# Most untapped market



## johnny.menhennet (Oct 22, 2012)

I know that this may be annoying for some, and I'm sorry, but I find that my favorite posts/threads to read are the "What if's" (ex: If you could start one route, what would it be? -type things). So I was wondering what every member thought was the most underserved market in the United States. Whether you consider this to be a market entirely not served or something that's not served enough in your opinion, I'll leave it up to your discretion. If you'd like, a train service that would solve the needs of that city/area. I love the type of discussion that these threads produce rather than purely fact/number-based ones, and there is not likely to be argument, because we all have our own ideas of what would be best.

To start off, I'd say a few markets really worthy of more service would be:

1) overnight/more daytime frequencies SoCal-Bay Area - If you look at the best schedule times for the route, padding aside, you could make an LAX-SJC run in 8:10. Corridor services operating under 9 hours could be very successful here, as could an overnight so you don't waste a day. There is a lot of business travel between SoCal and the Bay Area, and an overnight service that would allow you to not waste a few hours in the morning/evening would be awesome. It is just not tapped well enough, because driving the 5 is god-awful, and on busy weekends you can have traffic jams literally in the middle of nowhere. CalTrans has 4 slots on the route, two of which are kind of being used already. Just extend those two to SF, add another frequency in between, and then an overnight. It would be SO nice. My dad had to drive his huge Expedition up to San Jose just for the weekend two weeks ago to pick up a lot of stuff for our house under construction in Phoenix. This was the week/weekend following the gas price spike, where at a few stations, it was $5.60, and almost could not be found below $5 for a few days. He had no other choice, because he had to pick it up and he was going to a football game. So if Amtrak had been an option overnight, I guarantee you he would have used it, and he would have been able to check almost all of the large boxes with little cost. I can't stress enough how sucky the drive is becoming on the 5 - worse and worse every year.

2) Bay Area-Reno

3) Phoenix-Tucson corridor (sheer lack of demand and proximity - I'm ignoring political climate)

4) Cascades service both directions from Seattle - low BNSF caps are frustrating

5) wish we could get even more frequencies out of the NEC, to continue generating more revenue to offset other losses

6) CHI-DEN. Needs more capacity for sure. I know at this point it's unrealistic to ask for a day train, given the sheer distance, albeit nice track. What would be nice would be an 10pm departure from CHI, leaving Omaha at 7am, Lincoln at 8am, arriving Denver at 3pm, then heading to Grand Junction arriving at 11pm. Not only would this provide an overnight ride from CHI to both Omaha and Denver, providing more capacity, it allows another frequency over the Rockies to accommodate and hopefully minimize the capacity demands currently straining the CZ. It would allow people to not miss a whole day travelling this section. Coming back, the consist could leave Grand Junction at 6am, arriving Denver at 1pm, it could get to Lincoln by 10:30pm, Omaha by 11:30pm, and then Chicago by 8:30am. Same reasons work for the frequency in the other direction.

7) maybe MSP-Williston day train

8) FTW-SAS, but via Waco. Many large cities but 1 daily train.

9) The OBVIOUS LA-Vegas run. 'Nuff said.

I'm going to stop calling out more services, because I don't want to start sounding even more ridiculous than I already do. I understand that all of these require cars Amtrak doesn't have, and I realize these plans cost money and often would not have political support. Some of these are obviously not as important as others, but they are ALL worthy of more service on some level. I'm open to hearing ideas either about what I suggested or your own. Hope I don't bother too many people with this.


----------



## Twin Star Rocket (Oct 22, 2012)

Los Angeles-Las Vegas should be restored as the #1 priority followed by New Orleans- Florida as #2.

PIONEER and BROADWAY should be restored. Ditto for Chicago-Florida service.

On the it's-never-happened-yet list as far as Amtrak goes are:

Dallas/Ft. Worth-Denver route

St. Louis-Tulsa- Oklahoma City route

Atlanta-Dallas route


----------



## CHamilton (Oct 22, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> 4) Cascades service both directions from Seattle - low BNSF caps are frustrating
> 
> 7) maybe MSP-Williston day train


Let's add:

4a) SEA-SPK daytime service, possibly via Auburn, Yakima, etc.

7a) MSP-CHI via Madison


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 22, 2012)

:hi: Gotta be the Gulf Coast through the South to Florida! I favor running the CONO from CHI-Florida since I dont think well ever see a Train run through the South from CHI-MIA via Kentucky,Tennesse and ATL! All the others are Good ideas soon as Equipment is available and the Freight Railroads agree to let them run! We all have our Faves, keep the ideas coming Johnny, thats what the Young are for, lots of old folks catch the "It Won't Work /Can't be Done Disease!"


----------



## MattW (Oct 23, 2012)

I have to agree that it's not likely we'll ever see CHI-MIA service without some MAJOR investment in the infrastructure. I just calculated the average speed from just north of Marietta to a bit south of Chattanooga on CSX. The average speed limit is about 51 miles per hour. Not bad for a LD train overall, but bad for corridor type service...but that's just the average of the speed limits. Actual speed would be slower once stations are added in, and once the train has to be stopped on a siding for an oncoming freight in single-track territory... For reference, the trip time at this average speed from Marietta to about the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum (CSX crosses the TVRM just west of the TVRM Grand Junction Station) would take 2 hours, 46 minutes. A drive from Marietta to Chattanooga proper would only take right about 2 hours, Google says 1:49, but I'll give 10 for traffic and stops.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Oct 23, 2012)

Johhny covered most of the obvious ones, yet I'll repeat just because according to me too they are some of the most underserved routes that'd love to see more Amtrak service-

SFO Bay Area to Los Angeles: This size of urban areas should have at least an hourly train in each direction, but since that's not happening, at least 4 services each way, taking something around 7 hours would be great. I believe a lot of the CS route is single tracked, so that would have to be doubled all the way for any kind of sustained corridor service to work.

LA to Vegas: Enough said, nothing to add.

Dallas-Houston-San Antonio triangle corridor services. Perfect distance and population to sustain multiple-runs a day corridor service with 4-5 hour running time between each city pair

Extension of NE corridor southwards: Washington-Charlotte/Raleigh/Durham-Atlanta: Surely urban areas of this size deserve more than one or two passing-by trains per day.

Florida Corridor services: Miami-Tampa-Orlando triangle plus offshoots to Jacksonville/Gainesville (college crowd). Multiple seating-only services per day

One west coast to east coast service bypassing Chicago. I can't single out which route, but anything southerly than going all the way to Chicago and coming south-east again.


----------



## tricia (Oct 23, 2012)

Harrisburg, PA, to Roanoke, VA, to Knoxville and Chattanooga, TN, to Memphis, aligned with the proposed Steel Interstate System: http://www.railsolution.org/uploads/images/SIPilotProjectMap.jpg


----------



## me_little_me (Oct 23, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> I know that this may be annoying for some, and I'm sorry, but I find that my favorite posts/threads to read are the "What if's" (ex: If you could start one route, what would it be? -type things).


What if you could only create one "What if" thread, what would it be? :giggle:


----------



## SarahZ (Oct 23, 2012)

Michigan to Canada via Detroit/Windsor. Not only would it save a lot of backtracking and/or bussing for those of us wishing to travel east, it could open up a route to Niagara Falls, Toronto, and other tourist destinations.

I agree with the L.A. to Las Vegas route, or even Kingman to Las Vegas. Basically, anything that doesn't require a bus to Las Vegas in the middle of the night.


----------



## Exiled in Express (Oct 23, 2012)

Philadelphia-Pittsburgh increased frequency and speed would be a winner

Saint Paul-Denver I can be a little greedy?


----------



## George Harris (Oct 23, 2012)

For a number of these the inability to achieve good average speeds makes them non-starters. That means almost all routes through Appalachia. The issue is not track condition, but alignment. Poster child for explaining this: Atlanta to Birmingham. 4 hours for 165 miles by rail, 2 hours 30 minutes and 145 miles by road. The maximum speed on the rail line is 79 mph, but because of the curves the train never gets that fast.

MSP - Kansas City - DFW - Houston/San Antonio. Would require work to get Dallas - Houson up to a decent speed, but otherwise track an alignment are fairly good. It is just a matter of getting past UP.

Two mroe trains between New York and Chicago via Buffalo and Cleveland. Need to get a before the start of the business day arrival on both ends and a mid to late evening departure on both ends, leaving the current Lake Shore Limited to split the difference more or less as it does now. Would be nice to get enough speed out of the line to get a fast daytime train like the 1950's amd 60's City of New Orleans between Chicago and New Orleans. Never could understand why both New York Central and the Pennsylvania did not do this sort of train when they were running the 16 hours Twentieth Century and Broadway respectively.

Do a similar set up between New York and Atlanta. Would be nice to have a decent morning arrival time in Charlotte Southbound.


----------



## JoshW (Oct 23, 2012)

1: Some kind of service from Novato/San Rafael,Ca to the Capitol Corridor/San Joaquins

2: STL - East Coast, or at least STL - IND or PIT

3: KC - Omaha

4: STL or KC to Springfield, MO


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 23, 2012)

I think Pittsburgh needs some love. Every time I've ridden the Pennsylvanian, it's been packed full.

Also, some Washington - Pittsburgh trains would probably work too, given the traffic I see on I-70 and the PA turnpike. Or at least extend the MARC trains to Cumberland.

I know, between the curves and the grades on that route, it might not be as fast as it could be. I think the best the B&O could manage in the good old days was 6 hours. (The current Capitol takes 8 hours). You can drive it in 5 hours. Maybe they could shave some time if they used Talgos.


----------



## Gfoley4 (Oct 23, 2012)

MARC Rider said:


> I think Pittsburgh needs some love. Every time I've ridden the Pennsylvanian, it's been packed full.
> 
> Also, some Washington - Pittsburgh trains would probably work too, given the traffic I see on I-70 and the PA turnpike. Or at least extend the MARC trains to Cumberland.
> 
> I know, between the curves and the grades on that route, it might not be as fast as it could be. I think the best the B&O could manage in the good old days was 6 hours. (The current Capitol takes 8 hours). You can drive it in 5 hours. Maybe they could shave some time if they used Talgos.


Looking at my _Official Guide of the Railways _from 1941, the Cap took about 6 hours, 30 minutes to get from DC to Pittsburgh. If it was only like that now!


----------



## afigg (Oct 23, 2012)

If there is to be a discussion on the most untapped travel markets in the US for Amtrak, one place to start should be with the top city/metro region air travel corridors. Here is a Brookings Institute list from 2009 that I found linked to on wikipedia with the top 100 city/metro region pairs. It is not up to date - post-recession likely shuffled the order & numbers - and one should not get picky about the exact rankings. The busier corridors obviously also have a lot of connecting traffic, so it is not a clean city of origin to final destination list, but the list shows useful info to consider for a "untapped" market list for Amtrak.

