KCRag Forum

The idea of high speed rail has been floating around for years, particularly promoted by Senator Charles Wheeler (MO, 10th District, D).  I know there have been some preliminary studies on cost and projected ridership, but do not recall the specifics.  There have been several versions, ranging from "normal" high speed rail to mag-lev varieties.  A key feature would have whittled the STL-KCY trip time to about 90 minutes.  This would have allowed STL and KCY to essentially act as "suburbs" to each other, thus expanding their convention/hotel capacity and enabling pursuit of larger attractions such as a World's Fair or an Olympics.

WoodDraw wrote: Has there ever been a study done to see what the cost of highspeed rail from KC-STL would be, what the ridership would have to be to support it, and what the estimated real ridership would be? 

There have been federal proposals to put in an Accela type high speed hub out of Chicago serving various surrounding midwestern cities including the KC-STL-Chicago route but there hasn't exactly been a lot of traction for passing major Amtrack budget increases in DC. 

Makes you wonder if they could build it concurrently with whatever they decide to do with I-70.

the KC-Stl route is kind of silly if you are trying to decide between taking a train or car (although i have a buddy who takes it all the time despite the delays and owning a car).  For KC-Chicago, the train is a godsend.  As someone mentioned, it's 6 hours and some change, and is generally on time.  If you're staying in the city it also saves you exorbitant parking charges you'd have to pay to keep your car nearby (unless you are willing to drive into some far off neighborhood, park, take the EL back, and hope your car is still there when you get back). 

Yeah, but Chicago is far enough that I wouldn't even consider driving. For me, the choice is between Amtrak and Southwest Airlines.

However, having grown up in Illinois, I do know that the sentiment that prompts the statement, "...and hope your car is there when you get back," is a fear as unfounded in fact as people from Olathe asking me if bullet-proof vests are passed out at Midtown bars.

We(the folks raised in suburbia) seem to have been raised under the delusion that big cities are a slice of hell. I first visited New York when I was eleven years old, with my family. My Dad was beside himself with excitement to show us around America's greatest city. We rode the subways and buses, took no shame in gaping up at the tall buildings, and walked the streets after dark. We had a ball, and of course, never had any trouble, whatsoever. I returned when I was 16, again with the family, and this time with a French family, one of whom had stayed at our house, two summers previous. The mother of this family was, and still is a travel agent, supposedly well-versed in world travel. They(the French family) operated on some rules: don't talk to any strangers that aren't in uniform, get off the street by sunset, and never, EVER, take the subway. Always take a cab, because "the subway is simply not safe." We were amazed at how eager they seemed to visit a place that was apparently so horrible.

I returned to NYC again, when I was 20, this time with my college choir. On the way in, the charter bus driver started telling us about the city. It started off very positive(central park and 5th avenue and rockefeller center and wall street and south street seaport, etc etc), but he started interrupting his verbal tour with admonitions. Don't talk to strangers. Don't walk around at night. Don't take the subway. Don't look up at tall buildings. Always take a cab.

It'll be a long time, if ever, before mainstream America's faith in cities is restored, it seems.

bahua wrote:I think mean took the train to Chicago, earlier in the year, and that's also faster than driving. (~6 hours in the train, compared to >8 hours in the car)

I did indeed, and even with freight delays we made it faster than I'd have made it driving. Plus, I got to drink a bunch of beer and sit back and relax and chit-chat with my fellow riders. It was very cool, it's almost like you have a little miniature family on the train. I was peeved initially that we were forced to sit with some people we didn't know in the dining car, but by the end of our meal I was sad to go back to our seats and miss conversing with our new friends--two older ladies who were both heavily into NASCAR (go figure). I will definitely take Amtrak again in the future. Very pleasant experience, everyone was super cool.

The only drawback to the KC-Chicago train is that there is only one or two departures each day.  Bump that up to 3-4 and it would approach the flexibilty of other travel modes.  Ditto for KC-STL.

bahua wrote:However, having grown up in Illinois, I do know that the sentiment that prompts the statement, "...and hope your car is there when you get back," is a fear as unfounded in fact as people from Olathe asking me if bullet-proof vests are passed out at Midtown bars.

actually, i was thinking of getting towed  lol. (specifically, I've been told by friends who live in Chicago that depending on the street and local policy you may inadvertently get your car towed if you're not a resident since parking is at a premium in many city neighborhoods). But yeah, i doubt it's a big concern for people who are actually trying to find some place to dump their cars for a couple of days. 

