# Midwest Rail Plan Final Report



## danasgoodstuff

Midwest Regional Rail Plan Final Report | FRA (dot.gov) I haven't read in detail yet, but I noticed on the map on p.8 they show E-W thru Iowa rerouted thru Des Moines (as it should be) and closing the Louisville to Nashville gap so trips thru Nashville and on to Atlanta and Fla would be possible sometime in the future (2035? or 2050!?). Sorry I couldn't figure out how to post the map without downloading the whole report to my computer.


----------



## me_little_me

This?


----------



## danasgoodstuff

Unfortunately, it seems as if they will still route everything thru Chicago.


----------



## Ziv

I have wondered whether a train that covered the tracks between Denver CO, Kansas City MO, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Charleston WV, Culpepper VA to DC Union Station would work in a more train friendly future. It seems that, as danasgoodstuff points out, having all the EW trains route through Chicago is logistically logical but kind of a pain for real world train users.









Denver to Union Station







www.google.com


----------



## Tlcooper93

danasgoodstuff said:


> Unfortunately, it seems as if they will still route everything thru Chicago.



Curious as to why you feel this is a bad thing.
Not an opinion, just wondering yours.

I suppose because it’s inconveniently a double terminus?


----------



## jis

It needs to be remembered that, as stated by Jim Matthews who was a participant, these are projected demand for flow studies based on a model and a bunch of data sources for relevant data to feed to the model. They were validated for short terms. It is difficult to validate over a 20 or 30 year period since the data needed does not exist into the future (naturally). Given those caveats, these are the observed major data flows justify certain levels of service by the end of the projection period. It is possible that by the time t+20 years rolls around the projections prove to be invalid, and a new one has to be worked out.

In any event for planning purposes for now this will be one input to what actually gets built. Finding funding for building anything will depend on willingness of the communities involved to participate and local state political haggling, and what not. So what actually gets built may or may not resemble what this particular model projection suggests.

Having said that, I find it interesting that St. Louis - Indy did not make the cut. There are similar omissions of what I expected would be there. But my expectation was based on feelings, not data. So who knows?


----------



## danasgoodstuff

Tlcooper93 said:


> Curious as to why you feel this is a bad thing.
> Not an opinion, just wondering yours.
> 
> I suppose because it’s inconveniently a double terminus?


Two reasons: 1) If you are somewhere in the Midwest like southern Ohio or Indiana and want to go west to say KC or Denver, then Chicago is out of the way; and 2) what if there are problems in Chicago, it would be nice to have a bypass in place.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

jis said:


> It needs to be remembered that, as stated by Jim Matthews who was a participant, these are projected demand for flow studies based on a model and a bunch of data sources for relevant data to feed to the model. They were validated for short terms. It is difficult to validate over a 20 or 30 year period since the data needed does not exist into the future (naturally). Given those caveats, these are the observed major data flows justify certain levels of service by the end of the projection period. It is possible that by the time t+20 years rolls around the projections prove to be invalid, and a new one has to be worked out.
> 
> In any event for planning purposes for now this will be one input to what actually gets built. Finding funding for building anything will depend on willingness of the communities involved to participate and local state political haggling, and what not. So what actually gets built may or may not resemble what this particular model projection suggests.
> 
> Having said that, I find it interesting that St. Louis - Indy did not make the cut. There are similar omissions of what I expected would be there. But my expectation was based on feelings, not data. So who knows?


Given that KC to St. Louis is the strongest corridor that doesn't involve Chicago, I would think something from St. Louis to the east would make sense. But just because I, as an outsider looking at a map. think something makes sense doesn't mean it will make sense to the folks on the ground. St. Louis was once tremendously busy, but that was long ago and I'm not sure which ways all that traffic went much less whether it would flow that way today. Nor do I know what track is still there or what condition it or existing stations might be in.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

My instinct would be to go St. Louis to Louisville to Cincy, rather than to Indy, but I have no idea if that really makes sense.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

There are things to consider like where did folks in the various midwest cities come from, and was that too long ago for them to still have ties. As the report says, they did not factor in condition of rails or exact routes or location of existing or potential stations, all of which can have a large effect.


----------



## Bob Dylan

danasgoodstuff said:


> My instinct would be to go St. Louis to Louisville to Cincy, rather than to Indy, but I have no idea if that really makes sense.


Amtrak ran the National Ltd. to St Louis,and there was a Bus connection to the CONO from St Louis @ 0 Dark 30, but both are long gone.

It would be nice to be able to not have to go to/through Chicago when making Connections or traveling on any New Routes that may be started!


----------



## SubwayNut

There is still a connection a Thurway bus leaves St. Louis for Carbondale at 11:30pm to connect to the southbound CONO, Northbound Arrives St. Louis at 5:30am


----------



## neroden

From my perspective, this is all very well as long as they beef up that "Cleveland -> Buffalo & NYC" connection so I can get to it all by train. And the 3C corridor needs to come back and be taken more seriously, too.


----------



## Dakota 400

I am not clear as to what that proposed map shows regarding Columbus and Dayton in relation to connecting to Cincinnati and Cleveland.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

Dakota 400 said:


> I am not clear as to what that proposed map shows regarding Columbus and Dayton in relation to connecting to Cincinnati and Cleveland.


I think what it's saying is that it may very well happen, and may be great for those 4 cities, but that it won't impact the rest of the network much - you could connect to the LSL in Cleveland or the Cardinal in Cincinati, or what ever else is going by then, but their modelling doesn't show much of that, they expect this to be a locals mostly thing.


----------



## neroden

danasgoodstuff said:


> I think what it's saying is that it may very well happen, and may be great for those 4 cities, but that it won't impact the rest of the network much - you could connect to the LSL in Cleveland or the Cardinal in Cincinati, or what ever else is going by then, but their modelling doesn't show much of that, they expect this to be a locals mostly thing.


That means their modelling is crap. Failure to account properly for network effects == crap.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

neroden said:


> That means their modelling is crap. Failure to account properly for network effects == crap.


Supposedly they did some work to account for network effects, at various levels of service, they just don't think this line will have as much as others. I don't know enough about OHIO to know if that's true - it's not just how far apart these cities are but what traffic there is now by car and air and how people in that region think about what's close to them and where they want to go. I don't know enough about the inputs they used nor about the CONNECT modelling they used to know whether the end result is 'crap' or not. Until they get the other service thru Cincy at some time other than the middle of the night, there's likely to be little network effect from any other service.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

I think it would be interesting to use the tools used here to predict lines in service as if they weren't and see how good the predictions are.


----------



## neroden

Yeah, you'd need a second frequency on the Water Level Route from Cleveland to Buffalo to connect with the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincy line to see significant connecting traffic, *but that second frequency should be built for its own sake anyway.*

I suspect that the model has unnatural boundaries and fails to properly model traffic across the boundary line. Common.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

neroden said:


> Yeah, you'd need a second frequency on the Water Level Route from Cleveland to Buffalo to connect with the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincy line to see significant connecting traffic, *but that second frequency should be built for its own sake anyway.*
> 
> I suspect that the model has unnatural boundaries and fails to properly model traffic across the boundary line. Common.


They did model at different frequencies and with different additional legs added, but I'm not sure if they varied existing services (if that makes sense). I don't think they did schedule variations...all these things matter, but at some point there gets to be too many variables.


----------



## IndyLions

neroden said:


> That means their modelling is crap. Failure to account properly for network effects == crap.



From what I read they did take networking into account and claimed increased connections would have a huge impact on ridership overall. They just didn’t identify the CLE-COL-CIN corridor as a “pillar”. That doesn’t mean it isn’t important.


----------



## Willbridge

Ziv said:


> I have wondered whether a train that covered the tracks between Denver CO, Kansas City MO, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Charleston WV, Culpepper VA to DC Union Station would work in a more train friendly future. It seems that, as danasgoodstuff points out, having all the EW trains route through Chicago is logistically logical but kind of a pain for real world train users.



In 1975 Secretary Coleman selected extension of the _National Limited _to Denver from Kansas City as the first route under legislation requiring Amtrak to add a two-year experimental service each year. This never happened, due presumably to the bad problems on the National's tracks and the rapidly growing coal traffic between Pueblo and Denver and the single-tracking of the Palmer Divide.

The National had a tri-weekly Washington, DC section and a daily NYC section so it would have done somewhat the same as the suggestion above.


----------



## IndyLions

jis said:


> Having said that, I find it interesting that St. Louis - Indy did not make the cut. There are similar omissions of what I expected would be there. But my expectation was based on feelings, not data. So who knows?



If the other corridor routes become popular, I could see IND-STL emerging as a gateway connection to the west, kind of like a NAS-ATL gateway to the south.


----------



## Dakota 400

IndyLions said:


> They just didn’t identify the CLE-COL-CIN corridor as a “pillar”. That doesn’t mean it isn’t important.



Well, it is important for those of us who would be impacted by such service. Weeks ago, when Amtrak made the initial proposal for starting this service, I recall that there would be sufficient service to make decent connections in CIN and CLE.


----------



## GoAmtrak

danasgoodstuff said:


> I think what it's saying is that it may very well happen, and may be great for those 4 cities, but that it won't impact the rest of the network much - you could connect to the LSL in Cleveland or the Cardinal in Cincinati, or what ever else is going by then, but their modelling doesn't show much of that, they expect this to be a locals mostly thing.


I really hope this connection is going to happen. I'm interested in visiting Cincinnati one day. Currently, as already mentioned, there are so few connections and they are in the middle of the night. Columbus having no passenger railway service would also be unthinkable in Western Europe regarding its size. 

For me the Cleveland-Cincinnati connection could also help the network a little bit as you could also connect Indianapolis with Cleveland (although you would have to change trains in Cincinnati, but better than nothing). How much time would a trip from Indianapolis to Cleveland via Cincinnati likely take?

With this connection, Cincinnati could eventually be linked with Pittsburgh and Buffalo, via Cleveland.


Additionally, the Toledo-Detroit connection seems interesting for me as well. According to my geo portal, there seem to be in minimum 4 different tracks running directly northwards between those two cities. Could it not be possible to acquire one line completely from the freight companies? Is there somebody here who can give me an explanation for the situation there?

Indeed, I would like to see an additional line from Saint Louis to Indianapolis as well. But unfortunately, I guess it seems not to be under serious consideration by Amtrak as its not in their infrastructure plan.


----------



## IndyLions

GoAmtrak said:


> Additionally, the Toledo-Detroit connection seems interesting for me as well. According to my geo portal, there seem to be in minimum 4 different tracks running directly northwards between those two cities. Could it not be possible to acquire one line completely from the freight companies? Is there somebody here who can give me an explanation for the situation there?



It is completely feasible that the state of Michigan could acquire trackage to Toledo. They own the tracks from Kalamazoo to Dearborn, with Amtrak owning Kalamazoo to Porter, IN. And because there are so many active lines Detroit-Toledo and even Ann Arbor-Toledo, it seems there should be a willing partner at some point.


----------



## west point

2 main tracks CTC Detroit - TOL seems much better. Combine and leave room for any future passenger only tracks . Run one or 2 services presently on the 2 MTs and when enough passenger trains are warranted build the passenger train only track next to the 2 MT.


----------



## Amtrak Apple

I'm not sure why they are pushing for a Dubuque connection when Chicago to Iowa City would be a home run...so many students at the U of I are from Chicago.


----------



## John Bredin

Amtrak Apple said:


> I'm not sure why they are pushing for a Dubuque connection when Chicago to Iowa City would be a home run...so many students at the U of I are from Chicago.


1) Why not both Dubuque and Iowa City *if* the money's available?

2) I imagine Galena alone merits service beyond Rockford as it's a popular destination for day trips and weekends from Chicago. If they get to Galena, why not a bit farther to Dubuque?

3) This is all a bit moot. For the foreseeable future -- as long as CN acts like it acts now -- nothing will get beyond Rockford on CN tracks, which is the only route between Rockford, Galena, and Dubuque.


----------



## GoAmtrak

Thank you for your insights about Iowa, John Bredin. I would also like to have railway service expanded in Iowa. Currently, none of the 10 largest cities in Iowa are served by any sort passenger rail! Perhaps with the Amtrak 2035 plans there could be a chance to change that. But there is a need to step in by the Iowa Representatives to move things forward.

Concerning Ohio, future improvements seem to be more concrete, with a timeline of about 3 to 4 years to re-install passenger railway service between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati:








Amtrak expansion in infrastructure bill to connect Dayton to Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus


“When it comes to passenger rail, this is transformational. There’s never been this kind of investment in passenger rail probably since the New Deal Era,” said Stu Nicholson of All Aboard Ohio, an advocacy group for transportation.




www.whio.com





4 years would be quite solid. Let's hope we don't end up waiting 40 years.

Strangely enough, I have no news about the Toledo-Detroit-connection we talked recently. Has anybody news about it? Such a short distance with such nice effects on the network in the region. Let's make it happen!

