Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

[Robert Pence]

Tom, here's a good starting point:

http://recovery.illinois.gov/documen...ev2-082109.pdf

[bnk]

Thanks for the link Robert. FYI from your link

* IDOT’s full application titled P1 Englewood Flyover is not available at this time. It will be posted to this page as soon as possible.

Englewood Flyover ( Project P1 ) is an important project within CREATE. Even without HSR this will be a needed project.

http://www.createprogram.org/PDF/CRE...2009_12_16.pdf

http://www.createprogram.org/PDF/PDF...10%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.createprogram.org/PDF/PDF...2009_11_10.pdf

[ardecila]

Some specific information about the Englewood Flyover... It's from 2007, so plans have changed a bit - the flyover will now be 3 tracks instead of two.

PowerPoint Presentation
Plan
Profile

[the urban politician]

I pulled this quote from SSC and just wanted to know if you guys are in agreement with this:

Originally Posted by Markitect

Chicago-Milwaukee service is also going to be boosted to 110mph by 2016, possibly before, once the freight railroads install their mandated positive train control systems.

^ If this is indeed true, then am I to assume that the only useful, game-changing "high speed rail" route in the midwest's near future will definitely be in service by 2016?

[GoTrans]

I don't want to be considered an interfering outsider but a lot of the sour grapes being expressed on this thread seems to ignore the years and years of underfunding by local and federal governments of rail improvements that is common practice in both the US and Canada. If the FRA and the White House is true to its word that there will be future funding then one cannot expect years and years of neglect to reversed in one announcement. One has to build public support which will in turn build political support for additional funds. This is going to be a long slow process and patience is required by all but proponents should not lose sight of their goals.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

If this is indeed true, then am I to assume that the only useful, game-changing "high speed rail" route in the midwest's near future will definitely be in service by 2016?

What do you mean? It says 110mph, just like all the other lines. Chicago-StL will also be running at 110mph by then, and Madison-Milw.

The problem with Chicago-Milwaukee is that 3/4 of the line is urbanized. That means that, unlike in rural areas, upgrading to 110mph operation will be extremely expensive and require hundreds of miles of barriers and many new grade separations.

In the long run, Wisconsin and Illinois want to shift CP's freight trains, which currently share tracks with Amtrak and Metra, onto a parallel Union Pacific line that is only used for freight (UP's "New Line"). This transition happens where the lines are close to each other, at Truesdell, WI (between Pleasant Prairie and Kenosha).

CP trains would then run south on the New Line roughly paralleling US-41 until Northbrook, where they cut southwest through Des Plaines and around the backside of O'Hare to Bensenville. The UP line would probably need to be double-tracked between Truesdell and Lake Forest.

This gives Amtrak the exclusive operation of the CP line between Truesdell and Rondout, where Metra service turns west toward Libertyville. South of Rondout and into the city, they would probably need to triple-track the line and build it on a viaduct (it's already on a viaduct in the city, but an additional track would be needed).

The CP line is actually really well-suited for high-speed operation already. Not counting a small handful of grade crossings in the West Loop, it only has 55 grade crossings - less than one per mile. Separating them would be a massive undertaking, no doubt.. since all the non-essential crossings have already been closed, they would all need overpasses or underpasses. But even in the most rural areas of Illinois, the crossings are more frequent than that. The CP line is also remarkably straight and smooth, with wide curves that make the Northeast Corridor look like a piece of spaghetti. In the long run, I can definitely see this line being upgraded to Acela-like standards.

[the urban politician]

^ What I meant is that, according to Markitect's post, Chi-Milw will have 110 mph service by 2016 because, essentially, it's a federal mandate to have PTC in place by 2016.

I'm just wondering if his assumption is correct?

