Chicago to St. Louis 220 mph High Speed Rail Alternative Corridor

Chicago to St. Louis

220 mph High Speed Rail

Alternative Corridor

Volume 1

Prepared by:

222 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2320

Chicago, IL 60606

P: 312-669-9601

F: 312-669-9606

www.transystems.com

In association with:

Revised October 8, 2009

Chicago to St. Louis

220 mph High Speed Rail

Alternative Corridor Study

Volume 1 – Infrastructure & Cost

Prepared for:

CHICAGO TO ST. LOUIS HIGH SPEED RAIL ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR STUDY - 1 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary ................................. ..................................................................... 3

1.1 Project Initiation and Need ......................................................................................... 3

1.2 Key Findings .............................................................................................................. 4

2.0 Design Criteria ................................... ............................................................................ 7

3.0 Task 1: Evaluation of Corridors ................... ................................................................10

3.1 Background ...............................................................................................................10

3.2 Approach ..................................................................................................................10

3.3 Alternatives Review ...................................................................................................13

3.4 Western Routing .......................................................................................................13

3.5 Eastern Routing ........................................................................................................13

3.6 Regulatory Environment ............................................................................................15

3.6.1 Signals ......................................................................................................................15

3.6.2 Track .........................................................................................................................15

3.6.3 FRA Vehicle Compliance ..........................................................................................16

3.6.4 Implications for the Chicago-St. Louis route ..............................................................16

4.0 Task 2: Analysis and Recommendations .............. .....................................................17

4.1 Geographically Segmented Approach .......................................................................17

4.2 Descriptions of Rural Area Concepts.........................................................................17

4.2.1 Using the Existing Railroad Corridor .........................................................................17

4.2.2 Using the Interstate Highways Corridors ...................................................................18

4.2.3 Developing New Corridors ........................................................................................19

4.3 Descriptions of Urban Area Concepts .......................................................................19

4.3.1 Chicago .....................................................................................................................19

4.3.2 Kankakee ..................................................................................................................21

4.3.3 Champaign................................................................................................................21

4.3.4 Decatur .....................................................................................................................22

4.3.5 Springfield .................................................................................................................22

4.3.6 St. Louis/Metro East ..................................................................................................22

5.0 Task 3: Proposed Running Times – Simulation Model . .............................................24

5.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................24

5.2 Key Finding ...............................................................................................................24

5.3 Model Components ...................................................................................................24


5.4 Key Model Assumptions ............................................................................................26

6.0 Conceptual Level Cost Estimate .................... .............................................................27

6.1 Assumptions .............................................................................................................27

6.2 Primary Cost Elements..............................................................................................27

6.2.1 End to End Costs ......................................................................................................27

6.2.2 Rural Farmland – Template Costs .............................................................................27

6.2.3 Small Villages – Template Costs ...............................................................................27

6.2.4 Urban – Elements Counted .......................................................................................27


1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Project Initiation and Need In March 2009 TranSystems was retained by The Midwest High Speed Rail Association (MHSRA) to conduct a limited alternative corridor feasibility study for a high speed passenger rail route from Chicago to St. Louis via Kankakee, Champaign, Decatur, and Springfield. In August 2009 MHSRA authorized enhancing the project corridor study area by extending it to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport This volume consists of the following elements:

1. A comparison of reasonable alternative alignments to the existing Union Pacific corridor between Chicago and St. Louis via Joliet and Springfield and a “fatal flaw” analysis of the proposed corridor via Champaign and Decatur.

2. An evaluation of the proposed alignment via Champaign and Decatur examining the suitability of the existing railroad rights-of-way to support a 220 mph maximum speed high speed rail operation using an approximately two hour schedule between Chicago and St. Louis.

3. Development of expected train running times using a railroad operations simulator for the proposed corridor with expected running times for each of the intermediate segments.

4. Development of a conceptual level cost estimate for infrastructure improvements

between O’Hare and St. Louis to allow for approximately two hour service between downtown Chicago and St. Louis.

5. A phasing plan showing the running time and capital costs for each logical segment.

Additional tasks also authorized In August include:

6. A sketch planning exercise to develop a ridership estimate sufficient to complete an initial calculation of project benefits and train fleet requirements needed to meet the estimated demand.

7. An economic benefits analysis that shows the economic impact of the proposed project.

8. An environmental benefits analysis that describes the general impacts of the proposed project on the environment along the corridor.

These reports are contained in Volume 2.


1.2 Key Findings This study generated the following key findings:

1. No other suitable railroad corridor exists between Chicago and St. Louis other than the

existing corridor via Joliet and Springfield and the proposed corridor via Champaign and Decatur. The proposed corridor does not contain any “fatal flaws” that would eliminate its use as a high speed rail passenger line based on bifurcating the existing railroad rights-of-way. Any railroad property acquisition would of course be subject to negotiation and, if successful, expected payment of compensation to the owning carrier.

