Decades of drawing fantasy maps and trying to drum up political support for marginal routes haven’t made the U.S. a world leader in passenger rail. Rather than doubling down on something that hasn’t worked and probably never will, why not try something that actually has a chance of being successful?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The counter argument is that Amtrak provides a much needed service to rural communities off the coasts outside of the large cities. Another article that I can't remember the source on noted that only 10% of people take the Empire Builder the entire length of the trip. Several of the small rural communities Amtrak serves don't have other public transit options such as a bus or a airport within 2 or more hours.
Yes, the NEC is a very competitive route and needs lots of work including realignment of the right of way to get truly high speed service. It also suffers from the greatest amount of deferred maintenance in the bridges and tubes.
At the same time, there is the also the "other" Amtrak that serves the public good, much like the interstate highway system.
Written like a true Trakkie, Jonathan. (That's OK. I'm one too.) The days when the PRR held the unofficial 51st senate seat in the State House at Harrisburg are long gone, unfortunately some might say. From what I can tell, today's national rail situation regularly proves that modern politics and passenger trains don't play well together, on the Corridor or off.
- Mike
I suppose the question is: Is Amtrak a for profit company as Bloomberg suggests, or is it a public service just like roads and bridges, or is it both?
There are obvious "must do" upgrades such as the repair or replacement of the tunnels connecting NJ and NYC. They are 100 + years old and flooded just a few years ago shutting down the NEC. I would think that this must be among Amtrak's first infrastructure priorities.
Once the "must do" projects are done, what's next? It is a tough issue that will be debated for many years. NH Joe
It's been debated for 50 years so far. I don't see an end in sight. Some might say the debate predates Amtrak with the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965.
I would think the number one priority would be the Hudson River tubes as well. They flooded more than a few years ago. Hurricane Sandy 2012. The third tube would have been really helpful as it would have been in service by now allowing for closure of one tube for renovations and still having two tracks in and out of NYC.
Often was is missing in these discussions is what a small percentage of Amtrak funding actually goes towards non NEC funding. The NEC is an expensive stretch of track to maintain to start and without straightening some of the curves will never be truly HSR qualified. The Southwest Chief runs faster on parts of it's route with a 90 mph limit than parts of the NEC.
Mike is there anything that modern politics is compatible with? 
J 611,
You need to define "Hasn't Worked" in your terms. What hasn't worked? Was it supposed to unseat the airlines? Why does it need to be world class?
Most of us who've lived through the 50 years of Amtrak have heard at least 50 different "plans". So many that I doubt anyone could say precisely what the current one is, or any previous one was for that matter.
(If we all knew what Amtrak was assigned to do, the plan was dictated clearly, and it stayed largely constant over intervening years, we'd probably be able to answer my questions rather easily.)
M.H.M.
This Wendover guy on youtube does a good job explaining why amtrak needs to maintain service outside their busy corridors. https://youtu.be/dSw7fWCrDk0. Mostly due to political support. Most midwest politicians would not be happy putting most of the money into a corridor thats serves only the northeast. I completely agree the northeast corridor needs a lot of updating. The bridges on the ct shorline are from 1910 and often get stuck open or closed.
An NPR story on Amtrak's proposed 2035 map is quite interesting. Adding lots of connections between cities that don't presently exist.
Just my opinion but, as a taxpayer, I firmly believe that the U.S. Government needs to get out of the passenger train "business". Many current "young people" keep trying to compare our country to Europe and/or China & Japan as "world class passenger service". Many, MOST seem to forget that our country is essentially based around the automobile and it's industry, with extremely long distances between cities. Our citizens don't seem to desire "duding trains", regardless of speed, instead prefer their own automobile.
Also, remember that hauling passengers is a loosing proposition, as passenger trains can not turn a profit!
The freight railroads have their own ROW and make a profit.
So, let's take Bloomberg to the max extent.
Privatize most transportation. All controlled access highways become toll roads AND pay taxes.
Privatize airports and the air traffic control system. And have those pay taxes. I think Charles Lindbergh was against government monies for airlines.
Shipping lanes and ports become "toll roads". Same with taxes.
