Amtrak: Connects US // American Jobs Plan Infrastructure Legislation

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:53 pm Thanks.

BTW, did I mention the new updated Lake Shore Unlimited service?

In a press conference today, NYS Senator Kirsten "Don't call me Junior" Gillibrand announced new direct service between Buffalo and Toledo, bypassing Cleveland.

"We realized that the name Lake Shore Limited actually was a too true and we were limiting ourselves to just the land side of the lake shore. As a result, we will be employing the same high speed ferries that the new Ronkonkama HSR service uses to provide a faster, more scenic trip on the lake side of the Lake Erie Shore. Now we are truly unlimited to which side of the lake sure we use."

When asked about losing the stop in Cleveland she added: "We gain the advantage by bypassing Cleveland. After studying the market and passengers, we realized that no one actually ever wants to go to Cleveland, it's just a stop on a way to bigger and better places. However, we are exploring a connection to Cedar Point where, if engineering plans go well, the trainsets will be able to do a loop to loop in the latest roller coaster to be added there. We expect passengers to be thrilled by this new experience."

Ohio Representative Jim Jordan's office said he was not available for comment as he was out shopping for a suit jacket.

<late breaking news, this appears to be just one of several announcements the newly constituted Am(phibious)Trak corporation is announcing today. Later announcements are expected to include a new Phase 7C's paint scheme and a pending announcement of resumed service to Key West and possibly to the Bahamas.

All humor aside, I now wonder about Chicago-train-Toledo-ferry-Buffalo-train-Boston service...

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:56 am I'm pretty sure this map integrates CAHSR, the texas HSR, and brightline with amtrak services.

The map seems to include Brightline West, but not Brightline Florida.

My quick map survey, to complement the new map:

* Congressional Research Service, February 8, 2021
Two excellent maps, pages 24 and 28: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45783.pdf
Also has a table of the status of all projects, Tier 1, Tier 2, etc.

* DOT investment map, 2016
https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/high ... highlights

* Vision for High-speed Rail in America, 2009
Map on page 6: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot ... icplan.pdf
This is the map you will see many places, such as Wikipedia, and it's the top Google result at DOT.

I'd like to see a map of current "High Speed" (125+ mph) and "Regional" (90+ mph) segments. Then an overlay with under-construction and Tier 2 of the same. Plastering the Atlanta network as High Speed on a map is not as useful (to me!) as a shaded speed map of Washington DC to Charlotte NC, which is Tier 2 though mainly less than 125 mph.

I appreciate the long range plans however, and hope rail drives less sprawl as the population grows, or coalesces. There are opportunities to sell/lease land for development to fund stations and track, but that seems to be in most cases either completely ignored or greedily over-exploited (Cuomo's plan for Penn Station South is not exactly Rockefeller Center).

The elephant in the room on some of these is of course whether state governments actually want these routes. Alabama’s governor has been quite hostile to the idea of the NOL - Mobile service so what’s going to make that state house get on board with the Other proposed services? Using federal money to get these services going is a good carrot but eventually the states have to commit to eventually funding the routes after a few years which seems to be what they are proposing - federal money to get the route going and it becomes a regular state supported service after a few years. I have to imagine the Class Is are also going to have opinions...

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:09 pm They missed or omitted some obvious, some not so obvious, ones:

-Not filling the Bakersfield - LA gap on the San Joaquin
-Why not connect the Pueblo route onto the SW Chief?

Bakersfield - LA needs something very expensive building through the Tehachapi Pass, so doesn't belong on an Amtrak wishlist until such a time as some other agency has committed to spending that money.

Extending to the SW chief adds at least 25% route miles to a Cheyenne to Pueblo corridor train for negligible extra revenue. Albuquerque is a little too small and too far away from Colorado to make any money from. So you're looking at Colorado to LA passengers to make the case, or tenuously it could be viewed as a sort of second frequency from Chicago to Colorado. These journeys would incidentally be very loss making to Amtrak as a whole, because that's long distance trains. And crucially the numbers using it would be way lower than the ridership needed on the rest of the route to justify the new corridor train. So in terms of the financial case for running trains in Colorado, best case scenario SW chief connection revenue is irrelevant, and worst case it makes the financials worse. To me it makes sense not to include it on the map.

I agree it's highly unlikely, but note Denver is very pro-transit. At least they will get some north-south.

extraordinaire wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:43 pm

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:09 pm They missed or omitted some obvious, some not so obvious, ones:

-Not filling the Bakersfield - LA gap on the San Joaquin
-Why not connect the Pueblo route onto the SW Chief?

Bakersfield - LA needs something very expensive building through the Tehachapi Pass, so doesn't belong on an Amtrak wishlist until such a time as some other agency has committed to spending that money.

