Flynn on Amtrak

[jis]

I think it is a fools errand to restrict Amtrak into working only with State DOTs to the exclusion of all other organizations, for instituting local/regional service. There have been several occasions when State DOTs have proved to be a big stumbling block due to state level politics, when many local communities are willing to fund a train. Florida at present is a prime example as far as the State DOT working with Amtrak is concerned. Rememebr that the continuance of SWC service probably would have been much more diffcult to pull off if it was just left to the State DOTs.

 

[Dakota 400]

The 3C in Ohio didn't "die" because $17 million annual operating expense was financially onerous but for state-level political reasons. Had Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland decided to pay it, the cost for each would not be significant and the line would be running. Presuming each city paid an equal share, or $4.25 million annually, the Public Works budget of Dayton for 2020 (to pick one of the cities) was $102.67 million.

You are making an interesting point. But, being a citizen of the Dayton area, I have a bit of "expertise" concerning your comment. I cannot say for certain that your data as to the Public Works budget is accurate, but assuming it is, $4.25 million does seem to be a small amount concerning the whole budget of $102.67 million. The fact is there are so many unmet infrastructure needs in my community, concerns about water quality issues, etc. that $4.25 million allocated for providing a 3C's rail service would be a difficult "sell" to the citizens of Dayton and Montgomery County.

No knowledge about the financial condition of Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati, but I think they would have the same difficulty.

The Amtrak offer for covering the cost of building the infrastructure to provide corridor service in Ohio and covering the first 2 years of operating expenses is what helped to attract the Dayton City Commission's support of the proposal, I think. Not accepting such an offer is like "leaving federal money on the table". Ohio has been reluctant to leave such money on the table on some issues in the past. Over the disapproval of our General Assembly, our Governor was able to accept such Federal money to expand Medicaid when other states have turned it down.

 

[PaTrainFan]

Ohio has been reluctant to leave such money on the table on some issues in the past. Over the disapproval of our General Assembly, our Governor was able to accept such Federal money to expand Medicaid when other states have turned it down.

Let's not forget Kasich rejecting federal money for 3C during the Obama adinistration. Dewine might be more reasonabe, however. Not so sure about the legislature. (Speaking as a former Ohioan)

 

[Dakota 400]

Let's not forget Kasich rejecting federal money for 3C during the Obama adinistration. Dewine might be more reasonabe, however. Not so sure about the legislature. (Speaking as a former Ohioan)

You are correct. Governor Kasich wanted no part of that money. Had a President been in Office of the opposite party---? Maybe, he would have? We'll never know. Governor DeWine is a more pragmatic governor and he has the "experience" and the intestinal fortitude to do what he believes is in the best interest of Ohioans regardless of how "unhappy" he makes General Assembly members of his own Party.

 

[jebr]

I’m all for the 750 mile rule. Amtrak needs to focus on long distance and states need to fund regional rail if they want to.

I disagree. Federal funding is heavily involved in all transportation projects, and passenger rail should be no different. The logistics, especially for capital expenses, are also easier - as far as I'm aware states cannot deficit spend, and even bonding bills have their limits. Expecting states to cover the cost of passenger rail when they don't do that for roads or aviation puts rail on a significantly unequal footing for no real reason.

We can have divisions of Amtrak with separate pools of money dedicated to specific services, and departments of Amtrak focused on specific types of services with that dedicated pool of money for that type of service. Thus, long distance services wouldn't need to compete with regional services for funding or staff time. I'm sure there's some of this structure today, but if it's a concern that division could be easily codified in funding measures. There's no reason to arbitrarily restrict Amtrak to funding projects over 750 miles - we already exempt the NEC anyways, so why not open up that same exemption across the country?

 

[MARC Rider]

I disagree. Federal funding is heavily involved in all transportation projects, and passenger rail should be no different. The logistics, especially for capital expenses, are also easier - as far as I'm aware states cannot deficit spend, and even bonding bills have their limits. Expecting states to cover the cost of passenger rail when they don't do that for roads or aviation puts rail on a significantly unequal footing for no real reason.

