from prior post by Los Angeles Rams Guy:
why don't we put the CZ on the CN's Iowa Division mainline between Chicago and Omaha where most communities are also "poorly served" by alternative transportation modes. Ironically, even that route STILL has more populous centers with Dubuque, Waterloo/Cedar Falls, and Ft. Dodge in Iowa alone (not to mention Rockford and Freeport in Illinois) as opposed to BNSF's route. (my emphasis)
Point of information -- the ex-CNW, now UP "Overland Route" does not go thru Rockford and Freeport in Illinois.
It goes thru DeKalb and Rochelle. - a.s.
One gaping hole in present Amtrak is the lack of a direct Chicago - Florida service.
Due to poor track conditions on the ex-Pennsy between Indianapolis and Louisville, perhaps the best possibility here would be to use the existing Cardinal route from Chicago - Indy - Cincinnati.
At Cincinnati, the new train would head south down the NS CNO&TP nee-Southern mainline to Chattanooga via Lexington and Somerset, Kentucky. (This route is probably already Amtrak-ready or very close to it.) From Chattanooga the train would go to Atlanta, Jacksonville, and Miami.
Another plausible route that has often been mentioned which would pass through my part of the country would be a regional Cleveland and/or Detroit originating train which would then go through Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati, and thus optionally tie into both the existing Cardinal service to DC and the a midwest-Florida service I described above at Cincinnati.
Other possibilities that have been kicked around by railfans in this region, would be to reinstate the route of the former L&N's "Flamingo" which ran Cincy - Knoxville - Atlanta - (via the old ACL) to Florida. (This would be a possibly very viable baby-boomer alternative to I-75, which is becoming crazily overcrowded. It is also a very scenic route.)
Or the route of the former Chicago - Florida "South Wind" which ran (in conjunction with the old Pennsy) Chicago - Louisville - Nashville - Birmingham - Florida. (This was also the route Amtrak's "Floridian" up until 1979.)
Of the possibilities I have mentioned, an L&N fan I do admit I would love to see a new "Flamingo," and I do think it could be a viable I-75 alternative for the boomers. However, from a realistic point of view, it would be most feasible to use the existing Amtrak route into Cincy from Chicago, then head south through Kentucky on Norfolk Southern, as the Cincy - Chattanooga route is a real race track already. In any case, Chicago and Ohio - Florida direct service is a major, major "missing link" in Amtrak's route map, especially given how many retirees do the "snowbird" thing up and down Interstates 65 and 75 regularly.
I HAVE TO AGREEE WITH THIS ROUTE WITH ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION.FROM CINCINNATI TO LOUISVILLE,NASHVILLE,CHATTANOOGA,ETC TO GA AND FL. THE REASON I STATE THAT IS BECAUSE AT PRESENT,LOUISVILLE,NASHVILL,CHATTANOOGA DOESNT HAVE ANY SERVICE.WHILE IT IS SHORTEST VIA KY YOU MISS SEVERAL LARGE CITIES.IN NARPS GRID-GATEWAY,NASHVILLE AND CHATTANOOGA NOT WOULD ONLY GAIN THE NORTH-SOUTH RTE BUT ALSO EAST WEST FROM WASHINGTON DC,ROANOKE,VA,BRISTOL VA TN,KNOXVILLE ETC.NORFOLK SOUTHERN ALREADY SAID PUBLICY THAT THEY WOULD WELCOME THIS ROUTE ON THEIR SYSTEM. THATS MY THOUGHT.
OH BY THE WAY ANYONE WHO WILL BE IN THE KANSAS CITY,MO AREA ON DECEMBER 8,2007 AT UNION STATION IN DOWNTOWN KANSAS CITY, THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE A RAIL PASSENGER ORGANAZATION IS HAVING AN OPEN MEEETING FOR ANY ONE INTERESTED IN ADDING TO AND PRESERVING THE NATIONAL RAIL PASSENGER SYSTEM.MEETING WILL START AT 10.30 AM TO NOON OR LATER.THIS MEETING IS ABSOLUTELKY FREE AND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. GRAND AVE,MO
HEY AL IN CHICAGO,JUST A SHORT NITE,MEETING TIME FOR THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO START AT 10.30 AM INSTEAD OF 9.00 AM AS ORGINALLAY STATED.
