DOCSLIB.ORG

Brian Dondanville [email protected] Maxx Paez [email protected] Kevin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brian Dondanville Bdondanv@Nd.Edu Maxx Paez Mpaez@Nd.Edu Kevin Brian Dondanville Maxx Paez Kevin Ortenzio Sean Rademaker [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] What is the plausibility of implemenng High‐Speed Railway (HSR) Structure of passenger railroad service: Drivers of Change: systems in the United States for intercity transportaon? 1. Commuter Railroads (28 services in U.S.) 1. Consumers – demand ridership uncertainty; other modes of transit 2. Intercity Passenger Rail (1 service – Amtrak) 2. Society – increasing populaons could lead to land scarcity; polluon While ridership demand and economic feasibility are the most significant concerns •HSR is an opportunity for the government and/or private equity 3. Government – loyal support of this mode of transit; economic and barriers to entry for HSR, our research shows that prime investment societal benefits firms to turn the notoriously unprofitable government‐subsidized opportunies lie within U.S. regions featuring both populaon and Constraints of Change: IPR service profitable. economic growth. 1. Government – lack of available state and government funding; budget •Promising entry point for HSR: Northeast Corridor, which connects deficit cies between DC and Boston 2. Private Equity Firms – disinterest in leasing; scaered cost esmates •Barriers to entry: demand uncertainty and economic feasibility. & uncertain demand Metrics: Expected Future (by 2025): 1. Populaon: More specifically, this measures the total number of residents living in agglomeraon 1. The Northeast Corridor, which is comprised of Boston, New Haven, New York City, Philadelphia, within each urban area. 2. Metropolitan GDP: Necessary because it is the primary measurement used to record economic Balmore, and Washington D.C. offers the most promising opon for HSR. value. 2. The Northeast corridor will derive the necessary cash flows in the future to make HSR an NPV posive project. Most Qualified Corridors for HSR: 3. It is likely that the primary U.S. HSR venture would require government funding. 1. Northeast Corridor 2. Chicago Hub Network 3. California Corridor Populaons by Corridor Total Annual Ridership Metropolitan GDPs by Corridor 45,000 18000 $4,500,000 40,000 16000 $4,000,000 Northeast Northeast 35,000 14000 $3,500,000 California Northeast California 30,000 12000 $3,000,000 Chicago Hub Chicago Hub 25,000 10000 California $2,500,000 20,000 South Central 8000 $2,000,000 South Central Florida Florida 15,000 6000 Chicago $1,500,000 10,000 Southeast 4000 Hub $1,000,000 Southeast Shinkansen 2000 Total GDP (in Millions) Shinkansen Populaon (in thousands) 5,000 $500,000 0 ‐ $0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total Passengers (in Thousands) 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2021 2025 2006 2008 2010 2012 2016 2018 2020 2022 2014 2024 Year Year 1. Stay‐caon – Low Demand, Public Enty Uncertaines: Needy Travelers – High Demand, Public Enty 3. Needy Travelers – High Demand, Public Enty •Government will not take steps toward privazing the public enty of 1. Ridership Demand (Changes in Resident and Business traveler Rering Boomers are looking for more comfortable and efficient modes •Rering Boomers look for more comfortable and efficient modes of travel preferences) railroads. •Businessmen and women benefit from HSR • of travel 2. Private versus Public Ownership of Rail Sector (Government Large investment in HSR technology is out of the queson •Federal investment in HSR innovaon well received by U.S. cizens versus Business) 2. Wait and See – Low Demand, Privately Held Businessmen and women benefit from HSR Federal investment in HSR innovaon would be well received by the 4. Where is the Funding – High Demand, Privately Held • Unlikely that profits would be experienced in the short‐term cizens of the United States. •Privazing the rail industry would likely pave the way for a high‐speed rail Preferred Future: •Current low demand could translate to high ridership demand in the future High demand for business and residenal travelers and Where is the Funding – High Demand, Privately Heldoverhaul that could turn a notoriously unprofitable industry profitable. once HSR is implemented and consumers are sasfied with their HSR business ownership Privazing the rail industry, in whole or in its majority, would likely pave experience. the way for a high speed rail overhaul that could turn a notoriously unprofitable industry profitable. 1. While the ridership growth trends per city are large determinants of HSR performance, it is the urban agglomeraons and GDP per capita that are most appealing to businesses 2. Where are services needed? Where are consumer demands high? •Miami: growing; may be too late for innovaon that will yield rapid future growth •Detroit: not growing, opportunity for rapid growth in future .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States
    Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 26 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States Fellow: Francis P. Banko Professional Associate Principal Project Manager Lead Investigator: Jackson H. Xue Rail Vehicle Engineer December 2012 136763_Cover.indd 1 3/22/13 7:38 AM 136763_Cover.indd 1 3/22/13 7:38 AM Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 26 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States Fellow: Francis P. Banko Professional Associate Principal Project Manager Lead Investigator: Jackson H. Xue Rail Vehicle Engineer December 2012 First Printing 2013 Copyright © 2013, Parsons Brinckerhoff Group Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, mechanical (including photocopying), recording, taping, or information or retrieval systems—without permission of the pub- lisher. Published by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Group Inc. One Penn Plaza New York, New York 10119 Graphics Database: V212 CONTENTS FOREWORD XV PREFACE XVII PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH 3 1.1 Unprecedented Support for High Speed Rail in the U.S. ....................3 1.2 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the U.S. .....4 1.3 Research Objectives . 6 1.4 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Participants ...........................6 1.5 Host Manufacturers and Operators......................................7 1.6 A Snapshot in Time .................................................10 CHAPTER 2 HOST MANUFACTURERS AND OPERATORS, THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 11 2.1 Overview . 11 2.2 Introduction to Host HSR Manufacturers . 11 2.3 Introduction to Host HSR Operators and Regulatory Agencies .
