Midwest Regional Rail Initiative
 

This thread is intended for discussion of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, otherwise known as the "Chicago Hub" network.

The Midwest High Speed Rail Association
- this non-profit organization has been advocating for high-speed rail in the Midwest for years, but only now are government officials taking notice. The MHSRA's proposed network is not identical with what Midwestern states are planning; but at some point in the future, many if not all of these rail linkages may be built in various forms and alignments.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/935...30jun09lar.gif

The core of the plan is a network of rail lines, with top speed of 110mph, radiating out from downtown Chicago. Critics contend that 110mph is not fast enough to form an attractive service for travelers, so the MHSRA has launched a detailed study of a 220mph line connecting Chicago to St Louis. Illinois' government supports this idea and has begun various long-term planning efforts, including the formation of an Illinois High-Speed Rail Commission.

Official plans have been announced for 110mph lines connecting:
Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison
Chicago-Springfield-St Louis
Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac

In more preliminary planning stages are 110mph lines connecting:
Madison-Minneapolis/St Paul
St Louis-Kansas City
Milwaukee-Green Bay
Minneapolis/St Paul-Duluth
Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati
Chicago-Ft. Wayne-Toledo-Cleveland

In addition, several lines have been planned for normal Amtrak operation (79mph), but plans may be changed with an upgrade to 110mph. These are:
Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque
Chicago-Quad Cities-Iowa City
Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland

No definite information has been released on any of the lines serving Indiana, save for the Chicago-Detroit route, which passes through a corner of the state. Indiana has yet to decide how its cities will be connected to the network, but the state wants to establish routes to connect Chicago to Toledo, Columbus, and Louisville. Which Indiana cities those routes will serve is still up in the air.

So far, plans call for the Midwest network to use existing Amtrak cars and locomotives initially, with a gradual transition to Talgo rolling stock that can tilt, allowing for higher speeds through curves.

It's unclear exactly what Wisconsin is buying. It says "train sets" but does that include the locomotives, or "head units", as Talgo calls them, or just the passenger cars?

Talgo America's website announces that the Wisconsin cars will be called "Type XXI Lakeliner" trains. Since there is no description under this name, it's unclear whether this represents a whole new type of cars for them, or merely a rebranding of an existing type.

----------------------

High-speed train purchase first step in Madison-to-Milwaukee line
By MARK PITSCH
SAT., JUL 18, 2009 - 11:48 AM

In a first step toward building a Midwestern high-speed rail line connecting Madison with Chicago and the Twin Cities, Wisconsin is buying two passenger trains from a Spanish company that will hire state workers to assemble and maintain them.

The $47.5 million purchase is expected to create 80 jobs initially, and company officials said Friday they are considering assembling the trains at Janesville’s General Motors production plant, which closed in April idling 1,200 workers. Sites in Milwaukee are also under consideration.

The Madison station would be at the Dane County Regional Airport.

Under the state’s high-speed rail plan, the Madison-to-Milwaukee line would reach 110 mph as soon at it begins service. The Milwaukee to Chicago line would initially operate at a top speed of 79 mph because its track needs to be upgraded. It would reach 110 mph once the Madison to the Twin Cities and Green Bay to Milwaukee links are in service, Klein said.

That’s because officials want to establish service in the rest of the state first and upgrading the track is expensive, he said.

Patentes Talgo officials said Friday they envision their Wisconsin plant as an assembly hub for the Midwest.
Antonio Perez, chief executive officer of the company’s U.S. subsidiary, said the company will build the empty shells of the trains in Spain and ship them to Wisconsin. All interior design and assembly work will be completed here, he said.

^^^I am ignorant of the details by why can we (the US) retool some of our manufacturing to make the trains here..

Doesn't GE have a HSR rail unit?

I applaud Rick Harnish et al for dreaming big and sharing responsibility for the relatively advanced state of midwest interstate rail, but at some point the plan would have to get a bit more plausible. The notion that there is demand to support both a 90-110mph corridor and a parallel 150-220mph route between LaCrosse and MSP, for example, is ludicrous. No - there will be one route between Madison and MSP, not 3.

I predict GE will eventually get into to rail propulsion equipment, but they will wait so long to do it that they will have blown any chance of dominating the domestic share of he market. Just a prediction. If EMD was smart they'd open an entire new division to get a head start on the high speed rail future.

As it looks now, there will be at least two routes, and with interstate bureaucracy I wouldn't be surprised at 3. The current, existing route between La Cross and MSP meanders along the river; and I don't expect it to upgraded to 110 unless it's an intermediary step while a 220 ROW is built. Both Eau Claire and Rochester (and Wisconsin and Minnesota, respectively) are lobbying to be the last node before MSP. If fed funding and state support picks up in the next 10-20 years, the "compromise" could be new ROWs to each city with departures between Madison and MSP split between them. It wouldn't be the most efficient use of funds, but that's politics.

