Rethinking Amtrak and rail in the U.S.

[electricron]

In 2009, the top 10 most-traveled domestic flight routes are between
1. New York City or Newark-->Miami, Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach (8,748,534 People)
2. Los Angeles-->San Francisco or Oakland (6,306,638 People)
3. Atlanta-->Miami, Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach (5,045,415 People)
4. New York City or Newark-->Chicago (4,705,007 People)
5. New York City or Newark-->Atlanta (4,544,176 People)
6. New York City or Newark-->Los Angeles (4,355,755 People)
7. New York City or Newark-->Orlando (4,032,427 People)
9. Los Angeles-->Las Vegas (3,733,037 People)
10. Los Angeles-->Phoenix (3,434,874 people)

You spoke of a balanced transportation system, that is exactly what I'm talking about. The demand for slow, long distance rail in this country is miniscule. I would argue that all the money going towards those subsidized vacations should be put towards building railroads that will not only create jobs but make a SIGNIFICANT economic contribution after they are built. A high speed train from Chicago to New York via Pittsburg and Philadelphia will accomplish that. A high speed train from Chicago to Milwaukee, St. louis, or Detroit will accomplish that. TH\his is money well spent. If they are built, people will ride these trains.

I removed #8, because London England from the USA will never be reached by rail. Let's look at the milage (highway miles are easier to find on the internet) between the cities most traveled by air today.
1) New York City to Miami - 1281 miles
2) Los Angeles to San Francisco - 382 miles
3) Atlanta to Miami - 663 miles
4) New York City to Chicago - 791 miles
5) New York City to Atlanta - 882 miles
6) New York City to Los Angeles - 2790 miles
7) New York City to Orlando - 1078 miles
9) Los Angeles to Las Vegas - 265 miles
10) Los Angeles to Phoenix - 373 miles

Of the three city pairs less than 400 miles, or just to be argumentive less than 500 or 600 miles, Amtrak doesn't even serve them directly by train. Oakland some may consider is close enough to San Francisco is served by the Coast Starlight, one of your long distance trains you wish to eliminate. Thankfully, the State of California (not Amtrak) will build the CHSR link hopefully soon. Maricopa some may consider is close enough to Phoenix is served by the three trains a week Sunset Limited, again one of your long distance trains you wish to eliminate. And last on that list, Las Vegas isn't served by any Amtrak trains at all, which hopefully XpressWest (not Amtrak) will build a HSR link soon. Another interesting fact is that all three cities within 400 miles have Los Angeles as the other city of the city pair.

I would like to suggest that all the city pairs within reach of New York City by train already gets good train services, that these other cities rank so high on this list for planes mainly because the distances are too great to be served well by trains.

While you do have a point that long distance trains aren't profitable, eliminating them as you suggest will mean the end of Amtrak politically. If CHSR, XpressWest, and FEC's All Aboard Florida trains can exist without Amtrak, I suggest the NEC Acela and Regional trains could too. Illinois and other MidWest states could probably subside a private firm to operate their regional trains as well.

[morris&essex4ever]

In 2009, the top 10 most-traveled domestic flight routes are between
8. New York City or Newark-->London, UK (3,881,558 People).

Domestic flights do not typically leave the country...

What domestic flight goes from EWR/JFK to LHR?

[RocketJet]

In 2009, the top 10 most-traveled domestic flight routes are between
1. New York City or Newark-->Miami, Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach (8,748,534 People)
2. Los Angeles-->San Francisco or Oakland (6,306,638 People)
3. Atlanta-->Miami, Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach (5,045,415 People)
4. New York City or Newark-->Chicago (4,705,007 People)
5. New York City or Newark-->Atlanta (4,544,176 People)
6. New York City or Newark-->Los Angeles (4,355,755 People)
7. New York City or Newark-->Orlando (4,032,427 People)
9. Los Angeles-->Las Vegas (3,733,037 People)
10. Los Angeles-->Phoenix (3,434,874 people)

You spoke of a balanced transportation system, that is exactly what I'm talking about. The demand for slow, long distance rail in this country is miniscule. I would argue that all the money going towards those subsidized vacations should be put towards building railroads that will not only create jobs but make a SIGNIFICANT economic contribution after they are built. A high speed train from Chicago to New York via Pittsburg and Philadelphia will accomplish that. A high speed train from Chicago to Milwaukee, St. louis, or Detroit will accomplish that. TH\his is money well spent. If they are built, people will ride these trains.