I appreciate the efforts and the media presence of some figures of All Aboard Ohio who push to move forward (especially concerning connections to and from Cincinnati). From All Aboard Wisconsin in contrast, there isn't a lot to hear in the media (despite quite impressive plans presented by Amtrak for Wisconsin).


----------



## Dakota 400

GoAmtrak said:


> Concerning Ohio, future improvements seem to be more concrete, with a timeline of about 3 to 4 years to re-install passenger railway service between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati





GoAmtrak said:


> I appreciate the efforts and the media presence of some figures of All Aboard Ohio who push to move forward



If the Federal money needed to start this service is part of a grant program with the State providing equal amounts of money, that could be a very large stumbling block for Ohio. We have a conservatively centralist GOP Governor who has not committed on the starting of the 3C+D service. We have a General Assembly who is much more conservative than the Governor, but, when the proposal was first made by Amtrak, my own State Senator who is quite conservative seemed open to considering it. There is a Democratic candidate for Governor in 2022 who has voiced her strong support for the 3C+D service. The results of the 2022 election may be extremely important as to what happens to this proposed service.


----------



## GoAmtrak

Dakota 400 said:


> If the Federal money needed to start this service is part of a grant program with the State providing equal amounts of money, that could be a very large stumbling block for Ohio. We have a conservatively centralist GOP Governor who has not committed on the starting of the 3C+D service. We have a General Assembly who is much more conservative than the Governor, but, when the proposal was first made by Amtrak, my own State Senator who is quite conservative seemed open to considering it. There is a Democratic candidate for Governor in 2022 who has voiced her strong support for the 3C+D service. The results of the 2022 election may be extremely important as to what happens to this proposed service.


I learned it is Dayton major Nan Whaley who strongly supports Amtrak service from Cleveland to Cincinnati.









Amtrak stations in '3 C's+D' statewide possible with Infrastructure Bill signing


DAYTON, Ohio (WKEF) -- A possible boost in transportation across Ohio could be coming after President Biden's $1. 2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill is signed into law. Billions of dollars from the deal could provide Amtrak services in major cities around the state. In Dayton, until 1979, Dayton...




dayton247now.com





In another article, they said it would not take 3 to 4 years to re-open service between Cleveland and Cincinnati, but 10 years. Whaley Leads Drive For Infrastructure Bill

How can this take so long? Tracks are there, you just need to upgrade them a little bit. In ten years you could almost build an entire new line. It's not a trip from New Mexico to Alaska, it's Cleveland - Cincinnati  Additionally, with all those delays which frequently occur I fear we end up waiting that many years...


----------



## west point

There may be incorrect assumptions made about how fast projects can be started. Is there an assumption that there is immediate availability of track and signal material. Ties probably will not be a limitation. But what about rail? Orders for rail may have been made for the next 2 - 3 years future delivery? There might not be any additional capacity in the short run? Then you have the necessity of grading for additional sidings and 2nd main track? If there are utilities under the tracks that are not encased that will have to be completed first.


----------



## Dakota 400

GoAmtrak said:


> I learned it is Dayton major Nan Whaley who strongly supports Amtrak service from Cleveland to Cincinnati.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak stations in '3 C's+D' statewide possible with Infrastructure Bill signing
> 
> 
> DAYTON, Ohio (WKEF) -- A possible boost in transportation across Ohio could be coming after President Biden's $1. 2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill is signed into law. Billions of dollars from the deal could provide Amtrak services in major cities around the state. In Dayton, until 1979, Dayton...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dayton247now.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In another article, they said it would not take 3 to 4 years to re-open service between Cleveland and Cincinnati, but 10 years. Whaley Leads Drive For Infrastructure Bill
> 
> How can this take so long? Tracks are there, you just need to upgrade them a little bit. In ten years you could almost build an entire new line. It's not a trip from New Mexico to Alaska, it's Cleveland - Cincinnati  Additionally, with all those delays which frequently occur I fear we end up waiting that many years...



I am unsure as to the accuracy of this TV stations reporting. Of the three TV stations in Dayton, this one has the weakest news department. 

If the money is available, it won't take 10 years to get this route started. Maybe the largest issue will be where to locate the stations in Columbus and Dayton. There is nothing in Dayton that would be remotely adequate to serve Amtrak and I suspect Columbus has the same issue.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

Stations will be a sticking point, but even with some appropriate process around that it should be possible to get this done in 5-6 years.


----------



## Just me

When I was a kid, one of my fondest memories was riding the train from a small town in SW Indiana to St. Louis to visit relatives. Passenger service stopped after a few years of my being "of travel age" according to my family. Logistically, it is almost a straight shot. It would be nice if they would consider a route from Louisville through Evansville, IN through Carbondale and then on west to St. Louis.


----------



## Dakota 400

danasgoodstuff said:


> Stations will be a sticking point, but even with some appropriate process around that it should be possible to get this done in 5-6 years.



And, I think sooner than that. If all of those at all levels of government in Ohio are on board with the plan. And, if it's a matching grant type of funding, Ohio's General Assembly will do its part. (The last I read, Ohio has a sizable "rainy day fund" and if the economy continues to improve, our tax revenues ought to increase.)


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I'm excited for some of this to happen - I haven't really checked into it yet, but hopefully Illinois snags some of the infrastructure money to push ahead with Rockford and Quad Cities to get them/be ready for when the new Siemens cars finally arrive...


----------



## neroden

Dakota 400 said:


> And, I think sooner than that. If all of those at all levels of government in Ohio are on board with the plan.


Who gets elected in Ohio is key. Remember, a single election of one Republican governor killed the Cincy-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland line for 10 years.


----------



## Anthony V

neroden said:


> Who gets elected in Ohio is key. Remember, a single election of one Republican governor killed the Cincy-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland line for 10 years.


Current Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, who is a centrist Republican, is playing a wait-and-see game when it comes to the feasibility of the 3C+D corridor based on how much it will cost the state. However, he has supported Amtrak funding in the past, so there may be some hope there, but so far there has been no action to getting this route started, despite its high ridership potential.


----------



## Dakota 400

Anthony V said:


> Current Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, who is a centrist Republican, is playing a wait-and-see game when it comes to the feasibility of the 3C+D corridor based on how much it will cost the state. However, he has supported Amtrak funding in the past, so there may be some hope there, but so far there has been no action to getting this route started, despite its high ridership potential.



Governor DeWine has to work with a very conservative General Assembly and has had to move to the "right" in recent months because of the opposition he has experienced from some members of that body. If he wins the GOP Primary in May and is re-elected in November, he will have the opportunity to return to his more centrist position (which I would consider is one of a pragmatic conservative who wants to get "stuff done"). At that point, the Governor would be in a better position to support the 3C+D corridor than he does now.


----------



## GoAmtrak

Dakota 400 said:


> Governor DeWine has to work with a very conservative General Assembly and has had to move to the "right" in recent months because of the opposition he has experienced from some members of that body. If he wins the GOP Primary in May and is re-elected in November, he will have the opportunity to return to his more centrist position (which I would consider is one of a pragmatic conservative who wants to get "stuff done"). At that point, the Governor would be in a better position to support the 3C+D corridor than he does now.


I feel somewhat discouraged by the party strength in the Ohio State Senate and some tendencies. I just checked on Wikipedia, the Ohio State Senate has 25 Republicans and 8 Democrats - the fewest number of Democrats since 1952 (!). Why the party of the great again man is that popular in Ohio? Are the Democrats increasingly in decline in Ohio?

Under this circumstances, is there any chance any improvements of passenger rail can come to Ohio? I heard not all Republicans are against passenger rail, but most aren't they. Is it not highly likely Ohio politicans just give proposed money back as it was already the case with John Kasich? Would be quite "impressive" if Ohio doesn't go any step further for centuries


----------



## MARC Rider

GoAmtrak said:


> I feel somewhat discouraged by the party strength in the Ohio State Senate and some tendencies. I just checked on Wikipedia, the Ohio State Senate has 25 Republicans and 8 Democrats - the fewest number of Democrats since 1952 (!). Why the party of the great again man is that popular in Ohio? Are the Democrats increasingly in decline in Ohio?
> 
> Under this circumstances, is there any chance any improvements of passenger rail can come to Ohio? I heard not all Republicans are against passenger rail, but most aren't they. Is it not highly likely Ohio politicans just give proposed money back as it was already the case with John Kasich? Would be quite "impressive" if Ohio doesn't go any step further for centuries


This really shouldn't be a partisan political issue. There are many states that have strongly supported at least some Amtrak service under the leadership of both parties (Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania (especially for the Keystones), New York, even Wisconsin if you only count the Hiawatha Service). For some reason, the leadership in Ohio (probably mostly in the Legislature) has come under the spell of an ideological position that intercity passenger rail is not worthy of the expenditure of any public money. Indiana seems to be in a similar position, though they are quite willing to spend zillions on upgrading the South Shore Line, they had no interest in supporting the _Hoosier State _or any more extensive corridor service between Indianapolis and Chicago. 

While some of this might be the fact that rural and exurban interests are ascendant mainly due to gerrymandering, I think it's mainly a ideological thing -- a belief that mobility needs are best met through the private automobile, or maybe buses for the unfortunate minority who can't afford a car or are unable to drive one. And the more extreme forms of the ideology would say that the bus service should be financed solely by private capital and from the farebox. I'm not sure that a majority of the electorate buys that ideology, but they do vote for politicians who have that ideology. Support for Amtrak or other intercity passenger rail services is not one of those issues that voters feel so strongly about that they'll vote against a candidate who opposes their position.

I'm not a political operative, so I have no idea what can be done to change this situation. I guess all the local rail advocates can do is keep talking to as many elected officials from both parties as they can. Perhaps a leader from an unexpected place can be convinced that passenger rail is a god thing and will be able to slip in support for this service, which, after all, in the big scheme of state budgets and such, is really small change.


----------



## west point

Another important item about legislators. Does a specific legislator have automobile background? Those that do you can forget changing their mind


----------



## sttom

The only expedient way to change the minds of state legislators is to take support for rail out of their hands. We did so with roads under the Interstate Highway Project, doing the same for rail would be no different. They would become more willing to support rail as it becomes a more normal form of transportation. Congress could be talking into supporting rail more so than 50 states that will get on their knees for 15 cents of federal funding. Congress at least sees the value of Amtrak as it exists now, talking them into giving the states proportionally allotted money might take work, but I'm willing to bet it would be way easier than talking every state to give an inconsistent amount of money to Amtrak.


----------



## MARC Rider

sttom said:


> The only expedient way to change the minds of state legislators is to take support for rail out of their hands. We did so with roads under the Interstate Highway Project, doing the same for rail would be no different. They would become more willing to support rail as it becomes a more normal form of transportation. Congress could be talking into supporting rail more so than 50 states that will get on their knees for 15 cents of federal funding. Congress at least sees the value of Amtrak as it exists now, talking them into giving the states proportionally allotted money might take work, but I'm willing to bet it would be way easier than talking every state to give an inconsistent amount of money to Amtrak.


This is probably true, but I don't think that at the national level the votes are there yet for a dedicated funding source for passenger rail the same way that the highways have such a source in the fuel tax. But it's true that once there's a pot of Federal money that can go to the states and be used only for passenger rail projects, there may be more interest in such projects. 

But you still can't discount the power of ideological opposition to government funding of such things. Consider the case of Merritt H. Taylor Jr., the owner of the Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Company, one of the last fully privately run transit companies in the US. He was very conservative and believed the government had no business subsidizing companies like his. He resisted all forms of regional cooperation, especially with governmental entities like SEPTA, and kept his company private for as long as he could. However, in the end, he did sell out to SEPTA. The ideology is still there, which is why there are a lot of people rooting for Brightline, because they're not taking government money. The problem is, I'm not sure the Brightline model can be repeated in other places. Even their Las Vegas line is not really going to work without partnering with the publicly owned railroads serving central Los Angeles.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> The ideology is still there, which is why there are a lot of people rooting for Brightline, because they're not taking government money. The problem is, I'm not sure the Brightline model can be repeated in other places. Even their Las Vegas line is not really going to work without partnering with the publicly owned railroads serving central Los Angeles.


Unbeknownst to the ideologues, Brightline is actually selectively taking public money specially for enabling commuter service on their lines, and for building stations in Florida. As long as the ideologues don't notice on both sides, things should be fine - as long as the pragmatists rule the roost of action while ideologues spend all their time and energy just arguing with each other that is.


----------



## Dakota 400

GoAmtrak said:


> feel somewhat discouraged by the party strength in the Ohio State Senate and some tendencies. I just checked on Wikipedia, the Ohio State Senate has 25 Republicans and 8 Democrats - the fewest number of Democrats since 1952 (!). Why the party of the great again man is that popular in Ohio? Are the Democrats increasingly in decline in Ohio?