Get rid of most of the gas tax (need it for local roads.), special taxes for air/ports, ET. AL. That will produce true winners and losers.
I don’t know the answer, but one thing I know for certain, if there were TGV level speeds in use from the Washington metro area to Florida, I would absolutely choose that over flying. Air travel post-9/11 is the worst.
@Scotie posted:An NPR story on Amtrak's proposed 2035 map is quite interesting. Adding lots of connections between cities that don't presently exist.
And every one of them will lose money. 
As would roads, airlines, and ships when funded at similar levels for the infrastructure they utilize. In this case not really arguing one way or the other about which is better, however when put on an even playing field the cost / profit scenario could and would likely play out differently.
Regardless of how we feel personally, this conversation is always a losing argument and always will be for both sides.
Do public schools, fire departments or the military make profits? They are utilities for the public good. Could not Amtrak be thought of in the same light? I agree with rplst8, flying is a miserable experience, only ameliorated by the pain being relatively brief. If Amtrak would not take about the same time as a Conestoga Wagon, I would use it, too.
I voted against hi-speed rail here in California for one simple reason: The trains weren't going to go where people need them to go. As suspected, there are cost overruns, problems with rights-of-way, and the practical problem of lower cost to fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. They would have been better served following a commuter model between the suburbs and the major cities (now a moot point with everyone discovering the viability of tele-working)
Sadly, small rural towns don't have a traffic demand which would limit ridership and raise the cost per passenger for tickets absent subsidies due to the cost of operating the trains. A regional model, placing stations centered between rural communities might work (and I'm sure has been tried), but the question of demand still exists.
While I like trains personally, I suspect robotic cars will replace trains for shorter passenger trips (a few hundred miles or less) and some higher technology passenger transport will eventually replace them for longer trips (500-thousands of miles). Air travel will remain the major way of going 500-3000 miles for most people for the near future. The infrastructure is already in place for cars and airplanes, as it is for rail travel throughout the rest of the world, but not in the USA.
Kinda like Howard Dean's commuter line from Charlotte, VT to Burlington, VT. To have "mass transit" one first needs "mass".
If you've never been to Charlotte, VT... it has one flashing yellow light, a post office, a General Store and a firehouse. Maybe two dozen homes. Makes Mayberry look like a teeming metropolis.
On the other hand, much like the Norfolk Southern Thoroughbred concept, for a National passenger rail network to succeed, it needs feeder lines from Medium Markets to move people onto the bigger interstate trains at the major market hub. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago and L.A. all do this with commuter rail lines.
But to really succeed, markets like Scranton, Youngstown, Columbus, etc need to be connected to the National network in some meaningful way.
HOW this would be done given the depleted infrastructure, and the fact that infrastructure bills spend less than 10% of the monies on infrastructure remains to be seen.
Jon 
@AGHRMatt posted:I voted against hi-speed rail here in California for one simple reason: The trains weren't going to go where people need them to go. As suspected, there are cost overruns, problems with rights-of-way, and the practical problem of lower cost to fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. They would have been better served following a commuter model between the suburbs and the major cities (now a moot point with everyone discovering the viability of tele-working)
Sadly, small rural towns don't have a traffic demand which would limit ridership and raise the cost per passenger for tickets absent subsidies due to the cost of operating the trains. A regional model, placing stations centered between rural communities might work (and I'm sure has been tried), but the question of demand still exists.
Matt hit on the key problem. The pandemic has had a seismic shift in how companies get work done. No longer is tele-commuting a niche of the American office. Many companies are not even going to have main offices any longer and will instead keep most or all of their work forces remote. I live on Long Island, take a look around NYC on any given weekday, its empty. Obviously this model will not work for all but the trends are there.
That being said, I think a high speed NEC can be the economic driver to keep Amtrak afloat. None of these plans will work until the tunnels connecting NJ, NYC, and LI are fixed. Amtrak owns them but they are used by all of the commuter RR's that serve NYC. The latest estimates were around $ 4 B IIRC.
If the NEC can be even close to cost neutral, then Amtrak would be able to maintain more of the regional services that link many smaller cities.
