(from MHSRA)"Please call your Congressman and Senators today! You can get their phone numbers here.This is the last week before Congress adjourns for summer recess, and as with most groups, Congress tends to act at the last minute.In the Senate, it is possible that a Reid/McConnell deal tonight will agree on cloture, agree on which amendments will get votes, and enable final passage on Thursday. Senator Flake (R-AZ) has offered an amendment, that we hope will fail, ending food service on trains.In the House, voting could begin as early as 5 or 6 PM tonight. The meeting could last until midnight tonight or tomorrow (the latter if enough members don’t show up today). Some Amtrak amendments which have surfaced include:* Broun (R-GA)- Eliminate Amtrak Capital Funds* Broun- Eliminate Amtrak Operating Funds* Blackburn (R-TN)- Eliminate Amtrak Capital Funds * Mica (R-FL)- Eliminate/Reduce Food & Beverage Service on Amtrak * Mica- Allow for certain Amtrak routes to be contracted out to other operatorsOur general message to the House and Senate is we want them to oppose anti-Amtrak amendments – and recognize the food & beverage proposals as the killers they are. It is important that you call today. You can get the phone numbers here, and then send a follow up email. "
Rick Harnish
Executive DirectorMidwest High Speed Rail Association4765 N. Lincoln Ave.Chicago, IL 60625
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm"It is clear that the FRA and Amtrak did not follow PRIIA's intent to reduce long-distance costs, so it is up to us on this committee to find better solutions," Denham said.
It is also clear that a lot of the recommendations were not so easy to put in place. But, Amtrak and FRA didn't act like it was very important, either. They just listed all the excuses "why not" and carried on.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Don't prune or cut anything! if it can be avoided. You might end up like Via Rail and have limited service between big cities like Montreal and Halifax.
schlimm "It is clear that the FRA and Amtrak did not follow PRIIA's intent to reduce long-distance costs, so it is up to us on this committee to find better solutions," Denham said.
"It is clear that the FRA and Amtrak did not follow PRIIA's intent to reduce long-distance costs, so it is up to us on this committee to find better solutions," Denham said.
Schlimm,
Representative Jeff Denham is chairman of the Railroad Committee so he is certainly important. But I think he is enigmatic.
You quote him saying he wants to reduce long-distance costs. He is also reported as supporting high speed rail in the northeast and being willing to spend "billions" on it. But he opposed HSR for his home state, California.
California has 20 per cent of all Amtrak routes and they all run on freight railroads. AAR President Edward Hamberger is concerned about his opposition to HSR in California. Most imports from Asia come through California and are shipped by freight railroads to other parts of the country. In California congestion on the rails, if it is not already a problem, could well become a problem. So AAR is concerned about Representative Denham's positions.
At the same time Representative Denham is joining Amtrak in its special hiring outreach to Veterans and has appeared in public with Joe Boardman to support it. Denham is also a critic of Amtrak food service. However, food service is a place that traditionally has a relatively high turnover and offers positions to people looking for jobs. Here he seems to send a mixed message.
Finally, Representative Denham has sponsored a bill to allow people to take their pets on all trains. That has to have cost implications, especially for long distance trains and especially for having employees with special training to look after them both on trains and in stations. Again, he seems to send a mixed message.
John
In 2011, which is the latest year for comparative numbers, Amtrak's average daily boardings at Dallas and Fort Worth, the DFW Metroplex anchor cities, was 251. Amtrak skews the numbers by reporting entrainments and detrainments. I halved the totals to come up with the averages. Most of the people getting off the trains in Dallas and Fort Worth got on there; most of the people getting on the trains will return to Dallas and Fort Worth. Amtrak has two trains (Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer) serving the Metroplex.
I don't know whether there is an active move to do away with Amtrak. It probably flies under the radar for most Texans, although when the cops shot a bad guy on the Eagle in Dallas, that got some local coverage. Most of my friends and acquaintances are not aware of its existence.
To the extent that the votes of the Texas Congressional delegation reflect the wishes of the Texans that sent them to Washington, one can say that the people of Texas don't support Amtrak. Senator Hutchison was an Amtrak supporter, although to the best of my knowledge she never rode it. Senator Cornyn has tended to vote against it. Senator Hutchison was replaced by Senator Cruz, who is a Tea Party favorite, and is not likely to support government monies for Amtrak. The majority of the Texas delegation in the House, the last time I looked, had voted against Amtrak.
The average daily enplanements at Dallas Love Field and DFW were 85,949. In addition, several hundred if not a thousand or two additional people departed the Metroplex on Greyhound and Megabus.
