Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I’m not mistaken they end in Portland. There are two routes for Portland-Vancouver and another two routes for Eugene-Seattle, so a total of four Cascades routes being served between Portland and Seattle. And then there is the daily coast starlight from LA to Seattle so that brings up the total to 5 between Portland and Seattle.
Ridership peaked in 2011 with 852,269 yearly ridership as it started to face competition from bolt bus which provides a cheaper service., it crashed down to 181,500 in 2021 due to Covid and it’s coming back up, interested to see what 2023 turns out to be. 2022 was 390,248.
Going forward Amtrak should probably cut any routes that are not state sponsored and a drain on finances and just be replaced with bus service, having to rent freight rail roads is too expensive when ridership is low. That way Amtrak can beef up its service on the routes people actually use. Also the long range routes in the west need to have newer train sets and be promoted as cruise lines on rails, tourist rail aficionados probably make up most of that ridership anyway.
I reckon if it wasn't for the derailment at the opening of the Point Defiance Bypass, then 2018 and 2019 would have been pretty good years since it would have been faster trips with lower operating costs and greater reliability. 2023 will probably net some decent numbers.
The concentration should certainly be on the shorter state-sponsored routes and with that I think purchasing or building some pieces of rail make sense for running more frequent service, but I don't think Amtrak should cut any routes right now because it's too contentious and it goes through a lot of states in the Great Plains and Intermountain West that have representatives willing to put their votes in favor of Amtrak specifically because they receive service. I think what Amtrak needs is teeth to enforce the agreements they have with the freight rail operators so that on-time performance is a lot better since not being on-time is extremely costly for Amtrak in multiple ways including dissuading returning riders with bad experiences and therefore losing farebox and concessions revenue, having to heavily pad out its current schedules to try to account for the terrible on time performance from freight interference and therefore dissuading even more ridership and having to thus pay more in hours and overtime to its employees for the level of service given. Having some way for Amtrak to enforce agreements with freight rail operators to improve on-time performance alongside improvements in state-sponsored lines that are often segments that long-distance trains run on would thus improve long-distance farebox recovery rates while not alienating those areas currently served.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
My primary business is helping general contractors understand the trends that affect who will build what. That crosses a lot of industries. I'm a generalist so this is about listening to the experts in the various sectors. And yes there's a future for both passenger rail and wind power in this region and elsewhere.
What's your profession, related to power generation and transportation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW4me
Tell that to Japan, China, Germany, France, Spain, Britain, Sweden, etc.
Of course, their trains don't look much like 19th century trains,
nor do modern windmills look like the ones from ancient times.
I don't think there is much possibility of either of you changing its mind, so why bother? Just put it on ignore.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-31-2023 at 09:08 PM..
Really, you think ... passenger trains are worthwhile technology to invest in for the 21st century??
Railroads do make sense for freight. Not passenger trains.
Under current conditions (government meddling, taxes, etc), YES, passenger service is not warranted.
HOWEVER
The fact remains that rail has a 20:1 advantage over pneumatic tire on pavement (Co:efficient of rolling resistance). For a finite fuel budget you can move TWENTY TIMES as much cargo / passengers as can a heavy truck or bus or automobile.
Rail transport has other advantages : _ scalable _ fastest land transport _ safety _ low pollution _ minimal surface area _
IN THE PAST, post office mail contracts partly subsidized the railroad companies to serve less populous areas. The cancellation of those contracts in 1967 combined with the other government burdens, killed the profitability of passenger service in most of the country.
IN SHORT, barring a technological breakthrough, passenger trains are worthwhile technology to invest in for the 21st century.
BUT it is vital to get government OUT OF THE WAY. No taxes on the rights of way, rolling stock, etc, etc. Instead of taxpayer subsidy with all its partisan politics, red tape, bureaucracy, overhead, delays, bloat, etc, STOP TAKING TAXES FROM RAILROAD COMPANIES.
Then we will have a world class passenger rail system in short order.
Amtrak is going about this all wrong. What they should be doing is making the existing train service worth riding. The way to do that is to make it faster and more reliable. They've already got this in the Northeast Corridor. But other lines should be fully double tracked, so that trains don't have to pull over and wait for oncoming trains to pass. And all station platforms should be made high-level, to make boarding and alighting faster and easier. Doing just these two things would improve the service enough that they would attract new ridership, thus not only gaining more revenue but also more support for additional rail expansions and improvement.
Finally, all lines (existing or new) should operate at least twice daily, so that every passenger can have the opportunity to board and/or alight a train at any station at a time other than the middle of the night.
