New Amtrak Proposed Routes Map has Dropped

[jebr]

Yes. EAS opens up travel to those who could not otherwise afford it.

Yes, a $173 RT flight once a day really opens up travel to a town that has a $110 RT shuttle service to the same larger airport running 10x/day. Thank goodness the EAS subsidizes that flight.

 

[Exvalley]

And so should Amtrak. At a lower cost, and vastly better fuel efficiency than many of the routes subsidized by EAS.

They both serve a role. Not everyone has the luxury of time that Amtrak requires.

 

[tricia]

They both serve a role. Not everyone has the luxury of time that Amtrak requires.

It can't possibly take significantly more time to take a train from Macon to Atlanta than it does to get through security at the airport, get the flight boarded and off the ground, and then get to Atlanta. In fact, it almost certainly is more time-efficient as well as less expensive to take the $110 RT shuttle from Macon to Atlanta airport noted in post 301 of this thread.

 

[Exvalley]

It can't possibly take significantly more time to take a train from Macon to Atlanta than it does to get through security at the airport, get the flight boarded and off the ground, and then get to Atlanta. In fact, it almost certainly is more time-efficient as well as less expensive to take the $110 RT shuttle from Macon to Atlanta airport noted in post 301 of this thread.

I wasn’t suggesting that every EAS route makes sense. But in many communities it is a vital service.

 

[IndyLions]

And so should Amtrak. At a lower cost, and vastly better fuel efficiency than many of the routes subsidized by EAS.

I totally support the assertion that trains would be a better option overall for connectivity in a lot of these situations.

But we have to be careful when we make statements like “...at a lower cost...”. That’s not likely true in most situations. If it were, the Republicans would be all over it.

Even a short, no brainer route like New Orleans to Mobile in the current environment requires Amtrak to pay tens of millions (or more) in extortion money to the host railroads for the inconvenience and disruption, not to mention the pain and suffering (sarcasm alert).

Better? I believe that. Less dollars? Likely not.

 

[jebr]

It can't possibly take significantly more time to take a train from Macon to Atlanta than it does to get through security at the airport, get the flight boarded and off the ground, and then get to Atlanta. In fact, it almost certainly is more time-efficient as well as less expensive to take the $110 RT shuttle from Macon to Atlanta airport noted in post 301 of this thread.

I was actually referring to Brainerd - Minneapolis. Macon - Atlanta is a bit harder to compare apples-to-apples, since the airport near Macon flies to BWI twice a day instead of ATL (the flight appears to be $89-$99 each way.) However, there is an airport shuttle between Macon - Atlanta at $41 each way, running 18x/day, plus flights on Spirit for around $50 one way to BWI (with multiple other options on different airlines for a bit more.)

They both serve a role. Not everyone has the luxury of time that Amtrak requires.

And not everyone has the money that EAS service generally requires. Why should the US Government be spending money to subsidize travel in a way that's still expensive for a lot of people if a cheaper alternative (both for the US Government and for the passenger) either exists or could exist? Those who value time above all else could still buy air service off of the open market, while the government should support a baseline level of connectivity that's affordable to as many Americans as possible.

As but another Minnesota example, let's look at International Falls. There's currently subsidized air travel to MSP via the EAS, with a $3,388,905 annual subsidy from the federal government. The direct ticket runs $295 RT, though that segment's cost is likely reduced somewhat if you're booking it as part of a connecting itinerary with Delta (so instead of being a $295 upcharge, it might only be $200ish more than a RT ticket direct from MSP to your final destination.) Right now there's a once-monthly bus service to Duluth, a city with an airport that doesn't require EAS subsidy, through the local transit agency for $25 RT. If that transit agency was given that $3.3m annual subsidy instead of Delta/Skywest, could they offer that service daily (or even multiple-times-a-day service) at that $25 RT price, adding a stop at the Duluth airport? If so, that'd be a win in a few different ways - residents would have an affordable daily connection to both the intercity air network and the intercity bus network, along with a daily connection to a larger city for shopping and medical appointments, the city would have a much cheaper way for people to come into town and visit, other airlines could compete for that business more easily out of DLH instead of starting at a major disadvantage, etc.

