High Speed Rail Between Chicago and Indianapolis - U.S. City Pair Investigation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ค. 2024
- This is a closer look at what might be required in order to run a high speed passenger train within the Chicago Hub Network from downtown Chicago, Illinois to downtown Indianapolis, Indiana. Goes into detail about routing, station location, redevelopment, challenges, necessary structures, demolition and remediation.
I will be doing more of these types of videos. If you have a suggestion for a city pair of 1 million+ each with no large metros between, please let me know and I will consider it and might make a video about it.
0:00 introduction
0:32 Chicago, Illinois
5:27 East Chicago, Indiana
6:02 Gary, Indiana
8:03 Lake Station, Indiana
8:20 Dealing With Intersections
11:01 Merrillville, Indiana
12:16 Crown Point, Indiana
12:47 West Lafayette, Indiana
13:26 Lafayette, Indiana
14:11 Lebanon, Indiana
14:41 Boone County, Indiana
15:08 "the freeway median"
16:14 Indianapolis, Indiana
18:28 Conclusion
18:56 What's Next
19:24 Outro
Stock footage was from Pexel.com and Pixabay.com, both excellent sources for free video footage.
Topics:
Chicago Union Station
Bronzeville
Jackson Park
METRA Electric
Calumet River
Gary/Chicago International Airport
Indiana Harbor Canal
Brightline Florida intersection examples
Indianapolis Motor Speedway - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
As a Purdue student, this is a route I really wish existed! The Indiana state government is unfortunately just about the worst for investing in rail
Would be cool to be able to get into the city on the weekend within 30-40 mins!
Boiler up! 🚂🚂
Ohh well maglev it is
I'm a Purdue student aswell and I want this route to exist so badly
@@jocanine2750 I haven't looked at a lot of routes, but so far this is one of the best for the amount of speed and $ we're talking.
Your ‘motor city’ station idea is actually a really good idea!
This looks pretty good for a first sketch and shows that the right of way is doable with minimal disruption to the communities. If you know politicians in the area, maybe there is someone that will support this, I don't see why they shouldn't build this
I'm also going to look at this pair from a more European perspective in a month or so. I was honestly surprised how little destruction needs to happen. I could be off slightly, but even then it still wouldn't be A LOT.
@@LucidStew I mean, honestly this is nothing in terms of destruction. Try to build something like this in some Central European countries and you will have to displace whole villages, cut down forests and so on. The amount of open space in the US and highways running into city centers is a blessing when building something like this.
@@toniderdon This one was a little more conducive than most, I suspect. The Chicago area has ample, legacy overcapacity as far as rail rights of way goes. That very fortunately placed CSX spur line in Indianapolis saved a lot of pain. Otherwise, kaboom!
As an indianapolis resident, I hate driving to Chicago it’s awful and I’ve always thought of how a HSR would work if we had one from Indy to Chicago along the highway, this is a fantastic video!
Wow, this is probably one of the BEST videos I've seen on American HSR! The way you went through the entire alignment and tried to estimate realistic costs was very impressive. This is the type of great work advocates can be inspired by and point to, and may change opinions of skeptics when they see how it could be done. :]
Thanks. Yeah, I think we need to get past "nah, that wouldn't work" and see what it would mean in practical terms. I believe in the power of our representative republic combined with an informed and interested electorate. Yay or nay its important to have a decent idea of what we're supporting or opposing.
I love these videos. I love that you used to play SimCity (me too)!
I don't know if there is any interest in the Tennessee for high speed rail, but I'd love to see a work up of of a passenger rail line running between Memphis, Nashville and Knoxville. It would unite the 3 largest metro areas in the state and could follow the route of I-40. Maybe an extension that would run through Chattanooga to Atlanta.
Threw SimCity in as a joke(I mean, I did play A LOT), but where I think where it REALLY comes from is Sid Meier's Railroad Tycoon. You have to love a game that makes refining bauxite into aluminum fun. XD I'll look into your suggestion. might see it in a future video!
Not necessarily a high-speed option, but it could form the middle section of a long-distance train from Dallas to NYC via Tennessee and Roanoke; like long distance trains in the rest of the world it would need to run a few times a day to be useful (4-5), and be of a 90-110mph speed and take like 4.5 hours to beat driving
I love the Motor City redevelopment idea, get folks to the race by train, it'll be a huge hit
Me too! Might be a long shot though.
Just discovering your wonderful videos! Thanks for all the effort you put into them.
A note about your proposed tunnel under Clinton St. to run trains out of Chicago - The Chicago Union Station Master Plan addresses the issue of a new rail tunnel for HSR. They came to the conclusion that it would make far more sense to dig the tunnel under Canal St., as opposed to Clinton St.