Bob
To straighten tight curves for higher speeds sounds very expensive and next to impossible especially where the track runs along the edge of a river or along private property, which will start legal battles for the people that don't want to sell.
The light blue colored lines show all the new routes. The line of interest to myself is Detroit to Toronto. Will this train leave the new Michigan Central Station and enter the Detroit Railroad Tunnel and then proceed to Toronto, Ontario.
The tunnel portals are adjacent to the Michigan Central Station. The Detroit Free Press has had reported that negotiations have been underway to use the railroad tunnel. The main issue to be resolved is the ventilation in the tunnel, be able to keep the air safe for passengers.
I would also enjoy riding the new routes around Lake Erie.
Gary 🚂
@Rich Melvin posted:And every one of them will lose money.
Probably, but passenger rail travel was a money-loser long before Amtrak.
But don't count out changing ethos: if your private car becomes a memory because of taxation or some other legal restriction, all of a sudden rail travel regains viability. Such a future is in the plans of more than a few visionaries. . . .
This has all the earmarks of another giant taxpayer financed boondoggle! You add routes where there's demand, not just because the lines look good on a map!
Pallalin, You left the air quotes off "visionaries".
Jon
Gary,
If Detroit to Toronto is a viable route, then why wouldn't VIA be running it already?
Jon
@gunrunnerjohn posted:This has all the earmarks of another giant taxpayer financed boondoggle! You add routes where there's demand, not just because the lines look good on a map!
Long distance rail travel is an anachronism. It just doesn’t fit in today’s times. It is people clinging to the past, wishing for the “good old days” of rail travel. It is also a tremendous burden on all taxpayers, when only a tiny fraction of those taxpayers actually use the service.
There is a place for rail travel today, but it is in big-city commuter traffic and high density corridors, like the NEC. But if I’m going to travel more than a hundred miles, it sure won’t be on a train.
I was a free lance corporate pilot for any years. I really enjoyed flying the King Airs I flew for various companies, but I absolutely hated to fly commercial. Even so, if I need to travel from Ohio to the west coast some day soon, I’ll do it in three hours on a plane, not three DAYS on a train.
@Dave Zucal posted:To straighten tight curves for higher speeds sounds very expensive and next to impossible especially where the track runs along the edge of a river or along private property, which will start legal battles for the people that don't want to sell.
As of right now, this is not Amtrak's plan. The plan is not for bullet train/NEC style service along all of these new corridors. The 40 new routes/enhanced corridors proposed will utilize existing freight trackage and all of the new routes were chosen in talks with local government officials because there was a stated purpose in bringing service to these cities.
@AGHRMatt posted:I voted against hi-speed rail here in California for one simple reason: The trains weren't going to go where people need them to go. As suspected, there are cost overruns, problems with rights-of-way, and the practical problem of lower cost to fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. They would have been better served following a commuter model between the suburbs and the major cities (now a moot point with everyone discovering the viability of tele-working)
Sadly, small rural towns don't have a traffic demand which would limit ridership and raise the cost per passenger for tickets absent subsidies due to the cost of operating the trains. A regional model, placing stations centered between rural communities might work (and I'm sure has been tried), but the question of demand still exists.
CA High Speed Rail is either going to be considered as a visionary decision or one of the biggest "bridges to nowhere" ever. Unfortunately, once something like this gets up and running, it is almost never shut down if it fails.
The cities of central CA such as Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, etc., are no longer small farming towns. They have become major population centers. The highways connecting them to Sacramento in the north and LA in the south are already at capacity.
Most CA transportation planners believe that the age of the private car is gone. They are forcing cities to build housing without parking, etc. Planners believe that public transportation is the future in nearly all cities and between cities. The public transportation focus is the reason they are supporting CA high speed rail.
I strongly disagree. I think that private vehicles will remain the primary transportation choice for most people. Building apartments, homes and shopping centers without parking is a huge mistake.
Cars as we know them today will be gone. I think that by mid-century most new cars will be electric and self-driving. Self-driving cars will make the roads much more efficient and increase their capacity because human mistakes such as driving too slow or fast will be eliminated. Accidents will be rare.