The untapped markets really should be no more than 500-600 miles apart for a viable corridor service. That is not to say that LD trains can't be considered, but LD trains are more viable if they can operate over busy corridor segments for large portions of their route. The top city pairs are:

1. NYC/Newark to Miami/Fort Lauderdale: the Silvers

2. LA/Long Beach to San Francisco/Oakland: There is a market for the Coast Daylight and the CA HSR.

3. Atlanta to Miami/Ft Lauderdale: big gap in the Amtrak system.

4. Chicago to NYC/Newark: LSL; Bring back the Three Rivers?

5. Atlanta to NYC/Newark: One often maxed out Crescent.

6. LA to NYC/Newark: long trip on Amtrak.

7. NYC/Newark to Orlando: the Silvers

8. NYC/Newark to London: ok, difficult to do by train.

9. LA/Long Beach to Las Vegas: X-Train and Xpress-West are looking to fill this gap.

10. LA/Long Beach to Phoenix: An argument for a LA to Phoenix day train if UP were to cooperate and Arizona was interested.

Below the top 10 is where one finds a number of city pairs where there should be passenger rail corridor service.


----------



## lmctrouble (Oct 23, 2012)

I'm with Sorcha - I'd like to be able to get from Michigan to Canada or the east coast without driving to Toledo or having to go to Chicago first.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 23, 2012)

Since this is talking about UNtapped instead of POORLY tapped markets, I'll go with the following:

1. CHI-MIA, I've always thought that this needs service for through pax plus that it will serve many new markets in between.

2. NOL-MIA, needs service, obvious gap in the network. Lots of people are missing out on trains.

3. SLC-LAX, restore the Desert Wind, Las Vegas needs service and people on CZ route can now travel to LAX.

4. SLC-PDX, restore the Pioneer, again, lots of people missing out on trains.

5. MSP-DAL, Amtrak needs this north-south connection. It will also serve many new markets.

6. DEN-DAL, Amtrak also needs this connection and it serves new markets.

7. NYP-STL, restore the National Limited, great for through traffic, better connections to Texas, greatly improves service in Ohio and Indiana.

8. CHI-SEa/PDX, restore the North Coast Hiawatha, large amounts of people left unserved after that train was cancelled, poor transportation options in those places.

9. CHI-Winnipeg, connection to Central Canada.


----------



## afigg (Oct 23, 2012)

Sorcha said:


> Michigan to Canada via Detroit/Windsor. Not only would it save a lot of backtracking and/or bussing for those of us wishing to travel east, it could open up a route to Niagara Falls, Toronto, and other tourist destinations.


A Chicago-Michigan-Toronto service is being discussed by Amtrak, VIA, and the numerous US & Canadian government agencies involved. I found and posted a link to an Amtrak presentation on border issues in the Meteor-Vermonter thread a few days ago that included a possible CHI-TWO service. But this would be in the long term, not anytime soon. Michigan state officials are interested in restoration of service to Toronto. But I expect little will happen until after the CHI-DET corridor improvements are in place with reduced trip times and increased ridership. Then the idea of adding a CHI-Michigan-TWO daily train with a Customs facility at the border might get come to the forefront, but it will take cooperation and support from MI, at the federal level, and on the Canadian side.

If there was a CHI-TWO day train, that would obviously open up connections from the Mid-West to VIA trips in Canada.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Oct 23, 2012)

MARC Rider said:


> (The current Capitol takes 8 hours). You can drive it in 5 hours. Maybe they could shave some time if they used Talgos.


Last Thanksgiving, Alexandria to Pittsburgh took 11 and a half hours to drive. The drive back took 9, but only because I bailed on the interstates at Breezewood after it took 45 minutes to get from the exit lane to the tollbooth. The drive for Christmas, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and, for who knows why, Presidents Day weekends all exceeded 6.5 hours.

I already have my Capitol Limited tickets waiting for Thanksgiving and Christmas this year. Even just a second train, morning or mid-day departure from DC, that just ran DC-Pittsburgh or DC-Cleveland would be incredible.


----------



## Guest 21 (Oct 23, 2012)

How about a train bypassing Chicago, like the Crescent star was going to do before that project died. A NYP to Meridian to Dallas/Ft. Worth train, then continue up to Denver. This market i can see as travel time between NYP and Dallas/ Ft. Worth can be cut and the Denver market served.


----------



## SarahZ (Oct 23, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> 1. CHI-MIA, I've always thought that this needs service for through pax plus that it will serve many new markets in between.


Love this idea. Right now, we have to backtrack to Chicago (or drive to IN) to catch the LSL and then transfer to the Silvers. Ugh. CHI to MIA would be so much better, and they might get a lot of families and spring break crowds traveling that route.


----------



## SarahZ (Oct 23, 2012)

afigg said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> > Michigan to Canada via Detroit/Windsor. Not only would it save a lot of backtracking and/or bussing for those of us wishing to travel east, it could open up a route to Niagara Falls, Toronto, and other tourist destinations.
> ...


Great to know.  Thanks for the update.


----------



## PaulM (Oct 24, 2012)

Madison, WI


----------



## Anderson (Oct 24, 2012)

I'll jump off the wall for a moment and suggest Long Island.

Now, I'll wait for the snickering to stop. Yes, you've got the LIRR, but that doesn't change the fact that you sometimes have to change trains twice (Jamaica and Penn) or the fact that time advantages for rail travel along the NEC get killed off pretty badly once you spend an hour+ getting _to_ Penn Station. This is the biggest reason I prefer the Long Island/Tunnel version of the NextGen NEC project, actually.

Moving along, I would argue that Roanoke is pretty far up the list at the moment. I'm not sure that a service operating more or less parallel to I-81 could generate requisite ridership (being so much slower than the NEC), but there are some places along this general line that could do with connections to the NEC and/or elsewhere (Winchester seems to be a long-term candidate for access to the NEC).


----------



## Joeker (Oct 24, 2012)

Chi- Indianapolis Should be 2x daily

Chi- Cincinnati Should be 1x daily

Chi- Louisville / Nashville Should be daily

Chi- MSP Should be 2x day

Chi-Toledo/ Cleveland Morning departure to evening departure back

KC St Louis / Indianapolis/ Cincinnati and or Columbus Daily

MSP Omaha KC Daily

Denver OKC Dallas Houston Daily

NOL Biloxi Mobile Pensacola Tallahasee JAX Daily

CHI To Atlanta To Florida ( can be continuatinon of Louisville or Cinci service)

BOS Montreal


----------



## roadman3313 (Oct 24, 2012)

For the SF to LA portion I know the California High Speed Rail Authority is alreay working on that segment... it will not be along the coast so I don't see much money going into the Coastal Route or increasing that for now. But it should also be noted that there are multiple Amtrak California Thruway trips along that corridor throughout the day and a trip overnight. The overnight bus trip can often be sold out so I see a need, but in terms of time efficiency it may be more cost effective to boost connections such as those that are present in California. Filling in the gap between Bakersfield and Palmdale (MetroLink)/LA will be one of the great landmarks for rail transportation in California... just need to get to that point.

I myself prefer a nice ride on the train from point A to point B but I think that the best way to increase rail service is to create a connecting bus network to increase options for passengers thus potentially increasing the ridership and demand to increase rail service in the long run.

Not trying to burst bubbles... just looking at the smaller short term investment that could lead to more longer term rail in the future...


----------



## WICT106 (Oct 24, 2012)

CHI - Madison, WI - MSP - Winnipeg ?


----------



## Notelvis (Oct 24, 2012)

I like these threads also -

There are many, many underserved and unserved markets nationally and my list of where I would like to see additional service ranges from borderline realistic to near fantasy.

That said - here is my list ranging from most realistic to least realistic -

1) An additional New York-Atlanta frequency. I would propose operating overnight New York - Raleigh, NC via Richmond and then to Atlanta as a day train from Raleigh via Greensboro and Charlotte. The Raleigh-Charlotte portion would assume roughly the schedule of existing NCDOT Piedmonts 73 & 76 freeing up that equipment for an additional mid-day roundtrip in the NC corridor.

2) Restore the Broadway Limited with through NYC-Chicago sleeper and diner via Pittsburgh. I'd be OK if this service operates combined (linked by the transition dorm car) with the Capitol Limited west of Pittsburgh.

3) A daytrain St. Paul to Kansas City connecting to/from Los Angeles vis the Southwest Chief. Yes, there would also be a valid case for extending this new train all the way to Texas.

Tie 4) Chicago-Florida already discussed at length earlier in this thread.

Tie 4) Denver-Los Angeles (and here's where you'll know I'm nuts) operating on the UP via Wyoming, Ogden, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas. This train would need to be daily between Los Angeles and Las Vegas...... could probably exist as tri-weekly from Las Vegas east. This would get Wyoming back in the national network and utilize some of that extra space to come in the revitalized Denver Union Station.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 24, 2012)

Guest 21 said:


> How about a train bypassing Chicago, like the Crescent star was going to do before that project died. A NYP to Meridian to Dallas/Ft. Worth train, then continue up to Denver. This market i can see as travel time between NYP and Dallas/ Ft. Worth can be cut and the Denver market served.


I don't like this because it takes a huge detour through DAL. I think it should run it ELP.



Joeker said:


> Chi- Indianapolis Should be 2x daily
> 
> Chi- Cincinnati Should be 1x daily
> 
> ...


1. I think this should run all the way to NYP like the National Limited.

2. I think this one should run all the way to DAL.

3. The DEN-DAL line goes through Amarillo, not OKC. Going through OKC would be a huge detour because there is currently no line from Amarillo to OKC. You would have to go through KCY. VERY bad idea to do that!



roadman3313 said:


> For the SF to LA portion I know the California High Speed Rail Authority is alreay working on that segment... it will not be along the coast so I don't see much money going into the Coastal Route or increasing that for now. But it should also be noted that there are multiple Amtrak California Thruway trips along that corridor throughout the day and a trip overnight. The overnight bus trip can often be sold out so I see a need, but in terms of time efficiency it may be more cost effective to boost connections such as those that are present in California. Filling in the gap between Bakersfield and Palmdale (MetroLink)/LA will be one of the great landmarks for rail transportation in California... just need to get to that point.
> 
> I myself prefer a nice ride on the train from point A to point B but I think that the best way to increase rail service is to create a connecting bus network to increase options for passengers thus potentially increasing the ridership and demand to increase rail service in the long run.
> 
> Not trying to burst bubbles... just looking at the smaller short term investment that could lead to more longer term rail in the future...


I am a heavy supporter of using buses to complement to trains, but I don't like how a huge city like LAX does not have any train to BFD and beyond. Bus service dosen't work here, especially since if I were to take a bus anyway, I could just take Greyhound nonstop LAD-SFD in just over seven hours.



WICT106 said:


> CHI - Madison, WI - MSP - Winnipeg ?


I support this one, too. Pretty obvious gap in the network of you look at a combined Amtrak/VIA map. Also, JL discontinued bus service over this route, now buses only go to Grand Forks.


