Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

[VivaLFuego]

The acceleration/deceleration while making the station stop imply little need for 110mph operation through the heart of Springfield, anyway. Just close off unnecessary vehicular crossings, budget for a few grade separations, and proceed with the crossing gate/signal upgrades at other crossings that will maintain a lower speed limit (79mph, or even 55mph within the populated area for a couple miles would be perfectly fine).

Between losing 2 minutes of travel time on an hours-long journey, and locating a station in the middle of nowhere, it's a no-brainer.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by schwerve

its a question of trying to grade separate an alignment that runs at-grade essentially in the middle of a street in the center of a city. not saying to current location isn't a great spot, but getting hsr to it is difficult.

Its not that difficult. It's called a trench, and if railway investment was as high a priority over the last six decades as highway expasion, it would have been done already.

The cost of a ROW trench IMO would most likely be easily justified if/when a true HSR project, i.e. the 220 Mph MHSRA proposal, is tackled and funded.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Its not that difficult. It's called a trench, and if railway investment was as high a priority over the last six decades as highway expasion, it would have been done already.

The cost of a ROW trench IMO would most likely be easily justified if/when a true HSR project, i.e. the 220 Mph MHSRA proposal, is tackled and funded.

its just a cost evaluation pure and simple, there's a secondary right of way in a less dense portion of town with fewer crossings and existing grade separations just 7 blocks east. I'm not affiliated with the project but I'm assuming this is what they mean. if they don't at least evaluate this they wouldn't be doing their job.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by schwerve

its just a cost evaluation pure and simple, there's a secondary right of way in a less dense portion of town with fewer crossings and existing grade separations just 7 blocks east. I'm not affiliated with the project but I'm assuming this is what they mean. if they don't at least evaluate this they wouldn't be doing their job.

That's an important point. Just because an option is being evaluated doesn't mean it's going to come even close to actually being selected. There's no such thing as a "no-brainer" as far as government funding processes are concerned. All reasonable alternatives have to be evaluated in the alternatives analysis. It's better that they spend the time and money evaluating all reasonable alternatives up front, than get caught up in court for years and end up evaluating them anyway later down the road when some NIMBYs call them out for half-assing the AA.

[DCCliff]

In places, the existing Amtrak 3rd St right-of-way in Springfield could probably not accommodate 2-tracks for the future without expensive land acqusition and potential NIMBY-anathma teardowns. (It also runs dangerously close to the the F.L. Wright Dana-Thomas House. The 10th St ROW needs to be evaluated. Too bad they can't move the nicely restored old IC depot.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by DCCliff

In places, the existing Amtrak 3rd St right-of-way in Springfield could probably not accommodate 2-tracks for the future without expensive land acqusition and potential NIMBY-anathma teardowns. (It also runs dangerously close to the the F.L. Wright Dana-Thomas House. The 10th St ROW needs to be evaluated. Too bad they can't move the nicely restored old IC depot.

I think the original line was double tracked. Either way, there should be sufficient room. What little property might have to be acquired shouldn't be too difficult and property values aren't that high. I lived in Springfield for over 20 years and visit frequently (via train), I would not be at all in favor of a 10th St. alignment.

[jpIllInoIs]

The rail issues in Springfield revolve around the current 3rd street alignment and the availability of a 10th st and 19th st alignment.

Some investment has been made with an overpass on 3rd and Jefferson? I'm not sure but I know at least one street has an overpass over the UP line on 3rd. But UP wants 9 more overpasses for the HrSR project. The town of Spgfld objects to this and you cant blame them. The overpasses are hulking masses right in the middle of town. And 3rd street row has had some retail/boutique/business development, some of it related to the large amount of pedestrian/passenger traffic created by the renovated station. An alternate row is available on 10th that is owned by NS. UP objects to this (dont know why). Some town leaders object because of the previous mentioned investment in renovating the Downtown Amtrak station. The 10th street row is much less developed, mostly one story warehouse/small manufacturing, and it is already 2 tracks wide. But is has a small but busy transfer yard for NS that needs to be accommodated. It is also a possible ROW/along with 19th street for the REAL HSR proposal http://www.midwesthsr.org/mhsra-bullet-train-proposal, which would enter Springfield from Decatur.