Canal St. is wider and can accommodate 2 island platforms serving 4 tracks on one level. The only way to get 2 platforms and 4 tracks under the narrower Clinton St.would be by building two levels, each with 1 platform and 2 tracks, a far more expensive and complicated proposition.
They would leave Clinton St. to the CTA for the purposes of building a subway tunnel for either a branch of the Red Line or for completing an underground loop for the Blue Line, or both.
Thank YOU for the information!
Go through Gary but put a stop
This would be great for college students and sports fans, such as a Bulls/Colts game, Purdue alums in Indianapolis, and anybody going to the 500. (Irony for taking the train to an auto race noted, of course.) My only quibble is your proposed station replacing the IMS golf course. Golfers don't look kindly on removing courses, I've seen.
As for other sites, the PNW line has been talked about up here, but I'd be more interested in seeing how you can do Texas with as minimal private property upheaval as possible.
As unlikely as IMS would be, I felt wholly inspired suggesting it. :)
I've looked at the I-35 corridor a little and that's a very good question. I will cover that at higher level in a couple of months with a video on the FRA South Central HSR corridor. The Texas Triangle is very intriguing, so I will probably do a dedicated video for that at some point.
@@LucidStewDidn’t SNCF propose a station for the speedway?
@@sharpe15_2 I don't know. It would be a great stop for an electrified regional train. Of course, my proposal went slightly beyond just a station. 😁
Fantastic. Your best video yet. Your graphics are excellent. I just don't believe Chicago to Indianapolis is a viable, stand alone HSR corridor. The route has to go on to Cincinnati from the outset, not at a later stage of the development. You're doing a great job. I can't wait until you get to Texas, Curtis.
Honestly, I really only stopped at Indianapolis because I thought Cincinnati would be too much work. Turned out Indianapolis was too much work. :D
Actually, they just announced something very similar to this yesterday.
Columbus Ohio would be better. Columbus and Indianapolis have similar populations of 900,000 plus people and all three cities are in the top 15 in the US
I know the southeast doesn’t get a ton of love but would you consider doing a video of Atlanta to Nashville? I know Nashville doesn’t have a metro yet but I think there is another vote coming next year. Also great video.
Thank you. Yes I would. I found the idea very intriguing in my Chicago Hub Network video. Would love to take a closer look at that.
I live by the Lafayette Mall! My property value would skyrocket 🤑
We need high speed rail YESTERDAY. I hope Indiana wakes up and gets with the program.
The Midwest/rust belt/Great Lakes region, has potential to be THE place to be especially since the water wars are coming because of claimants change.
I HATE driving with the passion and can’t believe we’ve all been DUPED by the auto industry.
Hell, I’d be happy with a rail system around 465.
There was another youtuber who laid out an amazing rail system for this region. I’ll try to find it…
😂
Not gonna lie, I appreciate these videos and everyone that brings attention to HSR. We need it everywhere and as soon as possible, it is probably the best quality of life improvement and climate protection policy that we haven't implemented yet in most parts of the world
Loved this vid!
I would go Chicago-Kankakee then use the right of way of the Kankakee, Beaverville, and Southern Railroad to Lafayette. You can get right into Purdue University that way. KBSR hardly has any freight traffic, but it was the route for the James Whitcomb Riley train up until 1974
The disadvantage of that approach, in my opinion, is the 15 or so small towns you have to circumvent. With that much frequency and the curves that 200mph requires, you may as well just cut a brand new right of way. It's a great way out of Greater Chicago, but once you get out, that ROW is no longer wide enough to support both a freight line and double-tracked HSR. That's the entire purpose behind the interstate idea. With exceptions you can run the tracks in the ROW. Generally when you need to break out, you can cut a curve short rather than create one. The interstate already circumvents those small towns.
I have looked at CHI-IND pretty closely and think that the suggestion to use the KB&S between Kankakee and Lafayette makes perfect sense. Historically, the fastest rail route between Chicago and Indianapolis was provided by trains of the "Big 4" division of the New York Central, using the virtually straight Illinois Central tracks between Central Sta., Chicago and Kankakee and their own, largely straight tracks from there to Indy. The proposed new HSR route would use Amtrak's proposed new Chicago Access route from Union Station to 115th, ROW purchased from CN or Metra to Monee, new alignment alongside I-57 to Kankakee, purchase KB&S, new alignment through Lafayette, then on now-abandoned Big 4 to Lebanon, then on new alignment next to CSX to west suburbs of Indy and into Union station on another abandoned rail ROW. Chicago-Kankakee portion would be shared with the previously-proposed Chicago-St. Louis HSR route via Champaign-Decatur-Springfield.
@@NES2728 How do you reconcile the issue with all the small towns on the KB&S line? I count 10. You also have 2 curves on that line that would not support high speed, both in small towns, Sheldon and Templeton.
@@LucidStew Going through the example villages you cite (and several others) actually required kinks in the original Big 4 alignment. Buying some farmland would both avoid these conflicts and avoid slowdowns for these kinks.
