Iowa Passanger Rail

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:47 pm

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:79 MPH is much too slow. That's approximately how fast many people drive on the interstates. The only advantage would be that you can sleep on the way to your destination. Otherwise, as far as a time factor goes, you might as well just drive...it could even be quicker depending on the amount of stations along the way and how long in advance you should be at the station before departure.

Not to pick on you, but this is the mentality that's got us in the mess we're in with an unsustainable infrastructure of roads. Â We're going to have to face up to the fact, as a nation, that we don't have a bottomless pit of money to throw at transportation, and we're going to have to take some roads off the map and use more mass-transit, even if it does mean "too slow". Â

Just my $0.02.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:20 pm

Absolutely, icejammer.

Although, TitosBurritoBarn, I do agree that 79 mph is too slow, and that they should shoot for 110 mph. However, this form of travel is valuable for MUCH more than being able to sleep in transit (which is already a HUGE perk). There are so many productive things one can do when not burdened with driving an automobile, work-related and not: reading, writing, listening to/watching podcasts, watching movies, having ENGROSSING conversations, etc. PLUS, and this is a BIG PLUS, rail transportation has the ability of delivering you RIGHT into the heart of your destination city; something which can become very tedious and frustrating for drivers of automobiles (congestion, parking, etc.). All this assuming, of course, that your destination city is either walkable, has EXCELLENT public/ground transportation, or both.

mrdwhsr · Post by **mrdwhsr** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:59 pm

Chicago Union Station is right downtown..and without the hassles of O'Hare.

Consider the 79 mph just for starters. Nearly all of the Iowa Interstate needs track upgrades to support 79mph service. The next step, to 110mph means installing signals to control train movements from a central location along with more track (passing sidings or double track).

The environmental impact statement has been approved for the Chicago - Iowa City service. The proposed route uses BNSF from Chicago to Wyanet IL and Iowa Interstate from Wyanet through the Quad Cities to Iowa City. The BNSF track already hosts Amtrak's California Zephyr and Southwest Chief. Track work involves high-speed connections between BNSF and Iowa Interstate at Wyanet and upgrades to Iowa Interstate to Iowa City.

I think 79mph from Iowa City to Chicago is very competitive, assuming there won't be any stops when you get into commuter train distance of Chicago, the traffic congestion on I-80, and tolls on I-88. At some point we will see schedules for the service. Besides, you can sleep on the train. Other drivers seem to get upset if you fall asleep while driving.

Even with all the funding, it would take a few years to upgrade track, add the signaling systems, and acquire cars and locomotives for 110mph Chicago to Omaha service. I'd love to cruise through Iowa by train at 100+mph.

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:37 pm

I'm not trying to get down on rail transit because I would like to see a lot more rail travel utilized for transportation over the automobile and the airplane, but unless they subsidize it heavily, the general populous isn't going to really see the reason to take the train if it only achieves a speed of 79 MPH. This is partially why AmTrak fails right now.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:03 pm

From the Omaha World-Herald

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091130/N ... 09932/1009

Record number ride Amtrak in Iowa

A total of 66,286 passengers got on and off Amtrak trains at Iowa stations during the federal budget year that ended Sept. 30. That was an increase of 3 percent, or an additional 2,026 passengers compared with a year earlier, which also set a record. It was the most in Iowa since Congress created Amtrak in 1971, officials said.

In comparison, airline passenger counts at the Des Moines airport were down 8.2 percent from January through October compared with the same period last year.

Air travel is down, and train travel is UP in Iowa!

mrdwhsr · Post by **mrdwhsr** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:10 pm

That's good news for Iowa. I wonder if anyone is keeping track in Nebraska?

And the Amtrak route doesn't stop in Iowa City or Des Moines. I can envision where rail service to Iowa City and Des Moines would lead to fewer flights to O'Hare or Midway.

I've read that in China they are discontinuing several airline flights for distances less than 600 miles. People are taking High Speed Rail and not air.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:58 am

I think for these southern/south eastern Iowa towns... it's just 'the way to travel'... and as airfares go up (which would require a drive to Des Moines or QC anyway), they're deciding to just take a little longer ride to Chicago by train.

Post by **Brad** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:03 am

Stargazer wrote:I think for these southern/south eastern Iowa towns... it's just 'the way to travel'... and as airfares go up (which would require a drive to Des Moines or QC anyway), they're deciding to just take a little longer ride to Chicago by train.

A little longer.... On a good day. Â Too bad I get emails all the time talking about cr@ptrack running late.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:09 am

Yeah, you never want to take the Zephyr when you need to meet someone at a specific time.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:22 am

Yeah, I can't believe that, as the "greatest country in the world," we've let our passenger rail system become such an embarrassment and a non-competitor. We need to take drastic action NOW to bring our passenger train service and infrastructure into the 21st Century.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:46 am

Disappointing, but certainly not unexpected....

