# Pioneer Discussion



## natebofto (Dec 24, 2016)

Planning a trip from Eugene, OR to Laramie, WY next year for a college football game when Oregon plays at Wyoming. Never been to Wyoming so I'm stoked, and will stop by the old Laramie depot.

I know Amtrak did some studies on this years ago, but does anyone know Amtrak's/local governments' position on the Pioneer and if any serious consideration will ever go towards this? Every time I drive through the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon I just see all these little towns with little to no transportation services. Even cities like Boise, Laramie, and Cheyenne could greatly benefit from rail service.

There have been some advocacy groups for this, but nothing as of late. Is there any shot this train comes back? If gulf coast service could return, then I think anything is possible (obviously different factors for both).


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 24, 2016)

Lightly populated route. Covers almost all the big towns in Wyoming.(which is what 20-30 people) Some track pull out on one side of Boise. Heavy freight traffic.

Not seeing anything, because it not support by anyone with any type of power. If you can't get the locals to support...


----------



## CHamilton (Dec 24, 2016)

natebofto said:


> There have been some advocacy groups for this, but nothing as of late. Is there any shot this train comes back? If gulf coast service could return, then I think anything is possible (obviously different factors for both).


NARP is still pushing it whenever we can. One thing we have learned from the Gulf Coast is that support really has to come from local mayors, city councils, and business groups. We have a good bunch of rail advocates in eastern Oregon and in Colorado, but we need help in the other parts of the route (Idaho, Utah, Wyoming). If you know anyone who is interested in helping in those areas, please contact me or the NARP office in DC.


----------



## neroden (Dec 24, 2016)

Laramie, Cheyenne, and Boise city governments have talked up restoration of service within the last decade. I can't think of any names but they might be good bets.


----------



## KmH (Dec 24, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Lightly populated route.


Very lightly populated.

Wyoming is the least populated US state with only some 585,000 people in the entire state.

Idaho is 39th with more than 3x the population (1.7M) Wyoming has.

Utah is 31st at about 3M people but 2/3 of the population in Utah are in the Ogden to Provo corridor along Interstate 15.

A very tough sell.


----------



## railiner (Dec 24, 2016)

I agree...not likely for a long time, at the present state of affairs re Amtrak. If any former route was restored, I would guess the shorter route from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles via Las Vegas, of the former Desert Wind would be more likely to return to service....


----------



## neroden (Dec 24, 2016)

I believe a more useful project would be Front Range rail along the BNSF route through Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins, and if Cheyenne is interested, Cheyenne. This is within extreme-commuting range. It could be extended to Laramie via UP if there is sufficient interest from Laramie.

From what I've been able to tell, support for rail in Greeley is anemic, compared to support in Loveland and Fort Collins, both of which are also larger. Boulder is of course huge. Boulder and Longmont have been resentful that they haven't gotten their commuter rail yet; a corridor route here might be politically popular in Colorado as a whole.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 24, 2016)

neroden said:


> ... a more useful project would be Front Range rail along the BNSF route through Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins, and Cheyenne. This is within extreme-commuting range.
> 
> ... a corridor route here might be politically popular in Colorado as a whole.


Population growth keeps making a Front Range route more needed every year.

Got to start somewhere, so Denver-Boulder-Longmont-Loveland-Ft Collins-Cheyenne.

I want it to go to Cheyenne because that's close and should be cheap to do, and Wyoming adds another state, two Senators and a House seat, :giggle: , to Amtrak's system.

Then the Front Range train must go south to Colorado Springs (big population and tourists -- Pike's Peak etc), and to Pueblo (enuff population and a campus of Colorado State). However, getting out of Denver will be more complicated than it looks on a map.

Next take the Front Range train to meet the route of the _Southwest Chief_, most of which in these parts exists for passenger rail. I'm ready to take it to Albuquerque and make a turn south to El Paso to connect to the [/i]Texas Eagle/Sunset Ltd.[/i] Ultimately the Front Range train could be extended El Paso-Tucson-Maricopa-L.A., which gets it to an Amtrak maintenance base.

