# Corridors for the future



## Seaboard92 (Nov 30, 2015)

I've been thinking from a lot of these threads. They all tie into something at one point or another and that's what I feel the system is going to morph into.

Initially I thought this was a bad idea but then I saw it's merits.

Pros

-increased service along key parts of the route. For instance Omaha-Iowa-Chicago or The three C route in Ohio.

-higher intermediate ridership on the LD trains especially in these corridors if the LDs are timed right so a gap in the corridor services. Which saves the state money from an additional service while benefiting service.

-reserve fleets of engines at both ends of the corridors to rescue broken down trains as needed.

-new markets get added to the national network.

-Faster run times

-inter corridor service

Cons

-service over duplicate routes would be cut such as TOL-CHI via SOB or Omaha to Chicago via Galesburg.

-timing runs to have connections to other corridors.

-increased amount if equipment.

-state support needed.

I see the LDs becoming inter corridor trains so let's say my Ohio State Limited it uses the Empire Corridor. Then the Buckeye Corridor(three C) or Philly's Broadway Limited which uses the NEC, Keystone-then the FT Wayne HSR line. So their purpose is still there.

I also see some inter corridor service being between two regional corridors. Like in an example I've been thinking about today running the Palmetto Corridor (SC GRV-CHS) and having two Piedmont slots fill gaps in the Palmetto corridor to help both states ridership. More on that tomorrow.

I would be interested in what other members have to think about this vision. I can see some good discussion about it.


----------



## Alex M. (Nov 30, 2015)

Not meaning to sound off topic, but I wonder how much ROW there is that is under utilized or dormant that could be resurrected for this purpose? One example that comes to mind is the S line of CSX from Raleigh to Savannah, as well as north of Raleigh to Richmond, the subject of the SEHSR initiative. I would feel that CSX would not mind it one bit to see passenger traffic rerouted from its A line between Richmond and Rocky Mount. The Silver Meteor, Palmetto and Auto Train would remain, but any others could use the other route.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 30, 2015)

To answer that Question as it's my home line. The line is intact from Norlina, NC(VA border) to Savannah, GA. The only segment that is out is from Norlina to Collier, VA. So roughly 78 miles. But I don't see the Carolinian moving over as 79/80 has good local traffic RMT-CLT. But I do see it improving 91/92 and maybe some other trains.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 30, 2015)

So are you looking for a list of corridors that are perhaps currently planned or that we'd like to see? And then how likely or plausible our proposals are and how they might affect existing LD trains?

Just looking for some more guidance as to what you're looking for here.


----------



## seat38a (Nov 30, 2015)

The Coast Starlight is kind of what you describe. The schedule is blended into 3 corridor services to blend into the timetable rather than conflict with it. Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and Cascades have an hour or so apart slot that the CS fills in.


----------



## BCL (Nov 30, 2015)

seat38a said:


> The Coast Starlight is kind of what you describe. The schedule is blended into 3 corridor services to blend into the timetable rather than conflict with it. Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and Cascades have an hour or so apart slot that the CS fills in.


I don't think the CS blends in that much with Capitol Corridor. It doesn't really hit most of the stops. I've actually seen a slightly late CS at the same station as a Capitol Corridor train.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 30, 2015)

Kind of which corridors you see in the works. But I'm looming more broadly too. Thinking almost Amtrak's future is more short haul with some long haul inter corridor trains. And you're right the CS is the best example of it in the system.


----------



## BCL (Nov 30, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> Kind of which corridors you see in the works. But I'm looming more broadly too. Thinking almost Amtrak's future is more short haul with some long haul inter corridor trains. And you're right the CS is the best example of it in the system.


I have taken the CS from Emeryville to San Jose. Low bucket it was actually much cheaper ($14) than Capitol Corridor at the time ($20). However, it looks like they reevaluated it and now it's typically the same as the Capitol Corridor price.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 30, 2015)

Alex M. said:


> Not meaning to sound off topic, but I wonder how much ROW there is that is under utilized or dormant that could be resurrected for this purpose? One example that comes to mind is the S line of CSX from Raleigh to Savannah, as well as north of Raleigh to Richmond, the subject of the SEHSR initiative. I would feel that CSX would not mind it one bit to see passenger traffic rerouted from its A line between Richmond and Rocky Mount. The Silver Meteor, Palmetto and Auto Train would remain, but any others could use the other route.


I think there's plenty of underutilized or dormant ROW all over the place. When I'm bored I sometimes follow such lines on Google Maps /Google Earth and I'm always amazed by how far I can get.

