Please assess my Chicago-Hub HSR Network Plan

[tuna]

Hey all,

I’ve developed an odd fascination with trains lately and after I discovered a cool new map plotting tool from Google, I couldn't help but dream up a midwest HSR network. My goal was to be as efficient and realistic as possible, only planning routes that would be viable in the real world. I used existing plans from the Obama HSR initiative and then modified and expanded based on my own research into the populations of the metropolitan areas throughout the region and the implementation of HSR in countries like France, Germany and Sweden.

I took my lead from Europe in terms of how viability would be defined. For example, some HSR lines would be such an attractive alternative to flying that they would capture the majority of the total air+rail market and could actually be cash cows for the network. Other routes might not currently be viable for full HSR, and might not even be able to recoup their capital costs even using a slower and cheaper “higher speed rail” solution on mostly legacy track, but are justified nonetheless because from a relatively low startup cost they can develop the market and can be iteratively improved with new tracks and grade crossings piece by piece to be faster. As they get faster, and as people and the regional economies begin to adapt to the availability of HSR, they will become profitable. After the market matures they would be an easy conversion over to full HSR.

I imagined that this HSR Network would form the backbone of a regional rail network, so connections to cities that would likely be popular Regional Express service hubs were given a slight "bonus" that might push them over the edge into being granted an HSR stop even if its metro population was of borderline size.

I imagined 3 tiers of high speed service, modeled after Germany

The highest tier, Intercity Express (ICE), denoted in red, would be full 220mph max speed rail on mostly purpose-built dedicated lines with full grade separation.

Intercity Lines (ICL), denoted in purple, would be 130mph max speed tilting trains designed to make the most out of a mix of legacy and purpose built track, contending with a manageable amount of slower traffic.

Interregional Express (IRE), denoted in blue, would also be tilting trains, possibly the same models maxing out at 130mph, but would generally be a lower-investment and slower speed service with average speeds somewhere between ICL and Regional Express lines. As in Germany, the distinction between ICL and IRE is blurry, but in general IRE has some combination of (1) a greater frequency of stops, (2) a greater proportion of legacy track and at-grade crossings, (3) more slower-speed traffic on the line, and (4) a ridership pattern that is more compatible with a distance based regional fare system versus a revenue management based intercity fare system.



The routes that I'm most conflicted about are the Illinois and Indiana IRE lines. My reasoning for including them is that (1) Peoria, Champaign-Urbana, and Fort Wayne, are all populous enough to warrant a connection to HSR and I would have definitely included stops at them had they fallen on any of the other routes, (2) I already knew that a high speed spur from Battle Creek through MI state capitol Lansing and sizable metro area Flint was warranted to connect those cities to their west, and (3) the connections the Illinois and Indiana Lines make improve the viability of travel between southern Illinois / Missouri and Indiana / Ohio. Even covering those motives, the lines might only have run from Peoria through Indianapolis to Fort Wayne, but it seemed logical at the time to connect them to the nearby lines rather than leave them in dead ends. I'm thinking that the whole "partial circle line" that they form might not be viable.

The luckiest city on my map is Angola, IN. Population under 20,000 but it manages to lie directly on the intersection of 2 lines.

I really know nothing about trains and I would appreciate any feedback on the viability and value of this plan. I'm not considering the sad state of passenger rail regulation and infrastructure investment in this country, those are huge artificial barriers that could be fixed with a little political will. I'm thinking more along the lines of, "if we had the rail regulations and infrastructure investment levels of, say, Sweden, which is an unbelievable case of proving profitability of HSR lines through hundreds of miles of sparsely populated land, would my proposal make any sense?"

[electricron]

I really know nothing about trains and I would appreciate any feedback on the viability and value of this plan. I'm not considering the sad state of passenger rail regulation and infrastructure investment in this country, those are huge artificial barriers that could be fixed with a little political will. I'm thinking more along the lines of, "if we had the rail regulations and infrastructure investment levels of, say, Sweden, which is an unbelievable case of proving profitability of HSR lines through hundreds of miles of sparsely populated land, would my proposal make any sense?"

