Eastsidewillie wrote:
Anyhow, getting back to my reason for writing all this: St. Louis needs to do wahtever it can to reposition itself as not only an important gateway for air travel, but for rail as well. If trains came back, a lot of new jobs could be created.
Very interesting post.
The key, it seems to me, is upgrading both regional and national rail infrastructure to make high-speed rail travel a practical alternative, in terms of travel time, to air travel. Once this occurs, St. Louis could leverage both its central location and existing track placement and emerge as the gateway you describe, beyond what the Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative currently proposes.
Anyone have any insight on how best to go about making this happen? Best approached at the federal or state level? Or both?
I would say that the only way something like this happens is with a huge influx of federal dollars. I don't see a state investing a significant amount in rail without knowing what adjacent states will be doing (if they have the money). Federal money would organize this effort across state lines.
That's true. I only bring it up for background. States are unlikely to do this. However, interstate commerce is a federal responsibility and members of Congress should be prompted to work on issues such as this.
I think that, as I said before, if we can give the two major corridors serving St. Louis a boost, many other good things could happen. We should be mindful of St. Louis's historical role and keep that in mind when we start putting together wish lists.
To be sure, the long distance stuff is a long way off. Amtrak is strapped and is running an equipment fleet that is older now than when it started in 1971 with hand-me-downs from the freight railroads. We need an order for hundreds of new cars and hopefully, once cars start rolling off the assembly line, we can order more.
Amtrak is making rumblings about ordering new equipment, but Congress will have to provide funding and it probably won't happen until after Dubya is out of office. He'd probably try to veto anything that would help Amtrak.
Additional: Local leaders should be approached to get them to start thinking about this. They, in turn, can start making contacts with federal legislators.
Good mention of St. Louis-Chicago rider increases. But it really, REALLY, kills me to have to read/hear how Amtrak loses money each year and 'only' exists with 'government handouts'. Just once, ONCE, I'd like to read: "Our Interstate highway system lost billions of dollars this year. It's never pays for itself, never will and only exists because of government handouts."
Even though I pass through the area frequently, I have no idea where the Amtrak station is now or how to get there. I'm thinking of taking the train to KC next month. Anyone know where to board the train in downtown?
The current Amtrak station is in a small concrete block building adjacet to the south side of the I-64 overpass just south of the Scott Trade Center. You can take the Metrolik, get off at the Kiel Center Stop and walk right over. Once the new multi-modal station is complete next year (directly west of the Metrolink stop) this building will be the maintenance shed for Amtrak.
Good mention of St. Louis-Chicago rider increases. But it really, REALLY, kills me to have to read/hear how Amtrak loses money each year and 'only' exists with 'government handouts'. Just once, ONCE, I'd like to read: "Our Interstate highway system lost billions of dollars this year. It's never pays for itself, never will and only exists because of government handouts."
Grover, there are a couple things to consider here:
1. Train service along the Northeast Corridor (Washington to Boston through Baltimore, Philly, and NYC) does "pay for itself." The problem is that the densities, frequencies, and on time consistency on lines other than the NEC do not support currently provided rail service. It is the long distance rail lines that loose money.
2. While it is impossible to know whether the interstate highway system would make or loose money, it is important to note that toll road systems like the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (operator of the NJ Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway) does make money each year. Enough to set aside funds for future maintenance and improvements and kick some funding back to the State of New Jersey for other non-tollway highway improvements. So, while not all interstates would pay for themselves, much like the rail system, some corridors and routes would.
I'd like to chime in on this "long-distance-trains-lose-money" stuff. First off, the ONLY place where the feds have spent real money is in the Northeast Corridor. The same is not true of any other service, other than state supported operations. You get what you pay for.
In addition, the Northeast Corridor will require a huge capital investment to keep the current service running and add new trains. Ancient tunnels at Baltimore have to be replaced at a cost of at least $3 billion. The 1930's catenary wires have to be replaced with a more modern system to allow higher speeds. All of these can and should be done, but I mention them because even tho the NEC might make an operating profit, it has huge capital costs, which must be accounted for.
Most long distance routes only operate once daily and that means that all too often the schedules don't fit the needs of the traveling public. Furthermore, they operate on freight railroad trackage and are subject to the caprice of the railroad dispatcher, unlike the Northeast, where Amtrak runs the show.
LDT's are under continual attack from right wing budget slashers who ignore vast subsidies for competing modes. The result is a capital-starved operation using old equipment, running on a skeletal "system" once a day or less.
And yet, these trains are packed. Amtrak carries 47% of its riders on these trains and yet, does not have the equipment to add to meet current demand. They are also the only intercity passenger service to 25 states. Just imagine what sort of ridership we'd have if we had several trains a day on these routes!
Amtrak spends about $600 million annually on operations, of which about $200 million is spent to run 15 LDT's. So these trains account for about a third of operating costs, yet carry almost half of Amtrak's riders, despite being a poor second cousin to the Northeast Corridor. I'd say that's a pretty good performance.
The media is a contibutor to these misconceptions about Amtrak and long distance trains, by continually characterizing Amtrak as "money-losing", "unprofitable", with "management problems", running "half-empty long distance trains." Don't be taken in. AP in particular is really bad. They seem to preface every article with the above tag lines, when the truth is quite different. Makes me wonder if they have a conservative viewpoint that is skewing their objectivity.
