Midwest high speed rail map

[editor]

This is a map I did for a series of articles on HAIF's sister site, the Chicago Architecture Blog. I know a lot of HAIFers have an interest in high speed rail development in the United States, so I thought I'd share it here.

You can read the first of the four articles here: http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2010/01/midwest-high-speed-rail-part-1-overview.html

The bottom line -- High speed rail is coming to the United States. It's just a matter of who gets it. The leading contenders are California, the midwest, and (naturally) the northeast.

[IronTiger]

The bottom line -- High speed rail is coming to the United States. It's just a matter of who gets it. The leading contenders are California, the midwest, and (naturally) the northeast.

Texas is down for the count, then?

[moni]

This is a map I did for a series of articles on HAIF's sister site, the Chicago Architecture Blog. I know a lot of HAIFers have an interest in high speed rail development in the United States, so I thought I'd share it here.

You can read the first of the four articles here: http://blog.chicagoa...1-overview.html

The bottom line -- High speed rail is coming to the United States. It's just a matter of who gets it. The leading contenders are California, the midwest, and (naturally) the northeast.

Fantastic! I use to drive between St. Louis and Chicago weekly and St. Louis to Kansas City monthly. Imagine just getting on high speed rail, sit back and enjoy the ride.

[editor]

I've done the Chicago-Saint Louis run a bunch of times, and even on regular rail it's quite pleasant. Especially when I splash out the extra $16 for first class and end up having the entire car to myself.

Chicago-Kansas City is eight hours right now. With this plan it would be closer to four. Very much an improvement.

I think the part I'm most interested in, though, is the increase in frequency of service. Going to Cincinnati you have only one train to choose from, and it gets you there at 2am. Not very useful.