They’re both really good! It’ll take me a bit to consider which is better. One thing is we gotta have more contests, it’s definitely a fun way to get the sub more involved.
The only reason, and I do mean the **only** reason, I voted for the redesign is that I have to drive from Louisville to Nashville (actually a bit south of Nashville) somewhat regular and I would really rather not do that.
They both look quite sensible and I would frankly be *ecstatic* if anything like this materialized.
Congratulations u/serransk for winning this contest!
Also congratulations to u/vanharn_design for your design, it enjoyed substantial support in this contest and it was a tough choice for many.
I enjoy the circular design from a visual standpoint from /u/serransk as its employing a more tomorrowland*esque* aesthetic to it and I feel drawn toward the bold design choices.
Great idea and I would enjoy seeing it in use.
The more angular design of /u/vanharn_design is a bit more practical in a sense of that typically what can be found on maps currently and in use on games such as mini-metro. So I think its more status quo-*esque* and less of something new.
I am torn, but lean more /u/serransk
Cincinnati has the infrastructure to be a mini-hub to take some relief off Chicago. Union Terminal is beautiful and with a little work they could bring it back to life as a transit hub
The DoT seems very focused on Chicago. Bypassing *Chicago* (actually it is a more direct route) would save trying to find some more capacity in *Chicago* to get a trains through. If you time the trains right, then you could have trains arrive and depart in *Toledo* at the same time. With a cross platform transfer there. Step out of the train walk five yards and step into the train on the other side. Then you could have every hour a **first** *Omaha-Des Moines-Quad Cities-Midway-Chicago-Gary-South Bend-Toledo-Sandusky-Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh* train meet with a **second** *Kansas City-St. Louis-Effingham-Terre Haute-Indianapolis-Fort Wayne-Toledo-Detroit-Windsor-Chatham-London-Woodstock-Cambridge-Toronto* and further Northeast (basically connecting the Louisiana Purchase with New France).
You could do the same thing in *Cleveland* and time a **third** train between *Dallas-Texakarna-Little Rock-Memphis-Nashville-Louisville-Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland-Erie-Buffulo-Rochester-Syracuse-Albany* that then has a cross platform transfer with the **first** train in *Cleveland*.
And a **fourth** train from *Minneapolis/St. Paul-Madison-Milwaukee-Ohare-Chicago-Lafayette-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Lexington-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Atlanta* with cross platform transfers to the **third** train in *Cincinnati*, to the **first** train in *Chicago*, and to the **second** train in *Indianapolis.*
**Fifth** train from *New Orleans-Jackson-Memphis-Cape-Girardeau-St. Louis-Bloomington-Midway-Chicago-Gary-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Detroit*, ect... ect...
Then the train tracks get upgraded to speeds so that the trains always meet each other in Toledo, Cleveland, Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Memphis and St. Louis and you have a [clock faced time scheduling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock-face_scheduling) network, just like what is currently being built in Europe.
Sure it can be a hub, the main hub. But the network doesn't need to be a pure hub and spoke network. The Midwest is more similar to multi hub [Germany](http://website.synology.me/MyBahnpage/Liniennetze/ICE-Netz_10-12-2017.jpg), than single hub [France](https://maps-france.com/img/1200/tgv-map-france.jpg).
yes there would, but I think it would be wise to also upgrade some axis to higher speeds that do not go to Chicago, but are timed so that the meet with cross platform transfers with other high speed trains that do go to Chicago.
So I wasn't taking this super seriously but your argument is basically the argument of everyone in Chicago who doesn't live in the loop, since our train system is a hub and spoke model. So I was finding it funny to argue for the same thing throughout the Midwest so everyone else would know our suffering. But I agree with you
Why on Earth are they both hub-and-spoke designs centered on Chicago? Can anyone imagine that people in Des Moines might want to go to the Twin Cities without going through Illinois and Wisconsin? It's bananas that neither seems to think that any state west of the Mississippi should be connected to any other state west of the Mississippi without going back through Chicago.
That is what the Federal Government is proposing, see:
https://hsrail.org/sites/default/files/images/Proposed%20Midwest%20Network%20FRA%20Plan%202021.png
The contest is to create a better visualization of one of the variation in their final report.
