Pennsylvanian may end

[Paulus]

Or we could just not screw with loopholes and actually let it be axed. It's a rather grave disservice to California and the other states which actually put their money forth for rail service to just screw around with how a particular train is classified so that Pennsylvania, by no means a poor state, doesn't have to find a few million dollars for a particular train. Should we keep Amtrak's share of the Surfliner the same by classifying three trains as splits from San Diego and Santa Barbara for the Starlight and Southwest Chief?

 

[Blackwolf]

Or we could just not screw with loopholes and actually let it be axed. It's a rather grave disservice to California and the other states which actually put their money forth for rail service to just screw around with how a particular train is classified so that Pennsylvania, by no means a poor state, doesn't have to find a few million dollars for a particular train. Should we keep Amtrak's share of the Surfliner the same by classifying three trains as splits from San Diego and Santa Barbara for the Starlight and Southwest Chief?

I argue that, unlike any of the California corridors, that loosing the Pennsy is a bigger risk than trying to save it. Norfolk Southern seems to have taken a page from the Union Pacific in that, if the route officially is abandoned, you'll pay both Hell and high water to ever get it back.

 

[Paulus]

Or we could just not screw with loopholes and actually let it be axed. It's a rather grave disservice to California and the other states which actually put their money forth for rail service to just screw around with how a particular train is classified so that Pennsylvania, by no means a poor state, doesn't have to find a few million dollars for a particular train. Should we keep Amtrak's share of the Surfliner the same by classifying three trains as splits from San Diego and Santa Barbara for the Starlight and Southwest Chief?

I argue that, unlike any of the California corridors, that loosing the Pennsy is a bigger risk than trying to save it. Norfolk Southern seems to have taken a page from the Union Pacific in that, if the route officially is abandoned, you'll pay both Hell and high water to ever get it back.

Sucks to be Pennsylvania then. They should consider that an additional incentive to continue paying for it.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The only arguable difference is the "dropped" cars at PGH (should any be cut). But you're right that you could make that work.
Also, this could cover the second daily Pennsylvanian if that actually gained momentum. As bad as it sounds, any NYP-CHI, WAS-CHI, or BOS-CHI train seems to be covered.

Amtrak could just couple the whole Pennsylvanian to the CL just to save the route. I wonder if two locomotives provide enough power. Looks like service CHI (or STL) is the key here.

Or we could just not screw with loopholes and actually let it be axed. It's a rather grave disservice to California and the other states which actually put their money forth for rail service to just screw around with how a particular train is classified so that Pennsylvania, by no means a poor state, doesn't have to find a few million dollars for a particular train. Should we keep Amtrak's share of the Surfliner the same by classifying three trains as splits from San Diego and Santa Barbara for the Starlight and Southwest Chief?

I argue that, unlike any of the California corridors, that loosing the Pennsy is a bigger risk than trying to save it. Norfolk Southern seems to have taken a page from the Union Pacific in that, if the route officially is abandoned, you'll pay both Hell and high water to ever get it back.

Sucks to be Pennsylvania then. They should consider that an additional incentive to continue paying for it.

If we lose the Pennsy we'll almost never get it back. Plus, there's nothing wrong with through service.

 

[cirdan]

I think, as with any other train, or indeed (virtually all of) Amtrak as a whole, it's only there because politicians show the goodwill of supporting it. And they mostly do so because they think that's what the people want and that their support therefore translates into votes. So the best way to save borderline trains is to make it clear that many people want and like them. So write letters, sign petitions, make noise.

 

[philabos]

While this train may be a hot topic on an Amtrak discussion board, the situation does not exist in a vacuum of other issues facing Pennsylvania.

The prior governor tried twice to toll I-80 as a means to provide additional transportation funding - both road and rail. The Bush Administration said no. After 2008,

he was sure the Obama Administration would approve - he was wrong - they also said no.

The State is under constant pressure from education advocates over "cuts" to funding. The prior governor used a one time $1 billion from the stimulus package to fill

a gap in the education budget in his last year in office knowing full well it was a one time payment. Now the advocates scream about the $1 billion "cut" in education

beacuse the money isn't there again this year. Although education is the biggest example, there is an endless list of people demanding more money from the state.

Pennsylvania also has the public employee pension issue - although not as bad as Illinois and California - a serious issue.

There is a limit to the budget - while everyone wants more money - the question is what are we going to cut to pay for "your" project. At that point there is usually silence.

