I thought the St. Louis-Chicago route was already one of EIGHT corridors in the country that has been proposed to get the "high speed" rail. St. Louis would, ideally, make the most sense, being so centrally located in the US.
If Missouri officials could show any foresight, they might notice that sending a high speed rail line from STL to KC, and maybe STL to Springfield might kick start a federal program around the country, and then St. Louis could make a case for being the hub of the whole thing due to it's north/south/east/west location. Before the Feds could get around to it, we could work with Illinois to do a STL to Chicago line. But then we've all seen how MO officials play with IL officials (see: Mississippi River Bridge).
Gary Kreie wrote:
So my family rated Amtrak a fun and enjoyable experience.
I rate the experience cool.
That makes me feel better... My father in law just booked a trip all of us to go from StL to Kansas City next month. I was a little hesitant to take the train, considering how much longer it takes as opposed to driving, but after reading your post, I am looking forward to it. We are also taking our 4 year old daughter, and she's excited about taking a train trip.
- 46
Hi everyone...
I posted a while back and infrequently since, but I am a former resident (Collinsville) and always interested in St. Louis doings. I am VERY interested in rail service and am involved with All Aboard Ohio (www.allaboardohio.org) here.
Let me first say you should look at what you have that is your favor:
1) You have a base of service to build on. This is crucially important. Here in Ohio, we do not have this base and that makes any advocacy for added service much more difficult. It's an abstract idea.
You have a core base of riders who can be leafleted or otherwise approached for their support. What if legislators suddenly started to hear from hundreds of passengers and others? I'd bet there would be a different outcome and these ridiculous funding battles would be a thing of the past.
2) You have a new intermodal hub under construction in St. Louis. Who was behind that? Why not approach them for support? Likewise, you also have some important groups like Citizens for Modern Transit and the Midwest High Speed Rail Association to enlist. Why not begin a dialog with Tom Shrout or Rick Harnish and ask what they did to get Metrolink running or the new Illinois trains started?
3) Here is an underlying point: Be positive and get out there. Make things happen. Those legislators out there don't get it because they don't know any better. All they know now is what highway contractors tell them. Go to them with a simple request: We want more trains! Why? You know all the arguments.
4) Bring advocates together and brainstorm what it is you want. Look for creative solutions, come up with a plan of action and go for it!
Hope you don't mind my mouthing off, but I have been involved with this issue for a long time and I can see that will take a lot of persistence to make things happen.
Good luck!
PS: Do whatever it takes to get S.294 and HR passed at the federal level. Without this, there is NO federal parter for states to work with!
I posted a while back and infrequently since, but I am a former resident (Collinsville) and always interested in St. Louis doings. I am VERY interested in rail service and am involved with All Aboard Ohio (www.allaboardohio.org) here.
Let me first say you should look at what you have that is your favor:
1) You have a base of service to build on. This is crucially important. Here in Ohio, we do not have this base and that makes any advocacy for added service much more difficult. It's an abstract idea.
You have a core base of riders who can be leafleted or otherwise approached for their support. What if legislators suddenly started to hear from hundreds of passengers and others? I'd bet there would be a different outcome and these ridiculous funding battles would be a thing of the past.
2) You have a new intermodal hub under construction in St. Louis. Who was behind that? Why not approach them for support? Likewise, you also have some important groups like Citizens for Modern Transit and the Midwest High Speed Rail Association to enlist. Why not begin a dialog with Tom Shrout or Rick Harnish and ask what they did to get Metrolink running or the new Illinois trains started?
3) Here is an underlying point: Be positive and get out there. Make things happen. Those legislators out there don't get it because they don't know any better. All they know now is what highway contractors tell them. Go to them with a simple request: We want more trains! Why? You know all the arguments.
4) Bring advocates together and brainstorm what it is you want. Look for creative solutions, come up with a plan of action and go for it!
Hope you don't mind my mouthing off, but I have been involved with this issue for a long time and I can see that will take a lot of persistence to make things happen.
Good luck!
PS: Do whatever it takes to get S.294 and HR passed at the federal level. Without this, there is NO federal parter for states to work with!
jondk wrote:Gary Kreie wrote:
So my family rated Amtrak a fun and enjoyable experience.
I rate the experience cool.
That makes me feel better... My father in law just booked a trip all of us to go from StL to Kansas City next month. I was a little hesitant to take the train, considering how much longer it takes as opposed to driving, but after reading your post, I am looking forward to it. We are also taking our 4 year old daughter, and she's excited about taking a train trip.
Thats why we take the train when we go to Chicago. When we go in the car, it's 5 hours of "Are we there yet, I need to go to the bathroom" etc. When we go on the train, I take the kids to the lounge car and we play cards and drink soda, and don't want to kill each other.
Plus, if you check the weekly specials, sometimes the fares are almost cheaper than in costs in gas to drive.
What happened with the sort-of high-speed rail upgrade between Chicago and St. Louis that was, I thought, being studied and had received some funding a few years ago? Is this still going to happen at some point or was it DOA?
^ Last I heard, they were having serious trouble with the new signaling system needed for high speed travel. Of course, that was almost 2 year ago.
