The New Transport America: A Collaborative TL

[FDW]

Point taken - but if extended to Vegas, you're going to need continuous service to help some feed their gambling addictions.

That's not to say there will be no service at all, it'll just be light service.

It would actually be funny if it was an East Coast/West Coast rivalry, actually, i.e. "which one is more faster, reaches more destinations, is more comfortable, and more reliable?" - of which in that case whoever is ahead would be relative as speed would be more or less equal. It all has to be tied into replacing the Metroliners, however, and by then some alternatives would have to be on board (even if the Metroliner design itself is still used as the model for the Amfleet equipment). Reading about Talgo, however, and it turns out that the Talgo Pendular was introduced in 1980, well before it became part of the Cascades service. If Amtrak was interested enough (and in OTL, they were - there was a test run between Boston and NYC in 1988), then Talgo could create a specially modified version (along with the Budd Company as Talgo's builders) which could hit a top design speed of 150-160 mph or more - of which, in fact, 150 mph was the original design speed for the Metroliners in OTL, but during the 1960s and 1970s ran at 125 mph and towards the 1980s ran at 90 mph (and all due to the reliability problems). It would be interesting, therefore, if Amtrak, Talgo, and Budd were all on this to create a 2nd-gen Metroliner which finally gets to 150 mph service (maybe with a top design speed of 180 mph, but lower service speed) thanks to improvements made on the NEC.

Yeah, we could have the introduction of Talgo equipment be the "Third Stage" improvements for the NEC.

Texas, I'm not sure about as Texas would probably want to go its own way (being Texas and all that ). In that case, they could probably model their service on the SNCF and thus TGV service could be run between Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. (Paris, Texas, anyone? )

The way I see it, when Texas starts getting interested in HSR in the late 80's, SNCF and JR Group will both put in bids, and JR Group ends up winning because their system is already open, while SNCF's line between Milwaukee and St. Louis (via Chicago) is still under construction.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

here are a few changes in the 1950s which could substantial improvements the fate of the industry in the period

- the WW2 era 15 % tax on passenger fares is repealed just after WW2-not in 1962 as OTL. This could be included as some sort of late 1940s GOP led de-regulation of the Railroad Industry
-The property Tax on railroads, could have been repealed
-The St Lawrence Sea Way badly hurt the NYC as it diverted freight traffic from the Great Lakes. if this project were delayed/never took place to begin with, then we could see a slower drop in freight traffic
-If the Red Car is preserved in Los Angeles, it could become more well known when television kicks in. Shows filmed on the streets of California may show the system in the background, making it well known as a critical feature of life in the City like the freeways.

The problem with the Red Car is that by the 1940s the system was declining, IIRC tthe predecessor of the Expo Line only had two trips per direction daily. The streetcar in LA is on its last legs by the end of the war. Now they could convert it to, say, a subway, but the streetcar was moribund before the car companies go at hold of it IIRC. Or if you really insist on the streetcar, get it to go where people want to go, or more precisely, the inner suburbs. That will be hard though, because the tendency since the Lakewood plan was to fragment metropolitan governance, and there are a lot of officials who would be suspicious of allowing another city to build its infrastructure within city limits.

 

[Devvy]

-The property Tax on railroads, could have been repealed

Weren't those taxes levied by the States (not Federal)? Makes it hard to easily repeal if so. I think that income raised a large amount of cash for the state coffers.

 

[FDW]

The problem with the Red Car is that by the 1940s the system was declining, IIRC tthe predecessor of the Expo Line only had two trips per direction daily. The streetcar in LA is on its last legs by the end of the war. Now they could convert it to, say, a subway, but the streetcar was moribund before the car companies go at hold of it IIRC. Or if you really insist on the streetcar, get it to go where people want to go, or more precisely, the inner suburbs. That will be hard though, because the tendency since the Lakewood plan was to fragment metropolitan governance, and there are a lot of officials who would be suspicious of allowing another city to build its infrastructure within city limits.

