Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Thanks for the info and the link. It sounds like a mess, although Rick Harnish seemed to think there was a solution (despite being unwilling to go on the record about what it is). If they figure that out, the plan is for travel times of ~4.5 hours right?

Today, the schedule suggests closer to 5.5 hours. He discussed 90 mph max speeds dropping 30 minutes of that time. If a 10 mph faster speed drops 30 minutes, it seems proportional to suggest a 30 mph faster speed would drop 90 minutes - to 4 hours or so.
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/p...ule-032320.pdf

But let's do the math for the best case scenario.....
284 rail miles / 5.5 hours = 51.6 average mph
284 rail miles / average 61.6 mph = 4.6 hours (adding 10 mph to average)
284 rail miles / average 81.6 mph = 3.5 hours (adding 30 mph to average)
Of course the best case scenario is not what you should expect in real life. For instance, the 27 rail miles Alton to St. Louis and the 37 rail miles Joliet to Chicago will not be seeing the higher maximum speeds because those tracks were not rebuilt. Never-the-less, the method of using the existing average speed of the train and increasing it by the difference of the maximum speeds is very, very generous for calculating the elapse times for the faster trains, which is why I usually suggest the best case scenario.

Bing suggests the driving time between Chicago and St. Louis to be 4.15 hours.

The sweet spot for trains and cars o compete with flying is with the train taking less than 3 hours, and with the car taking less than 6.5 hours.
So, in the Chicago to St. L:ouis market, the vast majority share will be taken by cars.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by electricron

Today, the schedule suggests closer to 5.5 hours. He discussed 90 mph max speeds dropping 30 minutes of that time. If a 10 mph faster speed drops 30 minutes, it seems proportional to suggest a 30 mph faster speed would drop 90 minutes - to 4 hours or so.
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/p...ule-032320.pdf

But let's do the math for the best case scenario.....
284 rail miles / 5.5 hours = 51.6 average mph
284 rail miles / average 61.6 mph = 4.6 hours (adding 10 mph to average)
284 rail miles / average 81.6 mph = 3.5 hours (adding 30 mph to average)
Of course the best case scenario is not what you should expect in real life. For instance, the 27 rail miles Alton to St. Louis and the 37 rail miles Joliet to Chicago will not be seeing the higher maximum speeds because those tracks were not rebuilt. Never-the-less, the method of using the existing average speed of the train and increasing it by the difference of the maximum speeds is very, very generous for calculating the elapse times for the faster trains, which is why I usually suggest the best case scenario.

Bing suggests the driving time between Chicago and St. Louis to be 4.15 hours.

The sweet spot for trains and cars o compete with flying is with the train taking less than 3 hours, and with the car taking less than 6.5 hours.
So, in the Chicago to St. L:ouis market, the vast majority share will be taken by cars.

I don't think that drive time is accurate. Every time I've checked during off-peak hours, it's been over 4.5 hours. Google says at 3am it would be at least 4:20, which is obviously not a realistic time for most people to make the drive. The reality is, a big portion of the time you're going to have traffic in at least Chicago which will really push times up. So in my mind, these train times we're talking about are definitely competitive with driving, but not flying.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by electricron

Today, the schedule suggests closer to 5.5 hours. He discussed 90 mph max speeds dropping 30 minutes of that time. If a 10 mph faster speed drops 30 minutes, it seems proportional to suggest a 30 mph faster speed would drop 90 minutes - to 4 hours or so.
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/p...ule-032320.pdf

But let's do the math for the best case scenario.....
284 rail miles / 5.5 hours = 51.6 average mph
284 rail miles / average 61.6 mph = 4.6 hours (adding 10 mph to average)
284 rail miles / average 81.6 mph = 3.5 hours (adding 30 mph to average)
Of course the best case scenario is not what you should expect in real life. For instance, the 27 rail miles Alton to St. Louis and the 37 rail miles Joliet to Chicago will not be seeing the higher maximum speeds because those tracks were not rebuilt. Never-the-less, the method of using the existing average speed of the train and increasing it by the difference of the maximum speeds is very, very generous for calculating the elapse times for the faster trains, which is why I usually suggest the best case scenario.

Bing suggests the driving time between Chicago and St. Louis to be 4.15 hours.

The sweet spot for trains and cars o compete with flying is with the train taking less than 3 hours, and with the car taking less than 6.5 hours.
So, in the Chicago to St. L:ouis market, the vast majority share will be taken by cars.

Nope nope nopers

Assuming a 75mph speed, moderate expected traffic in the Chicago and Metro East metros and at least one or two ubiquitous interstate construction zones, McCormick Place to the Gateway Arch is firmly 5.5 hours plus all day every day. Plus remember the human body typically has a difficult time holding a bladder for 5.5 hours so there is realistically a 15-30 minute rest break built into a drive there somewhere that brings it closer to 6 hours.

[ardecila]

IMO the CHI-STL corridor should be extended with a "tail" to serve West County, either to Kirkwood or to a new park-n-ride lot outside of I-270 (Transpo Museum site). St Louis has a pretty weak core city and Metrolink only reaches a portion of the region.

