High speed corridor...

I believe the shift also ties into downtown development, perhaps values are down, but perhaps will value back once the changes are done.
Why the design of this work is very important.

justalurker66 wrote: That works out to 1.7% of the property value (if both figures are accurate).

Such a deal! In Pennsylvania there is no cap. Your property taxes fund state and local governments as well as your school district. 3% (or more) isn't all that unusual. Businesses get tapped for more. If they're only going to lose 150k in tax revenue, I'm thinking that would eventually be offset thru new development -- commercial and residential -- that could result from the project.

ohioriverrailway wrote:

justalurker66 wrote: That works out to 1.7% of the property value (if both figures are accurate).

Such a deal! In Pennsylvania there is no cap. Your property taxes fund state and local governments as well as your school district. 3% (or more) isn't all that unusual. Businesses get tapped for more. If they're only going to lose 150k in tax revenue, I'm thinking that would eventually be offset thru new development -- commercial and residential -- that could result from the project.

That's what the Economic Development Study posits.

Property tax caps. Gotta love living in a red n(or at least purple) state!!

jb9152 wrote:

jlaroccoii wrote:By the way jb9152. You never did answer the question I asked. Would the cost of the bridge be split between the to roads? I'm not for elevating the road anyway. A level route would work just as good. Or is it a part of the cost being jacked up because of elevation. Because that would add more to the cost, and thus proving your point.

Why would Amtrak fund the cost of elevating the bridge? For the few trains that they run over it, the swing bridge works just fine.

Plans are to run more. I believe Midwest HSR's long term plans are for at least 20 trains a day (10 each way) as opposed to the current 6, with 110 mph top speeds. A swing bridge would still work for that... but probably only if boaters lost priority and the bridge was closed basically every half hour. Plus, it would likely have to be a new bridge.

Just a question from someone unfamiliar with the details:

Assume the swing bridge is going to have to be replaced anyway (it's in terrible shape, and even if if AMTK traffic doesn't increase because of hi-speed, it's on borrowed time). What's the marginal cost of making it three tracks -- two for AMTK (which they'd need for hi-speed) and one for NICTD instead of two?

NICTD needs more than one track (yes, I know that they have survived on one for over 100 years, but they need two to get rid of the bottleneck).
Any plan that would limit NICTD to only one track would be too limiting.

El_Kabong wrote:Just a question from someone unfamiliar with the details:

Assume the swing bridge is going to have to be replaced anyway (it's in terrible shape, and even if if AMTK traffic doesn't increase because of hi-speed, it's on borrowed time). What's the marginal cost of making it three tracks -- two for AMTK (which they'd need for hi-speed) and one for NICTD instead of two?

Less than two, but add in the cost 10 years or so down the road to have to build an all-new bridge right next door or make major structural modifications to the existing structure to accomodate a second NICTD track. NICTD has as a strategic goal the double-tracking of the railroad. That's pretty much set in stone, so any plan that includes as a "feature" only one track (with no provision for a second) will not work.

El_Kabong wrote:two for AMTK (which they'd need for hi-speed) and one for NICTD instead of two?

Curiosity ... why would Amtrak "need" a double track line for a planned seven each way spread out over an entire 24 hour day and NICTD not need two tracks for an existing 14 a day each way service (plus freight) which could expand? NICTD has more than twice the number of movements, why wouldn't they have the double track?

jb9152 wrote:Less than two, but add in the cost 10 years or so down the road to have to build an all-new bridge right next door or make major structural modifications to the existing structure to accomodate a second NICTD track. NICTD has as a strategic goal the double-tracking of the railroad.

Double tracking will make life easier. I can see on the new weekend schedule (effective Nov 22nd) where the lack of double tracking cost South Bend some service options (even if passenger traffic was there getting trains past each other is a problem). Fortunately that section is lower volume (7 trains per weekday).


Amtrak's facilities in Michigan City need work for HSR and for continued operations. But there is no need to handicap NICTD in the process.

The double to single track at Gary to me represents the traffic demands back when the South Shore was new. Seems today traffic needs have changed, that good for the line actually and good to see it is needed.. vs the abandonement of all the other interurban lines plus the expansion plans.

It looks like zipping thru downtown MC on double track is the real bonus for the line and not deviate off that.

I would think by the time the line gets to double tracking it can get its signaling and systems in line and get over the 79mph limit. Just a matter of time.

dinwitty wrote:The double to single track at Gary to me represents the traffic demands back when the South Shore was new. Seems today traffic needs have changed, that good for the line actually and good to see it is needed.. vs the abandonement of all the other interurban lines plus the expansion plans.

It looks like zipping thru downtown MC on double track is the real bonus for the line and not deviate off that.

I would think by the time the line gets to double tracking it can get its signaling and systems in line and get over the 79mph limit. Just a matter of time.

The signal system between Michigan City and Kensington is already good for more than 79 MPH; when the new signals and CTC were installed, a cab signal system was also installed alongside. What is missing are carborne cab signal packages, but it looks like those will not be installed. With PTC coming, cab signals would be redundant. This is all new territory (PTC), but I would suspect that federal regulations will allow PTC-equipped eqiupment to break the 79 MPH barrier.

dinwitty wrote:It looks like zipping thru downtown MC on double track is the real bonus for the line and not deviate off that.

It is certainly better to plan for double track and advance that plan than to take any action that would prevent or make double tracking harder.

Amtrak's and the dreams of HSR shouldn't interfere with NICTD's plans.

I had to read up on PTC. (positive train control)

Sounds like each rail car would have some form of a computer, the entire rail system would be on it, using gps to gather its location, thats totally independent of signal systems, system like that could almost be dropped in now. But I concur about redundancy, put the cab signals in anyways if it can be done. Since the last step is car installation.

dinwitty wrote:I had to read up on PTC. (positive train control)

Sounds like each rail car would have some form of a computer, the entire rail system would be on it, using gps to gather its location, thats totally independent of signal systems, system like that could almost be dropped in now. But I concur about redundancy, put the cab signals in anyways if it can be done. Since the last step is car installation.

Actually, I think the upshot would be that the cab signals will not be installed; their functionality would be replaced by a vital PTC installation.

Here's another good reason the South Shore wants to eliminate street running...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIyRIOjt9dY

Well if that is a westbound train then there is one less house to worry about with the slight relocation of the line.

Why is there a fire truck parked on the tracks? Would they park on adjacent rail lines that were not in a road?