• Moving to one terminal per big city - wise?

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  • 291 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 20
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
mtuandrew wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:45 am For Chicago specifically, this sounds like a job for a reopened Englewood Transfer station .......
Mr. Stephens, "once upon a time" when there was a Rock Island RR with intercity trains with names like the "Golden State" and "Rocky Mountain Tocket", they advertised how a transfer at Englewood from the PRR. NYC, and even NKP, could result in making closer connections and with convenience saving a Parmelee transfer with PRR.
  by mtuandrew
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:13 amMr. Stephens, "once upon a time" when there was a Rock Island RR with intercity trains with names like the "Golden State" and "Rocky Mountain Tocket", they advertised how a transfer at Englewood from the PRR. NYC, and even NKP, could result in making closer connections and with convenience saving a Parmelee transfer with PRR.
Yep, I remembered it from discussions between you and our other posters who rode in the pre-Amtrak days. Sort of like North Philly and Secaucus, no?
  by John_Perkowski
 
Think about this

NYC has three major airports
Chicago has two
Houston has two
Los Angeles has four
DC has two plus BWI

If Amtrak only needs one major Station per city, it’s utterly redundant as a transportation mode.
  by mtuandrew
 
John_Perkowski wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:27 pm Think about this

NYC has three major airports
Chicago has two
Houston has two
Los Angeles has four
DC has two plus BWI

If Amtrak only needs one major Station per city, it’s utterly redundant as a transportation mode.
I don’t follow. If Amtrak only maintains one major station in the center of a city plus suburban stations radiating outward, you’re saying it’s redundant as compared to airports which by necessity are further away from the city center? I don’t call that redundant... I call it efficient.

Houston is definitely an example of Amtrak irrelevance, but for its three airports New York has two major Amtrak stations (NYP, NWK) plus several important outliers like NRO, EWR, and YNY. DC/Baltimore has three airports, but also sees big Amtrak passenger loads at ALX, NCR, and BWI as well as WAS and BAL itself. The LA Basin has four airports - but Amtrak has 18 stations between Oxnard and San Bernardino.
  by STrRedWolf
 
John_Perkowski wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:27 pm Think about this

NYC has three major airports
Chicago has two
Houston has two
Los Angeles has four
DC has two plus BWI

If Amtrak only needs one major Station per city, it’s utterly redundant as a transportation mode.
Hold on there, let me drag out the old tired argument and dust if off. Lets say, I want to go to New York City. I'm a short drive away from BWI.
  • United: 6h20m over 3 flights (BWI-JST-PIT-EMR), $402, requires another train trip to get into Manhattan.
  • American: 4h47m with a stop (BWI-CLT-LGA), $132, requires a bus trip to get into Manhattan (but technically in NYC!)
  • Delta: Doesn't fly to NYC from BWI.
  • Southwest: 4h55m with a stop (BWI-MDW-LGA), $133, see American.
And that's not counting 2 hours required at BWI and up to another hour to get any luggage. LIRR from JFK? 20 minutes at least. MTA from LGA? 1 hour minimum.

Amtrak? BWI-NYP, 3 hours, $39.

With that reminder...
  • NYC has NYP but you have to take a subway and a bus to get to LGA, or ether a train and a dedicated subway or a subway and dedicated subway to get to JFK -- no direct Amtrak connection. EMR (Newark, NJ) has Amtrak service.
  • Chicago has CUS, but to get into the city itself from CHI (O'Hare) or MDY (Midway) you're taking the subway.
  • Houston has HOS, but from the airports you're taking the 120 bus from IAH (George Bush International) or one of three buses (one requiring a connection to light rail) from HOU Hobby.
  • (BTW, Dallas/Fort Worth has 2 as well but you have to take ether light rail or a train to get to ether)
  • Los Angeles has it's own Union Station, but you're taking a train or express bus from any of the airports.
  • DC has... wait a minute, DC technically doesn't have ANY airports. Dulles and National are in VIRGINIA. And if you're lumping BWI in there, you're still wrong because BWI is in MARYLAND. Ether way, you got to take a subway from Dulles (currently bus bridged) or National to get into DC proper, or if you go through BWI, you gotta take the MARC train.
I could go on (Pittsburgh, Philly, St. Louis, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc).