I love watching your videos. Chicago to Indianapolis is a route crying for better service. There is almost nowhere to go but up from the Amtrak Cardinal. It's slow, unreliable and only runs three times a week to boot 😢. Being an old man and given the past glacial progress of anything rail related in this country, I will most likely never live to see any of this. But keep plugging away anyhow. 😊
That's kind of my thesis: we need to leap frog that and get on the ball.
110-mph is viable over much of the existing freight lines between Chicago and Indianapolis with at-grade crossings. Some especially slow freight sections might be detoured onto actual high speed rail sections that are fenced off with no at-grade road crossings typically done with elevated railroad corridors. That has been the practiced for over 100-years. It's suppose to be much faster and easier to move dirt today than a 100 year ago, but the lack of initiative to make these obvious improvements would seem they are more expensive rather than cheaper.
Passenger trains in the USA traditionally don't make money. The flag ship passenger trains of the past were thought to pay for themselves, but their real worth to their freight railroads were they advertised and promoted their freight business. The promotional benefit passenger trains have to freight railroads is undervalued by many freight railroad administrations today. The general public occasionally seeing good passenger train service on freight tracks greatly mitigates anti-freight train feelings. I think that is lost on freight rail administrations when dealing with Amtrak. Amtrak may need to pay for higher levels of rail service than the freight railroads believe is best for them, but current freight rail top management appears to undervalue service and reliability for slightly higher profits. That wouldn't be possible if they were competing for with other railroads for the same fright customers.
If a passenger trains could get below a 2-hour travel time between Chicago and Indianapolis at an attractive price I think it would be useful. As sort as 90-minutes would likely be idea, but I even with some higher speed sections that might not be possible. Indiana is railroad friendly and supports railroads. There are people that would dedicate themselves to a government supported fast comfortable passenger service with profitable freight operations service between Indianapolis and Chicago with hopefully an extension to Cincinnati.
Something that is been a point of curiosity is why does modern construction take so long, even with the use of heavy machinery? Other than funding, what makes it take so long? For a point of comparison of then vs now, it took about six years to complete the first transcontinental railroad, and that was largely built by human and animal labor, whereas it will take a decade to complete california high speed rail at least, using heavy machinery
A good high speed rail corridor on the West Coast would be Los Angeles-Ontarion International airport-San Bernardino-Palm Springs International airport-Yuma,AZ-Phoenix-Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport-Tucson-El Paso. The route is relatively easy, very few tunnels if any to be drilled, very close to Interstate 10 most of the way between Buckeye,AZ-Western end of the Metro Phoenix area and El Paso and have the high speed trains run between Los Angeles & El Paso in about 8 hours tops which beats driving which takes up to 14 hours with rest stops, stops for gas & to eat.
I'll be visiting this eventually as part of my city pair series.
Do you think you can look into building a HS line between New Rochelle and New Haven. They want to build a HS line through Long island and and then Cross the sound. That sounds crazy expensive. Maybe, they should use I-95 and build right over it.
Maybe you can look at the NY to Boston Aclea corridor and how to reduce the travel time to sub 2 hours and 30mins.
Yeah, that North Atlantic Rail alternative was estimated at $300 billion in the last study they did. However, it would utterly transform the service into something it is not currently, for sure. I'll be taking a look at the NEC in a video in 6-8 weeks, and I'll touch on those ideas in that.
Finish the original goal of the LIRR a HSR to Boston via ronkonkoma direct to RI
Here are some other city pairs/routes. The Raleigh-Atlanta (maybe via Charlotte, Greenville, Greensboro) is an interesting corridor. It's an open question how best to connect Washington DC, to the Raleigh-Atlanta corridor. More on theme might be how best to connect a developing midwest network to the NE corridor (NYC, DC, and Philadelphia).
Sorry for the lack of clarity... when I say immediate city pairs, I mean with no other metro between. This is purely for my sake as even a relatively easy pair like Chicago-Indianapolis was quite a bit of work.
@@LucidStew How about the leg from Pittsburgh to Cleveland (that might still be too long to be a feasible topic) to connect the Keystone corridor to your Midwest network. To be clear, I agree it is one of the highest need areas for HSR. I may quibble about where to draw the outer boundary of where it's needed, but on balance your correct in pointing out the Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and the surrounding area should be a high priority region for investment.
@@MartinHoeckerMartinez I looked into it for the Chicago Hub Network video. Tough route. Could be a good example. I'll make a note of it.
I look forward to a Phoenix to literally anywhere video. Tuscon would be the easy one because there isn't much of an elevation change. Phoenix to LA or Vegas would be great candidates for high speed rail but a Vegas route would have elevation hurdles and an LA route would be a regulatory nightmare
Second request on Phoenix-Las Vegas, so that nightmare will probably happen. R.I.P. me.