Gerrymandering is the name of the game in Ohio. Two Constitutional Amendments were passed in 2015 and 2018 that ought to have impacted what the alignment of Ohio State Representative/Senate Districts as well as our Congressional Districts ought to realistically represent on the basis of the distribution of votes for both Parties. TOTALLY IGNORED by the "those in power" to make such decisions. The issues are now before the Ohio Supreme Court with a one vote margin tilt towards the GOP. But, and I think it may be a major factor, the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, a GOP politician, has shown that she is unafraid to "go off the reservation" at times. And, she is term limited. If that happens and the entire redistricting issues on State and Federal levels are thrown back into the legislative hopper for our General Assembly to resolve, who knows what will happen. Having such happen, in my opinion, has the potential to be good news for the 3C+D plan.


----------



## sttom

MARC Rider said:


> This is probably true, but I don't think that at the national level the votes are there yet for a dedicated funding source for passenger rail the same way that the highways have such a source in the fuel tax. But it's true that once there's a pot of Federal money that can go to the states and be used only for passenger rail projects, there may be more interest in such projects.
> 
> But you still can't discount the power of ideological opposition to government funding of such things. Consider the case of Merritt H. Taylor Jr., the owner of the Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Company, one of the last fully privately run transit companies in the US. He was very conservative and believed the government had no business subsidizing companies like his. He resisted all forms of regional cooperation, especially with governmental entities like SEPTA, and kept his company private for as long as he could. However, in the end, he did sell out to SEPTA. The ideology is still there, which is why there are a lot of people rooting for Brightline, because they're not taking government money. The problem is, I'm not sure the Brightline model can be repeated in other places. Even their Las Vegas line is not really going to work without partnering with the publicly owned railroads serving central Los Angeles.


The votes can be secured if you give Congress something to vote on and someone at Amtrak were actually competent at making the point that they can provide a much more useful service for the money. For twice what Amtrak did manage to get from the Infrastructure bill, they could easily double the number of route miles served a dramatically increase it's ridership. 

As for convincing people, it really depends on the crowd. Rural Congress people already support Amtrak, so it's not like it would take them much to support an expansion program. Politicians from urban areas would be fairly easy to convince as well. The main lines of convincing would be traffic relief and economic development around stations. Which would help their developer friends. The wild cards would be suburban Republicans, politicians from right along the NEC and Northeastern politicians not along the NEC.

The NEC politicians would demand a pound of flesh for sure and their Senators would guarantee that. I would consider northeastern politicians a separate group because they might vote as a block within their states, but I don't see why a politicians from say Buffalo would care about better trains between New York City and DC. Suburbans Republicans might be a lost cause depending on what state they are from. I doubt someone like Dan Crenshaw would vote to expand Amtrak no matter how good it was for Texas whereas someone from North Carolina or Virginia would be more open to it. 

Then there is what devil's are in the details? Obviously relying on the states to play along with a small amount of federal money is a failed idea. Which is why I have pondered just giving Amtrak a set amount annually to run "State Services" and just letting them stretch it as far as they can if a state decided to be a pain. Which after digging through some of the regulations around rail and Amtrak, it doesn't seem like they would need the states if the feds foot the bill. The issue is more about how much is being spent, how is it allotted and can we spin this into an economic development argument.


----------



## neroden

Dakota 400 said:


> Governor DeWine has to work with a very conservative General Assembly and has had to move to the "right" in recent months because of the opposition he has experienced from some members of that body. If he wins the GOP Primary in May and is re-elected in November, he will have the opportunity to return to his more centrist position (which I would consider is one of a pragmatic conservative who wants to get "stuff done"). At that point, the Governor would be in a better position to support the 3C+D corridor than he does now.


Or will he? Unfortunately, we discovered in Iowa that a fanatically anti-rail Republican legislature can kill a rail project even if the governor supports it and it's 80% federally funded.


----------



## neroden

MARC Rider said:


> This really shouldn't be a partisan political issue.



Yeah, but you could say that about practically every current partisan political issue. Should we be wearing masks in public during an airborne pandemic? Should citizens be able to vote without having their right taken away by tricks and suppression? Should insurrectionists violently attack the Capitol?

Those ARE partisan political issues now, although they SHOULDN'T be, and they used to not be. Rail service shouldn't be either, but here we are.

In some states, none of these are partisan political issues (Massachusetts!) but in most of the country, this is how far we've sunk.

I realize I'm essentially supporting what you said.


----------



## Dakota 400

neroden said:


> Or will he? Unfortunately, we discovered in Iowa that a fanatically anti-rail Republican legislature can kill a rail project even if the governor supports it and it's 80% federally funded.



Regarding our General Assembly, what you are saying is very true. They have thwarted several important issues that he strongly supported in the past 3+ years. There are some rail supporters in Ohio who are "somewhat excited" about the candidacy of Dayton's Mayor for the Democratic nomination for Governor because she has announced her support for 3C+D if she is elected. But, realistically, she will still have to work with a likely GOP General Assembly.


----------



## GoAmtrak

By pure chance I just read Fort Madison, Iowa re-opened its old railway station in downtown, with the first train stopping there in mid-december: Amtrak is back in Fort Madison - Radio Iowa

I like that move. The other train station was one without character and was a 30 minutes walk away from the city center. Questionable urban planning again. Now passengers directly arrive in the old albeit small city center.

By the way, how does it work Google Maps adapting changes? Can people possessing a Google conto add or relocate localities on Google Maps? Does somebody know about it? It would be bad for people going to the wrong place when looking for the train station.

Those are small steps towards better passenger railway transport. Another location of a train station I don't like is that of South Bend, Indiana which is also over half an hour away from the city center. Why don't they re-use the old union station which is close to downtown? Is it because South Bend is also on the South Shore line and they don't make extend that line that few miles further? That's not a true reason.


----------



## jis

GoAmtrak said:


> I don't like is that of South Bend, Indiana which is also over half an hour away from the city center. Why don't they re-use the old union station which is close to downtown? Is it because South Bend is also on the South Shore line and they don't make extend that line that few miles further? That's not a true reason.


That could not be the or even a reason since CSSSB trains do not go to the South Bend Amtrak station any more, and haven't done so in ages now.

They have occasionally made noises about getting the CSSSB to terminate at or near the South Bend Union Station location, but there is always something or the other that intervenes. The present Federal SecDOT was very much in favor of such a scheme when he was the Mayor of South Bend.

The fact that the old Union Station is located right at an important congested interlocking of course does not help getting NS on board, though there is a way to isolate the passenger line from the interlocking. But of course it costs quite a bit of money.


----------



## chrsjrcj

GoAmtrak said:


> By the way, how does it work Google Maps adapting changes? Can people possessing a Google conto add or relocate localities on Google Maps? Does somebody know about it? It would be bad for people going to the wrong place when looking for the train station.



Transit agencies typically export GTFS data which include schedules and stop locations that Google Maps, Apple Maps, etc., can use. The information on Google Maps is only as accurate as the data they receive from a transit agency is.


----------



## joelkfla

chrsjrcj said:


> Transit agencies typically export GTFS data which include schedules and stop locations that Google Maps, Apple Maps, etc., can use. The information on Google Maps is only as accurate as the data they receive from a transit agency is.


Anyone can submit a correction to a place in Google Maps, but the data feed does include coordinates for stops. I think you could end up with 2 markers on the map: one from the data feed showing the icon for the transportation mode, and another showing a generic place marker.


----------



## GoAmtrak

joelkfla said:


> Anyone can submit a correction to a place in Google Maps, but the data feed does include coordinates for stops. I think you could end up with 2 markers on the map: one from the data feed showing the icon for the transportation mode, and another showing a generic place marker.


Thank you. I tried it. I was able to add something, but there was no category like "railway station", "public transport" or somehing like that. So, I couldn't add a blue train sign being used by Via Rail or Amtrak on Google Maps. Perhaps only transportation agencies are able to do that.



jis said:


> The fact that the old Union Station is located right at an important congested interlocking of course does not help getting NS on board, though there is a way to isolate the passenger line from the interlocking. But of course it costs quite a bit of money.


I understand. I just thought Amtrak lines pass close to South Bend Union Station nonetheless, so why not stop there. And of course it would be great to expand the South Shore to South Bend Union Station to give connections without always going to Chicago.

The Indiana Government still acts like we would be in the 1970's. I'm convinced the money is there, they probably just prefer to spend it on highways and airports. On a huge budget, they thought about 3 million for the Hoosier State Train wouldn't be there. Highways crowded? Okay, let's build an additonal lane. It's a ridiculous. They act like an environmental crisis doesn't exist.


----------



## west point

Remember the pols just follow what the voters want. Of Course, what the voters want is "follow the money"


----------



## GoAmtrak

neroden said:


> Or will he? Unfortunately, we discovered in Iowa that a fanatically anti-rail Republican legislature can kill a rail project even if the governor supports it and it's 80% federally funded.


An interesting article about expanding passenger railway in Ohio.





The Columbus Dispatch







eu.dispatch.com





A timeline is set for summer 2022 to signal Amtrak their interest for expanding. Nothing happened yet. They are still unsure. John Kasich memorial highway incoming  

If the Ohio government doesn't take this chance even if they don't have to pay for the first five years... then we probably end up waiting for another 50 years... Or 250 years. Cultural backwardness might be endless.

Who wants to inform some Ohio politicians in power that the 21st century started? And to gain in the long term, you are forced to invest first? Crazy idea, but it does work often.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

GoAmtrak said:


> An interesting article about expanding passenger railway in Ohio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Columbus Dispatch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eu.dispatch.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A timeline is set for summer 2022 to signal Amtrak their interest for expanding. Nothing happened yet. They are still unsure. John Kasich memorial highway incoming
> 
> If the Ohio government doesn't take this chance even if they don't have to pay for the first five years... then we probably end up waiting for another 50 years... Or 250 years. Cultural backwardness might be endless.
> 
> Who wants to inform some Ohio politicians in power that the 21st century started? And to gain in the long term, you are forced to invest first? Crazy idea, but it does work often.


Unfortunately that article requires a subscription to read. Could you summarize its conclusions?


----------



## neroden

The question of what it will take to shift politics in Ohio and Indiana is a difficult one. But it really seems close.

If you look at the voting patterns, you'll see that the cities in both states are ready to support public transportation, as are most of the suburbs, while the rural areas are fanatically anti-rail, and have just enough votes and gerrymandering to (with the anti-rail portions of the suburbs) control the state legislature and declare "nothing but roads".

The long-term trends say that the tipping point will happen eventually, but the drift towards the cities has been slow in Ohio; much slower than in the average state, due to losing population from the major cities. Ohio was 22.1% rural in 2010, down from 24.7% in 1980. Indiana was 26.6% rural in 2010, down from 35.1% in 1980 (much faster shift). 2020 data is not ready due to subtle redefinitions of "urban area" boundaries which appear to be currently going through the Federal Register process.

The much faster shift to cities in Indiana means it may switch to being supportive first, though -- perhaps state backing for the West Lake Corridor is a harbinger of things to come.

Here's that 2010-and-earlier data ("urban" includes suburbs):




__





Urban Percentage of the Population for States, Historical | Iowa Community Indicators Program







www.icip.iastate.edu





If you look at the "urban percentage" and eyeball it with the reputation the state has for supporting / opposing public transportation, it correlates, with more urban places tending to have more public transportation. Perhaps unsurprising.

You'll see that everywhere with an urban percentage over 80% is supportive of public transportation, except Texas (where the gerrymandered state government is fighting with all the cities at once; this can't last).

Of course, you'll notice that Maine and Vermont (the two most rural states) are wild outliers, being very supportive of public transportation. The states with less than 70% urban population mostly have anti-public-transportation reputations, though Maine, Vermont, North Carolina, Oklahoma to some extent, and arguably Alaska are exceptions.

