that a lot of people forget when discussing HSR, I'm not sure why people think we need HSR to every city possible. People often forget how much more spread out the U.S. is compared to countries that have successful HSR networks.
I'm still baffled that someone out there thinks that HSR to Quincy, IL would be a good idea.
Amtrak already goes there. That's why I'm assuming it's included
gotta be from quincy
So - in terms of future videos, I'd be interested to see this weighting system applied to other successful high speed rail corridors, in Japan or Western Europe for example - to see if it still holds up, or whether some assumptions need changing.
I would love to get my hands on as much origin-destination data as possible so I could do exactly that. Mostly working off bits and pieces so far!
Your channel and Geography King are two of my favorite channels now!
I would use the train between Chicago-Detroit-Toronto. We should build it.
Hyperloop - any day now. You are the funniest person on TH-cam.
Good video. I'm impressed you pronounced "Louisville" correctly lol
Detroit to Milwaukee would be another interesting pair that would have to go through Chicago
I think you’re overestimating the penalty due to changing trains. If it’s an intended transfer that’s timetabled well the penalty can be zero, especially for a same-platform change.
(I’m also not sure what your issue with through-running Grand Rapids - Chicago - Indianapolis is. Changing direction at a station costs a few minutes but is otherwise trivial with suitable rolling stock)
However, this would ideally be run by Amtrak :/
i never imagined someone so monotone, speaking a monologue about probably-not-gonna-happen high speed rail lines in the midwest, could actially maintain my attention and provide quality entertainment for 15 whole minutes