@LucidStew Haha. Sorry. There is probably a reason no one is proposing the route. To be fair there is already an Amtrak from Phoenix to Vegas, but that is an 11 hr ride vs the 5 it takes in a car. That route would need to be updated for high speed and itd probably help to get off the freight rails as I'm sure much of the long Amtrak time has to do with that too
@@QuintonjChambers U.S. 93 is the most direct route, but I'm not so sure its a good one. It looks very challenging. Might be better to drive it through the middle of nowhere in southeastern California.
@LucidStew There probably is no good route which may be partially explain why there isn't already a high speed train route there. Well that and the US general aversion to high speed rail. We'd definitely need a little more practice before undertaking a project that challenging
What about the South Shore ROW?
The main reason I didn't go that route is that the ROW is full and highly constrained through Gary proper. It's an option, but it has some undesirable curves and you'd realistically need to demolish about 100 houses and possibly the baseball stadium down in Gary. Either that or move the freeway where the stadium is. You wouldn't realistically be able to run full-service intercity HSR and regional commuter on 2 tracks. That route is an option. Just depends on the costs that are willing to be absorbed, like the $1.5-2 billion in bridges along Norfolk Southern ROW.
Putting the tracks between the highway lines looks intriguing but misses the important aspect of safety. Both sides would have to be protected by concrete walls form intrusion by trucks. Making it much more than just putting tracks down. It is also never done in other countries. Track either run on the left side or the right side of the Highway. You can find several examples in Germany where this is common practice. Also adjusting the roads in a intersection is often times cheaper than building elaborate train track infrastructure
Although, here in Perth, it's an aesthetic. Look up the Mandurah, Joondalup, and future Morley-Ellenbrook lines for some examples.
Having to walk a mile to get to the train from the Indianapolis waiting room is typical of how the freight carriers have jettisoned their indispensable properties and no one bothers to stop them, or at least buy it, along with the station..
I don't recall the location, but I was watching an Amtrak ride video not too long ago. The guy was looking for the Amtrak lounge at the station and there were no signs for it. After wandering into the back of the station, finally finds a sign for the thing and its hidden like a utility closet. I mean, with that paradigm, its no wonder people are blown away by regular ol' train service by Brightline.
This was a really cool video going into the 'details' on how HSR could actually happen. Looking to see more of these videos in the future!
As a former Valparaiso University grad why not route through Valpo like the previous Calumet Train from Conrail? It already has existing NS trackage that could be upgraded to fit a double track. After Valparaiso you could build new trackage through La Cross IN down to Medaryville IN where you pick up CSX trackage to West Lafayette and down to Indianapolis. This would allow for ease of access for communities that are underserved by commuter rail into Chicago, but also connect at least two universities to the nearest large cities near them. Food for thought but great video Mr. Stew.
Thanks. There are many options. I'll put forth that if anything like this is built, politics will cause it to not look like my design. I am going by 7 design principles in these estimations. You can find them quickly by checking out the "Applying High Speed Rail Principles" chapter in my Chicago Hub Network video. The basic idea was to avoid cutting new routes of way when avoidable due to extra costs and delays this causes due to litigation.
There already are plans to extend the South Shore commuter rail, vs Valpo ever being a destination point for high speed rail. Purdue has 50K students, most not from Indiana, and Lafayette area is booming with population growth in recent decades (in big part driven by the tech innovations aligned to the university)
Considering Indiana passed a law banning the building of light rail in Indianapolis, I doubt this route will have any backing or even cooperation from Indiana
You can't know what you oppose until its proposed, I guess. Consider this a conversation piece. The main thing I got out of making this is that this could probably be built without having to demolish very many things, which is a positive. I think it also represents a lot of development and redevelopment opportunity.
@@LucidStew maybe, if their adoption of roundabouts is any sign
@@romanrat5613 You know, I'm from southern California originally, but I lived in the St. Louis area for a year and got around a little bit while I was out there. I was really surprised by the utilization of progressive and innovative roadway interchanges in that general area out there.
Ok build elevated then light rail is a cop out anyway
So how is your route better than the Monan rail now in use? Or the Chicago & Eastern Illinois route which has been mostly abandoned but was used to get to Louisville, KY. On the Floridan, the train that ran from Chicago to Miami before Amtrak? It's still the route used by Amtrak to Indianapolis now.
Those are freight rights of way and you're going to have extreme difficulty exceeding 110mph in the ROW. That's the purpose of getting into the interstate right of way: to use it to get up to 200mph. I have average(not max, average) speed of over 150mph between these cities. You can build next to the freight ROW, but as pointed out in the video, a drawback there is running into small towns every 10-15 miles you have to bypass. One theme is minimizing land purchases. That's due to the expense, delay from the litigious nature of our society, and emphasis the federal government puts on preservation of farmland. I do appreciate you pointing those out. Those routes and ones like them will likely make their way into a video I plan to do about a more European approach to this idea.
