Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
Increasing Empire Builder capacity ?
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="schlimm"]</p> <p>Questions and thoughts:</p> <p>1. How many riders to the oil fields ride to/from MT?</p> <p>2. For Glacier Park tourism, I suggest you check the Amtrak state annual reports for the appropriate stations. The ridership is small, as I recall, both as a percentage of park visitors and absolutely...</p> <p>3. If there is a demand for passenger rail from Chicago to the oil fields (including intermediate stops, would it not make far more sense to run a train from Chicago to ND? Why continue it all the way to the coast, losing another $50 million?</p> <p>4. Let ND pony up some bucks for a state-supported train. With all that oil money pouring in, they should be able to find the funds in loose change. [/quote]</p> <p>Good idea as per #4. </p> <p>The Brooking Institutes's <em>A New Alignment: Strengthening America's Commitment to Passenger Rail,</em> contains some thoughtful suggestions on how to move forward with passenger rail in the United States. I highly recommend it. Google the title. It is readily available as a pdf download.</p> <p>Amongst other things the study points out that PRIIA requires the states the pick-up the operating deficits for the State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor Trains. Why not have the same requirement for the long distance trains ask the authors, Robert Puentes, Adie Tomer, and Joseph Kane? The report is dated March 2013 and is one of the best reports on passenger rail in the United States that I have read.</p> <p>As an example, if Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas believe the Texas Eagle is vital for the well being of their states, as per the Brookings Study, they would cover the loses. If they did, in all probability, they would insist on having a say about its schedule, equipment, service levels and, hopefully, in time the operator. Requiring the states to cover the operating deficits of trains operating over distances of less than 750 miles whilst exempting the long distance trains does not make a lot of sense. </p> <p>There is no reason that route has to be operated by Amtrak, although the American Association of Railroads has said that the freight carriers will not deal without anyone other than Amtrak. The courts probably could fix that issue.</p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy