CJtrainguy New York - Chicago is in my mind a good corridor that should have multiple trains a day. With higher speed or even true high speed trains, travel time would meet or beat driving. Or is that too long for a corridor in your book?
New York - Chicago is in my mind a good corridor that should have multiple trains a day. With higher speed or even true high speed trains, travel time would meet or beat driving. Or is that too long for a corridor in your book?
We talk as though the solution on given routes is either/or: the long-distance trains OR connecting corridors.
However, I doubt very much if the money saved by eliminating the LD trains would support the corridors and frequencies envisioned by Schlimm. The only answer is enough money for Amtrak-- the "fair share" called for by many -- to support both the corridors and the existing one-seat ride.
Until we succeed in getting this, I'm afraid we're only corridor dreaming.
CJtrainguyNew York - Chicago is in my mind a good corridor that should have multiple trains a day. With higher speed or even true high speed trains, travel time would meet or beat driving. Or is that too long for a corridor in your book?
The length for a competitive corridor varies with speed and total time, end to end. An advantage of corridors over 2000 mile LD trains is the ability to have better service in three ways, at least. One, more frequent service daily. Two, more scheduled convenient times of service. Three, more reliable, on-time service because of shorter distances in which delays are compounded.
Implemenation would likely require taking more of the financial burden off the states, especially on multistate routes, such as CHI-Lincoln or Omaha-DEN.
CHI-NYC could work with much higher speeds. Some trains could run endpoint to endpoint, some on existing or new corridors on the overall route(s). And it could only work with largely dedicated RoWs, either new or rebuilding some of the redundant old freight routes.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Not to forget that the Southwest Chief also serves Iowa.
You can prove darn near anything with numbers or the absense thereof. I know you like corridor trains and don't so much like LD trains. Personally, I'd like to see both.
What I don't want to end up with is chopping what was once a run-through into corridors that may or may not connect, forcing either over-night stays to continue on or even using alternate transportation to bridge gaps.
When I went from Little Rock to Los Angeles earlier this year, I could do so with a one-seat ride! Couldn't do that on a plane and it was a key selling point for me.
So what are the corridors you see? How long is a corridor? And what about any gaps making a trip from Chicago to the West Coast impossible?
Starting from Chicago, there's an effort to get passenger service to Quad Cities (but the current gov in IL makes even that a challenge). To extend the corridor to Iowa City is welcomed by the business community in Eastern Iowa and opposed by the current governor and his band in Des Moines. The corridor really should go to Omaha (or even Lincoln, NE, given all the traffic Omaha - Lincoln). This is just one corridor, but it crosses statelines and everyone seems to only care about their own state. So how do you make corridors happen?
What are your suggeted corridors? With possible ridership?
The western LD trains serve these states en route aside from the end point states (IL, WA, OR, CA, LA):
CZ: IA, NE, CO, UT, NV
EB: WI, MN, ND, MT, ID
SWC: MO, KS, CO, NM, AZ
SL: TX, NM, AZ
TXEagle: MO, AR, TX, NM, AZ
The estimated US Census population for the US 2015 = 321.4 million.
The population of these 16 states (IA, NE, CO, UT, NV, WI, MN, ND, MT, ID, MO, KS, NM, AZ, TX, AR) = approximately 78.6 million or 24.4% of the total. They are served by 5 LD routes, with a low ridership and at a considerable loss. Most would/will be served far better by corridor services.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.