I'd be interested in extending the NEC south to VA and NC, maybe even Atlanta. You got any thoughts on that?
I am doing videos on the 10 FRA HSR corridors in alphabetical order. Next one is Empire. Southeast is the last in that order. It will probably be a couple of months until I get around to it. Immediate impression: it has a lot of potential. Atlanta is becoming a very important metro and it looks like it will continue to rise in prominence. It is on both the Southeast and Gulf Coast corridors, and is within a few hundred miles of Louisville in the Chicago Hub Network. It could also end up linking up with Brightline via Jacksonville. If these systems were built out, Atlanta would be an extremely important hub.
@@LucidStew Well, I'm looking forward to all of that and esp. the Empire Service as that's one of my fav routes; gotta love the NY Central.
Good stuff Stew! Presumably your station in downtown Indy would make provision for HSR to be able to continue beyond?
I was just trying to get there in this video, but I think its possible for it to not be a terminal.
Awesome, 1% design is complete.
One critique is that all the expenses in getting into Chicago (including those huge bridges could be minimized if you just ran trains on the south Shore Line from east of Gary into either Millennium. You would just have trains switch to the 1500 v DC, as many trains in Europe do.
Yea this would make the line slightly slower but the costs would be way reduced.
I considered that. I didn't find any of the options through Gary to have adequate room for expansion. The Chicago area has so many kinda-not-good options, its a little difficult to be familiar enough with each and every one to compare them properly. I'll agree that I stuck with that lake front route when I probably shouldn't have. But its just an example of how you might do HSR since people mainly don't delve into what it would mean to actually run something high speed between two cities.
Do more of this!!!
I will!
Why not drop south out of Chicago, then cut east? Avoid Gary altogether? Pick back up near Maryville. Love your videos.
Could you do a video about a HSR rail network from Greenville SC up through Charlotte, through Raleigh and ending at Norfolk? Also if you could include Asheville NC somehow in a route it’s a growing city with a great need for connections to major cities
Looking at Atlanta - Charlotte. They have chosen a preferred route but the exact way in is tbd; ive found some decent exact approaches but id like to hear your thoughts
Its interesting you'd mention this now. Please check for a new video on Friday(8/11) and we'll talk. :)
Omaha to Chicago is the most important leg
😂noted
What will the ridership be looking?
🤷I can tell you I-65 carries 1,000 vehicles an hour in both directions between the two cities.
you curve table seems to be assuming tilt trains or some very aggressive superelevation
.75mi at 110mph would require 12in combined superelevation, 5 unbalanced is easy to get in the US but 7in applied is a lot, that is FRA waver land.
1mi at 110mph requires just 9.5in combined and 1.1mi at 110mph requires 8.25in
~40ft is all thats needed for a 2 track main at or below 125mph. 80ft is fine for 4 tracks. is more space for stuff like an access road nice yeah but its not a must have.
For Indianapolis its likely easier to shift freight rail tracks to the south and use the existing terminal. it had 12 tracks and 6 island platforms at one point and those could come back with some better approaches
If you look at the chart I show just before the curve table, I'm using an assumption between UK/Germany and Italy. I simplified this for presentation, so its not strictly for calculation. Also, its entirely possible that chart is not correct. The purpose is only as a general guide. No one will be using this to build anything, of course. All places where I'm avoiding freight are based on the idea that the freight companies must be placated entirely in order to allow their ROWs to be used for exclusively passenger lines. If it can go into the existing station, that works for me. Makes it cheaper.
@@LucidStew I've got a spreadsheet from Permanent rail Engineering (Can find a copy online PRE toolbox) that does curve calculations to UK standards. The graphs wrong or at least using some non standard UK design. The normal math lines up between Italy and the XPT. Your chart seems to be tending towards 11.5-12in so its just slightly off.
here is the math for a 1mi radius curve to a number of US and worldwide standards.
110mph 9in (5in unbalanced, 4in applied)
121mph 11in(5in unbalanced, 7in applied)
146mph 16in (9in unbalanced, 7in applied)
155mph 18in (11in unbalanced, 7in applied)
7in applied requires a FRA waver, as does exceeding 4in unbalanced, amtrak has got every single level coach cleared for 5in.
9in combined is the likely limit on freight owned tracks.
9in unbalanced is what the X200 and likely Aclea liberty will run at.
11in is what some tilting trains are allowed to do worldwide.
@@gdrriley420 Cool, I appreciate the information. Looks like I'm off by about 20% across the board on the freight ROW assumptions. Not unreasonable to think tilting at the upper limit on new right of way is about right. Realistically, if something like this happened nationally in the FRA corridors it would probably end up under Amtrak using Alstom Avelias like Acela(eventually, some day? :D). Thankfully these are fairly high-level, hypothetical views I'm taking, but I'd rather be more accurate. I'll adjust future presentations to better conform to realistic expectations.