Amtrak's Texas ridership figures for 2012 are up from 2011 as noted. So too are the loses on its two trains. In FY12 the Eagle lost $34.5 million before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. This was up from $30.1 million in 2011 or 14.6 per cent. The loss for the Heartland Flyer was $3.8 million, up from $2.7 million in FY11. This was a 40.7 per increase in the loss. So Amtrak may have increased the number of passengers it entrained in FY12 in Texas, but it appears that it is buying market share or trying to.
schlimm John WRFinally, even if the number of people who, because of age or infirmity, need passenger train service is small do you really believe that is a reason to dismiss their needs? "You can't always get what you want."
John WRFinally, even if the number of people who, because of age or infirmity, need passenger train service is small do you really believe that is a reason to dismiss their needs?
"You can't always get what you want."
No, that sort of shake up might be what is need. but would need congress.
One fact needs to be realized here. The freight railroads have stated through the AAR that with regards to intercity rail passenger service, they will deal with only Amtrak. That being said, Amtrak needs to function less like a government agency and be more proactive regarding intercity routes and services. It may be that the states that support corridor passenger trains should select the majority of the directors and that board would select the CEO rather than politicians in Washington. I know that this sounds off topic, but it might bring a bit of reform.
I completely agree with your first point.
"The greatest good for the greatest number" is one basis for government services but it is not the only one. One example of another is the Pareto Optimum.
If Congress would guarantee bus service to unserved areas then we might discuss bus vs train service. But I see no reason to believe that Congress is about to do that.
Finally, even if the number of people who, because of age or infirmity, need passenger train service is small do you really believe that is a reason to dismiss their needs?
John WR I did not expect you personally to buy into Joe Boardman's contention that Amtrak is the result of a contract between Congress and the American People. But regardless of that when Amtrak started ridership began to increase and in the last decade or so it has increased markedly.
1. Joe Boardman also said in the same speech that LD routes should not be subsidized in part by operating surpluses from Acela but that Congress should directly subsidize them in entirety.
2. Amtrak has had ups and downs in ridership, peaking in 1991 and then dropping, recovering and finally surpassing that level only in the last few years.
3. After Boardman testified at a hearing, on 5/21/13, Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) noted in his opening statement that Amtrak's long-distance routes are losing money."In 2012, they lost a combined $600 million," Denham said. "We simply cannot afford to continue these levels of subsidized losses year after year."Since the current Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) became law in 2008, Amtrak's Northeast Corridor increased its profits by 143 percent and state-supported routes have reduced their losses by 24 percent, but long-distance routes have increased their losses by 11 percent, he noted."It is clear that the FRA and Amtrak did not follow PRIIA's intent to reduce long-distance costs, so it is up to us on this committee to find better solutions," Denham said.
4. So it becomes very important to note that the PRIIA supersedes any "mandate" Congress gave Amtrak in 1971 and long distance service is a millstone around Amtrak's neck.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Amtraks-Boardman-defends-need-for-longdistance-routes--36254
Sam.
According to Amtrak's Texas Fact Sheet there were 465,300 boardings and alightings at Texas stations in 2012. This is up 9.3 per cent from 2011.
But is there any desire in Texas to do away with Amtrak? The places I know of want to keep their Amtrak service. Service to the Gulf Coast states was suspended after Hurricane Katrina and those states have asked that it be returned.
As far as the historical picture is concerned, I think there is substantial evidence that private railroads had given up on American passengers as well as the other way around. And I did not expect you personally to buy into Joe Boardman's contention that Amtrak is the result of a contract between Congress and the American People. But regardless of that when Amtrak started ridership began to increase and in the last decade or so it has increased markedly.
daveklepper The elderlly and handicapped who cannot flly also cannot stand a bus ride more than a few hours.
The elderlly and handicapped who cannot flly also cannot stand a bus ride more than a few hours.
John WRThere is another argument for keeping current long distance trains, the argument Joe Boardman uses. That argument is that Amtrak is the result of a contract between the Congress and the American people. Related to that argument is that there are people in smaller cities and towns who need Amtrak because they have no alternative public transportation and the number of places with no alternative transportation is increasing. This is not the argument that the places need Amtrak; that is a different argument. It is an argument that many people need Amtrak, people who live in places to small to be profitable to private carriers.
1. Joe Boardman also said in the same speech that LD routes should not be subsidized in part by operating surpluses from Acela but that congress should directly subsidize them in entirety.