But I guess the bigger problem is most of it doesn't go to many places where many people want to go. So I guess most of these lines are in the long term more likely to be made into hiking trails than into rail corridors.


----------



## afigg (Nov 30, 2015)

Eric S said:


> So are you looking for a list of corridors that are perhaps currently planned or that we'd like to see? And then how likely or plausible our proposals are and how they might affect existing LD trains?
> 
> Just looking for some more guidance as to what you're looking for here.


I think to be at least somewhat grounded in reality, a discussion on potential corridor services and expansion should be mostly constrained to proposed and improved corridors that are in planning documents, have been or are being studied, or at least proposed by a government or actual railroad company. That is still a lot of potential corridors because there have been numerous feasibility or first level studies of this or that corridor or route, most of which are gathering dust on a shelf.

For corridors and local networks that would have a significant impact on regional travel options and LD trains, the place to start is the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MN DOT website) and handy overview PDF map. The plans for Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio are stalled or in limbo, but the Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri corridors will see new equipment and improvements. Although the Illinois Chicago -> Quad Cities corridor is possibly stalled. But if all of the 79, 90, 110 mph corridors in the Midwest Regional Rail plan were built with even half the proposed service frequencies, the benefits to the national LD system would be substantial.

Other proposed corridor expansions of note that have support and plans include the Southeast HSR and All Aboard Florida in the east. An extension of AAF to Jacksonville would open up options for a Silver service train to Southern Florida. In California. the proposed Coachella Valley corridor service is in the drawn out study and EIS phase, but I give it along with a LA to San Francisco Coast Daylight good odds of starting in the next 5-8 years. In Texas, Dallas to Houston real HSR service could indeed get built with unknown odds for a conventional Dallas to Shreveport LA corridor service.

In New England, expanded service over the Inland Route, extending the Vermonter to Montreal, a Boston to Montreal train, a Portland ME to NYP train are all real possibilities in the next 10 years.


----------



## seat38a (Nov 30, 2015)

afigg said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > So are you looking for a list of corridors that are perhaps currently planned or that we'd like to see? And then how likely or plausible our proposals are and how they might affect existing LD trains?
> ...


When all the new locomotives and railcars come online, I can see a very good chance of the Coachella Valley corridor coming online. All the Surfliner and EMD F59's have to go somewhere. There is a report floating around saying once the Chargers come online, all the F59's will be sent to California. Considering Caltrans ordered a bunch of Chargers to replace the Surfliner's current EMD fleet, that leaves a lot of equip sitting around. Also, Caltrans funding this has a much higher chance than any of the other corridors in question.


----------



## neroden (Nov 30, 2015)

Here in the Northeast, talked-about corridor-length routes include:

-- MBTA to the major cities in New Hampshire

-- Vermonter to Montreal

-- Ethan Allen Express to Burlington (definitely happening by 2018)

-- Ethan Allen Express onward to St. Albans and Montreal

-- Upgrades to the Empire Corridor (some done, others proposed)

-- Scranton-Hoboken (the Lackawanna Cutoff), with more speculative discussion of Scranton-Binghamton-Cortland-Syracuse

-- Allentown PA service from both Philadelphia and New York directions

-- additional trains and upgrades on the Pittsburgh-Philadelphia route

The Midwest proposals have already been linked to in another comment.

If you add this all up, it makes for a huge difference in the "long-distance" potential for the Lake Shore Limited, Capitol Limited, revived Broadway Limited, Lake Cities, daily Cardinal, etc. etc.

There are also a number of Canadian upgrades proposed, on Toronto-Ottawa, Ottawa-Montreal, Toronto-Montreal, Toronto-Niagara Falls, Toronto-Stratford-London, Tornoto-Aldershot-London, Toronto-Aldershot-Niagara Falls, and London-Windsor. (No love for Sarnia.)

The Virginia and North Carolina proposals can also be found online.

----

It's worth noting that nearly all of Amtrak's so-called long-distance trains have a corridor at one end; most on both ends, and some in the middle as well.

All the trains from Chicago to the East share "South of the Lake" with the Michigan trains while exiting Chicago; the LSL enters the Empire Corridor, the CL enters MARC territory, and the Cardinal enters VRE territory and then the NEC.

The Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Palmetto, and Crescent share the NEC and VRE territory along with parts of the Piedmont corridor. Auto Train shares VRE territory.