Once these things are in place, then they can worry about adding new lines.
Amtrak is going about this all wrong. What they should be doing is making the existing train service worth riding. The way to do that is to make it faster and more reliable. They've already got this in the Northeast Corridor. But other lines should be fully double tracked, so that trains don't have to pull over and wait for oncoming trains to pass. And all station platforms should be made high-level, to make boarding and alighting faster and easier. Doing just these two things would improve the service enough that they would attract new ridership, thus not only gaining more revenue but also more support for additional rail expansions and improvement.
Finally, all lines (existing or new) should operate at least twice daily, so that every passenger can have the opportunity to board and/or alight a train at any station at a time other than the middle of the night.
Once these things are in place, then they can worry about adding new lines.
I agree Amtrak should work on making things faster and more reliable though having this plan doesn't mean that can't happen.
If I'm reading this correctly, the vast majority of additional service is going to be of a length that are going to be state-sponsored lines rather than the 750 mile threshold for becoming a long-distance line. In that case, if the state is willing to fiscally sponsor it with Amtrak as the provider, then that's probably not a problem for Amtrak. Whether or not the state will sponsor it and for how long is a different question, but it doesn't seem like it'd jeopardize other Amtrak operations. I think having more state sponsored lines is generally good since having the state involved might be easier to push through improvements. Since a lot of long-distance lines have to go through large chunks of different state sponsored lines, then those improvements also help with existing long-distance lines as well. Most of the improvements seem to involve more service along existing lines. There's the pretty direct more service such as for the Cascades line where that's a direct upping in frequency, but there are also expansions like the Chicago-Louisville service going through Indianapolis which effectively brings back more Chicago-Indianapolis trips after the Hoosier state was cancelled but now with an extension which thus gets you to better than twice daily for the Chicago-Indianapolis segment. Chicago's expansion into Green Bay and Madison are also similar in that they're extensions of the Hiawatha line that come along with just more Chicago-Milwaukee services. These state-sponsored line enhancements don't necessarily include double tracking, passing sidings and high level platforms, but they also don't preclude them. It'll be more the devil in the details for each individual agreement. I do think focusing on these shorter state-sponsored lines makes sense though in order to rein in overtime blowing out budgets and because of the potential for incremental improvements that would benefit both the state-sponsored services and long-distance services that would be traveling through multiple segments used by state-sponsored services.
From the looks of it, a good chunk of these state sponsored lines have significant segments that are owned by a publicly owned agency like SCCRA, Sound Transit, TRE, MDOT, Metra, Amtrak itself, NICTD, MIDOT, MBTA, MTA, GO Transit, NJT, LIRR, and SFRTA. I reckon those with significant chunks running on such are maybe more likely to happen. A lot of these are commuter rail lines and I wonder if maybe the best way to go about this is for commuter rail agencies to purchase or build (and own) more track themselves and then as they extend further out start building Amtrak state-sponsored services along them especially if Amtrak continues to have no power to enforce their agreements with freight rail operators.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-01-2023 at 03:14 PM..
Sound Transit doesn't operate Amtrak trains. ST's Sounder trains do share an Amtrak yard in Seattle, they share stations, and they both operate on Burlington Northern rails.
I agree that state-sponsored lines should be a priority. Put the money where the demand exists and the locals want service.
As far as Amtrak not knowing what to do with the additional funding, don't worry. Management will figure out a way to **** away all the money without appreciably impacting service or maintaining and upgrading equipment.
The European Union has showed us even international rail can work.
The delta is high density development....but of course, if a place becomes high density BEFORE the rails are put in, it makes it pretty expensive and difficult to do AFTER.
And therein is the rub. The government needs to plan out what the transportation road map will look like. That's going to involve a lot more than just funding Amtrak. By getting extra funding without a plan is a surefire way to ensure the money is simply wasted.
They need to focus on the routes that make the most sense first before trying to connect the entire country. California, Midwest, Texas, Florida, Northeast, etc.
They really should try to purchase rail lines wherever possible and focus on improving on-time performance. Constant delays will not convince anyone to rely on the train.
Fully upgrade the NEC already... a train ride from DC to Boston should take 3 hours at most. Work with Brightline, Texas Central, CAHSR, etc to get these projects finished and let Amtrak operate.
Once you have a respectable service, push for expansion into lesser populated areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77
When you don't pay for the IP and have unlimited leverage, China has shown how fast a rapid transit rail system can be built.
The European Union has showed us even international rail can work.
