Share
1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostJan 28, 2014#601

Took the train to Chicago a couple weeks ago. Turned out to be the best option considering it snowed there most of the time. Train stations are usually in the heart of old towns unlike airports and you get treated to awesome views like:

This alone made the trip very enjoyable. If the train gets faster, it would be a no-brainer.
5,705
Life MemberLife Member
5,705

PostFeb 26, 2014#602

The local NPR station, KWMU, had an update posted on their website on Granite City to St. Louis option. IDOT proposing two routes and getting Environmental Impact Study underway,

Couple thoughts
1) Didn't MoDOT put in a TIGER application a few years ago for the Merchants bridge? I thought they got a grant to do the design/engineering for repairs but not for the work itself. Essentially rebuild the bridge so that it can handle rail traffic on two tracks at same time. Believe bridge is restricted to one train at a time at minimal speed.
2) Unfortunately, this is where I think the region fails. EGW and Regional leadership should have been pushing for this type of action from day one. I can't comprehend why a Environmental Impact study hasn't already been completed for the two proposed corridors. They are essentially the two routes that Amtrak service already uses.

In all fairness, it is also a good example on why it is difficult to be a metro area covering more then one state. Pretty sure Illinois politician north of Alton could really care less if service doesn't go all the way into St. Louis itself.

IDOT Mulls Options For St. Louis Area High-Speed Rail Line

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/ido ... -rail-line

Map of corridor study as per link in article

http://www.idothsr.org/environmental_do ... s/map.aspx
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostFeb 26, 2014#603

Fixing up Merchants is a good thing whether it's the primary Amtrak route or not. My vote is for MacArthur with eventual new bridge near it. It is single-tracked from DT to the Merchants and there are ~15 more grade crossings on that route. Plus you get the best views from the MacArthur.

Meanwhile adding a station in East St. Louis is a terrible idea. The only silver lining is that it'd keep at least some of the traffic on the MacArthur.
http://nextstl.com/2014/02/proposal-eas ... k-project/
985
Super MemberSuper Member
985

PostFeb 26, 2014#604

quincunx wrote:Fixing up Merchants is a good thing whether it's the primary Amtrak route or not. My vote is for MacArthur with eventual new bridge near it. It is single-tracked from DT to the Merchants and there are ~15 more grade crossings on that route. Plus you get the best views from the MacArthur.

Meanwhile adding a station in East St. Louis is a terrible idea. The only silver lining is that it'd keep at least some of the traffic on the MacArthur.
http://nextstl.com/2014/02/proposal-eas ... k-project/
How bad are the bottlenecks with Amtrak now trying to cross the river due to freight traffic? How much work can be done on the MacArthur bridge to increase capacity due to its age? Or would it be best to use that location for a new train bridge that could carry more freight and be designed to carry a potential 220mph speed train?
1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostFeb 26, 2014#605

Meanwhile adding a station in East St. Louis is a terrible idea. The only silver lining is that it'd keep at least some of the traffic on the MacArthur.
If I was IDOT i'd probably build to east st. louis a refuse to build it across the river. Why spend so much to have passenger exit your new rail service in missouri. I'd then start looking at how to make ESTL a transit hub for the region with plans to take HSR to Memphis Louisville Indy and Nashvile. If Missouri had kicked in asignificant portion of the funding it'd be a different story.

ADD. Also isn't it often stated here that downtown needs to be the center of the region. Seems to me that implies there ought to be something on the other side of the river. If ESTL was growing like St. Charles it would be nothing but good news for Downtown STL.
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostFeb 26, 2014#606

imperialmog wrote:How bad are the bottlenecks with Amtrak now trying to cross the river due to freight traffic? How much work can be done on the MacArthur bridge to increase capacity due to its age? Or would it be best to use that location for a new train bridge that could carry more freight and be designed to carry a potential 220mph speed train?
In the short-term MacArthur is the way to go. We should start planning and getting the money together for a new rail bridge next tot he MacArthur. Perhaps it should have 4 tracks with at least two ready for electrification.

PostFeb 26, 2014#607

STLEnginerd wrote:
Meanwhile adding a station in East St. Louis is a terrible idea. The only silver lining is that it'd keep at least some of the traffic on the MacArthur.
If I was IDOT i'd probably build to east st. louis a refuse to build it across the river. Why spend so much to have passenger exit your new rail service in missouri. I'd then start looking at how to make ESTL a transit hub for the region with plans to take HSR to Memphis Louisville Indy and Nashvile. If Missouri had kicked in asignificant portion of the funding it'd be a different story.

ADD. Also isn't it often stated here that downtown needs to be the center of the region. Seems to me that implies there ought to be something on the other side of the river. If ESTL was growing like St. Charles it would be nothing but good news for Downtown STL.
All the Lincoln service trains and Texas Eagle will cross the Mississippi. Amtrak would be stupid not to. Remember that the 110 service will be diesel locomotives and they won't be going 110 near ESTL or crossing the river anyways.
5,705
Life MemberLife Member
5,705

PostFeb 27, 2014#608

A pretty good article outlining what it is going to take to get decent service on the north end, Chicago to Joliet portion. The much shorter Metro East corridor will be chump change. However, both will need to happen to get some truly great service.