I removed #8, because London England from the USA will never be reached by rail. Let's look at the milage (highway miles are easier to find on the internet) between the cities most traveled by air today.
1) New York City to Miami - 1281 miles
2) Los Angeles to San Francisco - 382 miles
3) Atlanta to Miami - 663 miles
4) New York City to Chicago - 791 miles
5) New York City to Atlanta - 882 miles
6) New York City to Los Angeles - 2790 miles
7) New York City to Orlando - 1078 miles
9) Los Angeles to Las Vegas - 265 miles
10) Los Angeles to Phoenix - 373 miles

Of the three city pairs less than 400 miles, or just to be argumentive less than 500 or 600 miles, Amtrak doesn't even serve them directly by train. Oakland some may consider is close enough to San Francisco is served by the Coast Starlight, one of your long distance trains you wish to eliminate. Thankfully, the State of California (not Amtrak) will build the CHSR link hopefully soon. Maricopa some may consider is close enough to Phoenix is served by the three trains a week Sunset Limited, again one of your long distance trains you wish to eliminate. And last on that list, Las Vegas isn't served by any Amtrak trains at all, which hopefully XpressWest (not Amtrak) will build a HSR link soon. Another interesting fact is that all three cities within 400 miles have Los Angeles as the other city of the city pair.

I would like to suggest that all the city pairs within reach of New York City by train already gets good train services, that these other cities rank so high on this list for planes mainly because the distances are too great to be served well by trains.

While you do have a point that long distance trains aren't profitable, eliminating them as you suggest will mean the end of Amtrak politically. If CHSR, XpressWest, and FEC's All Aboard Florida trains can exist without Amtrak, I suggest the NEC Acela and Regional trains could too. Illinois and other MidWest states could probably subside a private firm to operate their regional trains as well.

Yes of course I was not proposing a rail link across an Ocean. Those 10 flights were the most frequently flown routes in the U.S., obviously some are too long for Rail. I was mostly trying to point out that High Speed Rail should be seriously considered and studied to connect Chicago, Pittsburg, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and then New York City. Such a rail link would add to the High Speed Rail system already being designed and improved that includes Washington D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston.

I would completely disagree with distance being the primary problem here. In China, their Bejing to Shanghai route is 819 miles and in Spain, their Madrid to Barcelona route is 387 miles. Once the Northeast Corridor is improved, if the proposed electrified lines from Harrisburg to Pittsburg are built, it is 462 miles to Chicago. Considering other High Speed Rail lines being built, this is not out of the question distance-wise.

As for the Southeast, I think that an Atlanta Hub could be very interesting. Considering how many people travel between Atlanta and Miami which is 662 miles (on the longer side for certain), a such a southeast corridor could be used to connect other cities including Jacksonville, Orlando, Melbourne, and Ft. Lauderdale additionally. That is a potentially huge customer base.

I am actually more critical about the California High Speed Rail corridor as I fear that the significant dispersion of the population in California would hinder ridership as most people will still need to use their cars to get to these various train stations and will likely also need to take a cab or rent a car when they get to their destination. Still, such a system needs to exist if California is ever going to try to compress its populations and cease to sprawl outwards. The Vegas XpressWest train will be interesting to watch to see if it is used. I have argued elsewhere that such a system that goes only as far west as Palmdale will not become viable until the California High Speed rail system is built where people can easily get there from San Diego, Orange County, and Los Angeles but a connection between Phoenix and Las Vegas makes perfect sense to me and I am hoping that such a system could be built in the future as that flight data suggests once again, that there is a market.