----------



## JayPea (Oct 24, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > 4) Cascades service both directions from Seattle - low BNSF caps are frustrating
> ...



I like 4a, but I'm also biased towards it.  I'd love to see daylight service between Spokane and Seattle (come to think of it, the way the EB ran so late for most of the summer, we had that anyway! :lol: ) I'd also like to see service restored via Auburn and Yakima, along with Ellensburg. I'd even put in a stop at Cheney, WA, about 15 miles SW of Spokane, to accomodate students at my alma mater--Eastern Washington University. There's already a depot there. All it would take is to build a platform. Nothing much! :lol: :lol: I don't know how well-patronized such a service would be, as it currently takes about 8 hours between the two on the EB now, and to drive it takes about 4 1/2 hours. And the old Spokane-Seattle route on the EB via the Northern Pacific route through Yakima and Ellensburg took about 9 1/2 hours. But hey, we foamers don't care about practicality!  All we want is more trains! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## EMDF9A (Oct 24, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > 4) Cascades service both directions from Seattle - low BNSF caps are frustrating
> ...


I'm all for your 4a. A East/West Daylight Cascade SEA/YAK/PCO/SPK is something that has a definate market, especially since SWA abandoned the SEA/GEG flights and now its 100% Alaska/Horizon. I'm also sure that it would be well used by CWU & EWU students as well as the folks in the Yakima valley.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Oct 24, 2012)

Thank you to everyone who has participated thus far. I would like to particularly thank afigg for the link to the city pair travel combinations. I find that at least in California, it could potentially be confusing though. Because many of our metro areas are so large, they are split up into multiple sections. For example, Southern California in that list would be three different "metro areas" with San Diego, LA/Orange, and Riverside/San Bernardino being the different metro areas. In NorCal, there are both San Jose, and San Fran/Oakland. I know especially in the case of SoCal, many people from a "metro area" will use an airport in a separate "metro area" for almost all of the travelling, and the large choice of airports makes the actual demand hard to determine. In addition, I find it especially annoying to not count the Inland Empire as part of LA. San Diego is a little different and much more isolated. The lack of development on the 15 and then the barrier imposed by Pendleton create a mental isolation and a uniquely different feeling for San Diego, like we have to TRAVEL to get to LA, but almost everyone I know will say, "I'm going to LA" (usually in an annoyed tone) even when referencing the Inland Empire. While San Jose is definitely separate in its own sense from San Fran as well, it is all the Bay Area to me. I feel like if they had a "Southern California" and "Bay Area/Northern California" option numbers would be more realistic, and rank for city pairs with at least one point in CA would go up significantly. Mind you, San Diego and Sacramento make sense to keep separate, but some merging would make these slightly more accurate.

Off of that rant, I think something obvious in those figures is that the Sun Belt is really where we need to make a lot of improvement. A long day train network centered on Atlanta and radiating in many directions would make sense given these figures, in addition to intra-state Texas services. As well, I'd say SoCal-Phoenix and SoCal-Vegas all make sense, with multiple frequencies. I don't think many non-San Diegans understand the sheer volume of Zoni's that flood San Diego in the summer. There is a reason that being a Zoni is a derogatory term here 

Other services definitely warranted would be a northbound connection out of Vegas as well, to get the Vegas-Denver and Vegas-Chicago markets with one car switch move, as well as direct SoCal-Denver. I still feel more service is in store for the NEC, and would continue to offset losses elsewhere around the system. I can't wait until an alternative is found to the cap on trains in Connecticut due to bridge openings. There is far more that could be done north of NYP, at least much much more than 1 train per hour per direction, meaning Regionals and Acelas have to take turns filling in these timeslots. VERY annoying. For its size, I can't imagine 3 departures will ever be enough for NFK, and I would wxpect to see many more through-WAS Regionals should cars magically appear. Long Bridge replacement is definitely necessary for this.

The obvious Chicago-Northeast and Northeast-Florida/Atlanta are very prevalent as well. Don't need to make a ton of suggestions here, because we can ALL agree that more frequencies are needed here, without a doubt. With regard to Chicago-Northeast service, I would place an emphasis on a NYP-CHI via PIT with an eastbound morning arrival ca. 6:30 in PHL and 8:15 in NYP. Westbound, a train leaving NY at night ca. 9:15, for an arrival in Chicago the next afternoon around 3:00p. Florida options are plentiful, with the most obvious and easy being a Silver Palm/Palmetto extension, but others in store.

I will stop now because I'm rambling on, but I like many of these ideas.


----------



## Gord (Oct 25, 2012)

Sorcha said:


> Michigan to Canada via Detroit/Windsor. Not only would it save a lot of backtracking and/or bussing for those of us wishing to travel east, it could open up a route to Niagara Falls, Toronto, and other tourist destinations.
> 
> I agree with the L.A. to Las Vegas route, or even Kingman to Las Vegas. Basically, anything that doesn't require a bus to Las Vegas in the middle of the night.


I'll second Chicago, Detroit / Windsor Toronto service. Getting from Toronto to connect with Amtrak trains in Chicago is a major pain. I really miss the Internaional which connected with the CONO. Toronto is Canada's largest city and a major tourist destination. One train a day to and from the US is ridiculous.

Gord


----------



## Nathanael (Oct 25, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> I know that this may be annoying for some, and I'm sorry, but I find that my favorite posts/threads to read are the "What if's" (ex: If you could start one route, what would it be? -type things). So I was wondering what every member thought was the most underserved market in the United States.


Not a member, but it's obviously Columbus, Ohio -- largest metro area in the US without Amtrak service (if you count Phoenix as served); less sprawly than Phoenix; closer to other metro areas than Phoenix. And yes, I'd use Columbus-Cleveland. Kasich killed the 3C project, so the main obstacle here is best described as "Ohio Republicans".

There's a lot of candidates for the second-most-underserved. Houston is probably it, though, with three-a-week which doesn't head towards Dallas or Austin -- it needs daily service to Dallas. That's thinking in terms of "single location".

I see everyone else is thinking *corridor* or *route* or *city pair*. If you're thinking that way, I think New York-Chicago is the most underserved. It needs more frequencies on more routes, including service via Pittsburgh, and at least one route via Detroit.

I mean, come on, it's *New York to Chicago*. Metro Area #1 to Metro Area #3, single-overnight, the entire NEC as connections on the east end, the entire "Chicago Hub" as connections on the west end, all the big cities of the Rust Belt in between.... what we have today is

- one a day (LSL)

- one convoluted connection a day (Capitol Limited)

- three a week on an extremely slow route (Cardinal)

The latter two barely qualify as NY-Chicago service. The Lake Shore Limited is bursting at the seams with passengers, and it isn't even as fast as it was in the 30s.

Of course, everything everyone else mentioned is underserved too. But you asked for "most" underserved.


----------



## Nathanael (Oct 25, 2012)

afigg said:


> If there is to be a discussion on the most untapped travel markets in the US for Amtrak, one place to start should be with the top city/metro region air travel corridors. Here is a Brookings Institute list from 2009 that I found linked to on wikipedia with the top 100 city/metro region pairs. It is not up to date - post-recession likely shuffled the order & numbers - and one should not get picky about the exact rankings. The busier corridors obviously also have a lot of connecting traffic, so it is not a clean city of origin to final destination list, but the list shows useful info to consider for a "untapped" market list for Amtrak.


Very useful list. Thanks. Allows me to correct my biases against Florida 



> The untapped markets really should be no more than 500-600 miles apart for a viable corridor service. That is not to say that LD trains can't be considered, but LD trains are more viable if they can operate over busy corridor segments for large portions of their route. The top city pairs are:
> 1. NYC/Newark to Miami/Fort Lauderdale: the Silvers
> 
> 2. LA/Long Beach to San Francisco/Oakland: There is a market for the Coast Daylight and the CA HSR.
> ...


Atlanta-Macon-Jacksonville-onward would do nicely. But Being In Georgia, it won't get state funded in the next 30 years.



> 4. Chicago to NYC/Newark: LSL; Bring back the Three Rivers?


Chicago-Ft. Wayne-Toledo HSR (yes, it's a proposal); Detroit-Niagara Falls sealed train through Canada; Broadway Limited revival; lots of good options.



> 5. Atlanta to NYC/Newark: One often maxed out Crescent.


Get a decent station at Atlanta and the Crescent can cut off cars there and match demand better. Then try for a second train. But again, it's Georgia.



> 6. LA to NYC/Newark: long trip on Amtrak.


Make NYC-Chicago service better, retain the Southwest Chief, and you'll get as much of the market as you're likely to.



> 7. NYC/Newark to Orlando: the Silvers
> 
> 8. NYC/Newark to London: ok, difficult to do by train.


Interestingly, this is the route of the last regularly scheduled ocean liner service in the world (on Cunard). I guess it's the most popular route which can't be done by train, among people who don't want to take planes.



> 9. LA/Long Beach to Las Vegas: X-Train and Xpress-West are looking to fill this gap.
> 
> 10. LA/Long Beach to Phoenix: An argument for a LA to Phoenix day train if UP were to cooperate and Arizona was interested.


Indeed. But... Arizona. UP. Ugh. I've wondered if one of the alternate railroad routes would be viable if Arizona was interested (specifically, the BNSF/ ARZC/ BNSF route).



> Below the top 10 is where one finds a number of city pairs where there should be passenger rail corridor service.


11. Chicago - LA

Long, but justifies my argument for supporting anyone who wants to take trains from NY-LA with a Chicago-LA service.

12. NY - SF

Again long, but handled by California Zephyr (and NY-Chicago again). I wonder if the Zephyr route could be improved in any way. The Wyoming route is actually faster.

13. Dallas-Houston

Badly needs corridor service.

14. Atlanta-Orlando

More justification for filling the Atlanta-Florida service gap.

15. Dallas-LA

Again long. Further, the Sunset Limited is indirect and isn't daily. Hmm.

16. Boston-NY

Well, I think Amtrak's doing almost as well as it can here. Maybe Inland Regionals can be made faster than the Coast Line.

17. Denver-LA

Here's an interesting one. Long, but I wonder if it could be coherently served.

18. LA-Seattle

Coast Starlight serves this long route.

19. Atlanta-DC

More evidence that the Crescent needs to be beefed up.

20. Los Vegas - San Francisco

Seriously? This has to be connecting traffic. XPressWest + CAHSR will serve this, though.

21. Chicago-Denver

Could use a train which stopped in the major cities in Iowa, which has been proposed.

22. Hilo, HI to Honolulu, HI

Seriously?!? Get a ship! The ridership is cratering, however.

23. San Diego to San Francisco

Coast Daylight should perhaps continue direct to San Diego. CAHSR will also succeed.

24. Chicago-DC

And this is the Capitol Limited route...

25. NY-DC

Again, Amtrak's doing nearly as well as they can here.

26. Atlanta-LA

Long. And Georgia. Forget it.

