December 25, 20231 yr On 12/12/2023 at 9:59 PM, Boomerang_Brian said: This isn’t accurate. The long distance study enables the FRA to look at any corridor longer than 750 miles. It’s awkwardly worded and there are references to “discontinued routes”, but completely new corridors are also allowed. FRA is particularly interested in connecting Chicago to Atlanta and Florida. My biggest hope for the Long Distance study is more service on the Lakeshore Limited, but that currently seems unlikely. I’d also love a new Chicago-CLE-Pitt-Philly route, coming in at 759 miles, to better connect us to the NEC. (Also unlikely.) We're expecting the next update from the FRA on the Long Distance study in February. A little clarification: The FRA long distance study is for new routes only and does not envision added service to existing routes, a major oversight in my opinion. Apparently, there were two factions at FRA of which one wanted added service to existing routes in addition to new service. They seem to have lost out. Amtrak is not involved, except in a peripheral way, with FRA taking the lead on the study. Word is that the report will call for a lot of new routes. We shall see. If it was up to me, I'd call for at least two more round trips on the existing Lake Shore route, plus a day train New York-Buffalo-Cleveland and a Buffalo-Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit connector to/from the Maple Leaf to New York. Of course a lot would have to happen for this to come to pass, including construction of the South of the Lake bypass, more improvements at Chicago, track, signal and station improvements along the route etc. Edited December 25, 20231 yr by neony
January 2, 20241 yr Author 2023 Was A Good Year For American High Speed Rail. But, while some believe the dream of U.S. high-speed rail is finally within reach, the reality is America is still worlds from boasting a high-speed rail network like those found in Asia and Europe. The reason is simple—cost…. Given the current size of the Federal deficit, and the absence of a direct source of funding (highways, by contrast, are directly funded by the gas tax), high-speed rail boosters need to focus on improving construction efficiency. That means enacting several major reforms that will make the investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure law go further. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/12/21/2023-was-a-good-year-for-american-high-speed-rail/?sh=46ce7297787d Why 2023 emerged as a banner year for passenger rail. There are lots of reasons for optimism among passenger rail advocates. The splashiest of those came in recent months, as the Biden administration finally unveiled its vision for passenger rail expansions paid for through the 2021 infrastructure law. Going into a reelection campaign, President Joe Biden placed big bets on a few massive rail expansion efforts—particularly in the Northeast and California—while stoking interest in dozens of other potential projects in nearly every state…. Amtrak notched a significant victory as it fought freight railroads to better accommodate passenger trains. Two freight carriers agreed to allow Amtrak to revive its Gulf Coast line rather than risk an adverse ruling from a powerful regulatory panel…. Meanwhile, a stalled effort in Congress to slash Amtrak’s operations budget could show that the appetite on Capitol Hill for starving the passenger rail service might be waning. https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2023/12/why-2023-emerged-banner-year-passenger-rail/392994/ Time to get real on the bullet train: California is building it, so let’s make it work. The ambitious project has been widely lampooned over the years by many, including me, as a too-costly boondoggle and off track from the start. But let’s get real: This giant adult toy is going to be constructed one way or another, whether at reasonable speed or in pokey chug-chug fashion. It’s time we acknowledge that and focus on making it work the best for everyone. And sooner the better. You don’t spend $11 billion on a project, as California already has, then abandon it. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-25/california-high-speed-rail-federal-funding-newsom-biden Shelved Penn Station fixes could avoid $17 billion expansion — if transit agencies actually work together: Post investigation. The MTA and NJ Transit — which operate the region’s commuter railroads — each prepared plans that collectively could double the number of trains Penn Station can fit, which experts and activists said would alleviate the need for the new terminal…. The problem with the alternate proposals is the fractious relationship between the MTA and NJT, as well as Amtrak, which owns Penn Station, according to interviews with experts, officials, and activists. The railroads have pursued the planned eye-wateringly expensive expansion because each wants room for their own independent operation inside of Penn Station instead of being forced to cooperate more closely, a document shows. https://nypost.com/2023/12/25/metro/shelved-penn-station-fixes-could-avoid-17b-expansion-docs/ Washington state lawmakers reaffirm support of high speed rail service. Washington state’s delegation in the House of Representatives recently sent a letter to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Administrator Amit Bose to express its support of high speed rail and improved intercity passenger rail service in Washington and the Pacific Northwest…. “Cities and counties across the nation want more frequent and more reliable intercity passenger rail service, and the Pacific Northwest is no exception,” the letter said. “The combined population of Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia, is expected to grow by up to 4 million people by 2050. Reliable and efficient passenger rail service is and will continue to be essential to connecting communities across Washington.” https://transportationtodaynews.com/news/31954-washington-state-lawmakers-reaffirm-support-of-high-speed-rail-service/ Amtrak issues Request for Proposals to replace bilevel long-distance equipment. Amtrak has issued a formal Request for Proposals for replacement of its bilevel long-distance railcar fleet, outlining requirements for what it says will be a multi-billion-dollar order for equipment projected to enter service in the early 2030s…. The request is for bilevel equipment, “as it is Amtrak’s highest priority to replace the oldest portion of the long distance fleet,“ Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said in an emailed response to questions from Trains News Wire….” The plan is to order trainsets rather than individual cars. https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/amtrak-issues-request-for-proposals-to-replace-bilevel-long-distance-equipment/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 16, 20241 yr here we go — 👍 Rail News: Amtrak Report: Amtrak to begin on-track testing of new high-speed trains The Federal Railroad Administration has cleared Amtrak's new high-speed trains to begin testing on tracks that run from Washington, D.C., to Boston, the New York Times reported late last week. The faster Avelia Liberty trains, which eventually will replace the Acela trains operating on the Northeast Corridor, had failed a series of computer modeling tests and finally passed the FRA's approval to begin testing on the tracks, the newspaper reported. more: https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Report-Amtrak-to-begin-on-track-testing-of-new-high-speed-trains--71021 avelia liberty vs acela
January 19, 20241 yr Here is Rail Magazine’s complete list of the likelihood of each Corridor ID Program grant recipient actually becoming a real service. The projections on the Ohio corridors are disappointing, but understandable considering the history. (Purely on business case they would rank much higher!) https://x.com/railmag/status/1747988576837455961?s=12 TCMC 1 Gulf Coast 2 CHI-Quad Cities 3 Downeaster: Rockland 4 Capital Corridor Reno/Salinas 5 Long Island Ext 6 Wolverine: Windsor 7 Baton Rouge-NOLA 8 Heartland Flyer Ext 9 Surfliner Extension: San Ysidro 10* Green Mtn. Corridor 11 Northern Lights Express 12 Commonwealth Corridor13 D.C.-Bristol, VA 14 Vermonter Corridor to MTL, +1 RT 15 San Joaquin: Redding 16 Scranton-NYC 17 Winston/Salem-RAL 18 CHI-Quincy to Hannibal 19 Reading-Philly-NYC 20 River Runner Ext to St Joseph, MO 21 I-20 Corridor 22 BOS-Albany 23 Coachella Valley 24 Eau Claire-Twin Cities 25 N. Coast Hiawatha 26 PHX-Tucson 27 Diamond State Line 28 Colo Front Range 29 CLE-Columbus-Dayton-Cincy 30 Wilmington-RAL 31 Central Coast (CA) 32 MKE-Madison-Eau Claire-Twin Cities 33 CHI-Ft Wayne, Columbus-PIT 34 CLE-Toledo-DET 35 Asheville-Salisbury 36 JAX-ORL-MIA 37 Peoria-CHI 38 MKE-Green Bay 39 ATL-Savannah 40 Fayetteville-RAL 41 HOU-San Antonio 42 Louisville-Indy 43 ATL-CHT-NSH-MPHS 44 DFW-HOU 45 MIA-ORL-TPA 46 CLT-Kings Mtn 47 When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
January 19, 20241 yr All this news is so exciting! Hubby and I took our first ever trip on Amtrak in 2022 (Cincy to Huntington, WV) then followed it up with two trips last year (Toledo to Chicago), and yesterday we booked our first Amtrak trip of 2024 (Toledo to NYC). I'm definitely looking forward to riding in newer train cars (current fleet is older than I am) and the 3C+D route.
