Chicago to St. Louis 220 Mph High Speed Rail Alternative Corridor Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chicago to St. Louis 220 mph High Speed Rail Alternative Corridor Study Volume 1 – Infrastructure & Cost Revised October 8, 2009 Prepared by: Prepared for: 222 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2320 Chicago, IL 60606 P: 312-669-9601 F: 312-669-9606 www.transystems.com In association with: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Project Initiation and Need ......................................................................................... 3 1.2 Key Findings .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................... 7 3.0 Task 1: Evaluation of Corridors ...................................................................................10 3.1 Background ...............................................................................................................10 3.2 Approach ..................................................................................................................10 3.3 Alternatives Review ...................................................................................................13 3.4 Western Routing .......................................................................................................13 3.5 Eastern Routing ........................................................................................................13 3.6 Regulatory Environment ............................................................................................15 3.6.1 Signals ......................................................................................................................15 3.6.2 Track .........................................................................................................................15 3.6.3 FRA Vehicle Compliance ..........................................................................................16 3.6.4 Implications for the Chicago-St. Louis route ..............................................................16 4.0 Task 2: Analysis and Recommendations ...................................................................17 4.1 Geographically Segmented Approach .......................................................................17 4.2 Descriptions of Rural Area Concepts.........................................................................17 4.2.1 Using the Existing Railroad Corridor .........................................................................17 4.2.2 Using the Interstate Highways Corridors ...................................................................18 4.2.3 Developing New Corridors ........................................................................................19 4.3 Descriptions of Urban Area Concepts .......................................................................19 4.3.1 Chicago .....................................................................................................................19 4.3.2 Kankakee ..................................................................................................................21 4.3.3 Champaign................................................................................................................21 4.3.4 Decatur .....................................................................................................................22 4.3.5 Springfield .................................................................................................................22 4.3.6 St. Louis/Metro East ..................................................................................................22 5.0 Task 3: Proposed Running Times – Simulation Model ..............................................24 5.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................24 5.2 Key Finding ...............................................................................................................24 5.3 Model Components ...................................................................................................24 CHICAGO TO ST. LOUIS HIGH SPEED RAIL ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR STUDY - 1 - 5.4 Key Model Assumptions ............................................................................................26 6.0 Conceptual Level Cost Estimate .................................................................................27 6.1 Assumptions .............................................................................................................27 6.2 Primary Cost Elements..............................................................................................27 6.2.1 End to End Costs ......................................................................................................27 6.2.2 Rural Farmland – Template Costs .............................................................................27 6.2.3 Small Villages – Template Costs ...............................................................................27 6.2.4 Urban – Elements Counted .......................................................................................27 CHICAGO TO ST. LOUIS HIGH SPEED RAIL ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR STUDY - 2 - 1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Project Initiation and Need In March 2009 TranSystems was retained by The Midwest High Speed Rail Association (MHSRA) to conduct a limited alternative corridor feasibility study for a high speed passenger rail route from Chicago to St. Louis via Kankakee, Champaign, Decatur, and Springfield. In August 2009 MHSRA authorized enhancing the project corridor study area by extending it to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport This volume consists of the following elements: 1. A comparison of reasonable alternative alignments to the existing Union Pacific corridor between Chicago and St. Louis via Joliet and Springfield and a “fatal flaw” analysis of the proposed corridor via Champaign and Decatur. 2. An evaluation of the proposed alignment via Champaign and Decatur examining the suitability of the existing railroad rights-of-way to support a 220 mph maximum speed high speed rail operation using an approximately two hour schedule between Chicago and St. Louis. 3. Development of expected train running times using a railroad operations simulator for the proposed corridor with expected running times for each of the intermediate segments. 4. Development of a conceptual level cost estimate for infrastructure improvements between O’Hare and St. Louis to allow for approximately two hour service between downtown Chicago and St. Louis. 5. A phasing plan showing the running time and capital costs for each logical segment. Additional tasks also authorized In August include: 6. A sketch planning exercise to develop a ridership estimate sufficient to complete an initial calculation of project benefits and train fleet requirements needed to meet the estimated demand. 7. An economic benefits analysis that shows the economic impact of the proposed project. 8. An environmental benefits analysis that describes the general impacts of the proposed project on the environment along the corridor. These reports are contained in Volume 2. CHICAGO TO ST. LOUIS HIGH SPEED RAIL ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR STUDY - 3 - 1.2 Key Findings This study generated the following key findings: 1. No other suitable railroad corridor exists between Chicago and St. Louis other than the existing corridor via Joliet and Springfield and the proposed corridor via Champaign and Decatur. The proposed corridor does not contain any “fatal flaws” that would eliminate its use as a high speed rail passenger line based on bifurcating the existing railroad rights-of-way. Any railroad property acquisition would of course be subject to negotiation and, if successful, expected payment of compensation to the owning carrier. 2. The proposed corridor via Champaign and Decatur has the alignment and grade to support 220 mph operating speed, with the addition of complete grade separation and fencing of the right-of-way. Between Springfield and St. Louis a route using a combination of existing rail lines which do not currently have passenger service could be used instead of the existing Amtrak route (via the Union Pacific Railroad). The existing Amtrak route is constrained by numerous horizontal curves which limit maximum speeds to approximately 70-90 mph. Additionally, the alternate corridor would provide for a shorter travel distance and a new and more centrally located station stop on the Illinois side of the Mississippi River. 3. Simulation runs show that express trains using the proposed corridor, stopping only at Champaign and Springfield, could operate between downtown Chicago and downtown St. Louis in 1 hour 52 minutes while operating at least once an hour in each direction. Trains stopping at McCormick Place, Kankakee, Champaign, Decatur, Springfield, and Metro East could complete the run in 2 hours 4 minutes. 4. The infrastructure for the high speed rail passenger line between Chicago O’Hare and St. Louis could be built for a cost of $12.6 Billion in 2012 dollars. This estimate includes the track, bridges, signals, electrification, grade separations, fencing and other civil work, as well design and construction management fees, and a contingency allowance. It does not include rolling stock, maintenance facilities, stations, or other program costs. 5. Table