Unless I am mistaken Illinois has completed (or is nearing completion) of the upgrade of the tracks to facilitate the faster trains. Unfortunately the ride from Alton to STL will never really improve due to the high freight volumes and Missouri's not uprading their tracks. This was discussed somewhere else in depth on the forum (don't have time to look for it right now).
My mother-in-law and my daughter (on my recommendation) took Amtrak to Chicago last weekend to visit my other daughter. They won't be doing it again anytime soon. They had the 8:30 train, didn't leave till 10:30, then actually lost time on the way to Chicago, getting in after 5 for a 2:14 scheduled arrival. They said they stopped en route in the middle of nowhere at least 3 times.
The trip back was roughly on time, about 10 minutes late, I think.
Nonetheless, if you're going for a weekend and you're liable to lose 2-3 hours of it from delays, it's not exactly a finely tuned machine. I know the Missouri service is an utter farce, but I wonder how on-time the STL-CHI run averages.
The trip back was roughly on time, about 10 minutes late, I think.
Nonetheless, if you're going for a weekend and you're liable to lose 2-3 hours of it from delays, it's not exactly a finely tuned machine. I know the Missouri service is an utter farce, but I wonder how on-time the STL-CHI run averages.
It has been on time the times I have traveled to Chicago. Also the one time I was taking a friend of mine, who claims that it never leaves on time, to the station it must have left absolutly on the dot. Serves him right for challenging The Great Amtrak.
My mother takes the STL-CHI train often and rarely has problems. It is her preferred method. But, there have been times when she complained about the train arriving in Chicago late.
Subsequent to posting I found this note on the Amtrak website:
At least they posted this note -- but I have no evidence that they told my mother-in-law when she reserved that her train (on August 3) was liable to such delays.
Service Alert: Texas Eagle Trains 21/421 and 22/422 - Major Service Delays
August 3 - October 5, 2007
Please be advised that passengers traveling on Texas Eagle Trains 21/421 and 22/422 may experience significant delays of approximately two to six hours due to certain operating conditions including speed restrictions and heavy freight congestion.
Passengers are encouraged to plan for the possibility of a delay and visit Amtrak.com or call 1-800-USA-RAIL on the day of departure for the most up-to-date arrival and departure times. We appreciate your patience and apologize for any inconvenience you may experience.
At least they posted this note -- but I have no evidence that they told my mother-in-law when she reserved that her train (on August 3) was liable to such delays.
^Yes, they should let people know. What if they have a connection in Chicago?
In my personal experience going to Chicago almost always is on time, and coming back to STL is on average an hour late.
- 2,005
On right track, Amtrak ridership soars in Illinois
By Terry Hillig
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
08/23/2007
Train service between St. Louis and Chicago might just be a hit with travelers.
Passenger train ridership in the St. Louis-Chicago corridor is up more than 40 percent since October, when Amtrak added two trains to the three that already offered daily round-trip service.
Amtrak also added one train each to its Chicago-Quincy and Chicago-Carbondale corridors, and those routes also have seen big ridership gains. The expanded service was made possible when the Illinois Legislature almost doubled the state's Amtrak funding to $24 million.
"The additional frequencies give passengers more opportunities to ride," Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said. Before the trains were added, he said, passengers were sometimes turned away.
Link to Article
By Terry Hillig
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
08/23/2007
Train service between St. Louis and Chicago might just be a hit with travelers.
Passenger train ridership in the St. Louis-Chicago corridor is up more than 40 percent since October, when Amtrak added two trains to the three that already offered daily round-trip service.
Amtrak also added one train each to its Chicago-Quincy and Chicago-Carbondale corridors, and those routes also have seen big ridership gains. The expanded service was made possible when the Illinois Legislature almost doubled the state's Amtrak funding to $24 million.
"The additional frequencies give passengers more opportunities to ride," Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said. Before the trains were added, he said, passengers were sometimes turned away.
Link to Article
the illinois legislature has been terrific for amtrak service. anyone have any insight, generally, into why the missouri legislature has been neither supportive nor friendly on this issue? seems to me routes such as stl - springfield, stl - carbondale, stl - cincy (to allow westward-bound passangers to avoid going through chicago), and stl - memphis (not to mention greater than twice daily service between stl and kc and track improvements) would be no brainers. i've never understood why the legislature has failed to support rail service.
the rcga or another similar body should really consider funding an economic-impact study on the benefits of rail travel to the st. louis, greater st. louis, and missouri economies. my strong suspicion is that the state has a lot to gain economically from rail travel given its prime location in the middle of the country and its tremendous rail infastrucutre. if not the rcga, citizens for modern transit should consider raising funds for such a study.
the rcga or another similar body should really consider funding an economic-impact study on the benefits of rail travel to the st. louis, greater st. louis, and missouri economies. my strong suspicion is that the state has a lot to gain economically from rail travel given its prime location in the middle of the country and its tremendous rail infastrucutre. if not the rcga, citizens for modern transit should consider raising funds for such a study.
