# Gulf coast cities advocating for new daily rail service, not Sunset Li



## beautifulplanet (May 20, 2014)

Starting a new thread, in case considered irrelevant or in wrong place, please move or delete.

Over in the Amtrak Rail Discussions forum, about a week ago, I posted some links to press reports about a federal grant that is being persued for a new study for new passenger rail service between New Orleans and Orlando:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/50121-sunset-limited-to-orlando/page-2&do=findComment&comment=525021

And I was a little shocked about the following further discussion in that thread. It appears like nobody who commented there actually made the effort to look up what the actual grant application says. Just me personally, I would refrain from making really harsh comments, unless I actually know what I'm talking about, but generally I try to refrain from making harsh comments in the first place.

In order to possibly start an actual conversation based on facts, here is the link to the previous Amtrak study for passenger rail in the New Orleans to Orlando corridor, published July 16, 2009:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/904/671/GulfCoastServicePlanReport.pdf

Here is the link to the grant application for the new passenger rail study:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/5302778ee4b07a6f640874ef/t/53610df9e4b0fcd15764d9c2/1398869497913/TIGER_SRC_application.pdf

Here is a paragraph from page 4 of the grant application:



> To be clear, the project sponsors are not interested in studying how to restart the Sunset Limited service, which was anemic and unreliable. Rather than recreating the poor service that once existed, this study would analyze how to bring daily service to the region, including issues from the appropriate corridor length to number of trains per day to the number of stops and possible express service as well as conditions of the rail and infrastructure enhancements that could improve on time performance, including dangerous rail crossings that need improvements. In the end, there should be strong, reliable passenger rail service to the region.



So many might think that it is appropriate for a new study to be conducted, as it will do something completely different than the previous Amtrak study.

The Amtrak study linked above suggested as "preferred options" to either 1) restart the Sunset Limited three times a week, 2) extend the daily City of New Orleans service to Orlando, or 3) Implement daily stand-alone overnight service between New Orleans and Orlando.

Still it seems like in the view of the cities affected, these options are not very attractive, as f.e. Pensacola might think it will still not get a very great service if the trains only come through at approximately 3am in the morning.

And it seems like the authors of the grant request noticed that daytime service did not make it into Amtrak's three "preferred options", as Amtrak calculated with a trip time of 18.5h, for a distance that by car is estimated to take about 9.6h to travel. So the rail service would not be very competetive, still Amtrak used the trip times of its previous service. The authors of the grant request suggest that on-time performance improved nationwide since the Sunset Limited last traveled, and so also the formet Sunset LImited route might see shorter trip times, also as CSX might have already implemented some improvements on its trackage, but in addition, as quoted above, the new study also will examine "infrastructure enhancements that could improve on time performance", which the Amtrak study did not. It seems like the authors of the grant request are seeking daily daytime service, possibly even with multiple departures.

Also the Amtrak study did not consider changing station locations, but just rebuilding or rehabilitating the existing stations. Possibly it could make sense to move stations closer to current activity centers. Especially the authors of the grant request seem to notice that Amtrak's study included spending 3 million dollars on building a completely new "non-Auto-train" station in Sanford, which they conclude might possibly not be needed, and already shave a big chunk of funding off of the necessary investment to restart any rail service.

Wrapping it up, it seems that this study would offer a completely different perspective than Amtrak's study. Amtrak looked at its national rail system, that there are connections to other Amtrak trains with any new service introduced etc. And Amtrak would also have been fine with just re-introducing what was there, the Sunset Limited.

The states and cities along the route have a fundamentally different perspective. For them, it probably doesn't matter so much if a traveler has a good connection to Los Angeles in New Orleans. But they look at their cities, and their corridor, and say: how can we use this rail corridor for our own cities, f.e. for economic delevopment, as the Gulf Coast has some of the world's finest white sand beaches, but lots of the respective cities are currently accessable primarily only by car.

It might seem important that there is a lot of local buy-in, a lot of cities, businesses and organizations like medical or educational campuses along the route support it. And it seems like it could make sense, which would be part of the outreach phase, to ask them: how should new passenger rail service be like, to serve your residents, your costumers, your tourists, your students and your employees the best.

Last but not least, the new study would also look at possible ways of funding. As the previous Amtrak study so far did not end up to a lot of funding for Gulf Coast passenger rail coming into place, it would seem like a lot of people would welcome this new study that would look at ways to possibly make a better, stronger passenger rail service along the Gulf Coast a reality.


----------



## CHamilton (May 20, 2014)

A lot of people around here see "Gulf Coast service" and immediately think "oh, no, not Sunset East again." As you rightly point out, that's not entirely fair, since there are other ways to serve the Gulf Coast than bringing back a train that had lots of problems, even before Katrina. But as a former NARP staffer explained to me, they supported it because it was "low-hanging fruit:" it's still on the schedule, and the infrastructure is mostly there.

And while I agree that that area is an obvious hole in the national network, I've been skeptical that there is sufficient local support to make it happen. But Gulf Coast service may be a model for getting service through local cooperation: a model that we'll need in many other places. If this is going to happen, here are the elements that will need to come together.


Cooperation, or at least not hostility, from Amtrak. Boardman seems to be leading the way with his recent round of speeches in southern states telling them: if you want trains, you need to pay for them. But at least he's setting the ground rules for how such services could happen.
Cooperation, or at least not hostility, from the railroads. Getting them to come up with reasonable prices for use of their facilities will be key.
A bottom-up campaign to pressure the states into action. Most of the states in question are, for political reasons, not keen on supporting trains, so it will be up to local communities to lobby in the state legislatures and state houses. Local mayors, city councils, and chambers of commerce should be trains' best friends.
A phased approach. Yes, more studies will be needed, but keep that to a minimum, and focus on starting small, so that trains can be moving on the tracks soon. Frankly, it's hard to get people excited about yet another study, even though your points about what it should cover are well-taken.
Focus on places where corridors are feasible. It will be much easier to build some short corridors and connect them up eventually.
Consider public-private partnerships. There was a rumor that Florida panhandle service might connect up with the FEC/All Aboard Florida project. That has obvious advantages, if it can be made to happen.
Funding. Let's face it, money is not going to appear magically from Washington, DC, as it sometimes has in the past. States and local communities are going to have to pony up if they want service. 
Education and lobbying campaigns. Especially in red areas like we're talking about, a lot of people don't recognize the inequalities of subsidy between transportation modes. Worse yet, they may not even know that passenger train services still exist. 
Diversity of support. There will need to be active support from many places outside the traditional "train advocacy" community: minorities, women, disabled people, poor people, and especially younger people. 
So it's not going to be easy. But the good news is that there are some very effective 21st century tools for creating public support, like online services, websites, and social media. Used well, these tools (together with traditional grass-roots efforts) are low-cost ways of generating action. Now it's just a matter of getting the core groups together. NARP has already done some work on Gulf Coast service. Contact them to discuss your ideas, and see what they think are the next steps.