Pennsylvania has invested heavily in the Keystone Corridor so you cannot accuse them of looking for a free ride. Patronage has risen more than 250% since 1997.

The Keystones posted another 10% jump in January. How many other states paid to reactivate an electrified railroad?

While the feds were busy trashing Pennsylvania's transportation funding plan, they "invested" $200 million at the Johnstown Airport to support three small plane flights per day.

My favorite is the Essentail Air Service Subsidy to fly single engine commuter aircraft from Lancaster to Dulles at a cost of $2.5 million per year when there is a competing

non subsidized air service from Harrisburg (a 30 minute drive from Lancaster) to Dulles. But of course all that is "free" because it's federal money.

While the Keystones are very competitive with driving, the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg is two hours longer than driving. The bus is over an hour faster. Tough to compete on that basis.

 

[cirdan]

While the Keystones are very competitive with driving, the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg is two hours longer than driving. The bus is over an hour faster. Tough to compete on that basis.

However, the Pennsylvanian is far from being the only train to be slower than driving. The reasons that may or may not make people prefer the train are complex. As has been said, the Pennsylvanian isn't purely an end-to-end service but intermediate stops are an important source of ridership.

 

[Nathanael]

In reference to Anderson listing out several different variations of possible PRIIA avoidances in regard to 'popping into' the National Network, does the Empire Builder split make a case here for such a way around? A Pennsylvanian that connects with the Capitol Limited for through NYP-CHI cars is en-defacto nothing different than what the EB does at Spokane. The train serves three end point destinations; Chicago, Washington DC and New York City. So what if the name Pennsylvanian goes the way of the dodo, and the train name Capitol Limited shows up on the train boards at NYP under numbers 229 and 230? We would still have train service along this route and it would potentially be upgraded with sleepers.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Well, if Amtrak did this, it would be in Amtrak's interest to optimize the train as a long-distance train. So, delete the Elizabethtown and Exton stops, run the westbound train later (for a shorter wait in Pittsburgh), and run the eastbound train earlier (for a shorter wait in Pittsburgh).

It is really, really important not to lose Philaelphia-Pittsburgh-Chicago service.

 

[Nathanael]

The prior governor tried twice to toll I-80 as a means to provide additional transportation funding - both road and rail. The Bush Administration said no. After 2008,he was sure the Obama Administration would approve - he was wrong - they also said no.

....

There is a limit to the budget - while everyone wants more money - the question is what are we going to cut to pay for "your" project. At that point there is usually silence.

It's pretty obvious in this case... stop maintaining I-80. It's a money pit, it's underused, it apparently can't be tolled, so stop maintaining it.

 

[Jersey Jeff]

While this train may be a hot topic on an Amtrak discussion board, the situation does not exist in a vacuum of other issues facing Pennsylvania.The prior governor tried twice to toll I-80 as a means to provide additional transportation funding - both road and rail. The Bush Administration said no. After 2008,

he was sure the Obama Administration would approve - he was wrong - they also said no.

The State is under constant pressure from education advocates over "cuts" to funding. The prior governor used a one time $1 billion from the stimulus package to fill

a gap in the education budget in his last year in office knowing full well it was a one time payment. Now the advocates scream about the $1 billion "cut" in education

beacuse the money isn't there again this year. Although education is the biggest example, there is an endless list of people demanding more money from the state.

Pennsylvania also has the public employee pension issue - although not as bad as Illinois and California - a serious issue.

There is a limit to the budget - while everyone wants more money - the question is what are we going to cut to pay for "your" project. At that point there is usually silence.

Pennsylvania has invested heavily in the Keystone Corridor so you cannot accuse them of looking for a free ride. Patronage has risen more than 250% since 1997.

The Keystones posted another 10% jump in January. How many other states paid to reactivate an electrified railroad?

While the feds were busy trashing Pennsylvania's transportation funding plan, they "invested" $200 million at the Johnstown Airport to support three small plane flights per day.

My favorite is the Essentail Air Service Subsidy to fly single engine commuter aircraft from Lancaster to Dulles at a cost of $2.5 million per year when there is a competing

non subsidized air service from Harrisburg (a 30 minute drive from Lancaster) to Dulles. But of course all that is "free" because it's federal money.

While the Keystones are very competitive with driving, the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg is two hours longer than driving. The bus is over an hour faster. Tough to compete on that basis.

