http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20131002/NEWS02/131009941/high-speed-can-succeed-study-says-bullet-trains-in-illinois-costly
Conducted by UIUC Dept. of Transportation
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20131002/NEWS02/131009941/high-speed-can-succeed-study-says-bullet-trains-in-illinois-costly Conducted by UIUC Dept. of Transportation
This is an interesting and informative article. Building it where passenger trains make sense, i.e. relatively short, high density corridors, in increments based on realistic cost and revenue stream estimates, is the way to go.
Is it just a coincidence that a CHI-STL high speed study done by the U of Illinois makes a dog-leg thru Champaign?
The article seems to imply the currently being upgraded 110 mph line is somehow a stepping stone for a future true high speed line. However, that route goes nowhere near Champaign, nor is any substantial portion of it useful for a future St. Louis-Indianapolis high speed route. Perhaps the U of I is reality challenged?
Dakota,
Had you skimmed the report, you would find that the route is an inverted T with the vertical being Chicago to Champaign and the horizontal St. Louis-Springfield-Indianapolis.
Mac
Judging by several comments, some folks do not bother to read even a short article and/or have such firm convictions in their opinions they can only quip.
I must not have said what I meant clearly. The proposed route is Chicago-Champaign-Springfield-St Louis with the second route being St Louis-Springfield-Champaign-Indy. By not utilizing a direct Chicago-Springfield route, the proposal adds a dog leg to the primary use (Chicago-St Louis). Building a high speed line that does not use the most direct route doesn't seem very wise. For that matter, adding travel time for a Champaign stop to the journey of the political class traveling between Chicago and Springfield is hardly appealing to those whose approval and support is necessary.
Dakguy201 By not utilizing a direct Chicago-Springfield route, the proposal adds a dog leg to the primary use (Chicago-St Louis). Building a high speed line that does not use the most direct route doesn't seem very wise.
By not utilizing a direct Chicago-Springfield route, the proposal adds a dog leg to the primary use (Chicago-St Louis). Building a high speed line that does not use the most direct route doesn't seem very wise.
Amtrak lists a distance of 284 miles Chicago-St Louis on the current route. Travel time 5:20. When that corridor is all 110mph, the travel time will go down.
Google maps says it's 297 miles to drive I-55 and will take 4:35.
If I route the drive via Champaign, the mileage goes to 316 miles and it will take 4:50.
The HST proposal lists a travel time Chicago - St Louis of 117 minutes (1:57) with stops in Champaign and Springfield. Apparently the fact that the rail distance via Champaign is maybe about 20 miles longer than the as-the-crow-flies current line, will not negatively affect travel times.
It's just not a huge extra detour and is well worth it when one line can serve multiple purposes. Essentially, this concept allows the HST connection of 3 metro regions by building only a little more rail line than would be needed to just connect Chicago and St Louis.
I read the article, but I must have missed the part where it showed that a zig to Champaign and a zag back to Springfield made more sense than the existing straight alignment between the two distant points. Additionally, a trip from Chicago would have to make a sharper than right angle turn at Champaign to get to Indy. To think that anyone in Indiana would ever support such a route, over a direct one to Chicago, is hard to imagine. The U of I study seems to justify these rambling routes by imposing a mini hub-and-spoke structure. While airlines consider this to be a fine business model, passengers hate the diversions and connections, and opt for direct flights, provided the airlines don't price those flights out of reach. Adopting hub-and-spoke to HSR is just moving people fast in a direction the don't really want to go.
A two hour trip CHI-IND by way of Champaign would be preferred by most folks over the straight line current route which takes 5 hours. And it is cheaper to upgrade a route from Champaign to IND than an entirely new direct route.
I didn't see anything in the report saying all passengers change trains at Champaign, so don't see this as an airline-type hub and spoke model. Rather a way to in total build the fewest miles of infrastructure and still be able to connect all 3 metro areas. With HST, it's frequently irrelevant if the HST line is 50 miles longer than the straight-as-an-arrow line, since the trains will move at much higher speed than either conventional rail or cars.
To bring one seat travel between the metro areas, trains can split/combine at Champaign. So a train from Chicago would have the first section continue to St Louis and the second section go to Indy.
Will the folks in Indy like the detour via Champaign? That remains to be seen. Once they look at the cost for a totally separate Chicago-Indy alignment, they might love the idea.
CJtrainguyWill the folks in Indy like the detour via Champaign? That remains to be seen. Once they look at the cost for a totally separate Chicago-Indy alignment, they might love the idea.
Most people could care less about the detour, whether to STL or IND as long as it gets them where they want to go quickly. As the the good people of Indiana, I doubt if they would want to pay for even 10 miles of HSR ROW.
schlimm A two hour trip CHI-IND by way of Champaign would be preferred by most folks over the straight line current route which takes 5 hours. And it is cheaper to upgrade a route from Champaign to IND than an entirely new direct route.