----------



## neroden (May 20, 2014)

I wish them luck. However, honestly, for this big a corridor, my first thought was that they should be able to fund a $1.2 million study themselves, and the fact that they can't raises some red flags for me as a measure of local support. (By contrast, consider Vermont, where the state government publicly committed to *building* the Western Corridor route whether or not they got any more federal funds.)

Looking at the list of organizations which wrote letters of support, the project seems to be pushed largely by Biloxi, and secondarily by Mobile, with the other municipalities in the New Orleans-Mobile corridor providing the strongest backing (Ocean Springs, Pascagoula, Slidell, Hancock County, Harrison County, and as far as Bay Minette). Support seems to get much weaker going into Florida: Pensacola Chamber of Commerce supports the train but Pensacola City didn't come up with a letter.

Mobile and Biloxi came up with money for the study. The study is sponsored by the "Southern Rail Commission", which is LA, MS, and AL. That's it for monetary contributions.

Then look at the information about the track conditions in Amtrak's report. Well-maintained CTC-equipped lines lead from New Orleans to Flomaton AL; from Flomaton to Talahassee, the route would need a lot of upgrades. Furthermore, the route from Mobile to Pensacola is ridiculously circuitous.

This leads to a conclusion: this study is designed to recommend a New Orleans-Mobile train, maybe as far as Bay Minette. They also tip their hand at the end of page 5 of the current TIGER grant application when they describe the goal of the report as "...restoring passenger service east of New Orleans". (As opposed to "west of Jacksonville"!)

If you just look at the stations from Mobile to New Orleans in Amtrak's report, it would be $3,096,300 for station construction, $39,789/year to operate stations. A bit more to add Bay Minette.

Well, until this area sinks under the waves, I think Mobile-New Orleans would be an extremely successful corridor. So I wish them luck. But remember that the last two iterations of this were cancelled because Mississippi refused to pay for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Coast_Limited


----------



## CHamilton (May 20, 2014)

Also, check out the "Friends of Sunset Limited to Florida" Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/FriendsOfSunsetLimitedToFlorida


----------



## Caesar La Rock (May 20, 2014)

CHamilton said:


> Also, check out the "Friends of Sunset Limited to Florida" Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/FriendsOfSunsetLimitedToFlorida


That group supports bringing back any train east of NOL, even if it's not the not the Sunset. As for the discussion for rail service in the Gulf, there has been a lot of noise being made around here. The question is when all that noise will become action. Actions do speak louder then words.


----------



## xyzzy (May 21, 2014)

Outside of railfans, I can't imagine there are many locals on the Gulf Coast who would be excited by the possibility of a thrice-weekly night train -- whether it's the SL or not. What people might like is a day train that is 7 days a week in each direction. But the problem is that getting from NOL to Orlando (with an hour time zone delta) would mean a very early departure from NOL or a very late arrival into Orlando, and then there's the challenge of turning around the equipment in time for the next day's return departure. Shorten the train to Jacksonville and those problems go away, but terminating the train at Jax won't be a way to maximize ridership and the connections available at Jax are limited to 91/92 and 97/98.


----------



## Anderson (May 22, 2014)

While I've been known to groan about the Sunset East stuff, it has been more frustration with it seeming to be a fixation of NARP than anything. You don't hear anywhere near as much chatter about a number of other projects (daily Cardinal, restored Pioneer, restored Desert Wind, restored NCH, etc.) as you do about the Sunset East.

As to this study, looking at who is involved, I tend to agree that the likely result is going to be focused on New Orleans-Mobile. With that said, there was some rumbling of a New Orleans-Jacksonville-Miami (via FEC) train a few weeks back. A distinct possibility would be an "eventual" program of 2-3 trains per day New Orleans to Mobile (largely serving a quasi-commuter market along the coast), with one extended further east.

As to Jacksonville, it is likely that in the long(er) run, connections will also include the FEC's service. Adding MIA-JAX/ORL-JAX service is going to be far, far less of a nightmare than the MIA-ORL service is...especially since a MIA-JAX service would likely add some stops which wouldn't need OOCEA approval (as the service would be, at least nominally, just on the coast where OOCEA has no operations).


----------



## Caesar La Rock (May 22, 2014)

Jacksonville is also trying to start up a commuter rail service as well. Wishing them luck on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coast_Commuter_Rail

As for what will happen with that link missed between New Orleans and Orlando, up for debate as to what should be done. A train running three times a week is out of the question, though it would get service in the area up and running quickly compared to other proposals.

Running a day train is what many state should happen, though it won't be easy. Some sections of tracks on that route are still unsignaled, which would slow down the trains there. I did hear the route is not heavily used by CSX, but I'm not sure.


----------



## jis (May 23, 2014)

Isn't the total running time between NOL and ORL longer than there are daylight hours in a day? If that is the case how can you run a day train between those two end points?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Anderson (May 23, 2014)

Jis,

Doesn't the Palmetto start and/or end in darkness much of the year while still qualifying as a "day train"?

As to commuter service on the FEC, I do wonder if FEC might not end up working up a plan to coordinate a subsidized "local" service along their entire line. You only have two major gaps in development (flanking Daytona/New Smyrna), and even there you could probably support a level of service that is akin to WAS-RVR rather than "commuter rail" (i.e. 3-6 non-expresses stopping a lot of places alongside the MIA-JAX express trains), with higher-frequency commuter services limited to the denser parts of the line. Palm Coast, for example, is not far from the line and the population there is probably on course to hit 100k within a decade. Though the population skews a bit older (this _is_ Florida, after all), a station would probably serve a decent commuter population headed to Jacksonville, Daytona, and/or St. Augutine. Sadly, there's no good way to link it to Orlando.

For the most part, you could probably justify stations no less frequently than every 5-10 miles along most of the line with varied stopping schedules (only commuter locals making all stops on their segment, for example, while expresses only make 4-6 intermediate stops).


----------



## jis (May 23, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Jis,
> 
> Doesn't the Palmetto start and/or end in darkness much of the year while still qualifying as a "day train"?


Palmetto's start to stop run time is 15 hours or so, which makes it possible for it to start early in the morning and arrive late in the evening making it a reasonable "day train" (See below for a short discussion of the term "day train").
A New Orleans - Orlando service has a running time of about 22 hours. To make it a "day train" it would have to start from each end around 1am and arrive at the other end at 11pm, which would be an absurd schedule. That is why a more reasonable schedule would be used, and that would make it an overnight train. Then one can argue about whether the night part falls between NOL and Florida or within Florida or in the relatively less populated panhandle part of Florida.

