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 🚂
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