It would be interesting to see how CA high speed rail works out. The PRR and NH railroads electric mainlines built in the early 20th century were also visionary. The basic infrastructure built then is still in use today. NH Joe
@KOOLjock1 posted:Gary,
If Detroit to Toronto is a viable route, then why wouldn't VIA be running it already?
Jon
Hi Jon:
VIA Rail has been running trains from Windsor, Ontario to Tornado for years. With the new Michigan Central Station coming online in about two years. The Ford Motor Company, the owners of the Michigan Central Station would like to see the trains come into the Michigan Central Station using the railroad tunnels,
The way it is set up now we have to drive to Windsor to catch the train. With Covid-19 still being an issue. (sidebar) The USA & Canadian Border is closed. Only open for essential traffic.
Gary 🚂
@trainroomgary posted:The way it is set up now we have to drive to Windsor to catch the train. With Covid-19 still being an issue. (sidebar) The USA & Canadian Border is closed. Only open for essential traffic.
Long before that route would be active, COVID-19 will be in the rear view mirror.
I guess I am the odd man out. I have always supported passenger rail service and by default, Amtrak. I am excited to see them attempt to expand services and I wish them the best.
Just my opinion and my thoughts. I hope everyone is having a good Monday!
@trainroomgary posted:Hi Jon:
VIA Rail has been running trains from Windsor, Ontario to Tornado for years. With the new Michigan Central Station coming online in about two years. The Ford Motor Company, the owners of the Michigan Central Station would like to see the trains come into the Michigan Central Station using the railroad tunnels,
The way it is set up now we have to drive to Windsor to catch the train. With Covid-19 still being an issue. (sidebar) The USA & Canadian Border is closed. Only open for essential traffic.
Gary 🚂
I'll be waiting for Byron MacGregor to report it on 20/20 News!
Jon
Even if you have self driving cars, still a traffic jam. there are just to many vehicles on our roads now, and getting more each day..cars will be like trucks good for the last delivery mile.
It’s virtually impossible to realign the NEC for higher speeds. A better solution would be to replace and repair bridges and ROW infrastructure that cause slow orders. Upgrade the signal system and re-assess traffic management.
The culmulative effect across the length of the NEC would reduce transit times substantially.
@AGHRMatt posted:I voted against hi-speed rail here in California for one simple reason: The trains weren't going to go where people need them to go. As suspected, there are cost overruns, problems with rights-of-way, and the practical problem of lower cost to fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. They would have been better served following a commuter model between the suburbs and the major cities (now a moot point with everyone discovering the viability of tele-working)
Sadly, small rural towns don't have a traffic demand which would limit ridership and raise the cost per passenger for tickets absent subsidies due to the cost of operating the trains. A regional model, placing stations centered between rural communities might work (and I'm sure has been tried), but the question of demand still exists.
I also voted against it, every time, when I as a California resident. The problem is insidious. It is not to make trains to nowhere, it is to make trains to somewhere that does not exist today. Specifically, huge sprawling suburbs in the Central Valley. Turn as much of the Central Valley agricultural land into suburbs as possible. Developers are just drooling over all the money they will make. Farmers fight it as much as they can.
It will be quicker for someone living in a new suburb of Fresno to get to downtown LA than someone living in Pasadena today, once it gets there. Grow baby grow.
You may ask why are they building the middle to nowhere first? Political strategy. Spend the money they have on something useless first. Once that part is done they will go back again and again incrementally and say we need more money to actually make go somewhere useful. And California voters will go for it.
The Altamont Commuter Express or ACE has proved the point in Northern California. They are private, profitable and cannot expand service because the UP won't allow them to. The waiting list to use the service was over a year in 2016. The pandemic has changed that significantly as more work from home but...
@Rich Melvin posted:AMEN!
Long distance rail travel is an anachronism. It just doesn’t fit in today’s times. It is people clinging to the past, wishing for the “good old days” of rail travel. It is also a tremendous burden on all taxpayers, when only a tiny fraction of those taxpayers actually use the service.
There is a place for rail travel today, but it is in big-city commuter traffic and high density corridors, like the NEC. But if I’m going to travel more than a hundred miles, it sure won’t be on a train.