@@LucidStew Tilting trains are typically avoided wherever possible they add weight and complexity. Avelias are also insanely expensive, I expect the Velero Novas or whatever CAHSR picks are far more likely to become the standard train here
I wonder if instead of bridging over the Calumet and Indiana Harbor Canal, if it would be cost effective to do an immersed tube tunnel, avoiding the need for costly tall bridges.
I'd not considered that. The thing about a tunnel is that it would have to be roughly as long due to grade and generally tunnelling is more expensive.
@@LucidStew my main thinking is that you wouldn't need nearly as much of an elevation change as a bridge, maybe 50ft rather than over 100. And since you'd only need to tunnel under the water, and a bit under the land (no more than 100ft id imagine) you could cut the actual tunnel to a minimum
Will you do NEC videos?
You mean as far as the city pairs goes? Because I think they have most of them covered. I will get to NEC as part of the FRA corridors series.
18:06 Isn’t a new soccer stadium planned for the Diamond Chain site?
Looks like a pretty cool development. That could really kick start residential on the south side.
Should Chicago and Nashville via Evansville?
Is there a reason you wouldn’t simply reuse any of the preexisting train stations? My hometown of Lafayette, for example, would more easily be suited for using its train station that already exists as opposed to building a new station in the car-dependent southeastern corner.
There is not any good way to get an electrified high speed right of way to the center of Lafayette unless you'd like to blow up a 7 mile long, block wide section of the city. If you do not electrify and use existing freight rights of way, you essentially have Amtrak at 55mph or whatever.
The idea behind the location of the station I proposed is that the surrounding area would be available for denser, walkable development. This is expressed in the video.
@@LucidStew it COULD switch to the slower grade just for pulling into station, and when it gets back out in the country, it would then return to full high-speed.
Also, a lot of Purdue students would want to use it to get to Indy (I’d also move an Indy station more towards the airport [or have one stop at the airport and one at the downtown train station]) and Chicago (especially international students). So putting it so far away from Purdue isn’t a great idea.
@@jwil4286 The issue isn't speed, its electrified track in a freight right of way. There is no room for it there, so you'd have to create room.
If Lafayette had the initiative they could very easily build light rail or a street car from Purdue to the HSR station.
I don't think Indianapolis wants so much of a Connection to Chicago like that.
Why's that?
do the indianapolis to Cincinnati route next
I've been branching out so much lately I nearly forgot. Thanks for the reminder.
I don't want to be too negative about this as I think linking these two cities with a couple of stops at appropriate places in between would be great but I feel a couple of these stations are really more commuter rail than HSR, you can't be stopping every 5 minutes (I know I'm exaggerating here) will drastically reduce travel times between the two main markets you are working at getting the bulk of the ridership from. That said I can see why you did this. I have actually driven and flown between Chicago and Indy (the latter was a connection from a flight from Europe, and I did make the joke at the time that the taxi on the plane to the terminal after landing in Indianapolis felt like it was halfway from Chicago) and would have loved to get on a train rather than all the effort of flying.
Another thing I find odd, maybe it's cheaper and there's no other way but the reliance on following the highway the whole way. Surely in parts a HSR route should just bypass towns altogether, unless we I mentioned before this isn't really HSR at all but just standard intercity rail. I find all the effort around the road intersections could be avoided in some places. Would the land putting a straighter route away from this be too cost prohibitive? I was kinda expecting some alternatives. I do understand that not putting the line, with stops, through smaller intermediate cities would probably mean that it didn't even get off the ground (I expect this to be the case in Indiana even with this), but it just sounds to me that some local rail links alongside a HSR line are needed, which don't exist at the moment either, adding issues with a project like this in this location.
I'm proposing 7 total stations over 180 miles. It's not as though an express train is impossible. The thing that fascinates me about making these videos is that I receive criticism about the number of stations regardless of how many I propose. Same with various other details. It's easy to see why its near impossible to get these things built.
I don't understand the statement "this isn't really HSR". The proposed train would cruise at 200mph+, and travel 180 miles end to end on an express in ~70 minutes.
The interstate already does bypass most cities between the 2 metros, that's why the proposed route only intersects Lafayette and Lebanon inside of 120 miles of open country.
The reasoning behind the interstate ROW has several factors: 1)Its there, permitting would be available from the federal government, it largely avoids environmental review, which can take several years, some are generally straight enough. 2)Freight rights of way are owned by the freight companies, they are begrudgingly cooperative at best, most don't have room for double-tracked electric anyway, freight companies don't want electric in their ROW because they double-stack freight and the catenary doesn't have clearance for that, in rural areas they tend to go directly through small towns every dozen miles. 3)Cutting large swathes through farmland causes difficulties with local opposition, litigation, construction delay, and subsequent project cost increase. This is a lesson learned by both California High Speed Rail and Texas Central Railway.