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning Urban and Regional Planning January 2007 High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2 Allison deCerreno Shishir Mathur San Jose State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/urban_plan_pub Part of the Infrastructure Commons, Public Economics Commons, Public Policy Commons, Real Estate Commons, Transportation Commons, Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Allison deCerreno and Shishir Mathur. "High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2" Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning (2007). This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Urban and Regional Planning at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MTI Report 06-03 MTI HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART 2 IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: Funded by U.S. Department of HIGH-SPEED RAIL Transportation and California Department PROJECTS IN THE UNITED of Transportation STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 Report 06-03 Mineta Transportation November Institute Created by 2006 Congress in 1991 MTI REPORT 06-03 HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 November 2006 Allison L.
    [Show full text]
  • Cfs0997all2.Pdf
    Acknowledgements United States Department of Transportation Secretary Federico F. Peña; Rodney E. Slater Deputy Secretary Mortimer L. Downey Federal Railroad Administration Administrator Jolene M. Molitoris Deputy Administrator Donald M. Itzkoff Associate Administrator for Railroad Development James T. McQueen Deputy Associate Administrator for Railroad Development Arrigo P. Mongini Study manager; general editor; principal writer Neil E. Moyer System benefits; financing; Alice M. Alexander Magnetic levitation John T. Harding contract administration James L. Milner Transportation analysis Bruce Goldberg Chapter 1; liability; State Gareth W. Rosenau Helen Ng opportunities Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Senior study advisor; Volpe Center project manager Ronald A. Mauri Travel demand forecasting Simon P. Prensky System concept definition Michael N. Coltman David M. Nienhaus Leonore I. Katz-Rhoads Sarah J. Lawrence* Robert P. Brodesky* Model implementation: Todd C. Green* Energy and emissions model Howard M. Eichenbaum* projections of operating results David L. Skinner implementation and investment needs *EG&G/Dynatrend Argonne National Laboratories Charles River Associates Energy and emissions model Donald M. Rote Demand model development Dan Brand development Zian Wang Thomas E. Parody Mark R. Kiefer DeLeuw, Cather & Co. and Associated Firms DeLeuw, Cather project manager Michael Holowaty Operating expense model Duncan W. Allen Ancillary activities model Steven A. LaRocco development Winn B. Frank development Richard L. Tower (Wilbur Eric C. MacDonald Smith) Charles H. Banks (R.L. Banks) Public benefits model design and Guillaume Shearin Liability Charles A. Spitulnik implementation Robert J. Zuelsdorf (Wilbur (Hopkins & Sutter) Smith) Kenneth G. Sislak (Wilbur Anne G. Reyner (Wilbur Smith) Smith) Jeffrey B. Allen Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Parsons, Brinckerhoff project manager John A.