I've read quite a bit (mostly about the California HSR project) that has pointed out that the only reason to go via Tehachapi rather than the shorter route through Tejon Pass (aka the Grapevine, the route I-5 takes) is political. Supposedly there was some huge development going in in that area that they didn't want to inconvenience.

I think a fairly easy fix to connect Pueblo to the west would be to re-route the SW Chief via Pueblo. It adds a little time to the Chief, but still gets into LA and Chicago at a decent time. It would also eliminate a chunk of Amtrak only track that has to be maintained solely for Amtrak. Connections would be made in Pueblo for Denver & Cheyenne.

What a difference $80B makes!

Notables:

1. Downeaster is up for "Enhanced" Service.

2. Wyoming will become an Amtrak State.

Mr Norman I can't imagine you would have ever thought passenger rail service would return to Cheyenne.

3. Scranton gets service. Biden could end up being the only U.S. President with two railroad stations named after him.

4. "All In" On Atlanta. Quite a stunning decision to push the chips on new service on the Southeast. It may have been an obvious choice but it was t necessarily the easy one.

5. Real Service Returns to Ohio. Cleveland becomes a hub and Amtrak returns to Columbus for the first time since 1979.

6. Indiana Restoration. Indiana revives a corridor restoration and also a link to Louisville. Stunning and smart politics as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:09 pm -No mention of Sunset East Mobile - Jacksonville

Last I heard about east of Mobile was a couple years ago. SRC was still pushing the idea of the NOL - Mobile twice daily with one train extending to Orlando. I don’t remember all the details but it sounded like the opposition to the Mobile service from the Alabama governor and a lack of interest at the Florida state level caused the east of Mobile portion to get chopped off the plan for now. The original Amtrak recommendation did include the eastern portion as a once daily and a second frequency extending to Mobile only. The Mobile service is possible because the city of Mobile is picking up the operating subsidy for the Alabama portion. Regardless of long or shorter distance, I don’t think any new Amtrak route is getting approved without state support. I think the only chance you’d see a full restoration of sunset east service is if Alabama and Florida stepped up.

The only people who win with this dream map are going to be the consultants paid to do the revised or new studies...

My guess is less than 25% of what's proposed actually leaves the station.

I'd much rather see how much of the $80B gets spent on Amfleet and Superliner replacements and other physical plant improvements that are needed today.

I actually don't think this map is that bad - although yes, this will only come alive if plant improvements happen. Especially looking at aspects such as the Hudson Tunnels.

Re: Boston to Concord, NH: the problem has always been that New Hampshire won't pay for it.

I'd love to see it extended to Montreal via Lebanon and White River Junction.

gokeefe wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:54 pm What a difference $80B makes!

Notables:

1. Downeaster is up for "Enhanced" Service.

2. Wyoming will become an Amtrak State.

Mr Norman I can't imagine you would have ever thought passenger rail service would return to Cheyenne.

3. Scranton gets service. Biden could end up being the only U.S. President with two railroad stations named after him.

4. "All In" On Atlanta. Quite a stunning decision to push the chips on new service on the Southeast. It may have been an obvious choice but it was t necessarily the easy one.

5. Real Service Returns to Ohio. Cleveland becomes a hub and Amtrak returns to Columbus for the first time since 1979.

6. Indiana Restoration. Indiana revives a corridor restoration and also a link to Louisville. Stunning and smart politics as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I think that Amtrak use a large part of the $80 billion for back log repair on the NEC and new tunnels.

New Hamphire has been back n forth with saying they will pay for any expanded passenger rail service. I know that MBTA has looked at running trains across the border to Nashua and Manchester. I guess that that could now be operated by Amtrak. It would be great to have some sort of regularly scheduled passenger rail service running from Boston to Nashua, Manchester, and Concord, New Hampshire. I know that that project was nicknamed the Capitol Corridor project.

SRich wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:08 am

gokeefe wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:54 pm What a difference $80B makes!

Notables:

1. Downeaster is up for "Enhanced" Service.

2. Wyoming will become an Amtrak State.

Mr Norman I can't imagine you would have ever thought passenger rail service would return to Cheyenne.

3. Scranton gets service. Biden could end up being the only U.S. President with two railroad stations named after him.

4. "All In" On Atlanta. Quite a stunning decision to push the chips on new service on the Southeast. It may have been an obvious choice but it was t necessarily the easy one.

5. Real Service Returns to Ohio. Cleveland becomes a hub and Amtrak returns to Columbus for the first time since 1979.

6. Indiana Restoration. Indiana revives a corridor restoration and also a link to Louisville. Stunning and smart politics as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I think that Amtrak use a large part of the $80 billion for back log repair on the NEC and new tunnels.

As I told two friends this morning like almost every transportation bill there is a lot of maybes and possibles thrown into the bill to get the needed things done. The viability (not profitable but something a state will pay for down the road) of many of these enhancements is optimistic at best.

I think most of these enhancements in the east coast states are viable long term. Elsewhere I am quite skeptical.