Your post is very insightful and shows the hypocrisy of transportation funding. Can you cite any sources for your data? I'd like to use them in an argument for another place.

However, I disagree with your final sentence where a transportation mode's speed is the sole measurement of its worth. Add weather like this, and we'll see which mode of transportation is superior between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg.

 

[Anderson]

While this train may be a hot topic on an Amtrak discussion board, the situation does not exist in a vacuum of other issues facing Pennsylvania.The prior governor tried twice to toll I-80 as a means to provide additional transportation funding - both road and rail. The Bush Administration said no. After 2008,

he was sure the Obama Administration would approve - he was wrong - they also said no.

The State is under constant pressure from education advocates over "cuts" to funding. The prior governor used a one time $1 billion from the stimulus package to fill

a gap in the education budget in his last year in office knowing full well it was a one time payment. Now the advocates scream about the $1 billion "cut" in education

beacuse the money isn't there again this year. Although education is the biggest example, there is an endless list of people demanding more money from the state.

Pennsylvania also has the public employee pension issue - although not as bad as Illinois and California - a serious issue.

There is a limit to the budget - while everyone wants more money - the question is what are we going to cut to pay for "your" project. At that point there is usually silence.

Pennsylvania has invested heavily in the Keystone Corridor so you cannot accuse them of looking for a free ride. Patronage has risen more than 250% since 1997.

The Keystones posted another 10% jump in January. How many other states paid to reactivate an electrified railroad?

While the feds were busy trashing Pennsylvania's transportation funding plan, they "invested" $200 million at the Johnstown Airport to support three small plane flights per day.

My favorite is the Essentail Air Service Subsidy to fly single engine commuter aircraft from Lancaster to Dulles at a cost of $2.5 million per year when there is a competing

non subsidized air service from Harrisburg (a 30 minute drive from Lancaster) to Dulles. But of course all that is "free" because it's federal money.

While the Keystones are very competitive with driving, the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg is two hours longer than driving. The bus is over an hour faster. Tough to compete on that basis.

Driving runs into tolls as an issue (the Turnpike isn't cheap...I think the toll on that trip is in the $15 range each way PGH-HAR and even more PGH-PHL). And if you're going longer than three hours or so, a bus can get pretty tedious (as a PHL-PGH bus would, running somewhere around 5 hours). I'll also say that once a drive gets longer than 2-3 hours, alternate modes start picking up a leg up on the fact that, well, driving is itself often tedious and exhausting.

 

[benjibear]

I can't make an arguement for or against deleting Exton but I would argue Elizabethtown shouldn't be deleted. It is approximatly half way between Harrisburg and Lancaster, which both have parking issues. How much time can they really save on the stop?

Cost is very reasonable for the Pennsylvanian and highly doubt anyone can drive cheaper. The toll is 18.50 without ezpass. Based on what it costs me to operate my cars, it would cost me 3-4 times more to drive. The time is harder to justify if one was in a hurry but traffic could be a killer around Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.

 

[leemell]

Could you folks who live in the area update us on the status of this train whenever there is some mention of it. We've got a trip booked on it next Fall and had no idea that it was under consideration for canceling. The sooner we know for sure the status the better. Thanks.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

While the Keystones are very competitive with driving, the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg is two hours longer than driving. The bus is over an hour faster. Tough to compete on that basis.

However, the Pennsylvanian is far from being the only train to be slower than driving. The reasons that may or may not make people prefer the train are complex. As has been said, the Pennsylvanian isn't purely an end-to-end service but intermediate stops are an important source of ridership.

But trains like the Pennsy are not good for intermediate stops because they take a long time to stop, unload, load, and get running. Trains are better utilized for express services while buses serve the little towns. On this route that seems reversed, IMO a major failure of the transport system.

The prior governor tried twice to toll I-80 as a means to provide additional transportation funding - both road and rail. The Bush Administration said no. After 2008,he was sure the Obama Administration would approve - he was wrong - they also said no.

....

There is a limit to the budget - while everyone wants more money - the question is what are we going to cut to pay for "your" project. At that point there is usually silence.

It's pretty obvious in this case... stop maintaining I-80. It's a money pit, it's underused, it apparently can't be tolled, so stop maintaining it.

If they actually did it, what would happen to the roadway?

