High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[JDRCRASH]

If only there was a way to move the La Salle platforms under ground and have the tracks run through via an "S" shaped tunnel to Ogilvie. Wouldn't that boost the capacity and efficiency of Metra as well?

[ardecila]

Local transit like Metra isn't the subject of this thread, but sure it would be great to get through-running, assuming it was carefully planned. Right now the suburban ridership is basically capped because most people access Metra via park and rides that are at capacity, and the suburbs aren't building housing near Metra. Reverse commuters face a similar problem because suburban jobs aren't concentrated near Metra either. So basically regional rail will require VASTLY improved suburban transit connections and a commitment from suburbs to densify near stations - not just a token townhouse development, but actual midrises.

I'm honestly more curious if through-running would be feasible or desirable for intercity trains in Chicago. You have to figure that doing this would require an expensive tunnel through the Loop, linking one or more terminals. The dwell times for those trains would be long because lots of people are boarding/alighting in Chicago and many of them have luggage. Due to the dwell time, the capacity of the tunnel would be fairly low.

I assume it's reasons like this that have caused London and Paris to continue terminating intercity trains. Paris does have a bypass through the suburbs that allows Eurostar service from London to continue on to Lyon/Marseille and the French Alps, but those trains don't have a Paris stop (although you can get off at CDG or Marne-la-Vallee and ride RER into the city center).

[k1052]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm honestly more curious if through-running would be feasible or desirable for intercity trains in Chicago. You have to figure that doing this would require an expensive tunnel through the Loop, linking one or more terminals. The dwell times for those trains would be long because lots of people are boarding/alighting in Chicago and many of them have luggage. Due to the dwell time, the capacity of the tunnel would be fairly low.

This is generally the concept for the WLTC but a single island platform station serving like all the HSR traffic for a midwest system on the bottom level of a deep station...I have concerns.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Interesting idea. LaSalle is 8 tracks but if Rock Island ever converts to a frequent electrified service they could probably go down to four tracks or even three, freeing up four tracks for HSR. LaSalle could add a few tracks too, possibly one track on the east side on private property and two tracks on the west side over Financial Place.

Plus it would dovetail nicely into the South-of-the-Lake route that's probably the best way for HSR to reach the urban fringe in Indiana.

Why would the first HSR from Chicago need to go east? Why not north, west, or south instead? Whatever the HSR train station is placed in Chicago, it is going to need to go ultimately in almost every direction.

Metra and NICTD EMU trains use 1500 VDC, so that is the voltage hanging over the tracks. I would suggest all, if not almost all, HSR trains in the world have several thousand AC volts catenaries hanging over their tracks. They are not very compatible with each other.

[nito]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Interesting idea. LaSalle is 8 tracks but if Rock Island ever converts to a frequent electrified service they could probably go down to four tracks or even three, freeing up four tracks for HSR. LaSalle could add a few tracks too, possibly one track on the east side on private property and two tracks on the west side over Financial Place. Plus it would dovetail nicely into the South-of-the-Lake route that's probably the best way for HSR to reach the urban fringe in Indiana.

The platform widths at LaSalle St don’t look anywhere near as narrow as some others in North America, but realistically you want wide platforms to enable pairs of escalators (and plenty of space on either side) to get people to/from the street-level concourse as quickly as possible. To that end I would probably sacrifice two or three to create suitably wide platforms, even if there was an extension on the western side of the station.

Retaining Metra services however creates unnecessary problems. It would create competition for terminating platform capacity. However, the bigger problem is that there are only three tracks on the approach into the station; adding a fourth would be incredibly costly and attempting to mix the services on three-tracks adds operational complexity. Far better to simply relocate the Metra service to Union and dedicate the tracks to a potential HSR service.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by electricron

That image is trying to reflect what Alon Levy suggests are doable HSR lines in the USA per
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2...gh-speed-rail/
Alon Levy in no way reflects which lines are really shovel ready that the image suggests. I certainly do not agree that a generic formula exists on per kilometer construction costs, nor do I agree with his ridership projections.