COMMENTS ON THE NARPS SOUTH DAKOTA SERVICE,YES IT IS A STATE WHERE THE POUPLATION IS CON CENTRATED IN A FEW CITIES,BUT A MPLS-STPAUL=SIOUXFALLS-PIERRE,RAPID CITY MAKES SENSE SINCE I DONT EVEN THINK THERE IS GOOD/FAIR BUS SERVICE BETWEEN THESE POINTS.
OKAY ALL.HERES ANOTHER ARGUMENT EVERYONE CAN "CHEW" ON AND THEN POST AN ANSWER,THE IDEOLOGY I WILL US IS A SHOR HAUL AIRLINE VS SHORTHAUL RR.
ST.LOUIS-KANSAS CITY OR VICE VERSA.FLIGHT TIME ONLY ABOUT 45 MIN,HOWEVER LAMBERT FIELD TO DOWNTOWN ST.LOUIS EVEN IF YOU USE THE BISTATE LIGHT RAIL. 45 MIN MINUMUM. KANSAS CITY DOWNTOWN,TO KCI ABOUT 1 HR,THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SECURITY CHECK AT EACH AIRPORT, MIN OF 2 HRS.NONE AT AMTRAK STATIONS.ALL IN ALL AMTRAK WHEN ON TIME AFTER STOPPING AT 9 STATIONS ENROUTE IS 5 AND 1/2 HRS DOWNTOWN TO DOWNTOWN.COMMENTS PLEASE
Grand Ave wrote: OKAY ALL.HERES ANOTHER ARGUMENT EVERYONE CAN "CHEW" ON AND THEN POST AN ANSWER,THE IDEOLOGY I WILL US IS A SHOR HAUL AIRLINE VS SHORTHAUL RR. ST.LOUIS-KANSAS CITY OR VICE VERSA.FLIGHT TIME ONLY ABOUT 45 MIN,HOWEVER LAMBERT FIELD TO DOWNTOWN ST.LOUIS EVEN IF YOU USE THE BISTATE LIGHT RAIL. 45 MIN MINUMUM. KANSAS CITY DOWNTOWN,TO KCI ABOUT 1 HR,THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SECURITY CHECK AT EACH AIRPORT, MIN OF 2 HRS.NONE AT AMTRAK STATIONS.ALL IN ALL AMTRAK WHEN ON TIME AFTER STOPPING AT 9 STATIONS ENROUTE IS 5 AND 1/2 HRS DOWNTOWN TO DOWNTOWN.COMMENTS PLEASE
Well, guess I can vouch for what Grand Avenue says about travel times. And it may be just a question of where, or how you want to spend your total travel time.
On a good day, Amtrak runs KC to St. Louis in about 5 1/2 hours. It is possible to shave this time by getting aboard at a nice surburban platform station because the train whisks away pretty fast on its run to St. Louis.
The additional time requirements GrandAve mentions regarding KCAirport are real, I've been there many times and have flown to St. Louis. It is rare for any aircraft to stay in the air for less than an hour, and so the hour flight to St. Louis from KC, which is roughly 300 miles distant, means travel speed actually averages 300 mph - fast, but you don't approach the sound barrier.
On a bad day Amtrak can be delayed. The well-known nightmare of long delays caused by Union Pacific track work and freight train priorities last year left Amtrak with a lot of complaints, not of their doing. It is unfortunate. I rode the train in April and this happened to me, so, my 5 hour trip turned into 8.
Back in 2003 I flew this route and looked forward (I guess) to the 1 hour flight, and the flight was actually an hour, but before we flew, we sat 200 feet from the gate and waited 2 and half hours for a thunderstorm. We were not allowed out of our seats until one person in desperation got up anyway to use the bathroom. The cabin crew told him to sit down and he kept going. The captain came on a said people could get up to go to the bathroom-there was a mad rush, I among them. (The aircraft would not return to the gate, because the airline would have been charged another gate fee, so I'm told.)
Now, at that moment, I think I would have preferred sitting on a rail siding in comfort, if there was going to be an inevitable delay. All in all I still had to endure the flight, get to the terminal in KC, take a shuttle to my car, get the baggage from the baggage claim, and drive quite a ways home, because often times airports are way on the outskirts of a city, unlike the trains which often run right thru city center. Getting home finally took something on the order of 6 hours.
Now, I don't have a big ego, nor subscribe to the notion of time is money (doesn't really affect me), so the difference between 4 hours travel to St. Louis or 5 hours would be pretty hard for me to calculate; if I save time, what would I actually do with it? The important thing is that I get there, and I don't mind 5 hours, because it is my choice to make this time productive or relaxing. The train trip is always visually pleasant, the inside of a flying hot-dog is not so much. If I were to drive the route, I cannot enjoy the ride because you got to pay attention or get crushed underfoot by a semi, or hope that you don't kiss a deer. At the very least it is a little stressful and tiring (that must be why they call 'em road warriors.)