Iowa train supporters will move forward with push for expanded service

Plans to eventually restore passenger train service between Des Moines and Chicago suffered a setback Thursday when President Barack Obama's administration rejected most of Iowa's bid for federal railroad money.

But train supporters, including Gov. Chet Culver, said they won't give up their efforts to upgrade passenger rail service in Iowa.

"With the work we have already done, we will be competitive for future rounds of funding," Culver said. . . .

Iowa received only $18 million in federal grants, including $1 million to study the establishment of passenger train service between Chicago and Omaha. The remaining $17 million will pay for track improvements in the Ottumwa area on the existing California Zephyr train running through southern Iowa, the White House said. . . .

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:50 am

I was also disappointed to see that Iowa didn't get any of the high-speed rail funding in this round. Â I'm really hoping it will be done, hopefully soon (and not 20 years from now), as my wife and I plan on taking the train to Illinois from Omaha to visit our families.

All in all, though, I can understand how Florida probably has a larger, more immediate rider group. Â I really hope it is successful, as a good example there will surely be good for everyone.

The Chicago-St. Louis route did get money which is great for the University of Illinois where I currently live. Â Our community here has really been pushing for it and I think it will be a great asset. Â Granted, it's only for 110mph service, but that beats the 60-something speed they run now. Â I hope people realize that this measly 110-150mph is NOT high speed! Â 200mph is high speed, and our current service is just plain slow speed.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:05 am

Seth wrote:I was also disappointed to see that Iowa didn't get any of the high-speed rail funding in this round. I'm really hoping it will be done, hopefully soon (and not 20 years from now), as my wife and I plan on taking the train to Illinois from Omaha to visit our families.

All in all, though, I can understand how Florida probably has a larger, more immediate rider group. I really hope it is successful, as a good example there will surely be good for everyone.

The Chicago-St. Louis route did get money which is great for the University of Illinois where I currently live. Our community here has really been pushing for it and I think it will be a great asset. Granted, it's only for 110mph service, but that beats the 60-something speed they run now. I hope people realize that this measly 110-150mph is NOT high speed! 200mph is high speed, and our current service is just plain slow speed.

There is still another bill that would include funding for high speed rail from Omaha to Chicago. I just caught it in the news a few moments ago. Will try to get details.

ricko · Post by **ricko** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:29 am

The Washington Post (hard copy) had a map including Omaha as part of a 'phase 2' plan for high-speed rail----the line extended from Chicago thru central Iowa and had Omaha as the western terminus.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:07 am

I would love to see that map!

I am so pleased that we finally have an administration that is making this a priority, and that actually views it in the context of making the U.S. competitive on the world stage, generating vast job growth, and helping the U.S. become more green.

I do, however, think that all this first round funding is spread way too thin. I think they should take one or two key corridors, like that in Florida, and/or Chicago-St. Louis, and really make an example out of them. Then, by the time round two rolls around, there will be more people "on board" because they've seen how great these example systems are.

JPenny · Post by **JPenny** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:39 am

I agree with you about how they should choose a few projects and completely finish them. but I also think that they need to help out a lot of different places even if its just a little money. to start getting some of these other systems off the ground till round 2 comes around and so forth.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:05 am

Yesterday I was listening to conservative AM talk radio, as I sometimes do for a good laugh.

Laura Ingrahm (sp?) was on, and I just caught the tail end of a segment in which Laura and her callers were bashing the Administration's plan for expanded/updated rail infrastructure. They were all complaining about "government subsidies" this and "socialized works programs" that. They sited multiple examples of rail systems in the US that don't turn a profit, among which, the DC Metro.

If I'd known the number to call in, I would have called in and REAMED Laura and her callers. Are they aware that every day they drive on government subsidized roads and highways that will never generate a dime of profit? Are they aware that such subsidized projects also provide jobs to Americans? I think Laura and many of her politically aligned compatriots see socialism with a selective eye, i.e. only projects that the mean dirty LIBERALS support are socialist.

Whew. Sorry for the rant, but it directly pertains to the topic.

ricko · Post by **ricko** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:29 pm

Were you expecting rational thought or something? Â Don't waste your time on these people.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:02 pm

I also find it shocking when people attach rail transport because it must be subsidized and "doesn't turn a profit," yet are seemingly blind to the massive public investment that goes in to building and maintaining our road infrastructure. Â Of course, that's the modus operandi of conservative talk radio: begin with an opinion and then apply hand-picked out-of-context facts that support it.