 

[philabos]

Your post is very insightful and shows the hypocrisy of transportation funding. Can you cite any sources for your data? I'd like to use them in an argument for another place.
However, I disagree with your final sentence where a transportation mode's speed is the sole measurement of its worth. Add weather like this, and we'll see which mode of transportation is superior between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg.

As a matter of fact I can:

Keystone Growth - see here:

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/820699_Lancaster-County-train-ridership-triples-in-16-years.html

The January increase of 10% is in Amtrak's monthly performance for January 2013

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/234/741/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-January-2013.pdf

The Johnstown Airport Funding from Washington

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-23/politics/murtha.airport_1_stimulus-funds-faa-spokeswoman-laura-brown-airport?_s=PMOLITICS

Pennsylvania refused permission to toll I-80 ( I said twice - actually THREE times)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_80_in_Pennsylvania#Toll_proposal

Sunair EAS subsidy for Lancaster

http://articles.herald-mail.com/2012-10-28/news/34783737_1_cape-air-flights-international-thurgood-marshall-airport

I think that covers the sources used for my post.

While the weather argument has been used as long as I can remember, you could justify a train to every village in America on that basis. People just postpone their plans for a day. We frequently see a lament on these boards

about Amtrak not operating in bad weather anyway.

 

[PRR 60]

Pennsylvania was refused permission to toll I-80 for the simple reason that their requests violated federal law. The law that allows a state to place tolls on an Interstate Highway that was constructed with federal funds requires the tolls to be used solely for the maintenance and improvement of that road and that road only. Pennsylvania wanted to use the tolls as a general revenue source for PennDOT. While they played around with various leasing plans in order to try and skirt the law, the bottom line was that the request violated the law and, for that reason, was denied by both the Bush and Obama DOT's.

How lucrative are toll roads? The Pennsylvania Turnpike takes $450 million from its toll revenue each year and hands it over to PennDOT. That is a primary source of PennDOT's grants to mass transit agencies. Since the PATPK did not and does not use federal funds for projects, the state has the ability to divert tolls as they see fit.

 

[Anderson]

I can't help but wonder what would happen if a state basically used a "Blazing Saddles" approach and refused to fund improvements to a highway (particularly one like I-80 that's heavily oriented towards through traffic rather than intrastate traffic) or to make up a shortfall in federal funding towards it (sequester, anyone?) until they got the right to toll it.

 

[Nathanael]

I was being a bit snarky about I-80, but the truth is it's simply not very useful, and it needn't have been built at all. It certainly doesn't benefit most residents of Pennsylvania, as it avoids most cities. We have an equivalently unnecessary expressway in New York (I-86), which could perfectly well have remained a two-lane rural road forever.

With roads like that, there's plenty of room to cut the transportation budget while maintaining core Philadelphia-Pittsburgh rail service.

 

[AlanB]

I can't help but wonder what would happen if a state basically used a "Blazing Saddles" approach and refused to fund improvements to a highway (particularly one like I-80 that's heavily oriented towards through traffic rather than intrastate traffic) or to make up a shortfall in federal funding towards it (sequester, anyone?) until they got the right to toll it.

Well, first off most "improvements" are Federally funded, with only a small amount of matching state funds. Now they could I suppose refuse to fund general repairs, but I suspect that would anger the local taxpayers just as much as those just passing through PA.

However, if they were to try the latter approach to things, I suspect that the Fed would probably just take a page out of the Richard Nixon playbook. During the gas crisis of the late 70's when then President Nixon wanted a top speed limit of 55 MPH to save gas, he found that he couldn't order the states to do that. After all, despite Federal capital dollars, it is a State highway which is why the sign says State Speed Limit.

So instead President Nixon tied all Federal highway funding to the need to have a 55 MPH speed limit. If a State didn't lower its speed limits to 55, then they got no Federal highway funding. So if PA decided to let I-80 go worse than they already do, I'd bet that eventually the Fed would just stop the flow of all highway funds until the state brought things back into compliance.

 

[AlanB]

I was being a bit snarky about I-80, but the truth is it's simply not very useful, and it needn't have been built at all. It certainly doesn't benefit most residents of Pennsylvania, as it avoids most cities. We have an equivalently unnecessary expressway in New York (I-86), which could perfectly well have remained a two-lane rural road forever.
With roads like that, there's plenty of room to cut the transportation budget while maintaining core Philadelphia-Pittsburgh rail service.