Most (though not all) of the Red Car will disappear in TTL's Los Angeles, but the Yellow Car system will survive (Somewhat reduced itself), thanks to an early public takeover and a new wave of investment.

Weren't those taxes levied by the States (not Federal)? Makes it hard to easily repeal if so. I think that income raised a large amount of cash for the state coffers.

Yeah, they did. This was especially the case in the Mountain and Plains states.

 

[FDW]

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msi...l=38.039439,-121.816406&spn=1.170251,2.460938

Just though I'd leave this here…

 

[Devvy]

See attached PDF (sorry, couldn't be bothered after spending a few hours on Openoffice Calc to spend more time plotting the routes on a map ). All distance, route, air passenger numbers are sourced from FAA data sets.

My actions on the grand table of air passenger figures for the US:

Removed all routes where distance is over 1,000 miles
Removed all routes where passengers are less then 200,000
Paired up routes (A-B, B-A)
Removed all routes where pair does not exist (one of the pair less then 200,000)
Grouped city airports together (ie. LGA/JFK)
Grouped Dallas & Dallas/Fort Worth airports together
Grouped New York & Newark airports together
Removed all routes where distance over 800 miles
Added columns with formula from HSR article on Wikipedia

Columns are:
Distance (in miles)
Origin City
Origin State
Destination City
Destination State
Number of air passengers (counting passengers in both directions)
Potential train trip time based upon average speed at top (90mph)
Potential market share of train based upon travel time (based upon formula on HSR article on Wikipedia - I've run European stats through it before and it's reasonably accurate)
Potential train passenger numbers based upon market share of air passengers.

Obviously, increases in the train average speed would result in higher market shares and thus more passengers via train instead of via air.

 

[TheMann]

Talk about the skill of everyone here. Damn, you guys have the Northeast and California absolutely clocked in. Nicely done. I'm just working on the freight stuff, and I'm having to work on alternate routes for freight in the northeast, since you guys have so much going on there.

 

[Dan1988]

Now, back to Québec - the autoroute system is decent as is. Could it be better? Ah, bien sûr. With or without Duplessis, here's what I propose:

- Québec adopts the MUTCD definition between freeways and expressways, translated here as autostrades and superstrades (after the Italians; in OTL the network was originally called the autostrade network, from which I took the TTL name; I don't know how autostrades became autoroutes, but that I leave up to whoever writes it). Key routes are built to autostrade standards (which, for theoretical sake, is designed with a top design speed of 130 km/h but with officially posted speed limits at 110 km/h), either as part of the TCH or connecting major border crossings. Much of the controlled-access highway network instead becomes superstrades (with officially posted speed limits at 90 km/h). Also, autostrades are tolled whereas superstrades are not.

- A circular loop is built around the Island of Montréal from the get-go. This corrects a major flaw in the current network in that you can't cross the Saint Lawrence without having to go through Montréal. A loop route thus allows truckers to avoid Montréal if travelling towards, say, Halifax, Québec City, or Toronto.

- Travel plazas every couple of kilometers or so outside of Montréal and Québec City, on a regular basis, on the autostrade network; maybe also on the superstrade network as well, but the autostrade network's travel plazas would be of higher quality due to its tolled status. The travel plazas on the superstrades, therefore, would be little more than glorified truck stops with an attached tourist information centre.

- The rest of the road network is reorganized à la Portugal under the Estado Novo, with 1st class routes as major trunk roads, 2nd class as minor trunk roads (both of which are main primary routes), and 3rd class routes as secondary routes. Counties/municipalities can handle the rest of the road network. The James Bay Road and Trans-Taiga Road are 2nd-class roads and form the backbone of a road network throughout Northern Québec.

As for the rest of Québec:

-Mirabel Airport is built earlier than OTL; say originally as a military base but eventually gets converted to civilian traffic post-WW2, From the beginning of its opening to civilian traffic, a proto-HSR train service is instituted linking the airport with Windsor Station. This relieves pressure at (and eventually replaces) St.-Hubert Airport. Dorval Airport will remain, but will be considerably smaller than OTL, since Mirabel Airport would handle most of the international air traffic.

