Join the discussion on the following article:
Consultant details new Chicago bypass proposal
Will this be a problem with the unions?
Who would actually own and operate it. A rail consortium? A joint csx / bnsf line.
New target for the NIMBY gangs. They already blocked the extension of I-355 south to Peotone and into Indiana. The proposed Peotone airport has been dead for 20 years.
On the other hand, Illinois and Indiana are in the Midwest, which has the best farmland in the country. This isn’t like blasting a new corridor thru the middle of New York City or Los Angeles where you can always move everything in the path to a different location. Once farmland is torn up, it can’t be replaced elsewhere like a forest or a swamp. Trees will grow most anywhere. A swamp can be built. Crops need good black soil.
Why not just build a second rail line next to the J? It wouldn’t be the first time two railroads on two separate tracks shared a right of way and it would be much easier to sneak it past the NIMBY gangs.
This sounds like something I’ve proposed before though I’m not sure which would be better: Upgrading the Wabash between Butler, Indiana and it’s other end (St. Louis?) as a Chicago bypass… and thus allowing that stressed for time UPS train from LA to NYC to make the Monday to Friday schedule easily, and no doubt help many other trains as well. I’m excited about this.
WONDER HOW MANY ABANDONED RAILROADS OR REMOVED TRACKS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN A PROJECT SUCH AS THIS???
WONDER HOW MANY ABANDONED RAILROADS OR REMOVED TRACKS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN A PROJECT SUCH AS THIS???
I believe if you have locals switching industries along the route, that they will only be in the way of hoped for fast through trains. New York Central accomplished this with 4 tracks, BNSF/Metra accomplishes this with the 3 track Aurora-Chicago corridor. Additional tracks and switch connections will certainly send the costs skyward.
I believe if you have locals switching industries along the route, that they will only be in the way of hoped for fast through trains. New York Central accomplished this with 4 tracks, BNSF/Metra accomplishes this with the 3 track Aurora-Chicago corridor. Additional tracks and switch connections will certainly send the costs skyward.
I believe if you have locals switching industries along the route, that they will only be in the way of hoped for fast through trains. New York Central accomplished this with 4 tracks, BNSF/Metra accomplishes this with the 3 track Aurora-Chicago corridor. Additional tracks and switch connections will certainly send the costs skyward.
The above suggestion to revive the old Kankakee Belt would seem to be the least expensive, if not the easiest way to go. If the C and I Line is used to LaCrosse, then simply rebuild on abandoned row’s to the Kankakee Belt at nearby Wheatland. It is only a 10 mile seperation. The same railroads would be served. And it would be far easier to re-hab an existing property, than to start from scratch.
From an historical standpoint, the New York Central once had a by-pass from South Bend, Indiana, south and west via Kankakee to Ladd, Illinois - north of la Salle, Connections were possible with nearly all railroads radiating from and to Chicago. NYC and Santa Fe connected near Streator and their run-thru intermodal trains continued during Penn Central.
From an historical standpoint, the New York Central once had a by-pass from South Bend, Indiana, south and west via Kankakee to Ladd, Illinois - north of la Salle, Connections were possible with nearly all railroads radiating from and to Chicago. NYC and Santa Fe connected near Streator and their run-thru intermodal trains continued during Penn Central.
Mr. McClure’s blog comments here are factually incorrect and somewhat misleading. The original Crain’s Chicago Business column (from the 29th) was extremely positive and very complimentary, as was a follow-up column in today’s online issue. The negative item about job losses he attributes to Crain’s was actually a blog comment posting from a reader with unknown professional credentials.
The proposed Illiana toll road is a bad idea and will not yield the traffic being proposed. Trucks will bypass the toll road to keep their costs down, saving consumers money, too. I also smell the same kind of pork on this proposed rail line when there are lots of other lines that are either abandoned or lightly used that could be upgraded into a convenient bypass. This project is for the benefit of the toll hogs in Illinois and Indiana, not saving the consumer money.
It would make more sense to reactivate the entire Kankakee belt.
Class I lines should have the foresight to back this plan. Could be game changer for metro area, construction jobs and new industry.
Hmmm. Reminds me of the TP&W. Or the Streater Connection.
The Illiana Belt Railroad will function as a neutral terminal railroad. The Illiana Belt will be responsible for all local industry operations including car supply. Class One railroads will operate through or overhead trains across the line. All Class Ones will be treated equally and offered the same rate structure. Overhead pricing will provide discounted rates based on usage.
Class Ones (publicly and privately-owned) are welcome as investors but no railroad would be allowed to own more than 49%.
Essentially a private trackage rights company with “open” access to any rail carrier willing to pay the toll. Inventive and creative yes, desirable by a carrier, not so. Why would CN who just invested millions in the EJE bypass portal want to give up revenue to anyone?
Based on the routing this only would benefit 3 shippers. The transcon fruit express, long Power River coal drags and UPS.
So the only real potential “users” are BNSF/UP and CSX and the online industry switching.
If the government is going to handle the biggest bill around CREATE, why pay a toll to cross someone elses ROW?
Yes, the new route saves fuel and distance and switching time, but when were railroads into the customer service business? If it doesn’t serve them first, then its a bad idea.