By JAMES E. MARTIN
Assistant professor of administration, Sangamon State University, he has studied passenger transportation systems in North America and Europe. In 1974 he took a class to Europe for a month long study of different types of passenger transportation.
IN SEPTEMBER 1974 Amtrak, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, announced a goal of upgrading the train service and increasing the speed on the Chicago-St. Louis route to greater than 110 mph. Due to a lack of funding, however, little has been done to accomplish this goal. Money for the project is supposed to come from Congress, but if funds are made available by Illinois (as in Michigan) implementation could begin in the spring of 1976. Improved service could help solve some complex and crucial problems related to pollution, transportation and energy.
Current service
At present, rail service is relatively infrequent along the Chicago-St. Louis corridor with only six trains (three each way) a day. It takes five hours to travel from Chicago to St. Louis and three hours from Chicago to Springfield. By contrast, there are 30 planes a day between Chicago and Springfield taking at least 45 minutes, and about 80 between Chicago and St. Louis taking about one hour. There are also about 18 buses moving between the two cities, each taking an hour longer than the train. The air fare is more than three times the train fare, and the bus fare is slightly lower than the train fare.
The several advantages of improved rail service relate to pollution, safety, reduced automobile congestion and energy. Conventional, high-speed gas-turbine trains and electric trains create less air pollution than any other form of mass transportation. In addition, the diversion of passengers from automobiles reduces air pollution and energy consumption. Noise pollution is either less with trains or is more easily controllable than with other forms of transportation. The safety record of high speed trains has also proven superior to other modes of transport. Rail service has consistently had the lowest rate of fatalities per passenger mile of any form of transportation.
It is also likely that successful high speed train service will reduce automobile congestion on neighboring highways. The cost of adding lanes to an interstate highway or buying land and building new highways to handle future automobile traffic would probably be more than the cost involved in improving the rail service. Another advantage is that while autos and planes are limited to petroleum-derived fuels, trains can operate on electricity generated from any number of fuels. If petroleum runs short, or the cost of petroleum products greatly increase relative to other fuels, high speed train services could always be electrified—at a considerable capital cost; after the initial cost, operating costs would be cheaper and precious petroleum would not be needed.
Other pluses
A further benefit of improved rail would be the stimulation of economic and population growth along the Chicago-St. Louis corridor. The greatest growth would occur in small and medium-sized cities such as Springfield, Bloomington, Lincoln, and Pontiac.
One way to view the Chicago-St. Louis corridor service is in light of other announced corridor service improvements in the Midwest. The Am-track report contained planned upgrading on the routes from Chicago to Quincy, Carbondale, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Indianapolis-Cincinnati. There has also been discussion of improvement in the St. Louis-Kansas City and St. Louis-Indianapolis routes. Improvement of these routes would generate more passengers and help to reinforce the advantages of train travel in general. At the same time the traffic generated by these routes could reduce the need for highway and airport expansion in Illinois.
Plans for improvement
Amtrak's report of its five-year improvement plan through 1979 described plans to upgrade railroad rights-of-way on 12 specific routes. The Chicago-St. Louis route was fourth in Amtrak's priorities. An average speed of 110 mph along this route would reduce train time from Chicago to St. Louis to two hours and 40 minutes (five hours now) and Chicago to Springfield to one hour and 40 minutes (three hours now).
Amtrak requested $135 million from Congress for major track, roadbed and signal improvements on the Chicago-St. Louis line. Implementation of the plan is dependent on funding, either from Congress or the Illinois legislature. Funds for these improvements were not contained in the 1976 fiscal year appropriations of either body. An Amtrak spokesman stated that even if money were made available today, track work could not start until the spring of 1976. He said that with funding, improvements would come in steps, with the first step increasing the top speed from the present 79 mph to 90 mph. The second step would increase the top speed to the Amtrak maximum of 125 mph.
'Even though funding is not yet available, Amtrak still supports upgrading the Chicago-St. Louis corridor and is still planning to ask Congress for money to make the necessary improvements. Amtrak's president, Paul H. Reistrup, who took office March 1, 1975, after having served as senior vice-president for traffic of the Illinois Central
328 /Illinois Issues/November 1975
5-year plan calls for 110 mph speed in corridor from Chicago to St. Louis, reducing travel time by almost half. But roadbed, track, and signal improvements are needed
Gulf Railroad, strongly supports the improvements. Reistrup says, "Our biggest markets are older people and college-age youths—people who would drive if they didn't take the train but wouldn't be likely to fly. You can attract them in large numbers only in corridor markets where you haven't only two large cities at the ends of your runs but also lots of potential traffic along the way."