And a tank of gas costs $40; the travel distance is 275 miles and the range of the car is just about 350 miles, so the travel costs can be compared, generally. Train travel has a certain economy. The Amtrak ticket KC-St. Louis is $50 round trip (except last month when I could have got two for one, the airline ticket is about $190. And most the time when I fly I get a respiratory infection that means a doctor visit and antibiotics. If I submitted that as part of the travel claim some accountant in our company would probably strike it as a line item expense.
how right you arer.i have experience the same thing on very rare occasin on the st.louis trip.as said its ca n be a nightmare.I experienced the same thing you did,and this lastsummer Amtrak even had to change their one departure to 10.30 am from its 730 am dept therby missing the Chicago connections.Its return trip left St.Louis at 6.00 AM therby missing the connection with the bus that caame from Carbndale with the pasengers off the City of New Orleans.however now that Unionj Pacfic has almost completed the track upgrade Amtrak tells me they just migt be able to cut the running time down a little.
By the way since you seem to be familiar with this rute I suspect you mght live in the area and there is a very strong meeting coming up very shortly
NORTRHERN ALLIANCE A PASSENGER ADVOCATE GROUP IS SPONSORING AND HOLDING AN OPEN PUBLIUC FORUM FREE OF CHARGE TO ALL AT KANSAS CITY UNION STATION,IN THE JARVIS HUNT ROOM.
DECEMBER 8.20O7 STARTED AT 10.00 AM/ PLEASE TRY TO ATTEND.
This meeting sounds like something that would be good to go to. I do live in the area and will go to the meeting unless something comes up. Union Station in Kansas City is a monument to the passenger railroad era in size scale and beauty. It's all renovated and all it needs now is more trains running out of it. I think Amtrak has four trains that run through it currently.
The Northern Alliance sounds like an organization that is going directly to the public to help return a passenger train to a part of the country that needs it. NARP has done a good job of promotion for passenger trains across the country, but doesn't seem to put as much interest into the Kansas City region. I think that Kansas could jump at a chance for a connecting route between Oklahoma and Texas, and a similar connection with Missouri and Illinois. It's like a missing link and it would really strengthen this grid thing, in the center of the country.
I know that Kansas City Union Station was second busiest passenger train station during World War II. I hope it gets busier.
Is the Northern Alliance some kind of political action task force with ties to the political establishment?
I found this link for the Northern Flyer Alliance, and the meeting notice can be found in the home page NEWS section.
www.northflyer.org
HI PRAIRIE TYPE,I THOUGHT YOU WEE FROM THE KANSAS CITY AREA SINCE YOU WERE QUITE VERSED ON THE TRAIN TRAVEL FROM HERE.SO GLAD ARE COMING IN FOR THE MEETING.I WOULD LIKE TO MEET YOU BEFORE THE MEETINGIF WE CAN MEEET FOR A LIGHT BREAKFAST/SNACK BEFORE THE ACTUAL MEETING STARTS AT 10.30 AM.THIS IS A TIME CHANGE,ROOM IS STILL THE JARVIS HUNT ROOM.
PRAIRE TYPE,TO MY KNOWLEDGE NORTHERN ALLIANCE IS NOT A PAC.I HAVE BEEN IN E MAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH CHRIS FROM THERE.I BELEIVVE HE IS THE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AND HE HAS BEEN GIVING ME SOME THOUGHTS TO THAINK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF SERVICE THEY WANT TO GET STARTED.THEY ARE MORE CINCRNED TO GETTING MORE LOCAL TRAFFIC IN KANSAS ANDOM THERE IS SOME DAYLIGHT SERVICE.AS IT STANDS NOW THE ONLY TRAIN KS HAS IS THE SOUTHWEST CHIEF WHICH RUNS DURING THE OVERNITE HOURS. CALL ME IF YOU WANT TO MEET AND ILL GIVE YOU A DESCRPTION OF WHAT MY WIFE AND I LOOK, 816-347-9364 OR 816-225-2401 ,WIFES CELL PHONE.
REGARDS,FRANK GRAND AVE,MO
NARP's Grid and Gateway Plan looks like an attempt to recreate the 1950s rail passenger network. Practically every proposed line in Texas had some passenger service until 1955 or thereabouts.