As and aside, I do hope that Rochester ends up with a 220 HSR stop. Besides having the Mayo Clinic, which one could argue is a societal asset worthy of subsidized transportation, the city has a really sizable tech industry. Aggregately, I would think Rochester would see as much rail use as a typical Midwestern city several times its size.

Just the passenger cars! They will probably be based on Talgo series VIII, which are already FRA compliant at speeds up to 125 to 150 mph with two disc brakes per axle, and to 220 mph with three disc brakes per axle.
http://www.talgoamerica.com/series8-passengerCars.aspx

Talgo's branded diesel locomotive is FRA compliant and capable of speeds up to 125 mph. But Amtrak's P-42 Genesis diesel locomotives are already capable of 110 mph maximum speeds. So there's no need to buy more diesel locomotives, as the existing P-42s powering the existing Hiawatha trains will suffice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiawatha_Service
Hiawatha is the name of an 86 mile train route operated by Amtrak on the western shore of Lake Michigan, although the name was historically applied to several different routes that extended across the Midwest and out to the Pacific Ocean. As of 2007, fourteen trains (seven round-trips, six on Sunday) run daily between Chicago, Illinois, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, making intermediate stops in Glenview, Illinois, Sturtevant, Wisconsin, and General Mitchell International Airport. The line is partially supported by funds from the state governments of Wisconsin and Illinois. The service carries about 624,000 passengers annually. It is one of the most heavily-used routes in the entire Amtrak system, aside from rail lines on the United States North East and in California. A one-way trip between Milwaukee and Chicago takes about 90 minutes (Amtrak's schedule actually reads 89 minutes).

Therefore, today the Hiawatha averages 57.3 mph between Chicago and Milwaukee. They may save some time, a few minutes at most, with the new Talgo tilting cars in track curves. The real savings will come when they can increase maximum speeds to 110 mph as track and signal work is completed to support that higher speed.

By the way, $47 million for two 14 car trainsets comes at just less than $1.7 million per car.

I always thought that the river route to LaCrosse was not meant as a high-speed rail line, but more as an extension of Minnesota's Red Rock Corridor concept - i.e. a commuter train (albeit a long one), operating with modest track improvements.

mcfinley is right, though - the map doesn't represent reality, it represents an attempt to smooth ruffled feathers between Rochester and Eau Claire, in order to build as much support as possible. Also - 110mph to Quincy? :haha:

The state claims that their rationale is to purchase the cars themselves, in order to save money over leasing them from Amtrak. How does it save money to continue leasing the Genesis? Also, while this is a minor point, continuing to use the Genesis creates a weak symbol indeed for high-speed rail. Buy the Talgo locomotives and re-assign the Genesis to one of the handful of corridors in the US that would have service but for a lack of rolling stock.

Although the Acela doesn't quite measure up to European or Asian standards for "high-speed rail", a lot of its success came from its branding - of which the train design is an important part. Also, the Acela lounges created in the major cities for high-speed passengers created an image of exclusivity that attracted riders. I really hope the Midwest network can employ this strategy.

That route really isn't meant for high speed rail, it's used by couples and families taking minivacations away from the city where the scenery is half the incentive to take the train (maybe I'm overgeneralizing a little). Yet, that's the only route Amtrak has into MSP, so it may very well receive misguided funding as a first step towards HSR while a half dozen impact studies are conducted to determine the best alternate ROW.

For the Chicago-Milwaukee (Hiawatha) line, I have seen numbers as high as $1 billion to upgrade the line to 110 mph HSR. To me, that's ridiculous when considering the the improvement will be a whopping 23 minutes.

If the line were 220 mph, it would make more sense. What's the ridership in Glenview? I'd consider dropping the Glenview and Sturtevant stop if it isn't substantial.

I would agree if other States bought Talgo equipment and wanted Talgo diesel locomotives. I don't think it is cost effective to own the only two (or four) Talgo diesel locomotives in the States.
You also must be able to meet EPA Tier 4 standards for all new diesel locomotives after 2011. I'm not sure a Tier 4 diesel could fit into the Talgo diesel locomotive shell? Only one European DMU vendor (Stadler Rail) has committed to meeting EPA Tier 4 standards. I think it is wiser to wait and order diesel locomotives later. Who knows, Wisconsin may decide to upgrade the corridor to electrification sooner rather than later?
As long as Wisconsin and Illinois plan on a top speed of 110 mph for the near future, the Genesis locomotives can achieve that.