The Southwest needs a north-south train to link cities like Kansas City, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Denver, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, and others.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 24, 2016)

KmH said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Lightly populated route.
> ...


Indeed. No reasonable person would advocate earmarking federal funds for mass transit through a series of hyper rural debtor states. If they want passenger rail so bad (no indication that this has ever been case) they can pay for it themselves.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 25, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Just-Thinking-51 said:
> ...


No but a selfish Senate Majority Leader would (and did). Well, one hyper rural debtor state. And we're still all paying for North Dakota DOT/Montana DOT.


----------



## Carolina Special (Dec 25, 2016)

So establish a system where every state pays for passenger rail in the amount of services they receive.

That way Wyoming doesn't have to pay for rail service in Pennsylvania that Wyoming residents will never use.

We're headed in that direction now with all the state funding: may as well make it official at the federal level.


----------



## jis (Dec 25, 2016)

That will be the end of the national network. Note that neither highway nor aviation funding works that way for the respective national networks even though there is typically som local matching required.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 25, 2016)

Carolina Special said:


> So establish a system where every state pays for passenger rail in the amount of services they receive. That way Wyoming doesn't have to pay for rail service in Pennsylvania that Wyoming residents will never use.


The difference being that funding mass transit in densely populated areas of Pennsylvania makes logical sense while funding mass transit in a hyper rural area like Wyoming makes no sense at all. That being said, if you want to balance federal funding so that each state only receives what they pay in dollar-for-dollar that's fine with me. Several pro-rail states would likely see a funding boost while lots of anti-rail states would likely see substantial losses in federal funding.


----------



## Palmetto (Dec 25, 2016)

This thread began as a discussion on restoring the Pioneer, a long-distance train. Somehow, it devolved to tying the Pioneer with mass transit funding. Big disconnect. My opinion is that the more city-pairs there are on the system, the better. Using only population as a criterion would kill the Cardinal between Cincinnati and Huntingdon, WV, a topic that's been discussed elsewhere on here and the Empire Builder on the northern tier.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 25, 2016)

Hard to imagine restoring the Pioneer, which I first rode in 1978 when it was Amfleet-equipped.

As for the Boise situation, I haven't been there in a long time but I thought there was still rail continuity Nampa-Boise-Orchard, even if the Boise-Orchard portion is out of service (the Google Maps satellite view indicates that it's used for car storage). The abandoned trackage in Boise was on the north side of the river, but the passenger station was on the south side. Is this not correct? Of course it would take a ton of money to reopen the Boise loop for passenger trains even if the rails are still intact.


----------



## dlagrua (Dec 26, 2016)

What is difficult to understand is that in the early 1900's Cheyenne WY was a growing railroad town with a large busy passenger station. Ranchers, farmers and miners all traveled to the area by train but the train was also the primary shipper of clothing, household goods, farm supplies, fuel and foodstuffs. The population had to be less back then and yet the town supported a railroad. Cheyenne (the state capitol) has had no passenger service since the 1980's so could the demand for service be that low? Cheyenne is only about an hour and a half drive North of Denver. I can see this town becoming part of the front range suburbs one day. Its a clean not congested town on the old Lincoln highway that offers a low stress lifestyle, affordable living and the city has decent shopping.


----------



## jis (Dec 26, 2016)

Not clear that Cheyenne produced all that much demand itself. It just happened to be on the UP transcontinental route and was a reasonable division point, and had a whole host of passenger trains passing through anyway. Once UP service ended something special had to be done to serve it just for its own sake. It became an out of the way place in the context of the passenger rail network.


----------



## railiner (Dec 26, 2016)

neroden said:


> From what I've been able to tell, support for rail in Greeley is anemic, compared to support in Loveland and Fort Collins, both of which are also larger. Boulder is of course huge. Boulder and Longmont have been resentful that they haven't gotten their commuter rail yet; a corridor route here might be politically popular in Colorado as a whole.


