Fifth Anniversary of the Gateway Transportation Center 2008, Future High-Speed Rail to Chicago’s O’Hare Airport
During the last five years Amtrak has seen a steady increase in ridership.
The timing was perfect, although Amtrak’s FY 2009 showed a dip in ridership from 2008, it was still above 2007 levels.
I’ve taken trains out of this station five times now: Kansas City (x2), Jefferson City, Bloomington-Normal, Dallas. Bloomington-Normal was Memorial weekend 2012, our station was way too small for all the rail & bus passengers that weekend. The trip to Dallas was in July 2012, I continued to Fort Worth & Oklahoma City on Amtrak, returning to St. Louis via Greyhound bus.
Thinking about this post I was curious how our station compared to others in Missouri, Illinois, and nationally. Turns out St. Louis had more than double the traffic as the #2 station in Missouri, Kansas City.
Amtrak serves 46 of the 48 continental United States, no service to Wyoming or South Dakota. Of the 46 states served, and the District of Columbia, Missouri ranked 18th in FY13, Illinois 4th.
Clearly, our proximity to Chicago doesn’t hurt. Plus, Missouri and Illinois have both been making track upgrades which have resulted in reduced travel time. Amtrak spokesperson Marc Magliari told me the usage at the St. Louis station “has exceeded expectations.”
The Lincoln Service between Chicago and St Louis saw a 10 percent jump in passenger count, for the largest increase for any route in Illinois. It also saw a 22 percent jump in revenue. (Source)
The St. Louis station took years to be planned, funded, and opened. Now we need to plan a facility to handle high-speed rail traffic. How will a high-speed train cross the Mississippi River, a new rail bridge? Could it serve the region from a location on the Illinois side, or must it cross into Missouri? You think I’m dreaming, but I’m not:
The study concluded that a 220-mph HSR service from O’Hare Airport through downtown Chicago to Champaign-Urbana and on to St. Louis and/or Indianapolis is feasible and would be likely to cover its operating costs without subsidies. Express high-speed trains would travel from downtown Chicago to Champaign in approximately 45 minutes, to Springfield in approximately one hour and twenty minutes and to St. Louis or Indianapolis in approximately 2 hours. The study assumed that trains would run every half-hour during peak times and hourly at other times. The economic analysis of the HSR system showed potential substantial benefits to Illinois, including the creation of 409,000 to 792,000 job-years during five years of construction and creation of 10,890 to 13,820 jobs per year during the first 10 years of operation. In addition, analyses of several different cost and revenue scenarios indicated that the HSR system is expected to be operationally profitable. However, as with many large public transportation projects, the initial cost to build it is substantial and would require public and/or private sector funding to cover the initial capital cost.
Various public-private partnerships (PPP) have been successfully used to finance HSR overseas and the viability of adapting these to the US environment should be explored. An incremental or blended approach completed over a longer time period would reduce initial capital costs and provide other nearer-term transportation benefits, while simultaneously improving intercity transportation quality and travel times. This is similar to the approach commonly used internationally and should be studied further. (UIUC w/links to study)
Two hours to Chicago? Count me in!
— Steve Patterson
Two hours to Chicago? Do it today – Metrolink to Lambert, Southwest to Midway (8 non-stop flights – take your pick), CTA Brown Line to the Loop, Done! No additional investments needed, no additional subsidies required . . . .
Civic center MetroLink startion to airport: 39 minutes
Check-in/security: 60-90 minutes
Flight: 70 minutes
That’s about the same amount of time, but the cost if purchased the day before is very different.
A. We don’t know what sort of premium will charged for high-speed service – it could easily match the cost of airfare.
B. If cost is an issue, Megabus and Greyhound both offer affordable alternatives.
C. HSR does not opperate without a premium – it costs more / takes more energy to move any vehicle at higher speeds.
D. Given the current terror environment, the day of TSA screenings for Amtrak service isn’t that far away.
A last minute round trip flight is $399, vs $39 round trip on Amtrak. Yes HSR may cost as much as flying, but it would still be preferred method for many. In the northeast rail moves many people for this reason.
High Speed Is Not Cheap! Even at $39.00, that does not include all of the investment made by the taxpayer. I’m all for sleek, modern, and fast lines but just how many Billions is this going to cost? And you’re assuming that Amtrak survives. There are hearings going on this week as to why they continue to lose money.
