Why don't we have high speed trains between Chicago and St. Louis, St. Louis and Kansas City, etc, etc.??

Question

Wouldn't it be convenient to live in St. Louis and take the train to your job in Chicago?? Or how about taking an afternoon trip to root for the Cards at Wrigley and be home in time for Letterman. Imagine what it would do for tourism. And add gambling cars and woohoooo.

Answer 1

The Interstate Highway System was our first great effort at creating a nationwide system of infrastructure to connect our country; now we must work on a second Interstate built on high-speed rail.  This will require a major funding effort and political will on the part of Congress, but right now they seem more interested in telling people who they can marry and how the flag should be treated.

Answer 2

I live in Kansas City and am in Chicago right now visiting my parents.  I took the Amtrak.  It barely took me 7 hours to get here.  If your traveling between KC and Chicago, you want to take Amtrak's "the Chief" and not the "Ann Rutledge," or whatever it's called.  That Ann train takes at least 12 hours, and includes a bus transfer due to rail construction (let alone the fact it stops practically every 20 minutes).  I took the Chief and we made only a handful of stops.  Plus, it's a double-decker and an overall much nicer ride.

However, if you're looking for a fast, cheap public transit alternative between St. Louis and Chicago (the Chief doesn't run past St. Louis), I would recommend taking a Coach USA bus (NOT a Greyhound).  Coach USA began offering very affordable routes between a few major destinations.  These are straight shots, no in between stops.  They still only have limited routes available, but St.Louis-Chicago is one of them.  You can view the schedule for that route here:  http://www.coachusa.com/chicago/ss.detai...

Hope that helps.

Answer 3

The previous answers are patetic.  Cities are for people, not for cars.  And high speed trains can pay by themselves, the problem is that the initial investment is very high.  However, as you can see in Europe, the economic development and the shortening of distances is huge.  Now most trips from Paris to the South East of France and between Paris and London are made BY TRAIN, not by car or plane.  The Paris-Lyon TGV payed all his expenses (tracks, trains, land) in TEN years.   And I wish to ask to all those people that protest because talk about taxes...  do you know that the US Goverment subsidizes air and road transport?  Rail transport subsidy is very little in comparison.

Answer 4

Because we don't have Nuclear Power plants and aren't (thank God, like Europe) But, really, it's because we really don't have nuke power.   AND the rails need some serious fixing and their won't be enough ridership.  Folks get to the city, and STILL have to drive.  High speed trains, and in general trains make a lot of common sense, however, too many folks love their cars.  And not to make a political statement here. but the liberals and all their touting for mass transit have in fact destroyed mass transit Ala high speed trains by their whining of cutting down trees, and NO Nukes, as you need MASSIVE amounts of electricity to power these lovely trains, no hydro dams, no nukes, and you can't power a train by putting up a sail or a solar panel.  I

Answer 5

Well for one it's very espenseive takes years to do and the people of America don't want to spend their hard earned tax dollars on it.

Answer 6

Lack of demand.  People love their cars.

Answer 7

Mass transit is something that doesn't do well.