The most boring post to date...

Dearest readers, I apologize for not posting the "sixth" post shortly after my last post as I promised to do. Of course, as you'll notice from the title, I've decided to end the pointless numbering of posts anyway, so although this is technically the "sixth" post you were promised, it isn't. In case you're wondering, in some deep, dark corner of my sleep-deprived brain, that last sentence actually made some sense. Anyway, onward. I imagine that you may be approaching this post with some trepidation, given the title that I've chosen. In fact, some of you may have not even reached this far. If you have, I'll give you fair warning: If you've come to this blog to read something about what I've been doing over the last week or to read my (hopefully) amusing takes on various situations, then this post will sorely disappoint you. It is exactly what I described it to be in the title - the most boring post to date. That is, unless you find a discussion of transportation entertaining.

Okay, so if I've got any readers left, here's the point of today's post: The utter ridiculousness that is the passenger rail network in this country. Out of curiosity, the other day I happened to look at Amtrak's website to examine the possibility of taking a train from Kansas City to St. Louis. Now, I don't really have much of desire to do such a thing, but for some reason I was thinking about train travel in Europe and wondering if it was even possible here. Lo and behold, it is, but they certainly don't make it easy. This got me wondering about the level of service between comparable cities in Europe (in terms of size). After some admittedly brief research into the subject this morning, here are my results:

According to the 2000 census, the population of the St. Louis metropolitan area was roughly 2.6 million and that of Kansas City was 1.75 million. Using figures from Eurostat (a statistical archive run by the European Union), two comparable cities (metropolitan areas) are Manchester (2.5 million) and Glasgow (1.75 million), both conveniently in the United Kingdom. Even more conveniently, Google maps gives the driving distance from St. Louis to Kansas City as 248 miles and that of Glasgow to Manchester at 216 miles. I can find no other pair of cities in Europe that match Kansas City and St. Louis so closely in population and distance. However, at this point the two pairs diverge. In the case of Kansas City and St. Louis, were you to wish to travel tomorrow, Tuesday February 27, your options would be limited. You could drive the 248 miles, which should take about 4 hours. Or you could fly, although there are only 6 flights per day between the two cities (all on Southwest) lasting one hour. Or, finally, you could take the train. Amtrak offers two passenger trains per day between the cities (discounting their stupid suggestions such as a train to Chicago and then one to St. Louis). One leaves at 7:30am (8:30am if going St. Louis to Kansas City) and the other at 4:30pm(3:30 if STL to KC); both take 5 hours and 40 minutes to arrive in St. Louis. Even booking today would only cost $25 one way. Compare this to Glasgow to Manchester. Once again, driving would take about 4 hours. Flying is a possibility - once again it takes one hour to fly between the cities, although now there are 10 daily flights if going from Glasgow to Manchester, 11 if going the opposite way. Or, one can take the train. The cost is much higher, roughly $140 one way, but this higher cost drops if the tickets are purchased farther in advance. The journey, which still takes over 5 hours, also involves a train change. However, if one eliminates all trips that require more than one change of trains, then there are 5 trains that depart Glasgow between 7am and noon alone that will take you to Manchester. Four of those (fully 2x the number from Kansas City to St. Louis in an entire day) leave in the 3 hours from 7am to 10am. There are fewer trains going from Manchester to Glasgow (again assuming one change or less): a train departs every two hours beginning at 7:07am. Still, that means that four trains depart Manchester for Glasgow in the gap in which no train leaves Kansas City for St. Louis.

I have no explanation for this discrepancy in the level of service between two pairs of cities oddly similar in size and distance. My only explanation is that Americans love their cars and hate the idea of spending lengthy periods of time in a confined space with strangers (I didn't examine bus services, but my guess is that you would find something similar). I also don't know how it can be changed. It seems that rail travel, which is so convenient to the traveler in Europe, is an impossibility here. Which is odd, for all the complaining that people seem to be doing recently about the rising cost of gasoline and the increasing effects of pollution. Yet it is hard to pick up a newspaper without seeing that another highway is being widened to accommodate increasing loads of vehicles. What if those funds, which would admittedly be too little, were turned to the purchase of land and the construction of rail lines (preferably electrified lines)? In turn, those lines could be leased to private companies operating high speed passenger services, or even freight if passenger demand was not sufficient. It'll never happen, of course, but it's something to think about.

Well, I've rambled enough. If you're still reading, I applaud your determination to muddle through what I'm sure came out as a very confused set of arguments and comparisons relating to transportation. I promise I'll come up with something funnier and more relevant to my life - and I'll try not to make you wait a week for it.