Making Chicago – St. Louis Trains Auto Competitive

Spain’s example suggests that 2.5 hours is a critical tipping point

Two hours is needed for Chicago – St. Louis to keep connecting routes fast.

1) Madrid to Barcelona (380 miles). In 2003, the train took 6.5 hours—about the same time as a car trip—and annual ridership was less than 2 million people. By 2007, the train ride had fallen to 3.5 hours, and ridership doubled to about 4 million people. In 2008, when the trip time fell to 2.5 hours, ridership surged to roughly 7 million people.

2) Madrid to Valencia (220 miles). The nearly 4-hour train ride competed with a 4.5-hr. drive until 2011, and ridership was about 1 million people annually. Then the HSR travel time fell to 1.5 hours—and train ridership more than doubled, to about 2.4 million people.

The takeaway? When trains go faster, they attract more riders. And that means more revenue, lower operating costs, and a more flourishing and sustainable line over the long haul.

Here are six reasons why:

1) Auto competitive. A 4-hour train trip from Chicago to St. Louis seems to beat the (best-case scenario) drive time of 5 hours. But this comparison fails to factor in station-access time, which is often significant in spread-out cities like Chicago and St. Louis. It also doesn’t factor in the time spent waiting on the next departure. These and other factors can easily add an hour or more to the total train trip, making it longer than the drive. So, a 4-hour trip time will increase train ridership, but it may not justify the investments needed to achieve it. By contrast, a 2-hour train trip will be at least two hours less than the drive, even with station-access and -waiting time factored in.

2) Bigger catchment area. A faster train justifies the car trip (or transit ride) for people living further away from the train station. The upshot is that increasing the catchment area also increases ridership and revenues.

3) Early morning arrivals into and late night departures from Chicago. Faster speeds create a broader range of practical arrival and departure times. For example, a train that leaves St. Louis at 6 a.m. would arrive in Chicago at 8:00 am., before the beginning of the workday. Similarly, a 9:30 p.m. Chicago departure would arrive in St. Louis no later than midnight.

4) Induced demand. Speed makes same-day trips possible, especially last-minute business trips. That’s because you can catch a morning train and easily be home in time to have a late dinner and tuck the kids in bed. And high-frequency departures—combined with high-capacity trains—offer a level of flexibility superior to any other mode. For example, if a client or prospect calls at 8 a.m., you can commit with confidence to a lunch meeting for the same day in the distant city.

5) Air competitive. A 2-hour trip time easily beats flying (with terminal time factored in). When you add in the low-stress boarding, the comfortable ride, and the lower cost, the train is the best option—hands down.

6) Bigger network, Chicago–St. Louis is just one segment of what should become a regional network of high-speed trains. It needs to be fast to ensure that longer routes are fast. For example, if Chicago–St. Louis is 2 hours and St. Louis–Kansas City is 2 hours, then Chicago–Kansas City will be 4 hours—or roughly half the drive time.