January 25, 20241 yr Good video from City Nerd on best city pairs for high speed rail in North America. Interesting to hear his explanation of the methodology as well as to see which cities ended up not making the cut. Here's the final map if people don't want to watch the video. (Though it's worth a watch). https://twitter.com/YIMBYLAND/status/1750212011848319369/photo/1
January 25, 20241 yr It's disappointing that 3C+D didn't make the cut but not a big surprise. What is surprising was nothing showing up in the Pacific NW.
January 25, 20241 yr 12 hours ago, Ethan said: Good video from City Nerd on best city pairs for high speed rail in North America. Interesting to hear his explanation of the methodology as well as to see which cities ended up not making the cut. Here's the final map if people don't want to watch the video. (Though it's worth a watch). https://twitter.com/YIMBYLAND/status/1750212011848319369/photo/1 15 minutes ago, Dev said: It's disappointing that 3C+D didn't make the cut but not a big surprise. What is surprising was nothing showing up in the Pacific NW. It doesn’t appear that he factored in existing travel patterns, which seems relevant. It also seems like there should be an additional increase for in state travel, particularly to the state capital. Existing travel between CLE- Columbus and Cincy- Columbus FAR exceeds travel between either and Chicago, yet the latter makes his list while the former doesn’t, purely because of the size of Chicago. Also, for those who don’t like links, here’s the map: When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
January 25, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said: It doesn’t appear that he factored in existing travel patterns, which seems relevant. It also seems like there should be an additional increase for in state travel, particularly to the state capital. Existing travel between CLE- Columbus and Cincy- Columbus FAR exceeds travel between either and Chicago, yet the latter makes his list while the former doesn’t, purely because of the size of Chicago. Also, for those who don’t like links, here’s the map: I don't disagree with most of that. I'd hope anyone with the means to actually build any of these lines would do a more rigorous analysis than this. I think there's a lot of utility though in the simplicity of this analysis; any reasonably intelligent person can understand the methodology with only the brief explanation in the video. That in and of itself is useful and interesting. The simplicity of the methodology better serves the video's purpose, which is to get people talking about HSR. Tangentially, It's also probably fair to point out that the more complicated the model the easier it is for the creator to tweak it to better serve their biases. I'd say the far more important factor being left out of this analysis is ease of construction. LA to Las Vegas is getting built before many much better pairs (based on the modeling in the video) in large part because there looks to be a viable cost effective routing option. The same distance line anywhere in the NEC would undoubtedly be more difficult and expensive. Also, for similar reasons as your comments about Columbus, Vegas is almost certainly undervalued in this analysis due to the tourist nature of the city. I'm sure there are more trips between Vegas and LA than this simple model assumes. To be honest, I'm not sure I agree with your comment that Columbus to Cincy/Cleveland would be a stronger route than Cincy or Cleveland to Chicago. While there are a lot of trips by car, I think even with a HSR option, most of those trips would still be by car. In contrast, I think rail to Chicago would induce more travel to Chicago, and grab a large slice of the existing pie. Part of the reason for existing transit patterns is that most people are reliant on cars, and people travel more on routes that are easy car trips. Plus, there are efficiencies along either route to Chicago, either passing through Indianapolis, or having a spur to Detroit (in reality Cleveland's the spur). Obviously I'm not an expert, but I've yet to see a single conceptual HSR plan from any transit expert that includes Cincy to Cleveland through Columbus, but doesn't include Cincy/Cleveland to Chicago.