- 2,093
sda wrote:the illinois legislature has been terrific for amtrak service. anyone have any insight, generally, into why the missouri legislature has been neither supportive nor friendly on this issue?
because the MO legislature has historically been dominated by outstate politicians of both parties who not only don't care about the KC and St. Louis, but go out of their way to diss the cities.
And while Amtrak service would benefit small towns in rural areas of the state, it's still the idea that it would all be "city people" on them thar trains.
I would expect that the funding Amtrak gets from Illinois is tied to their Democratic leanings, while Missouri's reluctance to fund is tied to its conservative bent. I think that, in general, conservatives don't agree with financing Amtrak's operations arguing that if the market actually supported passenger rail, then it would be able to pay for itself. My impression.
southsidepride wrote:sda wrote:the illinois legislature has been terrific for amtrak service. anyone have any insight, generally, into why the missouri legislature has been neither supportive nor friendly on this issue?
because the MO legislature has historically been dominated by outstate politicians of both parties who not only don't care about the KC and St. Louis, but go out of their way to diss the cities.
And while Amtrak service would benefit small towns in rural areas of the state, it's still the idea that it would all be "city people" on them thar trains.
right, but my point is that a sales pitch to those politicans can and should be made, particularly if it can be shown via an economic-impact study how an stl - springfield route, e.g., would benefit their communities econmically.
TGE-ATW wrote:I would expect that the funding Amtrak gets from Illinois is tied to their Democratic leanings, while Missouri's reluctance to fund is tied to its conservative bent. I think that, in general, conservatives don't agree with financing Amtrak's operations arguing that if the market actually supported passenger rail, then it would be able to pay for itself. My impression.
perhaps historically that's been true, but especially with the gop's recent emphasis on reducing oil consumption, i would think that there'd be a renewed openness to supporting rail service (this is certainly borne out, to some degree at least, by the federal government's recent efforts to proivde amtrak with increased funding).
more than that though, this isn't a republican or democratic issue -- it's an economic issue. just because you are a republican does not at all mean that you don't support government funding or incenting of projects that the market won't support, particularly when that funding (or those incentives) is shown to have a net benefit on the missouri economy.
The Missouri legislature seems pretty much opposed to any significant investment in anything, which illustrates this state's philosophy: less government, less taxes.
- 1,610
In the real world of a political economy, public infrastructure supports, if not catalyzes more, private investment. Hence, more investment by the public sector leads to more tax base across the private sector. Thus, the Missourah mentality will ironically place an increased burden of minimal government services and low-level facilities on limited taxpayers.
- 362
southslider wrote:In the real world of a political economy, public infrastructure supports, if not catalyzes more, private investment. Hence, more investment by the public sector leads to more tax base across the private sector. Thus, the Missourah mentality will ironically place an increased burden of minimal government services and low-level facilities on limited taxpayers.
Right, there is a reason Chicago is booming. It has a lot of advantages, but one of the biggest is that it is in Illinois and not in a state like Missouri. Public infrastructure funds have produced several iconic places in Chicago that are now surrounded by tall buildings, such as the Chicago River. Paying for things like rail transit have long term benefits, whether or not a 5 year impact study say so. People in Illinois get this concept ... people in Missouri ...
Just because Democrats are in office does not mean you have anti-business people in office. Illinois, even though it has higher taxes, is actually more pro-business than many other places, including Missouri. Conservatives are sometimes conservative to be conservative and regard spending any money as wasteful. It is just not the case. When a state spends money, it is an investment in its people, who work hard, and then generate additional revenue. Spending additional money on Amtrack will allow more citizens, including those non-well to do citizens to travel more between StL and KC/Springfield. When they do, they spend money not just on the ticket, but at restaurants, on hotels, etc...
Seems simple, but ...
southslider wrote:In the real world of a political economy, public infrastructure supports, if not catalyzes more, private investment. Hence, more investment by the public sector leads to more tax base across the private sector.
i'd put it differently -- sound investments in public infrastructure support, if not catalyze, private investment. the key is convincing the outstate legislators that investing in rail transit is a sound investment, economically, and moreover that rail transit is a smart idea (i.e., that it would generate more tax revenue than other investments, infastructure and otherwise).
it seems to me the best way to go about this would be to commission an economic-impact study that includes a calculation of the economic impact of every dollar spent on rail transit, but i'd love to hear any other suggestions.
crbswiss wrote:Unless I am mistaken Illinois has completed (or is nearing completion) of the upgrade of the tracks to facilitate the faster trains. Unfortunately the ride from Alton to STL will never really improve due to the high freight volumes and Missouri's not uprading their tracks. This was discussed somewhere else in depth on the forum (don't have time to look for it right now).
Well, if this is true they don't seem to have done a very good job on the tracks. It is still a pretty rough ride. The mid speed trains in Europe are smooth as glass in comparison. You could balance champagne glasses in their cars. Amtrak, on the other hand, was like riding on an airplane with severe air turbulence the entire trip. They don't seem to have gotten rid of many of the crossings either, which I thought was part of the plan. No complaints about Amtrak, though. The train was on time with only a few brief unscheduled stops.