Secondly, the Chi-Milw 110 mph corridor will probably achieve the kind of game-changing benefit we'd all like to see HSR achieve, and will probably be the only corridor in the midwest to actually achieve it. I'm just not sure cutting the St Louis-Chicago route from 5:30 to 4 hrs will be enough to get more people to switch to the rails. Same goes for other potential 110 mph routes connecting Madison/Milw, Chi-Detroit, etc etc.

[SuburbanNation]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ What I meant is that, according to Markitect's post, Chi-Milw will have 110 mph service by 2016 because, essentially, it's a federal mandate to have PTC in place by 2016.

I'm just wondering if his assumption is correct?

Secondly, the Chi-Milw 110 mph corridor will probably achieve the kind of game-changing benefit we'd all like to see HSR achieve, and will probably be the only corridor in the midwest to actually achieve it. I'm just not sure cutting the St Louis-Chicago route from 5:30 to 4 hrs will be enough to get more people to switch to the rails. Same goes for other potential 110 mph routes connecting Madison/Milw, Chi-Detroit, etc etc.

I don't know what the trains are like during the week, but the lincoln service and/or texas eagle Friday night trains to Chicago are always elbows to a**hole full, even in the dead of winter. This stands in marked contrast to any other midwestern line ive ridden (never taken Chi-Milw). I think that the off peak service stands to grow quite a bit if the travel time is 4 hours, especially now that our intermodal is done.

On the downside, Im guessing my days of advance purchase $20.70 one way to chicago tickets are numbered, and my coveted $100 chicago weekends. In that respect, I'm almost content with the current service minus the hit or miss beltway delay, as I always descend on Chicago well before the bars close on Fridays.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

But even in the most rural areas of Illinois, the crossings are more frequent than that...

Yes, but many of those crossings are literally gravel or secondary county blacktops, where an economical mass produced tube-like underpass could be used.

[ardecila]

^ or you could just close them off...

[Markitect]

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician

^ What I meant is that, according to Markitect's post, Chi-Milw will have 110 mph service by 2016 because, essentially, it's a federal mandate to have PTC in place by 2016.

I'm just wondering if his assumption is correct?

Well, to be more accurate, when I said Chicago-Milwaukee will be ready for 110mph service by 2016, I was only thinking about the positive train control systems that are required in order for the trains to be operated that fast. The deadline, as of right now, for PTC to be installed is 2016..but there are other upgrades that have to be made to the rail line (in addition to PTC) before trains will be brought up to that speed...which I had forgotten about. So 110mph service between Chicago-Milwaukee actually could be later than 2016, depending on when that other work is done.

About a year ago those necessary upgrades were estimated at $419 million (don't know if that includes PTC or not, and we can subtract the $12 million Wisconsin got in the stimulus for some of the upgrades), and that's just for the Wisconsin side of the border. So the remainder of those projects still needs a funding source...again, perhaps in the upcoming transportation legislation.

Originally Posted by ardecila

The problem with Chicago-Milwaukee is that 3/4 of the line is urbanized. That means that, unlike in rural areas, upgrading to 110mph operation will be extremely expensive and require hundreds of miles of barriers and many new grade separations.
...
The CP line is actually really well-suited for high-speed operation already. Not counting a small handful of grade crossings in the West Loop, it only has 55 grade crossings - less than one per mile. Separating them would be a massive undertaking, no doubt.. since all the non-essential crossings have already been closed, they would all need overpasses or underpasses.

Grade crossings don't need to be separated for 110mph service, they just need to be upgraded (quad-gates, raised medians, signal circuits adjusted to respond to faster trains, etc.), so that would not be a big problem. Going faster, though, would require the more expensive and massive undertaking of being required to build grade separations along the whole line...which, yes, would be ideal in the long run, just not needed right now.

In the long run, Wisconsin and Illinois want to shift CP's freight trains, which currently share tracks with Amtrak and Metra, onto a parallel Union Pacific line that is only used for freight (UP's "New Line"). This transition happens where the lines are close to each other, at Truesdell, WI (between Pleasant Prairie and Kenosha).

