Pent-up demand for new routes

How does Amtrak figure where to put routes? Is there a way to register a desired route/fare/frequency of ridership with Amtrak so that they can show that actual (and not projected demand) exists? Better yet, is there a way to indicate that demand so that a non-Amtrak passenger rail company could see where there was true demand for increased rail service?

I just got back from visiting family in Wisconsin and am really starting to hate I-90. I want to tell Amtrak/other RR that I'd be willing to fork out hard-earned money for a train from Chicago to Eau Claire (2 or 3x a year) and Madison (4 or 5x a year). If the speed is even somewhat comparable to driving, I know the frustration level would be lower.

Does demand exist? Surely it must. I-90 is really busy at least as far as Madison. It could truly stand a 3rd lane. Or a rail line. Downtown Madison is a tough place to have a car, so a downtown train station there wouldn't be a handicap. Summer traffic is another story altogether.

Many of Amtrak's current long distance routes were in place on A-Day. Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, and Broadway Limited to name a few. Others are reincarnations of previous routes operated way back when. Lake Shore Limited, Texas Eagle, and California Zephyr as a few examples.

Mr. Sipes, new routes will have to start at the Local level as Amtrak, i.e. 100% Federally funded, is not initiating any new routes on its own. Sure "there's talk' and even some consultants reports were mandated under PRIIA '08. But those reports (all are available at the website) have been submitted and have been "filed".

While the Obama administration has expended more political capital than any other Administration coming to mind on expanded rail passenger service, that initiative sort of was "put on hold' after the 'shellacking' and the absolutely flawed "$8B for HSR" provisions of ARRA '09. Governors in now four states (WI, OH, FL, and IA) have rescinded grants under '$8B" (sorry but I'm too lazy to look up a more precise cite) contending their states cannot fund the State "match" for these funds. Since these newly elected governors all owe some degree of allegiance to the conservative/populist movement known as the Tea Party, and these rail passenger programs were ancillary in nature, they were simply "low hanging fruit' from which a lot of noise could be made over how 'Governor Slasher" has told the Feds to 'take your bucks and shove it'. These actions also are a means to discredit the Obama administration, because they made rail passenger service an early initiative, and to show how they have "rammed things down the people's throats they simply don't want'.

But all told, in Wisconsin where public employees may be denied the right to collectively bargain wages and working conditions with their employer is being seriously challenged, and has already rescinded funds for the Milwaukee Madison route, the likelihood of any others, such as Chicago-Eau Claire is simply non-existent.

Finally regarding Mr. Mcoov's comments on the Long Distance system that was known as the Basic System under RPSA '70 (the Amtrak enabling legislation), it is largely the same as promulgated. There have been "reroutes" such as the Lake Shore in place of the Broadway and the Eagle in place of the Lone Star. The only major cuts have been Chicago-Miami Floridian and NY-St Louis National Limited. The only major addition has been Portland Spokane Empire Builder.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Finally regarding Mr. Mcoov's comments on the Long Distance system that was known as the Basic System under RPSA '70 (the Amtrak enabling legislation), it is largely the same as promulgated. There have been "reroutes" such as the Lake Shore in place of the Broadway and the Eagle in place of the Lone Star. The only major cuts have been Chicago-Miami Floridian and NY-St Louis National Limited. The only major addition has been Portland Spokane Empire Builder.

We gained (and then lost) the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, too.

I think ambuses are a good way to look at demand.

The Caltrans "future train stuff" report talks about extensions which follow successful amtrak bus routes. Of course, existing track already exists.

Another way to think about pent-up demand is to look at the cost/revenue reports in a recent post in "Amtrak Success Stories". To me, "pent-up demand" implies enough demand to pay for a significant amount of the costs. Very few even of the existing routes meet that standard. On the other hand, one of the newest routes is the very best (the Lynchburg service), apparently a net winner for Amtrak, bringing in more than all it's allocated costs.

Here in Chicago, the St. Louis service brings in about 1/3 of its costs; the Hiawathas about 45%; the Illini close to 50%; the IL Zephyr down closer to 25%. I'm somebody who thinks rail merits a subsidy for a variety of reasons, but who also thinks that revenues that approximate costs is an important sign of whether a service is worth it. I think there are economies of scale that additional Illinois service might bring; and I think that gas prices are likely to go higher, which will continue to push ridership. But I'd have trouble thinking there's "demand" for a new service unless it was expected it might come close to the HIawatha level - pulling in 45% or higher of the allocated costs.