There is of course a discussion to be had about terminology too, as to what does the phrase "day train" imply. My assumption is that it implies that most of the run of the train is in daylight hours and the origination and destination times fall on the same day. Other definitions are possible. I am just thinking that I have never heard anyone call 66/67 a day train even though its total running time is shorter than that of the Sunset East between New Orleans and Orlando. Indeed its running time is only about an hour longer than that of the Palmetto. And indeed there is a legitimate day train that operates between the same origin and destination points as 66/67 and its running time is about 13 hours or so.

There are other "day trains" possible from New York, e.g. a New York - Toledo - Detroit service may be feasible as a day train. A day train from New York to Atlanta would be very borderline with quite inconvenient time at at least one and possibly both ends. Such might become a little more feasible after the SEHSR to Raleigh is completed.


----------



## beautifulplanet (May 23, 2014)

Thank you, CHamilton, neroden, THE CJ, xyzzy, Anderson and jis, for your contributions to this conversation about possible new passenger rail service along the Gulf Coast that is not a 3 times a week Sunset Limited, on the occasion of the recent federal grant request for a remarkably different study by the Southern Rail Commission, as well as cities, business and organizations along the corridor. 

At least to some, it might be great to see, that there are indeed people who do care about passenger rail service in the Gulf Coast corridor.  This interest in passenger rail in this specific area seems to be reflected by the posts in this thread. And of course, it's good to see more people having an interest: obviously, it seems like Sunset East was always of interest to NARP, still these cities now seem to advocate for something different. CHamilton, thank you very much for that link to this Facebook group, and CJ, thank you for making clear that the Facebook group supports any passenger rail service east of New Orleans, also in case it is not the Sunset Limited. 

Once again, here is the link to the Facebook group:

https://www.facebook.com/FriendsOfSunsetLimitedToFlorida

The Southern Rail Commission just launched a new website, according to a recent press release.

http://www.southernrailcommission.org/

It seems important that this commission so far can just list Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana as member states. Florida is not a member (yet  ).

At the same time, it seems like the Southern Rail Commission did not update its Facebook. At least the last posts are from December 2013 (the website offers newer, and also very interesting news items). Still, in case anybody feels like helping the Southern Rail Commission to get beyond 35 likes, here is the link: 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Southern-Rail-Commission/351357454994073

It surely will be interesting to keep an eye on any further development of efforts to bring a new, different kind of passenger rail into place between New Orleans and Orlando (or at least temporarily, to parts of inbetween there  ).


----------



## xyzzy (May 23, 2014)

NOL-JAX could be done in about 17, possibly 16 if somebody paid to signal the dark territory in the Fla panhandle.


----------



## beautifulplanet (May 23, 2014)

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write something here. 



CHamilton said:


> A lot of people around here see "Gulf Coast service" and immediately think "oh, no, not Sunset East again." As you rightly point out, that's not entirely fair, since there are other ways to serve the Gulf Coast than bringing back a train that had lots of problems, even before Katrina.


Thank you for writing that, that it is not entirely fair. At least for some, it might be sad how one can observe (in the other thread) immediate knee-jerk reactions about Sunset East, even when just a short glance onto the actual grant request document would have revealed the new study would not be about the Sunset East. Then again, at least to some, it might be really encouraging to read posts like the one this is the reply to now full of rail advocacy. 



CHamilton said:


> But as a former NARP staffer explained to me, they supported it because it was "low-hanging fruit:" it's still on the schedule, and the infrastructure is mostly there.


Of course many people might have had the same thought: the Sunset Limited is still on the schedule, so it should be easier to bring this service into place than f.e. some other completely new ones. So many might think, it makes sense, to advocate for that, and even in case the Sunset Limited might not be as good as some other, more frequent, completely new service, of course some rail service is better than no rail service at all. At the same time, many also might have the impression, that though reestablishing Sunset Limited might be such a "low-hanging fruit", it seems like the efforts to bring it back where not so successful so far though already quite some years passed, and so possibly persuing a completely new, alternate strategy to achieve passenger rail service in this corridor might be an effort that could be worth it.

That does not mean that one has to give up on the first strategy of going after the "low-hanging fruit", one can still do that at the same time, but as it is possible that it might always hang low but always stay out of reach as the last years seems to have indicated, it might make a lot of sense to try to get funding for a new study, that by the way also will try to examine the area of funding.



CHamilton said:


> And while I agree that that area is an obvious hole in the national network [...]


Just to me, this statement is an expression of a approach that is completely different than the approach of the enteties seeking the TIGER grant. Of course it is legit, to look at the national network, and come to the conclusion, this region of the country needs rail service in order for the country as a whole to have a good rail network. Many would probably agree to that. Still it seems to me, in case one limits it to this approach, one will not be able to understand the approach of the supporters of the TIGER grant. The cities along the Gulf Coast or the other project sponsors and supporters probably only care to a very limited agree if there is a hole in the national network or not, or about any national connections etc., but they think about their communities, and regions, and in what way passenger rail could serve them best. And possibly a valid conclusion to them could be, if it is good for our cities and regions, but not really so great for the national network, then oh well, then that's still what we want, f.e. in case a daily day train is the desired end result, that leaves early in the morning and arrives in the late evening, and thus has no good connections to other existing long-distance Amtrak trains. Of course Amtrak would not propose something like this, they look at their connections within their rail network, that might also possibly be why the three "preferred" options of Amtrak's 2009 study all only included overnight service that keeps the connections, while providing some cities along the route unattractive service when it came to the time of the day.

It seems to me, like the cities and other supporters of the grant, look at it the other way: They look at their cities, they look at their mobility needs. For example, what kind of service could possibly bring national or international New Orleans tourists to the casinos and museums in Biloxi for a day, or a weekend (or longer)? What kind of service is best to bring students or academics from Central Florida to the Florida State University in Tallahassee? What kind of service would be best to serve the jobs and economic activity connected with Airbus' new A320 plant in the Mobile Aeroplex, opening in 2015? What kind of service would be best to serve approximately 13,000 human beings currently employed at Eglin Air Force Base, about 60 miles east of Pensacola? etc. etc. Would that best service be the one when one has to catch the train at 3.30 a.m. in the morning? Maybe... Maybe not... 

Instead of Amtrak or the federal level saying to the cities "Here you got some passenger rail service, now see what you gotta do with it" (even if it is not a very good service at all and not what's locally needed), with this study it is the cities actually looking at what is locally needed, and what a good service would be like, and how rail service could provide the best benefit, and to some, it might possibly actually seem like the better way to go. In order to seriously examine what is locally needed, what a good service would look like, and how rail service could provide the best benefit, then to some it makes sense that a serious study is needed.



CHamilton said:


> A phased approach. Yes, more studies will be needed, but keep that to a minimum, and focus on starting small, so that trains can be moving on the tracks soon. Frankly, it's hard to get people excited about yet another study, even though your points about what it should cover are well-taken.


