urbanSTL

The distance between St. Louis and Chicago is about 280 miles. The goal is to go to a four hour running time. The amount of money being talked about by the Governor of Illinois virtually assures that this will happen. It may come in phases, but there will be reductions in running times.



That 15 minutes might be the time saved when the new signals are cut in between Springfield and Mazonia (about 15 miles south of Joliet).



For the record, the previous best time was just before WW II, when the Alton railroad made the run in 4:55 behind steam and on jointed rail. After the war, the run usually took 5:30.



BTW...a note for The Central Scutinizer. Who paid for and built the airports and the air traffic control system? And who pays most of the cost of maintaining same? Hint: It ain't Southwest or any other airline. It's the taxpayers in many cases or public financing. Better than half of cost of operating the FAA is supported out of general revenues. Airlines have never had the wherewithal to build the massive infrastructure required for airlines to operate and in fact have not been profitable over the years. Warren Buffet says he won't touch airline stocks.



Let's be clear: All forms of transportation are supported in one way or another by all levels of government.



If you are a business person going downtown to downtown, you'll need:



30 min to get to Lambert (ride metrolink or drive and pay to park)

60 min check in

45 min flight

15 min getting out of midway (sure about that?)

30 min to downtown on CTA



That's three hours...if we are on time.

FYI I took the Texas Eagle to Springfield and back today, and it was packed. It's lame that it takes 2 hours to get there. It goes so slow between StL and Alton. You could get 15 min just along that stretch. BTW, you get a great view of downtown from the bridge on the east side. The Arch crossed the Sun on the way back today, and I knew I was home.

^ ^^ Thanks and thanks.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
STL-CHI on Southwest: about 45 minutes. Tack on getting to Lambert 1 hour early, and 15 minutes at Midway to get your luggage, and we'll call it 2 hours. Taxpayer cost: 0.

Correct... but I would say Rail is a better long term investment. If oil prices go to $140 a barrel or more... air travel will be unaffordable for most people.



Plus, how much tax payer money is spent on the FAA? Dont they need $20 billion just to upgrade their existing equipment to enable GPS tracking? And dont get me started on the TSA...

^ Didn't the taxpayers just spend over $1B for airport improvements though?

I believe the new runway was paid for by bonds that are being paid off with Airport Revenues from landing fees, ticket fees, etc. The aiport hopes to issue another $125 million in bonds for terminal improvements. In that regards, a traveller has been paying for the new runway.



However, as noted on previous posts. TSA is paid by the federal government, our tax dollars, just as a portion of FAA is funded with general revenues, once again tax dollars. The aiport has also been seeking stimulus funds for taxiway and security improvements, once again tax dollars. Don't forget the infrascture that leads in and out of the airport since it.



Personally, I believe transportation planning needs to become interconnected between the different modes. Assuming that they are stand alone and independently being funded by user fees is a bad assumption. The Highway fund alone will need another 8-10 billion dollars from the general revenue to make up a tax gas shortfall.

One thing that is happening is that policymakers in Washington are moving toward a mode neutral federal transportation policy, whereby each mode competes for funds equally. Under this sytem, the 80/20 federal/state match will apply to all modes, instead of for one mode, but not another. Projects will be judged on such criteria as economic benefits, environmental and land use concerns, energy efficiency and so on. Uncle Sam will be out of the business of promoting one mode over another.



Right now, each mode has funding "silos", each with differing levels of funding and cost sharing formulas. Some such as highways and aviation have dedicated trust funds. They can count of a steady stream of money to push their projects along. Others (Amtrak) rely entirely on the whims of Congress thru the appropriation general funds, a much more iffy proposition. In addition, federal policy promoted more highways and airports, while throttling intercity rail passenger service and transit, which were treated like unwanted stepchildren.



It doesn't take a genius to see why we have highways everywhere and so little train service. This imbalance has persisted for better than 50 years, making us totally dependent on the auto and foriegn oil. Policy makers are finally starting to wake up to the consequences of past policies.

Not sure if this is the right thread.



Midwest, Calif. front runners for $8B in rail cash

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a strong proponent of the Midwest network, said he was encouraged by the Wednesday release, in part because of the emphasis on regional cooperation.



"Clearly we were benefited by the criteria that were laid out today," Nixon said. "We are not the caboose on this train."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 7300.story

Comparing this train to a flight on Southwest is pointless. Commercial air travel as a mass-market activity is done. The airlines can barely stay in business as it is, and their overhead isn't getting any cheaper, ever again. If Americans still want to be able to move reasonably affordably from place to place in the future, rail is the only intelligent investment.

^ True.



And the NY Times had a graphic in their Sunday magazine showing a train ticket from LA to SFO being $55 while gas for a car being $50 - as if there are no other costs to an individual than gas.

jasontoon wrote:Comparing this train to a flight on Southwest is pointless. Commercial air travel as a mass-market activity is done.

Tell that to Boeing and Airbus. Wrong-o! The airline industry will evolve and perhaps consolidate a bit. But it's not going anywhere...



- Boeing Current Market Outlook: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/

- Airbus Global Market Forecast: http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/gmf/

Grover wrote:And the NY Times had a graphic in their Sunday magazine showing a train ticket from LA to SFO being $55 while gas for a car being $50 - as if there are no other costs to an individual than gas.

Agreed. If you take the train, you must pay for parking at the station which can be quite expensive. And it's not as if car insurance and maintenance costs go away whether you take the train or not. In the end, the consumer must decide what is right for them. There is no right or wrong answer...

If the price is about the same, and the time it takes to get from home in St. Louis to downtown Chicago, say, is about the same, I think almost anyone would prefer to take a train. Seats are bigger, you can walk around during the trip, your luggage will arrive since it is with you, no invasive security, there is something to see outside, it is smoother, you can eat in dining or snack car, you can call people on your cell phone while in transit, you can get on the internet with a phone card, ...

True, if you take the train to your destination city you may have to park your car at the station and pay for parking.



However, if you drive to the destination city you will likely have to pay multiple parking charges while in said city.

Well, what if you need the use of a car while in Chicago? For these people, it may make sense to drive a car.

If the price is about the same, and the time it takes to get from home in St. Louis to downtown Chicago, say, is about the same, I think almost anyone would prefer to take a train. Seats are bigger, you can walk around during the trip, your luggage will arrive since it is with you, no invasive security, there is something to see outside, it is smoother, you can eat in dining or snack car, you can call people on your cell phone while in transit, you can get on the internet with a phone card, ...

I agree.



In Europe, Air France-KLM actually partner with the Dutch and French railways, operating the high-speed Thalys train between Amsterdam and Paris. When you buy a ticket on KLM from, for instance, JFK to CDG(Paris) with a layover in AMS(Amsterdam) you will regularly not fly the last leg between AMS and CDG but take the high speed train on your airline ticket. Much of the airline commuting between the two cities (and Brussels) has been replaced by this train.



I have to reiterate that this would be more challenging to accomplish profitably here because of the lower population density and longer distances.

My job takes me back and forth quite a bit between KC and St. Louis. I've figured that a round trip driving costs me about $300 if you include gas, wear and tear, taxes on a car, insurance, etc. It takes me right at 4 hours to drive.



A flight on Southwest costs about $150 round trip. It takes 45 minutes, but KC's airport is practically in Iowa and a complete waste of time unless someone picks me up (inconvenient to others). Total time including check in, security, and driving time to/from airports is 4 hours.



A train ticket costs about $50 round trip. My average travel time on Amtrack is about 6 hours, not including the 20 minute total drive time to/from my house in STL.



The main drawback in the train option continues to be lack of good transportation while in KC. I know I could take the bus, but my meetings are booked pretty solid and this would extend my stay at least one more day; which I'm not willing to do in most cases.



In conclusion, if I was to rank these three options, it would look like this:



1) Car (convenience over cost)

2) Train (cheapest and most relaxing)

3) Airplane (pain in the ass in my opinion)



If our major metro areas had even better public transit and if Amtrak could get me there in 4.5 to 5 hours, I'd take the train every time. I would be willing to rent a car while I'm there to make this happen as well. It would still be cheaper for my company.



Just my experience.

innov8ion wrote:

jasontoon wrote:Comparing this train to a flight on Southwest is pointless. Commercial air travel as a mass-market activity is done.

Tell that to Boeing and Airbus. Wrong-o! The airline industry will evolve and perhaps consolidate a bit. But it's not going anywhere...



- Boeing Current Market Outlook: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/

- Airbus Global Market Forecast: http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/gmf/

I'll try again. Commercial air travel as a mass-market activity is done.



Will airplanes disappear? No. Will some aerospace companies stay in business? Yes.



But the days of the $35 hop to Chicago or the $300 London special are numbered. Consumer air travel is barely tenable as it is. Oil isn't getting any cheaper, minor fluctuations aside. There's pretty much no more fat to cut in terms of labor or amenities. And the day of the battery-powered, robot-staffed 747 is, to put it mildly, some ways off.



The airline industry will "evolve" back to something more like what it was in, say, 1950: an expensive convenience for travelers with more money than time. Unless, of course, you're sitting on another Ghawar or Cantarell oil field and not telling anybody about it.

It's interesting that you have more insight on this topic than the analysts that cover these multi-billion dollar companies and those companies themselves. Kudos! One would think that someone so sure of themselves would leverage their entire portfolio in derivatives to exploit this theory. They could be the next George Soros if they got in early! But shhhhh, they should be careful not to let these companies know what they're doing. The affected companies might exit the market early or adapt to a changing environment. Money talks, bs walks...