Detroit is in a similar boat with a weak core (and no rapid transit) so they did build suburban stations. The various suburban stations around Detroit collectively capture more than 2x the ridership of Detroit New Center (and I'm not even including Ann Arbor in this). Dearborn alone has consistently had more ridership than Detroit New Center (although it was close in 2019).

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ardecila

IMO the CHI-STL corridor should be extended with a "tail" to serve West County, either to Kirkwood or to a new park-n-ride lot outside of I-270 (Transpo Museum site). St Louis has a pretty weak core city and Metrolink only reaches a portion of the region.

Yeah that's a good idea. Kirkwood probably doesn't have a spot to layover, but surely the Transpo museum does.

On the other hand, probably the better solution is a local commuter rail system.

[ardecila]

I would love to see a commuter system there but that's a pretty big lift (I think LA is the only US city that has built out a whole regional network post-WW2?)

In the meantime a suburban park-n-ride means they can capture more ridership with the existing trains by bringing Chicago-bound trains to where most St Louisans live.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

IMO the CHI-STL corridor should be extended with a "tail" to serve West County, either to Kirkwood or to a new park-n-ride lot outside of I-270 (Transpo Museum site). St Louis has a pretty weak core city and Metrolink only reaches a portion of the region.

I know i'm preaching to the choir here, but yeah, a city built to house one million that is currently housing 1/3 of that is going to have a pretty weak core no matter how you dice it.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I would love to see a commuter system there but that's a pretty big lift (I think LA is the only US city that has built out a whole regional network post-WW2?)

In the meantime a suburban park-n-ride means they can capture more ridership with the existing trains by bringing Chicago-bound trains to where most St Louisans live.

Yeah, maybe the best you can hope for is "free" commuter rail via Amtrak, like Detroit sort of enjoys (except with a useless schedule)

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I know i'm preaching to the choir here, but yeah, a city built to house one million that is currently housing 1/3 of that is going to have a pretty weak core no matter how you dice it.

I love St Louis, great food/culture, history, architecture, etc but the depopulation of the core city and the toxicity of city/suburb dynamic is undeniable. I'm sure the very idea of going downtown to catch an Amtrak train probably turns a lot of people off the idea (in addition to the real hassles of getting downtown in traffic, etc).

[Busy Bee]

Well said

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Nope nope nopers

Assuming a 75mph speed, moderate expected traffic in the Chicago and Metro East metros and at least one or two ubiquitous interstate construction zones, McCormick Place to the Gateway Arch is firmly 5.5 hours plus all day every day. Plus remember the human body typically has a difficult time holding a bladder for 5.5 hours so there is realistically a 15-30 minute rest break built into a drive there somewhere that brings it closer to 6 hours.

I will not argue, but take your argument to Bing (Microsoft).
https://www.bing.com/search?q=chicag...29CDF91BA7A4BC

FYI: Yahoo search top link suggests 4 hours and 41 minutes, around 4.68 hours.

As for some math for some perspective:
297 miles / 4.15 hours = average 71.5 mph
297 miles / 4.68 hours = average 63.4 mph
297 miles / 5.5 hours = average 54 mph

I would certainly agree with your assessment - it is difficult to average faster than 55 mph over that long a distance without speeding and having to stop for gas, food, and stretch breaks, unless you are in west Texas with 80 mph speed limits.

Never-the-less, whether it is 4.15, 4.68, or 5.5 hours to drive, it is still less than the 6.5 hours sweet spot where people would prefer to drive over flying at around 75% -25%.

And let's take some time to look at some Lincoln Service data.
https://railpassengers.org/site/asse...es/3462/20.pdf
Trips by length, 2019
0- 99 mi 14.0%
100- 199 mi 47.4%
200+ mi 38.6%
Top city pair is Chicago, IL - St. Louis, MO at 284 rail miles although the sweet spot for trains is more than 100 miles but less than 200 miles.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by ardecila

IMO the CHI-STL corridor should be extended with a "tail" to serve West County, either to Kirkwood or to a new park-n-ride lot outside of I-270 (Transpo Museum site). St Louis has a pretty weak core city and Metrolink only reaches a portion of the region.

Detroit is in a similar boat with a weak core (and no rapid transit) so they did build suburban stations. The various suburban stations around Detroit collectively capture more than 2x the ridership of Detroit New Center (and I'm not even including Ann Arbor in this). Dearborn alone has consistently had more ridership than Detroit New Center (although it was close in 2019).

theres a massive park and ride garage in the inner suburbs (brentwood) for metrolink that i would park at driving from my west county office to then take downtown to the amtrak station with a free overnight level.

also a lot of people use the alton station from the west or north, it has the added benefit of cutting out the slow river crossing and east st louis flyover and other metro east slowdowns. if that sounds weird, alton illinois is an identical time from downtown st charles as downtown st louis (quicker than downtown with traffic).