-Speaking of which, Windsor Station also becomes the hub for HSR traffic with the US, and it thus the northern hub of the Acela network. (Amtrak's Adirondack route would probably be as in OTL, including terminating at Gare Centrale initially, but will eventually also relocate to Windsor Station.) Incidentally, this allows the Montreal Forum to remain as is and thus prevent the OTL building of the Bell Centre, which involved destroying a good portion of the structure.

-Québec decides to operate its own provincial rail company which provides passenger service to communities not serviced by either CPR or CN Rail passenger service (and freight service to remote communities, particularly in the North). This brings Northern communities into the rail network for the first time, with tickets that are cheaper than the equivalent airplane fare. The provincial rail company would also provide commuter rail service for the Montréal and Québec City metro areas.

That should provide a decent step forward for Québec's transportation network, IMO. Could there be more added? Of course. But it is a framework on which to build on.

 

[FDW]

So, here's a complete timeline for what will be built for California HSR:

September 1982: IOS: San Jose-Los Angeles

April 1983: Disneyland Extension: Los Angeles-Anaheim

October 1983: San Francisco Extension: San Jose-San Francisco (Double Rock)

July 1986: San Diego Extension: Anaheim-San Diego (12th/Imperial)

March 1990: Las Vegas Extension: Wye located north of of Palmdale-Victorville-Barstow-Interstate 15-Las Vegas (Downtown)

December 1990 Sacramento Extension: Richmond-Sacramento (Downtown)

June 1992: Downtown San Francisco Extension: San Francisco (Double Rock)-San Francisco (Transbay)

January 1994: Transbay HSR connector: San Francisco (Transbay)-Richmond

March 1997: Tijuana Extension: San Diego (12th/Imperial)-Tijuana International Airport

December 1998: LAX Spur: Los Angeles-South Central Los Angeles-Inglewood-Los Angeles International Airport

May 2000: Phoenix Extension: Los Angeles-El Monte-Pomona-Ontario-Colton-Beaumont-Palm Springs-Indio-Blythe-Buckeye-Phoenix

November 2002: Central Valley HSR Connector: Sacramento (Downtown)-Florin-Elk Grove-Lodi-Stockton-Manteca-Modesto-Turlock-Madera (wye with IOS)

February 2005:Tucson Extension: Phoenix-Mesa-San Tan Valley-Eloy-Marana-Tucson

April 2008: Cajon HSR connector: Victorville-Hesperia-San Bernardino-Colton-Riverside-Perris-Temecula-Escondido-Mira Mesa-San Diego (Mid City)-San Diego (12th/Imperial)

June 2012: Redding HSR Extension: Sacramento (Downtown)-North Highlands-Roseville-Sheridan-Yuba City/Marysville-Oroville-Chico-Red Bluff-Cottonwood-Redding

 

[FDW]

Since this thread isn't active enough for my tastes I'm going to throw in another interesting resource that's going to influence some of my plans:

http://www.tundria.com/trams/tramways-index.shtml

 

[Dan1988]

Oh, and one last thing vis-à-vis expressways (and one very local to me) - instead of I-95 taking its current course through Providence and Pawtucket, have I-95 instead follow the route of OTL I-295, leaving RI/MA Route 146 as the only connection Providence has with the Interstate system. I know some people used the Interstate Highway System as a giant slum clearance project; I'm hoping that it's not the case in TTL. That small change, too, will help increase the viability of rail travel in Rhode Island.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_295_(Rhode_Island–Massachusetts)

 

[FDW]

Oh, and one last thing vis-à-vis expressways (and one very local to me) - instead of I-95 taking its current course through Providence and Pawtucket, have I-95 instead follow the route of OTL I-295, leaving RI/MA Route 146 as the only connection Providence has with the Interstate system. I know some people used the Interstate Highway System as a giant slum clearance project; I'm hoping that it's not the case in TTL. That small change, too, will help increase the viability of rail travel in Rhode Island.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_295_(Rhode_Island–Massachusetts)

No comments on my development of California HSR?