January 25, 20241 yr 4 hours ago, Ethan said: To be honest, I'm not sure I agree with your comment that Columbus to Cincy/Cleveland would be a stronger route than Cincy or Cleveland to Chicago. While there are a lot of trips by car, I think even with a HSR option, most of those trips would still be by car. In contrast, I think rail to Chicago would induce more travel to Chicago, and grab a large slice of the existing pie. Part of the reason for existing transit patterns is that most people are reliant on cars, and people travel more on routes that are easy car trips. Plus, there are efficiencies along either route to Chicago, either passing through Indianapolis, or having a spur to Detroit (in reality Cleveland's the spur). My claim wasn’t that the intra-Ohio routes are a better HSR route than Chicago; rather, the fact that there are MANY more trips between the Ohio cities than between any of them and Chicago should have also been a factor in the methodology. I think MKE-Chicago-Toledo-(branch to) Detroit / Sandusky-CLE-Pitt is one of the stronger HSR alignments anywhere in the country. For 79 or 110 mph service, the math might be different. And, of course, any of these services benefit from the other services being in place through the network effect. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
January 25, 20241 yr 5 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said: It doesn’t appear that he factored in existing travel patterns, which seems relevant. It also seems like there should be an additional increase for in state travel, particularly to the state capital. Existing travel between CLE- Columbus and Cincy- Columbus FAR exceeds travel between either and Chicago, yet the latter makes his list while the former doesn’t, purely because of the size of Chicago. Also, for those who don’t like links, here’s the map: A few factors which favors the 3CD corridor: a) High enroute population (Columbus and Dayton) b) Infrequent and expensive air "service" - you only have to beat drive times to be competitive, say 3-4 hours. c) Possible thru or connecting service to Buffalo, upstate NY and New York City. I looked at Bureau of Transportation Statistic info some years ago and the 3CD corridor was at or near the top among other Midwestern corridors
January 29, 20241 yr NFL announcers ride Amtrak; nearly brawl with fan at Baltimore Penn Station: https://nypost.com/2024/01/29/sports/boomer-esiason-nearly-fought-belligerent-ravens-fan-harassing-bill-cowher/
January 29, 20241 yr 46 minutes ago, Lazarus said: NFL announcers ride Amtrak; nearly brawl with fan at Baltimore Penn Station: https://nypost.com/2024/01/29/sports/boomer-esiason-nearly-fought-belligerent-ravens-fan-harassing-bill-cowher/ The last line of the article says it all....they were convinced it was a conspiracy to get Taylor Swift to the Super Bowl. Because MAGA.... 🤷♂️
January 30, 20241 yr Typical that half the comments consider Amtrak, or basically train travel, as "public housing transportation." It's amazing what warped reality we have in this country with our cars.
January 30, 20241 yr Author 2 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said: Typical that half the comments consider Amtrak, or basically train travel, as "public housing transportation." It's amazing what warped reality we have in this country with our cars. And 30 years ago, conservatives falsely claimed it was just wealthy people riding Amtrak and therefore why subsidize the wealthy. Angry people just want to anger. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 31, 20241 yr the greater ne corridor hsr dream plan — 🤷♂️👍 https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0F4Ttsr8qV/?igsh=bnQ2Y2tranVqZGUz
February 6, 20241 yr Author Amtrak awards Douglass tunnel contract to Kiewit joint venture https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Amtrak-awards-Douglass-tunnel-contract-to-Kiewit-joint-venture--71201 "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 6, 20241 yr How bad is it that the new tunnel will only be able to handle speeds up to 100 mph? Is that something that will be a limiting factor in like 20 or 30 years?
February 7, 20241 yr Author Interesting -- and mean. How dare he redact them! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 9, 20241 yr On 2/6/2024 at 5:22 PM, Dev said: How bad is it that the new tunnel will only be able to handle speeds up to 100 mph? Is that something that will be a limiting factor in like 20 or 30 years? Not that bad since most or all trains stop at Baltimore anyway.
February 9, 20241 yr Correct me if I'm wrong, but the new Acela trains are hopefully going to be in service before the end of the year? I'm doing a trip from Philly to NYC in December and if that's the case, I'll splurge for an Acela.