I appreciate your efforts and time. But your proposed dividing line of 130 mph proves you don't know a thing about Federal law; the max speeds allowed on the various classes of tracks and how signaling systems and highway crossings affect max speeds as well. You need to rethink which line falls under which max speeds based upon the law.
Track classifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed ... ted_States
Track type Freight train Passenger
Excepted <10 mph not allowed
Class 1 10 mph 15 mph
Class 2 25 mph 30 mph
Class 3 40 mph 60 mph
Class 4 60 mph 80 mph
Class 5 80 mph 90 mph
Class 6 ........ 110 mph
Class 7 ........ 125 mph
Class 8 ........ 160 mph
Class 9 ........ 200 mph

Note: 80 mph is the speed limit for freight trains in America.

Signaling systems
http://www.railway-technical.com/US-sig.shtml
Any operator in the US who wants to run trains over 79 mph has to have some sort of automatic train stop (ATS), automatic train control (ATC) or cab signalling system (CSS). These names all mean that the driver gets some sort of in-cab indication and a warning of signal conditions. There are basically two systems; those which provide a warning and those which regulate speed.

Keeping this simple, you need ATS, ATC, or CSS to faster than 79 mph. That's why most tracks in America have a max speed of 79 mph.

The good news I have to report is that this requirement will soon be the requirement for all passenger train tracks in America very soon, the over 79 mph speed will soon disappear as far as passenger trains are concerned.

Grade Separations
http://library.state.or.us/repository/2 ... /index.pdf
This gets confusing very fast. Trying to keep it simple....
Above 125 mph = All crossing must be grade separated by law

Between 110 and 125 mph = All public crossings must have automated quad gated signals with gates that are reinforced and crash proof. Private crossings must have locked gates with their cross bucks signs. It's difficult to prove these gates are crash proof, therefore in practice the must be grade separated crossings occurs above 110 mph.

Between 80 and 110 mph = All public crossings must have automated quad gated signals. Private crossings must have locked gates with their cross bucks signs.

Below 80 mph = All public crossings must have gated automated signals for passenger trains. All private crossings must have cross bucks signs. For freight trains, heavy traffic requires automated signals, light traffic requires cross bucks signs.

Train construction:
Trains built for speeds over 125 mph must be built to a higher standard than those 125 mph and below.

So, when recoloring your proposed rail lines, sort them in max speeds of 80, 110, 125, and faster than 125 mph columns. An additional column you might want to add is max speeds of 90 mph, because on freight owned tracks, that's as fast most of them will allow on shared tracks because their freight trains run so slow. If you desire faster than 90 mph passenger speeds, the passenger train company will have to lay and run on dedicated tracks in the freight owned corridor. But that's the freight company rules, not based upon the law.

Hope this helps some...

As for the political will of the FRA safety regulations, ask the citizens of Spain what they think of theirs?

[MCHammer]

"As for the political will of the FRA safety regulations, ask the citizens of Spain what they think of theirs?"

I would suggest you look to the ongoing discussion as to why this accident may have occurred. The lack of ATC for ASFA probably contributed along with driver distraction with being on the phone with Renfe.

I think a proposal for 125 mph instead of 130 mph would be a better idea. I am curious to know why a connection from Davenport-Peoria-Indianapolis-Fort Wayne-Kalamazoo would be viable for rail service? I was more interested in serving an HSL from Chicago-Fort Wayne-Cleveland and a connection to Detroit via Toledo. Running an HSL on the current 110 mph track I do not think would be the best use of funds as Grand Rapids, Lansing, and those cities to the north have more population to be served or build both. I am not sure if there would be high demand from Chicago to Detroit via Grand Rapids and Lansing. Most proposals including for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative did not highlight the Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit corridor for HSR which I do not understand.

I would actually have an HSL from STL-Kansas City and Columbus-Cleveland as I see a future connection to Pittsburg and onwards toward New York, Philadelphia, and DC.

[tuna]

I appreciate your efforts and time. But your proposed dividing line of 130 mph proves you don't know a thing about Federal law; the max speeds allowed on the various classes of tracks and how signaling systems and highway crossings affect max speeds as well. You need to rethink which line falls under which max speeds based upon the law.

