NICTD WLC which would you choose? please sign petition!

Here is a question No one has touched yet and im inclined to wonder why, As many of us are aware that the NICTD want to build 2 new lines WLC ( THE WEST LAKE CORRIDORS) to ease congestion on the roadsways in NW Indiana and on the NICTD main line from Chicago to South bend. Now the two proposed lines would branch off after Kensington (115th st) and head south following abandoned or remotely used ROW's .One running down to Lowell and the other one branching off going over to Valparasio. Currently the Ideal is generating big responses and it may get a green light within a year. However the budget so far would only allow for one route to be built. So which do you think is best? which would better serve NW Indiana Commuters? be the most cost effective? and have the highest ridership? Id like all responses and please make them good, the NICTD committee might just be reading this.......

For those not familiar with the project here is a link to the studies page: http://www.nictd-wlc.com/

EDIT: Petition link is in my post below....

I would assume the route following GTW/CN to Valpo is the highest traffic potential, but that's just from living in the area - I have no empirical evidence to cite. However, US30 runs from Chicago Heights to Valpo and is a very busy six-lane stretch of road, the new routes will likely ease that congestion.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Calumet_(Amtrak)

The Valpo Corridor has been a long established route, and unfortunately the lines that had served it gave up on it down the line eventually, these decisions pretty well forces the riders to make other riding decisions IE DRIVE.....

I am not so familiar with the other route proposed, the most economical to build might be the Lowell, if they were never served by a commuter line service before it will be brand new to them.
However the most valuable line needed to build might be the Valpo, so the crossup may be a tossup, you plan to build both lines build one as a model to prove itself then get the other built.

Either line and both is the first noted expansion of a noted interurban line as opposed to the earlier abandonments of previous interurban lines that at THAT time failed or fell to the investor greediness or circumstances. The value of the CSS&SB has outdone itself to show its needs and services are valuable to the public and with the growth of population and highway congestion it simply makes sense, and Mayor Daly has thoughts on LIght Rail making a return on street running streetcars.

BTW the recent cold snaps and weather and potholes revealed old pavement in chicago somewhere still with streetcar tracks in place, just rip out the top pavement and your tracks are back...heh

What you might want to do when you are building the new lines is to build it progressively, like get 1/4 of the line built and activate it with full running then build on another 1/4 and activate it...as construction goes. You might find positive responses from that, BUT, makes me think if some people take advantage of it, they might jam the end station with parking....well, sooo maybe its better
to slam jam the whole line all at once (one line)

The Lowell Line is getting the push now. It can actually meet federal New Starts funding guidelines because of its lower cost and higher ridership projections, which equal a more favorable user benefit/cost ratio. Here's the latest news on it:

http://www.nwi.com/articles/2008/10/24/ ... 025bbb.txt

Interesting turn of events. Are any rolling stock purchases included in that $901m price tag?

Also what is the former Amtrak corridor? The PRR that once hosted the "dummy" commuter to Valpo? (Current CF&E I think)

Tadman wrote:Interesting turn of events. Are any rolling stock purchases included in that $901m price tag?

Also what is the former Amtrak corridor? The PRR that once hosted the "dummy" commuter to Valpo? (Current CF&E I think)

see my link above

jb9152 wrote:The Lowell Line is getting the push now. It can actually meet federal New Starts funding guidelines because of its lower cost and higher ridership projections, which equal a more favorable user benefit/cost ratio

It would appear that they had to modify the proposed route in order for it to fit within the funding parameters. The original route made use of the old Michigan Central ROW between Kensington and State Line Crossing, now the route will diverge instead at Burnham, and head south to what I believe is the ex-Monon line (currently abandoned) via a new connection that flies over the IHB, CSX, & NS tracks at State Line. Although the original route toward Lowell/Valpo was more direct, it would miss Hegewisch, and the restoration of the MC line in Illinois east of Kensington would have increased the price tag, so I can understand why this is a more attractive alternative...

prolly hitting as many of the corridor commuter stops is a good thing...

interesting I never saw that article, I did read a post from a Indiana paper saying they could only afford one line, it seems the cheaper one is winning. Well this may never get off the ground unless it has overwhelming support. For those who don't know, If you would like to support the expansion please sign the petition It does not matter where you are from if you support it just sign in and drop a zip code. (Out of state zip codes get more preference as they count that as people who would visit NW Indiana and use the train instead of driving)

http://www.petitiononline.com/CESSL/petition.html

I think the NICTD plans is to get both lines up, boo to the "oh we can only afford one" folks...

like Obama is getting ready for another 800 billion dollar economic stimulous plan, they can plunk for the other line..

gollieeez

doepack wrote:

jb9152 wrote:The Lowell Line is getting the push now. It can actually meet federal New Starts funding guidelines because of its lower cost and higher ridership projections, which equal a more favorable user benefit/cost ratio

It would appear that they had to modify the proposed route in order for it to fit within the funding parameters. The original route made use of the old Michigan Central ROW between Kensington and State Line Crossing, now the route will diverge instead at Burnham, and head south to what I believe is the ex-Monon line (currently abandoned) via a new connection that flies over the IHB, CSX, & NS tracks at State Line. Although the original route toward Lowell/Valpo was more direct, it would miss Hegewisch, and the restoration of the MC line in Illinois east of Kensington would have increased the price tag, so I can understand why this is a more attractive alternative...