@@LucidStew Thanks for the response and I'm sorry if it sounded like criticism, I have liked the video a like, and I did like the depth you went to, but HSR can't be slowing down every 10 minutes to make a stop or you will greatly impact the journey time for the majority of the riders. For me for this to be true HSR you would have a stop at Gary, and a further one at Lafayette (can that serve I forget which university you mentioned which is not far from the route, I keep thinking Perdue, but then keep thinking that's wrong), if not maybe a further stop to serve that, but for anywhere else I think you need regional rail connectors not HSR, unless there is enough of a demand to justify it, that is all I'm saying. I don't think you should be having suburban stops for HSR with the exception of airports or connector stops for other HSR services. I'm sorry if that sounds negative. Love your videos, have only just found your channel despite following many other transit orientated channels. Keep up the good work and I look forward to more good information in the future.
All in all a great video, and I don't know if this was the content I asked a number of questions about potential straightening out of the route by not making as many stops and avoiding some of the road interchange infrastructure by doing so, but that's just how I would think it would be best implemented, but no one is right and no one is wrong and to be honest if any rail infrastructure is built in the US that doesn't involve using rail where priority isn't given to passenger trains then I'm all for it, this just feels like a bit of a hybrid to me. Thanks for answering some of my questions. I did think that land might be cheaper or easier to purchase them in California, but in the US, just as like here in the UK, although we don't quite have the same litigation culture speculators do but make in a way to make money ahead of these types of schemes getting approved which can inflate the first considerably. I didn't know if that would be the case there.
@@LucidStew This would be a brand new line, new infrastructure right? Or is it using/improving existing track? I just realised that I might be missing that completely. In the video it uses the line of the highway, but as I understood it there wasn't existing track here? Or am I wrong? The other thing I just thought was that isn't there going to be local objections to running a line through their relatively small town/city so by straightening it out a little there be less objection (especially if landowners are well recompensed).
@@mattpotter8725 Things must be quite different in the U.K. local opposition from lightly populated areas sent Texas Central Railway into hiding and delayed California High Speed Rail for about 5 years.
@@LucidStew There is a lot of local opposition and yes, our government doesn't want to annoy it's own voters to study an extent that it might cause them to lose that constituency at the next election but on the whole as long the project is an as necessary and in the national interest land is compulsory purchased and the scheme goes ahead (unless its too close to an election or the project can't be justified).
I would guess that being a smaller nation with cities being closed together and a history of rail travel (even if it was decimated in the 1960s Beeching Cuts due to road business interests being in government) meant that our new HSR project, HS2, is being built at the moment, with quite a bit of local opposition, but I think also maybe the fact that we have centralised government means that it can be pushed through despite these local concerns. It has undergone a lot of modifications, changes, one branch that would have been very beneficial scrapped entirely, and there's still doubt whether it will even complete what is currently under construction in its entirety. It's well worth a look at how not to build a railway, it's been in the planning for 30 years, is massively over budget, and so knows when it will be completely 2050 probably.
In the US if these projects were run from Washington and the states didn't get a say then it would be easier to ignore it, though as I read this I realise I'm not really that in favour of centralising power in this way. I also don't think the analogy holds that well because being a smaller country a lot of the country benefits as unlike the Midwest I think the UK isn't so sparsely populated between the big cities, and the whole reason for the project was to take the InterCity trains off the current network to be able to increase the capacity for better local commuter services and freight (politicians and some uninformed commentators have used decreased travel times to London as being the driver but this isn't the real benefit as e are talking saving 15 minutes on a journey, which shouldn't need billions of pounds of investment to satisfy).
Lastly, and when for the long response but some of the thoughts I've given above directly contributed to earlier comments made on your video regarding frequency of stops, especially in the suburbs of the final destination. It is a balancing act getting projects like this off the ground and as I think I said even if it isn't totally HSR, but more like what we currently have in the UK, an InterCity network that runs mostly at around 125-150mph, then that would be amazing for this region, and once you have that improvement can be made once more people are on board with it, much like with what I believe has happened on the North East Corridor.
16:57 Lucid Stew has been named a moderator for r/nongolfers
😂 I was on the golf team in high school! Handicap was about 12, though, so nothing special.
4:15 Why not build a steeply sloped bridge only HSTrains can handle ? 3,5% = TGV Lines
I do mention that. It would have a similar profile to the Chicago Skyway Bridge.
Wouldn’t that be Great ?
Interesting video but it's a pipe dream. There just isn't enough demand for this to justify the construction cost. On top of that, there surely would be massive amounts of opposition and legal challenges from property owners throughout the entire route.