2. "The greatest good for the greatest number" has been a sound utilitarian basis for services for years. Why should Amtrak be forced to provide a very inefficient service to people primarily in rural areas (where the population is stagnant or decreasing)? If it is so needed, congress should adopt an EBS program, patterned after the EAS program. Buses are more efficient and flexible in reaching widely scattered people.
John WR There is another argument for keeping current long distance trains, the argument Joe Boardman uses. That argument is that Amtrak is the result of a contract between the Congress and the American people. Related to that argument is that there are people in smaller cities and towns who need Amtrak because they have no alternative public transportation and the number of places with no alternative transportation is increasing. This is not the argument that the places need Amtrak; that is a different argument. It is an argument that many people need Amtrak, people who live in places to small to be profitable to private carriers. Whether or not Amtrak routes that are not now part of our national passenger transportation system is a different question. Whether or not individual routes should be dropped is a related question; however it needs to be considered in terms of the whole system. Finally, there are many arguments both for and against Amtrak. These arguments have varying degrees of validity and need to be considered individually.
There is another argument for keeping current long distance trains, the argument Joe Boardman uses. That argument is that Amtrak is the result of a contract between the Congress and the American people. Related to that argument is that there are people in smaller cities and towns who need Amtrak because they have no alternative public transportation and the number of places with no alternative transportation is increasing. This is not the argument that the places need Amtrak; that is a different argument. It is an argument that many people need Amtrak, people who live in places to small to be profitable to private carriers.
Whether or not Amtrak routes that are not now part of our national passenger transportation system is a different question. Whether or not individual routes should be dropped is a related question; however it needs to be considered in terms of the whole system.
Finally, there are many arguments both for and against Amtrak. These arguments have varying degrees of validity and need to be considered individually.
I don't know of a Texas community served by Amtrak that could not be served equally well or better by buses. Moreover, I am skeptical that any of the communities served by Amtrak's long distance trains in other parts of the country could not be served by commercial buses, but I may be missing something. Perhaps there are some places where the bus operator would have to be subsidized, but my guess is that they are few and far between.
Amtrak was cobbled together by the Nixon Administration and sold to the peoples representatives. Calling it a contract with the American people is a stretch. I doubt many people knew the issues surrounding the creation of Amtrak or even cared.
By the time Amtrak came into being most Americans had given up on passenger trains. Today, if my friends and former colleagues are any indication, most Americans, especially those who don't live in or near the corridors, i.e. NEC, California, Chicago, etc., don't know that Amtrak exists.
The best indicator of the importance of a service is the extent to which it is used. As per Table I-42, National Transportation Statistics 2012, Long Distance Travel in the United States by Selected Trip Characteristics, only .08 per cent of all trips of more than 50 miles from home were by train. These numbers are for 2001. Unfortunately, they are the latest numbers. However, more recent statistics showing the percentage of intercity trains miles to total intercity miles shows a similar picture. The percentage traveling by train may be a bit higher today, but probably not by much.
Under any conceivable scenario the government, not Amtrak, will have to put up the front money to expand passenger rail. A key question is whether the taxpayers, who own the government, at least in theory, will get their money back.
Passenger rail corridors could be developed and operated by multiple operators. That is how passenger rail developed before Amtrak. That is how the California High Speed Rail Project is being developed. And that is how the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) between Dallas and Fort Worth was developed. Amtrak did not have anything to do with them.
Amtrak has become a large, lumbering bureaucracy. A strong argument can be made that smaller, regional developers and operators could be more effective in delivering passenger rail than a highly centralized Washington based bureaucracy.
Maybe a better approach would be to open the routes up to contractors, as per Australia, with the appropriate subsidies, and see what happens. A small centralized coordinating staff in the DOT probably would be helpful in calling balls and strikes, but opening passenger rail to competitive bids per route could produce a better outcome.
The nation does not have one airline, one bus company, one power grid, etc. Why should it have just one intercity passenger rail operator? Come to think of it, when the California High Speed Rail Project comes on line, assuming that it does, the nation will not be locked into just one true intercity passenger train operator.
I think if I were in charge I would hang onto the LD trains but I would also eliminate some.
Trains I would eliminate:
1. Cardinal - This train is purely political and only survived the cuts in the 1970's and 1980's because of a few powerful Congress Critters.