The thing about Amtrak is that, if you read all of my analytical criticism, it really si difficult to defend funding it in its current form: it is an obsolete system apart from the Northeast and Keystone Corridors along with the Commuter lines it runs. As far as Amtrak being viable politically...I would argue that political support for Amtrak exists only because of a desire for highly-utilized public transportation. This is something I agree with but as far as rail goes, but the only systems that seem to be utilized are the ones used for business and regular-day commuting. Amtrak, apart from its commuter lines and High(er)-speed and more frequent service along the Northeast Corridor (with prospects for similar service in the Midwest ), does not really provide a transportation demand.

I think Amtrak simply needs to become an operator on utilized lines. Where there is no demand, there should be no line. It is that simple people.

[electricron]

I was mostly trying to point out that High Speed Rail should be seriously considered and studied to connect Chicago, Pittsburg, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and then New York City. Such a rail link would add to the High Speed Rail system already being designed and improved that includes Washington D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston.

I would completely disagree with distance being the primary problem here. In China, their Bejing to Shanghai route is 819 miles and in Spain, their Madrid to Barcelona route is 387 miles. Once the Northeast Corridor is improved, if the proposed electrified lines from Harrisburg to Pittsburg are built, it is 462 miles to Chicago. Considering other High Speed Rail lines being built, this is not out of the question distance-wise.

As for the Southeast, I think that an Atlanta Hub could be very interesting. Considering how many people travel between Atlanta and Miami which is 662 miles (on the longer side for certain), a such a southeast corridor could be used to connect other cities including Jacksonville, Orlando, Melbourne, and Ft. Lauderdale additionally. That is a potentially huge customer base.

The thing about Amtrak is that, if you read all of my analytical criticism, it really si difficult to defend funding it in its current form: it is an obsolete system apart from the Northeast and Keystone Corridors along with the Commuter lines it runs. As far as Amtrak being viable politically...I would argue that political support for Amtrak exists only because of a desire for highly-utilized public transportation. This is something I agree with but as far as rail goes, but the only systems that seem to be utilized are the ones used for business and regular-day commuting. Amtrak, apart from its commuter lines and High(er)-speed and more frequent service along the Northeast Corridor (with prospects for similar service in the Midwest ), does not really provide a transportation demand.

I think Amtrak simply needs to become an operator on utilized lines. Where there is no demand, there should be no line. It is that simple people.

Well, your recommended line NYC, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburg, Chicago once had a long distance train that Amtrak had to terminate because it had poor ridership. And the entire route will still be 791 miles long. While there are several cities along this route that deserve service, most of them already have service. NYC to Philadelphia is certainly already served by Acela, NYC to Harrisburg and NYC to Pittsburg are already served by Regional trains. Pittsburg to Chicago is already served by the Capitol Limited, again one of the long distance trains you wish to eliminate. I'll admit the trains traveling further west than Harrisburg aren't very fast trains, but even the trains going to Harrisburg are only going as fast as 110 mph.

The distances in China, for the entire length of the HSR trains, are fairly large. But not many riders on these trains are taking the train the entire distance, as there are fairly large cities these trains pass thru, larger than the American cities along your favorite route. Additionally, the Chinese travelers often choose to take the slower trains over the HSR ones because they are price conscious. So, I wouldn't be using them to support your cause, because they show just the opposite you're suggesting. As long as air fares are cheaper, Americans will continue to choose to ride on planes over trains. Americans are also price conscious. Distances do matter, and so does prices for the fares.

As for Atlanta becoming a major rail passenger hub, Atlanta will need to build a large train station and maintenance infrastructure to maintain the trains, which nobody wants to fund. After all, many Amtrak trains don't leave Atlanta now for a reason.