I do think one of the advantages that puts Lynchburg service in the plus column is that it connects to the NEC. I doubt very much that stand-alone Lynchburg-DC service would do very well. So there are definitely network effects. Would Madison service put more people on the various other trains that meet in Chicago? Certainly. With the various Chicago trains averaging something like 35%, such network effects don't justify anything. I can imagine a setting in which St. Louis service was closer to 50%, and the Illini and HIawathas were closer to 70%, and in that setting, I think you start to see network effects that are considerable - since each additional passenger is bumping into scarcity and therefore pushing prices higher. That depends on gas prices, though.

eagle628 wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote:The only major cuts have been Chicago-Miami Floridian and NY-St Louis National Limited.

We gained (and then lost) the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, too.

Quite correct, Mr. Eagle; the Sunset "suspension' (which I still have concern will come back and "bite" Amtrak with the train having to be restored account the lack of Notice under ARAA '97) was part of the 2004 Bush43 "prunings', which also cut the Three Rivers and Palmetto SAV-MIA. All of these were "expansion' services, i.e. services that were added after A-Day. The 1996 "Mercer Cuts" during the Clinton administration, namely that which whacked the Pioneer and Desert Wind represented 'expansion" services. The only initiative that cut trains within the Basic System were the 1979 "Carter Cuts" that discontinued both the Floridian and National Limited as well as the "expansion" North Coast Hiawatha, "Harley's Comet", and "The Hilltopper'.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:These actions also are a means to discredit the Obama administration, because they made rail passenger service an early initiative, and to show how they have "rammed things down the people's throats they simply don't want'.

Yeah, I've noticed that reality. If I'm reading your comments right, no new lines are going to exist unless there is subsidy. In this political climate nothing new will happen at the state level, and nothing can be done at the federal level.

jamesinclair wrote:I think ambuses are a good way to look at demand.

I am in the crowd that won't get on a bus but will get on a train. Full stop. Ambus is dead to me, metaphorically.

ne plus ultra wrote:Another way to think about pent-up demand is to look at the cost/revenue reports in a recent post in "Amtrak Success Stories". To me, "pent-up demand" implies enough demand to pay for a significant amount of the costs. Very few even of the existing routes meet that standard. On the other hand, one of the newest routes is the very best (the Lynchburg service), apparently a net winner for Amtrak, bringing in more than all it's allocated costs.

Here in Chicago, the St. Louis service brings in about 1/3 of its costs; the Hiawathas about 45%; the Illini close to 50%; the IL Zephyr down closer to 25%. I'm somebody who thinks rail merits a subsidy for a variety of reasons, but who also thinks that revenues that approximate costs is an important sign of whether a service is worth it. I think there are economies of scale that additional Illinois service might bring; and I think that gas prices are likely to go higher, which will continue to push ridership. But I'd have trouble thinking there's "demand" for a new service unless it was expected it might come close to the HIawatha level - pulling in 45% or higher of the allocated costs.

Yeah, I have been seeing that about Lynchburg. No doubt being a branch off of the NEC and its car-unfriendly destinations is a big help. Who wants a car in NYC or DC? Nor do I suspect Philly is easy. So I'm really excited to hear about that.

All of the cities that you can go to in the Chicago network are pretty easy with a car, save perhaps Chicago. St. Louis and Milwaukee are probably manageable without a car. Maybe Detroit. Any destination in downstate IL? I'm going to need a car. (And Illinois subsidized routes are going place in Illinois.) I won't find it convenient, nor will I find it useful: I'll need it. Well, if the average person is going to need a car in, say, Normal, he may figure he might as well drive.

For me, deep in Chicago's NW 'burbs, I'd never take the Hiawatha: in the time it takes to drive to Glenview, I'm 2/3 of the way to the Milwaukee Amtrak station. So I think they've got some tough problems in Chicago. From where I sit (and geography can be a killer), Amtrak is useful for any destination south and east of Chicago though SW of Chicago is going to be hit or miss. For someone in Matteson, IL, these sorts of calculations will be different.

Of course, I could be spoiled by Metra for my Chicagoland travel needs and have fallen under the delusion that this could be expanded regionally.