27. Honolulu-Kahululi, HI

Again, I am shocked this makes this list. However, the ridership appears to be cratering as with the other all-Hawaii route.

28. Charlotte - NY

More evidence that the Crescent should be improved.

29. SF - Seattle

Coast Starlight for this long route.

30. Atlanta-Chicago

Finally we get to this fairly common request. It would require a massive amount of track improvement crossing mountains, through three or possibly four states which have shown no support for passenger rail. While I see the value in a Chicago-Florida train, notice how many common city pairs come far ahead of this in terms of demand.... Seems like back-burner material.


----------



## TML (Oct 25, 2012)

With respect to Chicago, it seems that Amtrak has designed schedules such that western long-distance trains have guaranteed connections with eastern long-distance trains. For example, in the Cardinal's performance improvement plan a couple years ago, Amtrak noted that attempting to drastically improve the Cardinal's calling times in Cincinnati would result in connections with western long-distance trains being lost, and that such connecting passengers contribute a substantial amount of the Cardinal's ridership. As such, I wonder if Amtrak would be willing to accept a westbound long-distance train arriving in Chicago during the afternoon/evening hours, or an eastbound long-distance train leaving Chicago during the morning/early afternoon hours, since such a train would not be able to connect with some or all of the long-distance trains west of Chicago.

The last incarnation of the International had scheduling hours which made it impossible to connect with long-distance trains west of Chicago. If the next incarnation of a Chicago-Toronto train were an overnight train, it would definitely allow such connections, but that might run into the problem of crossing the border at a time when most passengers are sleeping.


----------



## jis (Oct 25, 2012)

TML said:


> With respect to Chicago, it seems that Amtrak has designed schedules such that western long-distance trains have guaranteed connections with eastern long-distance trains. For example, in the Cardinal's performance improvement plan a couple years ago, Amtrak noted that attempting to drastically improve the Cardinal's calling times in Cincinnati would result in connections with western long-distance trains being lost, and that such connecting passengers contribute a substantial amount of the Cardinal's ridership. As such, I wonder if Amtrak would be willing to accept a westbound long-distance train arriving in Chicago during the afternoon/evening hours, or an eastbound long-distance train leaving Chicago during the morning/early afternoon hours, since such a train would not be able to connect with some or all of the long-distance trains west of Chicago.
> 
> The last incarnation of the International had scheduling hours which made it impossible to connect with long-distance trains west of Chicago. If the next incarnation of a Chicago-Toronto train were an overnight train, it would definitely allow such connections, but that might run into the problem of crossing the border at a time when most passengers are sleeping.


Also it would have the same problem that many connecting LD trains have, which is they serve a significant part of the market that they travel through very poorly, and serve only end points and a select few en-route points well.

Frankly Amtrak needs to start believing in Chicago as a legitimate stand alone O/D market in addition to just being a transfer point, and start designing an LD and MD network around Chicago serving those specific markets in daytime, in addition to the overnight longer distance LDs. Amtrak does that out of New York quite a bit. Chicago would be the next logical place to do that from. Unfortunately Chicago's position as the premier transfer point in the network, and shortage of resources to run 2x service on some routes makes Chicago and its hinterland suffer.

Out of New York we have Palmetto, Carolinian, Maple Leaf, Adirondack as prime examples of trains that serve long corridors in daytime without concern for preserving connections at the end points, and they all seem to do quite well. But then I can hear a few s****, that "well Chicago ain't New York!" True. But it is plenty big to keep a few daytime trains busy.


----------



## Notelvis (Oct 25, 2012)

jis said:


> TML said:
> 
> 
> > With respect to Chicago, it seems that Amtrak has designed schedules such that western long-distance trains have guaranteed connections with eastern long-distance trains. For example, in the Cardinal's performance improvement plan a couple years ago, Amtrak noted that attempting to drastically improve the Cardinal's calling times in Cincinnati would result in connections with western long-distance trains being lost, and that such connecting passengers contribute a substantial amount of the Cardinal's ridership. As such, I wonder if Amtrak would be willing to accept a westbound long-distance train arriving in Chicago during the afternoon/evening hours, or an eastbound long-distance train leaving Chicago during the morning/early afternoon hours, since such a train would not be able to connect with some or all of the long-distance trains west of Chicago.
> ...



Yes - Chicago could support additional frequency day trains to St. Paul and Duluth, Toledo and Cleveland.... perhaps even Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and Cincinnati, probably as far south as Memphis, Kansas City for sure, likely even Omaha and Lincoln. No question about it.


----------



## Nathanael (Oct 25, 2012)

jis said:


> Frankly Amtrak needs to start believing in Chicago as a legitimate stand alone O/D market in addition to just being a transfer point, and start designing an LD and MD network around Chicago serving those specific markets in daytime, in addition to the overnight longer distance LDs.


Well, I think Amtrak does believe in Chicago as a legitimate O/D market. First, the "corridor" trains serve Milwaukee, will soon serve practically all of downstate Illinois, most of Michigan, and lots of Missouri, and they're definitely designed for Chicago O/D traffic, not for connections. Second, the LD schedule times are actually good for Chicago-Denver, Chicago-St Louis, Chicago-NY, Chicago-upstate NY, Chicago-DC, and Chicago-New Orleans traffic.

What the schedules are not good for is service from Indiana and Ohio to Chicago. However, PRIIA made it clear that Congress considers this to be the responsibility of Indiana and Ohio, and they've been unwilling to pay for it. A similar problem applies to Wisconsin service beyond Milwaukee, and to Iowa service beyond the Quad Cities. The schedules are mediocre for Twin Cities-Chicago service, but again this is currently Minnesota's responsbility, and perhaps Minnesota will do something about it. mMinnesota is also pursuing Duluth

The schedules are also not good for service from Pennsylvania to Chicago, which should be reinstated; this actually does seem to be on Amtrak's mind.



> Out of New York we have Palmetto, Carolinian, Maple Leaf, Adirondack as prime examples of trains that serve long corridors in daytime without concern for preserving connections at the end points, and they all seem to do quite well.


Carolinian is state funded, Adirondack is state funded, Maple Leaf will soon have to be state-funded. Same with the Vermonter.

I only see one opportunity for designing a suitable route out of Chicago which is just over the PRIIA length limit (as the Palmetto is), and that is Denver to Chicago. The problem is that such a route would still cost a lot of money to operate (the Palmetto still isn't profitable, remember) and Congress *still* has Amtrak on a starvation budget, and there's very little which could be cut to provide the operating funding. If the Quad Cities - Omaha route in Iowa is rebuilt for passenger service (which the Iowa legislature seems to be unwilling to fund right now) then the numbers for a renewed Denver Zephyr might pencil out better.

Now, if you want to advocate for Congress to go back to national funding of corridor routes -- I'm there with you. But this doesn't seem to be in the cards in the near future.


----------



## jis (Oct 25, 2012)

Point taken, but when I talked about day trains I was thinking of day trains like the Carolinian or the Palmetto, where you cannot do a round trip in a day. I was not considering the details of the source of funding, and hence was loosely using the phrase "Amtrak service". Chicago appears to not have those longish day trains which cannot complete a round trip in a day, whether starting from out station towards Chicago in the morning or vice versa.


----------



## afigg (Oct 25, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly Amtrak needs to start believing in Chicago as a legitimate stand alone O/D market in addition to just being a transfer point, and start designing an LD and MD network around Chicago serving those specific markets in daytime, in addition to the overnight longer distance LDs.
> ...


Yes, the medium distance corridor services from CHI would require state subsidy support, but that does not mean that they should not be pursued or have basic route studies done, so the option for corridor service is on the table to be brought forward when the political situation in the state changes to a more favorable environment. jis's point is valid, there are a number of potential Chicago hub corridor services that could be implemented over existing LD train routes that should have modest or manageable start-up costs.

1. CHI to the Twin Cities. Probably the best prospect in the nearer term for a new Midwest day time corridor train. Minnesota is interested and is the subject of a current study.

2. CHI to Cleveland. Yes, Gov. Kasich would never go for this, but his successor might. Perhaps a daytime corridor train should been have pushed when Strickland was Governor. In the meantime, the IL and IN segment of the corridor will get improvements from the Englewood Flyover and IN Gateway projects in the next 2+ years. After the corridor bi-level cars free up many of the Horizon cars, could propose to use the Horizon cars for a demonstration 2 year CHI to Cleveland corridor service.

3. CHI to Memphis. See if TN is interested in teaming with IL to support an extension of a Saluki/Illini service to Memphis. Use the remaining HSIPR bi-level order funds to buy enough cars to support an additional trainset for a Memphis service.

4. CHI to Kansas City over the SW Chief route. Both IL and MO are supporters of passenger rail and the route has excellent trip times for an LD train. While the SWC provides day time hours, might be enough demand to support a second day train that would be more reliable than the SWC.

5. CHI to IND to CIN: lowest ranking of this set because of the slow speeds over the route. Should have a daytime corridor service, but the route will need considerable investment to get to competitive speeds. Best approach is to keep the Cardinal running, expand it to 7 days a week if possible, get some improvements from the CREATE projects for faster times in and out of CHI, and wait for Indianopolis & Cinncinati businessmen & citizens to see the growth in ridership and market share for the other corridors in the Midwest & start asking hey, why not us?

6. CHI to Des Moines: Not a current route, but if the extension to Iowa City can get built and start service, IMO, then extending to Des Moines will surely follow. Iowa has not said no to the Iowa City extension, the Governor and Republican controlled Iowa House of Representatives have stalled the project. Political balance of power may get shifted to some extent in the Iowa state legislatures this November.

7. CHI to MI to Toronto: Michigan's Governor and state officials are interested in this. Won't happen soon, but if the CHI-DET corridor ridership takes off and VIA is in a position to support it, might see this happen in a few years.


----------



## Michael061282 (Oct 25, 2012)

off the top of my head without doing any research.

#1- The Texas Triangle DFW/Hou/SA

#2- Nashville - Atlanta

#3 Nashville - Birmingham

#4 A Spokane Cascade either on the GN line the Builder uses or on the old NP Line (this would be my choice because it'd serve markets with no current service, although I doubt if it is even feasible any more)

of course I'm coming into a 20 minute conversation in the 16th minute so its probably all been discussed and dismissed


----------



## George Harris (Oct 25, 2012)

Michael061282 said:


> off the top of my head without doing any research.
> 
> #2- Nashville - Atlanta


No chance. Best rail time ever about 6 hours. Probable best time now more like 8 hours. Drive time just over 4 without breaking any speed limits.



> #3 Nashville - Birmingham


Somewhat more likely, but don't see a huge demand there. Best rail time just under 4 hours, probable best time now about 4.5 to 5 hours. Drive time around 3 hours.


----------



## Michael061282 (Oct 25, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Michael061282 said:
> 
> 
> > off the top of my head without doing any research.
> ...


