schlimmA station 34.8 miles from downtown Phoenix on the three-days-per week Sunset?
If downtown is a rat hole and most of the Economic action is in the suburbs then...........yes.
My Brother lives in Chandler, AZ measure from there. Before that he lived in Tempe. My grand folks used to live in Sun City but hell that is nowhere near downtown Phoenix station. Scottsdale is a weathy suburb, not going to net a lot of train riders there either.
Would be interesting to apply the Demographic analysis to stations I mentioned earlier to downtown Phoenix station and see what it looks like as far as where most potential Amtrak riders live in and around Phoenix.
MidlandMike The OP seems to give the reason why replacing western LD trains with corridor trains would be problematic, i.e., the low population in that area of the country. To use the CZ as an example: Chicago to Omaha would probably make a good corridor (probably even better if it was routed as an expansion of the proposed Quad Cities train via Des Moines). However, Omaha to Denver does not look that promising as a corridor. For potential traffic I looked at flights between the endpoints, using Expedia non-stops, midweek, 3 months out. Chicago-Denver had 13 non-stop flights; Chicago-Omaha 8; Omaha-Denver 3. So Omaha-Denver has little potential traffic, and no big intermediate cities. Denver-Salt Lake City on CZ is already optimally scheduled for a corridor. SLC-Reno surprisingly has 3 non-stop flights, but again a corridor train would have sparse intremediate traffic. Reno-SFO used to have a "Fun Train"(?) but I believe that was weekends only. It seems obvious that some of these corridors would not be viable, and would be dropped. Similar gaps would develop in all the corridorized LD routes, so there would no longer be a national network. In essence, corridors are not a politically viable replacement for LD trains.
The OP seems to give the reason why replacing western LD trains with corridor trains would be problematic, i.e., the low population in that area of the country. To use the CZ as an example: Chicago to Omaha would probably make a good corridor (probably even better if it was routed as an expansion of the proposed Quad Cities train via Des Moines). However, Omaha to Denver does not look that promising as a corridor. For potential traffic I looked at flights between the endpoints, using Expedia non-stops, midweek, 3 months out. Chicago-Denver had 13 non-stop flights; Chicago-Omaha 8; Omaha-Denver 3. So Omaha-Denver has little potential traffic, and no big intermediate cities. Denver-Salt Lake City on CZ is already optimally scheduled for a corridor. SLC-Reno surprisingly has 3 non-stop flights, but again a corridor train would have sparse intremediate traffic. Reno-SFO used to have a "Fun Train"(?) but I believe that was weekends only. It seems obvious that some of these corridors would not be viable, and would be dropped. Similar gaps would develop in all the corridorized LD routes, so there would no longer be a national network. In essence, corridors are not a politically viable replacement for LD trains.
Well done, Mike!
There are many corridors, underserved today, that do suggest themselves (e.g., Cleveland-Chicago), but for development AS corridors -- as enhancements of a through route, not a replacement for it.
IMO there needs to be a national network and I would say Amtrak does do a reasonable job of connecting the nation in its LD network. There are obvious areas that aren't served and other city pairs that Amtrak doesn't serve well at all but I'd rather keep what we have than cut it apart and either make it so an East Coaster can't take Amtrak to California (or vice versa) or have to change trains 4-5 times to do so. Last time I returned from California, the Capitol Limited was delayed, I missed my connecting train to Philly (Trenton), and had to wait in a long line in Union Station with all the other passengers who missed their connections.
Plus, with the exception of the less than daily trains, all have healthy ridership (over 200,000 passengers a year) and I would think it would be crazy to discontinue any LD daily train. I'd like to keep the Sunset as it is the only route between the two most populous states in the country. The only LD train it makes any sense to get rid of without creating a bigger hole in the LD map) is Byrd Crap so you can use that equipment for a daily train (extend the Hoosier State to Cincinnati). Or if you can find a way to get from Cincinnati to Pittsburgh (hopefully through Columbus to serve them) to Philly, reroute it. You'd have a better chance to run the train daily and would serve bigger markets and make it to the East Coast faster than diverting all the way through West Virginia.
CMStPnP: "If downtown is a rat hole and most of the Economic action is in the suburbs then...........yes."