While I'm at it: I've never bothered taking the train to Indianapolis when I've had to go for business. It arrives at about the worst possible time for business or tourism (though I don't see any business trips there for me anytime soon).

Gilbert B Norman wrote:

eagle628 wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote:The only major cuts have been Chicago-Miami Floridian and NY-St Louis National Limited.

We gained (and then lost) the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, too.

Quite correct, Mr. Eagle; the Sunset "suspension' (which I still have concern will come back and "bite" Amtrak with the train having to be restored account the lack of Notice under ARAA '97) was part of the 2004 Bush43 "prunings', which also cut the Three Rivers and Palmetto SAV-MIA. All of these were "expansion' services, i.e. services that were added after A-Day. The 1996 "Mercer Cuts" during the Clinton administration, namely that which whacked the Pioneer and Desert Wind represented 'expansion" services. The only initiative that cut trains within the Basic System were the 1979 "Carter Cuts" that discontinued both the Floridian and National Limited as well as the "expansion" North Coast Hiawatha, "Harley's Comet", and "The Hilltopper'.

If I may respectively add two more trains which fell victim to the 1979 "Carter Cuts," The "Lone Star" (already mentioned)-Basic System and "Champion"-Basic System-pruning. Just wanted to mention these to impress that once an LD is cut, it is unfortunately pretty much gone.

Amtk30

sipes23 wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote:These actions also are a means to discredit the Obama administration, because they made rail passenger service an early initiative, and to show how they have "rammed things down the people's throats they simply don't want'.

Yeah, I've noticed that reality. If I'm reading your comments right, no new lines are going to exist unless there is subsidy. In this political climate nothing new will happen at the state level, and nothing can be done at the federal level.

It would appear we are on the same page, Mr. Sipes.

While I understand and respect that the advocacy faction here at the forum will disagree with my position, the Basic System, which is an actual term used within the enabling RPSA '70, is what was intended to be operated as a wholly Federal funded system. It includes of course the Northeast Corridor - the only market in which there is unquestioned need for rail passenger service, sufficient Long Distance routes to encompass enough legislative districts to ensure Federal-level funding, and establishment of a system national in scope so that any local jurisdiction desiring and willing to fund passenger service would have an operator ready to go with the institutional expertise to operate a passenger train. Certainly the "adequately successful" California services are testament to the wisdom of Section 403(b), which is the enabling provision within RPSA '70 compelling Amtrak to operate locally funded services.

All of the services eliminated through the Mercer and Bush43 cuts, as well as the North Coast Hi under the Carter cuts, were "expansion" services that were deemed unnecessary to achieve the end of securing Federal funding. The Basic System Carter cuts, i.e. the Floridian and National Limited were deemed not to threaten the lengilation enabling "218+51+1" often cited here by Col. Perkowski needed to achieve such. Also, despite Amtrak honestly putting it's "best foot forward" so far as equipment and on-board service in the case of the Floridian (know so from a Nov '77 bumper to bumper ride), it was simply a hopeless case.

So in closing, Amtrak and its supporters should be happy "they got what they got when they got it", but as I noted in an earlier post, new routes and upgrades to HSR were "low hanging fruit' that the conservative/populist/Tea Party faction that enabled the election of candidates to Governor, US House, and US Senate seats beholden unto that movement were quick to "pounce" upon.

sipes23 wrote:All of the cities that you can go to in the Chicago network are pretty easy with a car, save perhaps Chicago. St. Louis and Milwaukee are probably manageable without a car. Maybe Detroit. Any destination in downstate IL? I'm going to need a car. (And Illinois subsidized routes are going place in Illinois.) I won't find it convenient, nor will I find it useful: I'll need it. Well, if the average person is going to need a car in, say, Normal, he may figure he might as well drive.

For me, deep in Chicago's NW 'burbs, I'd never take the Hiawatha: in the time it takes to drive to Glenview, I'm 2/3 of the way to the Milwaukee Amtrak station. So I think they've got some tough problems in Chicago. From where I sit (and geography can be a killer), Amtrak is useful for any destination south and east of Chicago though SW of Chicago is going to be hit or miss. For someone in Matteson, IL, these sorts of calculations will be different.

Of course, I could be spoiled by Metra for my Chicagoland travel needs and have fallen under the delusion that this could be expanded regionally.