From Indy, the straight line distance to Gary (where they would presumably meet other Midwest HSR) is 140 miles. Indy to Champaign is 110 miles. If Indiana won't build 140 miles for a direct line, they surely will not build a 110 mile line to Champaign. My Illinois transportation map shows the line east from Champaign (P&E?) abandoned, whereas there is an existing line from Indy toward CHI.
Indy to Champaign is 126 miles and only 85 miles of that is in Indiana. There is a line paralleling US 136 west from Indy which is currently used by the Hoosier State as far as Crawfordsville.. Indy to Gary is 150 miles. Try using Google.
Are you claiming you know the routes better than one of the best transportation departments in the midwest, if not in the entire US?
schlimm Indy to Champaign is 126 miles and only 85 miles of that is in Indiana. There is a line paralleling US 136 west from Indy which is currently used by the Hoosier State as far as Crawfordsville.. Indy to Gary is 150 miles. Try using Google. Are you claiming you know the routes better than one of the best transportation departments in the midwest, if not in the entire US?
I used the measuring tool on Google Earth. At that scale, and depending where you call the center of the town, the 2 measurements were approximate but proportional. I have no problem with your mileages, as they show an even smaller difference between the two routes.
I never claimed that I knew the routes better than the U of I, but I am skeptical of their objectivity for a route that favors a jog thru their town, rather than an existing straight alignment.
MidlandMikeI have no problem with your mileages, as they show an even smaller difference between the two routes.
Not to belabor the point, but it shows an even greater advantage to the Champaign route.
I am not at all certain about this, but perhaps one reason for not using the current up-to-110 mph CHI-SPR-STL route is that the ROW is too narrow to double track the entire way so as to provide the necessary total separation (except in major cities) between the HSR track and the UP freight track. The old IC line was double-tracked entirely for years, with numerous sidings, so it might be more satisfactory for conversion.
UI departments are definitely not "homers" in terms of a bias.
Schlimm, it's hard to tell what the reasoning behind the route was, because the article was only highlights and summary. If you come across the actual U of I study, please list a reference link to the pages that discuss the reasons behind their route recommendations. I would be interested in reading that.
Link to the study as released: http://ict.uiuc.edu/railroad/IDOT220/IDOT220.htm
According to the Executive Report, the Chicago-Champaign/Urbana alignment was determined by Governor Quinn to further bringing Chicago and U of I together.
"This study indicates that a 220 mph rail system in these corridors would not require an operating subsidy. However, as with many large public transportation projects, the initial cost to build it is substantial. The State should explore use of public-private partnership opportunities with use of public funds to offset the risk. An incremental or blended approach completed over a longer time period could also reduce initial capital costs and provide other nearer-term transportation benefits, while simultaneously improving intercity transportation quality and travel times. This is similar to the approach commonly used internationally and should be studied further."
"Any selected alignment in the future is envisioned to have two dedicated, electrified main tracks with an 18-foot track center distance fully grade separated from the other transportation modes. The study team did not assess whether existing rights-of-way could accommodate additional high speed rail tracks or the potential implications of 220 mph service on existing railroad operations. Future refinements of high speed rail alignments near existing railroads will need to carefully consider the railroads’ rights-of-way, safety, and operating requirements."
FRA Definition: Shared ROW is dedicated HSR passenger tracks separated from freight or other service tracks by less than 25 feet, while shared corridor is dedicated HSR passenger tracks separated from freight or other service tracks by 25 to 200 feet.
CJtrainguy According to the Executive Report, the Chicago-Champaign/Urbana alignment was determined by Governor Quinn to further bringing Chicago and U of I together.
I had a hard time crediting that, but it is what the Executive Report said. One would think the University has experts who would objectively determine what routing has the greatest potential, but instead the choice was made by a Governor who arrived at that office because a sitting Governor was impeached. Is his his stated reason -- bringing the University and Chicago closer together -- really worth what this project is going to cost?
Dakguy201 CJtrainguy According to the Executive Report, the Chicago-Champaign/Urbana alignment was determined by Governor Quinn to further bringing Chicago and U of I together. I had a hard time crediting that, but it is what the Executive Report said. One would think the University has experts who would objectively determine what routing has the greatest potential, but instead the choice was made by a Governor who arrived at that office because a sitting Governor was impeached. Is his his stated reason -- bringing the University and Chicago closer together -- really worth what this project is going to cost?
I don't live in Illinois, so no stake one way or another in the current governor. Is the reason to bring Chicago and Champaign closer together a good enough reason to build HSR? If the projected ridership is there and the funds are approved, then yes. Most HSR passenger rail projects are about cutting travel time from point A to point B. Sometimes by 15-30 minutes over today, sometimes by more drastic numbers.