The California Zephyr and Southwest Chief start out on Metra and the Quincy corridor; the SWC passes through RailRunner before entering Metrolink territory, while the Zephyr runs parallel to Denver RTD and FrontRunner without sharing tracks (!!) before entering the Capitol Corridor.

The Coast Starlight, of course, runs on the Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and Cascades routes.

The CONO is practically an extension of the Carbondale corridor.

The Texas Eagle is practically an extension of the St Louis-Chicago corridor. It is also on the route proposed for San Antonio-Austin commuter rail, and runs parallel to TRE in Dallas-Fort Worth (and dammit, it's supposed to be running ON TRE).

The Empire Builder starts on the Hiawatha corridor and ends on bits of the Cascades corridor.

The Sunset Limited... well, it shares a little bit of Metrolink, I guess...


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 30, 2015)

I see corridor expansion being the next big thing. And I see it happening probably in the next ten years. Cocella Valley(I can't spell), south of the lake, Roanoke extension, and maybe another Norfolk Train. As well as an additional Piedmont round trip. But what I was really thinking is the road to new LD service is via corridors. And if the Empire corridor speeds up and the Ohio-Chicago corridors start up. I could see the LSL majorly feeling benefits.


----------



## keelhauled (Nov 30, 2015)

afigg said:


> For corridors and local networks that would have a significant impact on regional travel options and LD trains, the place to start is the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MN DOT website) and handy overview PDF map. The plans for Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio are stalled or in limbo, but the Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri corridors will see new equipment and improvements. Although the Illinois Chicago -> Quad Cities corridor is possibly stalled. But if all of the 79, 90, 110 mph corridors in the Midwest Regional Rail plan were built with even half the proposed service frequencies, the benefits to the national LD system would be substantial.


The first page of the long running long running "next few years" thread listed the Quad Cities and Rockford service as due to begin this by this month. Alas.


----------



## keelhauled (Nov 30, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> I see corridor expansion being the next big thing. And I see it happening probably in the next ten years. Cocella Valley(I can't spell), south of the lake, Roanoke extension, and maybe another Norfolk Train. As well as an additional Piedmont round trip. But what I was really thinking is the road to new LD service is via corridors. And if the Empire corridor speeds up and the Ohio-Chicago corridors start up. I could see the LSL majorly feeling benefits.


I am personally optimistic about all of those except South of the Lake, which I am deeply cynical about the chances of happening based on geography. I think it will be like herding cats trying to round up funding. Indiana has little incentive to contribute unless they can get corridor service east to say Fort Wayne out of it, but I don't really foresee a political turnaround happening to push for that. Michigan would stand to benefit most, but I suspect that the idea of spending state money outside of the state will be unpopular. Same for Ohio if they ever even come around to trying to get more Chicago service. Really I would love to see Amtrak have a significant source of funding for national network capital improvement projects, as this would a an ideal application, having substantial benefits for trains serving a very wide area.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 30, 2015)

I'll list the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative corridors (and the related Ohio Hub corridors) for those who didn't follow the planning for that or look at the linked page above:

Chicago-Milwaukee-Green Bay (ongoing study of CHI-MKE improvements necessary to run 10 trains/day rather than current 7 trains/day)

Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-St. Paul (MN has been studying adding 1 train/day CHI-MKE-MSP not via Madison)

Chicago-Moline-Des Moines-Omaha (CHI-Moline *may* still be happening, unsure with IL budget issues)

Chicago-Quincy

Chicago-St. Louis-Kansas City (CHI-STL improvements ongoing)

Chicago-Champaign-Carbondale

Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati

Chicago-Fort Wayne-Columbus-Pittsburgh

Chicago-Fort Wayne-Toledo-Cleveland-Pittsburgh

Chicago-Kalamazoo-Detroit-Pontiac (improvements ongoing in MI)

Chicago-Kalamazoo-Port Huron

Chicago-Kalamazoo-Grand Rapids-Holland

Detroit-Toledo-Columbus

Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland-Buffalo-Toronto

And then you can add to this the following routes that have been proposed by states (and had some level funding allocated in the case of Rockford):

Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque

Minneapolis/St. Paul-Duluth

Minneapolis/St. Paul-Rochester

Detroit-Lansing-Grand Rapids

Even assuming equally supportive state governments (obviously not the case, but one election can sway things in a big way), some of these routes are much more likely to see service (or service improvements if they already exist) than others.

Some of the routes would greatly improve LD service by upgrading a long stretch of tracks used by LD trains (the seemingly never ending CHI-STL upgrades for example), others would upgrade shorter stretches of LD service, and others would provide new and improved connections and feeder service at both CHI and other locations throughout the Midwest.