Thanks for the reply and for filling me in on some of the speed requirements by track class and the signalling requirements. So as far as those track class speed limits, what is entailed in raising that? Is it about required maintenance and inspection level, something that could be heightened without necessarily rebuilding any of the line? Is it about how straight it is and the speed that its curves and switches can handle? I don't know anything about the track classes/

I was actually aware of the 80, 110, and 125 mph speed limits around grade crossings, I just wasn't sure when those applied. Are those speed limits in effect only as the train is physically passing through the grade crossing, or are they in effect throughout the entire line? For example, in my plan I imagined that the trains would slow down to 110mph when going through grade crossings, but could speed up in between them, and maybe long stretches of the existing legacy rail that have relatively infrequent grade crossings would be prime targets to make completely grade separated so that high speeds could be continuously maintained for a time before slowing down to 110 again to go through the next grade crossing.

As for the political will of the FRA safety regulations, ask the citizens of Spain what they think of theirs?

Well thats kind of a low blow because even in Spain, rail has an exceptional safety record that is much stronger than cars, and in a couple huge countries that have been running HSR for a long long time (I think Japan and maybe Germany) there has not yet been one single HSR fatality. What was the story with the derailment in Spain, wasn't the driver going 90mph in a 50mph zone? I'm all for the automation that would have prevented that from happening. What I'm against are the insane FRA regulations that require our HSR trains to be able to ram into a freight train at full speed and not collapse, which basically means that the Acela Express has to be a rolling battle tank. According to wikipedia, besides having to be extremely modified from the popular foreign designs at the cost of hundreds of millions in order to meet these armored train requirements, there is also that compared to the foreign HSR train systems that its based on, the Acela Express has 4 times the maintenance requirements because all the parts wear out 4 times as fast from the extra weight. The track wears out much faster too. Instead of relying on additional inches of steel construction, it would be much more efficient to rely on train control systems to prevent train-on-train collisions in the first place. I'm sure its still prudent to make sure that the trains are strong enough to plow at 110mph through a any cars or trucks that might meander onto a grade crossing, but I think that preventing collisions with other trains should be achievable.

[tuna]

"As for the political will of the FRA safety regulations, ask the citizens of Spain what they think of theirs?"

I would suggest you look to the ongoing discussion as to why this accident may have occurred. The lack of ATC for ASFA probably contributed along with driver distraction with being on the phone with Renfe.

I think a proposal for 125 mph instead of 130 mph would be a better idea. I am curious to know why a connection from Davenport-Peoria-Indianapolis-Fort Wayne-Kalamazoo would be viable for rail service? I was more interested in serving an HSL from Chicago-Fort Wayne-Cleveland and a connection to Detroit via Toledo. Running an HSL on the current 110 mph track I do not think would be the best use of funds as Grand Rapids, Lansing, and those cities to the north have more population to be served or build both. I am not sure if there would be high demand from Chicago to Detroit via Grand Rapids and Lansing. Most proposals including for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative did not highlight the Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit corridor for HSR which I do not understand.

I would actually have an HSL from STL-Kansas City and Columbus-Cleveland as I see a future connection to Pittsburg and onwards toward New York, Philadelphia, and DC.

Yes my own research into the federal "MSAs" (Metropolitan Statistical Areas) showed that Michigan overall has a surprisingly huge population spread out amongst smaller urban areas along the current Amtrak Michigan Service and in Muskegon, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Flint, and Saginaw. In comparison, the route following I80/90 east from Chicago through Toledo to Cleveland is a desolate wasteland. There is even a town called Angola, IN, at the seemingly crucial intersection between I80/90 and I69, that has a metro population of well under 20,000. Calling it a "metro" is a stretch. That's why I'm surprised that other HSR proposals envisioned the high speed line running along this route rather than through southern Michigan. I also included the line that follows I80/90 because, as you mentioned, the plan is eventually for the Keystone line and Empire line to be upgraded to HSR and meet in Cleveland, so continuing HSR service from Cleveland onto Chicago and beyond could be viable, but much less viable if the passengers have to connect from Toledo north to Detroit before heading back south to chicago, which I calculated would make them travel 110 miles out of their way versus also having an HSR line traveling more directly between Cleveland and Chicago. So that line that we're talking about, the East Line from my example, I imagined that it, along with its connectors from Toledo to Detroit and from Cleveland through Akron to Columbus, would be amongst the first of the second tier "ICL" to be upgraded to first tier "ICE" lines as traffic from new HSR Empire and Keystone lines stimulates demand.

