neony

Looking at I-70 on Google Earth and it appears to have been widened to six lanes throughout and as a result, the median looks too narrow to squeeze in a pair of tracks. However, the outer part of the ROW along the north side looks plenty wide tho there would have to be some jockeying around to get past interchanges.

I thought about using I-70 for some time and one of the old 1980's HSR plans called for skirting around Springfield on I-70 as well. I-70 ROW is broad enough to add tracks without too many problems and only has a few small interchanges to contend with. Trains could easily run at 110-125 mph there.

Glad I left. Don't miss it.

This is very interesting. Now we are getting into some big ticket projects which will be necessary for higher frequencies and speeds. One of the biggest will be a new bridge across the Mississippi River at St. Louis as opposed to using the current MacArthur bridge crossing, which is heavily used by freight traffic. As Gildone says "We can't halfass this stuff anymore."

I did some quick math and that works out to about 246 passengers per trip - pretty good for a new service.

Interestingly, the Highway Trust Fund started running deficits in 2008 and has ever since. The difference comes from general funds, of course.

This is still a good idea. I'd like to see someone run with it.

A discussion I had with KJP about the general area surrounding the main post office led me to complain about the maze of ramps along I-77 just south of the Inner Belt, to which he said it should be possible to terminate I-77 north of I-490 and replace it with a boulevard. If a new stadium, intermodal hub or other development happen there, this would make the area a lot more welcoming and would reconnect it to other parts of the city. Like a lot of places, we don't just need a road diet; we need a road REMOVAL. Where else might that be a possibility?

All were terrible losses. We'd be well served to put all that back. It's essentially what we have to do to make up for years of disinvestment.

Biden has done a lot to move passenger rail ahead, but he's from the Northeast, so there's that.

That's because the Administration keeps nominating board members from the northeast in violation of the law, which states that the Amtrak board must be geographically diverse.

Correct. We would be well served to reverse engineer what rail infrastructure existed in 1950.

On my bucket list...

Agree!

The infrastructure is not there for added passenger trains on existing freight railroad right of way. There will have to be an extensive investment in added capacity, track and signal upgrades, stations and maintenance facilities before the passenger trains can turn a wheel. Remember also, that these trains will be on the property of the railroads and they will have requirements to meet. They have spent the last 70 years shrinking their own infrastructure and what we have now is barely adequate for existing service, let alone more trains. It's tempting to look at lines on a map and think the trains can run immediately. That is not the case.

Yes, Buffalo has more service because the state supports passenger trains, unlike Ohio. We have to do what we can to change that.

If I'm not mistaken, the FRA is following the direction of Congress on this. If so, that's where the problem is. My own view differs a bit. To me, a lot of this is restoration of routes which should never should have been discontinued in the first place and while running once per day is not ideal, it's a start. However, I was keenly disappointed to find that the FRA was directed to study new routes only and apparently not asked to consider more than once-daily service. This left out the Lake Shore route, which could easily support six daily New York-Cleveland-Chicago frequencies. We should also realize that things have atrophied to the point of near nonexistence over the years and that as a result, just restoring single daily service on these routes will require hundreds of new cars and locomotives, new stations and maintenance facilities, as well as track and signal improvements. The cost of this will be in the billions and there's a good chance that Congress might not fund all of these routes. This is the first time there has been an attempt at a serious discussion about long distance trains and there are bound to be some hiccups. At the same time, the FRA is taking comments and is reading every one of them. I plan to call for added frequencies for the Lake Shore route and support their idea of Long Distance Public Committee and a focus on improvements to existing service, as proposed by the FRA. As for current crappy service, I agree and much of it is being driven by Amtrak, which has valued cost savings over service to the public. As a result, trains lack the amenities they should have. Dining and lounge service is poor and there is not enough equipment either. This has to be remedied somehow. The FRA is aware that there is interest in improving existing routes:

Thanks for posting this Boomerang Brian! It's interesting to note that two of the three routes were discontinued under Jimmy Carter in 1979: The New York-Columbus-St Louis-Kansas City National Limited and the Chicago-Miami Floridian. Both had their issues - broken down equipment and bad track to name a couple. I rode the Nash in 1974 and it was a dog's breakfast of worn out equipment. It was also hours late into St Louis due to a Penn Central freight derailment. The National Limited did get head end powered (HEP) Amfleet coaches and a converted Heritage sleeper just before the end and ridership went up, but it was too late. Now, the entire railroad it ran on is gone between Dayton and Indianapolis, which is part of the reason for the detour via Cincinnati.

Not that bad since most or all trains stop at Baltimore anyway.

A few factors which favors the 3CD corridor: a) High enroute population (Columbus and Dayton) b) Infrequent and expensive air "service" - you only have to beat drive times to be competitive, say 3-4 hours. c) Possible thru or connecting service to Buffalo, upstate NY and New York City. I looked at Bureau of Transportation Statistic info some years ago and the 3CD corridor was at or near the top among other Midwestern corridors

3CD Corridor ranks #30??? Are they serious??? This should be thrown in the round file, along with all those stories about Cleveland being such a horrible place. <Sarcasm On> Why yes, yes I can see why the Front Range Corridor would be ranked ahead of the 3CD Corridor. Just look at those Colossi at each end! <Sarcasm OFF>

A BRT on E 105th is a great idea and it should extend north and south some distance, maybe as far south as E 105th/Quincy RTA Red Line stop. Don't know how far it might go at its north end.

Agree 100% Let's get something running and not worry about the fine points.

And therin lies the problem with relying on a state driven process.

I can see the wisdom of coming off the current line at E 116th/MLK to UC. Would it be better to use the proposed 1994 plan or swing over to Adelbert to connect with Euclid Ave? You guys probably know the area better than me. The loop is an open question for me. I do like that it connects to the VA center, among other things. If there's a better way to do this, I'm all ears.