I wonder if the Governor has looked at "Livery" colors yet, to distinguish these trains from other Amtrak trains? The Cascades trains have their own livery.

http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/cascades_train.gif

Height
P-42= 14'8"
F-40= 15'8"
F-59= 15'8"
Talgo Series= 13'2"

I have actually thought it would be better to move that stop a bit north to Lake-Cook Rd. and redevelop the area around Deerbrook Mall which has all the characteristics of a great potential suburban TOD hub. Perhaps having a north suburban stop is not needed at all given the short distance though.

Expanding on the issue of suburban stops along HSR though I would bet that suburban stops are going to be considered somewhat essential along some of these HSR's corridors. America's metros are so spread and detached from a central train hub (compared to Europe/Japan) that for many suburbanites in places it would likely be no easier getting to the downtown station then the airport. Having a stop in east suburban St. Louis, west 'burb Detroit, and north 'burb Cincinnati may have have to be seriously considered to attract ridership.

Agreed....as much as it turns my stomach to have to pander to the disperse living arrangement crowd it may be necessary to have some strategic stops to jump start ridership.....
\
In the case of the north suburbs it is probably necessary for at least one stop maybe even 2 to make HSR competitive with auto at least if you are going to Milw.


Unfortunately, the cost in time is borne by all of us because some people cannot handle any density above about 3000 / sq mile

If that outer suburb had a link to some sort of local transit, I agree. If not, I disagree.

Starting with 110 Mph is a good idea, simply because if all of them were gonna be 220, not even half would probably get built in the near future.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...hWGMQD99IV6FG1

STIMULUS WATCH: Foreign firms eye Obama rail plan

By JOAN LOWY and MATT LEINGANG (AP) – 4 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Foreign companies that dominate the international high-speed rail industry are trying to cash in on the Obama administration's plan to pump billions of dollars into U.S. rail systems to help stimulate the economy.

The stimulus plan sets aside $8 billion for high-speed rail, a figure that has ambassadors and foreign leaders jockeying to get their preferred companies in on the deal. Though the law requires the U.S. to "buy American" with stimulus money, the rail plan requires so many trains and so much expertise that the administration has conceded foreign companies are likely to be part of it.

"I guarantee those companies that have been involved in high-speed rail in Asia and Europe are in America right now meeting those folks that are putting proposals together to tap into our $8 billion," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who has spoken with Japan's ambassador and transport minister about the matter.

LaHood, who spoke last week at a Washington think tank, met with French and Spanish officials during a recent trip to Europe, where he rode high-speed trains and met industry leaders.

High-speed rail was on the agenda when Jean-Louis Borloo, the French environment minister, met LaHood in Washington in March. And it will be a topic of discussion again during LaHood's upcoming trip to Japan, where companies want to supply the U.S. with rail cars, locomotives and expertise.

Europe and Japan have extensive high-speed rail systems and well-developed industries to support them. The only truly high-speed rail service in the United States is Amtrak's Acela Express, which operates between Washington and Boston. The trains can reach speeds of 150 mph, but average less than 100 mph. Some trains in Europe and Asia average 150 mph or more.

"They do have the expertise in putting systems together and we don't," said Rep. John Mica of Florida, the senior Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mica said he expects most of the high-speed rail money to be spent in the U.S. on locomotive engines, steel tracks, concrete and support systems. But passenger cars will probably be purchased from foreign companies, although they may be produced by U.S. subsidiaries, he said. European and Japanese companies may also play a large role in designing and overseeing rail projects.

The Federal Rail Administration plans to release the first round of grants by mid-September. State and local officials will decide which companies win the contracts.

"If you look at the opportunities that these folks are trying to create for themselves, they're coming to America, they are going to the regions and they are talking to the people who have put together proposals," LaHood said. "And it will be up to those folks if they want to partner."

The "Buy American" provision of the stimulus gives priority to U.S. manufacturers and suppliers. But officials can waive that rule if buying American would delay the project or increase costs by more than 25 percent.

The administration's plan requires hundreds of new passenger trains. Foreign companies figure to be the initial front-runners because iconic U.S. train builders such as Pullman Co. in Chicago and Budd Co. in Philadelphia died out more than 30 years ago with America's shift to highway and air travel.

Among the most prominent of the foreign companies are Montreal-based Bombardier Inc., which helped build the Acela, and Spanish company Talgo SA. Talgo says its U.S. subsidiary will build a manufacturing plant in whichever state takes the lead in ordering rail equipment, company spokeswoman Nora Friend said.

Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle announced Friday that his state is buying two 14-car trains from Talgo for $47 million for its Milwaukee-Chicago corridor. The deal includes an option to buy more if the state gets stimulus money to extend service from Milwaukee to Madison. As part of the deal, Talgo will open plants in Wisconsin.

Other foreign manufacturers already have U.S. plants that supply Amtrak and smaller commuter trains for New York and other cities. French engineering firm Alstom SA has a factory in Hornell, N.Y., and Talgo has a maintenance facility in Seattle, where 10 years ago it assembled trains for an Amtrak route that runs from Eugene, Ore., to Vancouver, British Columbia.

The stimulus may only be the beginning. Obama has said his $8 billion plan is just a down payment on a high-speed rail network, drawing comparisons to the 1950s creation of the interstate highway system.

To follow up, Congress is working on proposals that would expand high-speed rail, including one plan that would spend $50 billion over the next five years.

"Congress may do more," LaHood said. "If they do, we'll be cheering them on."

Last month, a group of U.S. investors launched a startup to compete with international firms. Value Recovery Group Inc. of Columbus, Ohio, bought up the remains of a shuttered Colorado railcar company and began scouting locations in Ohio, Illinois and Michigan for a manufacturing plant.

CEO Barry Fromm said the new company, U.S. Railcar, plans to build diesel trains that travel 79-90 mph and can be upgraded for 125 mph service.

"We want to keep American jobs and U.S. public investment at home," Fromm said.

Agreed... even in the UK they have a suburban HSR stop, Ebbsfleet with a large car park. in France they also have suburban HSR stations.. of course there would be express trains that would go only from from a major downtown to a major downtown, but there should also be trains to service a suburban station with a large parking lot.

Hell, why not shift the Hiawatha over to Metra's North Central line? It would rejoin the Milwaukee Road using UP's tracks from Des Plaines to Northbrook.

This way, it would serve O'Hare. The O'Hare Transfer station will soon be connected to the People Mover directly, and a huge new parking garage will be built. Why not use this garage for rail travelers as well? The highway systems already exist to bring suburbanites to O'Hare.

Truth is, with the current economic slump, Metropolis turning into a strip mall (grrrr... still fuming about that..), highrises cancelled left and right, bad news about Chicago 2016 (grrrr... still fuming about USOC..), the prospect of CREATE and some investment in midwestern intercity rail is the only good news that's even out there these days.

^That and we still have air to breath. Thank goodness.

Functionally, I think this is the best idea, as the O'Hare Transfer station and parking facilities are also highly accessible via the tollways (294 and 90). That said, I know nothing about the current freight operations on the lines nor what would be involved in obtaining operating rights. I suppose if we're talking about infinity billion dollars from the Feds anything is possible, but I can imagine Union Pacific and CN (? I think that's who owns the NCS?) would have a great deal to say about such a proposal.

Let's fine them infinity billion dollars

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...amilyPromo.png

With CN's purchase of the EJ&E, freight traffic on this segment should decrease substantially - CN claims it will go down to 2/3 trains per day, since its freight trains will be using the new route. The segment is already (mostly) triple-tracked, which should be enough to support both high-speed rail and increased Metra service.

http://www.dhke.com/CRJ/others-ns.html Read the "Leithton Junction" section.

I'm not sure about the UP line (called the "New Line"). It might need to have additional sidings or tracks added.

Of course, all this discussion goes out the window when we start talking about 220mph service...

It's not about "pandering to the disperse living arrangment crowd," whatever in the world that means, it's about dealing with reality. And the reality is in America most people live in the suburbs. I realize that many people on this forum want us to be Europe but we are not Europe and Europe didn't develop the way it did for no reason, it developed that way because they didn't have cars. Now we can take some of the good things they have like HSR, but let's get down to earth, we will always have the suburbs. I don't think HSR should be exclusive to only people that live near the Loop! I take the Hiawatha a lot and the amount of people that get on and off at the suburban stops is quite enough to keep them, and there really are only 3 of them.

Now shifting that suburban stop from Glenview to O'Hare I would fully support and would make just too much sense to happen. It would give a HSR connection from O'Hare to Mitchell and Mitchell is easily the most used suburban stop along the line in my experience. O'Hare would blow it away. It would also give the advocates of an express train from O'Hare to downtown Chicago exactly what they want. Everyone would win.

Just my opinion, but I think any O'Hare HSR station should be on a west bound line, like towards Quincy or the Quad Cities. You're discussing moving a north bound HSR train west. Soon you'll be discussing moving the south bound and east bound HSR trains west to O'Hare too.
I'll admit using an airport as a suburban HSR station is a good idea. But I disagree using it if that means routing the HSR train in the wrong general direction.

