Amtrak Pennsylvanian service may end (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh: ferry, car, gas)

[Blackbeauty212]

Originally Posted by Sealtite

This is troubling to hear about. I understand the business and economic standpoint, however the Pennsylvanian is a staple that will be sorely missed.

You're late...The Train was saved

[pman]

State leaders are committing $3.8 million a year to save a passenger rail route that Amtrak acknowledges is “not as efficient or as useful as it might be.”
..
Michael at 11:58 a.m.
I hope your readers notice why the Amtrak official says the Pennsylvanian is "not as efficient or as useful as it might be." In his testimony, he goes on to say, "...the model we are increasingly working toward is one that provides online communities with multiple daily frequencies, to enhance the relevance and the appeal of the service." In other words, the main way Amtrak's Pittsburgh-New York City service could be improved is to provide more of it. An increase to two or three trains a day in each direction would make it much more likely that individual travelers would find a train that is scheduled to get them where they want to go at the time they need to be there. Michael Alexander

Read more: State commits annual $3.8M to Pittsburgh-Harrisburg Amtrak line | TribLIVE
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

[Blackbeauty212]

^^^^ I agree it needs more service....but it also needs to be Faster than the Turnpike and right now its not....I understand the communities in between Pgh and Har will benefit because theres no other option.....However the real chance for increased use is by getting more people in Burgh to use Amtrak over Flying or even the Express Buses...both of which the Pennsylvania train can not compete with in regards of time....

[LIRefugee]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

However the real chance for increased use is by getting more people in Burgh to use Amtrak over Flying or even the Express Buses...both of which the Pennsylvania train can not compete with in regards of time....

This sounds like "the best way to get people to use the train is to get people to use the train", though I think you mean that the train needs to be faster as compared to the bus companies especially. I don't necessarily agree with that completely, but it would certainly help. The biggest problem with that, though, is the expense necessary in order to construct a line that would be sufficiently fast is very, very high, and we live at a time in which the people and entities who have the money that would be required don't want to spend much of anything.

I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. More people might consider taking the train if it left or arrived at more convenient times (certainly more than the one option available now), but more trains may not be scheduled if the ridership is not seen as being high enough to justify increased service.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by LIRefugee

This sounds like "the best way to get people to use the train is to get people to use the train", though I think you mean that the train needs to be faster as compared to the bus companies especially. I don't necessarily agree with that completely, but it would certainly help. The biggest problem with that, though, is the expense necessary in order to construct a line that would be sufficiently fast is very, very high, and we live at a time in which the people and entities who have the money that would be required don't want to spend much of anything.

I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. More people might consider taking the train if it left or arrived at more convenient times (certainly more than the one option available now), but more trains may not be scheduled if the ridership is not seen as being high enough to justify increased service.

We don't utilize Amtrak simply because driving is significantly faster. My partner's family lives near Downtown Lancaster, and we can drive there in roughly four hours via the Turnpike. The train ride would be much longer (and more expensive, even after factoring in gasoline and tolls).

[pman]

Originally Posted by LIRefugee

This sounds like "the best way to get people to use the train is to get people to use the train", though I think you mean that the train needs to be faster as compared to the bus companies especially. I don't necessarily agree with that completely, but it would certainly help. The biggest problem with that, though, is the expense necessary in order to construct a line that would be sufficiently fast is very, very high, and we live at a time in which the people and entities who have the money that would be required don't want to spend much of anything.

I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. More people might consider taking the train if it left or arrived at more convenient times (certainly more than the one option available now), but more trains may not be scheduled if the ridership is not seen as being high enough to justify increased service.

actually, the easiest way to get a trip time competitive train isn't that expensive, it requires using tilting trains which the americans originally developed and the spaniards put to good use for just such problems. now, something much faster than driving, such as a new right of way from harrisburg to pittsburgh, would be expensive (estimated at $6.3 bn) but would make the trip much faster than driving.

right now ,the trip to harrisburg is 5h30m, 34m of that is what is called schedule pad, in other words, extra time into the schedule for delays. you can see it by comparing the eastbound and westbound schedules, the trip to greensburg is a half hour shorter than the trip from greensburg. currently, it's not only slow but infrequent so the schedule rarely meets peoples needs even if they are willing to put up with the speed and yet people still ride it which indicates that the route has potential. the majority of the ridership is pittsburgh/greensburg to philly and ny with the rest of it being the smaller places along the way also travelling to the big cities.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by pman

actually, the easiest way to get a trip time competitive train isn't that expensive, it requires using tilting trains which the americans originally developed and the spaniards put to good use for just such problems. now, something much faster than driving, such as a new right of way from harrisburg to pittsburgh, would be expensive (estimated at $6.3 bn) but would make the trip much faster than driving.

Currently its about a 3 hour drive between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg.

If you drive yourself, you don't have to go downtown and wait for the train. Once you're in Harrisburg, you don't have to wait at the Harrisburg station and wait for your ride to your final destination. Driving is portal-to-portal service on the schedule that the traveler themselves chooses.

High speed rail would have to be able to do the trip in less than 2 hrs to be competitive for people who are able to drive.

I just don't see that happening, particularly with the mountains between here and there.

[pman]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Currently its about a 3 hour drive between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg.

If you drive yourself, you don't have to go downtown and wait for the train. Once you're in Harrisburg, you don't have to wait at the Harrisburg station and wait for your ride to your final destination. Driving is portal-to-portal service on the schedule that the traveler themselves chooses.

High speed rail would have to be able to do the trip in less than 2 hrs to be competitive for people who are able to drive.

I just don't see that happening, particularly with the mountains between here and there.

stop focusing on harrisburg, most people aren't going to harrisburg whether by car or by train so it's only marginally relevant. second, a real high speed line would do philly to pittsburgh in about 2 hours, think about that for a second. the cost estimate I mentioned is for a new segment between harrisburg and pittsburgh which would be less than 2 hours is built property. at an average speed of 100 mph it would likely be approx a 2 hour trip (and 3.5 to philly), it's possible it could be an average speed of 125 mph which would put it at about 1.5 hours (3 to philly with no further upgrades east of harrisburg on the keystone corridor which is unlikely to the real number might be 2.5 hours). if it averaged 80 mph it would be about 2.5 hours to harrisburg and 3.75-4 to philly. the mountains really aren't that huge an issue, high speed electric trains can take significant grades and cost estimates of $6.3 bn are less than the redevelopment of DC's union station.
all that being said, different people have different thresholds, and if you can put down your car blinders for a second you'd realize that people are riding even at 7.5 hours and once a day. a high speed rail station in pittsburgh would have more passengers annually than pittsburgh's airport which itself cost billions. at its heart, highways benefit the suburbs and places outside cities closest to exits, high speed rail benefits cities since it relies on density to feed it and bypasses low density places like highway exits.

[pman]

it's official, the service is at least being preserved. I'd like to see them come up with an improvement plan with faster trip times and more frequencies that could be made part of a transportation bill. nonetheless, ridership in pittsburgh seems to have turned a corner and is rising again
PennDOT says it will fund Amtrak's Pittsburgh-Harrisburg line | TribLIVE

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by pman

it's official, the service is at least being preserved. I'd like to see them come up with an improvement plan with faster trip times and more frequencies that could be made part of a transportation bill. nonetheless, ridership in pittsburgh seems to have turned a corner and is rising again
PennDOT says it will fund Amtrak's Pittsburgh-Harrisburg line | TribLIVE

I wonder what Daryl Metcalfe thinks of this.

On second thought, nah, **** him.