 

[Exvalley]

Because you can’t make a lot of connections with a 5 hour bus ride to MSP and Duluth has limited service to only two cities. EAS makes a lot of sense in this case. It truly connects International Falls to the world thanks to MSP being a large hub.

 

[MARC Rider]

Because you can’t make a lot of connections with a 5 hour bus ride to MSP and Duluth has limited service to only two cities. EAS makes a lot of sense in this case. It truly connects International Falls to the world thanks to MSP being a large hub.

A 5-hour bus ride to MSP would also "connect International Falls to the world" at considerably less expense than subsidized air service. The bus could also continue into the city and thus provide service for people who don't need to be connected "to the world," but might have reason to travel to the Twin Cities.

 

[Seaboard92]

A 5-hour bus ride to MSP would also "connect International Falls to the world" at considerably less expense than subsidized air service. The bus could also continue into the city and thus provide service for people who don't need to be connected "to the world," but might have reason to travel to the Twin Cities.

You just made my argument for railroad/bus codeshares instead of regional flights. I could see a system that makes much more sense not just from connecting rural communities to the world which I do think is commendable but also to local economic centers which makes the rural communities more sustainable going forward.

 

[Exvalley]

A 5-hour bus ride to MSP would also "connect International Falls to the world" at considerably less expense than subsidized air service.

Sure. At the expense of missing half a days’ worth of connections. EAS service is also a much better lure for business investment in International Falls than a 5 hour Greyhound ride.

You are actually making an argument against the NEC. There are cheap Chinatown busses, after all. Do you really want to go there?

Ideally the government supports EAS, rail and motorcoach transportation from International Falls rather than just engaging in a race to the bottom. The more options people have the better.

 

[me_little_me]

A 5-hour bus ride to MSP would also "connect International Falls to the world" at considerably less expense than subsidized air service. The bus could also continue into the city and thus provide service for people who don't need to be connected "to the world," but might have reason to travel to the Twin Cities.

Even the French didn't go so far as to consider 5 hour rail trips as an alternative to a flight much less a horrible 5 hour bus ride (and I have yet to ride on any bus that was anything but horrible if it took 5 hours). That's not the low hanging fruit of so many other places. It doesn't make sense as any kind of airplane alternative.

 

[Exvalley]

And keep in mind that EAS flight drops you off airside, whereas the bus does not.

At my nearest EAS airport, I can show up 31 minutes prior to departure with no problem whatsoever. (TSA doesn't even begin screening until 10 minutes prior to departure.) I wouldn't dare cut it that close at a larger airport, especially MSP.

 

[jebr]

And keep in mind that EAS flight drops you off airside, whereas the bus does not.

At my nearest EAS airport, I can show up 31 minutes prior to departure with no problem whatsoever. (TSA doesn't even begin screening until 10 minutes prior to departure.) I wouldn't dare cut it that close at a larger airport, especially MSP.

Why should the federal government subsidize that convenience, though? If local governments want to, I'm fine with that, but the federal government's job shouldn't be to make sure certain small towns get really easy access through TSA while large cities, and those from small towns who don't have EAS access and thus have to get to those larger airports to access the commercial air network, have to suffer through long lines.

 

[Exvalley]

Why should the federal government subsidize that convenience, though? If local governments want to, I'm fine with that, but the federal government's job shouldn't be to make sure certain small towns get really easy access through TSA while large cities, and those from small towns who don't have EAS access and thus have to get to those larger airports to access the commercial air network, have to suffer through long lines.