Oh! I didn't know it had to be realistic <j/k> If If If If If they could find a way to cut the time down, I really think ATL - Nas could be a decent market. Just grab some DMUs and have at it <I know.. I dream>


----------



## MattW (Oct 26, 2012)

A hypothetical HSR running 220mph Atlanta-Chattanooga-Monteagle-Manchester-Murfreesboro-Nashville would take 1:38. Upgrading all the track to 79mph would cost into the billions for a 5:30 trip uncompetitive with driving more than likely on just Atlanta-Nashville. By the time you spend that much, you might as well just cut a new HSR segment Atlanta-Nashville-St. Louis-Chicago (and points in between) and run trains at 220mph on it for a 5 hour end to end run time, competitive with airlines when the convenience factors are factored in, competitive time-wise with airlines over certain segments, and beats driving on any segment.


----------



## Ben (Oct 26, 2012)

Narrowing down the largest markets that do not have ANY passenger rail service:

1. Los Angeles-Las Vegas

2. Houston-Dallas

3. Chicago-Atlanta-Miami

My sentiment is that lets get all the largest markets around the country served by at least some service first, then add frequencies and speed to existing services. I read that the Heartland Flyer was started as a trial service through a grant by the federal government. Could the FRA provide grants to initiate new routes?


----------



## jis (Oct 26, 2012)

Ben said:


> Narrowing down the largest markets that do not have ANY passenger rail service:
> 
> 1. Los Angeles-Las Vegas
> 
> ...


It could, if Congress gives it the money. FRA by itself has no money to distribute.

Incidentally I understand that any practical usable service from Chicago to Atlanta will probably take more money than can be found for that purpose.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 27, 2012)

Ben said:


> Narrowing down the largest markets that do not have ANY passenger rail service:
> 
> 1. Los Angeles-Las Vegas
> 
> ...


Agee with you, but would like to add DAL-DEN and possibly more north-south routes.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 27, 2012)

jis said:


> Ben said:
> 
> 
> > Narrowing down the largest markets that do not have ANY passenger rail service:
> ...


I agree. ATL-MIA could believably work (and I think you might even be able to make through cars to either the Crescent or to a daylight ATL-WAS-NYP train work under the right scheduling environment), but north of Atlanta things more or less head off to visit Helena Handbasket. For the record, this would strike me as a way to get the CLT-Florida service mooted in the PIP last year running without actually screwing with the Star's schedule.


----------



## PaulM (Oct 29, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> 6. DEN-DAL, Amtrak also needs this connection and it serves new markets.


Since it would effecively restore the Chief Connection, it would also serve DEN, ABQ, LAX


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 29, 2012)

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Ben said:
> ...





Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Ben said:
> ...


Actually, things might work n0orth of ATL if you go to BHM then to MEM and maybe even KCY. Just like the old KC-FS.



PaulM said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > 6. DEN-DAL, Amtrak also needs this connection and it serves new markets.
> ...


This does not make sense at all.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Oct 30, 2012)

MattW said:


> A hypothetical HSR running 220mph Atlanta-Chattanooga-Monteagle-Manchester-Murfreesboro-Nashville would take 1:38. Upgrading all the track to 79mph would cost into the billions for a 5:30 trip uncompetitive with driving more than likely on just Atlanta-Nashville. By the time you spend that much, you might as well just cut a new HSR segment Atlanta-Nashville-St. Louis-Chicago (and points in between) and run trains at 220mph on it for a 5 hour end to end run time, competitive with airlines when the convenience factors are factored in, competitive time-wise with airlines over certain segments, and beats driving on any segment.


You do know that Monteagle sort of has a mountain of its own. It is very beautiful but would be quite a task building a railroad up it And you would not want to leave out Tullahoma. That was the only stop the streamliners back then made between Chattanooga and Nashville. It is significant beyond its population since it has some federal military business which name I cannot remember....and of course my father was born there!!!


----------



## George Harris (Oct 30, 2012)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > A hypothetical HSR running 220mph Atlanta-Chattanooga-Monteagle-Manchester-Murfreesboro-Nashville would take 1:38. Upgrading all the track to 79mph would cost into the billions for a 5:30 trip uncompetitive with driving more than likely on just Atlanta-Nashville. By the time you spend that much, you might as well just cut a new HSR segment Atlanta-Nashville-St. Louis-Chicago (and points in between) and run trains at 220mph on it for a 5 hour end to end run time, competitive with airlines when the convenience factors are factored in, competitive time-wise with airlines over certain segments, and beats driving on any segment.
> ...


Turn slightly south of east out of Tullahoma, approximatelly 4 mile tunnel under Monteagle Mountain, follow valley with Battle Creek down to Tennessee River, stay at river level, cutting off the large bends with tunnels, etc., reduces the Nashville to Chattanooga distance to about 130 miles, from 151 miles. There are potential cutoffs between Chatanooga and Atlanta, but it is more complex. Given the current amount of NIMBYism and Don't build anything anywhere ism, plus the money required will probably never happen.


----------



## Ben (Oct 30, 2012)

Here is a website that has airline traffic data for all metro pairs in the US- http://www.dot.gov/p...onsumer-report. To me, LA-Vegas and Houston-Dallas clearly stick out given their large volumes and short distances. Chi-Florida also sticks out because it has several large, overlapping markets along the way (Chi-Atl, Atl-FL, Chi-FL, etc.).


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 30, 2012)

Ben said:


> Here is a website that has airline traffic data for all metro pairs in the US- http://www.dot.gov/p...onsumer-report. To me, LA-Vegas and Houston-Dallas clearly stick out given their large volumes and short distances. Chi-Florida also sticks out because it has several large, overlapping markets along the way (Chi-Atl, Atl-FL, Chi-FL, etc.).


US DOT has been moving stuff around on their website. I think this is the page you were trying to link:

Consumer Air Fare Report

Table 6 provides the O&D passenger counts.


----------



## Ben (Oct 30, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Ben said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a website that has airline traffic data for all metro pairs in the US- http://www.dot.gov/p...onsumer-report. To me, LA-Vegas and Houston-Dallas clearly stick out given their large volumes and short distances. Chi-Florida also sticks out because it has several large, overlapping markets along the way (Chi-Atl, Atl-FL, Chi-FL, etc.).
> ...


Yes thank you, that's the site. Clicking on the quarter and scrolling down also gives you the O&D passenger counts by increasing distance.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 31, 2012)

Lots of wasted energy here, I must say. Reality: in the current political and economic climate, the odds of adding a passenger train that runs longer than 400 miles is virtually zero. Even the odds of adding a passenger train that runs longer than 250 miles is slim. Corridors, folks. That's the answer, railfan interest notwithstanding. You don't need sleepers, don't need dining cars, and one or two states can fund the operation (including acquiring the equipment and making necessary track improvements).


----------



## jphjaxfl (Oct 31, 2012)

I agree with xyzzy.regarding corridors. If the existing rail lines can't support speeds to compete with driving, a passenger train is not going to work unless you have states like California, Illinois, North Carolina and a few others that support passenger trains and will allocate funds for railway upgrades or build new rail lines. Keep in mind most of the rail lines were built in the 19th century with few upgrades and in many cases downgrades when one of the double tracks was removed. A 19th century transportation system is not going to compete in the 21st century. I understand there were those who wanted to keep stage coaches when passenger trains became the preferred way to travel.


----------



## Nathanael (Oct 31, 2012)

I still say more and faster Chicago-intermediate points-NYC service should be a priority. The end-to-end traffic is in some sense a bonus in this case; it's also a whole bunch of corridors. Chicago-NYC, on any of the reasonable routes (not the Cardinal!) has many large intermediate cities.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 31, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> I still say more and faster Chicago-intermediate points-NYC service should be a priority. The end-to-end traffic is in some sense a bonus in this case; it's also a whole bunch of corridors. Chicago-NYC, on any of the reasonable routes (not the Cardinal!) has many large intermediate cities.


I would agree with this. Whether along the current _Lake Shore Limited_ route or the _Capitol Limited-Pennsylvanian_ route, reasonable corridors line up and overlap with each other.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 31, 2012)

Eric S said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > I still say more and faster Chicago-intermediate points-NYC service should be a priority. The end-to-end traffic is in some sense a bonus in this case; it's also a whole bunch of corridors. Chicago-NYC, on any of the reasonable routes (not the Cardinal!) has many large intermediate cities.
> ...


I also agree with this. Especially considering the multitude of toll roads along either route.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 1, 2012)

Eric S said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > I still say more and faster Chicago-intermediate points-NYC service should be a priority. The end-to-end traffic is in some sense a bonus in this case; it's also a whole bunch of corridors. Chicago-NYC, on any of the reasonable routes (not the Cardinal!) has many large intermediate cities.
> ...


I agree, too, but I think there are problems with the infrastructure comparing the trans-Appalachian rail corridors with the competing highways.

For example, Washington-Pittsburgh is 245 miles if you drive via I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but the B&O rail route via Cumberland is 299 miles. That explains right off why one can make the drive in 5 hours, while the fastest train service I heard of on the route was 6 hours by the B&O in the 1050s-1960s. The current Capitol Limited takes about 8 hours, but given the wicked curves along the route and the stiff grades going over the Allegheny Front, the train must run a good part of the way under 50 mph. Buses and gars can whiz up some pretty stiff grades at 65-70 mph with little trouble (i.e. Town Hill on I 70 or the approach to the Allegeheny Tunnel and crossing of Laurel Hill on the Trnpike.). I'm not sure what's the stiffest grade a passenger train can run at 70+ mph. I got to experience this first hand when I was bustituted last year from Pittsburgh to DC. The bus left Pittsburgh at 8 AM, about 4 hours after the terminated train was supposed to leave, but we got into Washington more or less on time, and that included a pit stop in Breezewood to buy something to eat. ( I was a bit embarassed to inquire at Customer Service about a refund given that we arrived on schedule, but I was traveling sleeper and thought I deserved some consideration for being rousted out of bed and denied breakfast, and they did refund what they considred the pro-rated values of a Pittsburgh-DC sleeper accommodation.

This is true for the other routes, too. I imagine. Driving New York to Cleveland is 459 miles via I-80. The alternatove Water-Level Route (Lake Shore Limited) is 618 miles. Harrisburg-Pittsburgh (Keystone West) is 203 miles on the Turnpike, 249 miles on the train route, which includes the stiff grade over the Horseshow curve. (The turnpike has a stiff grade right before the Allegheny tunnel, but, as I mentioned, cars and buses can whiz up it at 70 mph.) To get corridor service over the Applachians that's competitive with driving or buses, I think some real expensive rail route realighnments and vast public works will be needed. I also don't think there's much political will for funding such ublic works.

.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Nov 1, 2012)

Atlanta-Charlotte regional service wouldnt be a bad idea.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 1, 2012)

MARC Rider said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


While what you say is true, you are looking at the worst places on the route. If you look at NYP-BUF or CLE-CHI, trains are fast and don't suffer from detours. So, for LD travel, NYP-CHI could definately use another train at a 17-18-hour schedule. Then a CLe-CHI day train could provide support. I don't see the big problem here.