Those in the 70%-80% range are a mixed bag and seem to have really vicious fights over public transportation. It really should be possible to push the needle in the right direction in Ohio and Indiana.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

neroden said:


> The question of what it will take to shift politics in Ohio and Indiana is a difficult one. But it really seems close.
> 
> If you look at the voting patterns, you'll see that the cities in both states are ready to support public transportation, as are most of the suburbs, while the rural areas are fanatically anti-rail, and have just enough votes and gerrymandering to (with the anti-rail portions of the suburbs) control the state legislature and declare "nothing but roads".
> 
> The long-term trends say that the tipping point will happen eventually, but the drift towards the cities has been slow in Ohio; much slower than in the average state, due to losing population from the major cities. Ohio was 22.1% rural in 2010, down from 24.7% in 1980. Indiana was 26.6% rural in 2010, down from 35.1% in 1980 (much faster shift). 2020 data is not ready due to subtle redefinitions of "urban area" boundaries which appear to be currently going through the Federal Register process.
> 
> The much faster shift to cities in Indiana means it may switch to being supportive first, though -- perhaps state backing for the West Lake Corridor is a harbinger of things to come.
> 
> Here's that 2010-and-earlier data ("urban" includes suburbs):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urban Percentage of the Population for States, Historical | Iowa Community Indicators Program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icip.iastate.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the "urban percentage" and eyeball it with the reputation the state has for supporting / opposing public transportation, it correlates, with more urban places tending to have more public transportation. Perhaps unsurprising.
> 
> You'll see that everywhere with an urban percentage over 80% is supportive of public transportation, except Texas (where the gerrymandered state government is fighting with all the cities at once; this can't last).
> 
> Of course, you'll notice that Maine and Vermont (the two most rural states) are wild outliers, being very supportive of public transportation. The states with less than 70% urban population mostly have anti-public-transportation reputations, though Maine, Vermont, North Carolina, Oklahoma to some extent, and arguably Alaska are exceptions.
> 
> Those in the 70%-80% range are a mixed bag and seem to have really vicious fights over public transportation. It really should be possible to push the needle in the right direction in Ohio and Indiana.


Interesting. I wonder if better advocacy as to how trains can benefit even a rural population might help turn the tide
-Rural areas benefit from increased intercity service with stops at nearby locations.
- most rural areas have aging populations and driving especially long distances can be difficult. Travel often needed to nearby cities for medical care. For a retired person time is not as much of an issue.
- much more relaxing than flying.


----------



## MARC Rider

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> - most rural areas have aging populations and driving especially long distances can be difficult. Travel often needed to nearby cities for medical care. For a retired person time is not as much of an issue.


Just as in cities, most of the mobility people needs is local. In really rural areas, it might be cheaper to just give elderly people who can't drive vouchers for Uber, etc. (although in some small towns, they don't even have taxis or Uber.) Traffic congestion is really not an issue in small town rural America (though it could be in the exurbs). Neither is air pollution, unless it's being blown over from a big city.

The main advantage of Amtrak for rural people is that it can give them mobility to access the closest large cities without having to drive all the way there and deal with the heavy urban traffic, parking, and so forth. Some of the larger small towns and cities in rural areas that can support a rental car agency can benefit from tourist traffic. Also, I wonder how "rabidly anti rail" rural people really are. Support for passenger rail may not be high on their personal agenda, which might cause them to vote for candidates who are "rabidly anti-rail" because of the candidates' position on other issues, which are more important to the average rural voter. I know I don't agree with all of the policies and positions of the candidates I vote for. I have to prioritize issues and make a choice about which candidate best aligns with my views.


----------



## GoAmtrak

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Unfortunately that article requires a subscription to read. Could you summarize its conclusions?


Nothing really new was in the article. The only thing which stood out was the timeline states should reach Amtrak regarding their 2035 proposals: summer 2022. Unfortunately nothing concrete apart from this. The Ohio officials seem to be undecided. They shouldn't wait, they waited long enough to do something for passenger rail (in contrast, money for highways is rarely a problem isn't it).


Another project caught the attention of Amtrak, this time one which isn't in their 2035 plan: It's a connection in Illinois, between Joliet and Peoria, eventually bringing passenger railway back to Peoria for the first time since 1978 (?). Peoria could also get a direct connection to Chicago that way. Intermediate stops being proposed are Morris, Ottawa and Peru, IL.
StackPath

I learned Morris, Ottawa, Peru and Peoria all still possess old train stations in their towns, located along the line being considered. It would be nice to bring life back to those old stations 

Illinois already has quite a good passenger railway network (compared to other Midwestern US states) and with this move, could improve further.


----------



## John Bredin

I wasn't aware of any plans to restore service on the old Rock Island to Peoria. I don't think it's in the Illinois state rail plan. The previous discussions about serving Peoria involved connecting at Normal to the Lincoln Service route to take advantage of the improvements to that line.

Service on the old Rock Island would be as much about the intermediate stops as Peoria. Being able to get to the popular Starved Rock State Park from metro Chicago without driving (Starved Rock being a big economic factor in the area, someone would run a shuttle if there was a train) would be great! This article includes a survey, and I filled it out because I probably would take the train to the Starved Rock area if it (and a shuttle) existed.


----------



## Eric S

Running a Thruway bus shuttle between Peoria and Normal, connecting with all (or at least most) trains at Normal would be a great start. There are a number of possible Thruway connections I'd like to see added/improved, or at least considered/studied, in Illinois (Champaign - Decatur - Springfield, as an example). I guess that's probably the case in most states/regions.


----------



## rs9

John Bredin said:


> I wasn't aware of any plans to restore service on the old Rock Island to Peoria. I don't think it's in the Illinois state rail plan. The previous discussions about serving Peoria involved connecting at Normal to the Lincoln Service route to take advantage of the improvements to that line.
> 
> Service on the old Rock Island would be as much about the intermediate stops as Peoria. Being able to get to the popular Starved Rock State Park from metro Chicago without driving (Starved Rock being a big economic factor in the area, someone would run a shuttle if there was a train) would be great! This article includes a survey, and I filled it out because I probably would take the train to the Starved Rock area if it (and a shuttle) existed.



Yes a thousand times over as a Chicago resident. I've tried to figure out a bike route from the Mendota Amtrak station to Starved Rock, but it's simply too far and probably not remotely safe.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

That's very interesting about Peoria service. First I've heard too. The only thing expansion-wise I've heard recently (other than Quad Cities and Rockford) was talk about a Metra extension to Oswego.


----------



## jis

Here is the article that I could access without any subscription:









Peoria's proposed passenger rail route would connect the River City to Chicago


The Illinois Department of Transportation is currently conducting a feasibility study looking at a new passenger rail corridor running from Peoria through LaSalle-Peru, Ottawa, Morris, and Joliet up to Chicago.




www.wcbu.org





It is something that Peoria City Managers are studying to produce a report to take to Illinois DOT and Amtrak at some point apparently.


----------



## MikefromCrete

This Peoria proposal just came out of nowhere. It's not part of the Midwest report and IDOT is probably leary of it since the failure of the short-term Prairie Marksman many years ago.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Saw the report about Peoria service a couple of days ago. It's actually a pretty smart play on Peoria's part.

As everyone here knows well, Amtrak wants to re-establish service in several parts of the country and is willing to shoulder the upfront costs and a healthy portion of the operating subsidy for a number of years, provided the states then agree to take over the responsibility for funding the operating subsidies later on.

So, what if Ohio, for example, says, "No, thanks." to the 3C+D? Or three states turn down Amtrak's offer? Or six states? Would it not be a good idea for Peoria to have a project in its back pocket, ready to develop if Ohio or Indiana or some other state throws away another chance at passenger rail?

Regarding the Prairie Marksman, it didn't take the old Rock Island route and only stopped at Joliet between Chicago and Peoria. The articles I've read state that the Rock Island route is what was being looked at for this revival, and would terminate in Peoria proper, not East Peoria.

Something to consider - several years ago, the towns of the Illinois Valley produced a study in which they looked at extending Metra-Rock Island service from Joliet, through the valley, all the way to LaSalle-Peru. In the final analysis, it was decided if anything would be done, they'd run DMUs between LaSalle-Peru and Joliet, stopping at the old Rock Island platform west of UD interlocking, with passengers making their way over to the new Rock Island platform east of UD, board Metra there, and continue onto Chicago. The fact that the new route would service three towns already looking at rail service might mean Peoria wouldn't stand alone in advocating for it.

A few concerns I have about the project-

The Chicago to Joliet segment is a bit of a mystery. I don't see CN allowing any new trains onto the Heritage Corridor (former Alton/GMO) line to Joliet. As it is the STB has told Amtrak they need to get Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle trains off that line at some point.

Here's a question I have. Here is an overhead shot of Joliet UD interlocking, Heritage Corridor tracks are the two right tracks running north-south; the former Rock Island is the single track running east-west. Even if a Rock Island track was put down on the far south end of that viaduct, could a train safely turn off the Heritage onto the Rock? It looks awfully tight.






If the Rock Island route between Chicago and Joliet was utilized, the project would have to be put on hold until a connector at either 16th Street or 40th Street was constructed, or they'd have to originate trips to Peoria from LaSalle Street Station.

Another point about UD interlocking - when Joliet Union Station was reconfigured 5 years ago or so, Metra ceded control of UD interlocking to BNSF and UP. The Metra-Rock Island platform was moved to the other side of UD to keep the freights moving through with no Metra interference. Would BNSF and UP even consider the possibility of allowing passenger trains to run through UD again?

Also, just west of UD the old Rock Island tracks all the way to Utica form the New Rock subdivision, held by CSX. Considering how hostile CSX has become about allowing even a single new train onto their tracks, does this project even stand a chance?

West of Utica to Bureau Junction and down to Peoria, the tracks belong to Iowa Interstate. Haven't they been a little difficult about the Wyanet-Moline segment of the long-delayed Quad Cities service already?

I would really like to see this happen. Too many questions right now to be confident it will.


----------



## WWW

MisterUptempo said:


> Saw the report about Peoria service a couple of days ago. It's actually a pretty smart play on Peoria's part.
> 
> As everyone here knows well, Amtrak wants to re-establish service in several parts of the country and is willing to shoulder the upfront costs and a healthy portion of the operating subsidy for a number of years, provided the states then agree to take over the responsibility for funding the operating subsidies later on.
> 
> So, what if Ohio, for example, says, "No, thanks." to the 3C+D? Or three states turn down Amtrak's offer? Or six states? Would it not be a good idea for Peoria to have a project in its back pocket, ready to develop if Ohio or Indiana or some other state throws away another chance at passenger rail?
> 
> Regarding the Prairie Marksman, it didn't take the old Rock Island route and only stopped at Joliet between Chicago and Peoria. The articles I've read state that the Rock Island route is what was being looked at for this revival, and would terminate in Peoria proper, not East Peoria.
> 
> Something to consider - several years ago, the towns of the Illinois Valley produced a study in which they looked at extending Metra-Rock Island service from Joliet, through the valley, all the way to LaSalle-Peru. In the final analysis, it was decided if anything would be done, they'd run DMUs between LaSalle-Peru and Joliet, stopping at the old Rock Island platform west of UD interlocking, with passengers making their way over to the new Rock Island platform east of UD, board Metra there, and continue onto Chicago. The fact that the new route would service three towns already looking at rail service might mean Peoria wouldn't stand alone in advocating for it.
> 
> A few concerns I have about the project-
> 
> The Chicago to Joliet segment is a bit of a mystery. I don't see CN allowing any new trains onto the Heritage Corridor (former Alton/GMO) line to Joliet. As it is the STB has told Amtrak they need to get Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle trains off that line at some point.
> 
> Here's a question I have. Here is an overhead shot of Joliet UD interlocking, Heritage Corridor tracks are the two right tracks running north-south; the former Rock Island is the single track running east-west. Even if a Rock Island track was put down on the far south end of that viaduct, could a train safely turn off the Heritage onto the Rock? It looks awfully tight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Rock Island route between Chicago and Joliet was utilized, the project would have to be put on hold until a connector at either 16th Street or 40th Street was constructed, or they'd have to originate trips to Peoria from LaSalle Street Station.
> 
> Another point about UD interlocking - when Joliet Union Station was reconfigured 5 years ago or so, Metra ceded control of UD interlocking to BNSF and UP. The Metra-Rock Island platform was moved to the other side of UD to keep the freights moving through with no Metra interference. Would BNSF and UP even consider the possibility of allowing passenger trains to run through UD again?
> 
> Also, just west of UD the old Rock Island tracks all the way to Utica form the New Rock subdivision, held by CSX. Considering how hostile CSX has become about allowing even a single new train onto their tracks, does this project even stand a chance?
> 
> West of Utica to Bureau Junction and down to Peoria, the tracks belong to Iowa Interstate. Haven't they been a little difficult about the Wyanet-Moline segment of the long-delayed Quad Cities service already?
> 
> I would really like to see this happen. Too many questions right now to be confident it will.