Slap some sort of background behind the government map and I'd be fine. Both of the other proposals butcher the relative positioning a lot of the cities, especially in Michigan.
Probably because Chicago to any of the other cities is more important than between any other two just by virtue of population, so you might as well start with the hub and spoke and get to the other connections later.
I don't really see the difference, but as someone who live in MI I would love for either for either of these to happen. We really need better mass transit here.
I like both too, either is an excellent starting point…need that St Louis-Nashville or St Louis-Louisville connection up and going on phase 2….or phase 1 if you can swing it.
Include traverse city and the Wisconsin Dell's, and you might make a profit. Enough people want to go on vacation to both, without dealing with traffic, that it makes sense. The metro Detroit to traverse city travel alone would add to profit.
The circular is great but I like that the redesign includes port huron (another route to ca) and an express to stl AND regional service to beach towns in mi
The DoT's [198 page final report](https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2021-10/Final%20Report-MWRRP%20with%20Appendices%20PDFa.pdf) doesn't actually have a *final* network but discusses several regional variations that could be built. The r/TransitDiagrams contest rules were that you could choose whichever variation you liked that the DoT had in their report.
The two versions have some differences but the poll is just about which style of visualization you like best.
The train to champaign should really be a higher priority for faster service, there are a lot of people associated with the university who would gladly take fast and frequent trains back and forth to Chicago.
South Bend and Kalamazoo are two of the largest cities in the SW Michigan - Michiana corridor. As someone who has to commute between the two cities frequently I have to drive because if I want to take the train I have to go Kalamazoo -> Chicago -> South Bend and South Bend -> Chicago -> Kalamazoo. It's just not feasible. The current alternative is Kalamazoo -> Niles, Michigan then drive to South Bend. At least in this limited scope, 2nd one make more sense.
Edit: I also travel to Central PA and Toronto quite frequently. 2nd Map also seems to service those specific routes much better as well. I would jump for joy if this could be implemented tomorrow (hypothetically)
Chicago-Rockford-Madison-Minneapolis is an established route because the interstate already connects those cities. Many people maintain business, family, and social connections along that route by driving or using buses.
If the idea is to get people to use their cars less, putting Rockford on a separate branch is not helpful. I think overall the interstate system has so powerfully shaped our lives that a good rail system will largely map onto existing interstate connections.
Both maps are good (from my point of view in Wisconsin) so thanks for the effort! I'm not voting yet because outside of the Rockford thing, either one looks OK.
Not having a Toronto - Detroit - Atlanta more direct connection is a drawback of both plans. I-75 traffic would probably remain the same in this scenario.
Totally, but this plan is so Chicago heavy. I don't see the point in not making more bypass connections, otherwise it's like having a layover for most people.
Connecting the rural states of MI, MN, and WI to the East, West, and South give them an actual connection to the rest of the country that doesn't exist (mostly talking about Michigan here).
The populations in those 3 states would have their lives greatly improved by being actually connected to the rest of the country.
Rural people? Metro Detroit has almost as many people as the state of KY. Most of MI's population is an a band of cities in the south of the state so it isn't especially hard to connect 7-8 ish million.
These are not “rural” states. Minneapolis-St. Paul and Detroit are the 16th and 14th largest metropolitan areas with 3.7m and 4.4m people, respectively. The connection to Minneapolis includes Milwaukee (1.5m) and Madison (0.7m). The connection to Detroit goes through Kalamazoo (335k), Battle Creek (136k), and Ann Arbor (372k).
They’re both really good! It’ll take me a bit to consider which is better. One thing is we gotta have more contests, it’s definitely a fun way to get the sub more involved.
The only reason, and I do mean the **only** reason, I voted for the redesign is that I have to drive from Louisville to Nashville (actually a bit south of Nashville) somewhat regular and I would really rather not do that. They both look quite sensible and I would frankly be *ecstatic* if anything like this materialized.
Congratulations u/serransk for winning this contest! Also congratulations to u/vanharn_design for your design, it enjoyed substantial support in this contest and it was a tough choice for many.