One might be able to argue that I-86 superfluous or useless, but I-80 while perhaps not entirely useful to a majority of those living in PA, is still quite useful in the greater scheme of things. And while they may not drive on it, PA residents still benefit from the truck traffic delivering goods to them.

 

[jis]

That is the crux of the argument that is being used by Governors of certain states to refuse Federal money to start new rail service. They appear to fear that they will be stuck holding the maintenance and operations funding bag under the threat of penalties from the feds. I am not saying that I like it, but I can see the logic in it.

I think just funding capital and not having any plan to share operations cost at some level is inefficient and leads to all kinds of perverse behavior, this being one of them. The other one is exemplified by NJT which carries on retiring equipment as soon as maintenance costs hit a certain level and buy new equipment which is capital money of which there appears to be an endless stream through FTA even these days.

 

[benjibear]

Route 80 is used by a lot of trucks. I had a project a few years ago that I traveled 80 and there were very few cars.

 

[Barciur]

Sorry guys, a little bit off topic but I figured this is the best place to ask since it's a Pennsy thread that's pretty hot now so rather than create a new one I figure I'll ask here.

I've never taken the Pennsylvanian before as I live in Lancaster and go to Philly or NYP and take the Keystone, but I need to get to Philly next week on a midweek day and the only time that works is the Pennsylvanian. I was longing to film a train trip for a foreign railfans forums and thought this would be a good opportunity.

So my question is - how packed is the Pennsylvanian on regular basis? Esp. on a midweek day going eastbound. Can I reasonably expect to find an open seat by the window or am I gonna have to sit by somebody in the coach?

 

[Trogdor]

But trains like the Pennsy are not good for intermediate stops because they take a long time to stop, unload, load, and get running. Trains are better utilized for express services while buses serve the little towns. On this route that seems reversed, IMO a major failure of the transport system.

You are wrong on this one.

Trains like the Pennsylvanian are heavily dependent on intermediate stops. The time lost for a stop on 79 mph territory is about 3 minutes for acceleration (and deceleration; though my high school physics teacher hated the term deceleration and preferred "negative acceleration" instead; but that's neither here nor there), plus whatever your dwell time is. When the speed past the station is lower, the time lost is even less.

The revenue lost from the slightly longer trip for through passengers is often far outweighed by the revenue gained from making the extra stop.

The reason the Pennsylvanian is a relatively slow train is because it winds its way through the mountains, not because it stops to pick up passengers. Eliminating the stops would still make the Pennsylvanian a slower train than driving, but now it would lose even more money in doing so.

Even the Acela Super Express concept from the early 2000s failed, because the money earned from intermediate stops exceeded the value of the time savings from skipping them. If the fastest train on the continent, through the most densely populated region with extremely heavy business (time-sensitive) traffic makes more with additional stops, then definitely the Pennsylvanian would do so.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

But trains like the Pennsy are not good for intermediate stops because they take a long time to stop, unload, load, and get running. Trains are better utilized for express services while buses serve the little towns. On this route that seems reversed, IMO a major failure of the transport system.

You are wrong on this one.

Trains like the Pennsylvanian are heavily dependent on intermediate stops. The time lost for a stop on 79 mph territory is about 3 minutes for acceleration (and deceleration; though my high school physics teacher hated the term deceleration and preferred "negative acceleration" instead; but that's neither here nor there), plus whatever your dwell time is. When the speed past the station is lower, the time lost is even less.

The revenue lost from the slightly longer trip for through passengers is often far outweighed by the revenue gained from making the extra stop.

The reason the Pennsylvanian is a relatively slow train is because it winds its way through the mountains, not because it stops to pick up passengers. Eliminating the stops would still make the Pennsylvanian a slower train than driving, but now it would lose even more money in doing so.

Even the Acela Super Express concept from the early 2000s failed, because the money earned from intermediate stops exceeded the value of the time savings from skipping them. If the fastest train on the continent, through the most densely populated region with extremely heavy business (time-sensitive) traffic makes more with additional stops, then definitely the Pennsylvanian would do so.

While this route is mountainous, the bus would still be far better for intermediate stops over gradeless routes while trains handle through traffic. They are smaller, more flexible, and each stop can be completed in about one minute. For example, multiple slow bus routes could supplement express trains on CHI-MSP. Now Megabus has no intermediate stops while Amtrak relies a lot on them. Bad for both.