He stresses the importance of those markets "all over the Great Lakes areas," where he feels that Amtrak could do more. Reistrup would like to modify the original Amtrak plan by lowering the planned speed. Considering the current track, technology and traffic, he says, "Today I feel 125 miles per hour is about all it is practical to run a train." With such a maximum high speed, an 110 mph average speed would be very difficult to maintain; an average of somewhere between 90 and 100 mph is more likely.
The Illinois legislature has also undertaken measures to improve rail service. In 1973, Rep. Donald Deuster (R., Mundelein) sponsored a one million dollar bill designed to improve the route between Chicago and St. Louis to permit an increase in speed. While the bill was approved by the House Transportation Committee, it was never enacted into law. Other bills enacted into law in Illinois since October 1973 have provided subsidies of over $800,000 a year for the route. These subsidies have resulted in an increase from four to six trains daily.
Additional steps being taken
Other state actions include a projected study by the Office of Intercity Rail Passenger Service of the Illinois Department of Transportation of long range plans for Illinois rail service. While this office has not yet made any decisions or judgments on the Amtrak plans, it seems likely that it too will support an upgrading of the Chicago-St.Louis route.
Another agency, the U.S. Railway Association, a government corporation formed to restructure the railroads in the Northeast, also supports improvements. In a March 1975 report, it suggested that emphasis in populated corridors be placed "on fast, frequent and connecting medium-distance runs." The Chicago-St. Louis route was specifically mentioned. With all the advantages of rail service and with all the interest and pressure for improved services on the Chicago-St. Louis route, it seems inevitable that the service will be improved in the future, near or far, whenever funding is obtained.
Economic feasibility
The major question about high speed service is, of course, concerned with money. Is there enough potential traffic to warrant the required investment in track improvements and rolling stock? According to a 1971 survey, about 4,000 individual daily trips are made in the Chicago-St. Louis corridor on alt forms of transportation. If the rail service got half of this traffic, there would be enough passengers for about five trains each way. If the railroads received slightly more than half or about 2,500 train journeys a day, the service could operate every two hours during the day with reasonable passengerloads.
Looking ahead to the 21st century,the demand for service will likely increase with population growth and movement of people from rural areas to the corridor. As business and government begin to expect and depend upon the service, they would locate or relocate to take advantage of it. All this would generate new traffic. Given these facts, there is good reason to believe that 25 years from now traffic would warrant a high speed service each hour between St. Louis and Chicago.(Continued on next page)
November 1975/Illinois Issues/329
'The ultimate goal would be to have a basic hourly service during the day, taking three hours or less between the end cities'
High speed rail service has been established in several countries and in the U.S. Northeast corridor. This experience is useful in understanding the feasibility of such a service and how it might be operated here. Japan and some European countries have established fast (greater than 100 mph), frequent (hourly or better) train service among various cities, with even faster service planned for the future. At present there is hourly Metroliner service on the New York-Washington route, a run of 225 miles at an average speed of 75 mph, taking three hours. The Metroliners have been very successful and have captured a large percentage of the total traffic. However, since these trains are powered by electricity, they could not be used on the Chicago-St. Louis route without a heavy initial capital expenditure for electrification.
The why of it all
The key to the success of these other services is found in their speed, frequency and reliability. The British found that with a one hour frequency of trains between two cities and a four hour travelling time, trains get 50 per cent of the traffic. Decreasing the travel time to three hours means the train gets almost all of the traffic. These heavy passenger loads mean that most of the foreign services pay their own way.
What can the planners of the Chicago-St. Louis train service learn from these other corridor train services? Perhaps the most important rule is to plan improvements carefully and sequentially. The ultimate goal would be to have a basic hourly service during the day, taking three hours or less between the end cities of the corridor—service which would be fast, frequent and reliable. That would mean the trains would have to average 95 mph and would take just over two hours from Springfield to Chicago.
There are many specific improvements which will have to be made in order to establish an effective service. First, minimal track improvements of the kind in the Amtrak plans would be needed. In many respects, this would mean restoring the track to its 1960 condition. The plans also recommend stronger track which would need less maintenance. Raising the height of the outer rail on curves would permit an increase in speed. For bad curves, the track could be straightened to eliminate curves or to broaden them.