No matter if it’s a high speed rail, a metro link spur, or a glorified electric trolley…when costs exceed Millions per mile, and Hundreds of dollars per passenger, there MUST be a way to either reduce costs, make locals and/or actual users pay more, or…..to just table it. We have to stop wasting tax payer dollars on un-needed ‘extras’. And I’m a liberal Democrat saying that.
The interstate highway system wasn’t free and we continue to struggle just to maintain what we have.
” the initial cost to build it is substantial and would require public and/or private sector funding to cover the initial capital cost.” The cost of buying my personal vehicles was substantial, but their daily operating costs are relatively low, as well. The cost of building a new bridge over the Mississippi, dedicated to HSR, would be substantial – would we be OK if the HSR terminus was at the JJK station on the east side, with passengers switching to Metrolink to get to the Gateway Transit Center and Amtrak? The difference between HSR and the interstate highway system is actual usage – rail carries only a fraction of what the highways carry, with both people and freight, so yes, “we continue to struggle just to maintain what we have”, with good reason. Investing billions to get only a small fraction of the traffic off our interstates is highly questionable, at best!
JJK would probably be fine. Certainly better than Lambert.
“The study assumed that trains would run every half-hour during peak times and hourly at other times.” That’s a pretty big assumption, given that the current demand, including Amtrak, airlines and inter-city buses is far less than that. Flawed assumptions lead to underperforming results (although they’re great for justifying funding requests / subsidies)!
Demand for highways wasn’t much when most roads were just dirt, but building the interstate highway system increased demand.
Not to mention the $50 Billion cost, the fact that they will use ‘shared’ lines so it will take longer than the 2 hrs they stated, the fact that Illinois can’t balance a budget and many of their public works projects are notorious for going over-budget and even at their cheapest projected fare….$10 base and .$.20 a mile is $62.00 not to mention added taxes…..you’re looking at at least $150.00 for a round trip. One is neither saving time nor money. And then of course….let’s consider that while UIUC may have completed this study, I want to know WHO funded the study, something not referenced.
Who? Just click on the link at the end of Steve’s post: UIUC = University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, RailTEC = Rail Transportation and Engineering Center . . . A bunch of engineering professors want to justify a high-speed link between Champaign-Urbana and Chicago . . . .
I did. I’m not that computer illiterate. And that doesn’t say anything. I’m talking about WHO, not the front man (institution). You know, like how the Show Me Institute produces all these ‘studies’, yet their money comes from one source….Darth Sinquefield.
I don’t doubt your computer skills, my point is that it’s no so important who is writing the checks, it’s the biases of the organization preparing the report. In this case, it’s rail wonks justifying HSR. With the South County Connector, it’s the County Highway Department. If it’s an airport, it’s the FAA and the airlines. With the new streetcar lines, it’s the streetcar wonks. There are no unbiased groups, and statistics are manipulated / selectively presented to justify desired results. For some reason, people who love rail, really, really love rail, and will go to great lengths to justify any public investments in their passion – see Amtrak, see the Loop Trolley. Transportation is all about getting from Point A to Point B, quickly and efficiently. There is no one right answer, no single technology that will work in every situation. There’s a reason why airlines replaced long-distance passenger rail and why buses replaced streetcars, they just do the job better, more efficiently, with fewer public subsidies. Romantic views of how life used to be 50 or 100 years ago are just that, biased views, clouded by time or no real experience, at all. I get it, we should always be searching for better, but there’s a reason the Concorde came and went, and why SOV’s are so damn popular – people vote with their feet and their credit cards!
We’re on the same page JZ. You’re saying it’s the organizations that are biased, and I’m saying it’s the funders of the organization that direct that bias. Bottom line….biasness does occur, I’ve read very few truly unbiased studies. And the more money involved, the more important it is to find that bias but ironically the better they are at hiding that bias, especially with the ‘do-good’ and ‘innocent’ titles entities like Show Me Institute or Heritage Foundation like to use.
HSR would be cheaper than air travel, the actual
operating costs of HSR are around 8 cents per passenger mile ($56 round
trip to Chicago). If oil prices go higher, the cost difference for
electrified rail would be greater. HSR can be faster than air travel
because the security and boarding are so much faster, this would be true
even if security was increased. For cities with no direct flights
between them, HSR is definitely faster.
Security is a much smaller issue for rail than
airplanes. Trains can’t be used as missiles, are less attractive to
hijack since it can’t go anywhere other than the tracks, and are harder
to crash.