And as for where the Freeways will go, it depends. For example, Seattle will have fewer Freeways TTL (I-5 and Hwy 99 being one corridor), while San Francisco will have more (I-80 being extended to the Sea, the Junipero Serra freeway completed on the West side, the Central Freeway leading to a second Marin crossing and I-480 connecting the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate bridge. However no I-280 in San Francisco as we know it either, though there is a Southern Crossing TTL).

 

[THE OBSERVER]

Good proposal. Instead of the line running through Palmdale, you should run it to Bakersfield along I-5 and have a 220 mph spur to Palmdale, which also should have a stop on a connecting line between the line running to Vegas and the line running along I-5/Grapevine from Los Angeles to Northern California. This would allow high-speed trains to run directly between San Francisco and Las Vegas, bypassing Los Angeles, and providing an alternative to air travel.

 

[THE OBSERVER]

Talk about the skill of everyone here. Damn, you guys have the Northeast and California absolutely clocked in. Nicely done. I'm just working on the freight stuff, and I'm having to work on alternate routes for freight in the northeast, since you guys have so much going on there.

What should be done in regards to the Southeast and Midwest? I figure a Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor running Washington-Richmond-Raleigh/Durham-Greensboro-Charlotte-Greenville/Spartanburg-Atlanta-Birmingham-Tuscaloosa-Hattiesburg-New Orleans along the right-of-way of I-95, I-85, I-20, and I-59. At a later date, the line could be extended to Houston, running alongside I-10.

 

[THE OBSERVER]

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msi...l=38.039439,-121.816406&spn=1.170251,2.460938

Just though I'd leave this here…

I have a friend of mine who is a transportation blogger and does maps of potential high-speed corridors in the US. I'll ask his permission to post a link to one of his maps. Another question, should the Washington Metro ITTL be built as it was IOTL?

 

[FDW]

Good proposal. Instead of the line running through Palmdale, you should run it to Bakersfield along I-5 and have a 220 mph spur to Palmdale, which also should have a stop on a connecting line between the line running to Vegas and the line running along I-5/Grapevine from Los Angeles to Northern California. This would allow high-speed trains to run directly between San Francisco and Las Vegas, bypassing Los Angeles, and providing an alternative to air travel.

No. I'm not using the I-5/Tejon alignment for the IOS because you gain more by serving Bakersfield and Palmdale directly, even if it makes the line longer. The reasoning for this is that you're going to have a separate Tunnel across the Sierra Pelona/San Gabriel mountains no matter what you do, so you may as well cross the Tehachapi's and go right into Bakersfield while you're doing that.

That's not to say that I'm not going to be using the I-5/Tejon corridor at all, it's just that going through the Central Valley cities lines up better up with the Shinkansen model that California is going with both OTL and TTL.

 

[Dan1988]

No comments on my development of California HSR?

I'll get to it - I just feel exhausted today, so I went for something "soft".

And as for where the Freeways will go, it depends. For example, Seattle will have fewer Freeways TTL (I-5 and Hwy 99 being one corridor), while San Francisco will have more (I-80 being extended to the Sea, the Junipero Serra freeway completed on the West side, the Central Freeway leading to a second Marin crossing and I-480 connecting the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate bridge. However no I-280 in San Francisco as we know it either, though there is a Southern Crossing TTL).

True. Here, I-95 was supposed to go through one side of Pawtucket, but the residents protested, and that combined with pressure from downtown businesses forced the destruction of many priceless mansions and creating this monstrosity (using a high school as the locator; zoom out a bit to get the full view) which is one of the causes for the high traffic mortality rates we have in Rhode Island. Therefore I want to keep expressway development in Providence and its surrounding communities, like my own, to a minimum.

 

[FDW]

I'll get to it - I just feel exhausted today, so I went for something "soft".