NARP is largely silent on how its proposal would be funded, other than to say it should be funded with a methodology akin to that used to fund the interstate highway system. I asked them for the details on how the funding would be accomplished. NARP headquarters did not respond, but a Texas NARP Board member suggested that it was not NARP's responsibility to say how its proposal should be funded. That, in his opinion, is the responsibility of the government; NARP's role is to advocate a solution without putting any numbers around it. That strikes me as irresponsible.
How people get from A to B is a function of their options. If there is more than one choice most people will take the lowest effective cost route. That is to say, they will choose the mode of transport that offers them the best deal, i.e. convenience, reliability, flexibility, price, etc.
Most Texans, unless they are going across country, travel by car, especially if they are traveling for pleasure or family reasons. If they are going across country, which can be from Dallas to El Paso, or overseas, they go by air. In fact, most Texans commute by car, even in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. They do so because it is the lowest effective cost for them. This is not likely to change unless the price of gasoline goes sky high, without an alternative fuel solution, or congestion makes air and highway travel too costly or inconvenient.
According to the Texas Transportation Institute, the only place where rail travel might be a feasible option in the next 20 years is in the Texas Triangle. Plans for the Trans Texas Corridor include provisions for inter-city rail, but few people take them seriously. I have yet to hear any responsible transportation expert say, for example, that rail passenger service between Dallas and Amarillo is practicable and likely.
Samantha wrote:NARP is largely silent on how its proposal would be funded, other than to say it should be funded with a methodology akin to that used to fund the interstate highway system. I asked them for the details on how the funding would be accomplished. NARP headquarters did not respond, but a Texas NARP Board member suggested that it was not NARP's responsibility to say how its proposal should be funded. That, in his opinion, is the responsibility of the government; NARP's role is to advocate a solution without putting any numbers around it. That strikes me as irresponsible.
I don't think irresponsible is the word. I would merely say the plan is incomplete. NARP is not in a position to decide where the money will come from. That is indeed the responsibility of the legislative branch. As a rule, legislators like to be sold on a plan, but they don't like to be told how to pay for it. They prefer to decide that themselves because they have to juggle a whole pile of competing budget requests and funding sources. NARP can make suggestions, and they have in the past suggested a 2-4 cent increase in the gasoline tax to "prime the pump" until rail can be more self-supporting through economies of scale. One of your fellow Texans, a very conservative Republican who I chat with on another board, suggests that four cents in the federal gas tax which currently goes to the general fund should instead go to rail development. Works for me.
Likewise NARP can only make a rough guess about cost. They don't have a staff of full time transportation planners and economists like governments do. Let's be clear, NARP is not proposing a "must do this to make us happy" list. NARP is suggesting several established transportation corridors where passenger rail could play a role using existing rights of way. Further study by government planners is a given before any particular route is proven viable. I see this gird and gateway map to be more of a kick in the pants to get the government to at least look at these potential routes. There can't be any harm in that.
If NARP does not have an idea of how much its vision will cost, how did it come up with the suggestion to up the federal gasoline tax by two to four cents a gallon to pay for it?
I was a CPA and business systems analyst for many years for a Fortune 250 company. I managed the implementation of large business process systems (millions of dollars) that, amongst other things, included complex and pricy IT systems.
Had I told executive management that we could not determine how much a system would cost or how the costs would be recovered, I would have been looking for another job. NARP should have come up with a range of cost estimates for its proposal.
Alex Kummant told the Congress, for example, that it would cost approximately ten billion dollars to up grade the 457 mile North East Corridor to make it comparable to a high speed rail line. In the same presentation he allowed that it costs approximately 20 to 25 million dollars a mile, excluding real estate acquisition costs, to build a dedicated high speed passenger rail line like the TGV. Comparable numbers, in many instances, are available on the Internet.
Coming up with a range of cost estimates would not have been a daunting task. The cost per mile numbers can be obtained or constructed without too much pain. It would be a matter of determining how much of the proposal could use existing facilities; how much would require new or upgraded facilities; what per cent would be in urban areas; what per cent would be in rural areas, etc.
NARP could have hired a MBA student between his or her first and second year of business school to come up with a range of creditable cost estimates for its proposal. D.C. is blessed with some good business schools, e.g. Georgetown, George Washington, University of Maryland, etc. Most of the MBA students at these schools would work for a reasonable salary during the summer.