In terms of crime, there are lots of El stops and lots of neighborhoods along those stops to pick, and like any city many of them are good, but some of them can be bad, just need to be knowledgeable.  I agree it's pretty bogus when people assume a neighborhood will be crime ridden and dangerous simply because it is in the city.  But I also think you can err on the opposite side if you don't know the city and know which neighborhoods are and aren't safe.  We can all agree walking around mid-town Manhattan at 1 in the morning is perfectly safe, but walking around Mott Haven in the Bronx at 1 in the morning might just be asking for trouble.

dangerboy wrote: Is there an existing track available?

The plan is to connect Oklahoma City with Newton, KS via Wichita thereby connecting with the Southwest Chief route. Evidently one of the most popular routes cut in 1979 was the Texas Chief/Lone Star route which was Chi - KC - OKC - FW - Houston

cdschofield wrote: The plan is to connect Oklahoma City with Newton, KS via Wichita thereby connecting with the Southwest Chief route. Evidently one of the most popular routes cut in 1979 was the Texas Chief/Lone Star route which was Chi - KC - OKC - FW - Houston

That would be cool.  Folks to take the train to Hornets games in OKC and Penguins games in KC

i dont understand why you cant take a direct train to denver. a chicago to denver high speed would be cherry. i could care less about a texas route. 

warwickland wrote: i dont understand why you cant take a direct train to denver. a chicago to denver high speed would be cherry. i could care less about a texas route. 

Because Amtrak has no direct track to Denver.  They have to rely on going where the freight railroads go.  Amtrak doesn't near enough money to build it's own tracks.

Chicago to Denver goes through Omaha. Amtrak has bus service to Omaha for that route. It also stops in winter park. Would make a fun ski trip!!!!

That, I believe, is the California Zephyr. I'm sure KC had direct service to Denver before tricky Dick nationalized the passenger trains, but its demise was just another of the effects of our society favoring, with tax dollars, automobile and airline travel.

The stops in the towns between KC and StL are nill compared to the having to pull over and let freight trains pass.  Passenger trains get started and stop nearly as quick as a bus.  There should be more of an effort to double up the tracks where this is a problem, that would make all the difference in the world.

definitely, the train spends very little time at stops, and sometimes blasts right through sedalia. unfortunately, it seems the train gets pinched in johnson county mo a lot having to pull over for freight.

^ Amtrak trains come to a complete stop -- and wait until scheduled departure time if they are early -- even when they know there's nobody getting on or off. 

Freight traffic is a major factor in on-time performance, and will continue to be so until UP decides to add track capacity. 

Incidentally, ridership on Amtrak trains between KCY and STL has been up in 13 of the past 16 months (compared with same month of the previous year).

hmm, that doesnt explain why the train rolled through sedalia going about 15 miles an hour a couple months ago when i was riding

i do know that usually they will wait until the exact departure time when they are early.

GRID wrote: The stops in the towns between KC and StL are nill compared to the having to pull over and let freight trains pass.  Passenger trains get started and stop nearly as quick as a bus.  There should be more of an effort to double up the tracks where this is a problem, that would make all the difference in the world.

I'm sure it would, but what compelling reason do the freight companies have to do so? What reason does congress have to allocate yet more money to a system they're already trying to kill(let die)? The freigh companies own the tracks, and they already receive hundreds of millions of dollars a year, in the name of Amtrak, to *allow* Amtrak to operate on their system. That sum doesn not involve any kinsd of improvements to the system, for Amtrak's sake.

Example: a typical Amtrak train can travel at an average of 150 MPH. But, the freight companies, who maintain the tracks, have no reason to improve the tracks to accomodate high-speed transit. Their trains go 60 or 70 MPH, and don't need to go any faster. Because of this, Amtrak trains are only able to attain a top speed of about 90 MPH.

bahua wrote: Example: a typical Amtrak train can travel at an average of 150 MPH.

i know the acela trains are capable of 150 mph...i'd be pretty uncomfortable going that fast on an older locomotive...i dont know that the stl-kc amtrak trains ever go any faster than 65, as ive crudely estimated by counting the time between markers, etc.

then theres that spat of time were the train goes like 30 through the eastside/bottoms.