2. Southwest Limited - Again was a candidate many times for dropping and failed.
3. Southwest Ltd - Would keep it to Kansas City but drop west of there.
New Trains:
1. Dallas, TX connection to Southern Crescent via Shreveport, LA.
2. Dallas, TX train to New Orleans, LA
3. New Orleans, LA to Mobile.
4. Atlanta, GA to Jacksonville, FL via Savannah, GA
5. Chicago to Green Bay, WI via Oshkosh.
6. Maintain Chicago to Indianapolis, IN
7. Start Indianapolis, IN to Sanford, FL Auto-Train via Atlanta, GA.
8. Another Chicago to St. Paul / Minneapolis frequency
So, many posts and days later, the answers to the thread question are varied, but with the same usual responses:
1. LD should be retained in entirety or expanded for various reasons:
a. For the handicapped, seniors, airline haters and graduated college students.
b. For some small towns, especially in winter.
c. To get votes in Congress.
d. Any elimination is the beginning of the end for all of Amtrak.
e. Roads are cross subsidized or get more than Amtrak.
e. Every other transport mode is subsidized so why not LD?
2. LD should be entirely eliminated.
a. As part of deficit/debt reduction.
3. The reasons advocates give for any passenger rail are specious.
a. The subsidy per passenger mile for rail is much higher than highways.
4. Eliminate the worst performing LD routes to save Amtrak.
a. Convert overnight sleeper trains to day trains or segment corridors.
Sam1I am not proposing that Amtrak be abolished. However, if the U.S. is to solve its financial problems, it is difficult to see a way forward unless every special interest group, including those supporting Amtrak, gives up something. Just a little bit from everyone would work wonders.
If we had proportional representation that might work, Sam. At least we could come closer to it. But we are a two party system. In any given year that favors a winner take all perspective. It is supposed to even out in the long run but I don't know how to see whether it does or not. Also, we still are spending money because of our two recent wars. That is unpredictable and hard to factor in.
John WR In January, 2001 President Clinton left office. Amtrak had deficits at that time. However, the U. S. Treasury has a surplus. Events after President Clinton left office caused our deficit. Amtrak does not threaten the economic stability of the United States.
In January, 2001 President Clinton left office. Amtrak had deficits at that time. However, the U. S. Treasury has a surplus. Events after President Clinton left office caused our deficit.
Amtrak does not threaten the economic stability of the United States.
In January 2001 the U.S. federal debt was approximately $3.3 trillion.
The on-budget deficit in 1998 was $29.9 billion. However, because of the Social Security surplus of $99.4 billion, the combined budget showed a surplus of $69.3 billion. In 1999 the U.S. had an on-budget surplus of $1.9 billion on revenues of approximately $1.8 trillion. This was a surplus of 10/100s of one per cent of revenues. In 2000 the U.S. had an on-budget surplus of $86 billion, the best of the so-call surplus years. In 2001 the on-budget deficit was $32.4 billion. The on-budget figures are the operating results for the United States. With the exception of 2000, the surpluses were mostly a function of Social Security surpluses, which came about because of the Greenspan Commission changes to Social Security.
No one said that Amtrak threatens the economic stability of the United States. But its annual deficits of more than $1.2 billion a year are a contributing factor, along with the other special interest runs on the Treasury. The federal debt and annual deficits has come about because of many variables.
Amtrak's deficits through FY12 totaled $29.3 billion, which shows how a comparatively small amount each year can add up over the years to a sizable sum of money..
I am not proposing that Amtrak be abolished. However, if the U.S. is to solve its financial problems, it is difficult to see a way forward unless every special interest group, including those supporting Amtrak, gives up something. Just a little bit from everyone would work wonders. The numbers can be found at OMB, CBO, JCT, and the U.S. Treasury.
The question that I posed is how do proponents of enhanced long distance train service or, for that matter, upgrades to the NEC, propose to pay for it? What is their realistic plan?
Part of my proposal to right Amtrak's financials is to eliminate the long distance trains and increase the fares on the remaining services to at least cover the operating costs. If Amtrak dropped the long distance trains, it could realize savings of up to $674.9 billion a year, although the savings during the first three years would be reduced by equipment disposal costs, labor payouts, and re-organization charges. Knowing how much could be saved is problematic, but lets say that it could average out to be $450 million a year.
Using a simple calculation, which does not take into consideration inflation, over 15 years the savings could amount to as much as $8.2 billion, which could be used as seed money to upgrade existing corridors or build new ones. It would be approximately 80 per cent of Amtrak's current investment in right-of-way infrastructure, less accumulated depreciation. This estimate is based on the current rate for ten year Treasury notes. It is very conservative; realistically, the savings probably would be much greater.