[morris&essex4ever]

Because Delta has its largest Hub in ATL with 980 daily departures?

[Ken W2KB]

Because Delta has its largest Hub in ATL with 980 daily departures?

The same could be said for NY and Newark Penn station patrons, which are not many (setting aside commuters) in relative terms compared with the hordes that are at LaGuardia and Newark airports.

[RocketJet]

Because Delta has its largest Hub in ATL with 980 daily departures?

The same could be said for NY and Newark Penn station patrons, which are not many (setting aside commuters) in relative terms compared with the hordes that are at LaGuardia and Newark airports.

That is a really important observation. When I see lots of travel going on already I see a market. I mean, that is what makes rail or any transportation system successful. You don't put the rail where there are no people. In my opinion, the fact that trains currently don;t go to Atlanta is a good thing which means we can start with new infrastructure and a completely new design without having to relocate stations or track.

Additionally, my proposals are not strictly point to point, for my longer proposals I do include major metropolitan areas in between the ends. For my vision for Chicago-NY HSR, there is the ability to connect Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburg with even the possibility of Detroit though such a move could be a problem where although it could save money by combining lines, it would add more time to the trip.

If such a line were to be built, I would envision an entirely new corridor between Pittsburg and Chicago to minimize curves and grades. With Amtrak already planning on improving Philadelphia-New York City along with the rest of the Northeast Corridor, I would suggest the same treatment for the Philadelphia-Harrisburg and Harrisburg-Pittsburg segments. The Philadelphia to Harrisburg section could get the same treatment that New Haven-Boston got with concrete ties, continuously welded rail, and new catenaries where the the current catenary system could be updated to include tighter wire where the pantograph touches but reuse the posts and cross-cables where possible. The Harrisburg-Pittsburg section would need new track to bypass the freight operations but even that, Amtrak is studying and if they are to commit to such an upgrade on their own, electrification is likely as the Keystone corridor is already electrified and will likely continue to be so considering their recent investments and upgrades.

[electricron]

If such a line were to be built, I would envision an entirely new corridor between Pittsburg and Chicago to minimize curves and grades. With Amtrak already planning on improving Philadelphia-New York City along with the rest of the Northeast Corridor, I would suggest the same treatment for the Philadelphia-Harrisburg and Harrisburg-Pittsburg segments. The Philadelphia to Harrisburg section could get the same treatment that New Haven-Boston got with concrete ties, continuously welded rail, and new catenaries where the the current catenary system could be updated to include tighter wire where the pantograph touches but reuse the posts and cross-cables where possible. The Harrisburg-Pittsburg section would need new track to bypass the freight operations but even that, Amtrak is studying and if they are to commit to such an upgrade on their own, electrification is likely as the Keystone corridor is already electrified and will likely continue to be so considering their recent investments and upgrades.

The Keystone Corridor to Harrisburg is still in the process of being upgraded to 110 mph service. Isn't it a little early to be thinking about upgrading the fairly new infrastructure in this corridor for even higher speeds? Amtrak is also in the process of upgrading train speeds between Chicago and Detroit for 110 mph speeds, why start now planning to build an entirely new rail corridor for even higher speeds. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait for some of this new equipment to age and wear out first?

I will agree debating what the top speed should occur before spending a fortune rebuilding the rail corridors. But once a decision has been make, whether it's 79, 90, 110, or higher speeds, lets keep to that decision until the time comes to replace the equipment when it wears out again. It's a waste of resources to constantly replace equipment before the equipment wears out or becomes obsolete as far as maintainability is concerned, or the need for more trains exceeds the corridor's capacity.

[Suburban Station]

The Keystone Corridor to Harrisburg is still in the process of being upgraded to 110 mph service. Isn't it a little early to be thinking about upgrading the fairly new infrastructure in this corridor for even higher speeds? Amtrak is also in the process of upgrading train speeds between Chicago and Detroit for 110 mph speeds, why start now planning to build an entirely new rail corridor for even higher speeds. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait for some of this new equipment to age and wear out first?