The problem is with the SD trips and the heavily graded routes. Here, Greyhound's new or refurbished buses make the trip much more quickly, cheaply, and frequently. Their comfort and stations are getting improved, too. Here Amtrak probably won't get much business unless people just want to ride a relaxing train.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 1, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Eric S said:
> ...


Oh, sure, Cleveland-Chicago is definitely a possibility. Also Toledo-Pittsburgh. I was referring to the city pairs that involve crossing the mountains -- New York -PIttsburgh or Cleveland, Philadelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh, Washington-Pittsburgh, etc. Going from New York to Cleveland by the Water Level Route doesn't involve crossing the Mountains, but it is a 150 mile detour compared to driving across I-80. In fact, I'm curious about how frieght is competitive with trucks on these routes, considering that the rail routes are a lot longer than the highway routes. (I'm thinking of stuff like all those double stack containers and car carriers, not the bulk coal trains.)

For some corridors, like the Keystone West, there is no bus service. (I know this, my daughter attend Juniata College in Huntingdon, and the Pennsylvania is the only public transport available.) Also, the bus, no matter how comfortable, is always an inferior choice to a train when the trip times start exceeding 4 hours or so. The bus has to make pit stops for people to eat and such, whih slows down the trip times. A train carries its eating facilities along with it and (theoretically at least) doesn't have to make as many long stops.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 1, 2012)

MARC Rider said:


> Oh, sure, Cleveland-Chicago is definitely a possibility. Also Toledo-Pittsburgh. I was referring to the city pairs that involve crossing the mountains -- New York -PIttsburgh or Cleveland, Philadelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh, Washington-Pittsburgh, etc. Going from New York to Cleveland by the Water Level Route doesn't involve crossing the Mountains, but it is a 150 mile detour compared to driving across I-80. In fact, I'm curious about how frieght is competitive with trucks on these routes, considering that the rail routes are a lot longer than the highway routes. (I'm thinking of stuff like all those double stack containers and car carriers, not the bulk coal trains.)


I believe there's really two things going on on the Water Level Route. First, there's traffic from Chicago (or Cleveland or points in between) to upstate NY and New England. That's the "west of Albany" Water Level Route. Train is totally competitive with truck.

Second, there's the NYC-upstate NY route. Again, train is totally competitive with truck.

For freight actually headed to NYC from the Midwest, the Water Level Route is not particularly popular. See what I mean when I say this is really a bunch of corridors which overlap?

Another important point: long-haul trucking is very expensive to operate thanks to gas prices -- and on these routes it's gas prices *plus* truck tolls -- and so train service is often worth it even if it's a bit slower. This is what keeps container trains on the Philadelphia-Pittsburgh line, even running from the Chicago area to the NYC area.

Now, back to passengers. Again, this is overlapping corridors. I've already explained the Lake Shore Limited.

On the Broadway Limited route, Philadelphia-Pittsburgh seems to be viable for train service despite the slow route through the mountains -- isn't that interesting? Perhaps this is because of the lack of bus service which you mention, and the decline in air service. Pittsburgh-intermediate points-Chicago is certainly viable. The decline in the alternative services is a key point here: the bus service from points in between NY and Chicago to either end is getting terrible, while the air service has dropped a lot from its former levels.

Now, there is a lot of endpoint-to-middle traffic to capture on these routes. NYC is the biggest metro area in the world and Chicago is the second-biggest -- so they attract travellers from further away than comfortable driving distances. But they're still within plausible train distance of all the points along the route (single-overnight at worst). When air service declines in frequency and quality, the result is burgeoning demand for train service. Syracuse-Chicago is one of the most popular city pairs on the Lake Shore Limited. Detroit-NYC is the most-requested city pair which Amtrak doesn't serve, as of a few years ago.

The third NYC-Chicago route which should be operated is the route through Canada, and this is partly because NYC-Detroit is a high-demand route, and partly because Detroit-Upstate NY is also in demand -- and this route is about as fast as any other way of getting from NYC to Detroit. Unfortunately there are problems with this (restrictive border policies, deterioration of track in Canada). Suitable funding (which I wouldn't expect from the feds, Michigan, or anywhere in Canada, so it seems unlikely -- perhaps from NY eventually) could buy the Canada Southern tracks and restore the Michigan Central's route.

The Cardinal travels roughly the fourth route which should be operated, though it goes far too slowly and unreliably. I would not expect a lot of through traffic across the mountains, but then, there's traffic from West Virginia into Virginia and DC, and traffic from West Virginia towards Cincinnati, and then there's the corridor from Cincinnati to Indianapolis to Chicago. That would probably exhaust the corridors which can be assembled into NYC-Chicago patterns, although ideally there might be more extensive connections across Ohio and Indiana.

Of course I agree that these routes would be better with some new construction. This can be done incrementally. On the Pennsylvanian, it ought to be redirected from Harrisburg to State College before heading back towards Altoona; this is surprisingly straightfoward and wouldn't lengthen the route, but it would add a whole lot of passengers. Piecemeal tunnels and bypasses could then be used speed up the route from Altoona to Pittsburgh.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Nov 2, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> NYC is the biggest metro area in the world and Chicago is the second-biggest


Sure on this?

When going by metro areas, NY is fourth in the world, and Chicago doesn't even make the top 20 (where the list ends)

When going by city proper, NY is 19th in the world, and Chicago isn't even in the top 65 (where the list ends)

For the record, Los Angeles as a city and a metro is larger than Chicago by all counts.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 2, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, sure, Cleveland-Chicago is definitely a possibility. Also Toledo-Pittsburgh. I was referring to the city pairs that involve crossing the mountains -- New York -PIttsburgh or Cleveland, Philadelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh, Washington-Pittsburgh, etc. Going from New York to Cleveland by the Water Level Route doesn't involve crossing the Mountains, but it is a 150 mile detour compared to driving across I-80. In fact, I'm curious about how frieght is competitive with trucks on these routes, considering that the rail routes are a lot longer than the highway routes. (I'm thinking of stuff like all those double stack containers and car carriers, not the bulk coal trains.)
> ...


I won't talk about the freight part since I have little knowledge about that, but here are some points:

1. NYP-PHL-PGH has fast express buses than bypass HUN. There is also service that makes almost all the Pennsylvanian stops but just misses HUN, but it's slow. Like Tyrone, Altoona, Johntown, Latrobe, Greenburg, and others. So I think that cheap and/or fast bus service is still a threat, while an additional train would still have its place.

2. For through traffic NYP-CHI, there are two expresses buses a day that take the Shortcut across Pennsylvania. I wouldn't call that "horrible service". However, the ride is long and a train is definately more comfortable.

So basically, I support a new train NYP-PGH-CHI. I think it will get lots of pax, while buses will, too. Bus and trains are a great combo, they can co-exist and support each other.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 2, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > NYC is the biggest metro area in the world and Chicago is the second-biggest
> ...


Thinko. My apologies for saying something COMPLETELY FALSE! That should be

"NYC is the biggest metro area in the UNITED STATES and Chicago is the THIRD-biggest"

The rest of my argument continues to apply, anyway.


----------



## June the Coach Rider (Nov 3, 2012)

I wish they would go back to having the Northeast Direct line, in the late 90s, you were able to get on the train on WOR and get to WAS directly. That would be the way to include central Mass into the NYP and WAS mix.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 3, 2012)

June said:


> I wish they would go back to having the Northeast Direct line, in the late 90s, you were able to get on the train on WOR and get to WAS directly. That would be the way to include central Mass into the NYP and WAS mix.


The Northeast Direct is now the Northeast Regional, but the Inland Route was cut. I personally think a train on this route would be fine, but not as important as some other places.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 3, 2012)

Restoring Inland Route _Northeast Regional_ service is in both Amtrak's and MA's plans, but I don't believe there is any sort of timeframe for this, other than sometime after the SPG-NHV line upgrades are finished.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 3, 2012)

If the Connecticut Turnpike and/or the Keystone Shortcut gets tolled, we could see more support for new trains.


----------



## MH765 (Nov 26, 2012)

While not necessarily "untapped", I do think the Pennsylvanian needs more frequencies. Perhaps an afternoon departure out of Pittsburgh and terminating in Philadelphia, and vice versa. That would cover the heavy in-state passenger traffic. In the long term, I'd like to see the Pennsy cut back to PHI-PGH, with a Broadway Limited route picking up the NYC-PHI section. Would be nice to get a 1 seat ride from New York to Chicago via Philly and Pittsburgh.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 26, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > NYC is the biggest metro area in the world and Chicago is the second-biggest
> ...


Without even looking at the list Johnny refers to, I know that Mexico City, Tokyo, and Beijing metropolitian areas are all well ahead of NYC in population, Sorry, NYC folks.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 29, 2012)

Looking over the "top five stations per state" release, Williston has vaulted to the top of the list for ND, and is now the busiest station between MSP and Whitefish, MT. Moreover, given that ridership (per my understanding, at least) is still rising pretty steadily, it seems quite possible that it could become the third-busiest station in "flyover country" (let's be honest, it isn't passing Denver, and ABQ might be a stretch, but getting the 15,000 or so it would need to get past everyone else is at least plausible). With this in mind, I'm wondering if Amtrak might not need to consider adding a coach here (even on some funky schedule to accommodate predictable demand pulses), since Williston is changing out an average of at _least_ a coach per day at this point.

Likewise, if the business is heavily directional (i.e. eastbound or westbound), not addressing this could screw up the ability of folks to book through tickets.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 29, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Looking over the "top five stations per state" release, Williston has vaulted to the top of the list for ND, and is now the busiest station between MSP and Whitefish, MT. Moreover, given that ridership (per my understanding, at least) is still rising pretty steadily, it seems quite possible that it could become the third-busiest station in "flyover country" (let's be honest, it isn't passing Denver, and ABQ might be a stretch, but getting the 15,000 or so it would need to get past everyone else is at least plausible). With this in mind, I'm wondering if Amtrak might not need to consider adding a coach here (even on some funky schedule to accommodate predictable demand pulses), since Williston is changing out an average of at _least_ a coach per day at this point.
> 
> Likewise, if the business is heavily directional (i.e. eastbound or westbound), not addressing this could screw up the ability of folks to book through tickets.


Williston traffic is not directional or seasonal. It is driven by the Bakken oil boom, and passengers are coming and going all the time to and from both directions. ISN airport has seen a similar jump in traffic.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 29, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Looking over the "top five stations per state" release, Williston has vaulted to the top of the list for ND, and is now the busiest station between MSP and Whitefish, MT. Moreover, given that ridership (per my understanding, at least) is still rising pretty steadily, it seems quite possible that it could become the third-busiest station in "flyover country" (let's be honest, it isn't passing Denver, and ABQ might be a stretch, but getting the 15,000 or so it would need to get past everyone else is at least plausible). With this in mind, I'm wondering if Amtrak might not need to consider adding a coach here (even on some funky schedule to accommodate predictable demand pulses), since Williston is changing out an average of at _least_ a coach per day at this point.
> ...