What was the reasoning behind diverting from the existing south shore line at 130th st instead of Burnham in the first place? I can see no significant benefit over the alignment you propose. A little more direct, yes, but who cares when we're talking about saving 1/4 mile or less, and skipping hegewisch to boot. It might kind of make sense if it would save money, or if it would allow construction of a new station somewhere that doesn't already have service, but it does neither.

Regarding the Valparaiso line, of course it adds a pathetic number of riders compared to the Lowell line; that's because it runs through farmland and serves basically zero populated areas not also served by the Lowell line, except Valparaiso itself. I'm sure a better route to Valparaiso with better ridership could be designed. Also, what about Crown Point? Seems like that might be even more important than Valparaiso.

Anyway I drew a map to show one possible routing that covers crown point & valparaiso through more populous regions. Also threw in a couple modifications I'd like to see to the existing south shore line for good measure. (Michigan City reroute, station at GYY terminal instead of Clark Road)

orulz wrote:

doepack wrote:

jb9152 wrote:The Lowell Line is getting the push now. It can actually meet federal New Starts funding guidelines because of its lower cost and higher ridership projections, which equal a more favorable user benefit/cost ratio

It would appear that they had to modify the proposed route in order for it to fit within the funding parameters. The original route made use of the old Michigan Central ROW between Kensington and State Line Crossing, now the route will diverge instead at Burnham, and head south to what I believe is the ex-Monon line (currently abandoned) via a new connection that flies over the IHB, CSX, & NS tracks at State Line. Although the original route toward Lowell/Valpo was more direct, it would miss Hegewisch, and the restoration of the MC line in Illinois east of Kensington would have increased the price tag, so I can understand why this is a more attractive alternative...

What was the reasoning behind diverting from the existing south shore line at 130th st instead of Burnham in the first place? I can see no significant benefit over the alignment you propose. A little more direct, yes, but who cares when we're talking about saving 1/4 mile or less, and skipping hegewisch to boot. It might kind of make sense if it would save money, or if it would allow construction of a new station somewhere that doesn't already have service, but it does neither

Actually, the new route via Burnham is cheaper, because there's much less new construction needed. If the Lowell route were to diverge SE from the original line at 130th as originally proposed, it would pick up the ex-Michigan Central trackage there, and continue about 2 miles further south to a connection with the east-west CSX/B&OCT line. Then it would head east via a new alignment adjacent to the CSX ROW to State Line, where it would then head south via the ex-Monon alignment, but miss Hegewisch in the process as I said earlier. See the map from NICTD's WLC project website for a closer look at the original route:

http://www.nictd-wlc.com/images/previou ... nments.pdf

Further, the old connection to the MC at Kensington is of course long gone, but south of there all the way to the CSX/B&OCT, the trackage is still in place. However, it would most assuredly need to be upgraded to support passenger train speeds, plus you've got to factor in the cost for the new construction in the CSX alignment east of there to State line, so we're talking about 2 miles of upgraded track plus 2 more miles of new construction, thus making this alignment more expensive. That's why simply building a new flyover connection to the ex-Monon instead at State Line would be cheaper, and also keep in mind that there has to be enough money in the funding package set aside for additional rolling stock as well, and there's a much better chance of doing that with this option...

Thanks. Actually I think I phrased my question wrong. I basically meant to say that the new alignment makes a lot of sense to me, and ask why they even considered the MC routing in the first place. But I think I figured it out: Hohman junction.

With this new routing, any idea how would they handle crossing the MC at Hohman Junction? Would it just be a diamond like the Monon used to be? Or will they do something more clever (and much more expensive) like lower the MC? Have they even figured this out yet?

As much as both of these new lines would be great, I think that the Lowell line needs to take priority over valpo.. The density in lake county is just way much higher than valpo and the corridor the valpo line would cover. I presume that whatever is built will be diesel powered?

if they do the valpo line they should get it to at least Hobart. Makes me wonder why the original commuter runs left servicing it. In any case the Valpo line could lead to further east expansion, thats why that.