Plans for High Speed Rail Between Chicago and Cleveland

Well . . . Cleveland is a pretty large city, so there is some economic reason to live there. I don't know what the economic base of the city is, but on my visits, it was an enjoyable city to be in. Additionally, I liked the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. A high speed rail system between Chicago and Cleveland is also going to serve Sandusky, home of Cedar point, which is a significant tourist attraction.

Interstate 80/90 is saturated with traffic as it passes Chicago, and is heavily trafficked all the way east. Any kind of high speed rail service would help because it would get cars off of the interstates. Additionally, this would ease traffic on the expressways south out of Chicago. Since Chicago has some of the worst commute times in the nation, anything to get cars of the roads would help the region.

FRN9 wrote:It would be great if they could see this as a first step of a Chicago > NYC HSR line and build it out accordingly for 225MPH trains.

You are SO stealing my idea from practically half my posts in this forum.

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 07#p725802

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 90#p722518

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 50#p725670

I don't care about the fact that you tend to post before me and I often respond just to agree with you. I reject your reality and substitute my own! (incidentally, thanks to Mythbusters for creating the best argument catchphrase ever).

Anyways, that all was a joke, just making fun of how we keep on agreeing. Anyhow, I do think Chicago-Cleveland definitely could be upgraded for at least 225. The straight track means if all of the track was built to 225mph standards, that's the speed you would be going practically the entire way from Hammond to Toledo (barring station stops). You also can add 1 or 2 tracks as needed to allow at least 1 dedicated passenger track. There's room much of the corridor to add a 2 new tracks (again, great for fast passenger service). I've pointed this out a few times, NYC-Chicago is 925 miles using the existing Capitol Limited/Pennsylvanian. If the 1st 225 miles takes 2 hours, and the last 200 miles takes 3 hours (combining current best times for PHL-NYC and PHL-Harrisburg), then the middle 500 miles has to really be bad for the whole route to not work. I mean, if the goal is to have a trip time of 12 hours, then all you need is to cover the middle 500 miles in 7 hours (which is doable without new track). Given 2 hours for Chicago-Toledo, and 3 for NYC-Harrisburg, a 60 MPH average speed on the Cleveland-Harrisburg section leads to a total trip time of 10 hours. So even if only 200 miles of the route is true HSR, another 200 is maxed out at around 125-150 MPH, you can still come pretty close to competing with air on a 900-mile corridor. Not to mention the intermediate traffic.

In order to add some originality, supposing Chicago does the West Loop Transportation Center (or some sort of through-tracking project for Union Station), the next question would be extending the line up to Minneapolis. Since we've established that a 150 MPH average speed between CHI and NYC yields a 6-hour, air-competitive trip time, getting CHI-Minneapolis up to that level leaves a total trip time of 9 hours for Minneapolis-NYC. Given that a flight from MSP to LGA usually takes 2.75 hours (the return trip would be a full 25 minutes longer), if we give 2 hours for getting to MSP (which is generous since TSA recommends getting to the airport two hours early, 1 hour for traveling from LGA to downtown NYC, and really you would only lose about 3 hours by taking the train.

steve4031 wrote:Well . . . Cleveland is a pretty large city, so there is some economic reason to live there. I don't know what the economic base of the city is, but on my visits, it was an enjoyable city to be in. Additionally, I liked the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. A high speed rail system between Chicago and Cleveland is also going to serve Sandusky, home of Cedar point, which is a significant tourist attraction.

I spent a few days on vacation in Cleveland ... about a month after traveling through there on Amtrak. Not a bad city but their public transportation system could be explained better. (I'm used to bigger cities with all day rail services.) I also spent a few days on vacation in Cincinnati ... the only place so far that I have visited where a local seemed amazed that I came as a tourist. (You're on vacation HERE?)

The Hall of Fame is expensive and with photography banned it is all fading memories. The basement was the best floor (although there are several good displays upstairs ... just not as concentrated as in the basement).

Interstate 80/90 is saturated with traffic as it passes Chicago, and is heavily trafficked all the way east. Any kind of high speed rail service would help because it would get cars off of the interstates. Additionally, this would ease traffic on the expressways south out of Chicago. Since Chicago has some of the worst commute times in the nation, anything to get cars of the roads would help the region.

Where those cars are going is important. The socked in Chicago interstates carry a lot of traffic that doesn't leave the Chicago metro area. Michigan City to the west would be better served by local commuter rail improvements than a line to Cleveland. Traffic on the Toll Rd dropped 16.8% in the last half of last year ... fare increases kept revenue at a 0.8% loss. For the full year ending in June, there were an average of 23,702 ticket transactions per day (Porter to Ohio segment), a 3.8% drop over the previous year, and 72,328 barrier transactions (Chicago to Porter segment), a 14.9% drop. Revenue was $409,735 (a 2.9% increase).

You can see that 75% of their traffic is local to the Chicago area ... 23,702 transactions per day on the Porter to Ohio segment is good but that would include shorter trips (Angola to Howe, Mishawaka to Elkhart ... even between the Elkhart exits and South Bend exits). The Toll Road is benefiting from the construction on I-94 ... travel was up 12.9% in the April-June quarter because of the construction. All that, of course being within the Chicago area.