I also find it humorous when the current administration is accused of being socialist; true socialists would take true offense to that comparison!

mrdwhsr · Post by **mrdwhsr** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:23 am

And yet conservative Paul Weyrich at the Free Congress Foundation was a strong supporter of intercity and commuter passenger rail, light-rail, and streetcars. Paul long argued for improved rail-service as an economic asset of value beyond the cost of the ticket. There are plenty of arguments that can be made on behalf of passenger rail that will appeal to conservatives.

It may be best to point out to the "passenger rail doesn't work without subsidy" crowd that airlines and motor vehicles do not cover their costs through fees and gas taxes either, and are subsidized from property and income tax revenues. There are indirect subsidies as well. Union Pacific and BNSF pay property taxes in Nebraska. How much property tax revenue is collected from I-80 or Eppley Airfield?

It is the urban myth that the truck and auto pay their cost without subsidy that should be attacked. Hitting one's friends while taking a shot gun to one's enemies isn't a good idea in the long run.

mrdwhsr · Post by **mrdwhsr** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:26 am

Good news for Iowa. While Obama struck out on passenger service to Iowa City and Dubuque, it looks like Illinois will be providing funds to keep these projects moving forward.

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=6278

Illinois Gov. promises funding for two Chicago-Iowa trains

Published: Monday, February 01, 2010
CHICAGO — Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has committed state funds to start services between Chicago and Dubuque and Davenport, Iowa, the Quad City Times has reported. Gov. Pat Quinn said $45 million will go toward the Davenport route, while $60 million will go toward the Dubuque route.

The announcement comes after it was revealed that federal stimulus funds wouldn't go toward either line. Illinois received more than $1 billion in high speed rail funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but that money will go entirely to the Chicago-St. Louis and Chicago-Detroit corridors.

"We know if we build it, the people will come," Quinn told a crowd in Moline, Ill., across the river from Davenport. "I don't think there's any question it's sustainable," he said.

Because federal funds won't be used, the Dubuque funding reignites the debate over which route should be used between Chicago and Rockford, Ill. A study for federal funds had proposed an all-Canadian National route, but leaders in towns along the connecting Union Pacific route have agitated for trains to use it. With state funds being used, both routes are now back in play.

Post by **Coyote** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Iowa DOT OKs money for Chicago-Omaha passenger rail study

blogs.desmoinesregister.com wrote:Plans for a study of proposed railroad passenger service between Chicago and Omaha will move forward with a $1 million state match approved today by the Iowa Transportation Commission. The state money is required to match a $1 million grant from the Federal Railroad Administration.

The Iowa segment of the route would be expected to use the tracks of the Iowa Interstate Railroad, passing through Davenport, Iowa City, Grinnell, Newton, Des Moines, Atlantic and Council Bluffs en route to Omaha.

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:16 pm

Cool.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:10 pm

I'm really exited that this might shorten the trip home to see family in Illinois.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:08 pm

Seth wrote:I'm really exited that this might shorten the trip home to see family in Illinois.

And skipping the airport hassle...

Erik · Post by **Erik** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:29 pm

This would be huge!

If implemented, we all know there would be thoughts thrown around about an omaha to Minneapolis and/or Kansas City line..

That, and a few more minds churning about a city-wide rail network.. At least that is how I see it 'could' play out..

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:23 pm

S33 wrote:
Seth wrote:I'm really exited that this might shorten the trip home to see family in Illinois.
And skipping the airport hassle...

Yes, that too. Â Although I will admit that Eppley is pretty low-hassle. Â The problem is getting back to where my family lives (80 miles west of Chicago) from Midway or O'Hare; that alone adds a two-hour drive, four if you consider the person coming to pick us up. Â Then, figure in the extra couple hours sitting in each airport and going through security and it's not a whole lot quicker than the train (well, if Amtrak is better at being on-time, which a lot of the recent projects have been for).

The frustrating part is that my mom's farm is 2 1/2 miles from the old depot in Earlville, IL, but the closest station it stops at is 30 miles away.

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:30 pm

Call me somewhat less enthused than you guys. Â While it would no doubt be positive development, I'm less than convinced that it would be a viable alternative using the existing track. Â It is a roughly 450 mile route. Â Given an 80 mph average, which is probably generous for what they are proposing, that is 5 hours and 38 minutes. Â This most likely isn't quick enough to convince someone who is thinking about flying to ORD or MDW to take the train, and it is iffy whether it will keep many people from driving. Â Now if you had a TGVesque train on the route that averaged 150 mph, the time is cut to 3 hours. Â That is enough to convince most people from driving it, and it is also enough to keep people from flying unless they are making a connection at O'Hare.

ShawJ · Post by **ShawJ** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:54 pm

How expensive are train tickets compared to plane tickets?

