An informative if slightly boring webinar from the High Speed Rail Alliance, a non-profit Midwest-based advocacy and planning organization dedicated to promoting realistic and useful...
An informative if slightly boring webinar from the High Speed Rail Alliance, a non-profit Midwest-based advocacy and planning organization dedicated to promoting realistic and useful implementations of high-speed rail (HSR) between population centers and other high-benefit destinations. This webinar focuses on the potential for HSR to be established between Chicago and O'Hare International Airport. This would allow residents and visitors to travel between the airport and city center without driving, reducing emissions and alleviating traffic while improving travel times.
Because the airport sees many long-distance flights, it has a large "catchment area." The HSR Alliance is also focused on establishing a network of high-speed rail within several hundred miles of major cities, so the goal would ultimately be to integrate an O'Hare connection into that network. This would make it possible for visitors to access cities near Chicago, like Milwaukee, Madison, Minneapolis, St Louis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Louisville, Lexington, Grand Rapids, and Detroit. It would also eliminate the need for some short-distance flights connecting to O'Hare, reducing emissions.
The intro ends at 5:00 and they start discussing the existing literature (case studies that would help estimate benefits) around 8:00. Implications for O'Hare and a Q&A start at 37:15. The study authors believe that there would be meaningful social benefit to a HSR connection to the airport. The study does not estimate costs nor does it analyze a specific route. The distance of the route would be about 20 miles. US construction costs are high, but would probably not be quite at California HSR levels. If costs were to be a fairly reasonable $100 million per mile, the total cost would be $2 billion. But if they need a new alignment I'm guessing they would be closer to the prices we see in Kansas City's rail connection (about 20 miles), which is $10.5 billion.
It might be interesting to note that O'Hare already has train service only a block away from the MMF. But one of the major problems is that trains only stop there on weekdays, NO holidays, and...
It might be interesting to note that O'Hare already has train service only a block away from the MMF. But one of the major problems is that trains only stop there on weekdays, NO holidays, and only 6 trains per day. The infrequency causes people to not consider it as a serious option. It seems somewhat irresponsible that the people in the video do not make mention of the existing infrastructure and how or why it can't be improved. While HSR is ideal it's not like everyone will just start taking the train. HSR is really only possible because people are already using the train.
I'm not sure I would use the word "irresponsible." That is not really part of the scope of this (very small) study, which is specifically to evaluate the modal shift that could result were there a...
I'm not sure I would use the word "irresponsible." That is not really part of the scope of this (very small) study, which is specifically to evaluate the modal shift that could result were there a HSR presence in the region with a connection to its primary air travel hub. This is basically a selected literature review using cities that the study authors consider comparable to Chicago, analyzing some likely changes to the market. It's not a specific project proposal, which requires considerably more resources.
In theory, a HSR route would not be specific to Chicago: a single-seat ride could be offered to a number of cities. The advantage is that this avoids a transfer via Metra. While experienced transit riders don't always mind transfers, a lot of commuters prefer the convenience of using as few separate vehicles to get to their destination as possible, especially with luggage. Whether or not they're alright with it, transfers add to travel times and make rail less competitive over other modes. For this reason, offering more single-seat services to major destinations (even from small-ish cities) is a priority of Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor, like more services direct between Hartford, CT and New York City. An example comparison to illustrate the point would be taking the train from New Haven, CT to Newark International Airport in New Jersey, which has a direct Amtrak stop. While JFK International Airport is an option too, and it's closer to New Haven as the crow flies, it takes more time and requires a minimum of two transfers (MTA/LIRR, AirTrain) to actually get there. This is slow, stressful, and confusing.
But yes, it's important for HSR to integrate with local service too. In practice, a HSR route through Chicago would share track with Metra for part of the journey, like how California High-Speed Rail will run alongisde Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose; or how the Acela runs alongside various regional services in the Northeast Corridor. To support mixed traffic, this line would probably need to be quad-tracked: local trains take the outer tracks and HSR or regional express trains take the inner tracks except when stopping at a small number of stations. The line is currently tri-tracked near O'Hare, which is better than dual-tracked, but still results in delays in the case that four trains are active at once.