I guess I'm not sure what your point is. Airports with commercial flights need TSA screening - whether they are small or large. The EAS airport I fly from has planes that seat a maximum of nine passengers. Needless to say, the TSA screening is super fast based solely on the fact that only nine passengers are being screened for a flight. Are you suggesting that, unless local governments pay up, the federal government should order TSA at EAS airports to create artificial delays to simulate the delays experienced at larger airports? That seems rather silly to me, if not downright vindictive.

Using your logic, Winnemucca, Nevada should pay money to Amtrak because it has many more Amtrak seats being offered per capita than Denver, Colorado. Why should Winnemucca be advantaged, after all? My point may be somewhat facetious, but you can see the danger of such an argument when it relates to a federally funded transportation service that serves both cities and smaller communities. And while I appreciate that you see EAS as some sort of zero-sum-game threat to Amtrak, I don't think it's a good idea for Amtrak supporters to argue that the federal government should be out of the business of supporting numerous modes of transportation to rural areas. Because if the federal government adopts that mentality the winner will definitely not be Amtrak.

 

[jis]

One insight that I got from Steven Gardner's presentation at the RPA Council Meeting today that Amtrak came up with its map for new services primarily based on the growth of population cluster trends rather than what is or is not immediately feasible politically/financially. That would explain why some things are missing and also why some surprising segments are in there.

 

[John Bredin]

Somebody's talking about linking the proposed Front Range service to the Southwest Chief, one of the gaps in the proposed route map. Link. It's interesting that on Amtrak's page promoting the map, Front Range service takes a particularly prominent role.

 

[MisterUptempo]

Front Range Media Video Roundtable
Featuring Bill Flynn, Stephen Gardner, representatives of the Front Range Commission discussing new Front Range rail service

Amtrak's privacy settings won't allow me to share the video here. Just follow the link.

 

[railiner]

Right now there's a once-monthly bus service to Duluth, a city with an airport that doesn't require EAS subsidy, through the local transit agency for $25 RT.

Seriously? Once a month?

 

[tricia]

Front Range Media Video Roundtable
Featuring Bill Flynn, Stephen Gardner, representatives of the Front Range Commission discussing new Front Range rail service

Amtrak's privacy settings won't allow me to share the video here. Just follow the link.

View attachment 21795

Pity their vision doesn't extend to a connection with the SW Chief.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Pity their vision doesn't extend to a connection with the SW Chief.

Pueblo CO to LaJunta CO is a well maintained rail line with several improvements made by the freight railroad recently. The timing would be interesting though.

7:29 am and 7:49 pm for the Southwest Chief.

 

[me_little_me]

Seriously? Once a month?

Takes that long to find enough people to fill the bus?

 

[fdaley]

Pueblo CO to LaJunta CO is a well maintained rail line with several improvements made by the freight railroad recently. The timing would be interesting though.

7:29 am and 7:49 pm for the Southwest Chief.

Those seem like excellent times. A connection from the westbound Chief could reach Denver in mid-morning and leave in mid-to-late afternoon to connect to the eastbound. It's a mystery to me why Amtrak would put forth a vision for local service between Pueblo and Denver that wouldn't make this most obvious connection to their existing network.

 

[jiml]

Pity their vision doesn't extend to a connection with the SW Chief.

Thank you for asking that question! I thought perhaps it was my lack of knowledge of that area that hid an obvious answer. I went so far as to looking up whether the tracks south of Pueblo were still in place. Figuring I'd missed something, I hoped someone else had the same thought.

 

[jiml]

Pueblo CO to LaJunta CO is a well maintained rail line with several improvements made by the freight railroad recently. The timing would be interesting though.

7:29 am and 7:49 pm for the Southwest Chief.

Maybe that's the deciding factor.

 

[jebr]

Seriously? Once a month?

Yep - guessing it's to offer an option for people to get to Duluth for medical appointments - better hope your specialist has an appointment available on the second Friday of the month!



(from the brochure available here: Koochiching County | Arrowhead Transit)