EDIT: Added a few comments on which corridors are seeing upgrades or studies of upgrades now


----------



## afigg (Dec 1, 2015)

seat38a said:


> When all the new locomotives and railcars come online, I can see a very good chance of the Coachella Valley corridor coming online. All the Surfliner and EMD F59's have to go somewhere. There is a report floating around saying once the Chargers come online, all the F59's will be sent to California. Considering Caltrans ordered a bunch of Chargers to replace the Surfliner's current EMD fleet, that leaves a lot of equip sitting around. Also, Caltrans funding this has a much higher chance than any of the other corridors in question.


Locomotives will not be an issue for adding the Coachella Valley service as CA will have spares. The proposal is for 2 daily trains which will likely only need 2 trainsets. Additional bi-level coach cars will be needed as the 42 bi-levels and the 11 additional bi-levels that CA plans to order are slated for the current 3 corridor services. However the Nippon-Sharyo contract has options for up to several hundred cars, so it will be simple for Caltrans to order an additional batch of bi-levels coach and cafe cars for the Coachella Valley and Coast Daylight to be delivered sometime after late 2018 or whenever they are needed to start the service. Thanks in large part to Gov. Brown, CA will have the funds to buy the equipment and pay for track upgrades for the 2 corridors, so I think the odds are good that both will happen in the next 5+ years.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 1, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> To answer that Question as it's my home line. The line is intact from Norlina, NC(VA border) to Savannah, GA. The only segment that is out is from Norlina to Collier, VA. So roughly 78 miles. But I don't see the Carolinian moving over as 79/80 has good local traffic RMT-CLT. But I do see it improving 91/92 and maybe some other trains.


The official VA/NC "vision thing" documents seem to leave the Carolinian as-is while running 4x daily trains via Norlina (so 5x daily RGH-WAS). The question, likely, will be the Star (I expect it to get re-routed since seriously knocking down times on said train will likely help its performance enough to offset dropping RMT).

One overall issue at the moment seems to be *ahem* supplier issues delaying lots of deliveries.


----------



## neroden (Dec 1, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > For corridors and local networks that would have a significant impact on regional travel options and LD trains, the place to start is the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MN DOT website) and handy overview PDF map. The plans for Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio are stalled or in limbo, but the Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri corridors will see new equipment and improvements. Although the Illinois Chicago -> Quad Cities corridor is possibly stalled. But if all of the 79, 90, 110 mph corridors in the Midwest Regional Rail plan were built with even half the proposed service frequencies, the benefits to the national LD system would be substantial.
> ...


Governor "Ruiner", as people are calling Rauner, seems to be the major impediment to the Quad Cities service.


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2015)

neroden said:


> Here in the Northeast, talked-about corridor-length routes include:
> 
> -- MBTA to the major cities in New Hampshire
> 
> ...


I would also throw in:

-- New York/New Haven to Boston via Hartford-Springfield

-- Boston North - New Hampshire - Maine

-- Boston South - Cape Cod and possibly restoration of New York - Cape Cod

Parenthetically I'd note that Scranton service need not be from Hoboken. It can be from New York using catenary dual mode locomotives which are already available



> It's worth noting that nearly all of Amtrak's so-called long-distance trains have a corridor at one end; most on both ends, and some in the middle as well.
> 
> All the trains from Chicago to the East share "South of the Lake" with the Michigan trains while exiting Chicago; the LSL enters the Empire Corridor, the CL enters MARC territory, and the Cardinal enters VRE territory and then the NEC.
> 
> ...


Also note that the Silvers at their South end traverse both the SunRail and the TriRail Commuter corridors, and some day sections might traverse the FEC/AAF corridor too. Auto Train also briefly traverses the SunRail corridor (Deland (future) - DeBary - Sanford)


----------



## afigg (Dec 1, 2015)

neroden said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> > The first page of the long running long running "next few years" thread listed the Quad Cities and Rockford service as due to begin this by this month. Alas.
> ...


The projected start of Quad Cities service had already slipped to the end of 2016 before Rauner took office. Besides track work and new stations, there is not a lot of rolling stock available to support the new service. So IL DOT likely slid the start to service to end of the 2016, expecting the Nippon-Sharyo bi-levels would start entering service by then, if not on the Quad Cities corridor, but on CHI-STL, freeing up equipment for Quad Cities. The delay in the Nippon-Sharyo production obviously would have delayed that schedule, even if Rauner had not won the election.
The service to Quad Cities is being funded with mostly federal money. If Rauner and IL were to stall the new service too long or kill it, IL would have to reimburse the federal government for the expended federal funds. I think Quad Cities service will happen, although delayed to 2017, 2018. Chicago to Dubuque, which is funded with state money, is what appears to be in total limbo and completely stalled with the budget standoff in Illinois.