February 9, 20241 yr Author 53 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the new Acela trains are hopefully going to be in service before the end of the year? I'm doing a trip from Philly to NYC in December and if that's the case, I'll splurge for an Acela. Hopefully! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 9, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the new Acela trains are hopefully going to be in service before the end of the year? I'm doing a trip from Philly to NYC in December and if that's the case, I'll splurge for an Acela. The new Acela train sets FINALLY passed the software modeling phase that had been a major holdup. So now the project is actually moving forward again and they will begin physical test runs soon. There’s a pretty good chance that the new trainsets will be in service this calendar year. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 10, 20241 yr Author I was looking all over for that video to post here. Love that vid. Watched it like 10 times. 🤓 "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 10, 20241 yr I saw a preview of the Long Distance rail study maps that will be released this week. The interesting services for Ohioans on that map: 1. NYC-Philly-Pitt-Columbus-Dayton-Cincy-Indy-St Louis 2. Detroit-Toledo-Columbus-Dayton-Cincy-Louisville-Nashville-New Orleans (effectively the Pan-American extended to Detroit) 3. Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta-Florida Transfers from 2. to 3. will connect Ohio to Atlanta and Florida. It will be really important for Ohioans to make our voice heard in this round of feedback. We did not have enough comments from Ohioans in the last round of comment collection. One suggestion would be splitting the new Pan-American in Columbus, with a branch to Cleveland and on to Buffalo for connections with Empire Service and the Maple Leaf. And of course insisting on more service and daytime service on the northern Ohio east-west corridor. (Everyone seems to be assuming that the Cardinal will move to daily service, but of course asking for multiple daily rains on that route would also be a good idea.) Overall reaction - Holy cow these planners are trying so hard to touch as many Congressional districts and states as possible. Quite a few silly routes on there that are unlikely to generate good ridership. Hopefully the intention is to start with the much better routes like the ones listed above. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 11, 20241 yr Author Cool video of how to speed up NEC to world-class HSR and how much it might cost. Entertaining video. Dude also has a great sense of humor. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 11, 20241 yr More US travelers are choosing Amtrak: "For many, the tradeoffs are simple: Trains are often cheaper, provide more leg room and are better for the environment than air travel. Those advantages and others are driving riders to Amtrak..." https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/atlanta-city-council-ordinance-drive-throughs-drive-ins-gas-stations-beltline/85-8da0b560-db38-48c0-803d-46319e1d18a7
February 11, 20241 yr On 1/29/2024 at 8:53 PM, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said: Typical that half the comments consider Amtrak, or basically train travel, as "public housing transportation." It's amazing what warped reality we have in this country with our cars. People hate driving so much that they pay $35 for fast food worth $9 delivered just so they don't have to drive for 10 minutes. This is capitalism at work under the current system.
February 12, 20241 yr ^ i dk about that. a great deal if not most commentary on the internet is fake. much of that are foreign military propaganda units trolling dissention to try to stir up trouble in the usa.
February 15, 20241 yr On 2/9/2024 at 12:30 PM, Boomerang_Brian said: The new Acela train sets FINALLY passed the software modeling phase that had been a major holdup. So now the project is actually moving forward again and they will begin physical test runs soon. There’s a pretty good chance that the new trainsets will be in service this calendar year. New Avelia trainsets are being tested: When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 15, 20241 yr Author "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 17, 20241 yr The FRA has released documents from the third (of four) sets of meetings of the Long Distance Rail Study. Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati featured on two proposed routes (one is Detroit-New Orleans via Ohio, the other is Dallas-OKC-STL-Indy-Cincy-Dayton-Columbus-Pitt-Philly-NYC). First route can also connect to the proposed Chicago-Louisville-Nashville-ATL-FL route. https://fralongdistancerailstudy.org/meeting-materials/ and specifically https://fralongdistancerailstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FRA_LDSS_Presentation_for_Web_Meeting3_Optimized.pdf - pages 34, 53, 73 and 83. Passenger rail proposed route: Detroit-Toledo-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati-Louisville-Nashville-Birmingham-Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans Passenger rail proposed route: DFW-OKC-Tulsa-STL-Indy-Cincy-Dayton-Columbus-Ptt-Philly-NYC Bonus: Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Nashville-ATL-FL When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 17, 20241 yr Thanks for posting this Boomerang Brian! It's interesting to note that two of the three routes were discontinued under Jimmy Carter in 1979: The New York-Columbus-St Louis-Kansas City National Limited and the Chicago-Miami Floridian. Both had their issues - broken down equipment and bad track to name a couple. I rode the Nash in 1974 and it was a dog's breakfast of worn out equipment. It was also hours late into St Louis due to a Penn Central freight derailment. The National Limited did get head end powered (HEP) Amfleet coaches and a converted Heritage sleeper just before the end and ridership went up, but it was too late. Now, the entire railroad it ran on is gone between Dayton and Indianapolis, which is part of the reason for the detour via Cincinnati.