???
Are you getting O'Hare and Midway confused?

O'Hare is about 15 miles north and west* of the city, and would add more ridership than any other station on the line. Further, it would reduce the need for plane traffic between MKE and ORD. It would also answer the demand for an airport to downtown shuttle.

*edit...sorry.

The south- and east- bound trains can have a dedicated line, in the form of 2 tracks along the Metra Electric Line. It would be a waste not to use that line. The north- and west-bound trains, however, have to share the line with Metra and commuter trains regardless. At that point, the high-speed trains might as well use the alignment that serves O'Hare, out of the many possibilities.

As I've shown, the CN line between Des Plaines and Franklin Park is about to become very lightly-used, and the Milwaukee Road between Franklin Park and downtown Chicago is owned by Metra, so freight interference isn't a problem.

electricron brings up a good point. O'Hare is west of the city which is what I am sure you meant to say. I did a rough calculation and starting from the NCS (O'Hare) and MD-N (Glenview) route split at Western Ave. it is 35 miles to meet up back at the Rockland Rd. Junction where the EJ&E would feed back into the MD-N to head up to Milwaukee.

Going strait on the MD-N to that junction is 27 miles and pretty much a strait shot unlike the O'Hare route. So essentially going to O'Hare adds on another 7-8 miles with the important caveat O'Hare route is a good deal less straight. I also think there are locations on the NCS/O'Hare route where it is still single tracked which would have to be doubled or tripled tracked. Perhaps the O'Hare route would only put a few minutes extra on but there would be an increase and it would have to be studied how much and if the diverted route is worth it.

......Or another idea is to perhaps mothball airport x-press from Block 37 to O'Hare and instead do what arguably should have been done before and connect airport x-press service from the downtown HSR hub that could leave every fifteen minutes and connect to O'Hare in 20 minutes. While not the MOST ideal for the Chi-Mil travelers it would serve well those coming from the St.Louis, Detroit, and Cinny lines.



Just put together what route you are talking about. This does seem to make more sense then then NCS -> EJ&E -> MD-N route I was envisioning in order to include O'Hare. The UP track as a plus is much more strait then the EJ&E track which could connect the NCS and MD-N farther north.

I did a rough calculation from Western Ave of the two lines and along the O'Hare/NCS or NCS -> UP -> MD-N route came in about 21 miles. The strait shot along the MD-N from Western Ave. to that junction south of Techny where the train gets back on the MD-N on up to Milwaukee is a bit over 15 miles. So in this case it is going six miles out of the way to the divergent O'Hare route. Not bad as long as one can get UP on board.

All it would need is a flyover at Deval (Des Plaines Junction) and a third track between there and Higgins.

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com...D=36765#middle


An unprecedented bipartisan coalition of supporters of intercity high speed passenger rail service today applauded the State of Indiana for seeking federal passenger rail stimulus funds.

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) recently submitted three pre-applications for passenger rail funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The pre-applications are a required first step in tapping some of the $8 billion available for designing and building regional high speed passenger rail networks, including the Midwest Regional Rail System which would serve Indiana.

“We commend Gov. Mitch Daniels and INDOT for taking this significant step to join our Midwest neighbors in making intercity high speed passenger rail a component of an integrated 21st century transportation system,” said Roger Sims of the Indiana High Speed Rail Association (IHSRA).

"This is a great opportunity for citizens of the state of Indiana to have a first class passenger rail system,” said Marvin B. Scott of Indianapolis, a member of the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission.

The state’s action was encouraged in a series of letters sent by 10 Indiana mayors, local Chambers of Commerce, businesses, and passenger rail advocates. Already two metropolitan planning organizations – Lafayette and Northwest Indiana – have passed resolutions of support for intercity passenger rail.

“We are very encouraged that the State is moving toward capturing a portion of these critical federal stimulus funds,” said Tim Maloney, senior policy director of the Hoosier Environmental Council. “The economic benefits to mass transit and high speed rail – such as better access to jobs and local economic development – have the potential to increase land values and local tax revenues. Our environment stands to gain as well, with improved air quality and a reduction in congestion and carbon emissions.”

The pre-applications INDOT submitted focus on: 1) the proposed line running through Indianapolis, Lafayette, and Northwest Indiana between Chicago and Cincinnati (environmental and pre-engineering) 2) the proposed line running through Northwest Indiana and Fort Wayne between Chicago and Toledo/Cleveland (environmental and pre-engineering) and 3) initial steps to relieve major rail congestion in Northwest Indiana, which will benefit all three proposed Indiana high speed passenger rail lines as well as freight rail.