Also, I didn't intend for there to be anyone traveling Chicago-Detroit via Grand Rapids and Lansing. The line from Grand Rapids to Detroit was in my third tier of service, so not only would it be extremely out of the way but also slower per mile. People traveling Chicago-Detroit would take the "Northeast Line" through Battle Creek and Ann Arbor. That Muskegon line to Detroit through Grand Rapids and Lansing was justified (I hope) because Grand Rapids is somewhat of a "sleeper city", nobody has heard of it but it has a metro population of more than 1 million, which combined with demand for transport direct from state capitol and home of massive Michigan State University in Lansing to Detroit, should be sufficient to justify a third tier service that still has a lot of grade crossings and old unimproved track.

And yes..., I believe I wrote myself that that the Illinois and Indiana Lines seemed the least unrealistic, even relegating them to third tier high speed rail service that wouldn't require much capital investment. My basic thinking was that Peoria and Champaign-Urbana both has sufficient populations to warrant stops on the rail network and are very close, and that Fort Wayne is actually a decently sized city that would provide tons of demand for rail travel if only it wasn't in the middle of nowhere, literally 120 miles from the nearest notable metro area. So those cities could connect to the rail network by slower regional rail, but that makes rail travel to Fort Wayne mostly unviable because its so far from the HSR network. Alternatively, and this is the possibly foolish route I took, I could connect those 3 cities through Indianapolis, following the development of the highway system, and this would allow the HSR network to both directly serve Ft. Wayne and increase the viability of travel between downstate Illinois/Missouri and Indiana, which you otherwise would have to travel all the way north to Chicago to connect to.

[MCHammer]

Also, I didn't intend for there to be anyone traveling Chicago-Detroit via Grand Rapids and Lansing. The line from Grand Rapids to Detroit was in my third tier of service, so not only would it be extremely out of the way but also slower per mile. People traveling Chicago-Detroit would take the "Northeast Line" through Battle Creek and Ann Arbor. That Muskegon line to Detroit through Grand Rapids and Lansing was justified (I hope) because Grand Rapids is somewhat of a "sleeper city", nobody has heard of it but it has a metro population of more than 1 million, which combined with demand for transport direct from state capitol and home of massive Michigan State University in Lansing to Detroit, should be sufficient to justify a third tier service that still has a lot of grade crossings and old unimproved track.

That is what I do not understand on why a third tier service would be used when you are connecting some of Michigan's larger MSAs to Detroit and perhaps to Chicago?

And yes..., I believe I wrote myself that that the Illinois and Indiana Lines seemed the least unrealistic, even relegating them to third tier high speed rail service that wouldn't require much capital investment. My basic thinking was that Peoria and Champaign-Urbana both has sufficient populations to warrant stops on the rail network and are very close, and that Fort Wayne is actually a decently sized city that would provide tons of demand for rail travel if only it wasn't in the middle of nowhere, literally 120 miles from the nearest notable metro area. So those cities could connect to the rail network by slower regional rail, but that makes rail travel to Fort Wayne mostly unviable because its so far from the HSR network. Alternatively, and this is the possibly foolish route I took, I could connect those 3 cities through Indianapolis, following the development of the highway system, and this would allow the HSR network to both directly serve Ft. Wayne and increase the viability of travel between downstate Illinois/Missouri and Indiana, which you otherwise would have to travel all the way north to Chicago to connect to.

I may have to rescind my thinking on that. The Midwest HSRA has come out in support of such a line for regional rail and it would make sense. For me though, it is not near the top of the priority list. I would rather invest in dedicated HSLs radiating out from Chicago to St. Paul, Kansas City via St. Louis, Detroit, and the 3C Corridor via Indianapolis. From there, I would like to see better regional connections at the second-tier level like Milwaukee-Green Bay, St. Paul-Duluth, Chicago-Omaha via Quad Cities

[electricron]