The Rathole, aka downtown Phoenix and its former station.
http://urbanconnectionrealty.com/100-things-to-do-in-downtown-phoenix/
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm CMStPnP: "If downtown is a rat hole and most of the Economic action is in the suburbs then...........yes." The Rathole, aka downtown Phoenix and its former station. http://urbanconnectionrealty.com/100-things-to-do-in-downtown-phoenix/
I could be totally wrong on this and it is opinion based on my living in the burbs for short stints of time (Scottsdale & Chandler)
The pictures do not do it justice, walk around that area on a business day and count the pedestrian traffic if you see any. Most folks work and play in the suburbs of Phoenix, my Brother lives there and I've been there on more than one IT Project. Yet to hear anyone say to me "Hey afterwork, lets go downtown to....." Instead it's lets go to Tempe to see a game or Lets hit up a few bars in Chandler. I think predominantly and I am just guessing here very few live downtown compared to the other burbs.
My view of the city if you view the Map. West of Phoenix mostly Indian reservations and migrant workers, North of Phoenix, retired people in Sun City, Scottsdale is like Lake Forest is in Chicago area, mostly wealthy. Middle Class suburbs are Chandler, Mesa, Tempe and in my experience that is where most of the vibrant growth and nightlife is. Scottsdale / Fountain Hills is nice with nice houses but typically golfing get togethers, some museums, some really nice hotels but not a whole lot of stuff going on there. Believe there is also a major USAF base North of Phoenix somewhere..........so maybe some Amtrak riders there but again not convienent to a downtown Phoenix station and niether is Scottsdale / Fountain Hills.
So in my view over the next 20 years, moving the Amtrak station to Maricopa might end up being a smart move as Phoenix might build out more in that direction.
CMStPnP schlimm A station 34.8 miles from downtown Phoenix on the three-days-per week Sunset? If downtown is a rat hole and most of the Economic action is in the suburbs then...........yes. My Brother lives in Chandler, AZ measure from there. Before that he lived in Tempe. My grand folks used to live in Sun City but hell that is nowhere near downtown Phoenix station. Scottsdale is a weathy suburb, not going to net a lot of train riders there either. Would be interesting to apply the Demographic analysis to stations I mentioned earlier to downtown Phoenix station and see what it looks like as far as where most potential Amtrak riders live in and around Phoenix.
schlimm A station 34.8 miles from downtown Phoenix on the three-days-per week Sunset?
The old SL did stop in Tempe.
http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0030
For sports, Chase Field, US Airways Center. There are several museums, Phoenix Symphony Hall, several theaters, 11 venues for live music, and numerous bars and restaurants. Phoenix, being the county seat of Maricopa County and the capital of Arizona, serves as the center of politics, justice and government on the local, state and federal levels. The area is a major center of employment for the region, with many financial, legal, and other national and international corporations housed in a variety of skyscrapers.
I've been impressed with what I've heard about the new Hoosier State and, yes, it should run seven days a week, and the idea of extending it to Cincinatti sounds reasonable to me. But if it ran to Cincinatti would the next logical step be to extend it further to Louisville and Nashville, two cities not now served by Amtrak?
CLAREMONT, Minn. (AP) -- A small southeastern Minnesota community is trying but failing to give away land for free.
Claremont, which has about 500 residents, has had no takers in the three years it has been offering free lots to anyone with a qualifying income who is willing to build a house, Minnesota Public Radio News reported (http://bit.ly/1AE46QS ). The city, which is located between Owatonna and Rochester, has three churches, three parks, a gas station and a bank — all within one square mile.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/minnesota-town-offers-free-land-175459865.html
Drawing more people to live near the tracks is not working like it did in the 19th century.
Land grants build the railroads across the plains. Trains populated the plains in turn. Population numbers across vast swaths of the plains remain the same, or are in actual decline.
It does not look like population growth will encourage ridership over vast distances between urban centers.
Victrola1t does not look like population growth will encourage ridership over vast distances between urban centers.