    [Show full text]
  • Cincinnati 7
    - city of CINCINNATI 7 RAILROAD IMPROVEMENT AND SAFETY PLAN Ekpatm~d Tra tim & Engineering Tran~~murnPlanning & Urhn 'Design EXHIBIT Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1 Background 7 Purpose 7 I. Enhance Rail Passenger Service to the Cincinnati Union Terminal 15 11. Enhance Freight Railroad Service to and Through Cincinnati 21 111. Identify Railroad Related Safety Improvements 22 RlSP Projects 26 Conclusions 26 Recommendations 27 Credits List of Figures Figure 1 Cincinnati Area Railroads Map (1965) Figure 2 Cincinnati Area Railroads Map (Existing) Figure 3 Amtrak's Cardinal on the C&O of Indiana Figure 4 Penn Central Locomotive on the Blue Ash Subdivision Figure 5 CSX Industrial Track (Former B&0 Mainline) at Winton Road Figure 6 Cincinnati Riverfront with Produce Companies Figure 7 Railroads on the Cincinnati Riverfront Map (1976) Figure 8 Former Southwest Connection Piers Figure 9 Connection from the C&O Railroad Bridge to the Conrail Ditch Track Figure 10 Amtrak's Cardinal at the Cincinnati Union Terminal Figure 11 Chicago Hub Network - High Speed Rail Corridor Map Figure 12 Amtrak Locomotive at the CSX Queensgate Yard Locomotive Facility Figure 13 Conceptual Passenger Rail Corridor Figure 14 Southwest Connection Figure 15 Winton Place Junction Figure 16 Train on CSX Industrial Track Near Evans Street Crossing Figure 17 Potential Railroad Abandonments Map Figure 18 Proposed RlSP Projects Map Figure 19 RlSP Project Cost and Priority Executive Summary Introduction The railroad infrastructure in Cincinnati is critical for the movement of goods within the City, region, and country. It also provides the infrastructure for intercity passenger rail.
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose and Need for Action
    2. Purpose and Need for Action 2. Purpose and Need for Section PURPOSE AND NEED 2 FOR ACTION 2.0 Purpose and Need for Action This chapter describes the purpose and need for improved high speed passenger rail on the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor. In addition, this chapter describes the proposals and provides information on its history, previous and current rail studies along the corridor, and existing and future corridor conditions. Finally, this chapter identifies major authorizing laws and regulations; discusses the relationship of the proposal to statutes, regulations, policies, programs, and plans; and lists federal permits, licenses, and other requirements for program implementation. An overview map of the proposed program is shown on Exhibit 2.0‐1. 2.1 Background 2.1.1 History For more than two decades, IDOT has pursued improvements to passenger rail service between Chicago and St. Louis. The Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor is part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative program’s intent to develop and implement a 21st‐ century regional passenger rail system. 2.1.1.1 Previous Studies High‐speed rail in the Chicago to St. Louis corridor was first studied in 1979, when a system consisting of a 150 mph, electrified, double tracked network on a new alignment was evaluated. At the end of the study, it was concluded that the potential cost of new alignment high‐speed rail service was unaffordable, and that efforts should be concentrated on improving existing passenger train service along existing alignments. In 1992, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation designated the Chicago to St.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Intercity Passenger Rail Service in the United States
    Improving Intercity Passenger Rail Service in the United States Updated February 8, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45783 SUMMARY R45783 Improving Intercity Passenger Rail Service February 8, 2021 in the United States Ben Goldman The federal government has been involved in preserving and improving passenger rail service Analyst in Transportation since 1970, when the bankruptcies of several major railroads threatened the continuance of Policy passenger trains. Congress responded by creating Amtrak—officially, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation—to preserve a basic level of intercity passenger rail service, while relieving private railroad companies of the obligation to maintain a business that had lost money for decades. In the years since, the federal government has funded Amtrak and, in recent years, has funded passenger-rail efforts of varying size and complexity through grants, loans, and tax subsidies. Most recently, Congress has attempted to manage the effects on passenger rail brought about by the sudden drop in travel demand due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Amtrak’s ridership and revenue growth trends were suddenly upended, and passenger rail service in many markets was either reduced or suspended. Efforts to improve intercity passenger rail can be broadly grouped into two categories: incremental improvement of existing services operated by Amtrak and implementation of new rail service where none currently exists. Efforts have been focused on identifying corridors where passenger rail travel times would be competitive with driving or flying (generally less than 500 miles long) and where population density and intercity travel demand create favorable conditions for rail service.
