Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

^ Actually, i think we are adding capacity when you consider that new passing sidings, new train sets are part of the funding package.

You're right, they are buying new trains. But the costs for those trains were not included with the earlier $400.5 Million for track work. The new trains for the MidWest Region will cost $520 Million, plus we could add $47 Million for the two Talgo train-sets from a Wisconsin order, for a grand total of $567 Million.

Note: The non-Talgo total for the Midwest is for 19 new locomotives and 78 new cars; allocated funds include $286 Million for 7 locomotives and 48 bi-level rail cars, and $234 Million for 12 locomotives and 30 bi-level rail cars.

Adding that additional $567 Million to the $400.5 Million (and not including any money for the St. Louis or Quad City corridors) ends up at nearly $1 Billion. Of course, many of the new locomotives and railcars won't run to Michigan - but it's difficult at this point of time to breakout what's needed for what line since the equipment will be pooled (except the Talgos) in Chicago.

Source of data: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/fra1611.html

One reason why I didn't include the new locomotives and railcars within this discussion is because Amtrak was probably going to buy them anyways. Although I must admit Amtrak has suggested in other papers that the Horizon equipment used mostly in the MidWest should remain in service longer than Amfleet I and II equipment.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by electricron

Michigan train services already exists, and the highways already exist. Passengers and drivers are already being accommodated.

We're spending lots of money to increase the speed of the train making it better - we're not adding capacity.

I very much doubt the trains are running at capacity, though. The fact is one mode of transportation (automobiles) is much more 'accommodated' than the other (passenger trains). Bringing rail up to speed (figuratively and literally) will restore the balance and result in increased ridership.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I very much doubt the trains are running at capacity, though. The fact is one mode of transportation (automobiles) is much more 'accommodated' than the other (passenger trains). Bringing rail up to speed (figuratively and literally) will restore the balance and result in increased ridership.

You're probably correct about capacity. But I think you're wrong about how this small amount of increased speed is going to increase ridership. Going from 80 mph to 110 mph isn't going to have the same effect as going over 150 mph. I suggest increasing the frequency of trains would increase ridership more.

Piedmont and Carolina ridership doubled when adding an additional round trip from two to three. I doubt Michigan services ridership will double just by increasing train speeds to 110 mph.

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by electricron

You're probably correct about capacity. But I think you're wrong about how this small amount of increased speed is going to increase ridership. Going for 80 mph to 110 mph isn't going to have the same effect as going over 150 mph. I suggest increasing the frequency of trains would increase ridership more.

Piedmont and Carolina ridership doubled when adding an additional round trip from two to three. I doubt Michigan services ridership will double just by increasing train speeds to 110 mph.

Your spot on E! Illinois Services had a similar big bounce in ridership when they went from 2/day each way to 4/day.

[BrennanW]

Imagine the convience and ridership jump if the train went daily!

Think of what we could do in Kansas City if we had 2x daily Chicago service by rail. Its a lot faster then driving and could feed the new commuter rail corridors they are building there, and the streetcar. St. Louis at 3x?

Imagine the possibilities!?

[ardecila]

Er... St Louis already has 5x trains daily. I can't remember if that includes the long distance trains, either, so it could be even higher.

[emathias]

Why aren't there trains between Chicago and Grand Rapids that would be convenient for weekenders going to the resort communities on the west coast of Michigan?

There's a train that leaves Chicago a bit after 5pm on Friday, but the only return train, even on Sunday during tourist season goes through, for example, St. Joseph at about 9:30am. If they ran just one more train out of Grand Rapids to Chicago on Sunday evening, I bet their summer/fall weekend ridership would greatly increase and that that one train would be packed.

Seriously, I can't even begin to count the number of weekends I would have spent in Michigan if I could take Amtrak to/from there conveniently. Coming back would also be far better in a train than in the bumper-to-bumper traffic I've always seem Sunday evenings coming back from Michigan in the summer by car. Heck, if you started a morning train out of Grand Rapids 2 hours earlier during the summer, I be there would be Chicagoans who'd seriously consider commuting from their summer homes part of the summer if their train could get into the Loop at 8:30am instead of 10:30am. It'd be long, but some folks might consider i worth it to do occasionally int he summertime - especially if you could incrementally increase the speeds between Chicago and St. Joseph such that eventually it only took an hour to make the trip.

I would think those resort towns in Michigan would be really pushing for such a thing.

[BrennanW]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Er... St Louis already has 5x trains daily. I can't remember if that includes the long distance trains, either, so it could be even higher.

I was talking Kansas City - St. Louis. I wish Kansas City had 5x daily trains!!

I took the Pere Marquette in Spring 2010 to Grand Rapids and back. Talking with one of the train staff, there is constant talk of adding another daily train. Our outbound train was full into GRR.