Demographics have changed since the 19th century. Freight railroads used to serve every little town with freight stations and/or team tracks and daily services, but that ended long ago. But some on here want Amtrak to run 2000+ mile full service passenger trains, often stopping at declining towns where only a few board on some days. It's nostalgia. Nice, but not an obligation for the government or anyone else to provide them. People chose starting years ago to move to population centers. They also have chosen as technology and infrastructure changed to drive or fly in overwhelming numbers, abandoning the horse and buggy, canal packets, riverboats, stage coaches, ocean liners and trains for serious transportation. Passenger trains survive and do well around metro areas and linking those in corridors of ~500 miles if speeds are good.
schlimm For sports, Chase Field, US Airways Center. There are several museums, Phoenix Symphony Hall, several theaters, 11 venues for live music, and numerous bars and restaurants. Phoenix, being the county seat of Maricopa County and the capital of Arizona, serves as the center of politics, justice and government on the local, state and federal levels. The area is a major center of employment for the region, with many financial, legal, and other national and international corporations housed in a variety of skyscrapers.
If it was me I wouldn't restore service back to downtown but instead get permission from the GILA Indians to build across their reservation a smaller passenger train loop up to South Chandler or even a little further North to South Tempe. Thats as far as I would go unless this became a Corridor. I think the biggest impediment to Amtrak continuing service downtown Phoenix was not necessarily the once a day train frequency but the sheer length of the spur it had to traverse. I think if you could cut the length down by 1/2 or 3/4 the maintence/inspection costs would not be so high nor the speed limit as critical. Anyways that is what I would do for the current train frequency. You might be able to argue that if it becomes a Corridor then restoration to downtown Phoenix makes sense. If a spur were to be built for the single LD train then it should be engineered to become part of a larger extension to Phoenix and also function as part of a Phoenix to Tuscon cooridor........tall order but I think doable within Amtraks financial budget given the Indian land can probably be had for a song and would make up most of the ROW. The current Maricopa Station is on GILA Indian land by the way and they are trying to get permission via UP to move the location a little further West so they can build a passenger train spur when the train is stopped at the station (cost $4.2 million). Turns out the first site forces the Sunset Limited to stop four seperate times at Maricopa because the platforms are too short...........holding up UPRR trains. I think the $4.2 million could be put to better use to apply towards my Northern Spur idea to get the Train slightly further North and closer into Phoenix.
A logical corridor would be Tucson-Phoenix-San Diego (or LA).
In 2010, these were the MSAs:
Tucson - 980,283
Phoenix - 4,300,000
San Diego - 3,095,000 and/or
Los Angeles - 12,828,837
Total: 8.4 to 18 to 21 million people, in a corridor about 410 - 490 miles long.
If this became another HrSR, then HSR corridor, downtown stations are not absolutely necessary as long as they are connected to downtowns on a fast link.
Charles Kent I've been impressed with what I've heard about the new Hoosier State and, yes, it should run seven days a week, and the idea of extending it to Cincinatti sounds reasonable to me. But if it ran to Cincinatti would the next logical step be to extend it further to Louisville and Nashville, two cities not now served by Amtrak?
Absolutely!
schlimm A logical corridor would be Tucson-Phoenix-San Diego (or LA). In 2010, these were the MSAs: Tucson - 980,283 Phoenix - 4,300,000 San Diego - 3,095,000 and/or Los Angeles - 12,828,837 Total: 8.4 to 18 to 21 million people, in a corridor about 410 - 490 miles long. If this became another HrSR, then HSR corridor, downtown stations are not absolutely necessary as long as they are connected to downtowns on a fast link.
Interesting you should mention that as they are again talking about fixing up the former San Diego, Arizona and Eastern line. As well as rebuilding the line from Tijuana to San Diego and extend further into Tijuana. I doubt it will be passenger train speed though with the curves and not sure how they would handle the short dip into Mexico.
If it were a corridor, some of the RoW could be used with high speed track; one lower grade track could suffice for freight. Some new RoW could also be constructed in the desert.
CMStPnP Interesting you should mention that as they are again talking about fixing up the former San Diego, Arizona and Eastern line. As well as rebuilding the line from Tijuana to San Diego and extend further into Tijuana. I doubt it will be passenger train speed though with the curves and not sure how they would handle the short dip into Mexico.