February 17, 20241 yr Author Well, at least the consulting mafia got paid. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 17, 20241 yr 4 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said: Do we have any idea of the frequency of these proposed services Unfortunately it seems like there is a strong contingent of “let’s take existing long distance service and go more places”. In other words, 1x daily. I really do not think getting today’s crappy service to more people is the best way to increase political support for Amtrak. Please submit your comments to the FRA study. This round of comments ends March 8. Ask them to put the emphasis on improving frequency on existing service over introducing new service. https://fralongdistancerailstudy.org When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 20, 20241 yr On 2/17/2024 at 3:35 PM, Boomerang_Brian said: Unfortunately it seems like there is a strong contingent of “let’s take existing long distance service and go more places”. In other words, 1x daily. I really do not think getting today’s crappy service to more people is the best way to increase political support for Amtrak. Please submit your comments to the FRA study. This round of comments ends March 8. Ask them to put the emphasis on improving frequency on existing service over introducing new service. https://fralongdistancerailstudy.org If I'm not mistaken, the FRA is following the direction of Congress on this. If so, that's where the problem is. My own view differs a bit. To me, a lot of this is restoration of routes which should never should have been discontinued in the first place and while running once per day is not ideal, it's a start. However, I was keenly disappointed to find that the FRA was directed to study new routes only and apparently not asked to consider more than once-daily service. This left out the Lake Shore route, which could easily support six daily New York-Cleveland-Chicago frequencies. We should also realize that things have atrophied to the point of near nonexistence over the years and that as a result, just restoring single daily service on these routes will require hundreds of new cars and locomotives, new stations and maintenance facilities, as well as track and signal improvements. The cost of this will be in the billions and there's a good chance that Congress might not fund all of these routes. This is the first time there has been an attempt at a serious discussion about long distance trains and there are bound to be some hiccups. At the same time, the FRA is taking comments and is reading every one of them. I plan to call for added frequencies for the Lake Shore route and support their idea of Long Distance Public Committee and a focus on improvements to existing service, as proposed by the FRA. As for current crappy service, I agree and much of it is being driven by Amtrak, which has valued cost savings over service to the public. As a result, trains lack the amenities they should have. Dining and lounge service is poor and there is not enough equipment either. This has to be remedied somehow. The FRA is aware that there is interest in improving existing routes: Edited February 20, 20241 yr by neony
February 20, 20241 yr We make the 2-hour drive up to Toledo to catch the train instead of going to Cincinnati (1 hour away) since Toledo has daily service via the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited. Even if we don't ultimately get direct train service here in Dayton, increasing the Cardinal line to daily service through Cincinnati would be a huge win.
February 20, 20241 yr Maybe this is a dumb question, but I didn't see an obvious answer in the slide deck: why all the incredibly long 2k mile routes? I know the 750 mile limitation is extremely limiting but why not focus on making routes that are 750 to 1,250 miles, instead of so many routes that are 1,500 to 2,000 miles in length? I see several references defining that route options should be between 750 to 2,000 miles but I can't find why that upper limit is 2,000. I was inspired by this post, although he is assuming the limit could be lowered to 500 miles:
February 20, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, neony said: My own view differs a bit. To me, a lot of this is restoration of routes which should never should have been discontinued in the first place and while running once per day is not ideal, it's a start. However, I was keenly disappointed to find that the FRA was directed to study new routes only and apparently not asked to consider more than once-daily service. This left out the Lake Shore route, which could easily support six daily New York-Cleveland-Chicago frequencies. I share your view. IMO if we increase frequency in this day and age of social media, you'll get many more users on high quality service. This will lead to lots of clicks and good reviews vs a small amount of passengers sitting on a broken down train on a long-distance route. As a side note I was surprised to learn Buffalo actually has more daily trains than Cleveland. I'd love to see them pull all the service into a restored Central Terminal someday!
February 20, 20241 yr On 1/2/2024 at 12:39 PM, KJP said: That means enacting several major reforms that will make the investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure law go further. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/12/21/2023-was-a-good-year-for-american-high-speed-rail/?sh=46ce7297787d All good points. Only criticism is they left out how too many consultants bleed off money.