The 19th street row is pretty far east of the downtown. But is is wide open and already has fewer grade crossings than the other rows.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Some investment has been made with an overpass on 3rd and Jefferson? I'm not sure but I know at least one street has an overpass over the UP line on 3rd.

Are you thinking of the overpass over Sangamon on the north side by the State Fairgrounds? That overpass is nothing new, probably 40 or 50 years old now.

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

An alternate row is available on 10th that is owned by NS. UP objects to this (dont know why). Some town leaders object because of the previous mentioned investment in renovating the Downtown Amtrak station. The 10th street row is much less developed, mostly one story warehouse/small manufacturing, and it is already 2 tracks wide.

I'm not positive but I think this was the old Illinois Terminal interurban tracks. Can anyone confirm this?

[jpIllInoIs]

^ No I think there is one downtown, like a block or two from the Amtrak station. I might be wrong, been a long time since I went to Springfield. Anyway the crux of the argument against the third street ROW is that UP in calling for 9 overpasses to be built downtown. these are definitely business killers and quality of like inhibitors.

Here is a pdf link to the Regional planning newsletter about the proposals.
http://www.co.sangamon.il.us/departm...20Sept%208.pdf

[Busy Bee]

Here's an old double track overpass at Dodge St. Maybe this is what you were remembering. http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...C%20IL%2062702

Take a look at the neighborhood around the ROW. I really don't see property acquisition as being an issue. If you know what I mean.

[Busy Bee]

Your right, it's at 3rd and Capitol right in the postcard view of the Ill State Capitol building: http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...36557576117326

Google Streetview: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=...,268.3,,0,-2.7

Seeing these aerials makes me believe even more that a sunken trench is the best way to go. I can't believe the overwhelmingly intrusive overpass proposal would be more financially feasible with all the required street and utility issues than just digging a trench from about 10 blocks north of downtown to roughly the same south of downtown.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I can't believe the overwhelmingly intrusive overpass proposal would be more financially feasible with all the required street and utility issues than just digging a trench from about 10 blocks north of downtown to roughly the same south of downtown.

It depends. If an agreement can be reached with NS and UP to shift all trains onto the 10th Street ROW temporarily while the trench is constructed at 3rd Street, then construction of that trench should be quick and relatively inexpensive (maybe 2 years, $150 million?). If traffic has to be accommodated while the trench is being dug, that adds many months of careful staging, incredible complication, and equally incredible cost.

Originally Posted by DCCliff

Too bad they can't move the nicely restored old IC depot.

Why not? You could break it into sections and move those.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It depends. If an agreement can be reached with NS and UP to shift all trains onto the 10th Street ROW temporarily while the trench is constructed at 3rd Street, then construction of that trench should be quick and relatively inexpensive (maybe 2 years, $150 million?). If traffic has to be accommodated while the trench is being dug, that adds many months of careful staging and complication.

a similar one in reno was awarded at $170 million 3+ years ago, so about right.

[Busy Bee]

Yes yes yes! This is exactly what they need. Here's a pic of the Reno trench:


NevadaMax



Random, Nevada


Also this site has pictures of Amtrak trains at the station IN the trench. Not much architecturally speaking, but functionally the isolated fully grade separated ROW must be like night and day for downtown Reno and train travel, much like it could in Springfield.

And a couple more links for good measure: Here, here, here and here.

[jpIllInoIs]

^That trench is absolutely AWESOME. Great pix. I cant see Springfield ever approving this concept.

[ardecila]

Yeah, I remember seeing the Reno one awhile back. To my eye, it looks incredibly harsh and brutal. Definitely not the example you want to use to pitch the idea. In Springfield, the trench would be mid-block, essentially, so it would be screened by buildings, many of them landmarks.

Bear in mind that Reno most likely has dense rock under its downtown that is self-supporting - that is, the construction teams can just dig a trench with vertical walls without any reinforcement. The concrete walls are just added for safety and aesthetics. That makes construction fast and easy. You simply dig down all the way, then set up formwork to pour the wall, with a few tiebacks to hold it in place.

