Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

[ardecila]

Hinz must be having a heart attack at the thought of a $67 billion Midwestern network. On the other hand, a $37 billion pricetag on the taxpayers brings the cost in line with the California system, but in exchange for far more mileage.

It makes sense that the Bush administration would look for public-private partnerships to build high-speed rail rather than complete government funding, although SNCF can't really be called a private corporation.

At any rate, that news is very exciting. Let's hope Democrats don't overlook the advantages that such a partnership could bring.

[JDRCRASH]

If California decided to go with a 110 Mph system, it might had been able to afford joining Nevada, Arizona, and Utah by making a "Los Angeles Hub", with seperate routes to San Francisco, Sacramento, Carson City, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City, Flagstaff, Phoenix, Tuscan, San Diego, and maybe Tijuana.

But focusing on 1 (maybe 2) 220 Mph route may be just as effective. Perhaps this is the same for Chicago Hub.

[bnk]

http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=258385


Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Train route to Chicago chosen

The cheapest route to prepare and operate would take riders from Dubuque to Chicago with a stop in Galena.


BY MARY NEVANS-PEDERSON TH STAFF WRITER



More than two years after an Amtrak study of alternative passenger train routes from Chicago to Dubuque compared four scenarios, one has finally been chosen -- opening the door for potential stimulus funding for the project.

Officials say the route is the cheapest to prepare and to operate, is the shortest in length and travel time and will run along the tracks of only one freight train company, Canadian National Railroad.

The Illinois Department of Transportation chose the same route the DOT and Amtrak selected as the most feasible in a 2007 study. The 182-mile route would leave Chicago daily and go through the Illinois cities of Elgin, Genoa, Rockford, Freeport and Galena on its way to an overnight in Dubuque. In addition, the Illinois Legislature passed its capital improvement budget, including money for passenger train projects. This allows the state to submit a request for some of $8 billion in stimulus funds before the federal government's Oct. 2 deadline.

"We feel very positive about all this," said the Rev. Ed Sheppley, a member of the local Amtrak route

• 182-mile length

• 5 hours, length of one-way trip

• $32 million in capital costs

• 74,500 annual riders (estimated)

• $1.5 million annual revenue (estimated)

• $4.4 million annual operating expenses (estimated)

• 5 a.m. train leaves Dubuque, arrives Chicago at 10:10 a.m.

• 6:15 p.m. train leaves Chicago to arrive in Dubuque at 11:25 p.m.

• 5 stops between Chicago and Dubuque: Elgin, Genoa, Rockford, Freeport and Galena

• $300,000 from the state of Iowa to plan for a train stop platform in Dubuque

Ride the Rail committee. "Illinois wanted to add the routes to Dubuque and to the Quad Cities and now they've put money in the budget for that."

If train service comes to Dubuque and Chicago gets the 2016 Summer Olympics, David Solberg predicts trains will be filled to capacity every day of the games.

"I'm sure it would spill over to Dubuque and people would also come on side tours," said Solberg, Ride the Rail committee chairman.

Local train supporters are continuing their campaign for Chicago-Dubuque rail service and constantly encounter "support and encouraging words," Solberg said. So far, the group has gathered nearly 30,000 signatures on support petitions.

One Ride the Rail committee member has a novel way of attracting attention to the group's booth at public events.

The Rev. Jack Paisley, a retired Catholic priest, covers his clerical garb with bib overalls, a red kerchief and an engineer's cap. His outfit draws folks to the Ride the Rail information booths.

"We need all forms of transportation, like in Europe where they move great numbers of people with a lot less energy," Paisley said. "It would also be an economic stimulus to the city."

If train service starts up in Dubuque, Paisley hopes to take the train into Chicago to catch live theater matinees, returning the same day.

"Other people will ride in to shop, right downtown and business people can get work done which they can't when they're driving. We have a lot of college students from Chicago who've told me they would take the train to and from home," Paisley said.

Supporters of a second proposed Amtrak route into Iowa from Chicago are working just as diligently. That route would take two trains daily from Chicago to the Quad Cities and on to Iowa City. The exact route in Illinois has not been decided. If a route is approved and funded, plans are for it to be extended on to Des Moines.

