If 1 new Amtrak route was to be added, what should it be?

One of the presidential candidates who needs to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana could put together a plan for energy independence (sounds good right) that would involve building a new high speed rail network and the factories for the trainsets would be located in areas hit by losses of jobs in the auto industry, such as the states listed above.

"Not since President Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway System has our transportation system and our national security been so linked. In order for us to free ourselves from the clutches of those who use our oil dollars to fund terror against our citizens (Saudi Arabia, hello), I am putting forth a comprehensive plan to free us from our dependence on the automobile and airplanes for transportation. While at the same time, we will provide jobs to the workers who need them most. Like the build up to World War II brought the country out of the great depression as Detroit's great factories moved from assembling cars to building tanks and airplanes, it is time for us again to re-tool to fight this multifaceted enemy. It won't be easy, but neither was going to the moon. So today, I propose a new Interstate Rail Transportation System that will help our economy and free us from terror. Thank you." You want jobs--you got 'em.

Just a guess but that sounds like Barry O to me.

With the huge population on the West Coast of Florida, I'm surprised there's been no talk of restoring service to Fort Myers. Running the Silver Star back and forth from Tampa and then on to Miami has always seemed to defy common sense. Even if you just ran a regional from Orlando to Tampa, then down to Fort Myers, and on to Naples ( I know the track doesn't quite make it down there anymore.) would make sense.

chefwrg wrote:With the huge population on the West Coast of Florida, I'm surprised there's been no talk of restoring service to Fort Myers. Running the Silver Star back and forth from Tampa and then on to Miami has always seemed to defy common sense. Even if you just ran a regional from Orlando to Tampa, then down to Fort Myers, and on to Naples ( I know the track doesn't quite make it down there anymore.) would make sense.

That was my thought when I had to visit Fort Myers from Winter Haven via the horrible Hound in March this year. I saw a nice station site at Bonita Springs. At the least I wished for a nice French DMU to whisk one up to Orlando.

kaback9 wrote:

First of all make the NEC a 150mph all the way, let the AE's reach their full potential.

A HS line between Chicago and New York would be nice too, followed by upgrading the California Corridors and then a Florida HS line and a Midwest HS line to be added as time goes on. The Chi-NY line could be the basis for creating a new HS line in the MIdwest.

also OT but i would upgrade all the commuter railroads on the NEC as well when upgrading the NEC to a 150mpg speedway.

Most of this is simply beyond the realm of possibility under current conditions: The present-day NEC involves far more mileage within thickly-settled areas than that in open country. Bottlenecks like the tunnels in Baltimore or the succession of bridges and interlocking complexes between Trenton and the western Philadelphia suburbs can't be re-engineered for higher speeds.

The only way this obstacle could be removed would be to turn NEC service into a straight shot through construction of a new line via South Jersey (which has a redundant Interstate highway) and the Eastern Shore of Maryland, assumng the suspension bridges currently in place can be modified to permit rail use. That, of course, would put every NIMBY from Princeton to Annapolis up in arms.

It's entirely possible that the current impasse over infrastructual collapse will eventually lead to a serious effort to thwart obstructionist tactics, but as a believer, first and foremost, in the protection of individual rights, including property rights, I'm not too enthusiastic about that. We will probably have to content ourselves with a continued, slow-but-steady upgrade of the corridors we now have, and possibly over the long run, the conversion or reconfiguration of a few Interstates, or the reactivation of abandoned rail lines.

It's entirely possible that the current impasse over infrastructual collapse will eventually lead to a serious effort to thwart obstructionist tactics, but as a believer, first and foremost, in the protection of individual rights, including property rights, I'm not too enthusiastic about that. We will probably have to content ourselves with a continued, slow-but-steady upgrade of the corridors we now have, and possibly over the long run, the conversion or reconfiguration of a few Interstates, or the reactivation of abandoned rail lines.

In France there is a saying: you don't consult the frogs before draining the pond.

But they pay generous compensation to people displaced by Grands Projets.