It's puzzling why Greeley, home to University of Northern Colorado, and having had Amtrak service for many years, would be so 'anemic'...

Besides, a train on the UP line between Denver and Cheyenne would take half the time that one on the BNSF line would....


----------



## jis (Dec 27, 2016)

And it would miss all the real population centers that provide the fare paying customers too


----------



## neroden (Dec 27, 2016)

railiner said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > From what I've been able to tell, support for rail in Greeley is anemic, compared to support in Loveland and Fort Collins, both of which are also larger. Boulder is of course huge. Boulder and Longmont have been resentful that they haven't gotten their commuter rail yet; a corridor route here might be politically popular in Colorado as a whole.
> ...


Politics. Don't ask me why, because *I don't know why*, but Greeley votes right-wing in the sense of pro-car, pro-truck, anti-rail, anti-pedestrian, while Fort Collins and Loveland vote left-wing in the sense of pro-pedestrian, pro-bicycle, pro-train.
It is what it is. Accept it. Same reason Pueblo is pushing for train service and Colorado Springs won't lift a finger to get it.


----------



## west point (Dec 28, 2016)

Be careful that we as a country do not fall into Balkanization. This " I've got my _____________ to heck with you having it or a reasonable substitute."


----------



## bretton88 (Dec 29, 2016)

neroden said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


I've lived in Colorado Springs. They'd love a train, but it's not going to be easy to get one into Colorado Springs without a lot of money and they're aware of that, which also makes it a significantly lower priority than Pueblo has it as. Trust me, Colorado Springs has a lot bigger needs than a train.


----------



## DesertDude (Dec 29, 2016)

I agree that Front Range rail should be a higher priority than restoring the Pioneer, but I still think that the Pioneer itself has merit. Just to reiterate, Amtrak's 2009 study regarding the Pioneer was sandbagged. Among other issues, the study dismissed routing the train through Boulder as "theoretical," and the study didn't explore the benefits of better scheduling (serving Pocatello at an ungodly hour hurt the original Pioneer).

As much as I want to see the Pioneer restored, right now I would prefer that Amtrak work on boosting ridership on the Zephyr between Reno and Glenwood Springs. There's a lot of untapped ridership potential in northern Utah, where residents are much more accustomed to rail now than they were 20 years ago. It's also worth mentioning that Utah is one of the fastest growing states in the U.S. Calling times for the CZ in SLC are bad, but they're better in Provo (a sizable intermediate market). There's a nice new UTA park and ride lot within walking distance of the Provo Amtrak stop, where passengers can park several days for free. Millenials attending UVU and BYU would be open to taking a scenic train ride through eastern Utah, or taking an overnight train to Reno or Lake Tahoe. However, most of them don't know that's an option, and that's part of the problem.


----------



## neroden (Dec 31, 2016)

west point said:


> Be careful that we as a country do not fall into Balkanization. This " I've got my _____________ to heck with you having it or a reasonable substitute."


Too late. We've already got that attitude, and that attitude in Idaho (2 Senators) is why we don't have train service in, for instance, Scranton PA.


----------



## jis (Dec 31, 2016)

neroden said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > Be careful that we as a country do not fall into Balkanization. This " I've got my _____________ to heck with you having it or a reasonable substitute."
> ...


Actually, attitude in Trenton may have as much or more to do with it than attitude in Idaho in this specific case. But I do agree with your broader point.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 31, 2016)

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > west point said:
> ...


This is based on the assumption that it is New Jersey's responsibility to provide a train from New York to Scranton and not the federal government. Other than the 750 mile rule (which Congress can always drop), there is no theoretical reason why Amtrak/Congress can't provide Scranton with train service. Didn't they used to run a New York-Chicago train through Scranton (Phoebe Snow)? Of course that would probably be stupid economically (and I grew up about 20 miles from Scranton).