“Although communities along the routes would initially benefit the most, this investment will have positive economic development ramifications for the entire state and for the Midwest. According to an analysis conducted for the nine-state Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, an improved passenger rail system will bring more than 4,500 permanent new jobs to Indiana, generate an additional $86 million of extra household income, and bring $2.3-$3.5 billion in user benefits to the state,” said Dana Smith, Director, Chamber of Commerce/Greater Lafayette Commerce, and an IHSRA board member.

Indiana’s three applications for funding are compatible with an application submitted by the State of Illinois for a Chicago high speed rail terminal, which would also benefit the lines running through Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and beyond.

Source: Indiana High Speed Rail Association, Hoosier Environmental Council, Lafayette-West Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association

I wonder if these applications are just for study money, or for actual design/construction costs? I can't imagine Indiana's plans are very advanced currently, since there's been almost zip from the state up until now.

Lots of states are just requesting money to conduct feasibility studies and draft EIS.

It depends on the state. Here in Michigan, for instance, we're well past the study stage and have been upgrading the current high-speed route for a few years, now.

The key is that the Indiana applications are compatible with the Illinois and Michigan Apps. The HSR route to Indiana includes the "South of the Lake Reroute" which is also part of CREATE.

In other words this is extremely good news, and if the SOTLRR is granted stimulus funds for study/EIS, then we could actually have true HSR to Indy and Detroit before 2016.

Another interesting note in the Indiana press release is that for the first time (that I have seen) an elected official from Indiana has actually named the preferred eastern route to Cleveland. IE. the Ft. Wayne route as opposed to the South Bend route. Most Indiana sources always showed both routes as "under study". We know that both routes will not be upgraded to HSR. The FtWayne route is far less populated with freight than the SB route.

SB and FW could theoretically be included in a single route. This would only add 10-20 miles to the route depending on if / how much greenfield ROW they decided to build between SB and FW.

If the line is built as 150-220mph, and express trains are alowed to proceed through SB / Elkhart at high speed, you'd hardly notice the extra mileage at all.

:previous:

I think that could work, connecting SB to FW. And not to be glib, but in reference to building greenfield row, there's really a lot of nothing in that area of the Midwest. Wouldn't it be cheaper to build new HSR track or at least bypasses around every podunk little town, rather than erecting all the viaducts necessary for grade separation?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...0,376023.story


Iowa optimistic that trains are in state's future

By NIGEL DUARA

Associated Press Writer

2:25 PM CDT, July 26, 2009

IOWA CITY, Iowa

The days of the Corn Belt Rocket are long gone, but state officials and railroad supporters are optimistic that passenger trains could soon crisscross Iowa again.

First Iowa must vie with others states for a share of $8 billion in federal rail funding, which Gov. Chet Culver intends to win by lobbying transportation officials and teaming up with the state's neighbors.

He was doing both on Sunday, building public support by riding a special train to Chicago and picking up a key passenger, Amtrak Board of Director Chairman Tom Carper, along the way. Once in Chicago, Culver planned to attend a Midwest rail meeting Monday and was expected to sign a rail agreement with Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn.

"This will not be a project that is going to take us years or cost us tens of millions of dollars" in state funds, Culver said. "It's very affordable and something I think most Iowans are very excited about."

The Midwest appears to have some advantages because central states for years have worked together promoting lines that would stretch from Chicago to regional centers, such as St. Louis, Milwaukee and Minneapolis-St. Paul. The region also has a strong network of freight rails that could be upgraded and used for passenger trains.

Winning federal money won't be easy, though, as 40 states have submitted 278 plans that total $102 billion for federal rail funding.

"All across the nation now, communities and states are really jumping on the bandwagon, saying `We want our passenger rail line, too," said Laura Kliewer, director of the Midwest Passenger Rail Commission. "But the Midwest really has been planning for so long, and states have moved forward. ... I think that the region's poised to know exactly what needs to be done."

In Iowa, the initial focus would be on two lines from Chicago, one reaching to Dubuque and the other to Iowa City via the Quad Cities. State officials hope trains could run on those lines by spring 2012 or sooner.

The state also is seeking $29 million to improve a Burlington Northern Santa Fe line across southern Iowa, speeding up the cross-country California Zephyr that already makes several stops in Iowa.

The additional lines would mean Iowa would be served by four Amtrak routes, although the Southwest Chief only passes through the southeast corner of the state with a stop in Fort Madison.

"There's an interest and belief that we can see things done sooner once we know the funding commitment," Culver spokesman Phil Roeder said. "It's our feeling that 2012 might be a bit too conservative."