While I'm at it: I've never bothered taking the train to Indianapolis when I've had to go for business. It arrives at about the worst possible time for business or tourism (though I don't see any business trips there for me anytime soon).

Well, consider yourself lucky that you live near the hub, and have those train options at all Take a look at the Megabus midwestern route structure, and you'll see the Chicago Hub network that a new "Amtrak Heartland" should operate. Since Amtrak itself is Congressionally limited to providing skeletal LDs, mid-distance day trains, and state-supported service, I hope to eventually see the midwestern states step up and create a compact to fund intercity train and bus service much like California does. I know it's a vain hope at present, especially with the anti-government furor in several gateway states (Indiana and Wisconsin for instance), but there's no reason Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Missouri should all be funding their own haphazard improvements without forming a purchasing coalition and standard guidelines. High-speed rail can be the next step, but I just want to see more than one train a day to Minneapolis, not to mention the other cities with limited or no service at all.

As for auto-free living, I'd add Minneapolis and St. Paul to the areas navigable without a car, and would emphatically remove Detroit from that list except for a very few concentrated areas (Royal Oak comes to mind.)

eagle628 wrote:We gained (and then lost) the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, too.

That has bothered me for quite a while now, any chance of them fixing it?

Well, Mr.HBLR, if you are prepared to lead the cavalry, I have long held that Amtrak's "suspension" of Sunset East is weak at best.

As you likely recall, the service was suspended immediately prior to the Sep 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The CSX line over which it "operates' has long since returned to service as well as to my knowledge a "pre-Katrina" level of traffic. But alas, there is no Sunset East. While of course any transportation company is relieved of contractual obligations due to unforeseen circumstances beyond its control (a Cat 4 hurricane certainly qualifies), that the line is restored certainly means that Amtrak's failure to return this train suggests circumstances within its control.

Under both RPSA '70 and its amending ARAA'97, Amtrak is required to give Notice of an intention to discontinue service in its entirety (as distinct from frequencies) over any route. The duration of such notice under ARAA '97 is 180 days and during that period public hearings to determine the necessity of any such service are to be held. Amtrak has obviated that entire process with their "suspension" position taken in this matter. The "suspension" position is carried to such extent that the Sunset's route timetable shows the New Orleans-Orlando stations and in Amtrak records #1, a Westbound Sunset, is identified as the date of origin for its "phantom" ORL-NOL run. The dates of "origin" from New Orleans continue to be unchanged resulting in one additional Superliner train set needed and hence depriving that scarce equipment (and the revenue it represents) from being assigned elsewhere on the System (there's your third Sleeper line for 29-30, Capitol Limited or an extension of the CHI-DEN line to EMY on 5-6 Zephyr).

Obviously NARP (which I don't think is run by dummies, but rather by intelligent, yet misguided, people) has decided there are 'wars to be fought' rather than 'a battle to be won'. Key political supporters, such as one-time US Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) have moved on (not necessarily by choice), and both its ridership and performance was, at best, abysmal (which means I cannot think of a word to describe it at its worse). However, I personally rode it twice ORL-NOL in this life, and found it 'to be OK" as all I cared was that it made to NO in time to connect with 58, City.

So, Mr. HBLR, are you ready to sound the bugle and lead the charge?

Sure, I'll fire a few emails to the parties involved & see what happens.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ... the Northeast Corridor - the only market in which there is unquestioned need for rail passenger service ...

Are you announcing a tri-directional extension of the Corridor through Virginia and North Carolina? After all, given the cost recovery figures of Lynchburg (in the black), Newport News (about 97%) and Carolinian services (over 80%), they have to be included in the list of such markets.

I'd also suggest that the Maple Leaf, bringing in close to 75% of costs at the farebox, has a claim.

The other trains from mkellerm's list that are above 50% in cost recovery are the Pennsylvanian, the Empire trains, the Vermonter and the Ethan Allen, all benefitting from NEC connections. (He didn't list LD trains, but I don't think any of them are that solid by the standards he used.) Leaving out the orphan Hoosier State, which is an equipment move that happens to carry passengers, the low would seem to be the Heartland Flyer, at 20%, and the Illinois Zephyr, at 27%.

(I just realized mkellerm's figures are from early 2010. I was looking at his chart in a post from the last week or so, and I hadn't noticed that it was quoting a much older post. Presumably, many of these numbers would be a little better given the increases of the last year.)