I'll let you in on a little secret. Man likes to create scarcity, artificially propping up price. You do know that rubies are more rare than diamonds, right? Diamonds are only more valuable because the people marketing them created artificial scarcity and had a kickass marketing campaign. Why do men buy women diamond rings? The dowry has been replaced by the diamond...



There is no real energy shortage. The folks with oil need us. We can't let each other down without creating more conflict.

innov8ion wrote:It's interesting that you have more insight on this topic than the analysts that cover these multi-billion dollar companies and those companies themselves. Kudos! One would think that someone so sure of themselves would leverage their entire portfolio in derivatives to exploit this theory. They could be the next George Soros if they got in early! But shhhhh, they should be careful not to let these companies know what they're doing. The affected companies might exit the market early or adapt to a changing environment. Money talks, bs walks...



I'll let you in on a little secret. Man likes to create scarcity, artificially propping up price. You do know that rubies are more rare than diamonds, right? Diamonds are only more valuable because the people marketing them created artificial scarcity and had a kickass marketing campaign. Why do men buy women diamond rings? The dowry has been replaced by the diamond...



There is no real energy shortage. The amount of energy in the universe remains constant -- it just moves from one form to another. The folks with oil need us. We can't let each other down without creating more conflict. So it has been written.

^Also, trains that go fast. Discuss.

^ You're quick to poke fun, but will you put your money where your mouth is? I'm not the one with the ludicrous idea that flying demand will drop to 1950's level. Seriously now...



Take a look at the forecast: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/pd ... o_2028.pdf. It takes these little energy baubles into consideration as well. You know, complex models.



But if one is content to think they know more, that's fine. I trust the people that have a lot to lose. They're far more accurate than some guy off the street with a random theory. What you have, would you just give it all away?

innov8ion wrote:^ You're quick to poke fun, but will you put your money where your mouth is? I'm not the one with the ludicrous idea that flying demand will drop to 1950's level. Seriously now...

Just trying to keep the to the topic at hand. Bring up this stuff in a different thread if you feel it to be that important.

malone wrote:My job takes me back and forth quite a bit between KC and St. Louis. I've figured that a round trip driving costs me about $300 if you include gas, wear and tear, taxes on a car, insurance, etc. It takes me right at 4 hours to drive.



A flight on Southwest costs about $150 round trip. It takes 45 minutes, but KC's airport is practically in Iowa and a complete waste of time unless someone picks me up (inconvenient to others). Total time including check in, security, and driving time to/from airports is 4 hours.



A train ticket costs about $50 round trip. My average travel time on Amtrack is about 6 hours, not including the 20 minute total drive time to/from my house in STL.



The main drawback in the train option continues to be lack of good transportation while in KC. I know I could take the bus, but my meetings are booked pretty solid and this would extend my stay at least one more day; which I'm not willing to do in most cases.



In conclusion, if I was to rank these three options, it would look like this:



1) Car (convenience over cost)

2) Train (cheapest and most relaxing)

3) Airplane (pain in the ass in my opinion)



If our major metro areas had even better public transit and if Amtrak could get me there in 4.5 to 5 hours, I'd take the train every time. I would be willing to rent a car while I'm there to make this happen as well. It would still be cheaper for my company.



Just my experience.

Now you're getting to the nub of the problem. The way things curently are, there really aren't any good choices. People drive because they only factor in the cost of gas and more importantly, because there are no truly workable alternatives. We are talking about two major corridors in Chicago-St. Louis and St. Louis-Kansas City and even here, you are steered toward driving.



Malone has it right. If we had decent---not even really high speed---train service, that was reasonably fast and convenient, with departures throughout the day, ridership would zoom. Even more would ride if the states and the feds made a concerted effort to find ways for people to get about at their destinations without having to rent a car. You should be able to catch a bus or light rail train, walk, rent a bike or a time-share car.



There are encouraging signs that this is about to happen, but it will take years to develop a real alternative to drive/fly. Luckily, one of the first candidates will be St. Louis-Chicago. We already have good public transit at each end, so getting to your final destination isn't as much of a problem as elsewhere.



One other thing. A couple of posts talked about endpoint-to-endpoint comparisons for air vs. train. Keep in mind that the vast majority of travelers drive, thus it's the car that's the competitor more so than the airlines. If a train service can average 60 mph and has muliple frequencies, it ususally does quite well. Look at California's Capitol Corridor. Trains there are not fast, but there are very frequent and are mobbed with riders. Why? Because the trains fit traveler's needs.



Also, there are a lot of intermediate points with poor or nonexistant air service. The train will capture a lot of riders at these cities as well. There is already a big market from Bloomingon/Normal to Chicago, serving college students traveling to Chi-town.



If we go to ten daily St. Louis-Chicago round trips with a 4 to 4-1/2 hr running time, ridership will skyrocket. Add to that the easy connections to Metrolink in St. Louis and Metra/CTA/PACE in Chicago (BTW, I'd rather NOT have a car there. It's a big hassle) and travelers will find public transportation worth traveling. They'll ride.