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:25 pm

ShawJ wrote:How expensive are train tickets compared to plane tickets?

Where are we talking about? Â The short answer is it depends. Â What is the route? Â Is the operator a government or a corporation? Â What are their motives, profit, break-even, willing to subsidize?

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:21 am

Yes!!! Great news!

The University of Illinois at Chicago is one of the places I've applied to for graduate school. This probably wouldn't be completed within three years, but it would be so great to be able to take this kind of service to get home. Plus, my girlfriend's parents live in Iowa City!

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:25 am

Mr.Nuke wrote:
ShawJ wrote:How expensive are train tickets compared to plane tickets?
Where are we talking about? The short answer is it depends. What is the route? Is the operator a government or a corporation? What are their motives, profit, break-even, willing to subsidize?

Easy there! Â I think he was referring to the current consumer cost. Â If you buy a week or two in advance, Amtrak from Omaha to Princeton, IL (30 miles from where my family lives), can be as low as $60. Â Southwest from Eppley to Midway in Chicago starts at $99 and is $176 for a refundable fare.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:37 am

ShawJ wrote:How expensive are train tickets compared to plane tickets?

Attempt 1: Princeton to DC, Monday March 15. Â Leave in the morning, return in the evening.

Round trip on Amtrak from Princeton, NJ to Washington DC is $126. Â I could not find a flight that would actually go between the two cities on Expedia.

Attempt 2: NYC to DC, same date/time/round-trip

Acela Express - $338

Northeast Regional - $148

JetBlue - $242

American Airlines - $301

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:40 am

Seth wrote:
Mr.Nuke wrote: Easy there! I think he was referring to the current consumer cost. If you buy a week or two in advance, Amtrak from Omaha to Princeton, IL (30 miles from where my family lives), can be as low as $60. Southwest from Eppley to Midway in Chicago starts at $99 and is $176 for a refundable fare.

I'm not sure what he was asking, hence my response. Â Factor in any of those variables and the price will vary quite a bit. Â Thus, I'm not sure that I would be using Amtrak to make a comparison.

ShawJ · Post by **ShawJ** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:26 am

Mr.Nuke wrote:
Seth wrote:
Mr.Nuke wrote: Easy there! I think he was referring to the current consumer cost. If you buy a week or two in advance, Amtrak from Omaha to Princeton, IL (30 miles from where my family lives), can be as low as $60. Southwest from Eppley to Midway in Chicago starts at $99 and is $176 for a refundable fare.
I'm not sure what he was asking, hence my response. Factor in any of those variables and the price will vary quite a bit. Thus, I'm not sure that I would be using Amtrak to make a comparison.

I was just asking in general, but I guess there are too many variables for an accurate answer. I brought it up because for me, price would matter more than the extra few hours of travel time.

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:40 am

almighty_tuna wrote:
ShawJ wrote:How expensive are train tickets compared to plane tickets?
Attempt 1: Princeton to DC, Monday March 15. Leave in the morning, return in the evening.

Round trip on Amtrak from Princeton, NJ to Washington DC is $126. I could not find a flight that would actually go between the two cities on Expedia.

Need to go North to Newark or South to Philly. Â Flying from either destination on three days notice is $500+.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:30 pm

That said... it is a wonderful experience to take the Zephyr to Chicago (I couldn't handle a trip to the west coast)... our family had a blast... from the spacious seats to the dome car to eating in the dining car. Â It's worth the expense. Â Of course, once you're in Chicago... mass transit will take you anywhere for very little.

http://www.hustonfamily.com/gallery2/ma ... mId=150367

http://www.hustonfamily.com/gallery2/ma ... mId=150382

http://www.hustonfamily.com/gallery2/ma ... mId=150572

Post by **Brad** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:41 pm

Feds OK $230 million for Chicago-to-Iowa City train service

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... in-service

The Des Moines Register wrote:Gov. Chet Culver said today he has been notified that federal officials have awarded $230 million to establish passenger train service between Chicago and Iowa City.

The 219.5-mile route will provide twice-daily, round trip service at maximum speeds of 79 mph and have an expected travel time of less than five hours.

The Des Moines Register wrote:"The Green Line between Chicago to Iowa City - and, in the near future, on to Des Moines and to western Iowa - which has been funded today in an extraordinarily tough competition with passenger rail proposals across America, will set a new national standard for reliable, cost-effective, fuel efficient passenger rail service in the United States, Culver said.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:12 pm

Great news. This will surely become part of the high speed rail corridor connecting Chicago and Omaha, and further west.

I love that to the Des Moines Register Omaha=wester Iowa.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:34 pm

YES!

Our state leaders need to show their support to keep adding onto that line b/c it makes all too much sense for it to run through Omaha and Lincoln.