To some in might seem, that in these lines, one is able to sense the excitement and impatience, to want to see passenger trains running again soon. And some might think, that this is great, and one should try to always keep that excitement to want to see passenger rail actually in public service as soon as possible. At the same time, many might think, whatever service eventually should be implemented, it really needs to be thought out well. If the study results find that a phased approach is the way to go, or if during implementation one comes to the conclusion, one wants to phase it, many might think then that is of course worth being supported. Still "keep [studies] to a minimum, and focus on starting small, so that trains can be moving on the tracks soon" just because "[f]rankly, it's hard to get people excited about yet another study" might seem unrealistic to some. It might possibly be great, but it might not be likely anybody is going to invest money and effort to start some small service, just to get people excited. Many might think, it's more like the opposite: The studies should not be kept to a minimum, but instead there should be thorough examination of what passenger rail service would be sustainable, help spur economic growth, bring the most benefits to the local communities, and how it possibly could be locally co-funded. And some might think, though it is understandable to just want to see the actual passenger train wheels turning in the corridor very soon, if possible yesterday  , still everyone interested could be excited about the outlook of this kind of comprehensive study to achieve not just any rail service, but the best possible rail service in the corridor. Many might hope that the TIGER grant is actually awarded to the Southern Rail Commission, so the study might be finished as soon as possible (while not rushing and being thorough), in Q4 of 2016, according to page 8 of the grant application.

And once again the invitation is extended to everyone interested to read the actual grant application - it's presented very nicely, just 20 pages long, and it has a lot of color pictures.  Seriously, for an official government document, in my humble view, it's surprisingly easy to read, and the authors make a very compelling case for passenger rail in the Gulf Coast corridor.

http://static.squarespace.com/static/5302778ee4b07a6f640874ef/t/53610df9e4b0fcd15764d9c2/1398869497913/TIGER_SRC_application.pdf



CHamilton said:


> So it's not going to be easy. But the good news is that there are some very effective 21st century tools for creating public support, like online services, websites, and social media. Used well, these tools (together with traditional grass-roots efforts) are low-cost ways of generating action. Now it's just a matter of getting the core groups together. NARP has already done some work on Gulf Coast service. Contact them to discuss your ideas, and see what they think are the next steps.


Being aware of it that my opinion isn't really relevant in the great scheme of things, but still: I love this. This last paragraph, "the good news". The "it's not going to be easy, but we can do it".  [Paraphrasing  ] About bringing the different groups together, what is the Florida Coalition of Rail Passengers' position on the new Gulf Coast study? They only have a webpage about Amtrak's 2009 report, with a dead link to a petition website. What is the position of the Louisiana Association of Railroad Passengers on the new study? On the webpage it says, they would like daily overnight New Orleans to Orlando Amtrak service. Alabama and Mississippi do not have a state-level advocacy group, or do they?


----------



## beautifulplanet (May 24, 2014)

Thank you for your post and taking the time to read the actual grant application... 



neroden said:


> I wish them luck. However, honestly, for this big a corridor, my first thought was that they should be able to fund a $1.2 million study themselves, and the fact that they can't raises some red flags for me as a measure of local support. (By contrast, consider Vermont, where the state government publicly committed to *building* the Western Corridor route whether or not they got any more federal funds.)


To many, this might be great to read, all these statements here, wishing the Southern Rail Commission and all the other project partners luck. 

Regarding "they should be able to fund a $1.2 million study themselves", some might wonder, what the exact definition of "they" may be. In case just the Southern Rail Commission and the city of Biloxi and Mobile are meant, who already are willing to put $200,000 on the table, it's not known to me yet how big of a budget they even have. And honestly, whatever service options the study ends up proposing, some extent of possible federal funding would help implementing any of them, no matter which one. So it makes sense to already now go to the federal level, and see if they (the federal level) are willing to give funding for a study, and get into a conversation about the project, and in case they funded the study, possibly there could be some extent of federal funding at least for capital costs as well... So it might seem to some, this is the way to go... Some might think that in case there is no TIGER grant awarded to the study, then possibly the project partners could still try to raise $1.2 million themselves, if they really wanted to. But possibly it could make sense to it this way though...

The state-level political situation in Vermont seems to be fundamentally different from the Gulf Coast states. It's not known to me yet though, did the state of Vermont also come up with all of its own money for all the planning? Because it seems like now did end up getting quite some substantial federal funding for the Western Corridor, in case my memory does not fool me (and of course many might think that this is great for Vermont). 



neroden said:


> Looking at the list of organizations which wrote letters of support, the project seems to be pushed largely by Biloxi, and secondarily by Mobile, with the other municipalities in the New Orleans-Mobile corridor providing the strongest backing (Ocean Springs, Pascagoula, Slidell, Hancock County, Harrison County, and as far as Bay Minette). Support seems to get much weaker going into Florida: Pensacola Chamber of Commerce supports the train but Pensacola City didn't come up with a letter.


Initially, I had a similar thought, still now my impression is that only looking at the letters of support in the PDF maybe doesn't display the whole picture. It also says, that more letters might be coming in. And most of all, on page 1 it reads:



> Resolutions supporting the return of daily rail service along the Gulf Coast have been adopted by planning organizations, including the Okaloosa-Walton Transportation Planning Organization, West Florida Regional Planning Council, Florida-Alabama Transportation Planning Organization, Northwest Florida Regional Transportation Planning Organization, Bay County Transportation Planning Organization and South Alabama Regional Planning Commission.


And in addition:



> Following a summit of locally elected officials from communities across the Gulf Coast, in April 2013, twenty-two (22) mayors across the region joined in a letter calling on Congress to restore passenger rail service, including the mayors of New Orleans, LA; Slidell, LA; Gautier, MS; Bay St. Louis, MS; Ocean Springs, MS; Gulfport, MS; Pascagoula, MS; Biloxi, MS; Bay Minette, AL; City of Mt Vernon, AL; Atmore, AL; Mobile, AL; Pensacola, FL; Crestview, FL; Milton, FL; Chipley, FL; DeFuniak, FL; Tallahassee, FL; Madison, FL; Lake City, FL; Live Oak, FL; and Jacksonville, FL.


So even if the city of Pensacola did not write a letter of support for the grant application yet, at least the mayor of Pensacola did write a letter last year in support of passenger rail. It seems like at least some governmental stakeholders and entities in Florida would support the study.



neroden said:


> Mobile and Biloxi came up with money for the study. The study is sponsored by the "Southern Rail Commission", which is LA, MS, and AL. That's it for monetary contributions.
> 
> Then look at the information about the track conditions in Amtrak's report. Well-maintained CTC-equipped lines lead from New Orleans to Flomaton AL; from Flomaton to Talahassee, the route would need a lot of upgrades. Furthermore, the route from Mobile to Pensacola is ridiculously circuitous.
> 
> This leads to a conclusion: this study is designed to recommend a New Orleans-Mobile train, maybe as far as Bay Minette. They also tip their hand at the end of page 5 of the current TIGER grant application when they describe the goal of the report as "...restoring passenger service east of New Orleans". (As opposed to "west of Jacksonville"!)


Of course that seems to be one possible conclusion, still at least to me it seems unlikely, as it should be easier for the Southern Rail Commission, Biloxi and Mobile to just initiate a study about commuter rail to Mobile, possibly in the similar like it was done recently with the New Orleans to Baton Rogue passenger rail study. Some might think, in case just the study was just designed to recommend rail service for just part of the corridor, there would be no reason to bring all the project partners from Florida on board, and include all the aspects regarding Florida in the study etc.

As the study mentioned "service frequencies", some might think it's more likely that it could possibly propose a more frequent New Orleans to Mobile service, and daily service along the whole corridor.



neroden said:


> Well, until this area sinks under the waves, I think Mobile-New Orleans would be an extremely successful corridor.


The project sponsors (and many more) would probably agree. 

Let's hope the area never sinks under the waves...


----------



## beautifulplanet (May 24, 2014)

As it has been subject of a lot of posts in the other thread that a new study should be conducted now though Amtrak already studied the corridor in 2009, here is the paragraph from page 4 of the grant application that basically explains why a new study is necessary, how the new study covers a lot of things that Amtrak's did not, and which pre-set items and assumptions in Amtrak's study may not be so helpful in implementing service:



> In 2009, Amtrak conducted a preliminary analysis of restarting passenger rail from New Orleans to Florida as part of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. While Amtrak’s analysis showed daily service to have higher operating losses than simply restoring the Sunset Limited’s pre- Katrina level service (three-times per week), their analysis looked at keeping all 19 stops between New Orleans and Orlando on every trip, maintaining the old stations without improvement and purchasing new train sets just for this service (which should no longer be necessary). Additionally, Amtrak’s ridership estimates were probably too low due to historic ridership numbers, which were low due to major reliability problems caused due to freight operations. Since the Sunset Limited was suspended, CSX has made significant progress in reliability on their other lines and there is no reason to believe that would not happen along the Gulf Coast. Further, the law required Amtrak’s analysis to include the cost of restoring a "non-Auto Train" station at Sanford, even though Amtrak’s New York-Florida trains no longer serve Sanford. Finally, their analysis did not involve outreach to the communities, chambers of commerce or major employers in the corridor, nor did it consider any economic drivers, already undertaken or planned.


Maybe this should also be posted in the Sunset East thread in the Amtrak Rail Discussions forum...


----------



## CHamilton (May 24, 2014)

Your comments in post 14 highlight the increasing struggle that we have seen, and will continue to see, as a result of PRIIA 209. If states and localities are footing the bill, of course they will want service that best meets their needs. That's fine and understandable. But I am concerned that we might end up with a series of unconnected, or badly-connected, corridors that will make it difficult for passengers to get where they need to go by rail.

As an example, let's take MSP-CHI service. Minnesota and Illinois seem to want it; Wisconsin, at present, does not. Or as Anderson pointed out recently, in order to improve service between Ohio and Chicago, they will need to get Indiana's support.

The problem will be ameliorated somewhat if we can get regional groups of states to work together. Such groups do exist in the Midwest, the Northwest, and (to a certain extent) in the Southeast. And the Southern Rail Commission (LA, MS, AL) has a nice new website; let's hope they can get some new train service. But as you point out, AL and MS do not seem to have state rail advocacy groups, and LA and AL do not have representatives on the NARP Council (although I'm recruiting someone for the LA slot at the moment).

For more information on advocacy in the Southeast, contact Bill Hutchison through the "Friends of the Sunset Limited to Florida" Facebook page. He can give you up-to-date info on what's happening there.


----------



## beautifulplanet (May 24, 2014)

Thank you for your contributions to the conversation.



jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Jis,
> ...





> NOL-JAX could be done in about 17, possibly 16 if somebody paid to signal the dark territory in the Fla panhandle.


Are all these running time numbers mentioned taken from a specific source, or estimates (besides the Palmetto's 15 hours, that is the current schedule, of course  )?

Not knowing what it really would be like now or could be like with improvements, in the first post I already mentioned that in Amtrak's 2009 study, 18.5h for New Orleans to Orlando was specified. As said above:



> The authors of the grant request suggest that on-time performance improved nationwide since the Sunset Limited last traveled, and so also the formet Sunset LImited route might see shorter trip times, also as CSX might have already implemented some improvements on its trackage, but in addition, as quoted above, the new study also will examine "infrastructure enhancements that could improve on time performance", which the Amtrak study did not.


The following sentence is speculation, still: Amtrak's 18.5h running time possibly contained some considerable amount of recovery time, to deal with delays, and in case there is better on-time performance, and in addition improvements to the infrastructure, then maybe the project sponsors think that possibly a Palmetto-like scenario would be feasable.

At least there have been some comments f.e. from western Florida cities, that nightly departures are not as desireable, while overall supporting reestablishing of passenger rail service. For example two years ago, the Pensacola City Council unanimously voted to request the Sunset Limited to run again in Florida, at the same time, the local web-based magazine Pensacola Digest wrote about the arrival times:



> And — sorry to be such a downer here — even in the unlikely event that Amtrak returned, it wouldn’t be the romantic picture of a bustling rail station that many would hope. In the three service options Amtrak proposed, these were the arrival times for Pensacola: 1:59 am, 2:29 am, 11:29 pm, 4:29 am, 1:30 am, and 11:25 pm. In other words, you’d be waiting for the train in the middle of the night, and for the rest of the day, the station would look largely as it does now: unused and empty.


See here: http://www.pensacoladigest.com/2012/02/ghost-train-will-amtrak-ever-return-to-pensacola/

Irrelevant PS  : For my part, I loved the Palmetto day train. I also did not mind arriving after dark in Savannah, in beautiful South Carolina. And it seems all fellow passengers (I spoke to them of them about why they chose the train and did not fly or take some other mode of transportation) I encountered were ok with it, too, that they did not need to book a sleeper, instead could just travel on a day train, even though we had a delay of one and a half hours...


----------



## jis (May 24, 2014)

I don't know what the situation could be in the future, but when Amtrak ran a real train from NOL to ORL it took around 22 hours. Look it up in the old timetables.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Caesar La Rock (May 26, 2014)

jis said:


> I don't know what the situation could be in the future, but when Amtrak ran a real train from NOL to ORL it took around 22 hours. Look it up in the old timetables.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


So pretty much whatever runs between NOL and ORL, it will take 22 hours. A lot of factors as to why that section is slow, which could be dealt with.


----------



## beautifulplanet (May 26, 2014)

THE CJ said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what the situation could be in the future, but when Amtrak ran a real train from NOL to ORL it took around 22 hours. Look it up in the old timetables.
> ...