Oh, I know it's driven by the boom. What I wasn't sure of was whether it was, say, overwhelmingly to/from CHI or MSP (or Fargo, for that matter). I know the airport traffic is mostly to/from Denver (where there isn't a train option, to be fair), but I don't know much other than that.


----------



## Bus Nut (Mar 31, 2013)

What about a Chicago-Florida Auto Train? What if it went to Bradenton-Sarasota where so many Midwestern retirees have settled? The only bad part is it's definitely more than a day given the condition of the tracks south of Missouri. But with good onboard service and autoracks, and initial departure times that are reasonable, that shouldn't matter too much. It wouldn't be as profitable as the NEC one, but that is a long-established service with years of capital investment and a steady customer base.

Obviously you wouldn't leave from Chicago Union Station. Maybe Bloomington, IL? You want to be out of the thickest freight congestion as all the lines converge in Chicago, yet not too far from the big population centers. Luckily Midwesterners are accustomed to long car rides.

In time it might pave the way for a revived Floridian (with normal operation, station stops) of some sort, strengthening both trains and building the market much as the Auto Train and Silvers support each other.


----------



## Bus Nut (Mar 31, 2013)

This is an excellent post.



afigg said:


> If there is to be a discussion on the most untapped travel markets in the US for Amtrak, one place to start should be with the top city/metro region air travel corridors. Here is a Brookings Institute list from 2009 that I found linked to on wikipedia with the top 100 city/metro region pairs. It is not up to date - post-recession likely shuffled the order & numbers - and one should not get picky about the exact rankings. The busier corridors obviously also have a lot of connecting traffic, so it is not a clean city of origin to final destination list, but the list shows useful info to consider for a "untapped" market list for Amtrak.
> 
> The untapped markets really should be no more than 500-600 miles apart for a viable corridor service.


Agreed.



afigg said:


> 1. NYC/Newark to Miami/Fort Lauderdale: the Silvers


What's needed is some serious investment by Florida. It's clear that the public in Florida has wanted this for a very long time (if only to save themselves driving time and hassle) but the "owners" of the state are dead set against it. Incremental improvement has come from the railroads themselves. I think the inauguration of Florida's second commuter rail line (in Orlando) should also push the conversation.

Florida has a lot to gain here but keeps shooting itself in the foot.



afigg said:


> 2. LA/Long Beach to San Francisco/Oakland: There is a market for the Coast Daylight and the CA HSR.


Agreed. Will be very interested to see how Coast Daylight changes the picture. AIUT, the CD is happening.



afigg said:


> 3. Atlanta to Miami/Ft Lauderdale: big gap in the Amtrak system.


It looks like Amtrak is going forward with a new station in Atlanta which is sorely needed. Atlanta to even just Jacksonville would be a revelation in regional mobility. That could pretty much happen without GA support on the state level. Crossing fingers.



afigg said:


> 4. Chicago to NYC/Newark: LSL; Bring back the Three Rivers?


It's longer than optimal but LSL shows us that there certainly is a market. Much will depend on Amtrak getting the capital funding it needs to actually expand the fleet instead of running in place.



afigg said:


> 5. Atlanta to NYC/Newark: One often maxed out Crescent.


Atlanta station relocation will enable them to add cutoff cars. Hopefully VA and NC developments will ease pressure on this route so it can carry more Atlanta traffic, as is already happening with Lynchburg and Piedmont service.



afigg said:


> 9. LA/Long Beach to Las Vegas: X-Train and Xpress-West are looking to fill this gap.


Would be nice to see the Xpress-West get the loan package and go forward. I think you've just made the best business case possible for this--top 10 market with zero service, distance factor is just about right.



afigg said:


> 10. LA/Long Beach to Phoenix: An argument for a LA to Phoenix day train if UP were to cooperate and Arizona was interested.


UP may shake out in a few years; AZ is in the throes of an epic political struggle so wait ten years on that one.

This is a truly fascinating exercise. It also looks like Amtrak is concentrating effort where they ought to be based on the shape of the market. (Guess what wasn't on that list: not a single Gulf Coast city. Sorry guys.) A lot of small markets not on the list that have good service are, indeed, state-supported, which does seem fair when you look at it that way.

I think we as a country are starting to completely rethink the role of the national rail network and that's a good thing. Amtrak isn't going to replace coast to coast flights any time soon but certainly has a role to play in interstate travel that is much more expansive than previously envisioned.


----------



## Bus Nut (Apr 1, 2013)

Couple of comments:



Nathanael said:


> 3. Atlanta to Miami/Ft Lauderdale: big gap in the Amtrak system.
> 
> Atlanta-Macon-Jacksonville-onward would do nicely. But Being In Georgia, it won't get state funded in the next 30 years.





Nathanael said:


> Apparently there is no quote escaping on this board. Okay. But I think GA can be engineered around. For example splitting the NYC-ATL Crescent at ATL, sending some cars to NOL as they do now, and some to JAX? This is contingent on Florida getting its act together. This will happen, albeit much slower than it ought to have happened.
> 
> 
> > 8. NYC/Newark to London: ok, difficult to do by train.
> ...





Nathanael said:


> So I was curious about this, turns out they only sail infrequently. 7 days on a boat in open ocean apparently is a bit much for most people.





Nathanael said:


> 13. Dallas-Houston
> Badly needs corridor service.





Nathanael said:


> Yes.





Nathanael said:


> *14. Atlanta-Orlando*
> More justification for filling the Atlanta-Florida service gap.





Nathanael said:


> Here's the thing. Atlanta is a hub, so much of that is people continuing to other flights at Hartfield Airport. It's really a Chicago-Atlanta-Florida gap. You can travel down the East Coast, but you can't get from the Heartland to Disney World. (Not that WDW is the only reason people take this trip, but I have noticed the mouse ears on the plane, okay?) I think that's why Amtrak is so focused on fixing the Atl





Nathanael said:


> 17. Denver-LA
> Here's an interesting one. Long, but I wonder if it could be coherently served.





Nathanael said:


> Denver, CO needs better service period.





Nathanael said:


> 25. NY-DC
> Again, Amtrak's doing nearly as well as they can here.





Nathanael said:


> It should hardly be on the airplane city pair list at all. If Amtrak can get the funding to fix the Baltimore tunnel bottleneck and upgrade to constant tension catenary we could see higher speeds on this corridor.





Nathanael said:


> 26. Atlanta-LA
> Long. And Georgia. Forget it.





Nathanael said:


> Crescent to New Orleans, Sunset Limited to LA.





Nathanael said:


> 28. Charlotte - NY
> More evidence that the Crescent should be improved.





Nathanael said:


> Looks like corridor service to me. Not the Crescent, more like Piedmont.





Nathanael said:


> 30. Atlanta-Chicago
> Finally we get to this fairly common request. It would require a massive amount of track improvement crossing mountains, through three or possibly four states which have shown no support for passenger rail. While I see the value in a Chicago-Florida train, notice how many common city pairs come far ahead of this in terms of demand.... Seems like back-burner material.


That's because Atlanta isn't as hot a commodity as it imagines itself to be, and the two Chicago airports aren't major hubs (ie, you don't get bounced through there as often as other airports in the region since it's a huge origin and there are capacity constraints). But go all the way to Florida and suddenly you're looking at a very important market.

It may be that as the HSR map gets built out that it won't be a matter of drawing a straight line on a map because the fastest route won't be the shortest one. IMO. I mean, there are mountains in the way, and they aren't populated by wealthy Schweizers. (Yes, I've watched Modern Marvels, why do you ask?)


----------



## Bus Nut (Apr 1, 2013)

George Harris said:


> 'Michael061282' said:
> 
> 
> > off the top of my head without doing any research.
> ...


Wow, do you own a Maserati and have a special pass from the state police? I wish Nashville-Atlanta was 4 hours. Would have really saved my sanity during a recent family vacation. Wow, wow, wow.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 1, 2013)

Bus Nut said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > 'Michael061282' said:
> ...


According to Google, Nashvillle to Atanta is 250 miles, 3hr, 45 minutes. No Maserati required. Of course, you also said that the two Chicago airports are not major hubs, so...


----------



## jis (Apr 1, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> Bus Nut said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


Yeah, that bit about two Chicago airports not being major hubs threw me a bit. If O'Hare is not a hub, I wonder what is. It is a major hub for two of the largest airlines in the US.
As for Chicago - Florida, the only way that will happen today is via Washington DC. There is next to zero probability of Atlanta getting into the picture there.


----------



## June the Coach Rider (Apr 1, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> Bus Nut said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


Mapquest says it takes 4 hours from Nashville to Atlanta.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 1, 2013)

Its nice to dream of new routes (and many of us would like to see them) but if Amtrak is not in a position to restart service on an existing route where the trackage already exists; you won't see new routes anytime soon. Amtrak is even struggling to get the planned Roanoke service off the ground.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Apr 1, 2013)

Bus Nut said:


> Couple of comments:
> 
> 
> Nathanael said:
> ...





Nathanael said:


> Apparently there is no quote escaping on this board. Okay. But I think GA can be engineered around. For example splitting the NYC-ATL Crescent at ATL, sending some cars to NOL as they do now, and some to JAX? This is contingent on Florida getting its act together. This will happen, albeit much slower than it ought to have happened.
> 
> 
> > 8. NYC/Newark to London: ok, difficult to do by train.
> ...





Nathanael said:


> So I was curious about this, turns out they only sail infrequently. 7 days on a boat in open ocean apparently is a bit much for most people.





Nathanael said:


> 13. Dallas-HoustonBadly needs corridor service.





Nathanael said:


> Yes.





Nathanael said:


> *14. Atlanta-Orlando*More justification for filling the Atlanta-Florida service gap.





Nathanael said:


> Here's the thing. Atlanta is a hub, so much of that is people continuing to other flights at Hartfield Airport. It's really a Chicago-Atlanta-Florida gap. You can travel down the East Coast, but you can't get from the Heartland to Disney World. (Not that WDW is the only reason people take this trip, but I have noticed the mouse ears on the plane, okay?) I think that's why Amtrak is so focused on fixing the Atl





Nathanael said:


> 17. Denver-LAHere's an interesting one. Long, but I wonder if it could be coherently served.





Nathanael said:


> Denver, CO needs better service period.





Nathanael said:


> 25. NY-DCAgain, Amtrak's doing nearly as well as they can here.





Nathanael said:


> It should hardly be on the airplane city pair list at all. If Amtrak can get the funding to fix the Baltimore tunnel bottleneck and upgrade to constant tension catenary we could see higher speeds on this corridor.





Nathanael said:


> 26. Atlanta-LALong. And Georgia. Forget it.





Nathanael said:


> Crescent to New Orleans, Sunset Limited to LA.





Nathanael said:


> 28. Charlotte - NYMore evidence that the Crescent should be improved.