True. Here, I-95 was supposed to go through one side of Pawtucket, but the residents protested, and that combined with pressure from downtown businesses forced the destruction of many priceless mansions and creating this monstrosity (using a high school as the locator; zoom out a bit to get the full view) which is one of the causes for the high traffic mortality rates we have in Rhode Island. Therefore I want to keep expressway development in Providence and its surrounding communities, like my own, to a minimum.

And the reason why I'm choosing for San Francisco (and the Bay Area) to have somewhat more is simply because they're going down a more developer friendly path TTL. This results in a bigger BART (and considerable new investment in what chunks of the Streetcar system survive in the region, which is way more than OTL), but also things like the development of Marincello and the Eastshore Tidelands.

BTW, the Eric Fischer who posted this? The same one that did those demographic dot maps of various metropolitan areas.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I said in the original Amtrak thread I'd be interested in working on the Canadian (why don’t I just say Ontario and maybe the west since we seem to have someone interested in Quebec already) side of things, and I still am, but I'm also going to pitch something else entirely as well

In terms of Canada, I don't necessarily think that Transport America as it's been written about in the past would do a whole lot for Canada, but on the other hand the spirit of the TL seems to suggest that things would be different. On that note my vision of things is basically that with the greater funding available in the US Canada is more aggressive in opening up Federal funding for transport and we get a Trans Canada Highway that looks more like the Interstate system in terms of infrastructure standards along with more urban rail and a stronger VIA system. Specifically the highlights in my head are basically as follows, though I've yet to start nailing down dates or specifics:

• Toronto builds a Queen subway very early after it gets federal funds for at LEAST the Bloor Danforth and maybe even for the original Yonge line (as had been hoped for) and keeps its trolley buses permanently after (among other smaller changes) unifying the system with an Eglinton West route
• Ottawa gets some ICTS/ALRT/Skytrain from the start as well as a partial transitway
• Edmonton doesn't stop building after its initial line (though I think this will still be a smallish system until the 21st century)
• Calgary builds a downtown subway from the start
• Vancouver gets a line to Coquitlem before going across the Fraser and ends up with a steadier expansion program; by the present day we basically have existing Skytrain + Evergreen +UBC (just opened, or maybe being built on the timeline of OTL’s Evergreen project) and maybe SFU gondolas and a downtown streetcar
• Devvy’s HSR system from the Amtrak timeline happens between Ottawa and Montreal (though earlier, probably as a core part of the Mirabel project; this has it happening before Acela really gets going at least in OTL, but the idea of it being something of a parrallel to Edmonton is interesting to me, kicking off true HSR in North America but then stalling as the rest of the continent keeps moving)
• HSR makes the LRC a western focused program that saves corridor trains west of Ontario and is more closely related to the TurboTrain
• TurboTrains keep operating through at least the 90s between Ottawa and Toronto after massive rebuilds and upgrades allowing them to be hauled on the HSR line by TGV locomotives
• VIA maintains two transcontinental trains long term, albeit on some sort of alternating day schedule
• GO ALRT goes ahead instead of most post Spadina local Toronto projects, opening in phases through the (very) late 80s and into the mid 90s. Subway expansion focuses on supporting and linking to it with a couple of short extensions.
• Instead of Scarborough (which gets a subway extension and GO ALRT) ICTS is demoed in Hamilton as originally planned
• Winnipeg's BRT runs at least as far the university from the start and is less tentative
• Present day Ontario is still dealing with a stalled transit program and political indecision, but is much more about whether to keep extending ALRT, extend HSR to Toronto or build suburban LRT’s in places like Hamilton (east/west), Waterloo and Mississauga
• Toronto's streetcars survive much as OTL. I think there will be a few changes (couple of lines that might be saved, and an extra early subway line changes the network structure), but TBH I see them being to some extent forgotten by most people outside the city until the Waterfront redevelopment happens and talk of the suburban LRTs starts to build.
  