2. The proposed corridor via Champaign and Decatur has the alignment and grade to

support 220 mph operating speed, with the addition of complete grade separation and fencing of the right-of-way. Between Springfield and St. Louis a route using a combination of existing rail lines which do not currently have passenger service could be used instead of the existing Amtrak route (via the Union Pacific Railroad). The existing Amtrak route is constrained by numerous horizontal curves which limit maximum speeds to approximately 70-90 mph. Additionally, the alternate corridor would provide for a shorter travel distance and a new and more centrally located station stop on the Illinois side of the Mississippi River.

3. Simulation runs show that express trains using the proposed corridor, stopping only at Champaign and Springfield, could operate between downtown Chicago and downtown St. Louis in 1 hour 52 minutes while operating at least once an hour in each direction. Trains stopping at McCormick Place, Kankakee, Champaign, Decatur, Springfield, and Metro East could complete the run in 2 hours 4 minutes.

4. The infrastructure for the high speed rail passenger line between Chicago O’Hare and St. Louis could be built for a cost of $12.6 Billion in 2012 dollars. This estimate includes the track, bridges, signals, electrification, grade separations, fencing and other civil work, as well design and construction management fees, and a contingency allowance. It does not include rolling stock, maintenance facilities, stations, or other program costs.

5. Table 1 on page 5 shows the potential phasing of a high speed rail line from Chicago to St. Louis. Segments, costs, and running times are shown. If the phasing occurs over an extended period of time, the cost estimate would need to be adjusted for the expected construction costs during the proposed year of construction.


Table 1 : Costs and Travel Times for High Speed Rail from Chi cago to St. Louis

SEGMENTAPPROXIMATE

SEGMENT COST (in Millions)

APPROXIMATE CUMULATIVE

COST (in Millions)

APPROXIMATE SEGMENT TRAVEL

TIME (Min.)

APPROXIMATE CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TIME

FROM UNION STATION

(Hrs.:Min.)

EXPRESS RUN APPROXIMATE

SEGMENT TRAVEL TIME (Min.)

EXPRESS RUN APPROXIMATE CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TIME

FROM UNION STATION

(Hrs.:Min.)

O'Hare Airport to Chicago Union Station $ 1,013 $ 1,013 22 - 22 -

Chicago Union Station to McCormick Place $ 119 $ 1,132 3 0:03

McCormick Place to Kankakee $ 2,808 $ 3,940 21 0:24

Kankakee to Champaign $ 2,818 $ 6,757 26 0:50

Champaign to Decatur $ 1,741 $ 8,499 15 1:05

Decatur to Springfield $ 1,358 $ 9,856 18 1:23

Springfield to Metro East $ 1,861 $ 11,718 27 1:50

Metro East to Downtown St. Louis $ 904 $ 12,622 14 2:04

43

32

37

0:43

1:15

1:52


6. Table 2 below indicates approximately what percentages of the total build-out capital cost, from Chicago to Downtown St. Louis, would be spent in which category of construction.

UNIT TOTALITEM DESCRIPTION COST COST

Railroad Construction 7,990,769,499$ 63.4%

Trackwork 1,902,185,017$

Electrification 1,265,620,140$

Signaling 353,750,800$

Bridges 690,787,900$

Flyovers 799,876,213$

Property & ROW 305,402,040$

Allocated Engineering, Final Design, PM, CM (12%) 601,466,408$

Allocated Contingency (35%) 2,071,680,981$

Roadway Construction 4,618,009,882$ 36.6%

Rural Grade Separations (Type I & II) 231,046,920$

Urban Grade Separations (Trench & Embankment) 2,641,558,485$

Bridge, Roadway (Includes Sub Structure) 6,888,000$

At-Grade Crossing Protection -$

Utilities & Environmental 174,745,935$

Allocated Engineering, Final Design, PM, CM (12%) 366,508,721$

Allocated Contingency (35%) 1,197,261,821$

TOTAL PRELIMINARY COSTS 12,609,000,000$ 100%

Midwest High Speed Rail StudyChicago (O'Hare) to St. Louis (Downtown) (220 mph)

Rail/Roadway Construction Cost Breakout

Table 2: Rail/Roadway Construction Cost Breakout


2.0 Design Criteria The following assumptions were identified in order to provide conceptual level costs within the limited time frame:

1. Technology and Operations: It was assumed that service traveling at a maximum of 220

mph, would employ non-FRA compliant trains. European and Asian High Speed trainsets are built to UIC (worldwide) standards and do not meet the current Federal Railroad Administration requirements designed to mitigate impacts from crashes with North American freight railroad equipment. In order to operate above 150 mph, UIC compliant equipment must be used with an FRA non-compliant waiver. In the past, these waivers have required a completely grade separated, independent system. Although tilting equipment would enable trains to accomplish sharper curves at higher speeds, they were not assumed in this study because there are so few curves on the recommended corridors. Rolling stock has not been analyzed in this infrastructure study and has not been included in the capital cost estimate.