Culver and state transportation officials have called for an Iowa City line eventually to be extended west to Des Moines and Omaha, Neb. That effort suffered a setback recently with word that Amtrak won't complete a study of the extension until next year.

Rail service has been limited in Iowa since the 1970s, when the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad dropped its passenger service as the company was struggling and in bankruptcy. At one time, the railroad ran several trains through the state, including the Corn Belt Rocket from Chicago to Omaha and the Twin Star Rocket from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Chicago.

Tammy Nicholson, director of the state's Office of Rail Transportation, said initial reaction by federal officials to the plan has been positive.

"We're getting more enthusiasm for `Let's get it going' and expand across the state and potentially go north and south across the state," Nicholson said.

The state's plan relies on funding from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program. The name of the federal program is a bit of a misnomer because it will divide the $8 billion into three segments: actual high-speed rail, with top speeds of 150 mph; conventional rail, called Intercity Passenger Rail; and congestion grants, which would add tracks to reduce delays in heavily traveled intercity rail corridors.

The Federal Railroad Administration hasn't specified the breakdown of the $8 billion.

The rail lines being proposed in Iowa won't feature speeds seen in Japan, parts of Europe or even the Amtrak express lines between Boston and Washington, D.C. Instead, trains would travel at top speeds of 79 mph across improved tracks. That means passengers would make the Iowa City-Chicago trek in about 5 hours.

Kliewer, of the Midwest Passenger Rail Commission, said the region considered high-speed rail years ago but figured the time saved wouldn't be worth the money spent.

Even at the lower speeds, travel by rail would be faster than by car because passengers could avoid traffic and arrive in the heart of downtown Chicago, train supporters argue. Business passengers also could work during the trip rather than watch the road.

The planned Iowa City to Chicago route would feature two daily round trips between the cities and would carry 187,000 passengers annually, according to an Amtrak feasibility study. Most of the line to Dubuque would be in Illinois, and depending on the route, officials estimate the daily round trip would see annual ridership of between 44,000 and 74,000.

In cities where the trains would stop, local officials would be responsible for financing the construction or rehabilitation of depots. Federal money would be available for upgrades such as wheelchair-accessible platforms.

The $57 million cost of the Chicago to Iowa City line would be divided between Iowa and Illinois. Iowa's share is estimated at $34 million, plus the expense of building train stations.

Illinois would pay nearly the entire $60 million cost of the Chicago to Dubuque line because only the end of the route would be in Iowa.

If the rail lines are approved, Iowa would spend $3 million a year to bridge the gap between the rail lines' expenses and their ticket revenue.

Not to be a Debbie Downer but, Im just sayin that the Dubuque line is costing Illinois $60 million + annual op subsidues, why not just run that baby north from Rockford up to Madison. Then we can get Wisco to help pay + we would be connecting 2 actual urban populations; Rockfrd+Madison to Chicago.

Every town is jumping on the MWRRI bandwagon
 

And now some of the more obscure rail expansion plans:

South western Indiana is reviving an old plan for a Chicago-Terre Haute to Evansville line. This is a short line revival of the old Dixie Flyer route and Floridian route that used to connect Chicago to Evansville, Nashville, Birmigham and eventually Miami,FL.

http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_n...rticleID=46817
and
http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_...122220016.html
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/s...ois-railro.jpg

And in Iowa, long range vision for extending the Chicago - Dubuque line further into Iowa with a terminus at Waterloo.http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/s.../Iowamap_2.gif

http://www.iowadot.gov/IowaPassengerRail/plans.htm

'All paths lead to Chicago', via air, road, rail... Kinda has a nice ring to it ;)

..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3197777.story


High-speed rail plan in Midwest gets a big push forward

Mayor Richard Daley joins several governors to sign agreement

By Jon Hilkevitch

Tribune reporter

July 28, 2009

An agreement signed Monday seeking to fast-track high-speed passenger rail projects in the Midwest has three powerful engines pulling in its favor: the Obama administration, the clout of congressional delegations from eight states and the support of the nation's freight railroads.

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin and the City of Chicago entered into a memorandum of understanding that commits the governments to coordinate plans to develop 110-m.p.h. rail corridors across the Midwest.

At Monday's ceremony, the pact was signed by five governors and Mayor Richard Daley. They all attended a summit in Chicago aimed at laying the groundwork to compete for the largest possible share of $8 billion the Obama administration has allocated for high-speed rail. Three other governors signed the documents earlier.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said the goal is to offer a faster and more efficient option for travelers, as well as create tens of thousands of jobs to boost the Midwest economy.