I will agree debating what the top speed should occur before spending a fortune rebuilding the rail corridors. But once a decision has been make, whether it's 79, 90, 110, or higher speeds, lets keep to that decision until the time comes to replace the equipment when it wears out again. It's a waste of resources to constantly replace equipment before the equipment wears out or becomes obsolete as far as maintainability is concerned, or the need for more trains exceeds the corridor's capacity.

no, in fact, it's already been studied to death but never paid for. the original keystone corridor plan was $300 million, less than half of which was completed. there's plenty of work yet to be done. of course, the real time savings won't come from philly harrisburg (I'd say there's upward of 20 minutes there) but harrisburg-pittsburgh where the savings is in hours..you could probably make what is now 5.5 hours 2 hours or less. I jsut haven't heard about anyone studying it...penndot's consultants said it would cost $6.3 bn to build an entirely new right of way, the state didn't take it any further.

[electricron]

no, in fact, it's already been studied to death but never paid for. the original keystone corridor plan was $300 million, less than half of which was completed. there's plenty of work yet to be done. of course, the real time savings won't come from philly harrisburg (I'd say there's upward of 20 minutes there) but harrisburg-pittsburgh where the savings is in hours..you could probably make what is now 5.5 hours 2 hours or less. I jsut haven't heard about anyone studying it...penndot's consultants said it would cost $6.3 bn to build an entirely new right of way, the state didn't take it any further.

The State didn't take it further because it decided it didn't have $6 Billion lying around to spend to build it. At least California asked its citizens at an election to vote to sell $9 Billion of bonds to help build the CHSR project, although it's now estimated the final costs will far exceed $50 Billion, and some project the entire project will exceed $100 Billion. Where the remaining $40 yo $90 Billion will come from hasn't been fully identified.

Over the next two years, Pennsylvania will spend over $94 Billion on transportation projects, $19 Billion of that coming from General funds and $73 Billion from dedicated transportation funds. That's $47 Billion and $9 Billion each year. An additional $6 Billion, if a HSR line were truly that low, for a specific project will surely break the budget.

[RocketJet]

Well the timing will clearly be determined by money, but I wouldn't rule such investments out. There will almost certainly be an infrastructure binge in the next few years, its just a question of how much rail will be getting.

[neroden]

Over the next two years, Pennsylvania will spend over $94 Billion on transportation projects, $19 Billion of that coming from General funds and $73 Billion from dedicated transportation funds. That's $47 Billion and $9 Billion each year. An additional $6 Billion, if a HSR line were truly that low, for a specific project will surely break the budget.

Well, actually your numbers show very clearly that it *won't* break the budget. It'll take a minimum of 5 years to build, so spread it out over 5 years, and you find that it's less than 2% of the transportation budget; it is definitely possible to find enough savings in other areas (perhaps forego some multi-billion-dollar road widenings and freeway interchange reconstructions) to fund that.

It's a matter of political will, nothing more.

[electricron]

Well, actually your numbers show very clearly that it *won't* break the budget. It'll take a minimum of 5 years to build, so spread it out over 5 years, and you find that it's less than 2% of the transportation budget; it is definitely possible to find enough savings in other areas (perhaps forego some multi-billion-dollar road widenings and freeway interchange reconstructions) to fund that.

It's a matter of political will, nothing more.

On a budget that's already 29% over budget just financing existing projects. Math 94 / 73 = 1.28767123287671

[RocketJet]

California is also in HUGE debt but it is still spending couple Billion, it may be bad timing right now, but it is certainly still possible.

[morris&essex4ever]

California is also in HUGE debt but it is still spending couple Billion, it may be bad timing right now, but it is certainly still possible.

Just a couple billion dollars?