It would be possible to have the transition even farther north, up in Milwaukee, where the CP/Amtrak line and the UP line actually converge. That would essentially create two separate routings between Milwaukee and Chicago for pretty much the entire distance, one dedicated for passenger trains and one dedicated for freight.

[ardecila]

^^ That would be great, but I've only heard about a connection in Truesdell (which, confusingly, is not the "Truesdell Crossovers" for which WisDOT requested stimulus funding).

There are quite a bit of industrial sidings and so forth on the CP line in the Oak Creek area. I'm not sure CP would want to shift their trains away from those... although I suppose they could run small infrequent trains to service those customers, and move their larger trains onto the UP line.

And yes, while low-cost upgrades like quad gates and circuit adjustments are permissible for 110mph grade crossings, I always got the sense that this applied more to rural crossings with low traffic volumes. In urban and suburban areas, heavy traffic volumes and pedestrian traffic pose a safety issue even when these upgrades are in place. Shifting CP's freight trains onto the UP line would also cause some additional road congestion, since the UP line does not have the same level of grade separation that the CP line does.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by Markitect

Grade crossings don't need to be separated for 110mph service, they just need to be upgraded (quad-gates, raised medians, signal circuits adjusted to respond to faster trains, etc.), so that would not be a big problem. Going faster, though, would require the more expensive and massive undertaking of being required to build grade separations along the whole line...which, yes, would be ideal in the long run, just not needed right now.

Not needed right now true, but necessary for the future. So to spend millions upgrading the grade crossings seems like a waste of money when they will inevitably need to be transformed into overpasses/underpasses.

Of course we all know that's how the government works. They will spend hundreds of millions upgrading the grade crossings and then tear them out and have to spend hundreds more in 10-20 years to create overpasses instead of just doing it right the first time. Costing tax payers more in the long run.

[Robert Pence]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle©

Not needed right now true, but necessary for the future. So to spend millions upgrading the grade crossings seems like a waste of money when they will inevitably need to be transformed into overpasses/underpasses.

Of course we all know that's how the government works. They will spend hundreds of millions upgrading the grade crossings and then tear them out and have to spend hundreds more in 10-20 years to create overpasses instead of just doing it right the first time. Costing tax payers more in the long run.

Taxpayers seldom think about the long run; they'll rant and grumble, no matter which approach is taken. Build the grade-separated, secure ROW for true high-speed now, and they'll have shouting demonstrations and tea parties to protest the gol-durn gummint throwing away their money on extravagant infrastructure that exceeds current needs.

Build a system that's just adequate now, and they'll rant and rave about the expense. Then spend a pile of money upgrading it in 20 years, and they'll throw a hissy-fit about "Why-in-hell-wasn't-it-done-right-in-the-first-place?"

It's been demonstrated that the best way to get to true HSR is incrementally; California started with conventional rail and grew demand and support by increasing frequencies and improving quality of service. When the opportunity arose for major upgrades in speed, the patrons were ready, in fact eager, for it.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by Robert Pence

Taxpayers seldom think about the long run; they'll rant and grumble, no matter which approach is taken. Build the grade-separated, secure ROW for true high-speed now, and they'll have shouting demonstrations and tea parties to protest the gol-durn gummint throwing away their money on extravagant infrastructure that exceeds current needs.

Build a system that's just adequate now, and they'll rant and rave about the expense. Then spend a pile of money upgrading it in 20 years, and they'll throw a hissy-fit about "Why-in-hell-wasn't-it-done-right-in-the-first-place?"

Agreed that there's no good way to make everybody... or even most people... happy with anything the government does. I personally tend to fall on the side of let's just do it right the first time, especially when grade separation provides such obvious benefits both now and in the future.

It's been demonstrated that the best way to get to true HSR is incrementally; California started with conventional rail and grew demand and support by increasing frequencies and improving quality of service. When the opportunity arose for major upgrades in speed, the patrons were ready, in fact eager, for it.