The point here is that Amtrak's uniquely positioned in the heart of most major cities, so it's a good idea to exploit that. Airports are largely NOT in the heart of the city and you need to spend extra time to get there from the airport.

No wonders why people are pushing more corridors. They're technically cheaper and faster.
  by justalurker66
 
mtuandrew wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:45 am For Chicago specifically, this sounds like a job for a reopened Englewood Transfer station ...
You might want to check the crime rates first. Murder rate 24x national average. Robbery 8x national average. Car theft almost 3x national average.

It would help connect the LaSalle trains (including the South West Service that will move from CUS to LaSalle). The new flyover would make the connection more difficult in Englewood. If you're stopping at Englewood why not Grand Crossing to connect to the Metra Electric and South Shore? 75th St is a safe neighborhood - right?

(IIRC: The viral looting from a container train video was on a UP line.)
  by mtuandrew
 
justalurker66 wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:56 pm
mtuandrew wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:45 am For Chicago specifically, this sounds like a job for a reopened Englewood Transfer station ...
You might want to check the crime rates first. Murder rate 24x national average. Robbery 8x national average. Car theft almost 3x national average.

It would help connect the LaSalle trains (including the South West Service that will move from CUS to LaSalle). The new flyover would make the connection more difficult in Englewood. If you're stopping at Englewood why not Grand Crossing to connect to the Metra Electric and South Shore? 75th St is a safe neighborhood - right?

(IIRC: The viral looting from a container train video was on a UP line.)
Fair enough. Ironically an Englewood station would probably make the neighborhood safer - more development, more investment, better incentive for the city to provide services and security - but in the year 2020 it would make more sense to make transfers at Grand Crossing.
  by RRspatch
 
John_Perkowski wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:27 pm Think about this

NYC has three major airports
Chicago has two
Houston has two
Los Angeles has four
DC has two plus BWI

If Amtrak only needs one major Station per city, it’s utterly redundant as a transportation mode.
Well, if you're going to count the number of airports, which are generally way outside the city, then we can do the same for Amtrak in regard to it's suburban stations. Most of these outlying stations are connected to the central downtown station by either commuter rail or rapid transit.

New York -
Yonkers, New Rochelle. You could I suppose add Newark as serving the greater NYC area.
All these stations are served by commuter rail.

Chicago -
Hammond-Whiting. Naperville, Summit, Glenview, Homewood
Naperville, Glenview, Summit and Homewood are served by commuter rail.

Los Angles -
Van Nuys, Hollywood Burbank, Glendale, Fullerton, Amaheim, Pomona.
All these station are served by commuter rail.

Washington -
Alexandria, Silver Spring, New Carrollton.
All these stations are served by commuter rail and subway.
  by David Benton
 
Perhaps more constructive would be to look at where you would site a HSR terminal ?. and is there a route out of Chicago that can serve all likely destinations? I would say you would ahve to exclude Milwaukee, but seems to me a high speed exit from Chicago in a south east direction could serve most destinations. With a bit of a trade off between distance and speed / cost .
  by Arborwayfan
 
Even if we restrict it to main downtown terminals/stations, I don't think that having just one main downtown station makes trains irrelevant. What matters for relevance is the capacity of the terminals and the actual flow of passengers through them. Cities often get an additional airport because there's no room for another runway. Multiple main downtown stations (not Back Bay and others like it) usually happened not for capacity per se but because different railroads came into town, often from different directions, and got as close as they could to the city center, but then the city center got in the way. London, Paris, Boston, Chicago, Buenos Aires.... Many cities started consolidating their stations in private-railroad days: all those Union Stations are called that for a reason. So a city with two big airports and one two-track train station is showing that train travel is irrelevant, but NYC having just NYP for intercity rail vs. LGA and JFK is definitely not showing that.
  by mtuandrew
 
RRspatch wrote:
John_Perkowski wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:27 pm Think about this

NYC has three major airports
Chicago has two
Houston has two
Los Angeles has four
DC has two plus BWI

If Amtrak only needs one major Station per city, it’s utterly redundant as a transportation mode.
Well, if you're going to count the number of airports, which are generally way outside the city, then we can do the same for Amtrak in regard to it's suburban stations. Most of these outlying stations are connected to the central downtown station by either commuter rail or rapid transit.