[bnk]

http://www.galesburg.com/breaking/x3...-facility-here


Investor eyes high-speed railcar facility here
GHS grad represents venture capitalists

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By ERIC TIMMONS
The Register-Mail
Posted Sep 30, 2009 @ 10:56 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALESBURG — A venture capital agent wants to find firms interested in developing a high-speed railcar production facility in Galesburg, which he thinks is a prime location for such a project.

Sheridan McNeair, a 1969 Galesburg High School graduate, said he represents a number of venture capitalists looking for projects in which to invest. McNeair, who is based in Atlanta, said he would like to invest in his hometown and create jobs here.

He said Galesburg was an ideal location to benefit from high-speed rail investment, due to its proximity to planned high-speed rail lines connecting Chicago to St. Louis. Galesburg could be used to produce rail cars or components for high-speed rail cars. “With the facilities there in Galesburg I’m certain we could do all of the above,” McNeair said.

He said he was looking for companies interested in creating a high-speed rail facility here into which he could invest his clients’ funds. “We are looking for a firm that has the capabilities of making the project happen,” McNeair said. “This is a doable deal and Galesburg is the ideal community for this project. It stirs up my passion, I’m excited about it.” He noted the Maytag and Butler sites as locations for a possible development.

Greg Mangieri, president of the Galesburg Regional Economic Development Association, confirmed that he spoke to McNeair on Tuesday. He said he asked McNeair to present a plan to GREDA.

Mangieri said there was some potential for Galesburg to capitalize on a surge of investment in high-speed rail. One company already based here, Westcode, produces components for passenger rail cars. Mangieri speculated that components for high-speed rail cars could be produced in Galesburg, or that an assembly plant could be located here. But he said it was unlikely entire high-speed rail cars would be manufactured in Galesburg.

“I think the potential for something like that is very good on a component basis or an assembly basis, but to manufacture rail cars, that’s probably a long-shot,” Mangieri said.

McNeair said he had contacts in China that were involved in high-speed rail projects in that country and also had contacts in the federal Department of Transportation. The federal government is pushing the development of high-speed rail lines across the nation and has put aside $13 billion of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package to fund high-speed rail.

McNaeir said he had consulted with an investor who was interested in backing a high-speed rail project in Galesburg. He is expected to speak to GREDA today about his plans.

Several European countries and Japan already have high-speed rail networks in place. Companies from those countries that already have developed successful high-speed rail technology and are looking to benefit from federal investment in high-speed rail in America, possibly by partnering with U.S. rail firms. The federal government has identified 11 potential high-speed rail corridors, including Chicago to St. Louis and Los Angeles to San Francisco.

[Busy Bee]

5 Hours, 182 Miles = 36.4 MPH Average Speed

Truly impressive.

[electricron]

5 Hours, 182 Miles = 36.4 MPH Average Speed

Golly, Lance Armstrong could pedal faster.

From http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

2009 Monaco-Paris Tour de France, 3,459.5 km, 21 stages, 40.31 km/hr
That the equivalent of 2,149.6 miles and 25 mph average. That includes going much slower while climbing mountains......

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

5 Hours, 182 Miles = 36.4 MPH Average Speed

Truly impressive.

^ Yeah, I mean that's got to be a type-o or some sort of mis-information

[VivaLFuego]

I'd be curious as to the stop-to-stop times. Coming from the south (Champaign-Carbondale line), a ton of time is lost maneuvering at low speed over the St. Charles Air Line and backing into Union Station, meaning the trip from Homewood IL to Union Station takes 1hr 16m (when an express Metra train makes it from Homewood to Downtown in 38 min, even with 5 intermediate stops).

Point being, I'm wondering if something similarly goofy is going on at some point in the route where a lot of time is lost basically not moving. Again going back to the adage, the key to going fast is to not go slow. A top speed of 90mph or 110mph does nothing if you waste 20 minutes going 6mph.

[jpIllInoIs]

^ Now if Bensenville gets its shit together they can host the OHARE stop on Amtraks new Chicago-Elgin-Rockford-Dubuque line. With a new western access roadway and a gateway to Ohare train stop, heck you could build a modern sub-city from those 2 assests.