Really? What conventional rail currently exists between LA and San Francisco?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Additional question:

Would anyone like to conjure what an estimated cost of electrification between Chicago and St. Louis would be? Just electrification—not the current 1.2 B in track work. Any ballparks?

They should get ComEd to do it in exchange for a long-term contract :-)

[the urban politician]

Illinois is spending $105 million of its own money to create new passenger rail service between Chicago and Rockford, Quad Cities. This was posted at SSC, and is very good news

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Illinois did not get everything it wanted in the HSR/Intercity Rail Stimulus bill, specifically the applications for funding 2 new 79mph service to the Quad Cities and Rockford/Dubuque were shunned.

Both applications were endorsed by the state of Iowa DOT. And Iowa had another application that requested funds to extend the QC line to Iowa City and also fund a EIS to extend that line to Des Moines.

So Illinois will initially self fund the 2 lines: $45 million for the QC and $60 million for the Rockford line. I believe these are startup funds and the lines will not require that amount annually.

The state of Illinois already self funds the Illini/Saluki trains to Champaign & Carbondale;the Lincoln Services to Bloomington/Springfield/St.Louis; and the Carl Sandburg to Galesburg/Macomb/Quincy.

The state of Wisconsin provides 75% of the funding for The Hiawatha; and Michigan funds 100% of the Pere Marquette and Wolverine service.

http://www.qctimes.com/news/local/ar...cc4c03286.html

http://www.illinois.gov/PressRelease...=1&RecNum=8217

Here is the map of Iowas long term, intercity rail goals.


Blackhawk Line:


Quad Cities Line:

[ardecila]

^^ The problem is not the operating expense, but the capital expense. Illinois will probably have to foot the bill for the operating expenses regardless, since I don't see Amtrak's yearly budget going up dramatically.

The capital expense involves upgrading the tracks/signal systems on the lines in question, as well as building layover facilities and purchasing new locomotives and cars (Amtrak has a huge shortage of equipment, IIRC).

IDOT is also assuming that local communities will foot the bill for new stations or station rehabs. How likely is that, when many towns are having financial problems?

[jpIllInoIs]

^ There are Federal matching funds available to local communities for station and platform construction. Neither of these lines really has that many stations:

QC line will use the existing Burlington Northern route all the way out to Princeton. All of those stations are in place and being used by the Southwest Chief and California Zephyr and Carl Sandburg. A new basic station will be needed in Geneseo and the existing station in Moline will be recommissioned. The $40 mil figure reflects that this is really not a large of an investment. And Iowa did receive a $1mil planning grant to prepare for the extension of this line to Iowa City and then Des Moines.

The Rockford line will need more station renovations, but remember that this project is REestblishing the Blackhawk service line that ran until 1981 when funding was cut under the Reagan budget. The $65 mil initial investment indicates that there is more track work, signalization and other upgrades needed. Since this line will actually cross the Miss river and terminates in Dubuque, I would expect Iowa will also have some startup cost for a station and layover facility and then pitch in for the operating funds.
Stations on the Blackhawk will include: a new platform in South Elgin near Rte 59, a basic shelter in Genoa (13 mi from Dekalb-NIU), a new station in suburban Rockford (Cherry Valley), a renovated station in Downtown Rockford and stations in Freeport, Galena and Dubuque.

The year to year supplemental funding for Amtrak service is really not that much money. As of 2007 Illinois allots $24 million for all of its Illinois service Amtrak subsidies. If ridership figures pan out, these new services will add a little to that. The Rockford line will require about $1.2 mil annual subsidy and the Quad Cities line will require about $6 mil annual subsidy. I dont know why QC is so much more, but they will run 2 inbound and 2 outbound trains daily with cafe car service.

[ChiPsy]

Help me out -- so the Rockford line will actually go all the way to Galena/Dubuque? Or will it terminate in Rockford?