Take his projections for the NEC per his formula;
New York-Washington is 22.44 million passengers / year
New York-Boston is 18.77 million passengers / year
New York-Philadelphia is 16.87 mi passengers / year
Washington-Philadelphia is 8.98 million passengers / year
Boston-Philadelphia is 7.51 million passengers / year
Boston-Washington is 4.82 million passengers / year
Overall, this is 79.4 million passengers / year, excluding shorter-distance commuter trains.

FYI, in 2019 prior to the pandemic, the NEC Amtrak ridership was 12.5 million passengers / year; about 66.9 million less passengers than Alon Levy projects. To be fair, Alon Levy is projecting ridership on a revamped NEC that gets trains between Boston and D.C. in 3 to 3.5 hours vs the 6.5 hours today.

But even if Amtrak found the cash to revamp the railroad's infrastructure, where in all the stations along the NEC could Amtrak service all these extra passengers effectively?

Read his entire blog, because he has all the answers

Alon is absolutely correct about these ridership projections. Slashing travel times in half will induce demand and expand rail market share. Most importantly, though, Alon assumes reasonable fares. So many people take busses or drive along this corridor. Imagine how many would switch over to rail if DC-NY was $25 instead of $80. Either way, there is no good reason to expect the Northeast Corridor to have fewer potential trips than comparable city pairs abroad which is--of course--where Alon gets his information.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by k1052

This is generally the concept for the WLTC but a single island platform station serving like all the HSR traffic for a midwest system on the bottom level of a deep station...I have concerns.

The WLTC is a vague concept, the first version from the early 2000s was a multimodal facility with only two mainline rail tracks at the very bottom under a pedestrian level, a busway level and a CTA rail level, seemingly inspired by the Market St Subway in SF. Nightmare for fire code/egress...

When they revisited the concept for the Union Station Master Plan, they proposed a 4 track station, either stacked on 2 levels under Clinton or on one level under Canal. The Canal option seemed like the stronger plan to me at the time...

Originally Posted by electricron

Why would the first HSR from Chicago need to go east? Why not north, west, or south instead? Whatever the HSR train station is placed in Chicago, it is going to need to go ultimately in almost every direction.

Metra and NICTD EMU trains use 1500 VDC, so that is the voltage hanging over the tracks. I would suggest all, if not almost all, HSR trains in the world have several thousand AC volts catenaries hanging over their tracks. They are not very compatible with each other.

Because a 'true' HSR line heading east is the first step on a NY-Chicago line and because there are major cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh that can serve as strong interim destinations. A line to Minneapolis or St Louis can't/shouldn't be extended further.

If Rock Island electrifies, I'm pretty sure it will be with AC because of the lower buildout costs. Metra Electric/South Shore will remain an oddball.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The WLTC is a vague concept, the first version from the early 2000s was a multimodal facility with only two mainline rail tracks at the very bottom under a pedestrian level, a busway level and a CTA rail level, seemingly inspired by the Market St Subway in SF. Nightmare for fire code/egress...

When they revisited the concept for the Union Station Master Plan, they proposed a 4 track station, either stacked on 2 levels under Clinton or on one level under Canal. The Canal option seemed like the stronger plan to me at the time...



Because a 'true' HSR line heading east is the first step on a NY-Chicago line and because there are major cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh that can serve as strong interim destinations. A line to Minneapolis or St Louis can't/shouldn't be extended further.

If Rock Island electrifies, I'm pretty sure it will be with AC because of the lower buildout costs. Metra Electric/South Shore will remain an oddball.

What about HSR to Milwaukie? How do you plan to get a true HSR line between Milwaukie and LaSalle? The headhouse at LaSalle is open to the elements. There are no facilities on the rail line that Amtrak can use for servicing inter city 110 mph and faster trains. LaSalle is not owned by Amtrak. It might as well not exist as far as Amtrak is concerned. Meanwhile, Amtrak owns Union Station facilities.

The existing plan to move more Metra trains from Union Station to LaSalle is much better for both Metra and Amtrak customers.