Unless they are dedicated tracks, security is just as important. More so as they become more popular. don’t think for a moment that terrorist (foreign or domestic) haven’t thought about it. Sure, the physical damage may be less than crashing a plane into a building, but the potential for killing is greater.
“the potential for killing is greater.”
There were 50000 people in the WTC and about 3000 of them didn’t escape.
Please tell me how a HSR train can kill 49000 or even 2000 bystanders
on the ground, plus every passenger on the train. As far as I can tell
it’s impossible.
From page 24: “Some experts also agree that HSR has special vulnerabilities. Jenkins,
Butterworth, and Clair (March 2010) say that, “In addition to the publicity, body count,
and disruption sought by today’s terrorists, high-speed rail is an icon of technological
progress, thus adding the emotional value that terrorists seek in their targets. For these
reasons, the attempted derailment [of the French TGV], although fortunately a failure for
the terrorists, takes on particular significance.”
From page 30: “And yet, just one week after those potential plans were revealed, two security
breaches were successfully carried out on the New York subway system. According to
the New York Post, “Two terrifying rail security breaches occurred within hours of each
other in the city yesterday – including one at the World Trade Center, where a man
slipped into the PATH tunnel and walked all the way to Jersey before saying he had left a
bomb in the tunnel.”
From page 63: “Threat analyses must form the basis for a successful HSR security strategy. These
analyses must examine not only general threats to the system, but also particular threats
that could be unique to certain locations and situations. Once those threats are
synthesized and prioritized, the plan must address them in order of priorities based on
likelihood, potential body counts, proximity to other critical infrastructure such as bridges
or power plants, environmental features such as adjacent high-rise office buildings versus
open stretches of farmland, cost/benefit ratios, and other relevant factors.”
http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/education/alumni/capstones/terror-targets-high-speed-rail-vs-intercity-rail-Maurillo.pdf
So adding to my post below…..yes, a HSR derailment near an industrial cite, under or in the heart of a city, or even a chemical tanker can and will cause many deaths, and under the right conditions, the right device, the right target could make 9-11 look like a walk-in-the-park.
I think you meant “industrial site”, not “industrial cite”.
Funny. You knew exactly what I meant. Or is that new.
Who says HSR needs to be electrified? And when it comes to energy costs, supply and demanad dictate prices – if oil prices spike, expect coal prices to do the same. Finally, both dwell time (at intermediate stops) and station locations (relative to origin, destination and public transit) also play a significant role in travel times. Driving one’s own vehicle from Fenton to Schaumberg, or from Chesterfield to Evanston can easily be just as fast, and much less expensive, than using HSR to get to a station in the Loop or at O’Hare, then having to figure out how to go the last 20 or 30 miles, much less having to drive to the station here . . . .
“Who says HSR needs to be electrified?”
HSR is always electrified.
Everywhere in the world. I’m not sure if this is because electric
provides greater instantaneous power and acceleration, or because it’s
more efficient to not have to carry your fuel. Either way, it seems to
be an inherent part of the technology.
DMU’s (diesel multiple units) are proven technology – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_multiple_unit . . Its big advantage is that the line does not need to be electrified, in this case, for 600+ miles (300+ miles each way, assuming two tracks). Yes, both top speed (125 mph) and acceleration is slower, but if that means that the line can be up and operating in 10 years instead of 20 or 25, is that a reasonable tradeoff? Plus, going with US Railcar means supporting the “home team” and working with a product that does not require the same separation from operating freight lines that lighter-weight European designs require: http://www.usrailcar.com/dmu-specs.php
The Chicago-St. Louis route now has sections where it can reach 110mph, much more will reach this speed by 2017. Going from 110 to 125 isn’t a great improvement, getting to 200+mph is.
Are the 110 mph sections currently electrified? And, will going to 200+ mean rebuilding the 110 mph sections to higher standards, again?! Electrification can easily double construction costs. There are two parts to the 200+ mph equation, track geometry / grade separation and propulsion. Much like the interstate highway system, track infrastructure can be designed with gradual, banked curves and complete grade separation (no crossings with gates), allowing any propulsion system to operate at higher speeds. Electrification, much like light rail, requires placing poles every 100′ or so and bringing in power every mile or two. Maglev requires even more power. All of this requires more money on top of the track upgrades (much like how both a Hyundai and a Tesla will both go down the highway, but one costs less because it relies on existing infrastructure and power sources and the other costs three times as much because it needs a new power infrastructure). It all boils down to available dollars. Do we build 200+ between Chicago and Champaign-Urbana (or Bloomington-Normal) or, for the same money, do we build 110-125 between Chicago and St. Louis? Can you make the political argument or the PPP argument to fully fund the electrification of the entire route? Or should we aim lower? Is 2 hours the magic number? Or, is 3 hours, downtown to downtown, good enough / more achievable? Current schedules show 5.5 hours on Amtrak – is twice as fast good enough? Or does it need to be three times quicker to convince people not to fly or drive? You’re going to use it, no matter what; what’s it going to take to convince people like me?!