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Nope nope nopers

Assuming a 75mph speed, moderate expected traffic in the Chicago and Metro East metros and at least one or two ubiquitous interstate construction zones, McCormick Place to the Gateway Arch is firmly 5.5 hours plus all day every day. Plus remember the human body typically has a difficult time holding a bladder for 5.5 hours so there is realistically a 15-30 minute rest break built into a drive there somewhere that brings it closer to 6 hours.

i mean...on fridays you hit a traffic wall inbound on the stevenson well out from the loop. its taken me 7 hours + to drive to wicker park or logan square from st louis.

for a comparison i used to drive to denver COLORADO from kansas city missouri in similar time when i lived there...........i’ve never hit appreciable traffic driving from the east into denver.

[Centropolis]

door to door from my house to where im going in chicago by air takes about 3.5 hrs...

1 hr through the STL gate from my door, although i could shave a bit more time off this and have global entry, 1.5 hours gate to gate by plane counting boarding and deplaning, .5 hours to get my bag, restroom, walking through ohare, and its taken 1 hour to get where im going in chicago - my office or the loop or wherever.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

for a comparison i used to drive to denver COLORADO from kansas city missouri in similar time when i lived there...........i’ve never hit appreciable traffic driving from the east into denver.

Your comment reminds me of my 5 years of alternately living in Nashville or Knoxville, TN...that little 3-hour drive often turned into a an all-day affair thanks to wreck after wreck climbing up to or coming down from the Cumberland Plateau.

Same with I-75 in Kentucky...the Jellico Mountain climb is completely unpredictable. I have spent 3 hours sitting still on that 15-mile stretch.

Rail opponents always imagine driving at its best and train travel at its worst and rail advocates always imagine the opposite. That said, well-funded intercity passenger rail with few grade crossings should outperform driving 99% of the time.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

theres a massive park and ride garage in the inner suburbs (brentwood) for metrolink that i would park at driving from my west county office to then take downtown to the amtrak station with a free overnight level.

also a lot of people use the alton station from the west or north, it has the added benefit of cutting out the slow river crossing and east st louis flyover and other metro east slowdowns. if that sounds weird, alton illinois is an identical time from downtown st charles as downtown st louis (quicker than downtown with traffic).

This is a good point but seems like it would be fairly easy to just extend Amtrak into the suburbs and eliminate the transfer. Plus I know transit systems tend to heavily police their parking, no overnight stays allowed and/or they get very very expensive.

The Alton station is a good option for the north part of the metro, yeah and has exactly the kind of park-n-ride I was envisioning for West County. I think ideally you would have both working in tandem with the downtown station to maximize ridership.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This is a good point but seems like it would be fairly easy to just extend Amtrak into the suburbs and eliminate the transfer. Plus I know transit systems tend to heavily police their parking, no overnight stays allowed and/or they get very very expensive.

The Alton station is a good option for the north part of the metro, yeah and has exactly the kind of park-n-ride I was envisioning for West County. I think ideally you would have both working in tandem with the downtown station to maximize ridership.

The fact that St. Louis has a rather weak transit system and it's still arguably the 3rd best rail transit system (2nd very recently until MSP expanded their lines) in the Midwest, a metro the size of Detroit does not have a comprehensive rail transit system, and St. Louis-Chicago is still a top 10 Amtrak ridership corridor in the country despite the abysmal conditions of St. Louis' downtown station should be an embarrassment to this country. Hopefully, Biden is serious about transit investment and we can turn the tide on this. Apparently, St. Louis had a chance in the 60 and 70s to build a metro system but local bickering killed it. I wonder if the city's core would be as weak as it is today if that had gotten built. Keep in mind St. Louis was larger than Atlanta in the 70s was still considered a top 10 metro and peer to places like DC and SF, Dallas and Miami were on our heels though (now they're twice the size . Hard to believe what 50 years of stagnation can do to a metro's relevance. I know Cleveland and Pittsburgh also feel our pain. It's crazy to think what cities of the Rustbelt would be like today if they had kept growing. Could you imagine if Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, and, Pittsburgh swapping metro population growth with places like Atlanta, Houston, Miami, Dallas etc. Even in their relative decline they're still very interesting places, but they would no doubt be super cool. New housing in the inner cities of these places would probably be $500k plus. Awesome weekend trips for Chicagoans too, the regional rivalries would also be much stronger.

[Centropolis]

goat - we can still take chicago in the loooong game. i had a ayahuasca vision of the year 6969 and sanlou has 3 more villagers than chi-cewgew

[Busy Bee]

It's a tragedy.

And for people reading that and saying car this car that, interstate highways, American Dream, picket fence et cetera er cetera, I would suggest you look further back to find where America went wrong. 1877 is the fork in the road. And if you don't think that the lions share of our nations current social problems and political discord don't have a direct through-line to the failure of Reconstruction, you should.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

It's a tragedy.

And for people reading that and saying car this car that, interstate highways, American Dream, picket fence et cetera er cetera, I would suggest you look further back to find where America went wrong. 1877 is the fork in the road. And if you don't think that the lions share of our nations current social problems and political discord don't have a direct through-line to the failure of Reconstruction, you should.

reconstruction definitely an inflection point or portal to various alternative histories of the u.s.