Amtrak plans also recommend signaling equipment in the cab of each train to keep the engineer posted of track conditions ahead and an automatic speed control. These controls are necessary because at high speeds it sometimes takes several miles for trains to stop. Trains without signaling devices are presently restricted by law to a top operating speed of 79 mph.
The goal of elimination, reduction and control of grade crossings between the track and roads was also included in the Amtrak plans. In urban areas, the crossings will eventually have to be eliminated. This can be accomplished by relocating the tracks around the community or by depressing or elevating them. Lightly used rural crossings, where convenient alternative crossings exist, would be closed. Under Amtrak plans, all important highways will eventually be separated by grade from the track. Private crossings used by farmers to get to their fields could be locked to allow only farmers to use them. When these crossings start to be eliminated, citizens across Illinois will have tangible evidence that a major upgrading of the corridor rail service is occurring.
Station boarding procedures should also be improved. Currently Amtrak trains often spend up to five minutes loading and unloading passengers at intermediate stops. Generally only one door in the train is used. If all of the doors on the train were used, average speeds could be increased by eliminating time spent in the stations.
The fares which Amtrak sets are also important. Officials feel the rail fare should remain at approximately one-third the air fare to attract passengers. Initially, however, fares at this level may be too low to cover operating costs and the cash outlay for track and equipment improvement. Amtrak currently spends $1.80 for every dollar it takes in. State subsidies will probably be necessary at first. At present some trains connecting downstate Illinois and Chicago and the "State House" train between Chicago and St. Louis are subsidized—up to two-thirds of losses are covered. The state could probably recover a good portion or all of any subsidy if the large numbers of state employees who now fly between Chicago and Springfield took the train. Such subsidy would not be unfair, as highways and airports are also subsidized by various governmental bodies.
Multiplying passengers
A simple way to increase ridership is to renovate, clean up or relocate stations and provide more convenient parking. Two new suburban stations could be opened, one at Interstate 270 just north of Granite City and one at Willow Springs near the junction of Interstate 55 and the Tri-State Tollway. The Granite City stop could effectively serve the eastern and northern suburbs of St. Louis, while Willow Springs could effectively serve the southwestern part of the Chicago metropolitan area. At a later time, train service could be extended to Kirkwood, Missouri, on Interstate 244 on the southwest side of St. Louis and to Mayfair Park at the junction of the Kennedy and Edens Expressways at the northern edge of Chicago. Then the service would essentially blanket both metropolitan areas by providing direct highway connections to all major parts of the area and rapid transit connections to Chicago's O'Hare Airport.
Some decisions can be put off for now but will have to be faced in the future. Because most of the present line is single tracked, a choice eventually will have to be made whether to double track or use passing sidings to allow trains to meet. While double tracking is expensive, the cost must be weighed in terms of the time which is lost at sidings.
330/Illinois Issues/November 1975
The slow entries into St. Louis and Chicago are also a problem. While trains could be speeded up somewhat, land costs, interconnections with other railroads, and the maze of terminal trackage make it costly and difficult to carry out major improvements to the tracks. Such improvements should be given low priority and should not come until the service has economically justified itself.
A major decision for successful high speed operation on the route concerns the train equipment. Amtrak is currently using French-built turbotrains on the route. The lightweight characteristics of these trains mean they can operate and accelerate faster than older conventional American trains. Rohr Industries, a California-based aerospace manufacturer, is now building seven turbotrains for Amtrak under French licensing, and Amtrak is planning to buy more in the future. These turbotrains can reach a top speed of 125 mph in less than three minutes and should have no problem averaging 95 mph. However, both the French and Rohr turbotrains are of fixed length and fixed passenger capacity. That presents problems in adjusting to light and heavy passenger loads at different hours of the day. Trains which can vary in length may be more desirable because they can be changed in size to accommodate varying numbers of passengers.
Freight trains currently using the route also pose problems. They must operate at slow speeds and thus present safety and scheduling problems. In addition, heavy freight trains cause much more wear and tear on tracks than light passenger trains. A possible solution is to have through freight trains between Chicago, Bloomington, Springfield, and St. Louis shifted completely to other lines serving those cities, with local freight service provided at night.
Time will tell
While many questions are still to be answered and problems to be overcome, it seems that high speed rail service in the Chicago and St. Louis corridor could be successful in every way—after a time. Congress, possibly in cooperation with the state must fund the improvements discussed above if Amtrak is to reach the goal of hourly trains averaging 95 mph or more making a three-hour run between the two cities. If we are around in the year 2000, we will probably see it.
November 1975/Illinois Issues/331