[rockyi]

Taken a few months ago during a train festival here in Rock Island. Hopefully we'll be seeing this regularly in the not to distant future. (minus the vintage cars)



http://www.railpictures.net/viewpoint.php?id=369528
http://www.railpictures.net/

[Beta_Magellan]

[QUOTE=BrennanW;5448622]I was talking Kansas City - St. Louis. I wish Kansas City had 5x daily trains!![/QUOTE[

I know that the Kansas City-St. Louis line also carries heavy UP freight, which restricts the amount of extra service they can add on the line—a few months ago, Missouri made a very ambitious request for (true) HSR planning and ROW acquisition. They didn’t get it (and I have no idea how viable St. Louis-Kansas City is for HSR—it probably only justifies 150-mph infrastructure, if that), but new dedicated passenger track’s probably the only way forward for that route.

I took the Pere Marquette in Spring 2010 to Grand Rapids and back. Talking with one of the train staff, there is constant talk of adding another daily train. Our outbound train was full into GRR.

I think the big issue with Chicago-Grand Rapids is reliability—though I’ve never taken that line myself, from what I understand it has some awful delays in Indiana and Chicago. The Englewood crossing should speed some things up, and there’s a proposed (but unfunded) project in Porter that could also help, but I’m not sure how much sense it makes to add another train when the first one has such a bad on-time performance record.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by emathias

Why aren't there trains between Chicago and Grand Rapids that would be convenient for weekenders going to the resort communities on the west coast of Michigan?

There's a train that leaves Chicago a bit after 5pm on Friday, but the only return train, even on Sunday during tourist season goes through, for example, St. Joseph at about 9:30am. If they ran just one more train out of Grand Rapids to Chicago on Sunday evening, I bet their summer/fall weekend ridership would greatly increase and that that one train would be packed.

Seriously, I can't even begin to count the number of weekends I would have spent in Michigan if I could take Amtrak to/from there conveniently. Coming back would also be far better in a train than in the bumper-to-bumper traffic I've always seem Sunday evenings coming back from Michigan in the summer by car. Heck, if you started a morning train out of Grand Rapids 2 hours earlier during the summer, I be there would be Chicagoans who'd seriously consider commuting from their summer homes part of the summer if their train could get into the Loop at 8:30am instead of 10:30am. It'd be long, but some folks might consider i worth it to do occasionally int he summertime - especially if you could incrementally increase the speeds between Chicago and St. Joseph such that eventually it only took an hour to make the trip.

I would think those resort towns in Michigan would be really pushing for such a thing.

I've wondered this too. I imagine it has something to do with equipment and crew availability and/or freight conflicts (i.e. the same reasons some of Metra's trip scheduling makes little sense from the passenger's standpoint) , but of course, these are things that can be worked out if there's the will or requirement to do so. Luckily the Wolverine's schedule (to Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor, and Detroit) is pretty usable for discretionary roundtrip travel.

[jpIllInoIs]

^ It seems to me that the Pere Marquette should have a stop in Berrien County. Especially now that New Buffalo is served by the Wolverine. The town of Bridgman is part of the vacation launching point for Chicagoan s. And as the SW Michigan shore becomes more integrated with the Chicago metropolis, we are bound to see more commuter activity.

[LMich]

Kind of tangentially related to the initiative...

Snyder calls for improved rail connections to Canada

Karen Bouffard | The Detroit News

October 31, 2011

Lansing— Gov. Rick Snyder hopes to seamlessly connect freight and commuter train systems with Canada, he told transportation and environmental officials at Michigan Rail Summit 2011 Monday in Lansing.

Snyder expanded on the transportation vision he laid out last week in Southfield, where he unveiled a comprehensive plan for roads and bridges, mass transit, ports, sewers and other infrastructure.

The governor said Michigan requires commuter and freight rail systems as the center of what he views as a trade corridor that stretches from Montreal to Chicago and St. Louis.

"Our partners are some other states, but also some provinces and the country of Canada," Snyder said.

...

Kirk Steudle, director of the Michigan Department of Transportation, said the biggest obstacle to moving forward with Michigan's rail system is funding.

"The operating funds are the huge piece," he said. "It doesn't just come out of thin air."

Michigan has secured roughly $500 million in federal and state money for rail transportation over the past two years to improve speeds, rebuild train stations and make critical track improvements on Amtrak's Detroit-to-Chicago line.

Snyder last week unveiled a comprehensive plan for the state's infrastructure that included plans to restructure the state's system of funding roads by ditching the 19-cent retail gas tax paid at the pump in favor of a tax charged on the wholesale price of gasoline and diesel fuel.

Snyder said Michigan would still be $1.4 billion short of road revenue on top of the revenue raised by the wholesale fuel tax and suggested measures including a $120 increase in state vehicle registration fees and allowing communities to assess up to an additional $40 in vehicle registration fees with voter approval.

...

I've been waiting for someone to offer some public support for restoring direct access to Canada. The problem is that this governor hitched his political wagon to the state Republican Party, and he pulled in on his coattails with his election a whole bunch of Republicans who probably wish that we didn't fund trains or anything beyond highways at all. Reap what you sow, I guess.

[k1052]

So if CA pulls the plug on their HSR and the federal funding goes back up for grabs does anyone know what else was in the the IL requests besides the 2nd track between CHI-STL? I do seem to recall 110mph rail between Milwaukee and Chicago but not much else.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by k1052

So if CA pulls the plug on their HSR and the federal funding goes back up for grabs does anyone know what else was in the the IL requests besides the 2nd track between CHI-STL? I do seem to recall 110mph rail between Milwaukee and Chicago but not much else.