Instead of looking at what new routes are added, maybe we should be looking at improving frequency on existing routes. Lets look at the Cardinal/Hoosier state. Two major stations, Cincinnati and Indianapolis are served in the middle of the night. Why would anyone take the train if they had to get up at midnight to get to the station? I know I wouldn't.

systemsconsciousness wrote:

Like the build up to World War II brought the country out of the great depression as Detroit's great factories moved from assembling cars to building tanks and airplanes, it is time for us again to re-tool to fight this multifaceted enemy. It won't be easy, but neither was going to the moon. So today, I propose a new Interstate Rail Transportation System that will help our economy and free us from terror. Thank you." You want jobs--you got 'em.

I respectfully must disagree; you're attempting to link "prosperity" with a "war footing" and the artifically high-paying public-sector jobs it created.

We probably had no way to avoid being drawn into the two World Wars, and in retrospective, it all turned out for the best once our Soviet "friends" collapsed under the weight of their own chains, but a steady economic recovery was under way by the mid-1930's. What the war mentality did was to hasten the decision to convert the nation to a transport system based primarily on the airlines and the private auto, and atomic energy's promise of abundant renewable power hasn't panned out nearly as easily as planned.

That sort of thinking also strengthened the misconception that centralized planning and control could create some uniform service easily adaptabe to all markets; Amtrak was a textbook example of that when first set up in the 1970's, but its different components have evolved along different paths, some of which have proven more successful than anticipated, and some of which will be sustained by the lack of alternatives regardless of short-term economics. Only the most clearly bureaucratized and unresponsive component, long-distance service, has devolved into an embarrassment, for reasons which can be clearly explained by the workings of market forces.

The unrealistic plans of that day, and the thinking it spawned, are now forcing all of us to pay a price, and the more I see, the more convinced I become that few, if any major figures in the public sector have any idea which parts of the Frankenstein need to be discarded, and which retained. That is a decision best returned to the state and local level. The new energy realities will likely re-concentrate economic growth within the corridors, and this is the place for which rail transport is best suited....it just doesn't have to be Amtrak.

MudLake wrote:It's foolish to think that Amtrak is going to have any effect on climate change. If real climate change is something society wants to attack (as opposed to a thinly-veiled advancement of socialist programs) then start by telling 1.25 billion Chinese that they aren't going to be allowed to drive automobiles. That might make a difference if any difference is to be made. By the way, we're having the coldest year since ??? not to mention that it's been exposed that NASA has "adjusted" the historical data.

For those who prefer documented facts rather than just making stuff up, here's a link to the Bush Administration's NOAA: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories200 ... rtemp.html. Summer of 2008 "ninth warmest on record since records began in 1880."

But back to new routes.... If there's a justification for answering this question from any other perspective than which new route has the potential for moving the most people, I have yet believe what that could be. So, here are my routes with the highest potential and not in any order:

LA - Las Vegas
Orlando - Miami (what is there today doesn't count in my mind)
Cleveland - Columbus - Dayton - Cincinnati
The Texas Triangle

A word about Ohio. I now live in this state and people here are not the noobs that some on this forum have opined. Instead, people here seem wise enough to realize that spending an extra XYZ on education might be a better investment than on a train. Further, they also seem to understand that it might not be a great use of money to start a train service that will take possibly six or seven hours to get from Cleveland to Cincy when you can drive it in about four to 4:15 if you really put your mind to it. Now for a multi-billion dollar sum you can fix that problem but the people aren't going to send themselves a bill of something like $5000/household to build a competitive rail line when the highways are already there.

Economics will of course be the deciding factor. And the economics are changing rapidly. Today's Chicago Sun-Times has a 23-year old woman newly moved in from the suburbs saying that no one she knows is even thinking about buying a car, because of the way the costs of gas have changed.

Maybe car-sharing and more wide-spread, less costly rentals will allow for economical middle distance trips and we won't need a stronger passenger rail system. But it's clear that the way of life built on cheap oil and American privilege is ending.

By the way, it's a hilarious cheap shot that line about start by telling a billion Chinese not to drive, when far more Americans own cars, drive them further, and use more oil to go a mile, in a country of less than 1/3 the population.

in particular order:
1) florida corridor service: Jacksonville-Miami via the Florida East Coast, and a Jacksonville-Tampa-Miami train. even either or, but a corridor route with multiple frequencies is warranted.
2)Chicago-Twin Cities
3)Pittsburgh-Cleveland-chicago
there are others, to be sure, but at normal speeds I think these might be the best. at higher speeds, I'd add LA-Vegas or LA-Phoenix...even a Texas service. Bear in mind, those are new routes, and does not take into account current routes shoudl als be worked on and may not be unrelated. For example, I think Pitt-chicago shoudl meet up with a faster, more frequent Pitt-NYP and a rerouted "empire service" that ends in cleveland instead of niagara, with improved trip times. It would also meet up with the Chicago-twin cities and could even operate as a through train, not with the goal of pittsburgh-twin cities, but simple through chicago service, say, Milwaukee-South Bend, etc.

I have three based on historical operations.

The Tennessean
New York-Memphis

Crusader
New York-Philadelphia

Minute Man
Boston-Troy

I've seen a lot of "Chicago-Minneapolis" suggestions, and heartily agree - St. Paul's working towards rehabbing their Union Depot (affectionately known as SPUD, though modern press releases have it as Minnesota's Union Depot.) Minneapolis is finishing a commuter rail station in downtown that could host the Medium-Distance trains (I like that term!), though the Empire Builder probably won't serve that station unless it returns to its pre-Amtrak routing. Madison still has no Amtrak station, but does have a general idea of two places to place it and the state has a decent relationship with the Wisconsin Southern. Finally, the CP track has... well, less traffic than the BNSF main and a higher speed limit than the UP ex-Omaha line between MSP and CHI. Amtrak could probably come to an agreement, in any case.

Upper Midwest suggestions:
1. Chicago - Milwaukee - Madison
2. Chicago - Milwaukee - Madison - St. Paul - Minneapolis
a. connecting train: St. Paul - Duluth
b. one daily: Chicago - St. Paul - Winnipeg
3. Chicago - Davenport - Des Moines - (Omaha - SF, reroute the California Zephyr)
4. Chicago - Janesville - Madison
5. Kansas City - Des Moines - St. Paul


But before anything but #1 or maybe #2, I'd like to see the Texas Triangle routes and have the Heartland Flyer extended to Kansas City.

Finally, a somewhat far-out dream: The Rocky Mountain Ranger... there might be hassles with ICE and the Border Patrol, but no one can deny that there's a market for travel from border to border. That, and it's almost entirely BNSF track, except for New Mexico-owned track and some CP rails north of the border. El Paso - Albuquerque - La Junta or Trinidad, CO - Denver - Cheyenne - Shelby, MT - Calgary, AB.

Well I guess this is as good as anywhere to reiterate my long held thoughts regarding routes where East-West Auto-Train service could find a market. In each case, this service would add auto carriers to the consists of the Zephyr and Chief with "Auto Train Service" passengers being accommodated in line space;

Galesburg-Irondale
Galesburg-La Junta
Albuquerque-San Bernardino

Galesburg is selected as the Eastern terminus in that two trains could be served from one facility. Locating the terminal there means that in addition to serving Chicago, traffic could also be drawn from St Louis and even Minneapolis. Irondale (10 miles E of Denver) is selected rather than Denver because the area around DUT is now quite "urbanized". This would save passengers whose destination is other than Denver the need to drive downtown. Also the backup move of #5 is facilitated if there is a passenger car on the rear from which the Conductor can play "Engineer'.

San Bernardino is selected in that the entire LA Basin is accessible and would minimize "backhauling' as would be the case to many a destination if the terminus were to be LAUPT.

Why not through Galesburg San Bernardino service? First the additional cars would make for a more "think I can' over Raton where I understand that HEP is killed during the ascent (haven't ridden since 1991 - could be mistaken). Second, my experience with Auto-Train, i.e. 52-53, is that for most passengers overnight is quite enough. The existing Auto Train carries about as many railfan passengers as does Acela.

NEW York to LA. The train would use the Crescent's tracks to New Orleans and then the Sunset Limited tracks to LA.

PRSL22 wrote:I have three based on historical operations.
Minute Man
Boston-Troy

Troy would be pretty tough considering the tracks don't exist any more.

But if you accept Boston-Albany, then only if you can get it to card in at under 4 hours.