You clearly lack vision. Those mountains and canyons can be made to support HSR with only a few billions of dollars for tunnels and bridges, and with a long enough tunnel we can avoid Mexico, at a higher cost of course.
Mac
schlimm oltmannd schlimm oltmannd We need to demand a "better Amtrak". Better isn't perfect and it isn't ideal and it doesn't necessarily fit anyones political views, but better is still better than status quo. One notion that has not been discussed here is putting Amtrak on a steady, non-political source of funding. That would mean not being subject to yearly appropriations requests to Congress and having to provide irrelevant trains in exchange for votes. I suspect the steady, non-political funding amount would be close to zero. But, politically based funding does stuff like keeping the SW Chief running through Kansas in the middle of the night. Rural southern Kansas gets a train. Rural South Dakota does not. Fair or not fair? Or, just the way it is... It would be difficult to achiewve, granted, but it would permit Amtrak to be run in a more rational and creative fashion. As to the SWC running through KS in the middle of the night? That was the schedule, more or less, of the AT&SF's Super Chief and El Cap 40+ years ago. As you've said on here before, Amtrak does things that way because that's the way it always has been done.
oltmannd schlimm oltmannd We need to demand a "better Amtrak". Better isn't perfect and it isn't ideal and it doesn't necessarily fit anyones political views, but better is still better than status quo. One notion that has not been discussed here is putting Amtrak on a steady, non-political source of funding. That would mean not being subject to yearly appropriations requests to Congress and having to provide irrelevant trains in exchange for votes. I suspect the steady, non-political funding amount would be close to zero. But, politically based funding does stuff like keeping the SW Chief running through Kansas in the middle of the night. Rural southern Kansas gets a train. Rural South Dakota does not. Fair or not fair? Or, just the way it is...
schlimm oltmannd We need to demand a "better Amtrak". Better isn't perfect and it isn't ideal and it doesn't necessarily fit anyones political views, but better is still better than status quo. One notion that has not been discussed here is putting Amtrak on a steady, non-political source of funding. That would mean not being subject to yearly appropriations requests to Congress and having to provide irrelevant trains in exchange for votes.
oltmannd We need to demand a "better Amtrak". Better isn't perfect and it isn't ideal and it doesn't necessarily fit anyones political views, but better is still better than status quo.
One notion that has not been discussed here is putting Amtrak on a steady, non-political source of funding. That would mean not being subject to yearly appropriations requests to Congress and having to provide irrelevant trains in exchange for votes.
I suspect the steady, non-political funding amount would be close to zero.
But, politically based funding does stuff like keeping the SW Chief running through Kansas in the middle of the night. Rural southern Kansas gets a train. Rural South Dakota does not. Fair or not fair? Or, just the way it is...
It would be difficult to achiewve, granted, but it would permit Amtrak to be run in a more rational and creative fashion.
As to the SWC running through KS in the middle of the night? That was the schedule, more or less, of the AT&SF's Super Chief and El Cap 40+ years ago. As you've said on here before, Amtrak does things that way because that's the way it always has been done.
I did and I still do. So, in my opinion, a "better Amtrak" would include taking a zero-based look at the LD routes to see how they might be optimized. First, that would be the schedule on the exising routes. Try to serve the bigger markets at times people want to go. Does Denver to Chicago during the day make more sense than overnight? If you expand that to try connect the dots differently on the map, that would help, too. But, that's quite a chore, though. Look at how much effort it took just to keep the SW Chief where it was!
A guy like Moorman has the best chance of anyone to convince the frt RRs that the rearranging isn't just some new way of sticking it to them. But, he only has a year. I doubt he'll spend much of his limited time on it. Although it would be neat to see him dust off the unfinished stuff in PRIIA 2008 and get it moving.
But, my bet is that he focuses on customer service, getting those new cars on the road, and getting funding lined up for incremental NEC improvements. (and basically walking away from the Boardman new NEC spine boondoggle)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
There are four needs at the top of the list:
1. Money from Congress for more REVENUE equipment -- no baggage cars, no baggage-dorms -- that is wisely chosen and awarded to contractors that can deliver it ready to run in a timely manner.