To some it might seem, why will (future tense) anything that runs between NOL and ORL take 22 hours, just because the scheduled run time might have been like that when it ran 9 years ago (in the past), especially when Amtrak in its 2009 study concluded that the run time for a new service would be 18.5 hours (in the future). Especially since Amtrak's 18.5h already were in place prior to the 2000 schedule lengthening. The authors of the grant application possibly might think, that those 18.5h could be reduced even further, with some investment in infrastructure improvements, which is something Amtrak did not include in its 2009 study (except for station infrastructure).

Here is the respective paragraph out of page 31 of Amtrak's study:



> Under all three options, the scheduled running time between New Orleans and Orlando (approximately18.5 hours) is equivalent to the _Sunset Limited’s _running times between these points prior to the 2000 schedule lengthening.


----------



## jis (May 26, 2014)

In general anything above 16 hours puts the arrival and departure times at the origin and destinations station at inconvenient hours affecting ridership adversely. That was one of the primary reasons that the Palmetto which at one time ran to Jacksonville, was cut back to Savannah. It also reduces the chances of reasonable connection being made at those two anchor stations. Such service tends to succeed if one of them provides a huge O/D source, which Orlando could in this case, but probably not at 5am or earlier. Even New York City is not good at providing sufficient O/D before 5:30am for trains originating there (except for commuter trains), and this is in New York, the city that allegedly never sleeps. Most other cities not nearly as awake as New York at odd hours.


----------



## xyzzy (May 26, 2014)

In 1971 the Gulf Wind departed NOL 1715 arrived JAX 1000. That included a 30-minute stop at Flomaton which would not be required today (there was switching at Flomaton in those days). Allowing for the time zone delta and removing the 30 minutes, the train ran NOL-JAX in 15 hours 15 minutes or an average of just 40 mph.

Look back farther. In 1949, after the 49-59-69-79 rule had gone into effect, the Gulf Wind ran NOL-JAX in 15 hours flat, including a 15 minute stop at Flomaton to change crews. Today you would still have to change crews somewhere along the way. 15 hours would, therefore, be an upper bound without major track improvements relative to 1949 when the L&N and SAL still had excellent track.

The railroad isn't what it once was, and that's why I wrote that 17 hours would be a starting point today. Could it be made faster? Sure, with enough money. By investing two hundred million dollars into the line (including 200 miles of signals and upgrades to Class IV track from Flomaton to Tallahassee), you could probably get it to 14 hours 20 minutes. But that's not going to happen. Ever. Just getting it down to 16 hours would be an accomplishment.


----------



## Paulus (May 26, 2014)

xyzzy said:


> The railroad isn't what it once was, and that's why I wrote that 17 hours would be a starting point today. Could it be made faster? Sure, with enough money. By investing two hundred million dollars into the line (including 200 miles of signals and upgrades to Class IV track from Flomaton to Tallahassee), you could probably get it to 14 hours 20 minutes. But that's not going to happen. Ever. Just getting it down to 16 hours would be an accomplishment.


You are significantly underestimating the capital investment required.


----------



## xyzzy (May 26, 2014)

Perhaps. It cost about $100 million to signal 100 miles of the NCRR between Greensboro and Selma and to increase speeds to 79. But inflation drives up costs all the time.


----------



## XHRTSP (May 26, 2014)

I'm more curious how much it would cost to build a line across Mobile Bay and into Pensacola. Can we realistically expect any line to have success east of Mobile if it has to go through Atmore?


----------



## xyzzy (May 26, 2014)

You're joking, right? Getting across the bay plus 40 miles of virgin railroad into north Pensacola would be on the order of $2 billion... if you could get past the environmental impact statement, which I doubt.


----------



## XHRTSP (May 26, 2014)

Yep, and that's why I think the whole idea of a train extending east of Mobile would be too expensive to do right.


----------



## jis (May 27, 2014)

xyzzy said:


> You're joking, right? Getting across the bay plus 40 miles of virgin railroad into north Pensacola would be on the order of $2 billion... if you could get past the environmental impact statement, which I doubt.


One interesting thing I have observed in recent EIS work at least in NJ is that if you propose to build a well engineered trestle across a wet land, that is easier to get approved than if you propose to build a fill. A trestle apparently has less adverse impact on the wetlands environment.


----------



## George Harris (May 27, 2014)

You are not going to build 40 miles of new railroad for the purpose of hosting one passenger train, not Mobile to Pensacola, not anywhere. That is assuming a line starting east of the Mobile Bay crossing. If you are going to do this right, then it should start right at Mobile and cross Mobile Bay on a new line more or less parallel to I-10, giving you about 45 miles of railroad.

I have relatives in Pensacola so I have been there regularly over the years. The L&N track was not so great at that time, nor anytime before that. The Flomaton to Chattahoochee line was never more than a branch up until the ACL+SAL merger. It had a 55 mph passenger train speed limit. It was 59 mph for Amtrak. The Flomaton to Chattahoochee to Tallahassee run time was less than the Sunset east time because there was very little traffic on the line otherwise. In its last couple of years there may have been a certain amount of fiction in the schedule as well. By the way at that time Escambia bay was crossed with a 2 mile long 10 mph drawbridge. It is now crossed with a higher level no speed restriction concrete bridge.

Yes, it is far easier to get a bridge past the EIS than a fill. No interference with wildlife and water flow. Sometimes piers can even be a problem with EIS.

The traffic potential for short distance traffic and as connections from the City of New Orleans and Sunset West along the Gulf Coast between New Orleans and Mobile would seem the most likely traffic potential. For this to have reliability there would need to be at the least short segments of double track put in. If the larger water crossings are avoided, this would be relatively cheap as the land is near flat. There are however lots of grade crossings. Mississippi's lack of enthusiasm for this is because the Gulf Coast is far different in history and current conditions than the rest of the state. If put in with improvements to passenger service in other parts of the state it would be much more likely to go through.


----------



## xyzzy (May 27, 2014)

You could mitigate the EIS somewhat by tunneling under the bay. Hey, this is all about fantasy, right? Or you could tunnel under the shipping channel and then come up to a trestle across the shallow parts of the bay. Remember, the shipping channel needs about 160 feet of vertical clearance at high tide. If you don't tunnel, then you are looking at one heck of a moveable span (wind loadings for Cat 5 hurricanes) or a clone of the Huey Long bridge design with long approach trestles.

All this is why the Mobile & Montgomery (later L&N, now CSX) built their bridges well north of the bay.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 27, 2014)

xyzzy said:


> You're joking, right? Getting across the bay plus 40 miles of virgin railroad into north Pensacola would be on the order of $2 billion... if you could get past the environmental impact statement, which I doubt.