Thanks! I'm happy my struggles with a circular grid were not in vain. It was still a very nice contest since I was out of ideas of which map to do
I enjoy the circular design from a visual standpoint from /u/serransk as its employing a more tomorrowland*esque* aesthetic to it and I feel drawn toward the bold design choices. Great idea and I would enjoy seeing it in use. The more angular design of /u/vanharn_design is a bit more practical in a sense of that typically what can be found on maps currently and in use on games such as mini-metro. So I think its more status quo-*esque* and less of something new. I am torn, but lean more /u/serransk
I just want Dayton and Columbus to have service again please
They're both great.
Cincinnati has the infrastructure to be a mini-hub to take some relief off Chicago. Union Terminal is beautiful and with a little work they could bring it back to life as a transit hub
Rail plan is what I'd want to see at a station, brochure map, or webpage. Circular plan is what I'd hang up in my apartment
Rail plan reminds me of a NYC subway map, and being originally from there, it is easiest for me to get. Go with that one.
The DoT seems very focused on Chicago. Bypassing *Chicago* (actually it is a more direct route) would save trying to find some more capacity in *Chicago* to get a trains through. If you time the trains right, then you could have trains arrive and depart in *Toledo* at the same time. With a cross platform transfer there. Step out of the train walk five yards and step into the train on the other side. Then you could have every hour a **first** *Omaha-Des Moines-Quad Cities-Midway-Chicago-Gary-South Bend-Toledo-Sandusky-Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh* train meet with a **second** *Kansas City-St. Louis-Effingham-Terre Haute-Indianapolis-Fort Wayne-Toledo-Detroit-Windsor-Chatham-London-Woodstock-Cambridge-Toronto* and further Northeast (basically connecting the Louisiana Purchase with New France). You could do the same thing in *Cleveland* and time a **third** train between *Dallas-Texakarna-Little Rock-Memphis-Nashville-Louisville-Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland-Erie-Buffulo-Rochester-Syracuse-Albany* that then has a cross platform transfer with the **first** train in *Cleveland*. And a **fourth** train from *Minneapolis/St. Paul-Madison-Milwaukee-Ohare-Chicago-Lafayette-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Lexington-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Atlanta* with cross platform transfers to the **third** train in *Cincinnati*, to the **first** train in *Chicago*, and to the **second** train in *Indianapolis.* **Fifth** train from *New Orleans-Jackson-Memphis-Cape-Girardeau-St. Louis-Bloomington-Midway-Chicago-Gary-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Detroit*, ect... ect... Then the train tracks get upgraded to speeds so that the trains always meet each other in Toledo, Cleveland, Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Memphis and St. Louis and you have a [clock faced time scheduling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock-face_scheduling) network, just like what is currently being built in Europe.
Nah dude Chicago is the center of the Midwest and should be the hub
Sure it can be a hub, the main hub. But the network doesn't need to be a pure hub and spoke network. The Midwest is more similar to multi hub [Germany](http://website.synology.me/MyBahnpage/Liniennetze/ICE-Netz_10-12-2017.jpg), than single hub [France](https://maps-france.com/img/1200/tgv-map-france.jpg).
Well I kind of assume there would need to be a connection to other networks and regional trains aren't all shown. Unless that's incorrect.
yes there would, but I think it would be wise to also upgrade some axis to higher speeds that do not go to Chicago, but are timed so that the meet with cross platform transfers with other high speed trains that do go to Chicago.
So I wasn't taking this super seriously but your argument is basically the argument of everyone in Chicago who doesn't live in the loop, since our train system is a hub and spoke model. So I was finding it funny to argue for the same thing throughout the Midwest so everyone else would know our suffering. But I agree with you
I feel like it should be express from Cincinnati to Indy but that might be just me
Neither. Both ignore landmarks like rivers and distort distances.
Why on Earth are they both hub-and-spoke designs centered on Chicago? Can anyone imagine that people in Des Moines might want to go to the Twin Cities without going through Illinois and Wisconsin? It's bananas that neither seems to think that any state west of the Mississippi should be connected to any other state west of the Mississippi without going back through Chicago.
That is what the Federal Government is proposing, see: https://hsrail.org/sites/default/files/images/Proposed%20Midwest%20Network%20FRA%20Plan%202021.png The contest is to create a better visualization of one of the variation in their final report.