As far as stopping short in East St. Louis, I would hope IDOT as well as metro leadership is smart enough to recognize the benefit of Lincoln Service going into downtown St. Louis. Both DOT's have quite a bit of experience working together in making river crossings happen. Just need the same drive for rail, passenger and freight, crossing the Mississippi as what has been put into highways.

Improving Segment of Ill.'s Planned High-Speed Rail Corridor Could Cost $1.5B

02/24/2014

http://enr.construction.com/yb/enr/arti ... =195856917

I wish Obama can make this happen but difficult to see it without a major political give and take. This is what really needs to happen. He outlines $72 billion for transit and $19 billion for passenger rail.

Obama Outlines $302B, Four-Year Transport Bill Proposal

http://enr.construction.com/policy/wash ... oposal.asp
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostFeb 27, 2014#609

dredger wrote:As far as stopping short in East St. Louis
This won't be the case for Amtrak Lincoln Service.

It is something to be concerned about if a true 200+ mph electrified service is planned as that would require a new bridge tog et into St. Louis, but that's decades away.
985
Super MemberSuper Member
985

PostFeb 28, 2014#610

quincunx wrote:
dredger wrote:As far as stopping short in East St. Louis
This won't be the case for Amtrak Lincoln Service.

It is something to be concerned about if a true 200+ mph electrified service is planned as that would require a new bridge tog et into St. Louis, but that's decades away.
It all depends on when they build such a bridge, it is possible that one needs to be built before the electrified service starts being built due to the freight train concerns, which if they do they should also have it designed for any future electrified trains to get that out of the way. I just don't know if there is a real need to address improving freight rail crossings due to either bottlenecks or the age of the existing bridges where they need replacment.
388
Full MemberFull Member
388

PostMar 01, 2014#611

Do we really expect Missouri to foot more money into a new bridge over the mighty miss? It was hard for them to even put its portion of the new Stan Bridge.. Illinois and the fed pretty much paid for it all... When it comes to transportation MO is way beyond back words. We might as well start riding in horse carriage wagons to avoid wear and tear on bridges and highways let alone bus transportation and high speed rail...
788
Super MemberSuper Member
788

PostMar 03, 2014#612

BrickCity4470 wrote:Do we really expect Missouri to foot more money into a new bridge over the mighty miss? It was hard for them to even put its portion of the new Stan Bridge.. Illinois and the fed pretty much paid for it all... When it comes to transportation MO is way beyond back words. We might as well start riding in horse carriage wagons to avoid wear and tear on bridges and highways let alone bus transportation and high speed rail...

I was under the impression that MO paid for half of the bridge plus their side of the ramps. IL was building way more stuff on their side and thus had to spend more.
3,432
Life MemberLife Member
3,432

PostMar 03, 2014#613

The Musial bridge was seen by Missourians as helping Illinois residents reach jobs in Missouri. But a new railroad bridge would do nothing for the East Side, but would help Missouri side residents access Chicago, and Chicago residents access Missouri. So Missouri should have a much stronger incentive to push for a new AmTrak Bridge.
5,705
Life MemberLife Member
5,705

PostMar 03, 2014#614

^ I think their is also some incentive from Freight railroads to figure this out. Investments to improve current crossings is a capacity and longevity issue for them. A case in point, CSX is making a significant expansion to its Northwest OH yard that will allow better flow of its freight network including sending western bound manifest to St. Louis to connect with UP that directly bypasses Chicago belt.

PostMay 11, 2014#615

I'm curious to see how things play out in Indiana as the state decided to open up the Amtrak corridor train to competition. While this is not true high speed and certainly won't see anything like the likes of All Aboard by the FCC in Florida it will at least preserve the route considering the hostility to rail and Amtrak by state leadership and the conservative crowd.

I also think it could be an opportunity to indirectly build a greater route network in the Midwest. My thoughts is along the lines of Richard Bose nextstl posting for a hub network out of St. Louis. A private operator having success with a Midwest corridor train in a conservative state might be inclined to find other opportunities outside of some of the existing corridors, such as Indianapolis to St. Louis as noted in Richard's article, etc. The other thought, Amtrak & Illinois for that matter will only support a Chicago hub network and nothing in the foreseeable future. Like Airlines, Amtrak benefits from maximizing a smaller number of hubs not more unless GOP has a change of heart and gives them oodles of money which is a nice but unrealistic thought.

http://nextstl.com/2014/03/passenger-ra ... -st-louis/

http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/N ... &#comments

Four companies submit bids for ‘Hoosier State’ passenger service contract

Published: May 5, 2014


INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Department of Transportation has received four proposals to provide passenger service on the Chicago-Indianapolis corridor now served by Amtrak’s Hoosier State. The proposals were received in response to a request for proposals issued in early April by the state and seven communities that are helping fund the service.