The U.S. national debt recently hit nine trillion dollars. Add in state, local, and personal debt, and the debt load begins to look impressive. One of the reasons the U.S. is up to its neck in debt is because politicians, as well as their fellow travelers, make proposals without coming up with verifiable estimates of how much they will cost. Unfortunately, many of the folks who argue for the expenditures are not around to pay the piper when the bill comes due.
NARP's proposal may be incomplete. That many ring better in some ears. But it might get more serious attention if it had some numbers strung around it.
al-in-chgo wrote: from prior post by Los Angeles Rams Guy: why don't we put the CZ on the CN's Iowa Division mainline between Chicago and Omaha where most communities are also "poorly served" by alternative transportation modes. Ironically, even that route STILL has more populous centers with Dubuque, Waterloo/Cedar Falls, and Ft. Dodge in Iowa alone (not to mention Rockford and Freeport in Illinois) as opposed to BNSF's route. (my emphasis)Point of information -- the ex-CNW, now UP "Overland Route" does not go thru Rockford and Freeport in Illinois.It goes thru DeKalb and Rochelle. - a.s.
Al,
Yes, I was aware of that. I didn't think that I had implied that the former CNW portion of UP's "Overland Route". I actually got to ride the former ICG's Iowa Division mainline wayyyy back in early 1978 on the Blackhawk from Dubuque into Chicago. A nice trip but would have been even nicer had the thing gone to Waterloo so I could have got on and detrained at Manchester which is close to my hometown back in northeast Iowa.
Samantha wrote: Alex Kummant told the Congress, for example, that it would cost approximately ten billion dollars to up grade the 457 mile North East Corridor to make it comparable to a high speed rail line. In the same presentation he allowed that it costs approximately 20 to 25 million dollars a mile, excluding real estate acquisition costs, to build a dedicated high speed passenger rail line like the TGV. Comparable numbers, in many instances, are available on the Internet. Coming up with a range of cost estimates would not have been a daunting task. The cost per mile numbers can be obtained or constructed without too much pain. It would be a matter of determining how much of the proposal could use existing facilities; how much would require new or upgraded facilities; what per cent would be in urban areas; what per cent would be in rural areas, etc.NARP's proposal may be incomplete. That many ring better in some ears. But it might get more serious attention if it had some numbers strung around it.
Just a quick comment, and concurrence to this part of Samantha's message. It is possible and ought to be a bottom line for personal credibility to know off the top and be able to state on the fly some of the basics. That cost per mile for new construction that Kummant admitted in testimony is within a few percentage points of the per mile cost of interstate highway (the blended rural-urban estimate). Nobody should use this as a comparative justification for having one or the other of course, but it is very possible to get the numbers straight, or accurate. I saw some additional numbers provided by a passenger train advocacy group for some of these types of construction. They cited average per-mile state highway costs, interstate and railroad rehab. These were, respectively 1) state highway: 3-10 million a mile; interstate; 23 million a mile; and railroad rehab: $250,000 a mile.
This reminds me of another similar public discussion of light-rail where the question was posed about cost comparisons for alternatives transit systems, namely light-rail, elevated mono-rail and subway. The consultant team answered the question this way. "You must appreciate that local conditions, economics, and geography will all influence and have bearing on the actual cost of development, and this can vary significantly; but the rule of thumb for calculation of an estimate is roughly this: whatever it costs to build a light rail system, it will probably cost 3 times that amount to put it in the air, and 10 times that amount to put it underground."
My primary point is this: none of this is rocket science. Past experience, accounting data, and the final bill for construction is well documented, and often summarized in reports that are rather easy to track down on internet sources. These are often published in PDF formats on line, and, in a worst case scenario are often public records which can be obtained through open records requests.
Samantha wrote:If NARP does not have an idea of how much its vision will cost, how did it come up with the suggestion to up the federal gasoline tax by two to four cents a gallon to pay for it?...... NARP should have come up with a range of cost estimates for its proposal.
If NARP does not have an idea of how much its vision will cost, how did it come up with the suggestion to up the federal gasoline tax by two to four cents a gallon to pay for it?...
... NARP should have come up with a range of cost estimates for its proposal.
Samantha, please re-read my post. I did not say NARP had no idea about costs. I said the best NARP could do is make a rough guess, or as you might say, a range of cost estimates. NARP may have done this, I don't know. I don't have anything at hand to indicate if they have or have not. maybe in a couple of weeks when things slow down at work I can take the time to look.
I do agree wholeheartedly that NARP does a lousy job of selling its ideas. But that does not mean the ideas themselves are worthless.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.