I was a free lance corporate pilot for any years. I really enjoyed flying the King Airs I flew for various companies, but I absolutely hated to fly commercial. Even so, if I need to travel from Ohio to the west coast some day soon, I’ll do it in three hours on a plane, not three DAYS on a train.
Well, everyday more and more of the people around me would rather drive a thousand miles than fly if there is a choice. And it is more airports than it is actually flying. Voluntarily checking your self into a concentration camp is something they are willing to do less and less. They'd rather drive their car or rent an RV and spend a day or two driving than spend hours in a prison. If I can't drive or take a train I rather stay home.
I swear if I hear "FAA regulations require your compliance..." one more time I might become felon. There are good reasons incidents of craziness in airports and on planes is on the rise.
I agree with both points of view. If I have to go a few hundred miles, I'd rather drive than fly. If I have to go a few thousand miles, I'll suck it up and deal with the major inconvenience of the ridiculous regulations now in place to fly.
I'm like Rich, I really miss my airplane and having the ability to take off from SE-PA and be in Denver long before the sun sets. No security idiots to deal with, no hurry up and wait in various lines, etc. 
Having rode Amtrak many times from PA to NY and Boston, and I can drive to NY or Boston as fast as the train will get me there, and I have my car when I get there.
I grew up in a small town. I have lived in small cities and towns all my life. The large cities on Amtracks routes intimidate me. I had no desire to go into these center cities before and less now. and That is where trains go, right into the center cities. with all the crime and riots and looting and shootings I hear about every day on the news, call me a coward but I am very frightened of these big center cities. so Amtrak has no use for me. They don't go anywhere I want to go and they are very inconvenient.
@Rich Melvin posted:AMEN!
Long distance rail travel is an anachronism. It just doesn’t fit in today’s times. It is people clinging to the past, wishing for the “good old days” of rail travel. It is also a tremendous burden on all taxpayers, when only a tiny fraction of those taxpayers actually use the service.
There is a place for rail travel today, but it is in big-city commuter traffic and high density corridors, like the NEC. But if I’m going to travel more than a hundred miles, it sure won’t be on a train.
I was a free lance corporate pilot for any years. I really enjoyed flying the King Airs I flew for various companies, but I absolutely hated to fly commercial. Even so, if I need to travel from Ohio to the west coast some day soon, I’ll do it in three hours on a plane, not three DAYS on a train.
Rich,
I'm in general agreement, but I'd like to replace your 100 mile limit with 250.
Living in the Detroit area, and having frequent business in Chicago (prior to the pandemic), I'd much rather take the train.
My late father-in-law used to talk about the days, in the late 50's and early sixties, when a flight between the two cities took only 45 minutes takeoff to touchdown, with lunch or dinner served en-route. In those days getting into and out of airports was quick and easy so, at most, between driving in at the departure end and driving out at the arrival end you probably had an hour to an hour and fifteen minutes.
When skyjacking reared it's ugly head the need for security added substantial time to this -- about an hour on the departure end. Airport growth and congestion, including moving the rental car lots and parking to remote sections of the airport grounds, added another 30 to 45 mins, on each end.
Last but not least, in the aftermath of 911 we've all been advised to arrive at least two hours early for domestic flights.
All of this makes our "high-speed" link between Detroit and Chicago competitive with air travel, as long as there are few freight delays. When bad weather threatens rail is clearly ahead. I've beat my boss home from Chicago many times when he elected to stick with his airline tickets as thunderstorms or snowstorms came through.
Here's an important point for business travelers: The in-the-air time above 10,000 ft. while flying (when you can get out your laptop and get some work done while traveling) is only 30 mins max. You might get another 30 mins in on the ground while waiting for departure.
On the train I'm working the whole way, aside from a little break here and there -- for a better-than-airline meal and a beverage.
Is is cost effective to the country, and to the Midwest, to offer this service? I don't know but I'll take the train to Chicago, and back, any day.
Mike
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...here-train-available
France is proposing a law to ban airplane flights less than a certain distance.
Dan Weinhold
@gunrunnerjohn posted:This has all the earmarks of another giant taxpayer financed boondoggle! You add routes where there's demand, not just because the lines look good on a map!
California Hi-Speed Rail, I rest my case.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