In this case, being able to further cut travel time Chicago-St Louis is a really good added bonus.
As to who decides routing, the politicians seem to do that on just about any HSR project, as in "we will connect metro A with metro B with HSR." Then the engineers and lots of other people come in, do studies and figure out exactly how to lay the tracks.
Remember, this is a pre-study to check feasibility. If the powers that be like the results, then there may be more money to do a full study/decision to move forward with the project.
It sounds like you wanted the governor to go to U of I and say: "we should have real HSR in Illinois, now tell us where to put it." Then they'd investigate a bunch of potential routes and probably in the end come up with some variation on the Chicago-St Louis corridor. And it's going to go through Springfield. And probably either Peoria, Bloomington/Normal or Champaign/Urbana.
I live in Illinois.
1. Governor Ryan was elected in 2010 for another term.
2. A HSR that covers for cities with likely riders, even if slightly longer, seems sensible. The currently developing 110 mph route CHI - Bloomington -Springfield - STL is good but the propsed route allows all but Bloomington to be included along with Decatur and Champaign and also a fairly short extension to Indy. However, if Hoosiers do not want to pay for that, then the route becomes less attractive.
I finally got around to reading the U of I's Executive Report. As noted by others, the main impetus for the study was the governor's desire to link the Chicago area to Champaign with HSR, and then to use it as the start of service to St Louis and possibly Indy. However, ridership estimates from the report ( Table 11, p.22) show Champaign would only account for 5% of ticket sales,and the intermediate stop at Kankakee would only generate 1% of tickets. This hardly seems like a good reason to deviate the route thru those towns, from the existing straight alignment between CHI-STL, which the study shows would generate most of the ticket sales. The report only considered the Champaign route, and did not consider the straight route. Of course an Environmental Impact Statement would require the consideration of less impactful alternatives.
look at tables 5 and 6 in the full report. you will see that the key is Indianapolis.
We don't know the details of the passenger survey. The only route considered was thru Champaign, so with the people of Indy, I doubt the subject of the route came up in the questionnaire. To make a transportation project study useful, they need to also consider the best choice of route(s).
Well if you had actually read what I cited, you would see that Indy would be one of the top traffic generating cities. It is an essential ingedient.
Personally, I think they should stick with the UP (GM&O) route, upgrading stretches to 150 mph and upgrade the old IC mainline to 110, which is only 10 mph higher than it was 50 years ago.
Today's strange fact:
Ridership gains on Chicago to St. Louis were pretty large in the past year. It looks like just the publicity working on 110 mph service increased ridership. That's pretty amazing, IMHO.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Finally, from the European view point, sounds like you are serious about building the high speed rail line south of Chicago!
What we have learned in Europe is that the super high speed route does not need to go the straightest route. Trains are so fast that small detours make only small additions to time travelled. Instead having the needed volumes to make the operations of trains and infrastructure profitable is crucial, so no more public subsidies will be needed and next lines can be buit to extend the first line(s).
Look carefully what the French have done. And they only build an additional super high speed line (220 mph and more) if the plans show it is profitable. So far they have built over 2000 kilometers / 1300 miles of high speed track, joining the normal track where the high speed trains run too, only slower. More lines are in process, alhough slower, since the profitability declines once the best routes are built.
Good luck for the building phase and the choise of the right rolling stock!
Below: a few of the 650 units of the super high speed TGV train fleet. All these trains shown here are at just one busy station, Gare de Lyon of Paris, France.
McKey Finally, from the European view point, sounds like you are serious about building the high speed rail line south of Chicago! What we have learned in Europe is that the super high speed route does not need to go the straightest route. Trains are so fast that small detours make only small additions to time travelled. Instead having the needed volumes to make the operations of trains and infrastructure profitable is crucial, so no more public subsidies will be needed and next lines can be buit to extend the first line(s). Look carefully what the French have done. And they only build an additional super high speed line (220 mph and more) if the plans show it is profitable. So far they have built over 2000 kilometers / 1300 miles of high speed track, joining the normal track where the high speed trains run too, only slower. More lines are in process, alhough slower, since the profitability declines once the best routes are built. Good luck for the building phase and the choise of the right rolling stock! Below: a few of the 650 units of the super high speed TGV train fleet. All these trains shown here are at just one busy station, Gare de Lyon of Paris, France.
McKey::
1. Are all the tracks at Gare De Lyon stub tracks ?
2. Notices that the overhead contact wire is straight trolley and not constant tension CAT.
3. Any idea what the voltage of these staton tracks is?
4. How far out from station does constant tension CAT start and what are the speed limits just before and after ?
5. Seems like a money saving construction ?
oltmannd Today's strange fact: Ridership gains on Chicago to St. Louis were pretty large in the past year. It looks like just the publicity working on 110 mph service increased ridership. That's pretty amazing, IMHO.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.