New York -
Yonkers, New Rochelle. You could I suppose add Newark as serving the greater NYC area.
All these stations are served by commuter rail.

Chicago -
Hammond-Whiting. Naperville, Summit, Glenview, Homewood
Naperville, Glenview, Summit and Homewood are served by commuter rail.

Los Angles -
Van Nuys, Hollywood Burbank, Glendale, Fullerton, Amaheim, Pomona.
All these station are served by commuter rail.

Washington -
Alexandria, Silver Spring, New Carrollton.
All these stations are served by commuter rail and subway.
Thanks for pointing out the Chicago example of nine additional stations! I expanded on New York, Los Angeles and Washington/Baltimore too:
mtuandrew wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:03 pmHouston is definitely an example of Amtrak irrelevance, but for its three airports New York has two major Amtrak stations (NYP, NWK) plus several important outliers like NRO, EWR, and YNY. DC/Baltimore has three airports, but also sees big Amtrak passenger loads at ALX, NCR, and BWI as well as WAS and BAL itself. The LA Basin has four airports - but Amtrak has 18 stations between Oxnard and San Bernardino.
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
Metropark definitely serves as a suburban satellite station for the NY Metropolitan Region, much like New Carrollton and Route 128 in their respective markets.

Cornwells Heights park/ride might make sense as a suburban station (right off I-95).
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
Metropark Station is situated at a great location. It serves the NYC suburbs in Central and Southern Union County well. It's easily accessible from a lot of Middlesex and parts of Monmouth Counties. It has a lot of parking. It's extremely close to several highways-the Parkway, the Turnpike, Rt. 1, and Rt. 27. There are many office parks very close by. The Jersey Shore isn't that far either. Believe it or not, if you live in the Staten Island Borough of NYC, especially in the southernmost part, you are closer to Metropark than you are to NYP.
  by Pensyfan19
 
njtmnrrbuff wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:15 pm Metropark Station is situated at a great location. It serves the NYC suburbs in Central and Southern Union County well. It's easily accessible from a lot of Middlesex and parts of Monmouth Counties. It has a lot of parking. It's extremely close to several highways-the Parkway, the Turnpike, Rt. 1, and Rt. 27. There are many office parks very close by. The Jersey Shore isn't that far either. Believe it or not, if you live in the Staten Island Borough of NYC, especially in the southernmost part, you are closer to Metropark than you are to NYP.
Well if we're going to talk about the greater New York City region, the. Why not restore the waterfront terminals? Pavonia, Exchange Place, Pavonia, Weehawken, Communipaw, any one of those could be reactivated and serve as a large terminal!
  by justalurker66
 
mtuandrew wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:16 pm
RRspatch wrote: Chicago -
Hammond-Whiting. Naperville, Summit, Glenview, Homewood
Naperville, Glenview, Summit and Homewood are served by commuter rail.
Thanks for pointing out the Chicago example of nine additional stations!
Five stations listed. Four stations noted as having commuter rail. The fifth station had (pre-COVID) 14 Amtrak trains pass each day (7 in each direction) with only three stopping (one outbound, two inbound).
mtuandrew wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:30 pm
justalurker66 wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:56 pm 75th St is a safe neighborhood - right?
Fair enough. Ironically an Englewood station would probably make the neighborhood safer - more development, more investment, better incentive for the city to provide services and security - but in the year 2020 it would make more sense to make transfers at Grand Crossing.
I should have added the :wink: . 75th St would also not be a safe place to welcome people to the city.


One terminal is sufficient for Chicago. The suburb stops are good to allow people to use Amtrak without using CUS but there do not need to be additional stops within the city limits.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 20