What kind of country uses environment impact studies to *prevent* more efficient and less polluting travel options from being created? Are we just completely blind to the bigger picture or is this an intentional result?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 27, 2014)

The EIS is primarily a NIMBY tool, as configured by George Haikalis. Unfortunately, the noble effort of killing Westway set the procedure for thousands of less nolbe project killings since.


----------



## xyzzy (May 27, 2014)

You'd have to be age 60+ to understand how bad the disruption to our environment had become by the 1960s. EISs were instituted by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, one of many pro-environment measures adopted around that time. (Creating the EPA was another.)

Pain in the neck? Yes. Adds to cost and delay? Yes. Puts money in the pockets of consultants? Yes. Abused by NIMBYs? Yes.

But is the EIS process fundamentally effective at what it was intended to do? Most people would answer Yes. And has anyone come up with a better process? Most people would answer No, although there are proposals from time to time for improving the process.

Often an EIS includes an analysis of a no-build alternative.

NEPA doesn't prevent doing projects. Just look around and see how many projects have been built since 1970. The NEPA does give citizens the right to challenge an executive decision in court.


----------



## Anderson (May 27, 2014)

xyzzy said:


> You'd have to be age 60+ to understand how bad the disruption to our environment had become by the 1960s. EISs were instituted by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, one of many pro-environment measures adopted around that time. (Creating the EPA was another.)
> 
> Pain in the neck? Yes. Adds to cost and delay? Yes. Puts money in the pockets of consultants? Yes. Abused by NIMBYs? Yes.
> 
> ...


The concept of an EIS is not a bad thing. The problem is that EISes often end up taking more time than the project itself takes to execute, and that's if they don't end up in court. For a handy example, I'm reminded of the HSR reports for the set of lines to be based out of Atlanta. The reports suggested 15 years to complete the project, only 5-6 of which involved actual construction. The rest was EIS work and engineering work (and biased, if I'm not mistaken, towards the EIS).

NEPA itself doesn't prevent projects necessarily. What it does do, however, is stretch them over a long enough period that the risk of a periodic change in office killing it increases. It also drags things out for long enough that the initial cost estimates tend to get murdered brutally by project cost inflation (before you even get into "normal" overruns). It also provides an awful lot of room for challenges from parties who just want to stop a project...you get plenty of folks who likely don't care about [insert random environmental issue here] suing on the basis of it in the EIS. A great example of this was the Honolulu transit mess, where Cateyano's people were throwing everything at the project when their objection was just "We don't like this project, period."

Between excessively lengthening how long it takes to make something happen; likely also biasing projects towards those that go in after development, not before (i.e. like the old streetcar lines, which led to development); and providing too much room for objections, EISes have a LOT of issues that really need to be dealt with.


----------



## George Harris (May 27, 2014)

An EIS is the absolute personification of a Can't see the forest for the trees" In fact, it spends so much time looking at details on the leaves that trees can be destroyed elsewhere with nobody noticing.

For those that have to deal with these things they seemed to have morphed into a method of stopping everything.

To be realistic, these documents must be modified to have a timeline such as Present your objections in the next 90 days or they cannot be considierd. All issues will be analyzed and a decision rendered within 90 days after that. Any objections and appeasl must be filed within 30 days of that final decision. If any are considerd worthwhile andaysis and a final decision must be rendered within 60 days from that date.


----------



## Anderson (May 27, 2014)

George Harris said:


> An EIS is the absolute personification of a Can't see the forest for the trees" In fact, it spends so much time looking at details on the leaves that trees can be destroyed elsewhere with nobody noticing.
> 
> For those that have to deal with these things they seemed to have morphed into a method of stopping everything.
> 
> To be realistic, these documents must be modified to have a timeline such as Present your objections in the next 90 days or they cannot be considierd. All issues will be analyzed and a decision rendered within 90 days after that. Any objections and appeasl must be filed within 30 days of that final decision. If any are considerd worthwhile andaysis and a final decision must be rendered within 60 days from that date.


[sarc] Yeah, how many trees do you think the hard copies of the EIS kill?[/sarc]

Well, there also needs to be some restriction on taking the EIS to court as well. Otherwise, group X will file an objection within the 90 days, have it overruled...and then spend the next three years in litigation over that point. Raising the bar to file suit over the findings of an EIS is something else that needs to happen.

The other thing that ought to be done is exempting some projects (or major parts thereof) from the whole process. AAF is an _excellent_ example of this: As I understand it, the project up as far as Cocoa consists of _restoring _double-track territory, plus throwing in a few buildings in the center of the respective cities. Heavily stripping back, if not absolutely doing away with, any requirements for projects that are primarily restorations of previous infrastructure and/or which are almost exclusively operating within existing ROW would be another productive step (and yes, I will concede that adding two lanes to some interstates would fall in this category as well).

===========================

One thing that I hinted at earlier I will also expound upon: The EIS process contributes towards making transportation policy conservative to the point of causing problems. It is, from what I can tell, substantially harder to get things through the process which anticipate future demand rather than responding to existing demand. You can't really even plan a light rail or commuter rail service as a part of a long-term development plan (even by acquiring land for it to put it in later)...the last case I can think of that actually happening was the DC Metro in Northern Virginia, when a few stations ended up in cornfields. Running a Richmond-Newport News or Richmond-Washington commuter service? Not happening. Ditto with extending VRE service down to Culpepper...because the development isn't already there (even if it seems all but inevitable). You probably couldn't even acquire the _slots_ for the service, pursuant to an agreed-upon set of improvements (or similar substitutes if they happen in the interim), in advance...and doing that would, in some cases, probably save hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.


----------



## xyzzy (May 28, 2014)

There have been proposals to reform the EIS process, and a hard look is warranted. Some groups file suit simply to delay the project long enough in hopes that eventually the gov't agency will just give up. And sometimes the tactic works. That's not what the authors of the EIS process in the 1960s intended.


----------



## Anderson (May 28, 2014)

xyzzy said:


> There have been proposals to reform the EIS process, and a hard look is warranted. Some groups file suit simply to delay the project long enough in hopes that eventually the gov't agency will just give up. And sometimes the tactic works. That's not what the authors of the EIS process in the 1960s intended.


True, or the clock runs out on funding. Or, as I've noted, the administration changes.

Part of the problem is the ability to sue alleging that something "wasn't looked at hard enough", which if I'm not mistaken was part of the suit in Honolulu (there were allegations that BRT didn't get enough focus).

One thing I do like is California's ability to present a project for suit and force cases out of the woodwork. There needs to be something like that in more places.

Of course, another thing would simply be providing for some sort of expediting process, particularly for suits that are obviously intended to delay or obstruct, so they get into court quickly (and out of court quickly). Additionally, refusing to sustain injunctions while an appeal is pending (unless it has a substantial chance of success) might also help.


----------



## jis (May 28, 2014)

xyzzy said:


> There have been proposals to reform the EIS process, and a hard look is warranted. Some groups file suit simply to delay the project long enough in hopes that eventually the gov't agency will just give up. And sometimes the tactic works. That's not what the authors of the EIS process in the 1960s intended.


