Study: Illinois HSR costly but feasible

[CHamilton]

High-speed can succeed: Study says bullet trains in Illinois costly but feasible

A true high-speed rail system in Illinois would be hugely expensive but feasible, whisking passengers at 220 mph from Chicago to St. Louis and, eventually, Indianapolis, a new state-funded study concluded.
It would start at O'Hare International Airport and take just 127 minutes to reach downtown St. Louis, stopping at Champaign-Urbana in less than an hour. Springfield would be 78 minutes away from Chicago's Union Station. Champaign to downtown Indianapolis would take about a half-hour.

A game-changing transportation system like that would take a "substantial" public investment but would not need operating subsidies, according to a panel of experts at both campuses of the University of Illinois and several outside consulting firms.

"Rapid, comfortable, low-cost transportation between these urban areas would boost the Illinois economy, create jobs, unite people in the region, enhance personal mobility, increase international competitiveness and provide safe, modern, sustainable transportation for future generations," concluded the study headed by the U of I's Rail Transportation and Engineering Center Urbana-Champaign.

Rail service at 220 mph would attract 8 million to 15 million riders a year, create well over 10,000 jobs and operate at a profit, the study concluded. By comparison, Amtrak's Chicago-St. Louis route carried a record 597,519 passengers last year.

But here's the catch: It would cost at least $20 billion to build the Illinois segment alone, using the cheapest construction method, and could cost as much as $50 billion to extend it to Indianapolis and the St. Louis airport, using the most optimal, long-lasting construction method.

 

[George Harris]

In Illinois? Expect to spend a lot more for a lot less.

 

[Tokkyu40]

In Illinois? Expect to spend a lot more for a lot less.

Sadly, no infrastructure can be built without spending money. And no politician wants to spend money on any infrastructure that they can't cut the ribbon on just before the next election.

There will always be naysayers going to court to delay any project and try to drive up the cost, but you can't build the Erie Canal by complaining that it will be expensive.

 

[John Bredin]

In Illinois? Expect to spend a lot more for a lot less.

Like the southern Red Line reconstruction, on-time and on-budget?

 

[Anderson]

In Illinois? Expect to spend a lot more for a lot less.

Sadly, no infrastructure can be built without spending money. And no politician wants to spend money on any infrastructure that they can't cut the ribbon on just before the next election.

There will always be naysayers going to court to delay any project and try to drive up the cost, but you can't build the Erie Canal by complaining that it will be expensive.

While there are legitimate grounds to object to various projects, I have to seriously wonder why there haven't been efforts made to at least streamline the way those objections are handled. Eminent domain disputes (really their own little universe in this) aside, I wish there were better controls on the timeframe in which to legally object to a project over environmental (and other) grounds...or some way for a court to at least declare that a set of objections aren't enough to stop a study and simply let the states/agencies involved put money aside for environmental mitigation and carry on rather than jamming projects up with injunction after injunction.