February 20, 20241 yr Regarding the long-distance study... I'm all for expanding LD routes at some point, but before we do that, we need to improve service on existing ones to achieve high reliability and faster travel times. All current LD routes should have 3 daily trains. A few, like the Lakeshore Ltd, should have 6. In addition, there should be an overlay of shorter distance trains like CHI-DEN, DEN-STL, STL-Vegas, New Orleans-Houston-San Antonio, NY-ATL., etc. on most routes. We should not be adding routes if they are going to be slow, unreliable, and infrequent like they are now.
February 20, 20241 yr Columbus Included in Two New Proposed Long-Distance Amtrak Routes A new study from the Federal Railroad Administration lays out a potential network of new long-distance passenger rail routes, and Columbus is included in two of them. The lines – one connecting Detroit to New Orleans and the other New York City to Dallas – are both described as “preferred routes,” and maps posted online show potential stops and estimates of travel demand. The FRA defines long-distance routes as those over 750 miles in length, and its Long-Distance Service Study – which was stipulated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 – is meant to lay out a network of routes that would bring service back to parts of the country that haven’t had passenger rail in decades. The study is very much a long term planning document. More actions, including legislative support from various jurisdictions, would be needed before any of the proposed routes moved forward. An FRA presentation outlining the study’s findings states that the earliest possible timeline for any of the lines being up and running would be 2040. More below: https://columbusunderground.com/columbus-included-in-two-new-proposed-long-distance-amtrak-routes-bw1/ "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
February 20, 20241 yr 5 hours ago, gildone said: Regarding the long-distance study... I'm all for expanding LD routes at some point, but before we do that, we need to improve service on existing ones to achieve high reliability and faster travel times. All current LD routes should have 3 daily trains. A few, like the Lakeshore Ltd, should have 6. In addition, there should be an overlay of shorter distance trains like CHI-DEN, DEN-STL, STL-Vegas, New Orleans-Houston-San Antonio, NY-ATL., etc. on most routes. We should not be adding routes if they are going to be slow, unreliable, and infrequent like they are now. There really should be hourly waking-hour service between metros of about 500K and above. That means for me in Toledo, hourly service to Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and Columbus. The long distance trains are probably less valuable to passengers than the short, frequent connections between major metros. I'd much rather fly from Detroit to New Orleans than lumber on a long-distance train, but one from Toledo to Detroit or Columbus would be very useful - especially if I didn't have to plan for one or two departures a day.
February 20, 20241 yr 24 minutes ago, westerninterloper said: There really should be hourly waking-hour service between metros of about 500K and above. That means for me in Toledo, hourly service to Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and Columbus. The long distance trains are probably less valuable to passengers than the short, frequent connections between major metros. I'd much rather fly from Detroit to New Orleans than lumber on a long-distance train, but one from Toledo to Detroit or Columbus would be very useful - especially if I didn't have to plan for one or two departures a day. I think that's true, but I also think these long-distance routes should be seen as a backbone that can be built off of. If we can get these main lines started with daily service - including all of the main infrastructure like rails, signals, stations, yards, etc - it will be a lot easier for states to start serving the shorter distance routes on their own. If that's not the vision, I don't what FRA/Amtrak are doing. But just doing a route from Toledo to Detroit is probably tough to get off the ground.
February 20, 20241 yr 9 hours ago, Cleburger said: I share your view. IMO if we increase frequency in this day and age of social media, you'll get many more users on high quality service. This will lead to lots of clicks and good reviews vs a small amount of passengers sitting on a broken down train on a long-distance route. As a side note I was surprised to learn Buffalo actually has more daily trains than Cleveland. I'd love to see them pull all the service into a restored Central Terminal someday! Yes, Buffalo has more service because the state supports passenger trains, unlike Ohio. We have to do what we can to change that.
February 21, 20241 yr 3 hours ago, westerninterloper said: There really should be hourly waking-hour service between metros of about 500K and above. That means for me in Toledo, hourly service to Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and Columbus. The long distance trains are probably less valuable to passengers than the short, frequent connections between major metros. I'd much rather fly from Detroit to New Orleans than lumber on a long-distance train, but one from Toledo to Detroit or Columbus would be very useful - especially if I didn't have to plan for one or two departures a day. The popularity of LD train strongly suggests that plenty of people do ride them. And, an overlay LD of LD service offers more 1-seat ride city pairs. No one is suggesting that we don't develop shorter corridors.
Create an account or sign in to comment