AU likes to blame various states for lack of funding for trains but the federal government can always (assuming they have the money) provide train service to areas like Scranton or other areas without train service or bad train service (even easier if they get rid of the 750 mile rule). The problem is the lack of money and the reason for the Balkanization/ pitting one train against each other. Of course the people in Scranton/ Wilkes Barre (my old home town) don't want to hear Amtrak can't afford to give them trains when they give trains to areas with way smaller populations than them. And you can blame New Jersey/Pennsylvania all you want for no trains to/from Scranton in 2016 or Ohio for no 3-C. What about all the years before PRIIA? The reason IMO why Amtrak service sucks today has more to do with the federal government back in the 20th century than the federal government (or state governments) of 2016. The question we should all be asking is what should be the federal government's role in funding train service in the US? I think changes should be made even if no additional money is provided to Amtrak (then reorganization or restructuring is necessary).

Getting back to the topic, I have said before I would've kept the Pioneer and canceled the Empire Builder west of Minneapolis and replaced it with a CHI-MSP train back in the 90's when the Pioneer was canceled (assuming the ridership/revenue numbers justified it). Why run three 2000+ train routes when you can combine two of them between Chicago and either Denver or Salt Lake City (depending on where you want to split it), save yourself a lot of train miles, and allow for one seat rides between DEN and SEA/PDX? And Boise is a small market nationally but they look like a major market in the Northwest compared to the tiny towns the EB goes through. In 2016 it doesn't make sense to replace the EB with the Pioneer based on the available R&R data and to me it would be an incredible waste of federal money to start a new train now while keeping the EB (having two trains from CHI to SEA/PDX) with a lot of other needs nationally. I'd rather see a second good train from Chicago to New York or a second train from Chicago to Los Angeles or a second train from Chicago to Texas or a first train from Chicago to Florida before seeing a second train from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest, IMO the least attractive of the geographical regions of the US.


----------



## DesertDude (Dec 31, 2016)

The Pacific Northwest is the least attractive of the geographical regions of the U.S.? In terms of what?

Also, the Pioneer isn't "a second train from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest." (I don't understand the focus on the route endpoints when train travel is all about serving intermediate markets). The Pioneer is about serving the Intermountain West, which isn't well served by Amtrak now.

I can attest that a lot of personal travel happens between northern Utah and southern Idaho (the "Jello Belt"), which have both seen explosive population growth since the Pioneer's discontinuance in 1997. Just a couple weeks ago, a friend of mine in Boise had a funeral to attend in Ogden. Unfortunately, the roads were bad enough that she couldn't make the drive, and flying wouldn't have been practical. The Pioneer would have been perfect for her.


----------



## jis (Dec 31, 2016)

Unless NJ builds the Lackawanna Cutoff in NJ there will be no train from New York to Scranton. Surprisingly very few in Scranton seem to want access to Philly. They are all gunning for access to NY and have quite a bit of the funding lined up for the necessary infrastructure upgrade in PA. It is NJ that has close to zero funding to close the gap between Andover and Slateford. I am rather intimately familiar with the situation having even participated in some related face to face meetings. So this is not armchair prognostication on my part.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 31, 2016)

DesertDude said:


> The Pacific Northwest is the least attractive of the geographical regions of the U.S.? In terms of what?


OK, let's consider these six regions that LD trains usually terminate in:

Northeast (New York, Washington, I won't even count a certain city in between)

Chicago/Midwest

Florida/Southeast

Texas/New Orleans

Pacific Northwest

California

Of these six, the Pacific Northwest to me is a distant sixth. I'd much rather go to Chicago, Florida, California, and Texas/New Orleans than Seattle/Portland. Admittedly I'm biased being from the East Coast but I have taken three Amtrak trips to California and I have no plans of ever traveling 3 days each way to go to Seattle. But I'd guess many Westerners would like to visit New York, DC, and Florida even though they are on the other side of the country. If I had to rank western cities, I'd put LA, San Fran, and San Diego at the top, followed by Denver (Salt Lake City would be higher on my list because I have family there).



DesertDude said:


> Also, the Pioneer isn't "a second train from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest." (I don't understand the focus on the route endpoints when train travel is all about serving intermediate markets). The Pioneer is about serving the Intermountain West, which isn't well served by Amtrak now.