We can have divisions of Amtrak with separate pools of money dedicated to specific services, and departments of Amtrak focused on specific types of services with that dedicated pool of money for that type of service. Thus, long distance services wouldn't need to compete with regional services for funding or staff time. I'm sure there's some of this structure today, but if it's a concern that division could be easily codified in funding measures. There's no reason to arbitrarily restrict Amtrak to funding projects over 750 miles - we already exempt the NEC anyways, so why not open up that same exemption across the country?

1) The 750 mile rule is not exactly something that was promulgated at the birth of Amtrak. In fact, Amtrak existed perfectly well for many decades without the 750 mile rule,

2) While it is, of course desirable that the States have some "skin in the game" with respect to funding rail projects, the experience of highways and earlier Amtrak state partnerships indicates that this can be done through the use of matching funds.

3) With respect to the NEC, it should be noted that the NEC states do pay a good deal to help maintain the NEC infrastructure, in fact some of the NEC infrastructure is owned by the States, and the non-Amtrak commuter operators (and the freight RRs) pay Amtrak for track access.

4) NEC-like service on other corridors should be a major goal of Amtrak. If successful, an ever larger proportion of the American public will see passenger rail as a practical alternative to other transportation modes and an essential part of American transportation infrastructure.

 

[McIntyre2K7]

It looks like Amtrak released a new map today as well. This is what Amtrak can accomplish by 2035 with help from Congress. Would carry 52 million people a year.


http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Amtrak-Connects-Us-Fact-Sheet-for-Statement.pdf

 

[jis]

Methinks this is pretty underwhelming

 

[sttom]

What they want to roll out in 15 years should be what they kick out annually for 15 years.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

One huge gap is along the route of the former Pioneer. Whether it be a corridor from SEA/PDX/BOI or ideally the whole route from SEA to SLC or DEN that part of the map is barren. That being said the Desert Wind could and should be brought back too. The Pioneer and DW trainoffs were huge mistakes.

Maybe that quadrant of the country would be more efficiently served by a daily long distance train in each direction instead of corridor services. It sure would be more cost effective and hit more cities especially if they both had through cars to Chicago again.

 

[Ziv]

I agree with AmtrakFlyer but would carry it a bit further. That map just calls out for a train that would run from Portland to Boise, either Salt Lake City or Cheyenne, then Denver, Oklahoma City, Forth Worth/Dallas and on to Houston. I like Cheyenne as a destination but SLC makes more sense, I imagine. What a train trip that would be! And it hits some good population centers that are underserved by rail. I think it hits cities # 4, 9, 13, 19, 25, 26 and #98 as ranked by population. Had to include Boise in that list... LOL!
Not sure if Amtrak could turn a train at Houston, though.

It looks like Amtrak released a new map today as well. This is what Amtrak can accomplish by 2035 with help from Congress. Would carry 52 million people a year.

http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Amtrak-Connects-Us-Fact-Sheet-for-Statement.pdf

View attachment 21388

 

[toddinde]

The NEC is the only Amtrak service that is actually a significant part of the total transportation mix along its route. If all the other Amtrak service disappeared, very few people would notice. If the NEC disappeared, there would be traffic jams galore and the airlines would have to scramble to expand their shuttle services. The NEC also contains 16 senators and lots of representatives, which means that there's more interest in Congress about it than there is for services that serve only one or maybe two states, especially when particular state governments are opposed to passenger rail on general principle (or so it seems.)

It seems to me that the goal of Amtrak is to replicate the NEC (or something as close as possible) in other parts of the country. Eliminating the 750 miles rule might help with that, but it raises the question of freeloading. Either the Feds pay for everything, or they only play with the states who are willing to pay.

The NEC is largely a commuter system. Further, when it’s been off line or out of service, it doesn’t significantly impact regional traffic. Other modes could absorb the NEC. But in many rural communities, the market share of rail is many times the percentage share of NEC cities, and the economic impact on those rural communities is significantly greater. Let’s not play the NEC off against the long distance trains. They are part of a national, interconnected rail system that is vital to the future of the US and our ability to compete in the modern world. Some people in urban areas don’t comprehend fly over country, but under our constitutional system, they have a significant voice. I agree with the point made that end point mentality is bad. The long distance trains are the best way to provide transportation to regional centers that can further be connected by bus. It works.