So how many of those 23,702 trips/transactions would be replaced by a Chicago-Cleveland passenger link?

(BTW: Note the route. I-80/90 doesn't run through Fort Wayne.)

justalurker66 wrote: Where those cars are going is important. The socked in Chicago interstates carry a lot of traffic that doesn't leave the Chicago metro area. Michigan City to the west would be better served by local commuter rail improvements than a line to Cleveland. Traffic on the Toll Rd dropped 16.8% in the last half of last year ... fare increases kept revenue at a 0.8% loss. For the full year ending in June, there were an average of 23,702 ticket transactions per day (Porter to Ohio segment), a 3.8% drop over the previous year, and 72,328 barrier transactions (Chicago to Porter segment), a 14.9% drop. Revenue was $409,735 (a 2.9% increase).

You can see that 75% of their traffic is local to the Chicago area ... 23,702 transactions per day on the Porter to Ohio segment is good but that would include shorter trips (Angola to Howe, Mishawaka to Elkhart ... even between the Elkhart exits and South Bend exits). The Toll Road is benefiting from the construction on I-94 ... travel was up 12.9% in the April-June quarter because of the construction. All that, of course being within the Chicago area.

So how many of those 23,702 trips/transactions would be replaced by a Chicago-Cleveland passenger link?

(BTW: Note the route. I-80/90 doesn't run through Fort Wayne.)

I fully agree. I used to make the drive across Ohio and Indiana on 80/90 at least a couple times per year and the traffic is not heavy. In fact, I'd venture to guess that westbound traffic drops by 50% at Toledo and is relatively light until at least South Bend and more typically Michigan City or so. Toledo - South Bend volume is quite little compared to probably any other Interstate segment in Ohio except I-77 going south from Canton.

LI Loco wrote:Reasons this market has potential (not necessarily in order):
1. Distance - approx. 340 miles
2. Terrain - generally flat, including one of the longest straightaways in the country.
3. Several sizable intermediate points that are potential traffic generators: Elyria/Lorain, Sandusky, Toledo, Elkhart, South Bend, Gary/Hammond

1) Traveling 3.5 hrs Chicago-Cleveland opens up some ideas. (100mph)
2) The flat terrain offers an opportunity to go faster later
3) Several cities to create a system. Would riders from Detroit or Indy go north to go east? Other trains (Ohio 3C's) feed the system
4) Any reason for another HSR route to be developed along NYC ROW?

would the system still work as a HSR day train & a LD overnite run at slower speeds but improved OTP?

I dont think there is really any reason why the overnight LD trains couldnt make the 110mph as well

Ohio prefers the route through Ft. Wayne. They would like to also have a Chicago to Dunkirk to Columbus train that runs through Ft. Wayne.
http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Oh ... Report.pdf

jstolberg wrote:Ohio prefers the route through Ft. Wayne. They would like to also have a Chicago to Dunkirk to Columbus train that runs through Ft. Wayne.
http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Oh ... Report.pdf

More accurately, Ohio's plans rely on the route through Fort Wayne ... at least they did when that 2007 document was written.

The following two Ohio documents acknowledge that the route via Ft Wayne is an OPTION.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Ra ... s_Plan.pdf
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Ra ... tions2.pdf

(If Ohio wants to drag the line south to make a Chicago-Columbus connection easier then they can pay for it.)
Toledo-Columbus-Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne-Lima-Columbus look like political additions.
Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland and Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland are the real potential connections in the plan.
Those lines do not have to run through Fort Wayne.

justalurker66 wrote:

Fort Wayne service is more valuable than Elkhart service,

But is it more valuable than the South Bend service you are proposing be cut? This new line could be run without an Elkhart stop and still be better than a Fort Wayne routing. Elkhart is just gravy.

The Ft. Wayne Metropolitan Statistical Area has more population than the South Bend MSA, and the Ft. Wayne-Huntington-Auburn Combined Statistical Area has more population than the South Bend-Elkhart-Mishawaska CSA. And South Bend will still have *five a day* service to Chicago.

And the running time would be shorter via Ft. Wayne due to more straight track and less freight. The track from Ft. Wayne to Chicago is *astoundingly* straight. There is one reverse curve to get between a pair of lakes, and pretty much everything else could easily be built to 225mph standards if it were grade separated. The current Lake Shore Limited/Capitol Limited route is much less direct and much twistier. And, of course, it's full of freight traffic, while the proposed route to Fort Wayne has next to none.

Given Indiana's unwillingness to put in any money on trains until very recently, the main hope for the Cleveland-Chicago route is that the federal government will recognize that this route's importance goes way beyond Indiana, that Illinois and Ohio are willing to put money in, and that they can't really get there without going through Indiana.

Indiana is willing to put money forward ...

Ha. Well, no, not so far.

If you want Indiana money make the route of value to the people of Indiana.

If the new high speed rail runs through Fort Wayne let Allen Co people pay for it.

They do live and vote in Indiana and there are twice as many of them as in St. Joseph County. And they currently have no rail service at all. So, yes, to make the route of value to the people of Indiana, it should clearly run through Fort Wayne. However, I'm sure if South Bend and Elkhart decided to pony up large amounts of money they could get the route diverted through South Bend -- it would be slower and more expensive, but I'm sure they could do it, since money talks.