2. Money from Congress for a second schedule on long-distance routes that will provide reasonable time-of-day service for places like Cleveland, O.
3. Agreements with the freight railroads allowing this second schedule at a reasonable price.
4. Money from Congress, and agreements with the railroads, for development of corridors within those LD routes (e.g., Cleveland-Chicago).
Amtrak is cited as doing business the way it has always been done, and the schedule of the Super Chief across Kansas is mentioned. However, the Santa Fe also ran one or two other trains across Kansas, providing daytime service--because the passengers were there. Sad to say, too many passengeres abandoned rail travel many years ago, even though the trains were still there.
This could be applied to almost any area that now has passenger service at night only. Sixty-five years ago, the Southern had seven trains a day each way between Washington and Atlanta, and the Seaboard had three (one required a change in Richmond). The SAL and the ACL each had four trains between Washington and Jacksonville; most went on to other Florida destinations.
Johnny
A very astute comment Johnny.
For what it's worth, Southern did operate a daytime Washington-Atlanta schedule (the "Piedmont") opposite the "Southern Crescent's" overnight schedule after May 1, 1971. The passengers just weren't there, and I don't think the fact that it was operated as a mainline mixed train had anything to do with it.
Deggesty too many passengeres abandoned rail travel many years ago, even though the trains were still there.
And they did that voluntarily; nobody forced them to. First, Interstates made driving more feasible over longer distances. Two, air travel become faster and more affordable for millions.
Absolutely right. In the cases with which I am personally acquainted via many rides -- NYC, NKP, RI, U.P. -- abdication by the passengers preceded downgrading by the roads.
Have often thought that a HrSR corridor TUS - PHX- Yuma - San Diego - LAX would put several large Metropolitan locations together with it only a slightly longer route compared to a straight line PHX - LAX.
The Piedmont did not poke along, and the mixed aspect was mostly intermodal, if my memory is correct, and the coaches were reclining-seat, air-conditioned, either modernized heavyweights and/or lightweights. Speeds were pretty much the same as when it was pure passenger.
daveklepper The Piedmont did not poke along, and the mixed aspect was mostly intermodal, if my memory is correct, and the coaches were reclining-seat, air-conditioned, either modernized heavyweights and/or lightweights. Speeds were pretty much the same as when it was pure passenger.
SRR ran it because they were required to. Not many passengers rode it, however. Why? Like most Americans, they chose other modes of transportation.
I agree. But today just might be different with highway congestion. The State-supported trains in the area and their success might be proof.
CSSHEGEWISCH For what it's worth, Southern did operate a daytime Washington-Atlanta schedule (the "Piedmont") opposite the "Southern Crescent's" overnight schedule after May 1, 1971. The passengers just weren't there, and I don't think the fact that it was operated as a mainline mixed train had anything to do with it.
Its not 1971 anymore. Atlanta has 5X the population, ditto the other Piedmont cities. I-85 is no fun at all in SC and not much better in GA or NC. A day train from Atlanta to the north could be useful - and used.
oltmannd CSSHEGEWISCH For what it's worth, Southern did operate a daytime Washington-Atlanta schedule (the "Piedmont") opposite the "Southern Crescent's" overnight schedule after May 1, 1971. The passengers just weren't there, and I don't think the fact that it was operated as a mainline mixed train had anything to do with it. Its not 1971 anymore. Atlanta has 5X the population, ditto the other Piedmont cities. I-85 is no fun at all in SC and not much better in GA or NC. A day train from Atlanta to the north could be useful - and used.
If NC, SC, and GA can work together, they can start by extending one Piedmont each way from Charlotte to Atlanta (73 south and 76 north). The train takes about 5 1/2 hrs between the cities. It would add daytime service between Atlanta and both Charlotte and Greensboro and a direct train between Atlanta and Raleigh.
Amtrak once proposed cutting cars off the Crescent at Atlanta since demand south of Atlanta is much less than it is north. So after the 19 gets into Atlanta, send the extra cars north to North Carolina. Then once the 73 gets into Atlanta, add those cars onto the 20 back north to New York.
Makes just terrific sense. Some switch work and sidings in Atlanta may be required, however, given the limitations of the present station setup.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.