    [Show full text]
  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Brooke Anderson (O
    OFFICE OF GOVERNOR PAT QUINN NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Brooke Anderson (o. 312-814-3158; c. 312-590-0195) Thursday, November 22, 2012 Josh Kauffman (IDOT) (o. 217-558-0517; c. 217-836-7870) Governor Quinn Announces High-Speed Rail Service for Thanksgiving Travelers on Chicago-St. Louis Corridor 110-MPH Rail Segment Starts in Time for Peak Holiday Season, Marks Major Milestone for Illinois’ Rail Network SPRINGFIELD – November 22, 2012. Governor Pat Quinn, Illinois Transportation Secretary Ann Schneider and Amtrak officials today announced that 110-mph rail service has started on a 15-mile segment of the Chicago-St. Louis corridor, just in time for the heavily-traveled Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Today’s announcement is a major step towards the establishment of a high-speed rail network in Illinois, one of Governor Quinn’s key priorities as he works to modernize the state’s infrastructure. “This next generation rail system gives passengers a safer, more reliable way to travel across Illinois and connect with family this holiday season,” Governor Quinn said. “Today’s announcement demonstrates significant progress on this major transportation initiative that will continue to boost Illinois’ economy and make sure our state has the best rail system in the nation.” Starting today, Amtrak Lincoln Service trains are operating at a maximum speed of 110 mph between Dwight and Pontiac. These include northbound Trains 300, 302, 304, and southbound Trains 301, 305, and 307. Other Amtrak trains on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor will continue to operate at 79 mph top speeds, including the Texas Eagle (trains 21/321/421 and 22/322/422).
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago Union Station Master Plan Study Final Report
    Chicago Union Station Master Plan Study Final Report Prepared For: In Cooperation With: May 2012 Chicago Union Station Master Plan Study May 2012 Chicago Union Station Master Plan Study Prepared For: Chicago Department of Transportation In Cooperation With Stakeholders Including: Amtrak Metra Chicago Transit Authority Regional Transportation Authority Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Illinois Department of Transportation Metropolitan Planning Council U.S. Department of Transportation City of Chicago Department of Housing and Economic Development Prepared By: TranSystems Corporation EJM Engineering, Inc. Ross Barney Architects Hatch Mott MacDonald Big Picture Marketing, Inc. www.UnionStationMP.org Some blank pages have been inserted to facilitate two-sided printing. Labels on some engineering drawings may require printing at 11” x 17” to be readable. Photographs were taken by TranSystems unless otherwise noted. ii May 2012 Chicago Union Station Master Plan Study Contents Executive Summary Appendices 1 - Introduction 1 A - Historical Items 2 - History 7 • Railway Age article on the opening of CUS • 1950s CUS promotional brochure 3 - Study Background 17 B - Street Access Existing Conditions report 4 - Ideas for Improvements 35 C - Medium Term Ideas 5 - Public Involvement 59 • Widen 6/8 and 10/12 platforms, add vertical access 6 - Next Steps 71 • Convert mail platform – Phase 1 Credits 77 • Space planning concepts • Canal St. viaducts concepts • Adams-Jackson block island, plan and section • Union Station area plan (assuming Canal
    [Show full text]
  • Local Planning and High-Speed Rail: Responses and Perceptions in a Developing Amtrak Corridor
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 12-2014 Local Planning and High-Speed Rail: Responses and Perceptions in a Developing Amtrak Corridor John-Luke D'Ambrosio Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Geographic Information Sciences Commons, Human Geography Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation D'Ambrosio, John-Luke, "Local Planning and High-Speed Rail: Responses and Perceptions in a Developing Amtrak Corridor" (2014). Master's Theses. 542. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/542 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOCAL PLANNING AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL: RESPONSES AND PERCEPTIONS IN A DEVELOPING AMTRAK CORRIDOR by John-Luke D’Ambrosio A thesis submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Geography Western Michigan University December 2014 Thesis Committee: C. Scott Smith, Ph.D., Chair Benjamin Ofori-Amoah, Ph.D. David Lemberg, Ph.D. LOCAL PLANNING AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL: RESPONSES AND PERCEPTIONS IN A DEVELOPING AMTRAK CORRIDOR John-Luke D’Ambrosio, M.A. Western Michigan University, 2014 Incremental speed increases have been a main focus of Amtrak in recent years. Now operating at 110 mph within three different service lines in the United States, Amtrak is making progress toward achieving maximum speeds within rail corridors.