The delta is high density development....but of course, if a place becomes high density BEFORE the rails are put in, it makes it pretty expensive and difficult to do AFTER.
And therein is the rub. The government needs to plan out what the transportation road map will look like. That's going to involve a lot more than just funding Amtrak. By getting extra funding without a plan is a surefire way to ensure the money is simply wasted.
That's the thing... people always mention China's high speed rail system but they've also built 40+ metro systems in the last 20 years. Amtrak should be just one part of a much more comprehensive passenger rail network.
As for high density development... rampant nimbyism blocks absolutely everything and zoning laws favor single family homes and cars almost anywhere that's not a CBD. There has been some progress, but not nearly enough. It's hard to remain optimistic sometimes.
That's improving on time performance and scheduled travel time to Chicago Union Station and would allow for through-running. If implemented, it'd make for greater reliability and cut down on travel times to Michigan services (not just Detroit) by 30 minutes and to parts going south on the Illini, Saluki, and the City of New Orleans services by 15 minutes. This is the part of states themselves advocating for and working towards better rail infrastructure within their respective states which would need to go hand in hand with Amtrak's expansion of mostly state-sponsored lines. It'd also improve long-distance lines running on these segments. I do wonder if this also changes the calculations for some of the long-distance trains coming to and from the the northeast corridor and whether this makes it more appealing to instead of going from Toledo through the northern part of Indiana to instead shoot north to Detroit for at least some of these current or additional runs. Having this kind of routing for Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited would increase route length, but it might actually be comparable or better total scheduled time and reliability since MIDOT owns a lot of the tracks in Michigan that are rated for higher speeds and in Chicagoland would be running on Metra owned tracks or right-of-way, plus you'd pick up one major metropolitan area and a handful of moderately sized metropolitan areas along the way. Separately, I think Lake Shore Limited comes in at bad hours for a lot of the intermediate cities and wastes too much time on the coupling and decoupling actions in Albany. These should be two separate services and perhaps if separated then one can go through Michigan and the other through Indiana (yes, they all need to go through Indiana, but I mean this as in for a much smaller length of the route).
I also think some of the shorter services like some of the Michigan services, the Illini and Saluki, and Lincoln Service might be better if they through-run in Union Station to Milwaukee and perhaps even past that to Green Bay or Madison. The other potential services aside from Hiawatha and the proposed expansions of that would be coming into Union Station from rail north would be the proposed Rockford line. It may make sense then for Illini and Saluki to go through to Rockford making an inverted L shape covering a large portion of Illinois with potential to be an alternate route to Madison or to extend further out to Dubuque (my feeling on this is that ending with terminating at Rockford isn't a great idea and that it's better to get to Madison and hopefully coming into the station from the same direction as Empire Builder does if it ever gets routed to serve Madison proper since building redundancies among key city pairs and for longer routes is a good idea). Doing so would still be under the 750 miles long-distance train threshold and might simplify operations. If this really cuts a half hour for Michigan services, then that means effectively adding just one hour of total time to combine them with Hiawatha which might make it not too operationally risky in terms of radically upping the risk of overtime expenditure.
I think the big thing with these expansions is really more about how Amtrak and other agencies goes about them. State-sponsored lines means a pretty good measure of funding and hopefully comes with investments in the infrastructure that benefits these new services as well as existing services and expansions of existing services including non-Amtrak services. Investing in Chicago Union Station to build a connection with the St. Charles Air Line Bridge and to allow for through-running is an example of a project that can hit all of these marks including helping Metra in Chicagoland to start becoming a frequent all-day all-week regional rail type of service as opposed to a commuter rail service that only gets decent frequencies in peak directions during peak commuter hours on weekdays. Integrating new spur/branch lines as expansions of existing services is also a good idea as what you're gaining isn't just the part of the new spur, but are tapping into a one-seat ride for everything else along that existing service and even better if it means that's an additional run on that trunk line giving it higher frequencies for people along that trunk even if they don't ride to and from the stations on the new spur.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-03-2023 at 11:48 AM..
Tell that to Japan, China, Germany, France, Spain, Britain, Sweden, etc.
Of course, their trains don't look much like 19th century trains,
nor do modern windmills look like the ones from ancient times.
Those are much more compact countries than the US or Canada, though. The US is so much more spread out, there are much longer distances to cover between major populated areas. Well, and most of those countries have larger tax revenues for public works. If taxpayers want better interstate transit, they'll have to pony up. I read on another thread today, the TOP individual tax rate in the US is around 37%. That's bad, really bad. But I don't want to hijack the thread.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 08-03-2023 at 12:59 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
