Great Tribune article on high speed rail in the Midwest (more Michigan than Illinois)
This article by Jon Hilkevitch in the Tribune lays out Michigan's success at getting the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak trains up to 95 mph, and 110 mph by next year.
Faster trains can beat driving, which takes cars off the road, relieves congestion at airports and gives passengers a more civilized way to travel. Most importantly, reliable, fast, frequent trains are the infrastructure to build up our Downstate economy and help make Chicago's Union Station into the region's 'third airport' with all the economic vitality that passenger travel brings.
Illinois has put in some money on the Chicago-St. Louis track, but so far, Lockheed Martin (our contractor) hasn't figured out how to make the signaling system work.
If we had 110 mph trains -- not that far off, especially since Michigan is doing it now -- one could leave Chicago at 8 am and arrive in Springfield before 10 am, downtown to downtown. That's faster than flying.
And that's economic development for Downstate.
(Yes, I'm shilling a little bit for my client, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association -- become a member here -- but it is a cool article).
15 comments:
How about doing high-speed rail from Chicago to Carbondale south? Think of the economic development that would happen if you could get from Chicago to Carbondale and vice-versa in three hours? Seems to me that would be a perfect use for high-speed rail, and would be a boost for SIU and the Southern Illinois economy.
We'll need to pay for a late of grade crossing upgrades. Illinois has more then any other state.
We should also upgrade the Chicago-Champaign-Carbondale corridor (and try to get some more industry developed from the university research with a better connection to Chicago). And we should spend a lot of money on grade crossings. We have a ton of them in Illinois.
It appears that IDOT has followed in the footsteps of the tollway I-PASS example by selecting software that is not the standard of the industry.
Part of the reason (as I understand it) why IDOT picked a different software vendor is that the feds paid for most of it because they wanted to be innovative and use the Chicago-St. Louis line as a test. Illinois has put in less than 20% of the cost of positive train control. The feds put up most and the railroads kicked in the rest. I haven't heard anyone argue that it was a mistake when they made the decision in 1999; it just hasn't worked out as quickly as anyone would have hoped.
Re: the grade crossing upgrades. If you notice the next time you drive the I-55 corridor between Springfield and Joliet, there are already "quad gates" installed at all public grade crossings on the UP line between Mazonia (north of Gardner) to Sherman (north of Springfield). These gates come down on all 4 corners of the crossing to prevent drive-arounds, and have a sophisticated electronic monitoring system to allow emergency escape of trapped vehicles and monitoring of the crossing conditions.
Also, the track in this section was upgraded to 110 mph standard a few years ago.
So the Lockheed ATC system is but one component of the improvements that needed to be done to make this work. Much of the work has already been done, at least in one segment of the line.
More problematic is the section between Joliet and Chicago, where freight train and switching movement interference prevent the line from functioning as a true high speed corridor. It is highly unlikely that we will see Chicago-to-Springfield travel times of 2 hrs. and under unless a massive and expensive effort is undertaken to separate the high speed passenger line from the rest of the line's traffic in the Joliet-to-Chicago segment.
And then there is the issue of how many stops the train should take between Chicago and St. Louis. Everytime the train stops and starts, it loses about 10 minutes of travel time off a 100 mph average. If the train stops at Summit, Joliet, Dwight, Pontiac, B-N, Lincoln, Springfield, and Alton on the way to St. Louis, there's 80 minutes tacked onto the schedule right there. They can't just throw passengers off and on at 110 mph like they were mail sacks.
I've contended all along that what is being worked on in IL is not "high speed rail", but "higher speed rail than what we've already got". Believe me, I've ridden in a diesel cab back in the 70's at 100 mph (where it was allowed south of Champaign on the old IC) and here we are, 40 years later and not too much faster.
Not that I'm against HSR by any means. I just think, as a community, we have to lower our expectations, or pony up for the real thing.