I hear the argument that Amtrak's deficit contributes to the overall US deficit and so we have to cut Amtrak, because while in the magnitude of a rounding error, it still contributes. Okay, this is not supposed to be a political discussion forum, so on the national deficit thing, I'll just say that it's not that long ago the US had a balanced budget. And I do not believe that Amtrak's funding has increased super-exponentiallly since then to be what tipped the scales and gave the country the current deficit. I simply suggest that those who really want to slash the deficit go look in the spending areas that have increased since the budget was last balanced and they leave Amtrak spending alone.
Somehow, with all the issues affecting Amtrak, and all the budget constraints and fiscal threats over the years, Amtrak keeps transporting more passengers every year. I say it again, the transportation landscape is changing. To dump all or parts of Amtrak now would be a foolish mistake that we will regret eventually. Every bit as foolish as it would have been to just let all the railroads drop running passenger trains back in 1971. At least the White House and congress at that time did something somewhat constructive and gave us Amtrak. Not perfect, but it runs.
"The need for the western LD trains is not to drop them, but to work with the host railroads to improve on-time performance and to raise the travel speed. It may even mean that Amtrak gets its own ROW in places."
How do you propose to pay for or continue to pay for the long distance trains that are used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers?
It is doubtful that private investors will put up the money. This is especially true for expansion of or upgrading of the long distance trains. Moreover, working with the hoist railroads means increasing their cost of hoisting Amtrak's trains.
So that leaves the taxpayers. And they are in hawk up to their ears. Currently, the national debt is $16.8 trillion. Add in state and local government debt, and the number is close to $19.8 trillion dollars. This is before unfunded liabilities, which are estimated to be in the neighborhood of $46 trillion. The public debt, which is the one to worry about because the federal government either services it or defaults on it, and if it defaults on it, there would be terrible ramifications, stands at $11.9 trillion. It is approximately 76 per cent of GDP. The International Monetary Fund cautions countries whose national debt exceeds 60 to 65 per cent of GDP.
As per table S-5 of the President's 2014 budget (OMB), the interest on the national debt is projected to be $763 billion in 2023. The projected outlay for defense is $631 billion. The biggies are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with defense, but if a country is required to spend more on interest than defense, it has a financial problem.
Passenger trains are not major contributors to the national debt. But they contribute to the problem, along with hundreds of other "just a little bit" for our interests seekers. Amtrak's advocates say that the amount of federal money required by Amtrak is a rounding error. Supporters of PBS, NPR, the National Endowment for the Arts, as well as hundreds of other special interests, say the same thing. First thing you know the little bits or rounding errors add up to some serious money.
I like trains. I ride them whenever I can. But if someone wants to expand an existing service or implement new service, it is incumbent on them to layout a realistic plan for funding it.
We all see things differently. I have seen many lines of the former DR abandoned since 1990. And I have ridden on many single track lines in Germany (and in the UK) far from the mainlines. And I am wondering which DB lines abandoned in the 70's and 80's have been reinstated more recently? Which pre-Beeching lines are being reinstated in the UK?
As to the US, the reason western transcontinental LD routes need to be trimmed is because they cannot compete with air travel. In the east and to some extent in the midwest and southeast, interstates are overcrowded and so the rail can provide a sound alternative to those roads. Since the western interstates, i.e., those running west to east, are not overcrowded, they do not need to exist as alternative to highways. Consequently, they serve no useful purpose in any national transportation scheme. You may enjoy driving from CHI-SF, as do others, including myself. But that is no justification for wasting resources for passenger rail operations, where they are not vitally needed, when those same dollars could be put to better use where passenger rail is competitive and IMO, needed.
schlimm CJtrainguy Let me bring in what I've seen happen in places in Europe: Whole regional networks were considered unprofitable by the national railway. So they wanted to abandon passenger traffic on those lines. In response and thanks to changes in law, the regions took over the traffic. Not unlike Amtrak, they were faced with scarce resources. So most of the traffic was abandoned, with remaining, upgraded traffic focused on a few corridors. Then a funny thing happened: Upgraded service brought more passengers, which led to service expansion. All of a sudden there was talk of reopening lines that had been abandoned for passenger traffic years before. Where to begin. I've been riding trains in Europe, primarily Germany, but also other countries for 45 years quite regularly and your statement above does not correspond with what I have observed first-hand. I also read articles in the German press concerning DB.