Expanded view of that photo - Google Map:

Google Maps 

Zoom In - Out for more less detail


----------



## rs9

MisterUptempo said:


> Saw the report about Peoria service a couple of days ago. It's actually a pretty smart play on Peoria's part.
> 
> As everyone here knows well, Amtrak wants to re-establish service in several parts of the country and is willing to shoulder the upfront costs and a healthy portion of the operating subsidy for a number of years, provided the states then agree to take over the responsibility for funding the operating subsidies later on.
> 
> So, what if Ohio, for example, says, "No, thanks." to the 3C+D? Or three states turn down Amtrak's offer? Or six states? Would it not be a good idea for Peoria to have a project in its back pocket, ready to develop if Ohio or Indiana or some other state throws away another chance at passenger rail?
> 
> Regarding the Prairie Marksman, it didn't take the old Rock Island route and only stopped at Joliet between Chicago and Peoria. The articles I've read state that the Rock Island route is what was being looked at for this revival, and would terminate in Peoria proper, not East Peoria.
> 
> Something to consider - several years ago, the towns of the Illinois Valley produced a study in which they looked at extending Metra-Rock Island service from Joliet, through the valley, all the way to LaSalle-Peru. In the final analysis, it was decided if anything would be done, they'd run DMUs between LaSalle-Peru and Joliet, stopping at the old Rock Island platform west of UD interlocking, with passengers making their way over to the new Rock Island platform east of UD, board Metra there, and continue onto Chicago. The fact that the new route would service three towns already looking at rail service might mean Peoria wouldn't stand alone in advocating for it.
> 
> A few concerns I have about the project-
> 
> The Chicago to Joliet segment is a bit of a mystery. I don't see CN allowing any new trains onto the Heritage Corridor (former Alton/GMO) line to Joliet. As it is the STB has told Amtrak they need to get Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle trains off that line at some point.
> 
> Here's a question I have. Here is an overhead shot of Joliet UD interlocking, Heritage Corridor tracks are the two right tracks running north-south; the former Rock Island is the single track running east-west. Even if a Rock Island track was put down on the far south end of that viaduct, could a train safely turn off the Heritage onto the Rock? It looks awfully tight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Rock Island route between Chicago and Joliet was utilized, the project would have to be put on hold until a connector at either 16th Street or 40th Street was constructed, or they'd have to originate trips to Peoria from LaSalle Street Station.
> 
> Another point about UD interlocking - when Joliet Union Station was reconfigured 5 years ago or so, Metra ceded control of UD interlocking to BNSF and UP. The Metra-Rock Island platform was moved to the other side of UD to keep the freights moving through with no Metra interference. Would BNSF and UP even consider the possibility of allowing passenger trains to run through UD again?
> 
> Also, just west of UD the old Rock Island tracks all the way to Utica form the New Rock subdivision, held by CSX. Considering how hostile CSX has become about allowing even a single new train onto their tracks, does this project even stand a chance?
> 
> West of Utica to Bureau Junction and down to Peoria, the tracks belong to Iowa Interstate. Haven't they been a little difficult about the Wyanet-Moline segment of the long-delayed Quad Cities service already?
> 
> I would really like to see this happen. Too many questions right now to be confident it will.



These are all good points. To address two of them:

- While it wouldn't be ideal, I don't think it would be too crazy for trains to originate at LaSalle Street Station. Saluki and Illini trains already run along the connecting track (CN, I think) between Union Station and LaSalle. And there is plenty of track space at LaSalle Street, at least based on my usage of the station during rush hours.

- Are the tracks near Utica/Peru that busy currently? I understand CSX's current attitude, and I'm not there all the time to observe, but the tracks often look unused/lightly used.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

rs9 said:


> - While it wouldn't be ideal, I don't think it would be too crazy for trains to originate at LaSalle Street Station. Saluki and Illini trains already run along the connecting track (CN, I think) between Union Station and LaSalle. And there is plenty of track space at LaSalle Street, at least based on my usage of the station during rush hours.



My guess would be that neither Metra nor Amtrak would want that, especially since Metra is planning on gradually shifting more service to LaSalle Street in the near future. 

The St Charles Air Line doesn't actually connect to LaSalle St - just a crossing at the moment.


----------



## jis

Metra Electric Rider said:


> The St Charles Air Line doesn't actually connect to LaSalle St - just a crossing at the moment.


Google maps suggest that the lead to La Salle St. does connect to the St. Charles Airline


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

jis said:


> Google maps suggest that the lead to La Salle St. does connect to the St. Charles Airline albeit not



Is that a yes or a no?


----------



## jis

Well I meant to say not facing towards La Salle Street station. But for a train coming from outside Chicago it could get to Union Station the same way that the trains coming in from the New Orleans side do.

Take a look at the map and there clearly is (or at least was when the photo was taken) a track connection from the La Salle St. lead to the St. Charles Air Line.


----------



## MisterUptempo

jis said:


> Well I meant to say not facing towards La Salle Street station. But for a train coming from outside Chicago it could get to Union Station the same way that the trains coming in from the New Orleans side do.
> 
> Take a look at the map and there clearly is a track connection from the La Salle St. lead to the St. Charles Air Line.


That's true, there is a connection between the Air Line and the Rock Island tracks, and a backup maneuver could be executed.

My concern is the time required to actually do the backup, which adds too time onto a long distance train like the CONO, and contributes to making the 300-plus-mile Illini/Saluki uncompetitive, has the potential to be absolutely ruinous to a 160-mile route like a revived Peoria Rocket.


----------



## jis

MisterUptempo said:


> My concern is the time required to actually do the backup, which adds too time onto a long distance train like the CONO, and contributes to making the 300-plus-mile Illini/Saluki uncompetitive, has the potential to be absolutely ruinous to a 160-mile route like a revived Peoria Rocket.


Yes. Neither of those are ideal situations.

Theoretically at least a tight curve connector could be built at 63rd St possibly to avoid any backup moves. This would be somewhat like the proposed CREATE connector between CN and NS at Grand Crossing. But that is a very expensive proposition for just one or two trains.


----------



## MisterUptempo

jis said:


> Yes. Neither of those are ideal situations.
> 
> Theoretically at least a tight curve connector could be built at 63rd St possibly to avoid any backup moves. This would be somewhat like the proposed CREATE connector between CN and NS at Grand Crossing. But that is a very expensive proposition for just one or two trains.


If Amtrak/IDOT were to consider that, they'd probably still be better off with a connector at 40th Street. The costs might be similar, but they wouldn't have to deal with a change in elevation like they would at 63rd Street.

There would certainly be more than a couple of trains. The Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle have to be taken off the Alton Line to Joliet. Also, if they were to shift the promised Quad Cities trains onto the Rock Island route through the Illinois Valley to Moline they could save the money they'd otherwise have to spend building a connector between the BNSF and Iowa Interstate at Wyanet.

The 16th Street connector would be the best alternative of all, providing far more flexibility for both Amtrak and Metra, but would, without question, be the most expensive to build.

Back in April, 2021, Marc Magliari from Amtrak appeared on a Zoom call with the High Speed Rail Alliance and mentioned that they are now considering the 16th Street connector, and that Amtrak would be providing financial support to either 16th Street _or _Grand Crossing. Don't know if he was merely attempting to ingratiate himself with his audience or if he was serious.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I think that LaSalle Street is probably completely off the table. 

I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't been following any of the CREATE plans lately, but I do remember that the plan was to shift Amtrak off CN and the Air Line completely - I think CN wants/wanted to abandon everything that would have fallen north of the junction where ever that fell, although the line gets a reasonable amount of freight.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I think that LaSalle Street is probably completely off the table.
> 
> I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't been following any of the CREATE plans lately, but I do remember that the plan was to shift Amtrak off CN and the Air Line completely - I think CN wants/wanted to abandon everything that would have fallen north of the junction where ever that fell, although the line gets a reasonable amount of freight.


The efforts to move the Lincoln Service and the Eagle off the CN Joliet Sub (former Alton) are (or were) part of Phase II of the Chicago-St. Louis HSR project. The CREATE Program has no plans that will help.

But on the subject of CREATE, your post prompted me to get up-to-date myself. What I did find interesting is that Project P6, which would have the CN Joliet Sub tracks fly over the Indiana Harbor Belt at Control Point Canal (located just south of the Summit Amtrak station), has started Phase I engineering and design. CN claims it "supports" the CREATE Project, but has made it clear they will not throw any cash into the pot to help it along.

I was unaware that CN was considering unloading the Joliet Sub. Any more details?

The only benefit P6 provides towards passenger rail in the long term would be for the Heritage Corridor. But, from what I understand, Metra and the RTA have yet to get a firm commitment from CN to allow Metra to inherit Amtrak's slots for expanded Heritage Corridor service, when the Lincoln Service and the Eagle finally do move to the Rock Island.

At the same time, Phase I work on Project P4, the connection at Grand Crossing, has been placed on hold. What it does or does not signify, who knows? I just find it odd that resources aren't going towards Grand Crossing, yet money is being spent on P6, to benefit a railroad that has repeatedly shown nothing but disdain for passenger rail.


----------



## neroden

MARC Rider said:


> Also, I wonder how "rabidly anti rail" rural people really are. Support for passenger rail may not be high on their personal agenda, which might cause them to vote for candidates who are "rabidly anti-rail" because of the candidates' position on other issues, which are more important to the average rural voter.


Conceded. 

I personally think a lot of people in rural areas are being defrauded by listening to propaganda talk radio, which is full of ********, and that as a result they are voting for candidates who don't really support *any* of the issues those voters care about. Corporate propaganda talk radio (Clear Channel / Sinclair Media) has bought up most of the rural radio stations. Clear Channel / Sinclair type companies are much more dominant in rural areas than in urban areas: partly because urban areas have more media options in general (Sinclair can't afford to buy up all the urban radio stations); and partly because people in rural areas spend much more time in their cars where radio is one of the few things they can listen to while driving.

Which I think is an underappreciated problem with car dependence...


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I was actually referring to the old IC mainline and the CONO and Carbondale service being moved off of that and the Airline. That's been talked about forever (iirc before CREATE in fact) - the "south loop" generally wanted the Airline removed- but it seems to have started getting a bit more freight usage and they've installed new signaling and track upgrades over the past few years.


----------



## jis

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I was actually referring to the old IC mainline and the CONO and Carbondale service being moved off of that and the Airline. That's been talked about forever (iirc before CREATE in fact) - the "south loop" generally wanted the Airline removed- but it seems to have started getting a bit more freight usage and they've installed new signaling and track upgrades over the past few years.


It is the CREATE Grand Crossing connector that would move the ex-IC route Amtrak trains off of the Airline and backup moves, and onto NS at Grand Crossing, IIRC. And yes, the idea about building a connector at Grand Crossing does predate CREATE.


----------



## GoAmtrak

MikefromCrete said:


> This Peoria proposal just came out of nowhere. It's not part of the Midwest report and IDOT is probably leary of it since the failure of the short-term Prairie Marksman many years ago.


Indeed for me it also came out of nowhere. I always thought states and Amtrak primarily work on their 2035 expansion plan at best. And the Peoria line wasn't in it. Possibly it wasn't even in the Illinois state plans as John Bredin mentioned. But it would be a very positive surprise.

In another article which just appeared a few days ago, officials said they wrote to all students of Bradley university (which is located in Peoria) to ask if they would use Amtrak. Now they wait for responses.

Their strategy is indeed mentioned in the text: "If Indiana and Ohio don't want to jump at the chance, we'are glad to take it by ourselves".


Next stop to Chicago: Possible railroad travel for Peoria – The Bradley Scout



In another article I read the author estimates the state of Ohio would just need to give 9-10 million dollars a year to Amtrak - and for the first five years of service, they don't have to give anything. 10 million dollars a year, that's really nothing. Some NBA players earn double a year. And... How much does the Ohio government spend on highways a year without thinking? 100 million a year?

Generally, more passenger rail is a no-brainer for Ohio. It would help the economy, bringing tourists and attract more skilfull workers... Additionally, it would be essential for people who don't drive a car or who don't want to...


----------



## GoAmtrak

The Peoria city council said they were impressed how many people would use a train from Peoria to the Chicago area. They said it was necessary to do such a survey to confirm a true demand. Now they plan to go further with it. They praised the fact city councils in Morris, Ottawa and LaSalle also support the idea.

While I frequently read about groups and politicians showing support for Amtrak expansion in Illinois and Ohio, I don't find too much articles from Indiana, Kentucky and Wisconsin. Mostly, those are articles which came out about one year ago when Amtrak published its 2035 plan. Are people and governments there less interested in the possibilities?


----------



## Eric S

I can't speak to Indiana or Kentucky, but there is certainly support for extended and expanded Amtrak service in Wisconsin.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Eric S said:


> I can't speak to Indiana or Kentucky, but there is certainly support for extended and expanded Amtrak service in Wisconsin.


Except Wisconsin keeps electing Officials that turn down Money for Rail Expansion!


----------



## rs9

GoAmtrak said:


> The Peoria city council said they were impressed how many people would use a train from Peoria to the Chicago area. They said it was necessary to do such a survey to confirm a true demand. Now they plan to go further with it. They praised the fact city councils in Morris, Ottawa and LaSalle also support the idea.
> 
> While I frequently read about groups and politicians showing support for Amtrak expansion in Illinois and Ohio, I don't find too much articles from Indiana, Kentucky and Wisconsin. Mostly, those are articles which came out about one year ago when Amtrak published its 2035 plan. Are people and governments there less interested in the possibilities?



I think the challenge for Amtrak is not just establishing this route but also being creative with it, which I would have to say doesn't always seem like one of their strong points.

This would be one of the rare Midwest Corridor train that directly services a tourist location, that being Starved Rock and Matthieson state parks. For selfish purposes, this is what has me excited.

If this route is one train per day in each direction, I would guess it runs to Chicago in the morning and to Peoria in the evening. Amtrak would have an opportunity to run additional weekend trains in the summer and fall that go to Peoria in the morning and to Chicago in the evening for people who want to go to the state parks. I guess what I'm saying is, give us a reason to use this train!


----------



## geddyleesmullet

Looking at the old route of the Peoria to Chicago route on the old Rock Island Route. I saw that there was an old ramp that still exists between 81st Street and 79th Street on the west side of the viaduct that connects to the CSX main line toward Union Station direct. 




I believe thats a better and more direct route than trying to make a curve on the intersection with CSX and CN in Joliet.


----------



## Eric S

Bob Dylan said:


> Except Wisconsin keeps electing Officials that turn down Money for Rail Expansion!


Support exists, nonetheless. That it does not always translate into electoral success is a different matter. And, it's worth noting, the current governor is supportive, as were most recent office-holders with the obvious exception of his immediate predecessor.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Bob, you're a few years late in writing about Wisconsin officials. Now that Scott Walker is gone, WisDot has been active in plans to increase Hiawatha service and add an additional train along the Empire Builder route. Adding a train to Green Bay would be an excellent idea.


----------



## jebr

Bob Dylan said:


> Except Wisconsin keeps electing Officials that turn down Money for Rail Expansion!



WisDOT is quite receptive to passenger rail - so much so that I believe they're the lead agency in the consortium for the second daily train to MSP despite many of the larger destinations being in Minnesota. I get the sense that Tony Evers, the governor, is also generally receptive to passenger rail. Right now the biggest hurdle in Wisconsin is likely the state legislature, whose districts have been heavily gerrymandered by the GOP to favor getting GOP representatives into office.


----------



## WICT106

jebr said:


> WisDOT is quite receptive to passenger rail - so much so that I believe they're the lead agency in the consortium for the second daily train to MSP despite many of the larger destinations being in Minnesota. I get the sense that Tony Evers, the governor, is also generally receptive to passenger rail. Right now the biggest hurdle in Wisconsin is likely the state legislature, whose districts have been heavily gerrymandered by the GOP to favor getting GOP representatives into office.


The elected officials of a certain political party know their voters -- and their voters have grown up without ever having taken a train trip, anywhere, and don't use transit. They've never used it, and can't perceive themselves or anyone else ever riding a train, for any reason. They drive everywhere, and that's what they are highly accustomed to doing. I have had to explain the costs of ownership and operation versus the value of traveling. Another poster has phrased it better, elsewhere: 


> "What is the value of such a system for this particular route.


" Is this supposed to be a 'gotchya'? The value is...being able to have a fast and reliable public transit option to go from Milwaukee to Madison. That's literally the whole point. You're looking at this from the perspective of someone who already has the funds and means to travel easily, when it's actually an issue of having regional transport that doesn't rely on owning a car.

But let's play your game. Let's say you live in Milwaukee and want to go to Madison. Grab your phone and wallet and walk 5 minutes to your nearest bus stop, ride 15 minutes to the train station, and wait 5 minutes for your train (because you're good at planning ahead ). You ride the train to Madison and the 80 mile trip takes 45 minutes. You hop off the train, find a bus (5 mins) and ride 15 minutes to downtown or wherever. So instead of a 90 minute drive you spend...90 minutes traveling. And instead of driving you get to read, listen to music, study for that upcoming exam, or watch your favorite TV show for 75 of those 90 minutes.

As far as cost, you got it covered with your $96 monthly bus pass. Though I'm sure it might cost extra for the regional ride, so let's use Denver's RTD network for comparison and say that it would be an additional 10 bucks (or alternatively you could just spend $200/month and make the trip as often as you want! )

And to get it out of the way, it's pretty obvious that this timing/cost breakdown isn't universal. Maybe you live further away or are incapable of planning ahead to catch the bus/train on time. Obviously it isn't perfect, but it doesn't have to be; it's a convenient and helpful option to have that is, again, in contrast to owning a car. Which requires:


Buying a car (name your price). Remember, you live in Wisconsin! The land of snow and salt and RUST, so your car probably won't hold it's value for as long as it otherwise could! ( To this, I also add that, the bank owns your car until you have paid off your automobile loan )
Paying for insurance (picking $759 per year as the halfway between average min and full coverage prices)
Registration ($85 annually)
Paying for gas (assuming 15,442 miles a year, average for Wisconsinites, 25 mpg, $3/gal gas comes out to $1853 for the year)
Vehicle upkeep. Let's be real anemic here and say best-case (no new tires, major repairs, etc.) 3 oil changes plus a few extra fluids come out to $150 a year.
So with this bare minimum (no accidents, no speeding tickets, no repairs aside from oil, no car washes, no parking costs, and assuming your new car magically appears for free) you're still looking at a real nice $2847 a year, ~$240 a month. Or just pay 200/month and go to Madison and back every single day. Maybe you could even gasp live in Madison and work in Milwaukee! Without having to deal with highway traffic! Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it wouldn't be amazing to have in our state."


----------



## GoAmtrak

Nothing happened for too many months in Ohio concerning the long awaited Amtrak expansion, as the government was too shy to comment on it. But recently, I saw numerous articles saying governor Mike DeWine is open towards expansion and wants a feasibility study to predict the costs of passenger railway service between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati:









Ohio takes first step toward potential Amtrak line


Although the state still has a long way to go in the process, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has taken the first steps necessary to bring an Amtrak line to the state. According to Dan Tierney, Press Secretary to the Office of the Governor, DeWine has requested the Ohio Rail Development Commission...



614now.com





Business leaders in Columbus, Ohio, are behind the idea bringing passenger railway back to the city for the first time since 1979. In the article it is written states have to show interest in Amtrak expansion, otherwise the money goes to other states. Remember John Kasich  ?








MORPC, Columbus Partnership throw weight behind Amtrak expansion in Ohio


Right now, If Greater Columbus residents need to travel directly to nearby cities such as Cincinnati or Pittsburgh, roads are the only option.



eu.dispatch.com





Positively, finally there are some news about Amtrak expansion in Ohio  But I guess there is still a long way to go.

Unfortunately, there are no news about extending passenger railway service between Toledo and Detroit, which would connect Detroit with Cleveland. Perhaps the main problem there is the bureaucracy between Ohio and Michigan. Would be sad if it doesn't go through. Amtrak expects it would take only 3 hours between Cleveland and Detroit. Wouldn't that be quite attractive, especially with the revival of the inner cities in Cleveland and Detroit?

Apart from that, the most important things for a new line would be much better departure and arrival times, especially if there is only one train a day. For example, a departure in Cleveland or Cincinnati at 09:00 am would be better than in the middle of the night. Amtrak hopes to establish 3 trains between Cleveland and Cincinnati, as written in Corrido vision. That would of course be even better.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

""I don't know if people are aware we already have strong Amtrak service in Ohio," Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Executive Director Grace Gallucci said."

I wonder what her definition of :strong Amtrak service" is. A couple of LD trains that stop in the middle of the night?


----------



## Dakota 400

GoAmtrak said:


> Nothing happened for too many months in Ohio concerning the long awaited Amtrak expansion, as the government was too shy to comment on it. But recently, I saw numerous articles saying governor Mike DeWine is open towards expansion and wants a feasibility study to predict the costs of passenger railway service between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohio takes first step toward potential Amtrak line
> 
> 
> Although the state still has a long way to go in the process, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has taken the first steps necessary to bring an Amtrak line to the state. According to Dan Tierney, Press Secretary to the Office of the Governor, DeWine has requested the Ohio Rail Development Commission...
> 
> 
> 
> 614now.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business leaders in Columbus, Ohio, are behind the idea bringing passenger railway back to the city for the first time since 1979. In the article it is written states have to show interest in Amtrak expansion, otherwise the money goes to other states. Remember John Kasich  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORPC, Columbus Partnership throw weight behind Amtrak expansion in Ohio
> 
> 
> Right now, If Greater Columbus residents need to travel directly to nearby cities such as Cincinnati or Pittsburgh, roads are the only option.
> 
> 
> 
> eu.dispatch.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Positively, finally there are some news about Amtrak expansion in Ohio  But I guess there is still a long way to go.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are no news about extending passenger railway service between Toledo and Detroit, which would connect Detroit with Cleveland. Perhaps the main problem there is the bureaucracy between Ohio and Michigan. Would be sad if it doesn't go through. Amtrak expects it would take only 3 hours between Cleveland and Detroit. Wouldn't that be quite attractive, especially with the revival of the inner cities in Cleveland and Detroit?
> 
> Apart from that, the most important things for a new line would be much better departure and arrival times, especially if there is only one train a day. For example, a departure in Cleveland or Cincinnati at 09:00 am would be better than in the middle of the night. Amtrak hopes to establish 3 trains between Cleveland and Cincinnati, as written in Corrido vision. That would of course be even better.



If the business community in Central Ohio continues to support Amtrak's plan, the politicians in our Statehouse will take serious note of that support, I believe.


----------



## Dakota 400

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> ""I don't know if people are aware we already have strong Amtrak service in Ohio," Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Executive Director Grace Gallucci said."
> 
> I wonder what her definition of :strong Amtrak service" is. A couple of LD trains that stop in the middle of the night?



Note that this statement is by someone from NORTHEAST Ohio. Amtrak's plan does not include that part of the State (other than Cleveland). This is a "sour grapes" type of statement. "Where's our piece of this new pile of money?"


----------



## George Harris

WICT106 said:


> You ride the train to Madison and the 80 mile trip takes 45 minutes. You hop off the train, find a bus (5 mins) and ride 15 minutes to downtown or wherever. So instead of a 90 minute drive you spend...90 minutes traveling. And instead of driving you get to read, listen to music, study for that upcoming exam, or watch your favorite TV show for 75 of those 90 minutes.


Some is wrong with this picture. You are not going to have a 45 minute train ride for an 80 mile trip. That is up there with the 300 km/hr HSR systems and a non-stop run on those. Think more on the order of something in range of 90 minutes. You will be taking 1hr15min. However is still a good choice for the other reasons, that is can do something other than white knuckle driving while traveling.


----------



## Burns651

GoAmtrak said:


> How much does the Ohio government spend on highways a year without thinking? 100 million a year?


That's child's play, son! Try five billion instead. Image is from Feb. '21. Rail funding is apparently all contained in the little bucket on the end.


----------



## Dakota 400

Burns651 said:


> That's child's play, son! Try five billion instead. Image is from Feb. '21. Rail funding is apparently all contained in the little bucket on the end.View attachment 28489



Guess which interest group has the most effective lobbyists in Columbus.


----------



## Burns651

Dakota 400 said:


> Guess which interest group has the most effective lobbyists in Columbus.


"But highway funding is a job creating investment! Few people ride trains!" Naturally, when the option isn't even given.


----------



## Dakota 400

Burns651 said:


> "But highway funding is a job creating investment! Few people ride trains!" Naturally, when the option isn't even given.



Amtrak's proposal for Ohio is a job creating investment. One of a few reasons why the incumbent Governor is showing interest in their proposal. Besides, a campaign season looms for the gentleman.


----------



## MARC Rider

Dakota 400 said:


> Guess which interest group has the most effective lobbyists in Columbus.


It's not just "interest groups," unless you count the 90+% of the state's population who use the highways, even if some of them would rather not have to.


----------



## Dakota 400

MARC Rider said:


> It's not just "interest groups," unless you count the 90+% of the state's population who use the highways, even if some of them would rather not have to.



True, but the members of our General Assembly seem to have difficulty hearing the voice of the people.


----------



## neroden

Dakota 400 said:


> True, but the members of our General Assembly seem to have difficulty hearing the voice of the people.


Well, the party which holds the majority in the Ohio General Assembly (the Republicans) has gone out of their way to pass *FIVE* unconstitutional gerrymanders (struck down by the state supreme court) in order to keep themselves in power, so I think they know perfectly well that the people don't like them, and are quite deliberately trying to do the opposite of what the people want.


----------



## Dakota 400

neroden said:


> I think they know perfectly well that the people don't like them, and are quite deliberately trying to do the opposite of what the people want.



And, I don't think they care. That's a concern of mine with regard to the 3C+D plan. If the people want it and the Governor supports it, their reaction will be what?


----------



## jis

In an attempt to get this thread out of the Ohio morass, let us try to see the overall picture of the Midwest:

Going clockwise from the North in the FRA Midwest Regional Rail Plan Network map as seen in Post #2:

1. Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul: Looks like Hiawatha additional frequencies and a second St. Paul frequency are on the cards and will happen in the near future. Not clear when Madison will happen though

2. Michigan: Looks like incremental improvement to Detroit is going to take place. Two things that would be interesting are the restoration of service to Detroit Central and service through there to Toronto. The latter has some very significant challenges to overcome.