I'm wondering, DJW, what is preventing private companies from building their own high speed rail lines? If there is a large demand for such services, then companies will provide them to the market. Are there regulations standing in the way of them building such lines? If so, why not remove these regulations so that private sector lines can be built so that we don't have all the waste and missed deadlines that inevitably come with massive government projects?
The only things standing in the way would be the following:
1. A lack of clear, buildable right of way for a new HSR corridor, especially in the Chicago area. Using existing freight lines invites the same problems that are now being experienced in the Joliet-to-Chicago corridor. A lightly used line such as the NW from Chicago to Manhattan might be an option, even though it shares Metra traffic right now; the abandoned NW roadbed south of Manhattan might be reclaimed at relatively low expense. But there's always the issue of those pesky grade crossings.
2. The use of eminent domain, which would surely be needed to acquire some of the parcels needed for such an enterprise. This is a legislative hurdle that would not be hard to overcome, since it is granted to pipelines and other utilities fairly routinely.
3. The cost of acquiring the new right of way, for which fair market value must be paid in accordance with the state and US constitutions. This is the much greater hurdle than getting the right to use ED itself, IMO.
Dan,
Anonymous is correct about all those stops. There is NO WAY you would make it from Chicago to Sprignfield in 2 hours, other stops would be necessary to get the political support for such a project. There would be at least four: Joliet, Pontiac, B-N, Lincoln. After you take the stops into account, driving is just as fast. "Higher" speed rail isn't worth the cost of investment if the time savings vs. driving isn't substantial. Proponents of this high speed rail seem quite naive of economics and IL politics.
If you want to get from Chicago to Springfield in less than two hours, just ride with one of our State Reps from Chicago.
Those of us in northcentral and northwest Illinois - the Q.C's in particular - would be happy with passenger rail at 60 m.p.h. N.I.U. is the only state university without access to passenger rail. Rockford, for years the second largest city in the state, no passenger rail. And how about a convenient north/south route through Illinois that doesn't require a trip to Union Station to change trains? Some states are investing in their own passenger rail service, using existing tracks and leasing equipment from providers other than Amtrak.
The QC's did not support rail when it was available (RI ended service in 1981, and it was tough to fill up 1 passenger car at the end).
NIU and Rockford will get service via Metra extension at some point. The UP West line extension to Elburn puts it at a few miles east of the DeKalb County line, starting in 2006. Some enterprising individual or governmental entity will soon put 2 and 2 together and offer a shuttle service between NIU, downtown DeKalb and the Elburn Metra station.
Why on earth should the taxpayers pay for this?
Why not auction the right to build a high speed rail to the highest bidder and clip coupons for the state rather than build another Illinois white elephant?
JBP
In the meantime, why not auction off McCormick Place to anyone who will take over its debt. The place is empty 75% of the time and attendance is decreasing. Thus the State of Illinois is paying to expand it.
JBP
Great to hear from anon posters who seem to know the details.
I thought the problems with the Chicago-Joliet corridor are largely because of a lack of maintenance and a few grade separations -- the existence of freight traffic isn't by itself a reason why we can't get 70 mph trains between those two cities. And that's the slowest part of the trip in terms of average train speed, as I understand it. We don't need a dedicated right of way to get up to decent speeds on that corridor to beat driving. True?
I also think we should run some express trains and some all-stops trains if we get more frequencies. The Chicago-Joliet-B-N-Springfield route should not always stop at the smaller communities and I think the communities along the line understand that - so long as they continue to be served by a growing line and never left off completely.
It's too bad the FRA caps trains at 79 mph (in my view).
The reason why the 'market' won't provide for passenger train service is the same reason why the market won't provide for air service -- we live in a mixed economy and we need government infrastructure (airports or air traffic control or tracks) for all transportation. Passenger rail shouldn't be treated any differently than any other transportation sector in public policy, but it is. That ought to change.
And to expand Metra and get service to Rock Island and the QC's, we need a statewide rail plan that connects up as many communities as possible. There ought to be a state funding source for operating dollars and track improvements should be part of every capital plan.
Post a Comment