CJtrainguy Let me bring in what I've seen happen in places in Europe: Whole regional networks were considered unprofitable by the national railway. So they wanted to abandon passenger traffic on those lines. In response and thanks to changes in law, the regions took over the traffic. Not unlike Amtrak, they were faced with scarce resources. So most of the traffic was abandoned, with remaining, upgraded traffic focused on a few corridors. Then a funny thing happened: Upgraded service brought more passengers, which led to service expansion. All of a sudden there was talk of reopening lines that had been abandoned for passenger traffic years before.
Let me bring in what I've seen happen in places in Europe:
Whole regional networks were considered unprofitable by the national railway. So they wanted to abandon passenger traffic on those lines. In response and thanks to changes in law, the regions took over the traffic. Not unlike Amtrak, they were faced with scarce resources. So most of the traffic was abandoned, with remaining, upgraded traffic focused on a few corridors. Then a funny thing happened: Upgraded service brought more passengers, which led to service expansion. All of a sudden there was talk of reopening lines that had been abandoned for passenger traffic years before.
Where to begin. I've been riding trains in Europe, primarily Germany, but also other countries for 45 years quite regularly and your statement above does not correspond with what I have observed first-hand. I also read articles in the German press concerning DB.
Schlimm, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on what the future of passenger rail should be in the US.
I am glad that you have had ample opportunity to ride trains in Europe over many years. I grew up in Europe and frankly took the easy access to passenger trains for granted for much of my life.
As to what I related about regional networks in Europe seeing passenger traffic first abandoned and then eventually reinstated, you state that you haven't observed that. That's of course entirely possible, as I don't know what you have observed or how far off the mainlines you have had the opportunity to venture. What I stated is however what I've observed and lived through.
In the UK, the Beeching report led to the wholesale abandonment of lines deemed unprofitable. Some of those very lines are now being reactivated. In Germany many miles of rail lines were abandoned in the 70s and 80s by DB. Sometimes just the passenger traffic, sometimes freight as well. Since local/regional traffic was deregulated in Germany, many lines where DB had dropped passenger traffic have seen the return of passenger traffic and are experiencing great ridership.
In Southern Sweden, SJ, the state railways, deemed all local/regional passenger traffic unprofitable in the 70s and wanted to drop all that traffic. Several counties banded together, purchased 10 train sets and in 1983 started operating passenger traffic on a few core lines. In the rest of the region, local/regional passenger traffic ended. Now in 2013, that traffic has expanded to cover just about anything that had passenger traffic in the 70s (and some towns that didn't have it back then). Ridership is going through the roof and the region is running trains all the way to Gothenburg. Copenhagen/Malmö - Gothenburg used to be LD trains run by SJ, the national railways, but they bowed out since the regional trains out-competed them.
However, bringing passenger trains back to lines that saw them abandoned years earlier hasn't been easy or inexpensive. Infrastructure has been removed and in many cases the traffic now has to go through a lengthy permitting process that would not have been necessary if passenger trains had still been running on those lines.
In the US, looking at the map, I will draw the line between East and West not at the Mississippi, but rather along the western borders of Minnesota, Iowa, and then along I-35 in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
East of that line, there is no question that corridor trains and LD trains should stay and be multiplied in number. Many states in this area already have state supported trains or will find that their populations and business communities demand more passenger trains.
Along the West coast (California, Oregon, Washington) we have states that are already supporting passenger rail.
That leaves the states in-between: Nevada, Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Utah, Colorado. Arizona, New Mexico and the western parts of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
Some of them already have and/or are building commuter rail or corridor rail. Front range rail will happen from Cheyenne to Denver to Albuquerque, not all at once, but eventually it will happen some day.
As for those Western LD trains: I do believe that if we dash forward and drop them now, in some penny-pinching move, we will regret it later. Google maps says I can drive from Chicago to San Fran in 31 hours. In real terms that means 3-4 full days of driving and 2-3 nights in motels. Yet people do it. For all kinds of reasons, but the point is: People do it. Not all people going from Chicago to San Fran choose to fly.
I can get on Amtrak, leave Chicago at 2pm Wednesday and arrive in the Bay Area 4:10pm on Friday. If I drive, I'll get up early and drive all day Wednesday, motel overnight, drive all day Thursday, motel overnight, drive all day Friday and be in the Bay Area after dinner on Friday.
The need for the western LD trains is not to drop them, but to work with the host railroads to improve on-time performance and to raise the travel speed. It may even mean that Amtrak gets its own ROW in places.
You stated I don't believe millenials will ride trains. Of course what I clearly said was that younger folks will not ride the western LD trains even if the speeds were dramatically increased to reduce the times. A discussion without accuracy is pointless.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.