As for building the first true HSR line towards the east, why? Where will the trains go? Let's look at the feasibility of the various choices- keeping the 3 hour sweet spot where trains gain more market share than planes in mind.
Chicago to Detroit along I-94 is 282 miles. To go 282 miles in 3 hours the train would have to average 94 mph.
Chicago to Cleveland along I-90 is 346 miles. To go 346 miles in 3 hours the train would have to average 115 mph.
Chicago to Columbus along I-65 and I-70 is 357 miles. To go 357 miles in 3 hours the train would have to average 119 mph.
Chicago to Pittsburgh along I-90 and I-80 is 461 miles. To go 461 miles in 3 hours the train would have to average 153 mph.
Chicago to Cincinnati along I-65 and I-74 is 296 miles. To go 296 miles in 3 hours the train would have to average 98 mph.
Chicago to Louisville along I-65 is 297 miles. To go 297 miles in 3 hours the train would have to average 99 mph.
Chicago to Nashville along I-65 is 471 miles. To go miles in 3 hours the train would have to average 157 mph.

The Eurostar between London and Paris averages 106 mph.
Per Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostar
"Eurostar was achieving an average end-to-end speed of 171.5 km/h (106.6 mph) from London to Paris."

Why I keep using the 3 hour average speed sweetspot for HSR trains for winning market share over planes. Because the data reflects it world wide. Remember, HSR trains are charging fares almost as high as planes for these distances. Passengers riding HSR trains and paying the higher fares relative to slower trains expect competitive elapse times with planes. If the trains can not do it in 3 hours, they would rather spend their money on planes that can. Of course there will always be those who will ride the trains anyways, but those passengers would be just as happy paying a lower fare for a slower train as well. Ask them to pay higher HSR fares, they too will expect faster elapse times.

Just look at Acela data for proof that this sweetspot exists in the good ole USA.
Per https://narprail.org/site/assets/files/3480/1.pdf
"Trips by length, 2019
0- 99 mi 14.6%
100- 199 mi 26.9%
200- 299 mi 56.6%
300- 399 mi 1.2%
400+ mi 0.6%"
Take note, less than 2% rode the Acela train further than 300 miles.
FYI, NY to DC is 225 miles.
NY to Boston is 231 miles.
Boston to DC is 456 miles.
Also per Wiki
"The Acela achieves an average speed (including stops) of 82.2 mph between Washington and New York, and an average speed of 66 mph from New York to Boston. The average speed over the entire route is a slightly faster 70.3 mph."
There are improvements being made to the catenaries in NJ, and new Acela 2 trains entering service soon that should increase the average speeds between NY and DC. By how much?

The new HSR corridors heading east branch out along at least 3 future corridors (I-94, I-90, and I-65. If not within their ROW, parallel to them. But to keep the elapse times to 3 hours, the reach east of Chicago to just Detroit, Louisville, and Cincinnati.

The Boston to DC route is a single 456 mile long corridor. If we just built the most feasible HSR lines east of Chicago to Detroit, Louisville, and Cincinnati, we would have to build a total of 875 miles of new HSR tracks. If the trains to Cincinnati and Louisville shared the 183 miles between Chicago and Indianapolis, we could subtract those 183 miles for a new total of 692 miles of new HSR tracks.

FYI, CHSR Phase 1 totals 520 miles, Phase 1 and 2 totals 800 miles of new HSR tracks, and they are presently building just 171 miles of track

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by electricron

The Eurostar between London and Paris averages 106 mph.
Per Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostar
"Eurostar was achieving an average end-to-end speed of 171.5 km/h (106.6 mph) from London to Paris."

This speed figure was before HS1 opened in England, so Eurostar trains were using the Southeastern main line (i.e. legacy tracks) between Folkestone and London.

Granted, the Southeastern line was better-engineered than any freight line in the US is today but still was state-of-the-art for the 1930s, not the 2020s. The US has a weaker legacy rail system than any European country (in terms of engineering standards, not the density of lines on a map) so we are really more like developing countries (Turkey, Morocco, Thailand, etc) who should plan on having high speed lines independent of the legacy system except at major city terminals.

Also, a 3-hour travel time isn't magical. That should be the end-stage planning goal but it's okay to offer slower service in the interim while the network is being built out.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

Chicago to Cincinnati along I-65 and I-74 is 296 miles. To go 296 miles in 3 hours the train would have to average 98 mph.

There would be significant financial incentive for true HSR between Indianapolis and Richmond, IN - then a slower southward branch to Cincinnati, with the main line continuing eastward to Dayton and Columbus.

The problem with HSR between Cincinnati and Indianapolis is that the area between Cincinnati and the Indiana state line is much hillier than outsiders would expect and an entrance to Cincinnati via I-74, while more direct, wouldn't be able to piggy-back on the track improvements necessary to enable high-quality passenger rail service northward from Cincinnati to Columbus, Cleveland, and Detroit.

There was also a mile-long tunnel planned in the early 1980s to enable HSR trains to travel beneath the freight railroad yard directly north of Cincinnati Union Terminal. The means to reach this portal from HSR paralleling I-74 would be very complicated, meaning a second tunnel might be required.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/rich...7!2d39.4958528

[nito]

Originally Posted by electricron

The Eurostar between London and Paris averages 106 mph. Per Wiki url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostar[/url]
"Eurostar was achieving an average end-to-end speed of 171.5 km/h (106.6 mph) from London to Paris."

As highlighted by ardecila, you are quoting completely out of date figures from 1995. Prior to the completion of HS1, Eurostar ran on shared non-HSR tracks into London Waterloo. The final phase of HS1 was completed in 2007, enabling average journey speeds for Eurostar between London and Paris of 137mph/216kph.

HSR technology has improved markedly, which is why I noted that the average journey speed of HS2 (between London and Manchester) of 200mph/322kph as a more realistic base figure for comparisons. In which case, journey times between Chicago, to say Detroit is 1hr 24mins, or Nashville would be 2hrs 18mins. Whether there is demand for HSR between these destinations is of course another matter.

[Busy Bee]

I believe wholeheartedly HSR in the US will be a build-it-and-they-will-come situation.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by nito

As highlighted by ardecila, you are quoting completely out of date figures from 1995. Prior to the completion of HS1, Eurostar ran on shared non-HSR tracks into London Waterloo. The final phase of HS1 was completed in 2007, enabling average journey speeds for Eurostar between London and Paris of 137mph/216kph.

The out of date data for the Eurostar reflects more of what would be built in the USA using exiting rail corridors to reach existing train stations in Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, St. Louis, And Charlotte, Atlanta, New York City, Philadelphia, DC, New Haven, Boston, LA, SF, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, etc.

Brightline in Florida and Nevada and Texas Central in Texas are the only proposals building all brand new dedicated HSR train stations in new locales. New train stations for the proposed SEHSR are or will be building shared train stations along an existing rail corridor within the terminating cities. At best, the fastest these proposed HSR trains will go on existing corridors reaching existing train stations is 110 mph. The SEHSR example will be sharing at a minimum close to 40 miles of existing rail corridors approaching Atlanta and Charlotte, about as much as the much maligned out of date data for Eurostar.

When the HSR proposals for the USA include brand new dedicated HSR train stations in new rail corridors in the cities, only then would the new Eurostar data set reflect reality. Like they will for Texas Central and Brightline, which are building brand new dedicated train stations.

[TonyTone]

I don't know if this was posted yet, but this is big



https://www.businessinsider.com/map-...re-plan-2021-4

[Busy Bee]

It is big, but lets be honest, it should be bigger.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

It is big, but lets be honest, it should be bigger.

Many of the service expansions Amtrak posted on that map are for slow speed 79 mph max speed trains, not what I would call 110 mph higher speed or 200 mph high speed rail. But I will admit there were some HSR proposals on the map.
What was left untold is whether the respected states will have to ante up a share of the money to implement the new services, and whether the respected states will also have to subsidize them.
What is on a map that might be done and what actually gets done can be two different things. Do I have to remind what Ohio and Florida did to the last economic recovery infrastructure program after the housing mortgaging bust?

It's a 2 trillion economic recovery "infrastructure" program. Per CNN
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=uxbndlbing
Biden would spend $621 billion on roads, bridges, public transit, rail, ports, waterways, airports and electric vehicles in service of improving air quality, reducing congestion and limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
$115 billion to modernize 20,000 miles of highways, roads and main streets
$20 billion to improve road safety for all users
$85 billion to modernize existing transit and help agencies expand their systems to meet demand
$80 billion would go to address Amtrak's repair backlog and modernize the Northeast Corridor line as well as to connect more cities
$25 billion to airports
$17 billion to inland waterways, ports and ferries
$174 billion investment in the electric vehicle market

If you totaled up the CNN breakdown of funding, there is still $105 billion unaccounted for in the transportation sector. Obviously CNN did not wish to report where that funding is targeted for, why?