3. Indiana (Frot Wayne) - Ohio (Toledo,Cleveland) - Pennsylvania Pittsburgh: No clear discernible progress, and we have discussed Ohio ad nauseum as one of the barriers to progress. Indiana is no slouch as far as being a barrier goes, though Indiana does fund NICTD and good things are happening there. Surprisingly this does not include the NY leg to Buffalo, which would probably become much more relevant put together with the circumferential Detroit - Toledo)

4. Indy - Louisville - Nashville: Not clear who is the champion for this that is in a position to do anything about it, given Indiana's apparent lack of interest so far.

5. Champaign - Carbondale: an added frequency to maybe all the way to Memphis would be nice, but no major movement so far.

6. Lincoln Corridor - steady but slow progress
6a. River Runner - Kansas holds the cards which is probably not a good omen.

8. Quad Cities - Des Moines - Omaha: Looks like Quad Cities is about to happen. Beyond that, who knows?

Some additional ones that I would like to see happen are mostly filling in circumferential:

1. Dearborn/Detroit - Toledo, perhaps diversion of one of the Chicago east trains via Dearborn.

2. Indy - St. Louis

3. The whole subgraph in Ohio

4. The St. Louis - Kansas City - Des Moines - St. Paul.

And I am sure there a re a few more that I am missing.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

jis said:


> In an attempt to get this thread out of the Ohio morass, let us try to see the overall picture of the Midwest:
> 
> Going clockwise from the North in the FRA Midwest Regional Rail Plan Network map as seen in Post #2:
> 
> 1. Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul: Looks like Hiawatha additional frequencies and a second St. Paul frequency are on the cards and will happen in the near future. Not clear when Madison will happen though
> 
> 2. Michigan: Looks like incremental improvement to Detroit is going to take place. Two things that would be interesting are the restoration of service to Detroit Central and service through there to Toronto. The latter has some very significant challenges to overcome.
> 
> 3. Indiana (Frot Wayne) - Ohio (Toledo,Cleveland) - Pennsylvania Pittsburgh: No clear discernible progress, and we have discussed Ohio ad nauseum as one of the barriers to progress. Indiana is no slouch as far as being a barrier goes, though Indiana does fund NICTD and good things are happening there. Surprisingly this does not include the NY leg to Buffalo, which would probably become much more relevant put together with the circumferential Detroit - Toledo)
> 
> 4. Indy - Louisville - Nashville: Not clear who is the champion for this that is in a position to do anything about it, given Indiana's apparent lack of interest so far.
> 
> 5. Champaign - Carbondale: an added frequency to maybe all the way to Memphis would be nice, but no major movement so far.
> 
> 6. Lincoln Corridor - steady but slow progress
> 6a. River Runner - Kansas holds the cards which is probably not a good omen.
> 
> 8. Quad Cities - Des Moines - Omaha: Looks like Quad Cities is about to happen. Beyond that, who knows?
> 
> Some additional ones that I would like to see happen are mostly filling in circumferential:
> 
> 1. Dearborn/Detroit - Toledo, perhaps diversion of one of the Chicago east trains via Dearborn.
> 
> 2. Indy - St. Louis
> 
> 3. The whole subgraph in Ohio
> 
> 4. The St. Louis - Kansas City - Des Moines - St. Paul.
> 
> And I am sure there a re a few more that I am missing.


Thanks, a nice comprehensive list. The one that _seems_ to be happening, albeit slowly, very slowly, is Chicago-Rockford service. We'll see if that ever comes to pass.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Didn't see the need to create a new thread for this, not yet, anyway.

So, IDOT, along with the City of Peoria, has released its feasibility study for Chicago-Peoria service. Here are the basics-

1) Five round trips between Chicago and Peoria
2) Anticipated travel times of 2 hours 37 minutes
3) Average speed - 62mph
4) Stations - *CHI*, *JOL*, Morris (*MOR*), Ottawa (*OTT*), LaSalle-Peru (*PER*), and Peoria (*PEO*), plus a flag stop at Utica (*UTC*) for access to Starved Rock State Park.
5) Typical trainset - 1 loco, 1 business class/café, 2 coaches; 10 trainsets sought.

Here are some presentation boards, showing the two potential sites for a Peoria station.
.....
.....

6) Oh, the price - the numbers are very preliminary, but after adding 25% for "soft costs" (which may be low) and a 40% contingency (which IDOT acknowledges is too high)......well.....$2.54 billion.

Not included in the price tag-

1) Any costs associated with CHI-JOL
2) Any capacity demands host railroads might make
3) Any maintenance demands host railroads might make
4) Operating subsidies for the route
5) Property replacement costs. Two possible properties are mentioned - The Goodman Theatre scenery shop if the 40th Street connector between NS and Metra-Rock Island was built, and the Will County Adult Detention Facility (which is erroneously referred to as "Joliet Correctional Facility"). If you view the crazy proposal for connecting the CN/Heritage Corridor tracks to the Rock Island tracks west of Joliet Union Station, you'll see the new tracks running right through Will County ADF.

In some ways, it's a tale of two reports, pre-Air Line Connector and post-Air Line Connector. While the Connector is never mentioned by name, the IDOT portion, which seems to have been written earlier, mentions CHI-JOL via either Metra-Rock Island with a connection at 40th Street or by CN/Heritage Corridor.

Further into the report, in a ridership forecast report by a consultant, the route map clearly shows CHI-JOL on the Metra-Rock Island route. This portion was put out in June, after the Air Line Connector announcement was made.

One wonders why IDOT even bothered drawing up the CN alternative at all. The STB has already told Amtrak that they must get Lincoln and Texas Eagle off the CN and onto the Rock at some point. Does anyone seriously believe that CN would relent and allow ten more passenger trains on the line? And considering how frustratingly difficult they are to work with, would anyone really want to deal with them at all, if it can be avoided? Yes, it rewards really bad behavior on CN's part, but until the day comes that the feds are serious about slapping uncooperative Class Is around, we have to select the best available alternative. CN ain't it.

The costs for the project were much higher than I expected, but, then again, the condition of much of the track is marginal at best(CSX-40mph, IAIS-25mph, TZPR-10mph). It might be indicative of just how poor much of the nation's rail infrastructure is and how much work will be required to bring even a portion of it up to respectable passenger speeds.

I hope this works out, but I have my doubts. The route was never even mentioned, IIRC, in the FRA Midwest Rail Plan, and if it had, it would have likely been considered "network-independent", and not included in the final plan. Along the route, you would be dealing with two less-than-cooperative railroads in CSX and IAIS. Who knows what trouble G&W might be regarding use of the Tazewell and Peoria? The decision has been made to continue the process. I wish them luck.

Interestingly, the report proposes (but does not explore) extending the Peoria service to Springfield (or perhaps as a stand-alone route; it doesn't say), as well as connecting Peoria to Galesburg, which seems odd. If parts of an Illinois circumferential route were ever built, Peoria to Galesburg would not be my choice for an inaugural segment. Peoria itself, in 2013, explored the possibility of "commuter rail" between Peoria and Bloomington-Normal. Why not suggest that segment instead? If direct CHI-PEO service doesn't get approved, perhaps a PEO-BNL connection may be a consolation prize.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

MisterUptempo said:


> Didn't see the need to create a new thread for this, not yet, anyway.
> 
> So, IDOT, along with the City of Peoria, has released its feasibility study for Chicago-Peoria service. Here are the basics-
> 
> 1) Five round trips between Chicago and Peoria
> 2) Anticipated travel times of 2 hours 37 minutes
> 3) Average speed - 62mph
> 4) Stations - *CHI*, *JOL*, Morris (*MOR*), Ottawa (*OTT*), LaSalle-Peru (*PER*), and Peoria (*PEO*), plus a flag stop at Utica (*UTC*) for access to Starved Rock State Park.
> 5) Typical trainset - 1 loco, 1 business class/café, 2 coaches; 10 trainsets sought.
> 
> Here are some presentation boards, showing the two potential sites for a Peoria station.
> .....
> .....
> 
> 6) Oh, the price - the numbers are very preliminary, but after adding 25% for "soft costs" (which may be low) and a 40% contingency (which IDOT acknowledges is too high)......well.....$2.54 billion.
> 
> Not included in the price tag-
> 
> 1) Any costs associated with CHI-JOL
> 2) Any capacity demands host railroads might make
> 3) Any maintenance demands host railroads might make
> 4) Operating subsidies for the route
> 5) Property replacement costs. Two possible properties are mentioned - The Goodman Theatre scenery shop if the 40th Street connector between NS and Metra-Rock Island was built, and the Will County Adult Detention Facility (which is erroneously referred to as "Joliet Correctional Facility"). If you view the crazy proposal for connecting the CN/Heritage Corridor tracks to the Rock Island tracks west of Joliet Union Station, you'll see the new tracks running right through Will County ADF.
> 
> In some ways, it's a tale of two reports, pre-Air Line Connector and post-Air Line Connector. While the Connector is never mentioned by name, the IDOT portion, which seems to have been written earlier, mentions CHI-JOL via either Metra-Rock Island with a connection at 40th Street or by CN/Heritage Corridor.
> 
> Further into the report, in a ridership forecast report by a consultant, the route map clearly shows CHI-JOL on the Metra-Rock Island route. This portion was put out in June, after the Air Line Connector announcement was made.
> 
> One wonders why IDOT even bothered drawing up the CN alternative at all. The STB has already told Amtrak that they must get Lincoln and Texas Eagle off the CN and onto the Rock at some point. Does anyone seriously believe that CN would relent and allow ten more passenger trains on the line? And considering how frustratingly difficult they are to work with, would anyone really want to deal with them at all, if it can be avoided? Yes, it rewards really bad behavior on CN's part, but until the day comes that the feds are serious about slapping uncooperative Class Is around, we have to select the best available alternative. CN ain't it.
> 
> The costs for the project were much higher than I expected, but, then again, the condition of much of the track is marginal at best(CSX-40mph, IAIS-25mph, TZPR-10mph). It might be indicative of just how poor much of the nation's rail infrastructure is and how much work will be required to bring even a portion of it up to respectable passenger speeds.
> 
> I hope this works out, but I have my doubts. The route was never even mentioned, IIRC, in the FRA Midwest Rail Plan, and if it had, it would have likely been considered "network-independent", and not included in the final plan. Along the route, you would be dealing with two less-than-cooperative railroads in CSX and IAIS. Who knows what trouble G&W might be regarding use of the Tazewell and Peoria? The decision has been made to continue the process. I wish them luck.
> 
> Interestingly, the report proposes (but does not explore) extending the Peoria service to Springfield (or perhaps as a stand-alone route; it doesn't say), as well as connecting Peoria to Galesburg, which seems odd. If parts of an Illinois circumferential route were ever built, Peoria to Galesburg would not be my choice for an inaugural segment. Peoria itself, in 2013, explored the possibility of "commuter rail" between Peoria and Bloomington-Normal. Why not suggest that segment instead? If direct CHI-PEO service doesn't get approved, perhaps a PEO-BNL connection may be a consolation prize.


My daughter's undergrad college was in Monmouth, IL, about 15 miles W of Galesburg. All the Chicago-area students would take Amtrak Chicago-Galesburg, and a shuttle bus from the college would meet them at the station and take them the rest of the way to Monmouth. Our family, on the other hand, always had to drive across the state, because there was no direct rail connection from our town to western IL. A "commuter rail" train Bloomington/Normal to Peoria to Galesburg would have simplified matters a lot, as our daughter could then have taken Amtrak's Lincoln Service down to Bloomington, and then the "commuter rail" across to Galesburg.


----------



## MisterUptempo

MccfamschoolMom said:


> My daughter's undergrad college was in Monmouth, IL, about 15 miles W of Galesburg. All the Chicago-area students would take Amtrak Chicago-Galesburg, and a shuttle bus from the college would meet them at the station and take them the rest of the way to Monmouth. Our family, on the other hand, always had to drive across the state, because there was no direct rail connection from our town to western IL. A "commuter rail" train Bloomington/Normal to Peoria to Galesburg would have simplified matters a lot, as our daughter could then have taken Amtrak's Lincoln Service down to Bloomington, and then the "commuter rail" across to Galesburg.


I'm all in favor of an Illinois Circumferential that would stretch from at least the Quad Cities to Danville. With a developing rail system in Illinois that is very much hub-and-spoke, connecting some of the spokes away from the hub makes the whole network more valuable. Such a route would likely have to be built in stages, and if one needed a proof of concept segment, I just didn't think Peoria to Galesburg was the best choice.