[Busy Bee]

What the hell does Bensenville know about building a modern city? If if they did know they'd probably be against it.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

CREATE has put up a nice graphic that details which projects benefit Passenger rail. Check it out....


http://www.createprogram.org/PDF/Hig...2009_FINAL.pdf

.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I'd be curious as to the stop-to-stop times. Coming from the south (Champaign-Carbondale line), a ton of time is lost maneuvering at low speed over the St. Charles Air Line and backing into Union Station, meaning the trip from Homewood IL to Union Station takes 1hr 16m (when an express Metra train makes it from Homewood to Downtown in 38 min, even with 5 intermediate stops).

Point being, I'm wondering if something similarly goofy is going on at some point in the route where a lot of time is lost basically not moving. Again going back to the adage, the key to going fast is to not go slow. A top speed of 90mph or 110mph does nothing if you waste 20 minutes going 6mph.

According to IDOT's 2007 study, the Chi-Dubuque train will take 92 minutes to get from a new "West Elgin" station to Union Station along CN's western line, with no intermediate stops. A local Milwaukee West train, with 17-18 intermediate stops, goes from Big Timber to Union Station in 78 minutes on a roughly parallel line. Express trains go even faster.

Then again, IDOT's study was done before CN's purchase of the EJ&E. Since much of the slowdown on the Amtrak train would have come from CN freight operations within the EJ&E boundary, that travel time may now be dramatically lower with CN shifting their trains onto the EJ&E.

There are all these benefits to CN's purchase of the EJ&E... it's really remarkable. The stats in that article were taken directly from IDOT's study, so they probably don't reflect current plans.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by bnk

...
• 182-mile length

[B]• 5 hours, length of one-way trip

• $32 million in capital costs
...

At least the capital costs aren't outrageously hight, but still - 5 hours to get 182 miles? Current bus trips are 4 hours 20 minutes. I'm not sure we should be spending money activating rail routes that are slower than existing bus services - it just seems ... inefficient.

I'm all for better rail access to Rockford, but I think you have to plan it in such a way it's faster than bus service or it just is a fool's errand.

[Busy Bee]

I bet this train could make the trip faster :

[JDRCRASH]

Let me guess.....India...

[Busy Bee]

Close, Pakistan.

[Yankee]

The Midwest High Speed Rail Association's map that is posted on page 1 of this thread is the best and IMHO only way to create a desirable HSR in the Midwest. 110mph is okay, but it's not nearly good enough for the backbone of the system. Detroit, Indianapolis, Saint Louis, Minneapolis, etc. all need to be interconnected with 220mph trains with Chicago as the hub obviously. Otherwise train travel will just not be competitive and people will continue to drive or fly. The Midwest isn't the Northeast, it'll take a state of the art fast system to offer serious competition.

We're already 50 years behind, the only way we can do this right is if we built over the next 10 years or so a system that is better or at least on par with the best HSR systems out there. I'm very excited about HSR we'll soon begin building in California, and 220mph is really the only viable option for the CA system. Even the Japanese HSR trains don't go that fast, they reach maximum speeds of 300km/h which is about 185mph. Our main corridor trains have to be at least 220mph not just for bragging rights, but because we have a much larger area to cover. China is doing the same right now, in 5 years they'll have the first and only 220mph HSR system, before we've built ours in California and they need it because, like us, they have a huge area to cover. Chicago is one of the most important transportation hubs in the United States, if not the most important one, probably one of the most important ones in the world - we gotta have 220mph trains branching off from it in all directions. Or at least we ought to build tracks that support 220mph so we can eventually upgrade the trains. I see one day the Northeastern and Midwestern HSR systems converging, and so the line that links Chicago with Detroit and continues on through northern Ohio needs to be 220mph capable so that when NYC is linked with Chicago one day that can be a real high-speed line. NYC to Chicago is a major corridor as the two are the most important transit centers east of the Mississippi if not in the country.

