Amtrak Quad Cities Proposal Chicago, Moline, Iowa City

Held-up: KWQC.com

This writer it seems hasn't met a "return key" he didn't like; makes it difficult to quote. But here goes:

Has Quad-Cities passenger rail lost its steam?
...
It’s been one of our community’s most-talked-about projects since it was announced in 2008: passenger rail to Chicago.

But 16 years – and almost half a billion dollars – later, not a single passenger car has left the Quad-Cities.

And now some say time and hope for the local train may be running out.
...
So far, a staggering $455 million in local, state and federal funds have been earmarked for the project. Lawmakers have said that money isn’t in jeopardy, for now.
...
The holdup is the Iowa Interstate Railroad, a Cedar Rapids-based company that owns about 55 miles of track that would need to be upgraded for Quad-Cities passenger rail.

The Illinois Department of Transportation is leading the negotiations, but local leaders say Iowa Interstate simply isn’t

I do believe they’ve tried to make every effort to present a proposal that Iowa Interstate could get behind, but so far to no avail,” said Illinois State Senator Mike Halpin, a Democrat who represents Rock Island County. ” … It’s just, we’re in a situation where, again, a private company is holding up a lot of progress that would benefit the public and our entire community.”

Elected officials are now asking the Surface Transportation Board to intervene. But it’s unclear if the federal agency will get involved.
...

I would love to hear IAIS side of the story. They are in the business of moving trains on that track, and if the gov't is willing to upgrade the tracks and pay market rate for 79mph trains, why wouldn't they???

Probably because it's not a very good proposal. Or they see what is happening in Alabama where Amtrak said "we're going to start a train service, now let's sue everybody involved". Was a terrible idea that showed private carriers just how easy it is to work with the boys from DC with the ill-maintained trains.

1) Why isn’t ILDOT talking with Iowa DOT?

2) Has anyone other than Tad thought that maybe Iowa Interstate doesn’t need 60MPH freight, 79MPH passenger track, and thus Amtrak should be on the hook for all costs of upgrade, including building shoo flies to keep the freight moving while the upgrade gets done?

I said this a while back, I say it again: No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.

Well, Iowa is in the bottom five states for outstanding debt, and Illinois is in the top five...

Illinois can ask, but don't expect Iowa to be picking up the tab for more than they need to.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Much as I intensely dislike when people say "we need a seperate passenger route", it might actualy make sense to buy the former Rock from IAIS and CSX in Illinois. Currently Amtrak runs the Chief, Cali Zephyr, Illinois Zephyr, Carl Sandburg, and the future Quad City Rocket (could be 2-3/day). Most of those are run on the very busy BNSF race track. Metra owns the Rock north of Joliet, it's a mostly passenger railway. The business case to buy the Illinois portion of the Rock, upgrade it, and run twelve passenger trains per day plus IAIS and CSX freight isn't terrible. You'd have more incentive to fix the Saint Charles Airline bridge system. You could also establish LaSalle as a corridor headquarters for all Illinois-based corridor trains, which do not need a fancy station.

Bottom line, If IAIS won't play ball, up the ante. Make an offer for the entire physical plant. But there's probably a cheaper middle ground, which is to make them a good trackage rights offer.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 6:01 am This writer it seems hasn't met a "return key" he didn't like; makes it difficult to quote. But here goes:

Having done radio in my past... having the breaks like that is how it's done for a teleprompter or on-air reading.

Tadman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 3:45 pm Bottom line, If IAIS won't play ball, up the ante. Make an offer for the entire physical plant. But there's probably a cheaper middle ground, which is to make them a good trackage rights offer.

Nah, this is the People's Republic of Illinois. Just take it by eminent domain.

Seriously, having the state own some of its own rail infrastructure has worked out fairly well for North Carolina and Wisconsin, and soon Virginia.

That takes care of the IL side. The IA side is beyond the reach of IL.

Agreed, but getting 95% of the way to Rock Island is almost as good for the Quad Cities, and a heck of a lot easier to get funding for.

Not at all unlike the idea mentioned by several for MN to run the Northern Lightly Traveled Express only as far as Superior and not rehab or build a brand new multi-million dollar bridge for that last 4-6 miles of travel that can just as easily be managed via great parking availability and ride-share or public transit....

eolesen wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:52 pm Agreed, but getting 95% of the way to Rock Island is almost as good for the Quad Cities, and a heck of a lot easier to get funding for.

Not at all unlike the idea mentioned by several for MN to run the Northern Lightly Traveled Express only as far as Superior and not rehab or build a brand new multi-million dollar bridge for that last 4-6 miles of travel that can just as easily be managed via great parking availability and ride-share or public transit....

I'm not sure what you mean. Rock Island is in Illinois, and one of the Quad Cities, but I expect you're aware of that. Does the line not go to Rock Island, but go near it before crossing the river? Why "95% of the way to Rock Island"?

So there are some commercial and geographical map breaks.

Chicago/LaSalle Station-Joliet = Metra (reaches CUS by Saint Charles Airline or 21st street bridge)
Joliet-Peru IL = CSX
Peru IL-Quad Cities = IAIS
Half the quad cities are in Iowa, across the Mississippi River (swing bridge).
All of this route is Ex-Rock Island Lines

Item 1, the beef with IAIS is not about the entire route, just that last 60 miles.

Item 2, perhaps it makes sense to terminate on the Illinois side and not worry about bridge openings. If they pad a corridor schedule by 30 minutes at the end, imagine the padding for a swing bridge. Hour? A connecting coach would be a better idea.

If the issue is Arsenal Bridge, then Amtrak has a real problem.

The mechanism was never designed for 100 ton cars. The foundry at the Arsenal regularly fabricates teeth segments of the gear wheel. It’s a several day process, and the bridge has to stay open until the repair is complete.

ryanwc wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 12:44 pm I'm not sure what you mean. Rock Island is in Illinois, and one of the Quad Cities, but I expect you're aware of that. Does the line not go to Rock Island, but go near it before crossing the river? Why "95% of the way to Rock Island"?

Yeah, that's possibly being a bit overly obtuse.... Other respondents seemed to figure out terminating the service in Rock Island is getting to the Quad Cities.

There's no compelling reason to cross the river and involve IADOT.

Would it be better to eventually extend to Iowa City? Absolutely. But the immediate goal is the Quad Cities.

In another forum, someone has written that IL DOT presented at the recent Midwest Interstate Rail Passenger Coalition and said they now have an agreement with IAIS. I don't see any confirmation of that anywhere, including in the MIRPC meeting summary they posted online. But it was interesting enough I thought I'd mention it.

The above is confirmed in the IDOT slides here:
https://miprc.org/Portals/0/userfiles/3 ... pdates.pdf

“Preliminary engineering agreement on the improvements required”