neony

Thanks KJP! Now how do we combine these two diagrams in a way that makes sense? Would it be possible to add an intercity/regional rail stop at Cedar or elsewhere?

Additional: These ideas should be a part of a call for a rethinking of the entire UC street grid, better transit/intermodal, TOD. Looking at Google Earth, the area is a maze of roadways which should be reconfigured. Time for a charette?

I really think those of us in the advocacy community should sit down and discuss this and the concepts of a UC loop trolley and an intermodal mini-hub at Cedar and then shop these ideas to the powers that be as a single project. The UC area is really a city unto itself and should be treated as such. As it is now, UC is too big to walk for many people, but crowded with too many cars making short hops. Imagine instead that a visitor from Columbus, Toledo or Buffalo arrives by train and simply getting on a loop trolley to complete their journey! In regard to the diagrams posted by KJP, it appears that they have the new line coming off the existing Blue/Green line at E 116th St/MLK to Stokes. Would this work for your proposal, KJP? (I now see you discussed this above)

PLEASE extend the RTA Waterfront line east and make this a TOD!!! This site can't be more than a mile from the current end of the Waterfront Line and would be an easy "get."

A little clarification: The FRA long distance study is for new routes only and does not envision added service to existing routes, a major oversight in my opinion. Apparently, there were two factions at FRA of which one wanted added service to existing routes in addition to new service. They seem to have lost out. Amtrak is not involved, except in a peripheral way, with FRA taking the lead on the study. Word is that the report will call for a lot of new routes. We shall see. If it was up to me, I'd call for at least two more round trips on the existing Lake Shore route, plus a day train New York-Buffalo-Cleveland and a Buffalo-Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit connector to/from the Maple Leaf to New York. Of course a lot would have to happen for this to come to pass, including construction of the South of the Lake bypass, more improvements at Chicago, track, signal and station improvements along the route etc.

Is Hyperloop officially dead? Maybe! If it is, I won't shed any tears since it was a huge distraction. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/elon-musk-hyperloop-tesla-1234934812/

It IS ridiculous. It's way too difficult to add or improve service because there are so many impediments. These include, but are not limited to: High liability requirements, rigorous and lengthy NEPA requirements, the need to address grade crossings, railroad opposition, Amtrak lack of interest, lack of funding, restrictive federal law, difficulties getting states to work together and more. These and more will have to be addressed if we ever want to see implementation move more quickly.

I remember when Pruitt-Igoe was built in St Louis as "urban renewal" back in the 1950's. They tore down a lot of old housing stock to build it and nearby I-44. It was a great place if you wanted to warehouse people. It's gone now and good riddance.

Great catch KJP! The E 25th area is really booming with more to come. The change is unbelievable!

A BIG YES to this! Imagine a fleet of overnight trains linking major city-pairs in the Northeast-Great Lakes mega regions! New York to Montreal, Buffalo, Toronto, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Indianapolis-St Louis and Chicago! New York to Pittsburgh, Washington DC, Atlanta, Tampa and Miami! Washington DC to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Cincinnati and Louisville! And more! The sticking point is that this, along with multi-frequency daytime corridor services and more through trains will require a major investment in new tracks off current freight lines. It can and should be done.

Brings back memories of many field trips! I still believe this can and should be done when/if a second Pennsylvanian starts to operate. Fingers crossed!

$200 million for just one more round trip, but if that's the price of admission so be it. I *would* like to see the details, however. On the other hand a second train opens the possibility of an extension to Cleveland!

Pffft.

Looks like a grab for more road money. Vote no, then put up a ballot measure to dedicate the money to better neighborhoods, transit and an expanded streetcar system.

There's an interesting bit about a pergola style flyover to be built in Virginia as a part of the Washington DC-Richmond line.

That's the spirit!!!

To add a little detail about MIPRC and what they are endorsing - they are actually a compact of Midwestern states composed of state legislators and officials and have been around for some time. Until recently, they have mostly been concerned with corridor services, but are now speaking about the need to add or improve long distance services. This includes restoration for four routes: a) National Limited: New York-Pittsburgh-Columbus-Dayton-Indianapolis-St Louis-Kansas City, as mentioned by KJP b) Floridian: Chicago-Indianapolis-Louisville-Nashville-Montgomery-Miami/Tampa c) Lone Star: Chicago-Kansas City-Oklahoma City-Ft Worth/Dallas-Houston d) North Coast Hiawatha: Chicago-Minneapolis-Billings-Seattle These four trains were discontinued in 1979 by the Carter Administration, along with the New York-Miami/Tampa Champion train in an infamous cutback scenario. They never should have been discontinued and it's worth noting that these cuts affected the Midwest disproportionately. Also, MIPRC is calling for increased frequencies for the Lake Shore and Capitol Limited routes - this is important for us. They are also calling for a new Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland-East Coast train as well, probably to New York or Washington DC. This also is important for us.

Back in the day there were through sleepers from Buffalo and Cleveland to Florida...

I was the other person with KJP tonight on that bus. The driver woke up and started complaining about us talking while he was sleeping and then walked toward the door saying that if we wanted to talk we should have waited outside. Never mind that the door was open and other people were already on board. At first this seemed funny but as he went on about it we started to realize he wasn't joking and that began to tick me off. I'm glad KJP took the pics and I hope someone at RTA sees this and takes corrective action.

Hoping to be moved by that time and settled enough to attend. Will advise when we are closer to the date of the meeting. Also not sure as to whether I will be able to participate in Saturday's Zoom call.

First I heard of the CSX wall and I can see why the state rejected that because of the cost. Space isn't an issue and the current CSX tracks are along the south side of the ROW, which is an ideal situation as it leaves the space once occupied by the two northernmost tracks open for new tracks. The portion south of Schenectady is leased by Amtrak from CSX and has only local freight traffic, but that to the west is the CSX main line, a different proposition in CSX's view. Bottom line is that we are playing in their sandbox and they own it and get to call the shots. Thus, we live with 90 mph max. It isn't great but I'll take it.

Overall, I like big picture thinking and this is a doozie. The general concept and services are good. The first two items are similar to what the Lakeshore Rail Alliance is calling for, except that CSX will not allow speeds over 90 mph on its right of way. Even so, this would be a huge advance because we would have dedicated tracks, which would allow greater frequencies and somewhat higher speeds. Passenger trains would also not be subject to freight delays. This is what the New York Empire Corridor EIS 90B option calls for. As for 110 mph service on the NY Southern Tier line, that simply is not possible since it's too curvy. You might get 80-90 mph in places. Even that would be an advance for an area where there is little to no choice but to drive. That said, it might be possible to take a "blended corridor" approach, especially for the Empire Corridor, where some segments could operate on the NYS Thruway (I-90) right of way at speeds as high as 125 mph, something to consider as time goes by. Another consideration would be to get higher average speeds by eliminating bottlenecks and congested areas. This will require bypasses and flyovers, but should be done. Right now, probably the worst bottleneck is the Porter IN-Chicago IL NS line, which should be bypassed with a new dedicated passenger only line.

Also, there is also something called regenerative braking, which has been around for decades, where the train's traction motors are used to assist braking by generating power, which is dissipated in a diesel, but can be pumped back into the grid by an electric locomotive.

I believe all of the electric power used by trains in the Netherlands is generated by non-carbon means.

If we want to address climate change, we should be calling for large scale electrification projects. Really, the entire Lake Shore route should be electrified for passenger and freight, along with other routes such as the 3CD Corridor.