People who want to file suit to attempt to block something will do so irrespective of whether there is any NEPA (EIS) process involved or not. I don't quite see the connection there. There are umpteen projects that have no NEPA requirements because there is no federal fund involved and that has never stopped the NIMBY's from trying to block them by trying to get them all wound up in a mess in courts. Fortunately very often they fail quite spectacularly after spending a lot of money enriching lawyers. Heck even completely privately funded projects get held up in court until the ... ahem ... shakedown process is completed.


----------



## Dan Dealy (May 28, 2014)

All: What a great discussion!. I was involved with assisting the SRC and T4A in developing this grant application. Over the past 3 years, local communities across the gulf coast have been very involved in the efforts regarding restoration of passenger service east of NOLA. Just as a quick reference, go to the City of Mobile's web site and look at the rail summit page there. www.cityofmobile.org/railsummit .. Amtrak has been involved with these activities and discussions. We understand the level of effort to restore operations to a daily level of service. But in the long term, passenger rail can offer much more to gulf coast transportation and most specially to economic opportunities than ONLY investing in the rubber tire mode. As of today, the City of Tallahassee voted to offer the SRC a significant amount of additional in-kind or cash match for this grant ! in addition to reading the actual grant application, do a google search of news about "gulf coast passenger rail" and look at the various cities and counties that are supporting this effort. Since you all appear to be very knowledgable - join in the support! It's not too late - we can add supporting documents to the grant application after submission.. You can go to the Southern Rail Commission's web site and offer an email of support, or send it to me and I'll forward it. [email protected] Thanks !!


----------



## xyzzy (May 29, 2014)

NEPA gives grounds to sue. Without specific grounds, a lawsuit has a higher chance of being dismissed quickly - or the defendant agency has a much higher chance of winning summary judgment in their favor. Bottom line, without NEPA the plaintiffs' lawyers would have to work harder, spend more money, and face less favorable odds. So yes, they could still use the tactic, but it would be less effective. 

Some states have counterparts to NEPA for state-funded projects that would use zero federal funds. California, for example. Same situation applies.


----------



## Jasper McMillan (Jun 6, 2014)

Passenger rail service east of Mobile and into Florida is quite probably never going to happen. A lack of money, a "just say no" Congress, waning support from POTUS (even though he mandated it YEARS ago), a TOTAL lack of enthusiasm by Amtrak and an EXTREMELY "passenger rail hostile" state leadership in Tallahassee already ensure that short of a miracle, the effort to restart passenger trains east of Mobile would be DOA (Dead on Arrival). Enthusiasm in Pensacola for a return of passenger train service (in either direction) is slowly waning as people remember that the former Sunset Limited from Pensacola to JAX took anywhere between 9 and ten hours.....about twice as long as a car on I-10 and either came through at zero dark thirty (IF it was on time) or extremely late....IF it showed up at all. CSX thought nothing of putting the old Sunset Limited into a hole while it ran its freight trains. I once missed the eastbound train by minutes and in an effort to catch it, drove down I-10 to Crestview (45 minutes away) where I waited SEVERAL HOURS before it FINALLY trundled in. Extremely surly and impolite Amtrak Station personnel in Pensacola did not help matters either. As for a return of passenger train to Mobile, many here in west Florida might find that acceptable as an alternative to anything else. Its a far better deal than having to travel to Union Station in New Orleans via Greyhound (which a nightmare unto itself).


----------



## Anderson (Jun 9, 2014)

xyzzy said:


> NEPA gives grounds to sue. Without specific grounds, a lawsuit has a higher chance of being dismissed quickly - or the defendant agency has a much higher chance of winning summary judgment in their favor. Bottom line, without NEPA the plaintiffs' lawyers would have to work harder, spend more money, and face less favorable odds. So yes, they could still use the tactic, but it would be less effective.
> 
> Some states have counterparts to NEPA for state-funded projects that would use zero federal funds. California, for example. Same situation applies.


Somewhat belatedly, this is a lot of the issue with NEPA: It provides the various plaintiffs (NIMBYs and others alike) with grounds to toss up objections. Even if the objections are doomed from the start, it can take months or years to have them dismissed (and cost tens of thousands of dollars in the process).


----------



## neroden (Jun 9, 2014)

The main abuses I've seen of NEPA have been shoehorning of non-environmental issues into the process. I guess this is unsurprising given that it was designed to prevent destruction of historical buildings, etc. -- but it is much easier to delay things with vague claims about "increased traffic" or "lost parking" or "changes in the visual impact on the skyline" than it is to delay things with REAL environmental claims (related to endangered species, pollution, water quality, etc.) For the latter you have to have honest-to-god data; for the former you just have to have a bunch of people complaining.

I'm pretty seriously inclined to change the rules so that only *ecological* damage has to be considered with EIS levels of scrutiny. There's already a separate procedure for historic buildings. And frankly I don't think all this other stuff deserves consideration. Ecological damage is nasty and frequently irreversible, so that deserves serious attention, but this other stuff? Pfft.


----------



## jis (Jun 10, 2014)

I actually disagree with that. Just think, with such limitations we would have had no way to challenge silliness like ARC, though fat good it did until one could find a Governor sufficiently opposed to rail in general relative to highways go ahead and kill it.

So no, I would at least oppose weakening of NEPA in the way proposed.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 10, 2014)

Jasper McMillan said:


> a "just say no" Congress, waning support from POTUS (even though he mandated it YEARS ago), a TOTAL lack of enthusiasm by Amtrak and an EXTREMELY "passenger rail hostile" state leadership in Tallahassee already ensure that short of a miracle, the effort to restart passenger trains east of Mobile would be DOA


Remember that any of those can change. Political majorities swing, management opinions swing and even within parties, standpoints swing. Whereas I agree that here and now it's an uphill struggle, I see no reason to assume it will or must always be that way.


----------



## Rich B (Jul 2, 2014)

Drive time is about 10 hours. If you wanted to go via JAX, add another 2 hours. The train shouldn't take longer than driving.


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 2, 2014)

Top speed for passenger trains, in the absence of fancy signaling systems, is 79 mph. But between Flomaton, Ala. and Tallahassee, top speed of a passenger train would be 59 mph because of the absence of any signaling system. This is set by federal regulation. In addition, trains must slow for curves and make station stops. If you look at long-distance passenger trains in general -- in the U.S., anyway -- about the best they have ever averaged is 65 mph. Most have an average speed that is substantially slower. So if you can drive I-10 at 70 mph and avoid congestion, and if you don't stop often for gas or refreshments or body maintenance, you can easily outrun the train.

Would it be possible to have a 90 mph or 110 mph train along this route? Sure. The technology exists. Would take about $3 billion, I'd estimate.


----------