OK then let's consider the largest metros that Amtrak currently doesn't serve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_cities_in_U.S._lacking_inter-city_rail_service

Boise isn't even in the top ten. Scranton/Wilkes Barre isn't far behind and Allentown is ahead of Boise. Let's compare Boise to Las Vegas. Vegas has about 3x the population and many tourist attractions. When's the last time anyone has traveled to Boise for pleasure? To see the National Potato Museum (is there even one)? If I had to choose between restarting the Pioneer for Boise and restarting the Desert Wind for Vegas, it's a no brainer to me.

I would say the priorities for Amtrak for our national government shouldn't be what's best for you and your friends and family or what's best for me and my friends and family. It should be for what's best for America as a whole. You can't serve everyone. So try to serve as many people as you can. Have trains go between where people live and where people want to go to.


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2017)

Says the guy whose main argument against the Northwest apparently is he would not like to visit Seattle


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 1, 2017)

This is a bit dated (2010): http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/28/tourism-new-york-lifestyle-travel-las-vegas-cities.html

10. San Diego

9. Philly! I kid you not! http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/28/tourism-new-york-lifestyle-travel-las-vegas-cities_slide_3.html

8. Houston (that's a surprise to me)

7. Atlanta (that's a big surprise to me)

6. Las Vegas

5. Miami

4. Anaheim/Orange County (they counted LA separately and it didn't make the list).

3. Chicago

2. New York

1. Orlando

I would believe if you combined LA and Orange County it would be at the top of the list (OC had 42.7 million visitors,Orlando had 48 million, and I'd find it hard to believe less than 6 million visited Los Angeles/Hollywood.

To me the biggest shocker on the list is Atlanta. It does help they have a pretty big airport. Houston is a bit of a surprise to, I'd guess San Antonio would be a more popular tourist destination. And the biggest shocker not on the list is Washington (DC, not state!). Even I would say Washington has more to do for a tourist than Philly. One advantage of Philly is we're pretty close to both New York and DC so we'd get tourists on both ends.

Not surprisingly none of the 10 are anywhere near the Pacific Northwest. I think location is a big deal. If I lived in Spokane or Portland, I'd visit Seattle fairly often. But I don't. Is it worth a 3 day train ride (for jjs and those down in Florida a FOUR day train ride)? I don't think so. Is California? I think so.


----------



## neroden (Jan 1, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan, my point was that it's the Senators from Idaho (and Wyoming, and Alaska, and so forth) who are preventing the federal government from funding sensible things like a NYC-Scranton or NYC-Allentown or Philadelphia-Allentown train.

This makes me *quite hostile* to the idea of restoring the Pioneer using federal money -- which is to say, tax money from New York and Pennsylvania and California, since Idaho is dependent on federal welfare. I'm fine with giving Idaho its train *if Idaho gives us our trains too*, but I'm not OK with paying for more and more trains to the rural Mountain West while their Senators vote to NOT pay for our trains in the highly populated Northeast.

I'm fine with making a deal: Idaho Senators vote for more money for trains to places like Scranton and Allentown and Binghamton, we vote for more money for trains like the Pioneer. However, giving federal money to trains through countryside whose federal elected officials consistently vote against funding Amtrak -- *even when they already have service* -- is, basically, being a sucker. The representative for Sandpoint, Idaho votes against Amtrak regularly.

I'm much more open to federally funding new routes where the Senators and Congressmen are already voting for Amtrak even though they don't have service.


----------



## neroden (Jan 1, 2017)

jis said:


> Unless NJ builds the Lackawanna Cutoff in NJ there will be no train from New York to Scranton. Surprisingly very few in Scranton seem to want access to Philly. They are all gunning for access to NY and have quite a bit of the funding lined up for the necessary infrastructure upgrade in PA. It is NJ that has close to zero funding to close the gap between Andover and Slateford. I am rather intimately familiar with the situation having even participated in some related face to face meetings. So this is not armchair prognostication on my part.


