General Discussion

Let me say up front that I am NOT anti-railroad. But I do hate watch my tax dollars being misspent.

So now -- from listening to Dick Durbin -- it looks like a chunk of that $8 billion in the Porkulus Package set aside for high speed rail will be spent upgrading infrastructure on the Chicago to St. Louis Amtrak route so trains can run up to 110 mph. All those millions to cut one hour -- ONE HOUR -- off the 275-mile trip.

It might make sense if the route was set up so trains could run at 150-160 mph, but the entire trackage would have to be "sealed" (as in below ground level, with no grade crossings, etc.) so nothing could get onto the tracks and cause a wreck. That would make for an interesting ride, too -- maybe three hours on a train where all you see outside the windows is the sides of the cut.

Or is it being done to chop 40 minutes off the Springfield to Chicago trip taken so often by our hard-working politicians?

Either way, I see it as a waste of money. I didn't realize traffic was so heavy on that Chicago/St. Louis route. I'd rather see Amtrak routes opened to Rockford/Madison and the Quad Cities instead. How about a daily train from Peoria to Chicago?

There are many other rail projects in Illinois that would better serve with that money. Or give half the money to Amtrak so it can upgrade/purchase new equipment and do things right.

  

Nice rant.

You'd rather give the money to Amtrak?  So they can do things right?  Oh, boy.

There was a similar rant about the waste of taxpayers money in the Maryland legislature in 1828 concerning the building of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.  Those without vision are still banking on the Erie Canal. 

 Why would it have to be below grade level?  Most of the high-speed mileage in Europe and Japan isn't..  It uses a fence to keep critters off the track.  Admittedly in Germany they've built a lot of sound wall which is ugly and deletes the view.  On the other hand, what can you see from an airplane?  Most of time for me nothing -- either I'm in an aisle seat, or pull the shade down to sleep.

RWM

BaltACD:

There was a similar rant about the waste of taxpayers money in the Maryland legislature in 1828 concerning the building of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.  Those without vision are still banking on the Erie Canal. 

The comparison is not apt. The fury in 1828 was about building brand-new technology -- a railroad -- to compete with a canal. In my scenario, the railroad and service already exists. The high speed aspect is hardly visionary, and a jump from 79 mph to only 110 mph hardly seems worth the money or effort. 

oltmannd:

You'd rather give the money to Amtrak?  So they can do things right?  Oh, boy.

Actually, I'd much rather see the $8 million stay in taxpayer pockets. Along with the many unnecessary pork projects buried in the package.

Well it looks like we are going to have some high speed rail wether we want it or not. 

Build it and they will come?  I don't know; however it seems that some passenger business has been rebuild by Amtrak without massive rail line rebuilding.  The Down east corridor (which started from scratch -- passenger service Boston to Portland was axed several years before Amtrak) and the Cascades come to mind.  I suppose now would be a good time as any to see what market potential there really is for improved rail passenger service. 

PZ, Give 'em a break--you know the money's going to be spent somewhere, and I'd be in favor of seeing it spent, at least in part, on this route.

This 8-billion-buck package can only be used on high-speed rail, so the other routes you mention--to Dubuque, Davenport, or Peoria--wouldn't be eligible. That money would have to come from elsewhere, and there's a possibility that some of that might be obtainable as well. Durbin was pushing for the Quad Cities and Dubuque routes before any stimulus package was thought of.

And finally, one lousy hour off the time to St. Louis might not seem significant, but now the trip would be 25 percent faster (or take 20 percent less time). With a savings like that, you might even be able to match the Joliet-St. Louis time in your car. I don't know how times downtown-to-downtown compare with air travel (especially with good transit options at both ends), but it would have to be getting close. And sanctimonious little ol' me, who is known to bike to work when possible, applauds a more green option.

I would like to think that a 20-percent reduction in travel times would be able to permit the same equipment pairs to make another trip in a given day, increasing travel options. Even with an extra trip or two, It's arguable that train travel is not going to be for everybody. Acknowledged--know, too, that plane travel, with government-subsidized airports and control systems, will never be an option for me.