I don't agree with the argument that - well, at least 110mph has a chance of getting built - not true. The whole point of HSR is that it offers real competition. Take California - 220mph trains will link SF with LA in 2hrs and 40 minutes. According to CA HSR's website a HSR ticket from SF to LA will cost $55 - not sure if that will end up being true, but let's say a round trip will cost $100. Currently, a round trip airline ticket from SF to LA costs exactly $105 on American Airlines and it takes an hour and 20 minutes to fly SFO to LAX. Cost is the same, the only real advantage HSR has, besides being friggin cool and most people don't care about that, is that it takes you downtown to downtown without having to get to the airport, go through security, etc. But then again, we're talking about 1 hour and 20 minutes vs 2 hours and 40 minutes - flying takes half the time and costs the same, if you live near the airport and enjoy flying... IDK, in my opinion at 220mph HSR is just BARELY competitive, so 220mph should be the minimum, I honestly expect to see by 2050 maglev trains or faster conventional trains going at 300mph or faster if trains are to become a main way of traveling in America - right now 1% of Americans travel by train. 110mph - forget about it. I would still use trains, because I love them, wanna support transit, HSR and the Earth, but we're a tiny minority, most people don't care.

And again, I say we're already 50 years late to the HSR party - we gotta build the best right now and upgrade from there or we'll never catch that train (pun intended). By the time our HSR systems start running it'll be 2020, by the time they really become a viable and well-integrated part of our infrastructure and daily lives it'll be 2030. By then god knows what kind of crazy trains or transit systems will exist - by the time we finish the system and/or have been using it for 10 years we'll have to upgrade it again. We gotta build the best, most competitive, coolest system NOW to win hearts and minds or HSR in America will become a Duke Nukem Forever if you catch my drift 110mph trains will be fine for new service on secondary low demand lines that would eventually be transformed to true HSR, but on the main lines we need 220mph minimum - we got huge areas to connect and a car-culture to confront, plus eventually all the regional HSR networks will converge into one and then high-speed will be an even bigger necessity.

I'm sorry I was bored and felt like typing a lot, I'm sure you're all well aware of all this. Just wanted to voice my enthusiasm and help maintain an excited attitude.

[ardecila]

Wow, can't believe this thread died. There hasn't been much in the media, but apparently, IDOT's actually been working behind the scenes. They launched a new website for IL's two HSR requests - lines from Chicago to St. Louis and Dubuque.

Wisconsin and Indiana are also working behind the scenes, if at all... neither state has any new information on their website except the text of their HSR funding requests, which were already posted earlier. I have a feeling that the Midwest will get money for the St. Louis double-track project and the South-of-the-Lake project. Nothing for Chicago-Detroit or Chicago-Cleveland, or Madison-Milwaukee, etc... at least, not until there's a new transportation bill with a long-term program for funding HSR.

[ardecila]

I'm a bit confused about the plans for NW Indiana, though. INDOT has submitted two redundant requests. One is for a project called the "Indiana Gateway", with a price tag of $71 million. The other is for Chicago-Cleveland, but this includes $727 million for a "South-of-the-Lake Reroute" project.

As far as I can tell, both projects do the same thing by relieving congestion for eastbound trains out of Chicago on a busy Norfolk Southern rail line along US-20 (Dunes Hwy). The Indiana Gateway upgrades the Norfolk Southern line, while the South-of-the-Lake Reroute shifts trains to a less-congested CSX line south of I-94, which would be purchased and rebuilt to higher standards. Trains would break from their original routing in Gary and rejoin that routing in Portage. But both projects accomplish the same goal. If South-of-the-Lake were built, then the inferior Gateway project would be unnecessary. Part of the whole rationale for South-of-the-Lake, as I understood it, is that the NS line runs near the lakeshore, through a fragile ecosystem in the Indiana Dunes, while the CSX line runs further inland and has no such environmental concerns.

Is the Indiana Gateway project just a consolation prize? Like, if the government can't commit to the full $2.8bn cost of Chicago-Cleveland, or even the $727 million of the South-of-the-Lake, then the inexpensive Indiana Gateway will still relieve congestion on this gridlocked corridor, with the downside being a higher environmental impact and a lower travel-time improvement for trains? If that's the case, then Indiana must really be desperate for congestion relief in this area.

[jpIllInoIs]

^^ Why is the Chicago-Quad Cities line not included on the new website? I think that project has a better chance of getting full funding. In fact some of the track work is already being done in Wyandot, IL and Galesburg, IL.