Now, this is to some extent a wish list of projects I personally like, and definitely has a lot of wiggle room so I'd very much like to kick around ideas about this, and how to integrate it. Honestly it’s probably too much, and I doubt a finalized TL will complete all the projects, but it is where I’m staring from.

The other thing I'd be interested in taking on, ideally collaboratively (especially in terms of local service and the surface lines, an east/west CTA streetcar (trolleybus might be more reasonable given how and when CTA killed surface rail) subway sounds awesome, but I don't even know where to start on that), would be something focusing on the Chicago interurbans. The abandonment's were a bit early for the timeline of the last Transport American (though not actually PRE bill), but were also tied into highways very closely, and I love the idea of a surviving North Shore and Chicago Aurora and Elgin remaining tied into the L up to the present day. Especially the North Shore seems to have a lot of potential to remain a huge and very unique part of the commuter system, even more of a last vestige of the interurban than OTL's south shore and creates some very interesting scenarios farther ahead in the TL (things like rerouting toward O'Hare, and getting these lines onto new express routes separate from the L). I’d love to work on this, and haven’t seen the specific idea mentioned before, or someone taking on the area, so what do folks think|

As a final thought, I'm going to point to something I wrote in the past about Detroit. https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5733557&postcount=173 was only the first of what I meant to be two posts, and I'd do it very differently today (especially in terms of getting away from the hand waviness of crediting GM for everything), but given that it's written I thought I'd put it out there. The second part was going to focus on Detroit's political deadlock, and end up with the transport highlights being endless delays on a Woodward Subway, an expanded Fairlane Peoplemover linking up to a Dearborn extension of the Michigan streetcar and a suburban compromise eventually leading to (instead of a Woodward subway like the city wants) a single electrified commuter line, running at high frequency with semi local stops, from Pontiac to Ann Arbor with a short riverfront tunnel linking the Michigan Central station to the old SEMTA riverfront station. I’d be willing to rewrite this into a new TL, or hand it off to someone for whatever purposes, but given the proposals out there OTL, my thoughts, and the late streetcar abandonment Detroit seems to have a lot of opportunities to end up completely different from OTL as a result of Transport America

tl;dr
I'd love to do Canada, and have some very definite ideas about Toronto especially, as well as the western rail systems. I'd also love to write or help work on something that invovles saving the Chicago interurbans. Beyond that, I've thought about Detroit in the past, and if no one else wants to do that I could take it on as well (that's getting to be an awful big list of cities for me to cover...) Please go ahead and use whatever I've said about Detroit if someone wants to take it on themselves collaboratively or otherwise.

 

[FDW]

I said in the original Amtrak thread I'd be interested in working on the Canadian (why don’t I just say Ontario and maybe the west since we seem to have someone interested in Quebec already) side of things, and I still am, but I'm also going to pitch something else entirely as well

In terms of Canada, I don't necessarily think that Transport America as it's been written about in the past would do a whole lot for Canada, but on the other hand the spirit of the TL seems to suggest that things would be different. On that note my vision of things is basically that with the greater funding available in the US Canada is more aggressive in opening up Federal funding for transport and we get a Trans Canada Highway that looks more like the Interstate system in terms of infrastructure standards along with more urban rail and a stronger VIA system. Specifically the highlights in my head are basically as follows, though I've yet to start nailing down dates or specifics:

• Toronto builds a Queen subway very early after it gets federal funds for at LEAST the Bloor Danforth and maybe even for the original Yonge line (as had been hoped for) and keeps its trolley buses permanently after (among other smaller changes) unifying the system with an Eglinton West route
• Ottawa gets some ICTS/ALRT/Skytrain from the start as well as a partial transitway
• Edmonton doesn't stop building after its initial line (though I think this will still be a smallish system until the 21st century)
• Calgary builds a downtown subway from the start
• Vancouver gets a line to Coquitlem before going across the Fraser and ends up with a steadier expansion program; by the present day we basically have existing Skytrain + Evergreen +UBC (just opened, or maybe being built on the timeline of OTL’s Evergreen project) and maybe SFU gondolas and a downtown streetcar
• Devvy’s HSR system from the Amtrak timeline happens between Ottawa and Montreal (though earlier, probably as a core part of the Mirabel project)
• HSR makes the LRC a western focussed program that saves corridor trains west of Ontario and is more closely related to the TurboTrain
• TurboTrains keep operating through at least the 90s between Ottawa and Toronto after massive rebuilds and upgrades allowing them to be hauled on the HSR line by TGV locomotives
• VIA maintains two transcontinental trains long term, albeit on some sort of alternating day schedule
• GO ALRT go ahead instead of most post Spadina local Toronto projects
• Instead of Scarborough (which gets a subway extension and GO ALRT) ICTS is demoed in Hamilton as originally planned
• Winnipeg's BR T runs at least as far the university from the start and is less tentative
• Present day Ontario is still dealing with a stalled transit program and political indecision, but is much more about whether to keep extending ALRT, extend HSR to Toronto or build suburban LRT’s in places like Hamilton (east/west), Waterloo and Mississauga

Now, this is to some extent a wish list of projects I personally like, and definitely has a lot of wiggle room so I'd very much like to kick around ideas about this, and how to integrate it. Honestly it’s probably too much, and I doubt a finalized TL will complete all the projects, but it is where I’m staring from.

The other thing I'd be interested in taking on, ideally collaboratively (especially in terms of local service and the surface lines, an east/west CTA streetcar (trolleybus might be more reasonable given how and when CTA killed surface rail) subway sounds awesome, but I don't even know where to start on that), would be something focusing on the Chicago interurbans. The abandonment's were a bit early for the timeline of the last Transport American (though not actually PRE bill), but were also tied into highways very closely, and I love the idea of a surviving North Shore and Chicago Aurora and Elgin remaining tied into the L up to the present day. Especially the North Shore seems to have a lot of potential to remain a huge and very unique part of the commuter system, even more of a last vestige of the interurban than OTL's south shore and creates some very interesting scenarios farther ahead in the TL (things like rerouting toward O'Hare, and getting these lines onto new express routes separate from the L). I’d love to work on this, and haven’t seen the specific idea mentioned before, or someone taking on the area, so what do folks think|

As a final thought, I'm going to point to something I wrote in the past about Detroit. https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5733557&postcount=173 was only the first of what I meant to be two posts, and I'd do it very differently today (especially in terms of getting away from the hand waviness of crediting GM for everything), but given that it's written I thought I'd put it out there. The second part was going to focus on Detroit's political deadlock, and end up with the transport highlights being endless delays on a Woodward Subway, an expanded Fairlane Peoplemover linking up to a Dearborn extension of the Michigan streetcar and a suburban compromise eventually leading to (instead of a Woodward subway like the city wants) a single electrified commuter line, running at high frequency with semi local stops, from Pontiac to Ann Arbor with a short riverfront tunnel linking the Michigan Central station to the old SEMTA riverfront station. I’d be willing to rewrite this into a new TL, or hand it off to someone for whatever purposes, but given the proposals out there OTL, my thoughts, and the late streetcar abandonment Detroit seems to have a lot of opportunities to end up completely different from OTL as a result of Transport America

tl;dr
I'd love to do Canada, and have some very definite ideas about Toronto especially, as well as the western rail systems. I'd also love to write or help work on something that invovles saving the Chicago interurbans. Beyond that, I've thought about Detroit in the past, and if no one else wants to do that I could take it on as well (that's getting to be an awful big list of cities for me to cover...) Please go ahead and use whatever I've said about Detroit if someone wants to take it on themselves collaboratively or otherwise.

For Vancouver, I was thinking of having it's Streetcar system survive TTL. (I mean, it was the only city in the Pacific Northwest that had PCC's. Chicago's Streetcar network should survive too, though it will also see considerable cutbacks. And it's funny how you mention the Skytrain technology, because I was also thinking of making that a big fucking deal myself.