    [Show full text]
  • Análisis De Registros De Aceleraciones Verticales En Caja De Grasa Y Correlación Con La Infraestructura Tesis Doctoral
    UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID ETSI CAMINOS CANALES PUERTOS ANÁLISIS DE REGISTROS DE ACELERACIONES VERTICALES EN CAJA DE GRASA Y CORRELACIÓN CON LA INFRAESTRUCTURA TESIS DOCTORAL MARÍA JOSÉ CANO ADÁN INGENIERA DE CAMINOS, CANALES Y PUERTOS DIRIGIDA POR: RICARDO INSA FRANCO DR. INGENIERO DE CAMINOS, CANALES Y PUERTOS VICENTE CUELLAR MIRASOL DR. INGENIERO DE CAMINOS, CANALES Y PUERTOS 2015 DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERÍA CIVIL: TRANSPORTE Y TERRITORIO ESCUELA TÉCNICA SUPERIOR DE INGENIEROS DE CAMINOS, CANALES Y PUERTOS DE MADRID TESIS DOCTORAL ANÁLISIS DE REGISTROS DE ACELERACIONES VERTICALES EN CAJA DE GRASA Y CORRELACIÓN CON LA INFRAESTRUCTURA Autor: María José Cano Adán Ingeniera de Caminos, Canales y Puertos Directores: Ricardo Insa Franco Dr. Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y Puertos Vicente Cuellar Mirasol Dr. Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y Puertos TESIS DOCTORAL ANÁLISIS DE REGISTROS DE ACELERACIONES VERTICALES EN CAJA DE GRASA Y CORRELACIÓN CON LA INFRAESTRUCTURA Autor: María José Cano Adán Directores: Ricardo Insa Franco Vicente Cuellar Mirasol Tribunal nombrado por el Magfco. Sr. Rector de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, el día de de 2015. TRIBUNAL CALIFICADOR Presidente D.: ……………………………………………………….. Vocal D.: ...…………………………………………………….. Vocal D.: ...…………………………………………………….. Vocal D.: ...…………………………………………………….. Secretario D.: .….....………………………………….…….…….. Realizado el acto de defensa y lectura de la Tesis el día de de 2015 en Madrid. Calificación: …………………………………………………………… EL PRESIDENTE LOS VOCALES EL SECRETARIO No tengo talentos especiales, solo soy apasionadamente curioso. Albert Einstein Agradecimientos AGRADECIMIENTOS Quería en este espacio agradecer a todas las personas y organismos que de un modo u otro habéis participado en la realización de esta tesis y me habéis echado una mano para conseguir este reto que empecé ya hace unos años.
    [Show full text]
  • NIPRA History, Progress Through Partnerships
    Progress through Partnerships: The History of the Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association The Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association and the City of Fort Wayne are leading the effort to bring passenger rail back through northeast Indiana while connecting Chicago, Illinois to Columbus, Ohio. The partnerships of this effort has progressed far enough that the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) sponsored the submission of a grant to the FRA for funding the required Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The chapter provides a history of NIPRA and their partnerships. Indiana has been active in midwest passenger rail development since signing as one of the original members of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) in 1995. Citizens of Fort Wayne became involved in the initiative to bring passenger rail to back to their city in early 2000, when Dekalb County, Waterloo and Auburn representatives serving on the Northeastern Indiana Regional Coordinating Council (NIRRC), the local Metropolitan Planning Organizations 1 (MPO), expressed that their communities did not like the rail stop in Waterloo and requested the route return to Fort Wayne. After hearing this, local NIRRC representatives, including Geoff Paddock (current Fort Wayne City Councilman) decided to step up efforts for bringing passenger rail back to Fort Wayne. Paddock was originally Governor Evan Bayh’s appointee to the NIRRC Board, and he was reappointed by the late Governor Frank O’Bannon. Paddock and other NIRRC representatives approached Governor O’Bannon and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) for assistance with this initiative. In 2002, INDOT, along with Ohio Rail Development Commission and Amtrak, co- sponsored the routing study, the Northern Indiana/Northwestern Ohio Routing Study, which resulted in Fort Wayne being selected as an intermediary stop on a proposed high- speed rail line between Chicago and Cleveland.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 2.1.3 Discusses the Projects That Have Advanced Based on the 2004 ROD
    2. Purpose and Need for Action 2. Purpose and Need for Section PURPOSE AND NEED 2 FOR ACTION 2.0 Purpose and Need for Action This chapter describes the purpose and need for improved high speed passenger rail on the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor. In addition, this chapter describes the proposals and provides information on its history, previous and current rail studies along the corridor, and existing and future corridor conditions. Finally, this chapter identifies major authorizing laws and regulations; discusses the relationship of the proposal to statutes, regulations, policies, programs, and plans; and lists federal permits, licenses, and other requirements for program implementation. An overview map of the proposed program is shown on Exhibit 2.0‐1. 2.1 Background 2.1.1 History For more than two decades, IDOT has pursued improvements to passenger rail service between Chicago and St. Louis. The Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor is part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative program’s intent to develop and implement a 21st‐ century regional passenger rail system. 2.1.1.1 Previous Studies High‐speed rail in the Chicago to St. Louis corridor was first studied in 1979, when a system consisting of a 150 mph, electrified, double tracked network on a new alignment was evaluated. At the end of the study, it was concluded that the potential cost of new alignment high‐speed rail service was unaffordable, and that efforts should be concentrated on improving existing passenger train service along existing alignments. In 1992, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation designated the Chicago to St.
    [Show full text]