Much is made of the "subsidy" Amtrak "enjoys." We spend more on highways each year than we have on Amtrak for its entire 36 year existence. That suggests a seriously skewed set of priorities on the part of successive Administrations, the Bush Admin. being the latest and worst.
Sorry this so lengthy. Just something I had to get off my chest.
Here's more on long distance trains from the Midwest High Speed Rail Association:
In Fiscal year 2000, 52% of Amtrak's PASSENGER MILES (one passenger carried one mile) was handled by 16 long distance trains. These trains averaged 181 passenger miles per train mile (PM/TM), vs. 178 PM/TM for the Metroliners in the Northeast Corridor and 89 PM/TM for Midwestern short hauls.
Thus, in terms absolute numbers, the NEC carried about 11 million passengers vs. about 3 million long haul riders, but in terms of the standard industry measure, the long distance trains carried the larger share.
at the birpartisan agreement that more rail expansion is sorely needed.
this part cracked me up though
bprop wrote:[
The White House has threatened a veto, saying the bill doesn't hold Amtrak accountable for its spending. But similar legislation has passed the Senate, also with enough support to override a veto.
Hundreds of billions wasted in Iraq and he's going to lecture Amtrak?
at the birpartisan agreement that more rail expansion is sorely needed.
this part cracked me up though
bprop wrote:[
The White House has threatened a veto, saying the bill doesn't hold Amtrak accountable for its spending. But similar legislation has passed the Senate, also with enough support to override a veto.
Hundreds of billions wasted in Iraq and he's going to lecture Amtrak?
Jan. 20 can't come soon enough!
AMEN
If the money had been put into Amtrak instead of Iraq...
at the birpartisan agreement that more rail expansion is sorely needed.
this part cracked me up though
bprop wrote:[
The White House has threatened a veto, saying the bill doesn't hold Amtrak accountable for its spending. But similar legislation has passed the Senate, also with enough support to override a veto.
Hundreds of billions wasted in Iraq and he's going to lecture Amtrak?
Jan. 20 can't come soon enough!
The whole 'accountability' thing is such a smokescreen. Not that accountability is unimportant -- it is -- but because it's vague and subjective enough, and it ruffles taxpayers' feathers enough, without really having substance. Amtrak may make some bad decisions, but no matter how much they change or adapt, there will never be a time when the "accountable" talking point won't work in a politician's favor to stop Amtrak funding.
The same is true of Metro. Even before Salci's bad CC performance, there's always enough pent up taxpayer outrage that the "Metro must be held accountable" bleating will bring them to the polls against Metro.
The most frustrating part is how rare it is that federal and state DOTs (In our case, MODO"T") are "held accountable", yet the hole we're throwing money down is far larger and more wasteful than transit.
^ I don't know about that. The fact that MODOT's last requested tax increase for transportation failed seemed to send a pretty clear message that most Missourians think MODOT is wasteful. The problem is that the politicians aren't willing to publicly lambaste MODOT in the same way they will with Metro and Amtrak.
I'm thinking back to the bills that e.g. earmarked gas taxes for new road construction (the "Stop the Diversion" one, sponsored by construction and trucking representatives). Bigger, wider, faster!
brickandmortar wrote:^I think you'll have a hard time finding anything regarding the resounding defeat of Prop B on MoDOT's site.
JMedwick posted a link to MoDOT that showed just that. I was just saying that there have been other bills passed more recently that do not appear there.
If you could get to Chicago by train in less than four hours, would you do it – rather than drive or fly?
The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act passed by Congress last week includes a plan to build 3,000 miles of high-speed track in nine states, and buy comfortable, fast (110 mph) trains to travel on them. The states affected, including Missouri, Illinois and Iowa, will need to match 20 percent of the estimated $7.7 billion cost.
Will a 110 mph train get from downtown St. Louis to downtown Chicago in under 4 hours? Don't think so, unless it is an express train, and they can upgrade all the track and eliminate all the crossings in and near the respective cities as well. Is that in the plan?
Currently, the city approaches/departures add hours to the total travel time since they can't seem to exceed about 35 mph.
MayorSlay.com wrote:Nothing we are learning about the economy on TV today is likely to make cheap, fast travel less attractive.
Isn't cheap, fast travel always more attractive?
In any case, assuming he meant cheaper, faster travel than auto or airplane, then I would note that oil dropped below $90 a barrel today. But you are right, you aren't going to learn about that on TV, at least not until after the election.
It is not the far off to have 110 mph tran service between Chicago and Stl for the majority of the route. Already their is stretches where 90 mph is allowed. The Federal Railroad Administration recently give two grants for Positive Train Control implementation (GPS tracks train movements and overrides the operator if seperate trains are on a collision course). A big plus and all the crossings on the 90 mph stretch have four way gates (you can't go around them).
The question is if Chicago and the Feds will put some serious money into the stretch of rail from Union Station to Joliet, IL. Which gets me work up when I think all the money we wasted on the rebate check last spring. The $360 billion stimulus bill could have gone a long way to infrastructure and future economic development.
Well, YOU get the picture, I'm sure 