----------



## Alex M. (Dec 1, 2015)

What would be the likelihood that Gov. Rauner do what Indiana has done and let Iowa Pacific contract to operate this service?


----------



## keelhauled (Dec 1, 2015)

With the reliability of Iowa Pacific's equipment so far in Indiana, I'm not sure you would want them to operate the service.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 1, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> With the reliability of Iowa Pacific's equipment so far in Indiana, I'm not sure you would want them to operate the service.


IIRC half of the issues there at "kickoff" were malicious compliance on the part of Amtrak (e.g. bad-ordering a car for a flaw that Amtrak would normally operate with).


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> With the reliability of Iowa Pacific's equipment so far in Indiana, I'm not sure you would want them to operate the service.


I am told that once Amtrak is done with throwing its juvenile hissy-fit for not getting what they wanted, things should become much smoother.  We observed a similar phenomenon when Amtrak lost the VRE contract. IOW normal growing pains that one has to live through.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Dec 1, 2015)

As someone who has worked with IP recently. I can say that there are some problems in the organization. I'm not so sure about the Hoosier State and how it's being run but I would question it. I love Ed Ellis. The man is amazing and very smart. Sometimes short sighted. But the people who surround him I find to be the issue. There are reasons in my business I try to avoid working with any of his companies. Now I can't tell you the problems I've had mostly because a lot of it is personal.


----------



## keelhauled (Dec 1, 2015)

Perhaps one should review the troubled history of IP's Hoosier State.

11/20: 851 failed failed to run. Per a TO thread, the single locomotive assigned to it suddenly failed. Meanwhile, a second locomotive was also dead. The third was recently dead and lost somewhere in transit.

10/30: Amtrak inspectors failed two locomotives due to bad wheel tolerances. (http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/10/30--hoosier)

10/5: 850 suffered a three hour delay, apparently due to a failure of one of the locomotives.

9/28-10/5: An Indiana DoT inspector (not Amtrak!) fails a coach, and the train doesn't run for a week due to a delay in getting parts (http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/10/hoosier-state-resumes-following-flurry-of-inspections)

9/23-9/25: Two trips are canceled after Amtrak inspectors fail a locomotive due to bad spings on a truck. The "Amtrak sabotaging IP" argument kind of falls apart here, since the other two IP locomotives were (surprise!) inoperable due to bad HEP and a failed air compressor, respectively. (http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/30-hoosier-state)


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2015)

Seems like par for the course with Amtrak's own equipment though  Juuust kidding, but their is a bit of truth in that unfortunately.


----------



## keelhauled (Dec 1, 2015)

God knows Amtrak has their own equipment challenges. But they also have a better reserve of spare equipment, and it shows. By my counting, thirteen Hoosier State trips failed to run since 9/23, out of about 72 scheduled in those nine weeks, or a little shy of 20%. If we count the first two months of operation as trouble free, that's still between a 5 and 10% failure rate. Amtrak runs about 300 daily trains. An equivalent 5% failure rate overall would be 15 trains daily. If we limit it to the much-maligned Chicago shops, that would, by my reckoning of 26 daily departures, be almost exactly a train canceled daily. That just doesn't happen. Even if we count en route equipment failures it still doesn't happen.


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2015)

As you suggested, it is easier to maintain adequate reserves in a larger system than in a single train operation.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 1, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > I see corridor expansion being the next big thing. ...
> ...


South of the Lake is single biggest bang for the buck around. But so many bucks! Planners cite a range of $1.5 to $2.5 Billion for the whole thing.

The bulk of the money will have to come from the feds, or nothing happening. A Stimulus type program, or a substantial capital investments fund for Amtrak as you suggest, could do it. Otherwise, the planners speak of "incremental" improvements. Yeah, I envision nearly 100 TIGER grants of the maximum $25 million per grant with some matching state funds. That'll work.

Illinois will have to carry almost half the load of matching funds, to rebuild from Union Station to the state line. When Gov Ruiner is gone, that can happen.

From the other end, Michigan will have to pay to build outside its borders or go without fast trains. In the end, think they'll agree to pay for half a bridge or two or three, where new bridges will be costing $100 million or more.

