Conducted by UIUC Dept. of Transportation
This is an interesting and informative article. Building it where passenger trains make sense, i.e. relatively short, high density corridors, in increments based on realistic cost and revenue stream estimates, is the way to go.
Is it just a coincidence that a CHI-STL high speed study done by the U of Illinois makes a dog-leg thru Champaign?
The article seems to imply the currently being upgraded 110 mph line is somehow a stepping stone for a future true high speed line. However, that route goes nowhere near Champaign, nor is any substantial portion of it useful for a future St. Louis-Indianapolis high speed route. Perhaps the U of I is reality challenged?
Dakota,
Had you skimmed the report, you would find that the route is an inverted T with the vertical being Chicago to Champaign and the horizontal St. Louis-Springfield-Indianapolis.
Mac
Judging by several comments, some folks do not bother to read even a short article and/or have such firm convictions in their opinions they can only quip.
I must not have said what I meant clearly. The proposed route is Chicago-Champaign-Springfield-St Louis with the second route being St Louis-Springfield-Champaign-Indy. By not utilizing a direct Chicago-Springfield route, the proposal adds a dog leg to the primary use (Chicago-St Louis). Building a high speed line that does not use the most direct route doesn’t seem very wise. For that matter, adding travel time for a Champaign stop to the journey of the political class traveling between Chicago and Springfield is hardly appealing to those whose approval and support is necessary.
Amtrak lists a distance of 284 miles Chicago-St Louis on the current route. Travel time 5:20. When that corridor is all 110mph, the travel time will go down.
Google maps says it’s 297 miles to drive I-55 and will take 4:35.
If I route the drive via Champaign, the mileage goes to 316 miles and it will take 4:50.
The HST proposal lists a travel time Chicago - St Louis of 117 minutes (1:57) with stops in Champaign and Springfield. Apparently the fact that the rail distance via Champaign is maybe about 20 miles longer than the as-the-crow-flies current line, will not negatively affect travel times.
It’s just not a huge extra detour and is well worth it when one line can serve multiple purposes. Essentially, this concept allows the HST connection of 3 metro regions by building only a little more rail line than would be needed to just connect Chicago and St Louis.
I read the article, but I must have missed the part where it showed that a zig to Champaign and a zag back to Springfield made more sense than the existing straight alignment between the two distant points. Additionally, a trip from Chicago would have to make a sharper than right angle turn at Champaign to get to Indy. To think that anyone in Indiana would ever support such a route, over a direct one to Chicago, is hard to imagine. The U of I study seems to justify these rambling routes by imposing a mini hub-and-spoke structure. While airlines consider this to be a fine business model, passengers hate the diversions and connections, and opt for direct flights, provided the airlines don’t price those flights out of reach. Adopting hub-and-spoke to HSR is just moving people fast in a direction the don’t really want to go.
A two hour trip CHI-IND by way of Champaign would be preferred by most folks over the straight line current route which takes 5 hours. And it is cheaper to upgrade a route from Champaign to IND than an entirely new direct route.
I didn’t see anything in the report saying all passengers change trains at Champaign, so don’t see this as an airline-type hub and spoke model. Rather a way to in total build the fewest miles of infrastructure and still be able to connect all 3 metro areas. With HST, it’s frequently irrelevant if the HST line is 50 miles longer than the straight-as-an-arrow line, since the trains will move at much higher speed than either conventional rail or cars.
To bring one seat travel between the metro areas, trains can split/combine at Champaign. So a train from Chicago would have the first section continue to St Louis and the second section go to Indy.
Will the folks in Indy like the detour via Champaign? That remains to be seen. Once they look at the cost for a totally separate Chicago-Indy alignment, they might love the idea.
Most people could care less about the detour, whether to STL or IND as long as it gets them where they want to go quickly. As the the good people of Indiana, I doubt if they would want to pay for even 10 miles of HSR ROW.
From Indy, the straight line distance to Gary (where they would presumably meet other Midwest HSR) is 140 miles. Indy to Champaign is 110 miles. If Indiana won’t build 140 miles for a direct line, they surely will not build a 110 mile line to Champaign. My Illinois transportation map shows the line east from Champaign (P&E?) abandoned, whereas there is an existing line from Indy toward CHI.
Indy to Champaign is 126 miles and only 85 miles of that is in Indiana. There is a line paralleling US 136 west from Indy which is currently used by the Hoosier State as far as Crawfordsville… Indy to Gary is 150 miles. Try using Google.
Are you claiming you know the routes better than one of the best transportation departments in the midwest, if not in the entire US?
I used the measuring tool on Google Earth. At that scale, and depending where you call the center of the town, the 2 measurements were approximate but proportional. I have no problem with your mileages, as they show an even smaller difference between the two routes.
I never claimed that I knew the routes better than the U of I, but I am skeptical of their objectivity for a route that favors a jog thru their town, rather than an existing straight alignment.
Not to belabor the point, but it shows an even greater advantage to the Champaign route.
I am not at all certain about this, but perhaps one reason for not using the current up-to-110 mph CHI-SPR-STL route is that the ROW is too narrow to double track the entire way so as to provide the necessary total separation (except in major cities) between the HSR track and the UP freight track. The old IC line was double-tracked entirely for years, with numerous sidings, so it might be more satisfactory for conversion.
UI departments are definitely not “homers” in terms of a bias.
Schlimm, it’s hard to tell what the reasoning behind the route was, because the article was only highlights and summary. If you come across the actual U of I study, please list a reference link to the pages that discuss the reasons behind their route recommendations. I would be interested in reading that.
Link to the study as released: http://ict.uiuc.edu/railroad/IDOT220/IDOT220.htm
According to the Executive Report, the Chicago-Champaign/Urbana alignment was determined by Governor Quinn to further bringing Chicago and U of I together.
“This study indicates that a 220 mph rail system in these corridors would not require an operating
subsidy. However, as with many large public transportation projects, the initial cost to build it is
substantial. The State should explore use of public-private partnership opportunities with use of
public funds to offset the risk. An incremental or blended approach completed over a longer
time period could also reduce initial capital costs and provide other nearer-term transportation
benefits, while simultaneously improving intercity transportation quality and travel times. This is
similar to the approach commonly used internationally and should be studied further.”
“Any selected alignment in the future is envisioned to have two dedicated, electrified main tracks with an 18-foot track center distance fully grade separated from the other transportation modes. The study
team did not assess whether existing rights-of-way could accommodate additional high speed
rail tracks or the potential implications of 220 mph service on existing railroad operations.
Future refinements of high speed rail alignments near existing railroads will need to carefully
consider the railroads’ rights-of-way, safety, and operating requirements.”
FRA Definition: Shared ROW is dedicated HSR passenger tracks separated from freight or other service
tracks by less than 25 feet, while shared corridor is dedicated HSR passenger tracks separated from
freight or other service tracks by 25 to 200 feet.
I had a hard time crediting that, but it is what the Executive Report said. One would think the University has experts who would objectively determine what routing has the greatest potential, but instead the choice was made by a Governor who arrived at that office because a sitting Governor was impeached. Is his his stated reason – bringing the University and Chicago closer together – really worth what this project is going to cost?