Is the rule that PA state & cities can't spend money outside the state still in force? I thought I'd read that it had been repealed, but I could be wrong. Because frankly I think the best way forward would be for PA to pay for a larger percentage of the rebuild. Of course, New Jersey still has to make it to Andover, which has been the most ridiculous shaggy-dog story ever.

P.S. Still staying off topic , I see some optimism from PNRRA... because the new chair of the House Appropriations Committee (which is a *very* powerful position) represents the district in NJ which the line goes through. Wow. I am a bit afraid he'll have an "I got mine" reaction and lose interest as soon as the line gets to Andover, but maybe not, since he has been a longtime advocate. One of the PA districts along the line now has a member on the Appropriations Committee too.

On a personal note, if we can get the train to Scranton, I think the pitch for service to Binghamton becomes possible: the existing line from Scranton to Binghamton is fast and NS is a fairly friendly host.


----------



## railiner (Jan 1, 2017)

jis said:


> Unless NJ builds the Lackawanna Cutoff in NJ there will be no train from New York to Scranton. Surprisingly very few in Scranton seem to want access to Philly. They are all gunning for access to NY and have quite a bit of the funding lined up for the necessary infrastructure upgrade in PA. It is NJ that has close to zero funding to close the gap between Andover and Slateford. I am rather intimately familiar with the situation having even participated in some related face to face meetings. So this is not armchair prognostication on my part.


It shouldn't really be surprising....most in 'upstate PA'....Scranton, Wilkes-Barre....have a lot more interest in going shopping, or to entertainment in New York City than Philly...and Monroe and Northampton Counties of PA, are now populated by a huge number of ex-New Yorker's, that commute daily to escape high housing and tax costs in New York.

One only has to see the daily convoy of Martz, Bieber, and Transbridge buses on I-80 and I-78 to "The City", and the few to Philly to affirm that....


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2017)

Neroden, Freylinghuesen used to be my Congressman when I was in NJ. He is about as rail friendly as you can get from a Republican. He always wanted all of Lackawanna Cutoff to be restored to help commuters to jobs in his constituency which covers Morris County and used to cover upper Essex County. As for whether trains also go to New York he is ambivalent about to some extent.


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 2, 2017)

neroden said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


I do not buy the left vs right argument when it comes to passenger rail as both sides are self serving. Most of the numerous Amtrak discontinued routes where done under the administration of Jimmy Carter, hardly a "right wing" guy. Getting back to the Pioneer; we are not likely to see its return but as populations expands, one day Cheyenne will be a key front range suburb and will need commuter rail. Look at the LIRR; New Jersey Transit and MetroNorth; commuters from as far away as100 miles head to New York city each day. IMO, that is the only way that Cheyenne will ever see passenger rail again.


----------



## jis (Jan 2, 2017)

Denver will never be New York though. So the 100 miles that works for New York, may or may not for Denver.


----------



## neroden (Jan 2, 2017)

I should clarify that I don't think "right wing" and "left wing" on rail always line up with "right wing" and "left wing" on other issues. Perhaps I should come up with different names for them. But there is definitely a consistent "we hate rail, we want cars everywhere" voting attitude among a group of voters, and they tend to cluster, while there's a consistent "we'd love a train" attitude among a different group of voters, and they tend to cluster; it's a tribal, polarized thing. You will see two cities which otherwise look very similar, and one will vote gung-ho pro-rail and the other will vote to rip out their already-operating railway line. Go figure. I don't understand it myself but I've seen it repeatedly.


----------



## neroden (Jan 2, 2017)

jis said:


> Neroden, Freylinghuesen used to be my Congressman when I was in NJ. He is about as rail friendly as you can get from a Republican. He always wanted all of Lackawanna Cutoff to be restored to help commuters to jobs in his constituency which covers Morris County and used to cover upper Essex County. As for whether trains also go to New York he is ambivalent about to some extent.