In Illinois, we have clay soil that would need complex reinforcement. Usually in Illinois soil, it's just cheaper to make an open cut with sloped sides - like the UP-North line in Winnetka, or the Yellow Line - but in constrained downtown Springfield, that's probably not an option, so you'd need to build 2 walls below grade and then excavate down between them, drilling tiebacks periodically. All that adds time and complexity, and that's before we start talking about accommodating active traffic on the line.

[jpIllInoIs]

http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/moli...-terminal.html

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Moline, Ill., is one step closer to being a hub in the return of passenger rail service to the Quad-Cities, the Quad-City Times reports. In a unanimous vote July 20, the city council approved spending $993,000 to purchase property near existing railroad tracks for conversion to an Amtrak terminal. The property is at 1201 4th Ave., the site of the O'Rourke Building, and an adjacent vacant parcel at 323 13th St. The property is owned by High Rent LLC.

In January, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn promised $45 million to create the Chicago to Quad-Cities route. That money is to be used for track and equipment upgrades.

An application also is being made by the state for a $16-million Tiger II grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, said Paul Rumler, executive director of the Quad-Cities Passenger Rail Coalition.

The 2010 appropriations bill authorized $600 million for National Infrastructure Investments grant program, aka Tiger II, that is administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

"We're one step closer to having rail service in the Quad-Cities," Rumler said, adding that the goal is to have everything up and running by 2012.

He added that the purchase of the property is Moline's match to the Tiger II grant.

"The city either had to purchase the property or at least have an option on it to get the Tiger II grant," Rumler said.

The terminal will be built in modules, and will grow as traffic grows, he said.

The Tiger II grant will be announced in September, Rumler said, along with a high-speed rail grant to extend service to Iowa City. (Sounds Confident)

Earlier this year, plans were announced to build the Amtrak station at Centre Station, the mass transit facility on River Drive across the railroad track. But Moline Mayor Don Welvaert said the first floor of the O'Rourke Building is now the planned location. The station can be expanded to the adjacent vacant property.

Welvaert said he is confident the passenger rail service will be popular.

"There are hundreds of students at the University of Iowa from here and Chicago that will travel back and forth," he said.

"There are people in Chicago who will take the train to come to the i wireless Center, and people here who will take the train to Chicago," he added.

"It will be different from driving your car three hours and then parking your car for $60 a night," Welvaert said.

In January, Illinois was awarded $1.2 billion in federal money for high-speed rail service between Chicago and St. Louis

Here is a video link

[Busy Bee]

^Here's another news story link on the Moline station plans that was posted on the MHSRA website.


Edit: Oops jp already posted it.

[electricron]

From the locals point of view, a trench would be very popular. But a trench is very expensive. What would be so terribly wrong with an elevated rail corridor using viaducts? There's already one, if not more, viaducts already in Springfield.

Having elevated tracks through cities isn't a new idea. Just check out how the same trains running through Springfield reach downtown Chicago. I haven't heard anyone suggesting that all the viaducts rail corridors in Chicago should be replaced by trenches.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by electricron

From the locals point of view, a trench would be very popular. But a trench is very expensive. What would be so terribly wrong with an elevated rail corridor using viaducts? There's already one, if not more, viaducts already in Springfield.

Having elevated tracks through cities isn't a new idea. Just check out how the same trains running through Springfield reach downtown Chicago. I haven't heard anyone suggesting that all the viaducts rail corridors in Chicago should be replaced by trenches.

In terms if visual intrusiveness, elevated railway viaducts aren't terribly dissimilar than elevated highway viaducts. The flyovers you are referencing in Chicago are a far cry from an elevated concrete or earth levee wall passing right though the heart of a historic downtown, let alone the capital of Illinois. I wholeheartedly believe, due to the ROW's midblock running, trenching the corridor and encouraging developments to butt up against or even straddle the ROW would make for an amazing solution to the issue and a pride inducing piece of infrastructure for the 21st century. The future of travel is on rails by the way.