Does, or does not

[oltmannd]

Murphy Siding

     The United States need a national passenger rail system?

Depends how you define "system".

If you mean a network something like NARP's "Grid and Gateway", then NO!

If you mean targeted corridors that might have a link or two between the hubs, then yes.

If you mean a single entity dictating "what and where", then NO!

If you mean "whatever works", then yes.

[Murphy Siding]

     In essence, I was repeating what someone else in another thread suggested was needed.  I took it to mean a continued version, perhaps expanded, of what Amtrak is now, and not losing long distance, inter-city trains.

     I looked up NARP's Grid and Gateway.  I'm curious what you dislike about it.  It seems to include a route through my city.

[Dakguy201]

Murphy Siding

       I looked up NARP's Grid and Gateway.  I'm curious what you dislike about it.  It seems to include a route through my city.

I believe that stop was added so that they could say they have service in every contiguous state.  To accomplish it they would have to wye the train in Sioux Falls as it both arrives and departs on the BNSF line to the northeast. 

[Murphy Siding]

Dakguy201

Murphy Siding

       I looked up NARP's Grid and Gateway.  I'm curious what you dislike about it.  It seems to include a route through my city.

I believe that stop was added so that they could say they have service in every contiguous state.  To accomplish it they would have to wye the train in Sioux Falls as it both arrives and departs on the BNSF line to the northeast. 

  Awe, come on.  You're thinking too small.  The train could come down the BNSF / former D&I/ former Milwaukee Road line through Canton.  I seem to recall, that in the future, lines that carry passengers would need to have PTC.  If we're dreaming, there's no no need to settle for the impossible, when we can dream for the ginormously impossible.

[oltmannd]

Murphy Siding

     In essence, I was repeating what someone else in another thread suggested was needed.  I took it to mean a continued version, perhaps expanded, of what Amtrak is now, and not losing long distance, inter-city trains.

     I looked up NARP's Grid and Gateway.  I'm curious what you dislike about it.  It seems to include a route through my city.

Grid and Gateway starts with the premise that you need to be able to get from everywhere to everywhere in the US by train.   They got their crayons out and played "connect the dots".  The result, "Grid and Gateway".

I think the premise is false.  There is a need to get from most places to most other places without having a driver's licence, but the mode should fit the marketplace.  There's nothing wrong with taking a a plane to a train to a bus to make a trip.

We don't "need" a national rail network.  I'd say its "nice to have" if it doesn't cost too much to run.  If the LD trains would dry up tomorrow, most people could make their trip by bus or air and 99.9% of Americans wouldn't even notice.  (because only 0.1% of all trips are made on Amtrak)

As Jim McClellan, perhaps the most rabid and knowledgeable rail guru of our time, said, "LD trains are irrelevant and will remain so."

[Dakguy201]

Murphy, I agree that you described the logical way for a north/south route to serve Sioux Falls.  I believe the Milwaukee had a Sioux Falls/Chicago train on that route until the 1960's.  It would have the added advantage of going past your office window.

However the route drawn by the NARP takes the BNSF north out of Sioux City through Sioux Center to Garrelson MN.  It turns southwest there for the run down to Sioux Falls but must return on that same stretch of track to continue to the Twin Cities.

[Murphy Siding]

Dakguy201

Murphy, I agree that you described the logical way for a north/south route to serve Sioux Falls.  I believe the Milwaukee had a Sioux Falls/Chicago train on that route until the 1960's.  It would have the added advantage of going past your office window.

However the route drawn by the NARP takes the BNSF north out of Sioux City through Sioux Center to Garrelson MN.  It turns southwest there for the run down to Sioux Falls but must return on that same stretch of track to continue to the Twin Cities.

   Actually, Garretson is in SD., so just running the BNSF from Sioux City to Wilmer, MN would cover that running in SD requirement.  I suppose, that the train wouldn't have to come down to Sioux Falls.  We could always board at Garretson.  Or better yet- board at Lester, Iowa.  The casino could probably have a shuttle service over from Larchwood.

[John WR]

oltmannd

only 0.1% of all trips are made on Amtrak)

Could you share with us the source of your data?

[oltmannd]

John WR

oltmannd

only 0.1% of all trips are made on Amtrak)

Could you share with us the source of your data?

It's actually 0.8%, sorry...

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/america_on_the_go/long_distance_transportation_patterns/html/table_05.html

[John WR]

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics also reports it collected this data in 2001 and 2002.  There were a total of 2.6 billion long distance trips throughout the country.  This is based on a sample survey so there is a percentage of error in their calculations but they believe it is well within acceptable limits.  A long distance trip is one that is 50 miles or more.  

As you point out, 0.8 per cent of all trips are by train.  That is 20.8 million trips.  

[John WR]

PS.  According to the Associated Press in the fiscal year ending September, 2010 Amtrak carried 31.2 million riders, up substantially from 2001 and 2002.