Responses were received from Amtrak, Chicago-based Iowa Pacific Holdings Inc.; Corridor Capital LLC of Los Angeles; Railmark Holdings Inc. of Wixom, Mich.; and Herzog Transit Services Inc. of Irving, Texas, teaming with Passenger Transportation Specialists Inc. of Oklahoma City, Okla.

The request allows bidders to submit proposals for everything from operating the train and route to simply providing services on the trains. While the state will not divulge details of the proposal, Iowa Pacific Holding President Ed Ellis tells Trains News Wire that his company’s proposal would continue to see the Hoosier State running as an Amtrak train with Amtrak crews, with Iowa Pacific providing other elements of the service. This would be similar to operations in North Carolina, where the state provides equipment and locomotives for the state-supported Piedmont while Amtrak provides operating crews and operates the train as part of its network.
296
Full MemberFull Member
296

PostMay 11, 2014#616

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-enclosed-t ... e-mph.html
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostMay 15, 2014#617

East St. Louis and St Clair County aren't giving up on getting a station for ESTl. A wasteful redundant make-work project in my opinion. We should be working together to get new service to Indy wand Memphis not wasting money on this. A station on the other side of the highway won't answer ESTL's prayers.

STL Public radio - East St. Louis Officials Rally For High-Speed Rail Station
Alton Mayor Brant Walker told St. Louis Public Radio that placing a station so close to Alton's will defeat the purpose of high-speed rail. He said East St. Louis is already well served by highways and light rail.
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/eas ... Ys.twitter
738
Senior MemberSenior Member
738

PostOct 11, 2014#618

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ambiti ... ica,37153/
2,037
Life MemberLife Member
2,037

PostOct 11, 2014#619

My dad always says that high speed rail should go through East St. Louis at 110 miles per hour.

While I do empathize with East St. Louis and wanting to spur economic development, that's not the point of high speed rail. It's to get people from St. Louis to Chicago and back quickly, and all these stop in between just slow the train down so much I wonder why we are bothering to spend the money. We already have like what, 9 stops? That's already way too many.
3,432
Life MemberLife Member
3,432

PostOct 13, 2014#620

I agree. Eurostar goes nonstop from London to Paris in about 2 hours, and the distance is almost exactly the same as St Louis to Chicago. I'm sure many towns wanted the train to stop in their town, but those in charge resisted. If Illinois insists, just make one station there and go nonstop to downtown Chicago.
985
Super MemberSuper Member
985

PostOct 13, 2014#621

If I remember the idea for the 220 speed trains is the only intermediate stops would be in Springfield and Champaign, there would still be other stops with the 110 speed trains. Also wasn't one idea is for the Chicago-Indianapolis route is to go by way of Champaign to save money on track by combining that segment for two route? And in doing so it creates a St. Louis-Indianapolis route which could be extended east to Cincinnati.

Isn't the idea of St. Louis being a HSR hub make sense due to how many population centers are around 250-400 miles from here that a 220 speed train would be ideal for? Also, I saw the idea that O'Hare would be a stop for one of these trains if a network was done, would it make sense if airlines partnered with the rail to use the rail as a replacement for connecting flights as part of an itinerary? If I'm not mistaken United does this out of their Newark hub so they would likely do the same from there, which would be a help in terms of reliability, flexibility, and convenience; especially if connecting to an international flight.
1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostOct 13, 2014#622

I really think a decent argument could be made for basing high speed rail out of East STL. After all many have proposed routing a HSR line along I70. There isn't really a good way to get there from Union station. routes to Chicago Indianapolis Louisville and Memphis wouldn't require crossing the Mississippi which makes things potentially easier to route through STL. Politically speaking Missouri probably wouldn't be chipping in as much as IL for a HSR line through most of IL so it's easier for that state to swallow if both terminus are in IL. ESTL is approximately the same number of Metrolink stops from the CBD as Union Station. As much as downtown needs a boost, ESTL needs it more.

Actually the only reason I can imagine for placing it in MO is because that they have a station already. I d really be interested I in seeing a proposal that incorporates a large scale redevelopment around a HSR station in ESTL. Until they show what could be they won't find support and any hub in IL would have to be better than the GTC and have coordinated private redevelopment to garner much support.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostOct 13, 2014#623

^ Love it.... put in a TOD redevelopment with modern train station as its core with a metrolink connection and walkable to an improved riverfront.
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostOct 13, 2014#624

My feeling is that the highway is a big impediment to the results you all are hoping for.
1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostOct 13, 2014#625

^ The highways, the railroads, the Illinois Arch grounds, the floodplain, the traffic across the PSB, the lack of nearby walkable transit…
Read more posts (1002 remaining)
Share