Nathanael said:


> Looks like corridor service to me. Not the Crescent, more like Piedmont.





Nathanael said:


> 30. Atlanta-ChicagoFinally we get to this fairly common request. It would require a massive amount of track improvement crossing mountains, through three or possibly four states which have shown no support for passenger rail. While I see the value in a Chicago-Florida train, notice how many common city pairs come far ahead of this in terms of demand.... Seems like back-burner material.


That's because Atlanta isn't as hot a commodity as it imagines itself to be, and the two Chicago airports aren't major hubs (ie, you don't get bounced through there as often as other airports in the region since it's a huge origin and there are capacity constraints). But go all the way to Florida and suddenly you're looking at a very important market.

It may be that as the HSR map gets built out that it won't be a matter of drawing a straight line on a map because the fastest route won't be the shortest one. IMO. I mean, there are mountains in the way, and they aren't populated by wealthy Schweizers. (Yes, I've watched Modern Marvels, why do you ask?)

chicago airports aren't major hubs!!! Last time I looked, United and American served just about everywhere from O'Hare and Southwest goes to many, many places from Midway. It seems like there are a lot of people transferring at both airports.


----------



## crescent2 (Apr 3, 2013)

As discussed at length, ATL to "somewhere else"!

Atlanta's tiny little station and only one train route are surprising. I love the Crescent for going to NOL, but would love more options. Yes, I know I'm dreaming.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 3, 2013)

ATL to MACON to SAVANNAH then JAX & MIAMI without going through DC. Would make my trip to central NC easier, too.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Apr 3, 2013)

Wow never thought I would see this resurrected! There has been a clear focus on the Southeast since this was resurrected, and while it obviously needs work, I still have to go for an 11-hour offset 9:30PM departure of the CS from LA, arriving Seattle TWO days later at 7:30AM continuing to Vancouver for a padding-arrival of around noon. Then leaving circa 5:30PM departure, Seattle at 10:00PM, arriving LA at 9:00AM two mornings later. Sorry Portland, but this is quite a nice schedule. at least 5:30 of turnaround time on each end, connecting three high density corridors with times offset from existing services, and it just seems goooood.


----------



## Gord (Apr 3, 2013)

Sorcha said:


> Michigan to Canada via Detroit/Windsor. Not only would it save a lot of backtracking and/or bussing for those of us wishing to travel east, it could open up a route to Niagara Falls, Toronto, and other tourist destinations.
> I agree with the L.A. to Las Vegas route, or even Kingman to Las Vegas. Basically, anything that doesn't require a bus to Las Vegas in the middle of the night.


I'm with Sorcha on this one. There are over six million of us in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) and lots of us like to travel and spend our money in the USA. Pretty difficult to do by rail with only one train per day from Toronto to the US. I'm about to do a TWO, CHI, NOL, NYP, TWO trip by Amtrak. Sure would be nice to have an overnight sleeper service direct from Toronto connecting with the westbound LSL at Buffalo-Depew.

Gord


----------



## Bus Nut (Apr 3, 2013)

MikefromCrete said:


> chicago airports aren't major hubs!!! Last time I looked, United and American served just about everywhere from O'Hare and Southwest goes to many, many places from Midway. It seems like there are a lot of people transferring at both airports.


Not like Minneapolis, Atlanta, Memphis, or Philly. You said it yourself, you can go anywhere from O'Hare. Direct traffic is going to squeeze out hub traffic. We are using a different definition of hub. In my mind, hubs are big (as in # of runways) airports that generate less trips on their own, but are used by regional airlines to sort passengers the way Fed-Ex sorts freight. For example, not too many domestic flights are going to layover at Logan Airport in Boston. It's maxed out. But you could get bounced through Manchester or Hartford.

Midway, I'm sorry, is much smaller than O'Hare and really not comparable.

But we can continue to talk out of the sides of our necks or somebody could produce some sort of comparison between total passengers served by an airport per year, and how many linked trips originate at that airport.


----------



## Bus Nut (Apr 3, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> ATL to MACON to SAVANNAH then JAX & MIAMI without going through DC. Would make my trip to central NC easier, too.


I could go for that. Bringing back the Silver Palm would be the cherry on top. I am so sick of driving to SC to see the in-laws.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 4, 2013)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Wow never thought I would see this resurrected! There has been a clear focus on the Southeast since this was resurrected, and while it obviously needs work, I still have to go for an 11-hour offset 9:30PM departure of the CS from LA, arriving Seattle TWO days later at 7:30AM continuing to Vancouver for a padding-arrival of around noon. Then leaving circa 5:30PM departure, Seattle at 10:00PM, arriving LA at 9:00AM two mornings later. Sorry Portland, but this is quite a nice schedule. at least 5:30 of turnaround time on each end, connecting three high density corridors with times offset from existing services, and it just seems goooood.


You know, though it'll never happen, wouldn't it be nice if that could actually include through cars on both ends? Through cars on the San Diego end aren't impossible to envision (they existed in the past and could be resurrected, at least in theory), and on a reversed schedule you could simply have a protocol for hooking them to the next Surfliner to come through and just limiting ticket sales if there's a minor stop on one train but not the next.

Also (and I'm sure Bill or someone else can detail historic operations in this vein), such a train could arguably use set-out equipment (at the very least, a sleeper) at PDX to make up for the lousy times both ways.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 4, 2013)

Bus Nut said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > ATL to MACON to SAVANNAH then JAX & MIAMI without going through DC. Would make my trip to central NC easier, too.
> ...


Sick of the drive or the in-laws? :giggle:


----------



## gfdavis3 (Apr 10, 2013)

Bus Nut said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > chicago airports aren't major hubs!!! Last time I looked, United and American served just about everywhere from O'Hare and Southwest goes to many, many places from Midway. It seems like there are a lot of people transferring at both airports.
> ...


O'Hare happens to have 6 runways which is tied for second most runways at a single airport in the world. It is the second busiest hub for both American and United. 5th busiest airport in the world. By any CORRECT definition, O'Hare is a major hub. Midway is not a major hub or a hub at all actually. Southwest operates, by far, the largest amount of flights at Midway but does not use the hub and spoke model but rather point to point. To go along with that, Southwest operates more flights from Midway than any other airport. Memphis is a slow airport by passenger count. Philladelphia and Minneapolis don't compare to O'Hare regarding amount of passengers or flights.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 11, 2013)

gfdavis3 said:


> Bus Nut said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...


This is one of these interesting things where changes in the airline corporate world made for a huge change in an airport's activity. After Northwest took over the sucessors to Southern Airlines, they made Memphis their Southeastern Hub. Several times a day there would be a flurry of flights in utilizing most of the gates followed by a mad scramble of people from plane to plane followed by a flurry of flights out. At one point these flights included a nonstop flight to Amsterdam (is it still operating? ) and a through flight to Tokyo (with a change of equipment in Seattle :wacko: ). Since "home" is within 20 miles of the Memphis airport, this was extremely handy for us when I was working in Asia.

To give you an idea of how Northwest was operating at that time, they used Tokyo Narita as their hub for that part of the world. There was one flight between there and Taipei. We would always be on that one, but between Memphis and Tokyo, we could go via Seattle, Detroit, San Francisco, or Los Angeles, and maybe a couple of other places. I think Chicago was also on the list of possibilites, but we managed to avoid that one.


----------



## leemell (Apr 11, 2013)

gfdavis3 said:


> Bus Nut said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...


Memphis is notable of one thing, it is FedEx's largest hub and averages about 3,000 flights a day. Pretty large for a smallish regional airport.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 12, 2013)

leemell said:


> gfdavis3 said:
> 
> 
> > Bus Nut said:
> ...


That's a bit of a stretch. Around 950 flights per day is more accurate. That's still a take off or landing every 1.5 minutes for the whole day. But at 3,000 operations per day, it'd be 25% busier than Atlanta, with 2 fewer parallel runways!


----------



## George Harris (Apr 12, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Memphis is notable of one thing, it is FedEx's largest hub and averages about 3,000 flights a day. Pretty large for a smallish regional airport.
> ...


And if you are in line with the main east-west runway, most of these flights will be nose to tail inbound starting around 10:00pm and outbound starting sometime after 3:00am. However, you won't hear much complaining about the noise. People there know which side their bread is buttered on. FedEx is a major component to the economy of the area.


----------



## Bus Nut (Apr 12, 2013)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Bus Nut said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


Actually, the in-laws are just peachy keen, but neither they nor I enjoy a 5-6 hr recreational drive through pine forest. We keep attempting to lure them to Florida with no success.

The Amtrak ticket prices to make this trip are a steal (well, most of the year, anyway, but the schedules are insane because the Palmetto terminates in Savannah.


----------



## leemell (Apr 12, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > gfdavis3 said:
> ...


My error, what I meant was about 1000, still a lot for this airport.


----------



## Tennessee Traveler (Apr 13, 2013)

I acknowledge this subject is what under served markets would I serve and not feasibility. The conservative political climate in most southern states is anti-rail. My government prefers highways and guns over health, education or public transit. Nevertheless, my vote is for:

NOT SERVED AT ALL: NASHVILLE so here are my routes: 1)*Nashville - Atlanta*, 2)*Nashville - Chicago*(mainly for connection to LD west trains), 3) *Nashville - Washington, DC/New York* via Knoxville, Roanoke, Richmond, and 4) *Nashville - Dallas* via Jackson,MS and Shreveport, LA.

Since I am 71 I no this could never happen in my lifetime and probably not before Jesus returns. Interestingly, all these city pairs are home to NFL teams including Nashville's Tennessee Titans.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Apr 13, 2013)

Just for the record, I believe O'Hare is actually 2nd largest in the world not 5th, unless Beijing has by now edged it to 3rd...


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 13, 2013)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Just for the record, I believe O'Hare is actually 2nd largest in the world not 5th, unless Beijing has by now edged it to 3rd...


By passenger traffic, O'Hare is 5th, behind Atlanta, Beijing, London Heathrow and Tokyo Haneda.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 13, 2013)

On schedules: The Meteor NB isn't too bad as far as CHS; it's SB that is usually at issue (that would work on the old post-rush hour departure from NYP, but that also makes the WAS departure problematic...I don't think too many folks are keen on an 11 PM departure from DC). I do agree that the FL schedules could use some substantial beefing up, but between equipment and everything else...well, let's just say that I see it as a medium-term priority.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Apr 13, 2013)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Just for the record, I believe O'Hare is actually 2nd largest in the world not 5th, unless Beijing has by now edged it to 3rd...


The _largest_ in the US and second largest in the world is Denver, at 53 square miles.

Off hand, I know that Denver, Dallas, Orlando, and Pittsburgh each are all bigger than O'Hare and ATL _combined._

Yes, I took "largest" literally.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Apr 14, 2013)

Hahaha thanks Nick. And sorry for the wrong correction... oops... I didn't know that it had slipped that far.


----------