As for the rest of the $2 trillion, here's where CNN reports it is going.
Manufacturing: $300 billion
Housing: $213 billion
Research and development: $180 billion
Water: $111 billion
Schools: $100 billion
Digital infrastructure: $100 billion
Workforce development: $100 billion
Veterans' hospitals and federal buildings: $18 billion

If you totaled up the major breakouts listed above, including the $621 billion for Transportation, the total would be $1,743 billion.
If the total 2,000 billion, there is another $257 billion CNN did not wish to report upon. Add the earlier $105 billion discovered earlier, that subtotal is now $362 billion. That is a significant share of funding going to who knows where, about 18.1% of $2 trillion.

Is it too much to ask for better accounting from CNN?

We all know Congress will put Biden's proposed funding proposals into file 13 as soon as it arrives from the White House and will start amending the funding program at their own tune. Will CNN ever give us a final accounting where this money is supposed to go?

[Busy Bee]

Why are you implying CNN is hiding something or doing something nefarious in their reporting? And its not CNN's job to post the bill in its entirety, it's the Senate's. You sound like a paranoid wingnut in the comment section of a news story. Maybe the explanation is that they dont know the complete breakdown or that the balance of funds is represented by dozens of line item recipients and it was not practical or relevant to the article to list everything in such a preliminary piece of reporting? I think those are much more reasonable explanations than they are conspiring to hide something or whatever the bizarre accusation you just layed out was. Did Trump do this to you?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Why are you implying CNN is hiding something or doing something nefarious in their reporting? And its not CNN's job to post the bill in its entirety, it's the Senate's. You sound like a paranoid wingnut in the comment section of a news story. Maybe the explanation is that they don't know the complete breakdown or that the balance of funds is represented by dozens of line item recipients and it was not practical or relevant to the article to list everything in such a preliminary piece of reporting? I think those are much more reasonable explanations than they are conspiring to hide something or whatever the bizarre accusation you just layed out was. Did Trump do this to you?

If there was 18% of a Trump spending program unreported to where it was going to be spent, there were suggestions of corruption arising from the peanut galley. All I ask is for better accounting from the news media and you are suggesting I am a political hack. Why? News media politicalize articles in two ways, by adding false innuendoes and by deleting truthful details. Which one do you suggest is being used here by them?

Can we not agree it is lazy reporting to leave 18% of the total unreported at the least?
Worse is the idea that Biden's administration has added 18% to the spending program without knowing where it is going!

[Busy Bee]

Couple things:

Details of the proposal (not a bill) are incomplete because its less than 48 hours old. News outlets are reporting on the outline of the most significant spending tranches as has been released by the administration. The Biden proposal will be sent to Congress where it will hopefully be significantly added to in regards to the allocation for transport infrastructure, but in the very least be rearranged and negotiated amongst democrats (since republicans likely wont even participate in a bill they have no intention on voting for and nor should democrats bend to their will if that inention is clear and obvious) so its a bit premature to be picking apart this proposal or throwing around accusations of incomplete or irresponsible reporting when its not yet a bill nor do we have evidence the complete funding breakdown has even been released to the media.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Couple things:

Details of the proposal (not a bill) are incomplete because its less than 48 hours old. News outlets are reporting on the outline of the most significant spending tranches as has been released by the administration. The Biden proposal will be sent to Congress where it will hopefully be significantly added to in regards to the allocation for transport infrastructure, but in the very least be rearranged and negotiated amongst democrats (since republicans likely wont even participate in a bill they have no intention on voting for and nor should democrats bend to their will if that inention is clear and obvious) so its a bit premature to be picking apart this proposal or throwing around accusations of incomplete or irresponsible reporting when its not yet a bill nor do we have evidence the complete funding breakdown has even been released to the media.

Would it had been too difficult for CNN to do the accounting for us and report that this $362 billion is to be determined later? After all, the headline reads, "Here's what's in Biden's infrastructure proposal"

If they can take the time to report that $18 billion was going the Veterans hospitals and government buildings, surely they could report where $362 billion was going to as well.