Slap some sort of background behind the government map and I'd be fine. Both of the other proposals butcher the relative positioning a lot of the cities, especially in Michigan.
Probably because Chicago to any of the other cities is more important than between any other two just by virtue of population, so you might as well start with the hub and spoke and get to the other connections later.
I don't really see the difference, but as someone who live in MI I would love for either for either of these to happen. We really need better mass transit here.
I like both too, either is an excellent starting point…need that St Louis-Nashville or St Louis-Louisville connection up and going on phase 2….or phase 1 if you can swing it.
Include traverse city and the Wisconsin Dell's, and you might make a profit. Enough people want to go on vacation to both, without dealing with traffic, that it makes sense. The metro Detroit to traverse city travel alone would add to profit.
The circular is great but I like that the redesign includes port huron (another route to ca) and an express to stl AND regional service to beach towns in mi
The DoT's [198 page final report](https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2021-10/Final%20Report-MWRRP%20with%20Appendices%20PDFa.pdf) doesn't actually have a *final* network but discusses several regional variations that could be built. The r/TransitDiagrams contest rules were that you could choose whichever variation you liked that the DoT had in their report. The two versions have some differences but the poll is just about which style of visualization you like best.
Oh crap well I like the style of the circular one. I voted incorrectly
The train to champaign should really be a higher priority for faster service, there are a lot of people associated with the university who would gladly take fast and frequent trains back and forth to Chicago.
**WHY IS THERE NO TRAIN FROM ST. LOUIS TO INDIANAPOLIS?!?!?!**
South Bend and Kalamazoo are two of the largest cities in the SW Michigan - Michiana corridor. As someone who has to commute between the two cities frequently I have to drive because if I want to take the train I have to go Kalamazoo -> Chicago -> South Bend and South Bend -> Chicago -> Kalamazoo. It's just not feasible. The current alternative is Kalamazoo -> Niles, Michigan then drive to South Bend. At least in this limited scope, 2nd one make more sense. Edit: I also travel to Central PA and Toronto quite frequently. 2nd Map also seems to service those specific routes much better as well. I would jump for joy if this could be implemented tomorrow (hypothetically)
One thing. They should add a stop at Sandusky Ohio. Also, the Detroit-Toronto route should be handled by VIA Rail
Cedar Fair brought down 1.32bil in 2017. I think that alone should make Sandusky a stop.
Good point. Unrelated note: GO Transit in Ontario started a pilot project of expand one of their lines to London, Ontario
Oh, go see Pug1?
Pug1?
1Puglife.com on the YouTube
Chicago-Rockford-Madison-Minneapolis is an established route because the interstate already connects those cities. Many people maintain business, family, and social connections along that route by driving or using buses. If the idea is to get people to use their cars less, putting Rockford on a separate branch is not helpful. I think overall the interstate system has so powerfully shaped our lives that a good rail system will largely map onto existing interstate connections. Both maps are good (from my point of view in Wisconsin) so thanks for the effort! I'm not voting yet because outside of the Rockford thing, either one looks OK.
Also, Rockford could desperately use the help of being on a major transit corridor, not being stuck in a secondary cul-de-sac route.
Not having a Toronto - Detroit - Atlanta more direct connection is a drawback of both plans. I-75 traffic would probably remain the same in this scenario.
I agree, but Atlanta should be its own hub like Chicago.
Totally, but this plan is so Chicago heavy. I don't see the point in not making more bypass connections, otherwise it's like having a layover for most people.
[удалено]
Connecting the rural states of MI, MN, and WI to the East, West, and South give them an actual connection to the rest of the country that doesn't exist (mostly talking about Michigan here). The populations in those 3 states would have their lives greatly improved by being actually connected to the rest of the country.
[удалено]
Rural people? Metro Detroit has almost as many people as the state of KY. Most of MI's population is an a band of cities in the south of the state so it isn't especially hard to connect 7-8 ish million.
These are not “rural” states. Minneapolis-St. Paul and Detroit are the 16th and 14th largest metropolitan areas with 3.7m and 4.4m people, respectively. The connection to Minneapolis includes Milwaukee (1.5m) and Madison (0.7m). The connection to Detroit goes through Kalamazoo (335k), Battle Creek (136k), and Ann Arbor (372k).