"This is a historic day," Quinn said. "It's very important that we look to the future."

Several governors mentioned President Barack Obama's strong support for the Midwest high-speed rail initiative, which would consist of a network based in Chicago and eventually branch out 3,000 miles over nine states.

But the first priority is to operate faster trains from Chicago to St. Louis; to Detroit/Pontiac; and to Milwaukee/Madison within three to five years. Preliminary cost estimates total about $4 billion.

Over as many as 20 years, additional high-speed as well as conventional train service connections would radiate to other destinations, connecting to:

--The east by way of Indiana, with service to Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati in Ohio.

--The southeast to Indianapolis.

--The northeast to Grand Rapids, Holland and Port Huron in Michigan.

--The north to Green Bay.

--The northwest to Minneapolis.

--The southwest and west through St. Louis to Kansas City, Mo.

--The south to Carbondale, Ill.

--The west to the Quad Cities, Iowa City and Des Moines; to Omaha, and to Quincy, Ill.

"The president's high-speed rail map talks about the importance of the Chicago hub and the corridors extending from it," said Jolene Molitoris, director of the Ohio Department of Transportation. "We are hoping to send 6 million or more Ohioans on high-speed trains to the Olympics in Chicago [in 2016]."

Daley singled out U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a staunch supporter for many years of improving intercity passenger rail, for setting the stage for Obama to pledge the $8 billion in federal stimulus funds, plus an additional $1 billion a year over five years.

"My role at the signing was as a federal inspector," Durbin quipped after watching the governors and the mayor ink the agreement at the Union League Club downtown.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm said the rail projects would create 57,000 permanent jobs across the Midwest.

In the capital funding bill that the Illinois General Assembly recently approved, the state has committed $400 million to high-speed rail, plus another $150 million to plan for expanding existing Amtrak service from Chicago to Rockford and Dubuque, Iowa.

In addition, $300 million has been allocated to rebuild the state's aging rail infrastructure, a major source of congestion for both freight and passenger trains.

Chicago is the only U.S. city served by all of the "Big Six" freight railroads, and the freight industry views the specter of high-speed passenger trains as a tool to jump-start long-delayed plans to modernize and expand tracks, signals and related equipment to undo bottlenecks and expand rail capacity.

"It was clearly enunciated at today's summit meeting, to our great relief, that the freight industry will be made whole in these efforts. It wasn't something we heard in the past," said Tom Livingston, a vice president of state government and community affairs at CSX Transportation.

I like that Chicago now ranks as equally as important as a bunch of states! :D

PLEASE let the Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland line happen - it's perhaps the most underdeveloped corridor in the country and all of the cities with the exception of Cleveland badly need better public transportation. Of course, by the time it's done, I'll probably be outta here, but... let's do it for the children.

We'll see when the grant winners are announced in the fall. I'd put my money on Madison-Milwaukee and Chicago-Detroit. That should be about ~$2 billion out of the 8. Another $3 billion will probably go to California, and the remaining $3 billion will be divided among the rest of the states.

Some money will probably go to DC-Richmond and some to Florida. Depending on the cost for the 3-C route, it might get funding. It makes sense politically, since it's in a major swing state that went Obama in the last election. Plus, it connects four major cities (or five, if you count Akron).

^The first designated corridor in the Midwest is undoubtedly Chicago-St. Louis. This is an absolute fact. If the Midwest initiative wins, it go to St. Louis. They have been comprehensively studying this alignment for years.

Dont forget that there is also $5 billion in this fiscal year available for an annual investment, Which will then revert to a $1 billinoin annual investment in subsequent years. I am sure the Chi-StL corridor will get at least $500 million this year alone.

Also there is another $500 million that I expect to go to CREATE. And the Quad Cities-Chicago route will get at least $150 million out of the ARRA funds.

^ Agreed. I think Chi-StL has been treated as a higher priority, from all that I've read

^ Keep in mind TUP and Jive that the FRA will divide the money into 2 pools. One will be a fast track that will reward programs that offer initial State matching funds, and are shovel ready. Another will be fully Fed funded. Illiinois will rank highly in the first category as will Wisconsin's Mad-Milw line. (and California). However Misourri is not quite as bold with their committment, fortunately for them the vast majority of this project is in ILL. Just dont look for that STL-KC line imropvement anytime soon.

^ Vast majority? More like the whole damn thing is in Illinois.

For all St Louis is concerned, they just need to show up with a jackhammer, a shovel, a few bolts, and a laid off janitor to complete their end. The Chi-STL route is all going to be paid for by Illinois--Missourians are lucky on that part.