In addition to the Circumferential, to show you where my head is at, I envision (though its highly unlikely ever to happen) a return of the interurban, serving a zone that includes Peoria/East Peoria/Pekin, Bloomington/Normal, Champaign/Urbana, Decatur, Springfield, Lincoln, and Danville - a cluster of cities and towns all within close proximity to each other that would benefit greatly from having single or double-unit MUs connecting them together with 30 minute headways utilizing clock-face scheduling.

But I'm wandering into Amtrak Fantasy League territory again.


----------



## west point

5) Typical trainset - 1 loco, 1 business class/café, 2 coaches; 10 trainsets sought.

That is a ridiculos small train set. Does not sound as if a longer set(s) are planned. How in the world will the anticipated intermittent surges be handled.


----------



## MisterUptempo

west point said:


> 5) Typical trainset - 1 loco, 1 business class/café, 2 coaches; 10 trainsets sought.
> 
> That is a ridiculos small train set. Does not sound as if a longer set(s) are planned. How in the world will the anticipated intermittent surges be handled.


It's all very preliminary. Just a scoping document, so everyone can get a clearer picture of what's being proposed when the project is being discussed. They also needed to put some sort of price tag for the whole shebang into the report, so they utilized a "current IDOT trainset design set" to determine approximate rolling stock costs.

Once the Tier I EIS process gets started, then the broad brush strokes of this study will give way to much finer detail work.

To illustrate, when presenting the two possible locations of a Peoria station, the trainsets in the overhead illustrations show, not a loco and three cars, but a loco and four cars.

To be clear, because of all the fiery hoops that need to be jumped through with this project (environmental, funding and the battles with the hosts), and that no formal work has even started, a timeline to completion of as long as ten years has been mentioned. Considering the difficulty the state has been having getting everything to line up for routes to Rockford and the Quad Cities, it's probably best they aren't overselling when the first train, with three cars or not, arrives in Peoria.


----------



## NorthShore

An interesting analysis of the benefit from Midwest High Speed Rail:


----------



## MisterUptempo

NorthShore said:


> An interesting analysis of the benefit from Midwest High Speed Rail:



Interesting, to be sure. Too bad _citynerd _didn't bother to even mention the FRA Midwest Plan, much less attempt any analysis of the report or the methodology employed in the report used to justify their conclusions.

In the _citynerd _piece, he scores the CHI-MSP corridor relatively low and likely unworthy of high-speed rail service, while the FRA report indicated that if any corridor in the region should be built as high-speed (Core Express) on Day 1, it should be CHI-MSP. CHI-STL, CHI-DET, and CHI-IND were all ranked as Regional/Core Express, meaning they could be built to either standard, or a hybrid, employing both, or be built as Regional initially, eventually being upgraded to Core Express over time.

I know it's probably easier and more fun to kick around a high-speed fantasy map than to go through the FRA's work, and, to be frank, the author of that map seems to assume high-speed long distance routes, which isn't really being considered. The author may have concluded that since many current east-west long distance routes are channeled through Chicago that high-speed long distance routes would as well.


----------



## Michigan Mom

I've tried to watch a couple of citynerd's videos before, just cannot stay awake.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Michigan Mom said:


> I've tried to watch a couple of citynerd's videos before, just cannot stay awake.


I actually think he does a pretty good job on a number of subjects, such as the true cost of driving. His delivery is definitely dry, but I don't find it difficult to watch. I just wish he had been a little more thorough on this one.


----------



## NorthShore

MisterUptempo said:


> I actually think he does a pretty good job on a number of subjects, such as the true cost of driving. His delivery is definitely dry, but I don't find it difficult to watch. I just wish he had been a little more thorough on this one.



I find it to be an intriguing counterpoint to the hype over Midwest Highspeed Rail. I don't think he's, necessarily, arguing a system should not be built out. But, as a way of comparing rail trips to flight/drive, it's a useful metric. He notes that legitimate studies will determine detailed options. For instance, his charts suggest Indianapolis/Cincinnati/Columbus has some of the best potential. Yet, it's most in need of upgrades and state political will to be practical.

As for the Chi-Msp route, I see where he's going with it. The numbers are a bit challenging because of the mileage, distance, and limited number of large intermediate cities. Having ridden both Amtrak and Greyhound/Megabus many times on this route, I usually end up asking myself why the hell I didn't just fly (much as I'm happy being on the train or content with the bus) considering the time. Once, I left on. Sunday while the Sox played the Twins. At some point, I realized that the visitors were back in their home town before I arrived there.

I do think that the contrast to his Northeast & Atlantic corridor analysis are striking.

Still, even his toying around with this Midwest map metric make clear the value and potential in the Michigan routes (all the more so with a Toronto extension) and an Indiana/Ohio corridor. To the biggest critic of rail improvements, such ought to be telling.


----------



## NorthShore

Michigan Mom said:


> I've tried to watch a couple of citynerd's videos before, just cannot stay awake.





Well, he does call himself "nerd." Which is why I relate.


----------



## MisterUptempo

NorthShore said:


> Still, even his toying around with this Midwest map metric make clear the value and potential in the Michigan routes (all the more so with a Toronto extension) and an Indiana/Ohio corridor. To the biggest critic of rail improvements, such ought to be telling.


And that's one of the problems with some of these routes - a decided lack of connecting options.

Take, for example, CHI-STL, which is the one potential high speed route that Illinois would likely be leading, considering it's the only one where the majority of tracks are located within state limits. Once one arrives at St. Louis, there are only two options - continue onto Kansas City on the River Runner, a route that Missouri is barely keeping alive, or the Texas Eagle, which one could have jumped on in CHI or any number of stops along the way. This is no knock on St. Louis, just that a high speed route would be much more effective, and likely better utilized, if STL itself served as hub.

Indianapolis seems to have the greatest potential at this point, of the four high speed endpoints, of becoming a vital hub. Connections to Louisville and onto Nashville and the South, to Cincinnati, to Columbus and the East Coast via Pittsburgh, as well as potentially connecting St. Louis and the Southwest to Detroit, the NEC and Mid-Atlantic, by-passing Chicago. At just under 200 miles between CHI and IND, it's a perfect distance for HSR.

The reality is much different, in light of Indiana's and Ohio's rail phobia. Ohio has "expressed interest" in 3C and that's as far as it's gone thus far, and CHI-IND isn't even on the radar right now. Since first issuing the "Amtrak '35" report, Amtrak has only issued promotional material touting 3C, connecting Phoenix, New Orleans-Mobile, and the three PA routes (Allentown, Scranton, Reading). In the 3C material, it anticipates startup "by 2035" (!).

And a connection from Indy to Dayton and Columbus will need to go through Cincinnati first. Ridiculous. Only goes to show how incredibly short-sighted the nation has been for decades regarding vital infrastructure like the rails.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

MisterUptempo said:


> And a connection from Indy to Dayton and Columbus will need to go through Cincinnati first. Ridiculous.


I'm not following this - what's ridiculous? Shouldn't Indy to Columbus go through Cincy?


----------



## PaTrainFan

danasgoodstuff said:


> I'm not following this - what's ridiculous? Shouldn't Indy to Columbus go through Cincy?


 Not at all. That's probably a good three hours or more longer divergence. Indy to Columbus is a straight shot of about 2:30 by driving.


----------



## MisterUptempo

danasgoodstuff said:


> I'm not following this - what's ridiculous? Shouldn't Indy to Columbus go through Cincy?


There should be a direct connection between Indy and Dayton, just as there used to be when the National Limited ran between Kansas City and NYC. The tracks went through Richmond between Indy and Dayton. All that exists now is a trail, and good luck getting that right-of-way back.

Amtrak '35 is pushing 3C, which is great, but over and above that, Columbus is largely isolated when it should be connected to towns from the east and west, as well as Cleveland and Cincy.

As it is, Amtrak '35 shows a time of 2:35 to connect Indy and Cincy (123 miles) with an average speed of 48 MPH. The report also suggests a time between Cincy and Columbus (about 125 miles) on 3C of 2:38, an average speed of 47 MPH . So, that's 248 miles, taking 5:13 to get from Indy to Columbus. And this assumes through running at Cincy, as opposed to changing trains. Add more time if a connection needs to be made.

On the old National Limited, using the former routing, Indy to Columbus was 181 miles. Using an average speed of 48 MPH (though a rebuilt, dedicated line would be much faster), the trip would take approx. 3:50, saving 67 miles of travel, 1:23 of travel time, and a possible layover at Cincy, which could be the difference between success and failure.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Conrail, when it lorded over most of the rail network of the northeast quadrant of the US, rip up the connection between between Indy and Dayton either to eliminate redundancy or to stave off competition? Dumb.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

PaTrainFan said:


> Not at all. That's probably a good three hours or more longer divergence. Indy to Columbus is a straight shot of about 2:30 by driving.


I've looked at the report again, and I see Indy to Cincy *and* Indy to Dayton both on it as ultimately desirable, but my understanding is that the 3 Cs + D bit is being concentrated on now as the most doable since it's all in one State which appears to be more receptive than in the past. Getting things up to the desired level of full connectivity is going to take a lot of work and some hard choices about what to do first and what bits need to happen at the same time to be successful. I'll gladly admit that my knowledge of local geography, culture, and rail availability and condition is lacking. I think that there has been enough demographic and other change that the routing of yesteryear may not be a very good guide to what's needed now. 'Corridors' may not be the be all and end all of future passenger planning, but it seems to me to be a good way to get a few bits of new service up and running. Hopefully enough of these few will be successful enough to build support for more. A passenger rail resurgence is still possible in this country, but it's going to take a massive amount of work and money and some luck too, and my guess is that even if it more or less succeeds, the end result won't quite be what anyone planned, and it won't be a return to the Golden Age either. Given that Indy to Dayton is the longest leg of this triangle, and has no tracks, it makes sense to me that it's not on the front burner, no matter how desirable it might be as part of some ideal rail network that would take 10-15 years, a mountain of cash, and a political miracle sustained thru several administrations to make happen. I hate the cynicism that I sometimes see here and elsewhere about why we can't have a functioning rail network, but pie in the sky is not going to get us there either. Sorry for being a bit ranty.


----------



## Dakota 400

danasgoodstuff said:


> Given that Indy to Dayton is the longest leg of this triangle, and has no tracks, it makes sense to me that it's not on the front burner,



I agree. Emphasis must be placed on getting the 3C+D plan adopted and work started on accomplishing that. Locally, there is no interest in a Dayton-Indianapolis route. The interest is in what the 3C+D proposes for potential economic reasons and to help with present and future traffic concerns. It seems like the more lanes that are added to I-71, I-75. and I-70, the more traffic appears.


----------



## daybeers

Dakota 400 said:


> It seems like the more lanes that are added to I-71, I-75. and I-70, the more traffic appears.


It seems that way because it is that way: it's called induced demand.


----------



## GoAmtrak

In Wisconsin, a state where there haven't been many news despite Amtrak proposing a lot of new routes (Green Bay, Madison, Eau Claire), emerged a new proposal which was not in the Amtrak plan:








Proposed Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Commuter Rail Project Receives State Support - Railway Age


On Aug. 16, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) released a two-page profile of the long-stalled Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) Commuter Rail project highlighting the state of Wisconsin’s support of the proposed $460 million rail service.




www.railwayage.com





Would indeed be a good idea to finally connect Kenosha with Racine and Milwaukee. Not far between, in a densely populated area.

How many years would it take until passenger trains could use the line again? 5 years? Or even more?

If this urban area would be in California, I could imagine there would have been introduced a train service, because of the political climate and the relatively large number of Californian rail lines being revived in recent years.

But in the Midwest, developments of the last years are just disappointing. In the Midwest, there is very few expansion to new communities over the last 20 years, but instead too many closures of passenger lines (Louisville - Indianapolis, Port Huron - Sarnia, Toledo - Detroit, Gary - Akron - Youngstown - Pittsburgh)...


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

GoAmtrak said:


> Would indeed be a good idea to finally connect Kenosha with Racine and Milwaukee. Not far between, in a densely populated area.


I used to ride the CNW commuter train from Kenosha down to Chicago, then walk (a couple of blocks at most?) to Chicago Union Station to catch Amtrak down to the University of Illinois. Going N or W from Kenosha, either Mom & Dad would drive me up to Milwaukee to catch the Empire Builder to my undergrad college in far-western Minnesota (Fargo, ND being the nearest station), or (later on) take a combination of busses to travel Kenosha to Racine to Milwaukee to Madison (for library school at UW-Madison).


----------



## Michigan Mom

The car companies are going to fight any public transportation options tooth and nail. They have a lot of power. That includes bus routes as well as trains. Even sidewalks! 
It's even more of a hurdle in the Midwest, I think, because public outreach invariably paints this as an increased taxation issue and it doesn't need to be. Frankly I'm amazed progress is even being made at all. A change in consumer sentiment would be helpful but that too is going to be slow in happening. The younger generation might be more receptive since they grew up using phones to find transportation options that lead to bus and rail.


----------