I’d say it’s unlikely they pull the plug—they’re more likely to soldier on with high costs and try to value engineer than end the project. The new YOE numbers are bad, but they also have a longer timeline and higher inflation rate than the old estimates, so they’re not necessarily as bad as they seem (but still bad). CHSRA’s shown signs of moving in the right direction, being less possibly switching to a less expensive alignment between LA and Bakersfield and even tentatively reexamining the possibility of trying to get into the Bay Area via Livermore. I hope this latest business plan is the last of its kind, and that the agency will be able to get costs more in line soon (it’s only a hope, though). Otherwise, they’re going to build new track and ruin it by running heavy San Joaquins over it or maybe try to renegotiate to spend it on LOSSAN and some stuff in the Bay Area.

Returning the money would be a very difficult decision to make politically and might take time—if they can’t return it before Obama’s out of office, I’d expect the money to simply be canceled altogether.

[ardecila]

The San Joaquins won't degrade the 220mph track. It's not so fragile that some aluminum passenger cars and a P42 will wreak havoc. Freight trains would degrade the track with millions of tons of Asian imports, but that's fortunately not a concern here.

I'm with Beta on the funds, though. I'd prefer to see them spent in California even if they don't go to the HSR project. They could work wonders untangling the overstrained existing corridors in SF and LA.

I'd love for the Midwest to be the first to step up and build a 220mph system, though... We have ideal conditions (flat land, unused ROWs, popular support for rail)

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

I’d say it’s unlikely they pull the plug—they’re more likely to soldier on with high costs and try to value engineer than end the project. The new YOE numbers are bad, but they also have a longer timeline and higher inflation rate than the old estimates, so they’re not necessarily as bad as they seem (but still bad). CHSRA’s shown signs of moving in the right direction, being less possibly switching to a less expensive alignment between LA and Bakersfield and even tentatively reexamining the possibility of trying to get into the Bay Area via Livermore. I hope this latest business plan is the last of its kind, and that the agency will be able to get costs more in line soon (it’s only a hope, though). Otherwise, they’re going to build new track and ruin it by running heavy San Joaquins over it or maybe try to renegotiate to spend it on LOSSAN and some stuff in the Bay Area.

Returning the money would be a very difficult decision to make politically and might take time—if they can’t return it before Obama’s out of office, I’d expect the money to simply be canceled altogether.

I didn't think the money can be reassigned to projects that hadn't been submitted when the funding rounds were done. IIRC, the money has to be given to a project that was only partially or not funded in that round of applications. Someone feel free to clarify this if I'm wrong.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by k1052

I didn't think the money can be reassigned to projects that hadn't been submitted when the funding rounds were done. IIRC, the money has to be given to a project that was only partially or not funded in that round of applications. Someone feel free to clarify this if I'm wrong.

Whatever... None of the other States were allowed to use unused Federal "Stimulus" or "Tiger" funds for other projects within their State, why should California be treated any different?

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by electricron

Whatever... None of the other States were allowed to use unused Federal "Stimulus" or "Tiger" funds for other projects within their State, why should California be treated any different?

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

That's what I was indicating, that the funding would be reallocated to rail projects elsewhere that applied for the ARRA rail cash (outside CA most likely).

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm with Beta on the funds, though. I'd prefer to see them spent in California even if they don't go to the HSR project. They could work wonders untangling the overstrained existing corridors in SF and LA.

There’s some expectation that a through-electrifying and through-routing LOSSAN would happen in lieu of CHSRA’s proposed phase 2 via the inland empire—they’re already doing great work there and are already tunneling under trouble spots. SoCal is, contrary to stereotypes, really doing a better job planning and implementing passenger rail (witness LOSSAN, 30/10) than the Bay Area nowadays. If CHSRA can’t get its act together, then shorter corridor work should be the priority

I'd love for the Midwest to be the first to step up and build a 220mph system, though... We have ideal conditions (flat land, unused ROWs, popular support for rail)

IIRC, there was hype about this around 2008 from the Midwest high-speed boosters claiming Chicago-Champaign could be completed before the initial operating segment of California HSR. It’s unfortunate Indianapolis has so little pull with Indiana’s state government—it is, after Milwaukee, the closest medium-large city to Chicago and is only fifty miles more distant than Champaign. A Chicago-Indianapolis line would have been a great starter, which could have then been later extended to Milwaukee, and then phased to Cincinnati and Minneapolis to make a nice core system.

Of course, every overrun California does makes it even less likely that something like that will emerge here in the next fifteen years…

Originally Posted by k1052

I didn't think the money can be reassigned to projects that hadn't been submitted when the funding rounds were done. IIRC, the money has to be given to a project that was only partially or not funded in that round of applications. Someone feel free to clarify this if I'm wrong.

I’m was just assuming the debate over returning funds would take long enough for Congress pass something rescinding the funds if they were returned—it’s more a worst-case scenario than anything else, but somewhat likely if we have unified Republican control of the federal government in 2013.