Not electric, states have been improving lines as part of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0393). This has reduced delays to Chicago & Kansas City.
And I guess all these fees and taxes are just going to disappear?
http://www.airlines.org/Pages/Government-Imposed-Taxes-on-Air-Transportation.aspx
Operating costs and TOTAL cost are 2 very different and usually very far apart things.
OK, let’s say that HSR becomes a reality, what would be the best place to terminate it in the St. Louis region? I’d argue that Lambert would be the best place, since it provides direct connections to regional and international airlines, the interstate highway system and public transit, plus it already has plenty of available long-term parking (for local travelers) and good access to taxis and rental cars (for visitors who don’t want to or can’t use public transit). The airport is also served by some little-used rail lines, so connecting between Alton and Lambert should not be too difficult. The big challenge with the current Gateway Transportation Center is that it doesn’t function well for people who don’t live in the city, has destinations outside of the Metrolink corridors or for someone who needs long-term parking.
See the comments on http://www.cahsrblog.com/2013/11/colorado-begins-planning-front-range-high-speed-rail/
for why HSR to airports is a bad idea in general. It’s an even worse
idea in STL, since Lambert gets so few flights nowadays, so why would
anyone want to transfer there?
Using that logic, the Gateway Transportation Center makes even less sense – no “flights”, at all, less than a dozen trains every day, whatever service Greyhound provides (Megabus happens elsewhere), few taxis, little long-term parking and no rental cars, but, yes, twice as much Metrolink service and much better local bus service, for those few travelers who value public transit.
I’m also very familiar with the ongoing discussions on HSR in Colorado. The link you provided represents just one person’s opinion (to quote, “I dunno”) – hardly definitive. Much like the discussions, here, about a St. Louis to Chicago line, the discussions there center around, and are biased by, where one lives/works (proximity to proposed stations) and real travel times (door-to-door), not maximum travel speeds. DIA is not Lambert, it’s halfway to Kansas, not centered between many employment centers. IF (and that’s a big IF) the only intermediate stops are in Springfield and Champaign-Urbana, then 2 hours may be a possibility. But if you start adding stops in Fairview Heights, Collinsville, Joliet and Bollingbrook (to pick just a few), like Amtrak’s current stops in Kirkwood, Hermann and Lee’s Summit, between here and Kansas City, all bets are off – 4-5 minutes here, 4-5 minutes there will easily add a half hour, or more, to the trip!
Let’s crunch the numbers. Your numbers show 378,146 current annual “ons/offs” in St. Louis. That averages out to 518 daily boardings on 7 trains, 5 of which go to Chicago. Taking it a step further, 518 / 7 trains = an average number of 74 boardings per train per day. This compares with more than 20,000 vehicles (to be fair, more than 10,000 in each direction) using I-55 in Illinois each day**, along with, what, 20 flights a day to Chicago, with, what, an average of 75 or 100 passengers per flight? For a total of 1500 or 2000 fliers per day?
The question then becomes how many more passengers will choose the train, if it’s faster? What’s the delta? Will the number double? Triple? Go up “only” 20% or 25%? It’s approximately 300 miles between St. Louis and Chicago. Researching the cost to build HSR, I’m seeing widely varying cost estimates. The most reasonable one seems to be $2.5 million per mile*, or a total of $750 million dollars for this corridor. Do we spend that kind of money to attract 15 more passengers per train (a 20% increase)? 20 more (a 25% increase)? You reference a 10% annual increase; the source indicates that many trains are being sold out / completely filled. Or, do we invest in more / new rolling stock (at “just” $2-3 million per car) to accommodate more passengers / increase existing service? Amtrak is attracting customers / growing its business by doing essentially nothing now – what is the argument for making a huge investment if there will be only a relatively small increase over EXISTING growth levels?
*http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/is-high-speed-rail-worth-it-in-the-us/
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_55_in_Illinois
I think 125 mph shoulkd be sufficient. Higher speeds will actually deter some passengers (think
of derailments at 150mph) and will cost increasingly more for each mph improvement