This is very good news.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 2, 2017)

neroden said:


> I should clarify that I don't think "right wing" and "left wing" on rail always line up with "right wing" and "left wing" on other issues. Perhaps I should come up with different names for them. But there is definitely a consistent "we hate rail, we want cars everywhere" voting attitude among a group of voters, and they tend to cluster, while there's a consistent "we'd love a train" attitude among a different group of voters, and they tend to cluster; it's a tribal, polarized thing. You will see two cities which otherwise look very similar, and one will vote gung-ho pro-rail and the other will vote to rip out their already-operating railway line. Go figure. I don't understand it myself but I've seen it repeatedly.


In the post-Carter era publicly funded passenger rail support has lined up fairly dependably with center-left supporting it and center-right being unsupportive or indifferent. There are some exceptions but the general trend has been proven true for decades now. In fact it's been increasing in breadth and intensity over time. Here in the the Obama era publicly funded passenger rail support has become so overtly polarized that you could almost use it as a political alignment litmus test.


----------



## neroden (Jan 2, 2017)

Agreed. But more so: Even when you do find anti-rail elected Democrats, the whole darn city is tribally, irrationally anti-rail; there are a few on Long Island. And even when you do find pro-rail Republicans in elected office, again, it's a whole city at a time, like Fresno..


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jan 4, 2017)

I think something people forget when looking at the political aspect of passenger rail being a liberal vs. conservative issue of a certain generation (primarily the FDR to Carter era) is that the railroads were still seen in a negative light by progressives left over from the robber baron era, hence the push for roads which would not provide a subsidy to said transportation corporations. I think that's largely changed with the, relative, success of Amtrak.

Now back to the Pioneer. Would it be more "sensical" to have a SLC - PDX train rather than Denver PDX?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 4, 2017)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I think something people forget when looking at the political aspect of passenger rail being a liberal vs. conservative issue of a certain generation (primarily the FDR to Carter era) is that the railroads were still seen in a negative light by progressives left over from the robber baron era, hence the push for roads which would not provide a subsidy to said transportation corporations. I think that's largely changed with the, relative, success of Amtrak.
> 
> Now back to the Pioneer. Would it be more "sensical" to have a SLC - PDX train rather than Denver PDX?


Pretending that I actually want the Pioneer back, how about DEN-SLC-PDX (assumdely to SEA)?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jan 4, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Now back to the Pioneer. Would it be more "sensical" to have a SLC - PDX train rather than Denver PDX?
> ...


My thinking on that is: avoiding mountain crossings, i.e. the Rockies and Cascades or a long detour north and keeping the route length from being overly long. If it went to Portland the connections to Seattle or south could be ironed out.


----------



## jis (Jan 4, 2017)

The Pioneer as introduced originally by Amtrak, was a separate self standing SLC - PDX - SEA train with no Diner for most of its existence as a self standing train. It was only later that it got joined at the hip with the Zephyr with through cars. Originally it was cross platform connection at Ogden.


----------



## railiner (Jan 5, 2017)

The Desert Wind also started out that way...a separate train from Ogden to Los Angeles, connecting with the SFZ and the RGZ....

IIRC, both were Amfleet at first...


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 23, 2018)

jis said:


> Unless NJ builds the Lackawanna Cutoff in NJ there will be no train from New York to Scranton. Surprisingly very few in Scranton seem to want access to Philly. They are all gunning for access to NY and have quite a bit of the funding lined up for the necessary infrastructure upgrade in PA. It is NJ that has close to zero funding to close the gap between Andover and Slateford. I am rather intimately familiar with the situation having even participated in some related face to face meetings. So this is not armchair prognostication on my part.


Trains could go via Binghamton to Scranton.


----------



## jis (Mar 23, 2018)

Sure they could. They could also go via Harrisburg to Scranton, even easier possibly. But neither makes much sense in terms of major ridership corridors.

The important corridor to serve is New York to Binghamton and New York to Scranton with a running time that is even remotely close to competitive with driving.That is what will primarily provide the financial wherewithal to keep the system running.


----------

