http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=33881
The timeframe, and the names of some of the people doing the talking, are definitely interesting.
Another report says that Chicago to the Quad Cities is also being studied.
The Quad Cities was studied a short time ago. I believe the money could be spent better elsewhere. I-88 is not that congested for most of the way. And we have frequent air service. My fiancee and I drive to Galesburg to catch the train to Chicago, but we do it for fun, not business.
Illinois has stepped up the past year in Amtrak service.
The Quad Cities service would take some cash to upgrade the ex Rock route. But, that would then open up the Peoria service.
ed
Ed Please refresh my memory about the Peoria service.
I think the prospect of taking Amtrak to and from Rockford for business purposes is suspect but to and from Dubuque is definitely worth a close look.
I am now starting to take Amtrak to and from Springfield and St. Louis lately. When figuring total travel time and considering time to and from airport(s) and/or total drive time you can come out on top with Amtrak on this route. Also, when considering the cost of flying (including parking at the airport or the cab to and from the airport, or the cost of gas to drive it…Amtrak can still be a bargain on this route.
So why not Amtrak to and from Dubuque with an intermediate stop in Rockford?
I can understand if a rail connection can offer better service or lower cost into a downtown when there is a lot of traffic and expensive parking. But under what circumstances do Amtrak fares offer any advantage over the cost of gas? One person, driving Chicago-Milwaukee, in a 25 MPG car, 3.5 gallons of gas, at 3 dollars a gallon, comes out to 10 bucks and 50 cents. Tolls, another 5 bucks? What is the Amtrak fare on that segment – 20 dollars? And if you have two people riding together, you are talking 40 dollars?
Of course in figuring driving cost, I am not accounting for the depreciation on the car and wear-and-tear on the car, but most people consider that a sunk cost. But if you figure out the fully-allocated Amtrak RPS cost of the Chicago-Milwaukee , I believe it is 45 dollars one way.
One reason to subsidize train travel is that people are not making a rational accounting for the cost of driving, that people only consider the out-of-pocket cost of gas and tolls. But if even after subsidy that the train is more expensive than gas and tolls, why would gas cost drive people in the direction of the train?
Amtrak offers a one-hour NY-Philly Acela ride and they charge an arm and a leg for it, but I guess they have enough takers for that quick a downtown-to-downtown service. But they are offering a speed and a convenience unavailable any other way.
Who out there is seeing expensive gasoline and then paying more than gas expense for the Amtrak trip? Is this another example of irrational economic behavior – when gas is cheap, people ignore the fully-allocated cost of driving but when gas is expensive, they suddenly change their accounting of the cost of driving and make irrational decisions in the other direction?
The Hiawatha has been at an all-time high of ridership – do you suppose that has had more to do with the traffic construction mess in Chicago than with the cost of gas? I mean it is great if people
The problem with a fully allocated cost is that it allocates politics and past bad decisions. It’s too simplistic a look. At any rate, I’d agree that gas prices are only a factor. For me, I ride trains because i no longer have dead time. that hour is spent reading, sleeping, or drinking. A two hour ride watching a movie on a laptop beats two hours driving. However, if the cost is $40 v $15 it’s harder. Of course, If it’s $15 plus $15 in parking it’s easier. I want to take the train, so long as it’s reasonable, I’ll do it. I don’t doubt that the number of riders on the Philadelphia to NYP route woudl skyrocket is the price were $20. It’s $20 to park (at least) in manhattan and $6 bucks in the tunnel and jersey tolls and…
Here’s a better map of the potential Chicago-Rockford corridors and beyond…
Thanks for the great link.
Edit: Does the line through Belvidere need extensive upgrading?
Unfortunately, Rockford perpetually shoots itself in the foot.
The Chrysler plant at Belvidere keeps the UP line going. It’s basically a low speed spur line west from there. (It was originally the Galena and Chicago Union line).
The CN line has always been slow going from Broadview into Chicago.
Maybe better if Metra expands to Huntley, and a Park and Ride off I-90 with express service into Union Station is pushed for.