I wanted to add some additional comments. Here's a great link explaining how to rank city pairs for HSR:
http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf
The city pairs were evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:
• City and metropolitan area population, favoring cities with larger populations in large metropolitan areas.
There are 21 metro regions in the nation with a population of at least 2.5 million; all are located within one of the 11 emerging megaregions across the country.
• Distance between city pairs, confined to distances between 100-500 miles, with 250 miles receiving the highest value.
This index weighted the distance criteria such that it peaked between 200 and 300 miles and decreased to zero after 500 miles, replicating performance of existing systems in Europe and Asia.
• Metropolitan regions with existing transit systems including regional rail, commuter rail and local transit networks.
Without access to transit systems, intercity passengers are dependant on autos to begin or end their trip, significantly decreasing rail’s competitive. Of the nine American cities with commuter rail systems and rail transit systems, five are located in the Northeast. Of the remaining four, two are in California, one is in the Midwest (Chicago) and one is in Florida (Miami).
• Metropolitan GDP, awarding value based on the combined per-capita GDP.
High-speed rail systems depend heavily on business travel to sustain ridership and business travel is highest in places with more productive economies. Studies also show that travel increases with increased income, whether for business, personal, or leisure travel. Eight of the ten largest metropolitan regions (with populations over 2.5 million) with the highest per capita GDP are located in megaregions: the Northeast, California, and the Texas Triangle.
• Metropolitan regions with high levels of auto congestion as measured by the Texas Transportation Institute’s Travel Time Index.
Three of the top four and four of the top ten most congested metro areas in the nation are located in California. Again, California, Texas, and the Northeast have multiple metropolitan regions on the list of the top ten.
• Metropolitan regions that are located within a megaregion.
Cities that are located in one of the eleven megaregions are more likely to be part of a network of interconnected cities with the appropriate density to support high-speed rail systems, rather than an isolated city pair. The most densely populated megaregion is the Northeast, which approaches densities found in Japan and other Asian countries.

Here are their Top 50 City-Pairs that includes Chicago:
11 Chicago-Detroit 91.09
13 Chicago-Columbus 89.42
14 Chicago-Saint Louis 89.25
16 Chicago-Cleveland 88.71
25 Chicago-Minneapolis 87.33
35 Chicago-Louisville 86.25
39 Chicago-Cincinnati 86.02
I have no idea why Chicago-Indianapolis failed to make their list. The city-pairs listed immediately above should be where your HSR trains go.

[MCHammer]

In terms of city pairs, Louisville is past Indianapolis. Cincinnati is included as well which means you could build a nice Wye for Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Louisville. Given the 3C Corridor from Chicago has the top city pairs. The question becomes where to send an HSL to Cleveland? I was thinking instead of building a new HSL along the current ROW utilized to Detroit, I was thinking why not add it to an HSL via South Bend or Fort Wayne Indiana, have a Wye at Toledo to Detroit and Cleveland and make better utilization of the line. I would assume that 15 trains per hour on that corridor would not be needed until demand warrants. It would probably start at about 4 trains per hour given 1 local and 1 express per destination beyond the Wye. If need be in the future, South Bend could be connected by HSL or it might be best just to connect it in the first leg.

[tuna]

Here are their Top 50 City-Pairs that includes Chicago:
11 Chicago-Detroit 91.09
13 Chicago-Columbus 89.42
14 Chicago-Saint Louis 89.25
16 Chicago-Cleveland 88.71
25 Chicago-Minneapolis 87.33
35 Chicago-Louisville 86.25
39 Chicago-Cincinnati 86.02
I have no idea why Chicago-Indianapolis failed to make their list. The city-pairs listed immediately above should be where your HSR trains go.

I think the reason there's no Indianapolis is because they simply forgot it. It's inconceivable that you would have routes to Louisville, Cincinnati, and Columbus but not Indianapolis.

Thanks for this resource, it has some good info. My map almost perfectly matches those city pairs.

I think that considering the polish that went into this report, they really didn't look much into how the networks would be iteratively improved or how the supporting regional rail network would look. Taking into consideration everything about HSR, from the limits of going through grade crossings at max 110mph, to the curves in existing track and the corresponding cant that the track may or may not have, the disruption that 200+mph HSR service causes on a line also handling regional and freight rail, and the different rates that passenger and freight trains wear down finely laid HSR rail with its corresponding relatively tight tolerances, it seems mandatory that any plan include a plan for the piecemeal improvement of the track and rail service as certain parts of tracks can be upgraded, as crossings can be grade separated, and as dedicated passenger rail or even dedicated HSR track can be laid. They didn't really put any thought into it. Also, that 250 mile optimal range is BS. The optimal range has more to do with the duration of the train journey and the viability of competing methods of transport than the distance. People will tolerate 220mph service for a much longer distance than they would tolerate 110mph service, and people who are being picked up between the major destinations in the smaller cities and less populated regions will tolerate the train for longer because would have to spend time connecting to a major city's airport anyway if they wanted to make the journey by air.

[tuna]

That is what I do not understand on why a third tier service would be used when you are connecting some of Michigan's larger MSAs to Detroit and perhaps to Chicago?