I would have liked more commentary on O'Hare specifically, though to some extent an airport connection would be a bonus considering Chicago's bigger issue, which is its lack of through-running trains. The High Speed Rail Alliance has a video demonstrating the infrastructure upgrades needed to allow this in an accessible video called "CrossRail Chicago: Making High Speed Rail in America Possible." Their webinar about the concept, which has more details, is here: "Crossrail Chicago: The Foundation for a Modern Travel Network." You can also read about it in text form on their website.
O'Hare does also already have service from the Blue Line pretty much 24 hours per day, but those trains are not geared towards accommodating people with luggage and the like, and travel time to...
O'Hare does also already have service from the Blue Line pretty much 24 hours per day, but those trains are not geared towards accommodating people with luggage and the like, and travel time to the loop is about 45 minutes.
Pretty interesting stuff. The Midwest/South would really benefit from a HSR system connecting the various states together. There's existing Amtrak lines that could be upgraded and really flex the...
Pretty interesting stuff. The Midwest/South would really benefit from a HSR system connecting the various states together. There's existing Amtrak lines that could be upgraded and really flex the American engineering muscle. When I was a student at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (~120 miles SW of Chicago), I'd sometimes take the trains to the Chicago airports from campus as they were far more comfortable than the buses. Even though the journey is only 120 miles or so, the various stops along the way meant the trains took 3-4 hours to get into the city. This basically matched the time it'd take for the bus to get to the airport with traffic! The whole line from New Orleans to Chicago would make for a fun HSR line imo.
Absolutely. There's been some incremental progress lately, like the establishment of Class 6 track (110 mph) most of the way between Chicago and St Louis (up from Class 5, which is 90 mph). That...
Absolutely. There's been some incremental progress lately, like the establishment of Class 6 track (110 mph) most of the way between Chicago and St Louis (up from Class 5, which is 90 mph). That was possible in part because Amtrak was able to close a lot of at-grade road crossings, which are dangerous. That's a different track than to Champaign, which I believe is actually Class 4 (up to 80 mph). It's rather straight though, so with similar upgrades I imagine that route could also see significantly higher speeds.
110 mph isn't high-speed rail, but it's getting there. Certainly faster than a car can realistically go. There are only a few Class 7 (125 mph) tracks in the whole country, and fewer beyond that, but with the passage of Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, I would expect to see more in the next few years.
Personally, I would mostly use Midwest HSR to get between Chicago and the NEC (via the Pennsylvanian, if it weren't so unbelievably slow, or the Capitol Limited the whole way) but I would certainly have occasions to visit Madison (if there were a train there), Indianapolis, etc. I think a high-speed line from Chicago to New Orleans would be wonderful and I'd love to see it. Currently it seems to take about 19.5 hours over 830 miles, which is a pitiful average of 43 mph. It's at least a single-seat ride, but still. Way too slow.
An informative if slightly boring webinar from the High Speed Rail Alliance, a non-profit Midwest-based advocacy and planning organization dedicated to promoting realistic and useful implementations of high-speed rail (HSR) between population centers and other high-benefit destinations. This webinar focuses on the potential for HSR to be established between Chicago and O'Hare International Airport. This would allow residents and visitors to travel between the airport and city center without driving, reducing emissions and alleviating traffic while improving travel times.
Because the airport sees many long-distance flights, it has a large "catchment area." The HSR Alliance is also focused on establishing a network of high-speed rail within several hundred miles of major cities, so the goal would ultimately be to integrate an O'Hare connection into that network. This would make it possible for visitors to access cities near Chicago, like Milwaukee, Madison, Minneapolis, St Louis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Louisville, Lexington, Grand Rapids, and Detroit. It would also eliminate the need for some short-distance flights connecting to O'Hare, reducing emissions.
The intro ends at 5:00 and they start discussing the existing literature (case studies that would help estimate benefits) around 8:00. Implications for O'Hare and a Q&A start at 37:15. The study authors believe that there would be meaningful social benefit to a HSR connection to the airport. The study does not estimate costs nor does it analyze a specific route. The distance of the route would be about 20 miles. US construction costs are high, but would probably not be quite at California HSR levels. If costs were to be a fairly reasonable $100 million per mile, the total cost would be $2 billion. But if they need a new alignment I'm guessing they would be closer to the prices we see in Kansas City's rail connection (about 20 miles), which is $10.5 billion.