 

[jis]

The NEC is largely a commuter system. Further, when it’s been off line or out of service, it doesn’t significantly impact regional traffic. Other modes could absorb the NEC.

I guess it is easy to spew uninformed BS about how NEC can be absorbed by other modes. With such high credibility it should not be surprising if some of us who experienced NEC outage after Sandy would choose to ignore this line of argument from you

 

[keelhauled]

But in many rural communities, the market share of rail is many times the percentage share of NEC cities, and the economic impact on those rural communities is significantly greater.

This is a very useless data point without comparison to similar communities without Amtrak service. I have a hard time believing that Amtrak is any kind of a significant driver of economic growth compared with factors like geography and natural resources.

 

[toddinde]

I guess it is easy to spew uninformed BS about how NEC can be absorbed by other modes. With such high credibility it should not be surprising if some of us who experienced NEC outage after Sandy would choose to ignore this line of argument from you

Let me make it clear to you so you can understand. I don’t care if another steel wheel ever rolls again between New York and Washington if I lose my long distance train. Understand?

 

[jis]

Let me make it clear to you so you can understand. I don’t care if another steel wheel ever rolls again between New York and Washington if I lose my long distance train. Understand?

Oh I understood that a long time back. That is why I mostly ignore your arguments, since they are not driven by any rationality but mostly by emotion. Got it? I hope we understand each other fully now, since apparently you had difficulty understanding my position.

 

[zephyr17]

Let me make it clear to you so you can understand. I don’t care if another steel wheel ever rolls again between New York and Washington if I lose my long distance train. Understand?

That has pretty much been the political understanding that has kept both rolling since the 70s

 

[toddinde]

Oh I understood that a long time back. That is why I mostly ignore your arguments, since they are not driven by any rationality but mostly by emotion. Got it? I hope we understand each other fully now, since apparently you had difficulty understanding my position.

I know a lot more about it than you do clearly. And you’re not ignoring my arguments because you respond to them with your BS.

 

[toddinde]

This is a very useless data point without comparison to similar communities without Amtrak service. I have a hard time believing that Amtrak is any kind of a significant driver of economic growth compared with factors like geography and natural resources.

You can read the studies conducted by the Trent Lott Center at the University of Mississippi, and RPA. You can review ridership statistics and boardings at various Amtrak stations and review the population of the surrounding area. Finally, you can often see the difference between communities with and without rail service.

 

[railiner]

Let me make it clear to you so you can understand. I don’t care if another steel wheel ever rolls again between New York and Washington if I lose my long distance train. Understand?

I understand your feelings on the matter, but rest assured (or don't), if Amtrak liquidated tomorrow, the NEC would go on, probably run by a consortium of the various transit agencies that use it.
Would your Arizona authorities do likewise on its Amtrak routes? I don't think so.

If you think its shutdown would have no impact...try getting thru the Lincoln or Holland Tunnels, or the GW Bridge when it sometimes happens...

 

[niemi24s]

I don’t care if another steel wheel ever rolls again between New York and Washington if I lose my long distance train.

Gosh, that'd be terrible. If you lost the TE/SL then you'd have a 5 hour drive to FLG to catch the SWC. Boo-hoo!!

Oh. . . .wait! I'm already that far from my closest station.

Disregard the Boo-hoo.

 

[railiner]

Gosh, that'd be terrible. If you lost the TE/SL then you'd have a 5 hour drive to FLG to catch the SWC. Boo-hoo!!

Oh. . . .wait! I'm already that far from my closest station.

Disregard the Boo-hoo.

If the TE/SL was gone, so would the SWC, right?

 

[toddinde]

I understand your feelings on the matter, but rest assured (or don't), if Amtrak liquidated tomorrow, the NEC would go on, probably run by a consortium of the various transit agencies that use it.
Would your Arizona authorities do likewise on its Amtrak routes? I don't think so.

If you think its shutdown would have no impact...try getting thru the Lincoln or Holland Tunnels, or the GW Bridge when it sometimes happens...

I agree. The NEC would continue in some form. The NEC has shutdown in the past, unfortunately, and the traffic was absorbed. But that’s really not important because everyone knows the NEC is important. But so are the other trains in the national system. That’s my point. In truth, none are really more important than the others. They all have vital constituencies and our part of our national transportation system.