Like I said in the video, its for fun. I'm not trying to convince anyone. Property acquisition and destruction was pretty minimal in the estimate. That was partially due to sticking to established rights of way as a design philosophy.
@LucidStew your Lafayette Sq mall idea is very good. (IMS wouldn't work for a multitude of reasons). From the suburbs, getting to Lafayette Sq. is much easier and parking would be much cheaper (possibly free) than the downtown station.
@@indianapatsfan Definitely lots of parking! And if there's one thing that entire region out there has, it's dead or dying malls ready to be repurposed. I couldn't resist the IMS idea even though it is admittedly quite fanciful.
Shouldn't the goal of an interstate project like this be limited to connecting what you define as the outer core stations?
If the city officials want to extend service into downtown, they should have to take responsibility for getting it funded and approved.
Why be biased against inner cities? But that question posed, I don't see why any impacted entity should be excluded from the process, including funding it.
@LucidStew the bias is because of your #4 Guiding Principle. The last mile into a downtown area is probably going to be the most expensive and may require a tunnel or viaduct. It won't automatically be the most valuable mile. I would argue that every mile traveled at twice highway speed is more valuable.
I also don't think the last mile should be solely funded by the city. I do think the city should be responsible for securing those funds from local, state, or federal sources.
I would expect the people in Chicago to care a lot more about the location of their own station than they would about the location of Indianapolis'.
@@gregory596 Indianapolis Union Station IS in a pretty good spot, though. I think it definitely has utility that a dead mall 6 miles from downtown does not. The question of it being worth the expense seems reasonable to me. Sorry about the long response times, btw. YT is not notifying me consistently. I like the points you're making.
@@LucidStew Thanks for the replies. Don't worry about the delays. I know you're working on new videos.
I'm very interested in seeing your Florida FRA Corridor video. I have looked six different ways at the situation Brightline has in Stuart with that old drawbridge. I can't think of an affordable solution other than just skipping the entire Treasure Coast.
There is a very viable path for HSR from West Palm Beach to Orlando (FL 710 -> US 441 -> FL Turnpike). I calculate it would be an hour faster than Brightline. It would be of no use to me personally as I live in the part of Florida that would be skipped.
😠
@@gregory596 The article I read suggested that they're wanting to replace the moveable bridge with a new moveable bridge that would be high enough to allow 90% of traffic to pass without having to raise the bridge.
Msp to chicago plz!
I'd recommend searching for "tri-state ii high speed rail feasibility study". This goes into far more detail than I could hope to and has similar objectives.
Perhaps planning can begin by 2040. This will trigger many years of lawsuits. Construction can begin by 2050 assuming all litigation is complete. Opening day can happen by 2060 after massive cost overruns, severely limited service, and very expensive fares. This is a best case scenario.
Right, this is one of the issues. The lead time is fairly crazy. Using California High Speed Rail as precedent, the first serious study was completed 20 years before they put a shovel in the ground. I limited the scope to Chicago-Indianapolis for my sake. If you were to build this, it would realistically need to be part of a larger network to be effective. See the Chicago Hub Network video.
Then give up
@@LucidStewdid you know that Chinese HSR planning started in the 1980s!!!
The best case is to ban the lawsuits first
@@qjtvaddict I have. I'm moving to Spain in 2025.
Chicago to Columbus please
will add it to the list.
I would argue to use the South shore row all the way near Valparaiso, it is electric and you could get a station in Gary
do Austin and SA
They're too close to qualify(min 100 miles), but I can do S.A./Austin to Fort Worth if you like.
@@LucidStew what about a Texas triangle? SA, Austin, DFW, and Houston. You can use the plan for Texas central and build off that to have Austin and SA
@@freefour6325 I'm going to do a video for the South Central HSR Corridor(4-6 months). That extends from S.A. to Tulsa and Little Rock. I'll probably also do a video specifically for Texas Triangle, but not as part of the city pairs series. Now that Amtrak has thrown its hat in the ring on Texas Central and Ft. Worth-Dallas is getting off the ground, you'll be hearing more about Texas from me.
Couldn't you just upgrade the existing Amtrak tracks to make it "faster" maybe not 100% high speed but a good speed
Yes, but please see my "The Case For High Speed Rail In The United States" video for an argument of why that is not adequate.
@@LucidStew It is more likely to happen between Chicago and St Louis than Indy. I live in London and ever hear the high speed trains and not going very fast within London. I would say Chicago to Hammond/Gary sort out the tracks to prevent delays and increase the speed then gun it from Hammond or Gary to Indy through W Lafayette. The Amtrak used to run through/in the center of main street...it was crazy
To host medium distance regional trains but not enough for intercity trains
@@stevencipriano3962pathetic thinking
@@qjtvaddict I would ask that you please not be aggressive or insulting like this in my comments. We can have a conversation and disagree without resorting to this sort of behavior.
"surburb" no Stew's boo boos on these videos 😅