Thats a good question. My hunch was that with the faster Northeast line handling all the traffic coming from Chicago on west, an HSR line from Detroit to Lansing onto Grand Rapids and possibly Muskegon wouldn't be able to generate huge amounts of revenue, so combined with the relatively short distance of the line it might be better suited to a slower service that wouldn't rely on the construction of hundreds of grade separations to achieve its speed. There wouldn't be nearly as much upfront capital cost and my thinking is that everything has to be iteratively improved anyway, this line isn't the highest priority. There is much more revenue to be captured for journeys between Chicago and Detroit, Chicago and Indianapolis/Louisville/Cincinatti/Columbus, Chicago and St. Louis, and Chicago and Minneapolis, the match the capital investment to where you can generate that revenue. Then, as those main lines that I have designated "InterCity Express" mature, maybe they are able to move from 160mph tilting trains to 225mph non-tilting trains, for example, and you can move those 160mph tilting trains to the Grand Rapids/Muskegon line that you have now had more time to improve with grade separations. Gradual improvements. Prioritize the most viable lines. Thats what I'm thinking has to be the process.

[tuna]

In terms of city pairs, Louisville is past Indianapolis. Cincinnati is included as well which means you could build a nice Wye for Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Louisville. Given the 3C Corridor from Chicago has the top city pairs. The question becomes where to send an HSL to Cleveland? I was thinking instead of building a new HSL along the current ROW utilized to Detroit, I was thinking why not add it to an HSL via South Bend or Fort Wayne Indiana, have a Wye at Toledo to Detroit and Cleveland and make better utilization of the line. I would assume that 15 trains per hour on that corridor would not be needed until demand warrants. It would probably start at about 4 trains per hour given 1 local and 1 express per destination beyond the Wye. If need be in the future, South Bend could be connected by HSL or it might be best just to connect it in the first leg.

Yep Chicago>South Bend>Ft. Wayne>Toledo is a better route than I had. It's about 40 miles farther to Chicago compared to my route, but it adds Ft Wayne to a high traffic HSR line without losing any worthwhile stops. I had considered connecting Cleveland via Detroit onto the southern michigan line that I had already justified, but it would add ~110 miles to the Cleveland>Chicago journey which is just not tenable, where 40 miles probably is. I'm going to update my map with this and some other changes, thanks

[MCHammer]

In terms of city pairs, Louisville is past Indianapolis. Cincinnati is included as well which means you could build a nice Wye for Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Louisville. Given the 3C Corridor from Chicago has the top city pairs. The question becomes where to send an HSL to Cleveland? I was thinking instead of building a new HSL along the current ROW utilized to Detroit, I was thinking why not add it to an HSL via South Bend or Fort Wayne Indiana, have a Wye at Toledo to Detroit and Cleveland and make better utilization of the line. I would assume that 15 trains per hour on that corridor would not be needed until demand warrants. It would probably start at about 4 trains per hour given 1 local and 1 express per destination beyond the Wye. If need be in the future, South Bend could be connected by HSL or it might be best just to connect it in the first leg.

Yep Chicago>South Bend>Ft. Wayne>Toledo is a better route than I had. It's about 40 miles farther to Chicago compared to my route, but it adds Ft Wayne to a high traffic HSR line without losing any worthwhile stops. I had considered connecting Cleveland via Detroit onto the southern michigan line that I had already justified, but it would add ~110 miles to the Cleveland>Chicago journey which is just not tenable, where 40 miles probably is. I'm going to update my map with this and some other changes, thanks

I would not connect via Detroit. What I would do is have the line spur off at Toledo with one leg to Detroit, the other to Cleveland. That way, there is no backtracking occurring. If necessary, the local trains could schedule meetups in Toledo and reduce the amount of trains on the line overall to allow higher frequencies elsewhere.

In response to Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit, the total route is about 120 miles. Chicago-Detroit via Michigan I guess is around 300 miles. It would be about the same going via South Bend and Toledo to Detroit for the distance. In terms of infrastructure need, having a branch from a line to Cleveland at Toledo would make the most sense from a cost effective standpoint and upgrading the line between Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit to 110-125 mph would be a better solution from a cost effectiveness standpoint. Until you have a connection to New York City, or DC, the line to Cleveland with a stub to Detroit would not be heavily used but I could be wrong.