NS might kick in a little something too. Getting the 14 Michigan trains a day (7 round trips) off the freight main line, in effect adding capacity, should be worth it.

Indiana will put a few pennies in the pot, and help with applications for federal funds. For real. Hammond-Whiting, Michigan City, and South Bend should benefit immediately. Smaller stations to the east -- Elkhart and Waterloo standing in for Fort Wayne -- would get a quick reward from the 30 minutes cut from the _Lake Shore _and _Capitol Ltd_ schedules. (And a future faster re-route of the _Cardinal/Hoosier State_ trains.)

Ohio might benefit the most, but is least likely to contribute directly. But if Ohio supplies matching funds to do work Cleveland-Toledo, that pressures the other states to get it done with South of the Lake. Then connecting the parts to make a full-blown CLE-TOL-CHI Corridor will happen. Do that right with 2 or 3 hours out of the schedule and 6 or 8 corridor trains each way. Then the 2 LDs -- let's make it 3 or 4 at that point -- will move into operating surplus.


----------



## neroden (Dec 2, 2015)

afigg said:


> The projected start of Quad Cities service had already slipped to the end of 2016 before Rauner took office.


...but Rauner has put a "hold" on all projects and as a result absolutely nothing is being done with the federal money. They can't start the track upgrades from Moline to the junction, and I think they can't even finish preliminary engineering. The only project which is moving forward is the Moline station because it's funded locally by the Quad Cities.
So he just personally added a year's delay. Minimum. It can't be finished before the end of 2017 now, entirely because he's a jerk.



> The service to Quad Cities is being funded with mostly federal money. If Rauner and IL were to stall the new service too long or kill it, IL would have to reimburse the federal government for the expended federal funds.


Yes, yes, Illinois would. IDOT is asking for an extension on the federal funds deadline because of Rauner.
----

If Governor Ruiner is removed, I would expect Illinois to put in money for South of the Lake. I would actually expect the City of Chicago to put in money regardless. Michigan will definitely put in money. Indiana can probably be convinced to put in a little bit of money thanks to Michigan City, South Bend, and Elkhart, based on the promise of more reliable trains to the east -- I wouldn't expect Hammond-Whiting to care. Fort Wayne would probably also give tepid support. NS would probably put in some money to get Amtrak out of their hair.

South of the Lake has to be designed as one project but it can be implemented piecemeal. Illinois is perhaps most likely to fund the final approach from Union Station to Grand Crossing, since this benefits the Illini/Saluki the most and part of it is now on the proposed St Louis-Chicago HSR route.

Amtrak will probably able to scrounge money out of its own budget to get from Grand Crossing to the Belt, perhaps with some help from City of Chicago and NS.

South of that it gets to the difficult bits. The power lines have been dropped on top of the railroad ROW here (they're mostly displaced to the east further north), and then you get into river bridges, and Indiana. This is where federal grants would seem most important.

A Hammond-Whiting station project could probably be designed and get money from the locality, and from NS (to get the passenger trains out of their hair); it would likely be combined with adjacent grade separations and be quite expensive.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 2, 2015)

For South of the Lake, please stand by:



> The Final EIS/ROD is targeted for completion by the end of 2015. The Service Development Plan is also underway and will be completed by early 2016.


http://greatlakesrail.org/

Aren't they getting rather close to the target (which has been moved back at least once, from "late summer of 2015"). LOL.


----------



## neroden (Dec 4, 2015)

I hope the South of the Lake people are doing a lot of consultation. Specifically I hope they've:

(1) talked to CN. They should be angling to buy the Detroit-Pontiac line; they need cooperation for straightening out the mess just north of Detroit New Center station; and at Battle Creek; and CN's opinion matters for whether Alternative 9 is viable.

(2) talked to NS. NS's opinion matters for *any* alternative, but the biggest issue is the future of 63rd St. Yard; getting rid of it would make everyone's life much simpler.

(3) talked to the Grand Crossing Project people, who are trying to deal with the same Chicago-Grand Crossing segment.

(4) talked to ComEd to figure out the costs of fitting the passenger rail lines in underneath / next to the utility lines

(5) talked to NICTD to see how willing they are to cooperate

(6) talked to the Illinois High-Speed Rail people to coordinate on designing the final approach to Union Station, which will be shared

(7) talked to Conrail. They should be angling to buy the Dearborn-Detroit line, and they need cooperation for straightening out the mess just north of Detroit New Center station.


----------