They've been working on that project, upgrading things for years in anticipation of 110 mph service, mybe they'll have enough money to finish it.

dehusman:

They've been working on that project, upgrading things for years in anticipation of 110 mph service, mybe they'll have enough money to finish it.

A few years ago the CP upgraded the signals and crossing protections on the Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha route for high-speed (110mph) service.  I wonder if that project will get included.

Poppa_Zit:

Actually, I'd much rather see the $8 million stay in taxpayer pockets. Along with the many unnecessary pork projects buried in the package.

Hence the very reason for a stimulus package. During bad times, people save money instead of spending it. To get people back to work, people saving their money ain't going to do it. So, the government must spend the money for their saving citizens. Ideally, the government has been acting wisely with the tax money prior to that point. That way, it would resort to deficit spending in times of emergency. Unfortunately, the government has been running deficits for the last 8 years. So, it must add more deficits to current deficits to stimulate. As an Amtrak route, the Chicago to St. Louis route has been doing pretty well. It loads it's trains and has had increasing ridership. If one hour less takes cars off the roads and planes out of the air, then it seems to be a good trade. You have to realize that usually a transportation bill goes to airports or roads. Never to railroads. The spending is going to happen whether you like it or not. Why not towards a viable rail route?

A few facts.  The 7:00am train from Chicago to St Louis with somewhat limited stops enroute is scheduled for 5 hrs 20 mins and for 248 miles averages about 53 miles per hour.  If, and I grant a big if, the service were to be set up to average 70 MPH-what you might with 110MPH top speed-then the trip time drops to about 4 hours 10 minutes. 

If the only way I could get to St Louis was to fly from O'Hare, I would rather stay home.  So with no recent experience, I could only guess that that the time from the O'Hare parking facility to the St Louis Airport car rental facility, security stop and all runs about 3 hours. 

That all means that the 70MPH rail service has a one hour disadvantage to flying and probably equals the best driving time.  Advantage to the business traveler is the possibility of being able to make productive use of the time on the rails. 

As mentioned above, track on the 148 mile Joliet to Springfield segment has already been set up for 110MPH speeds.  Assuming no effort to upgrade Chicago to Joliet or E. St Louis to St Louis, that leaves less than 100 miles of track work.  The plan to install a signal system on the Joliet-Springfield segment with every imaginable feature was abandoned, so the entire route needs signaling upgrade.  I don't know what the price tag will be to finish the job for the 110 MPH service.

On the other hand, at Railway Man's suggested $60 million per mile the price tag for real high speed for the entire route would be about $17 billion. 

I don't know, maybe it would be worth it just to get PZ's reaction. 

If Illinois is paying its politicians and bureaucrats a mileage allowance equal to the IRS number for business travel, they get about $185 to use their car for a round trip from Chicago to Springfield.  Or, they can fly next month for as little as $406 round trip.  Then there is Amtrak, collecting a measily $36 for leaving tomorrow and coming back Thursday.

Carl wondered above about city to city air travel times from Chicago to St. Louis, which I personally do quite often:

Aurora to Midway airport...one hour

Midway "wait" time for outbound flight....one hour (according to airline suggestions)

Flight time...about one hour gate to gate (actually about 35 minues in the air)

Travel time St. Louis airport to downtown...about thirty minutes give or take

Total would be about three and one half hours.

Thanks, Jim--something I'd never know from experience

Jay, I suspect that some upgrading will be done on Chicago-Joliet (at least) as well, in connection with CREATE. That's supposed to include a grade separation at Argo, which will increase dependability, if not schedule speed. Argo has been cited as the primary reason for Metra's Heritage Corridor not being built up as the other lines have been, so if this gets done, there's a fringe benefit to upgrading the entire route.

Carl

No doubt some improvement could be made to the Chicago-Joliet segment.  The Amtrak time card shows 50-57 minutes for the 37 mile segment-about 44 MPH average or less.  Perhaps that average could be brought up 5 MPH or so, but I'm not about to suggest that any part of the segment could be brought up to a top speed of 100MPH without spending really big bucks.  Arguably, the Burlington has the best route to get out of town from Union Station and at that the carded average speed for the California Zephyr is is only 49MPH.