2. Grade Separations: Elimination of any highway or railroad crossings of the proposed

high speed rail corridor are required due to the proposed use of non-FRA compliant vehicles (such as those planned for the California High Speed Rail system and the previously planned Florida High Speed Rail system). See further discussion of this issue section 3.6 Regulatory Environment. On the existing railroad corridors in rural areas there are typically grade crossings with a county road each mile. When the Interstate Highways were constructed, which parallel the railroad corridors, the typical practice was to provide a crossing for every other county road. In this study the same concept has been applied to the railroad corridor, with a bridge indicated for construction over the railroad (both the existing freight railroad and the two proposed high speed passenger tracks) approximately every two miles (Figure 1), with the intermediate public and private crossings assumed to be closed. Using the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) database of railroad crossings, each was reviewed using aerial photography and GIS maps. Priority was given to keeping the roads that have the bridges over nearby Interstate Highways open and to avoid situations where the only access to local residences would be removed. In this study’s conceptual cost estimate a limited number of access roadways were included as grade separated access to such isolated housing, and while the final outcome may find that relocation of farm houses may prove less expensive it was deemed reasonable to maintain this placeholder for these expenses. In many rural locations there is a highway located closely parallel to the railroad. To allow room for the ramps down from the overpass it will be necessary to shift the highway somewhat at these points. In the rural villages there is generally not enough space to construct a highway overpass without severe impacts. It will be necessary for the high speed rail alignment to be raised or lowered to eliminate crossings. The elevation of the tracks through villages (including the freight railroad mainline) onto a retained embankment is the type of scenario that has been included in the conceptual construction cost estimate in this study. Further study should review in greater detail the


impacts that the grade separation would generate through these rural villages. A few potential positive impacts would include the following:

• Elimination of freight railroad mainline crossings along with attendant traffic delays and potential for collisions with highway vehicles and pedestrians

• Reduction in noise from train horn blowing for grade crossings

3. Right-of-Way: Throughout this study it has been assumed that at least 50 feet of existing freight railroad right-of-way (ROW) for the recommended corridor would be available for acquisition and construction of high speed rail passenger tracks. It is also assumed that these existing freight railroad operators would require adequate clearance between their own freight tracks and passenger tracks to meet FRA Roadway Worker Protection requirements for uninterrupted adjacent track operation, although complete bifurcation of the right-of-way would eliminate many issues regarding operation on a joint corridor. Allowance for the purchase of ROW has been included in the conceptual cost estimate and further explanation for the unit price assigned to this entity is provided in Section 6.0. No verification of the availability or purchase terms for the railroad corridors identified has been undertaken as part of this study.

CHICAGO TO ST. LOUIS HIGH SPEED RAIL ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR STUDY – DRAFT - 9 -

Figure 1 Typical Rural Railroad Bridge Crossing


3.0 Task 1: Evaluation of Corridors

3.1 Background This study began with a goal of developing a conceptual plan for a passenger rail route that could provide service between Chicago and St. Louis with a travel time of approximately two hours while serving the key population centers in the corridor between those points. This plan would use the latest technology now operating in regular service worldwide, with electrically-powered trains operating at 220 mph on a double track alignment. This is the approach that the California High Speed Rail Authority is using to implement its high speed rail program. Its first route is currently scheduled to open in about 2021 and will provide frequent service over a new 432 mile dedicated route between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 hours 40 minutes. Identification of key high speed rail corridors is important now since significant funding for high speed rail systems is available for the first time in the United States. The Federal government included $8 billion for high speed rail in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and it appears that significant funding for high speed rail projects will be an ongoing feature of annual appropriations in the future. Amtrak currently operates passenger train service over the Chicago-Champaign portion of the recommended high speed rail route. The Illini and Saluki trains provide twice daily service over CN tracks between Chicago and Carbondale and the City of New Orleans operates overnight service to/from New Orleans. These trains stop at several smaller stations between Chicago and Champaign not included for the proposed high speed rail service, as well as serving several Downstate stations. While the focus of this study is on high speed service with limited stops, several options exist for maintaining train service for these other points. These might involve the operation of additional local service on the high speed tracks at slower speeds, providing local service, or continued operation on the existing CN tracks. 3.2 Approach The study began by identifying the major population centers in the corridor. To evaluate the potential environmental issues the team analyzed existing and past, railroad and interstate highway alignments. A key advantage that Illinois has compared to California and most of the ten other countries which operate high speed passenger trains (now generally defined worldwide as 300 km/h (186 mph) or greater), is that Illinois railroad alignments, are extremely straight and level, ideal conditions for implementing fast operation at reasonable cost. As part of the analysis, TranSystems reviewed the rail service operated in the 1930’s when Chicago was the worldwide center of high speed rail operations. There were three railroads which competed for the Chicago-St. Louis traffic. TranSystems reviewed timetables from 1937 to determine the running times during that period, as shown in Table 3 and on Figure 2. Since then, all three of the railroads operating in 1937 have been absorbed as part of larger railroads. Amtrak’s Chicago-St. Louis service operates on the old Chicago and Alton route that, several mergers later, is now mostly owned by the Union Pacific.

Documents

Chicago to St. Louis 220 mph High Speed Rail Alternative Corridor