It might be interesting to note that O'Hare already has train service only a block away from the MMF. But one of the major problems is that trains only stop there on weekdays, NO holidays, and only 6 trains per day. The infrequency causes people to not consider it as a serious option. It seems somewhat irresponsible that the people in the video do not make mention of the existing infrastructure and how or why it can't be improved. While HSR is ideal it's not like everyone will just start taking the train. HSR is really only possible because people are already using the train.
I'm not sure I would use the word "irresponsible." That is not really part of the scope of this (very small) study, which is specifically to evaluate the modal shift that could result were there a HSR presence in the region with a connection to its primary air travel hub. This is basically a selected literature review using cities that the study authors consider comparable to Chicago, analyzing some likely changes to the market. It's not a specific project proposal, which requires considerably more resources.
In theory, a HSR route would not be specific to Chicago: a single-seat ride could be offered to a number of cities. The advantage is that this avoids a transfer via Metra. While experienced transit riders don't always mind transfers, a lot of commuters prefer the convenience of using as few separate vehicles to get to their destination as possible, especially with luggage. Whether or not they're alright with it, transfers add to travel times and make rail less competitive over other modes. For this reason, offering more single-seat services to major destinations (even from small-ish cities) is a priority of Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor, like more services direct between Hartford, CT and New York City. An example comparison to illustrate the point would be taking the train from New Haven, CT to Newark International Airport in New Jersey, which has a direct Amtrak stop. While JFK International Airport is an option too, and it's closer to New Haven as the crow flies, it takes more time and requires a minimum of two transfers (MTA/LIRR, AirTrain) to actually get there. This is slow, stressful, and confusing.
But yes, it's important for HSR to integrate with local service too. In practice, a HSR route through Chicago would share track with Metra for part of the journey, like how California High-Speed Rail will run alongisde Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose; or how the Acela runs alongside various regional services in the Northeast Corridor. To support mixed traffic, this line would probably need to be quad-tracked: local trains take the outer tracks and HSR or regional express trains take the inner tracks except when stopping at a small number of stations. The line is currently tri-tracked near O'Hare, which is better than dual-tracked, but still results in delays in the case that four trains are active at once.
I would have liked more commentary on O'Hare specifically, though to some extent an airport connection would be a bonus considering Chicago's bigger issue, which is its lack of through-running trains. The High Speed Rail Alliance has a video demonstrating the infrastructure upgrades needed to allow this in an accessible video called "CrossRail Chicago: Making High Speed Rail in America Possible." Their webinar about the concept, which has more details, is here: "Crossrail Chicago: The Foundation for a Modern Travel Network." You can also read about it in text form on their website.
O'Hare does also already have service from the Blue Line pretty much 24 hours per day, but those trains are not geared towards accommodating people with luggage and the like, and travel time to the loop is about 45 minutes.
Pretty interesting stuff. The Midwest/South would really benefit from a HSR system connecting the various states together. There's existing Amtrak lines that could be upgraded and really flex the American engineering muscle. When I was a student at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (~120 miles SW of Chicago), I'd sometimes take the trains to the Chicago airports from campus as they were far more comfortable than the buses. Even though the journey is only 120 miles or so, the various stops along the way meant the trains took 3-4 hours to get into the city. This basically matched the time it'd take for the bus to get to the airport with traffic! The whole line from New Orleans to Chicago would make for a fun HSR line imo.
Absolutely. There's been some incremental progress lately, like the establishment of Class 6 track (110 mph) most of the way between Chicago and St Louis (up from Class 5, which is 90 mph). That was possible in part because Amtrak was able to close a lot of at-grade road crossings, which are dangerous. That's a different track than to Champaign, which I believe is actually Class 4 (up to 80 mph). It's rather straight though, so with similar upgrades I imagine that route could also see significantly higher speeds.
110 mph isn't high-speed rail, but it's getting there. Certainly faster than a car can realistically go. There are only a few Class 7 (125 mph) tracks in the whole country, and fewer beyond that, but with the passage of Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, I would expect to see more in the next few years.
Personally, I would mostly use Midwest HSR to get between Chicago and the NEC (via the Pennsylvanian, if it weren't so unbelievably slow, or the Capitol Limited the whole way) but I would certainly have occasions to visit Madison (if there were a train there), Indianapolis, etc. I think a high-speed line from Chicago to New Orleans would be wonderful and I'd love to see it. Currently it seems to take about 19.5 hours over 830 miles, which is a pitiful average of 43 mph. It's at least a single-seat ride, but still. Way too slow.