Stephen Gardner new Amtrak president

[Barb Stout]

"Who" made the 750 mile rule and "who" can change it?

 

[Trogdor]

"Who" made the 750 mile rule and "who" can change it?

Congress, through the PRIIA act passed in 2008.

 

[toddinde]

But I'd like to see Gardner as more pro Amtrak maintenance and expansion as opposed to contraction. The way he's portrayed here is the latter.

There are no expendable long distance routes. The system is too skeletal as it is. Even one route cut will break it. Actually, the past cuts hurt the network so much and probably hurt Amtrak’s bottom line as well as losing political support. No cuts. Period.

 

[toddinde]

I hear you, Tricia. Twice daily routes on some of the LD routes has been something I really wished for. But until there is more money and equipment it will remain a wish not a reality. Making the Empire Builder a twice daily train would really help it hit markets that are currently ill served due to middle of the night arrivals. The CS and/or the CZ would be a good second/third choice if enough equipment were purchased.

The Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle actually has the most potential of any route. It serves more population than the NEC, and serves the fastest growing part of the country. The daily Sunset through Phoenix should be one of the top priorities.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Twice daily would be a vast improvement in connectivity and calling times.

I totally agree. I also think twice daily service should run 2 different routes in many cases like the Meteor / Star. The crescent for example, run one train to New Orleans, the other one to Mobile on the old gulf breeze route. That way you hit Birmingham - DC twice daily (which it desperately needs) but also serve the towns in Alabama that haven’t had Amtrak service in 20+ years.

Same with the zephyr, run the second train through Cheyenne.

And then there is getting back the pioneer, desert wind, silver palm, etc.

So much work to be done just with long distance trains. Get the national network taken care of first.

 

[Qapla]

Twice daily would be a vast improvement in connectivity and calling times.

That all depends on the times the trains travel. Until recently, The Silvers provided twice daily travel between NYC and Miami. Only thing is, they were not 12 hours apart - in JAX they stopped at 5:30 PM and 11:00 PM going north ... why not have one at 11 AM and one at 11 PM going north???

So, in addition to "twice daily" - better scheduling is also needed to make that twice daily truly advantageous.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

That all depends on the times the trains travel. Until recently, The Silvers provided twice daily travel between NYC and Miami. Only thing is, they were not 12 hours apart - in JAX they stopped at 5:30 PM and 11:00 PM going north ... why not have one at 11 AM and one at 11 PM going north???

So, in addition to "twice daily" - better scheduling is also needed to make that twice daily truly advantageous.

If you moved the northbound SM to 11 AM going north as you recommend, Miami would be at 2 AM, Washington would be at 1 AM and NYC would be at 5 AM. There would also no longer be convenient connections to the CL or LSL. While there are improvements that can be made to the schedules, not all stations have equal ridership and it wouldn't make sense to necessarily offset schedules exactly 12 hours.

For the Silver trains specifically, I don't see a problem with the northbounds, especially considering they are not identical routes. By the time they get to Rocky Mount, the schedules are 8 hours apart. Moving the SM any earlier would damage ridership at Washington, while moving the SS any later would damage ridership at Jacksonville and maybe even to a lesser extent New York. I would actually like to see the SS moved a little earlier to allow a guaranteed connection to the CL and improved times at Savannah.

For the case of the southbounds, I think it would be advantageous to move the SM later, considering the near identical arrival times into Miami for both trains and the poor schedule for 97 at Charleston and Savannah.

Ideally, LD trains should be scheduled to pass each other around 3 AM and 3 PM so the same stations get poor calling times in both directions. This gets more complicated for trains crossing time zones, but the SM may be the worst example of this for a train within a single time zone. For example, the schedule for 98 is reasonable in South Carolina but not Virginia, while the opposite is true for 97. That reduces the appeal for people traveling round-trip, which is likely most passengers.

 

[tgstubbs1]

I think they will eventually connect Phoenix with Tucson with their transit system trains, but not Maricopa.
Amtrak is possibly missing an opportunity.

The Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle actually has the most potential of any route. It serves more population than the NEC, and serves the fastest growing part of the country. The daily Sunset through Phoenix should be one of the top priorities.

That's an interesting idea. I wonder how many other possible detours there are that would add new stops?

I also think twice daily service should run 2 different routes in many cases like the Meteor / Star. The crescent for example, run one train to New Orleans, the other one to Mobile on the old gulf breeze route. That way you hit Birmingham - DC twice daily (which it desperately needs) but also serve the towns in Alabama that haven’t had Amtrak service in 20+ years.

Same with the zephyr, run the second train through Cheyenne.

 

[Steve4031]

I think they will eventually connect Phoenix with Tucson with their transit system trains, but not Maricopa.
Amtrak is possibly missing an opportunity.


That's an interesting idea. I wonder how many other possible detours there are that would add new stops?

The first priority with the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle would be to make the New Orleans to Los Angeles portion daily. West of San Antonio they should run as separate trains. The Sunset Limited could run a couple of hours later to have a decent arrival time in Los Angeles. The Texas Eagle could shorten its stop in San Antonio to the time needed for servicing and crew change. Then continue west and rather than continuing to Los Angeles go north to Bakersfield and eventually to EMY.

 

[Lonestar648]

Expanding the Long Distance network has got to be a top priority. The NOL/JAX is a WIP already. Routing the SL to PHX has been discussed. Dallas to Meridian has been seriously investigated. I think a strong national network is critical to getting the population to travel again and not just by car.

 

[Qapla]

f you moved the northbound SM to 11 AM going north as you recommend

I did not say the schedule should be 11AM ... the current times could be changed - just that a morning northbound and a late southbound would be nice so that "day trips" would be possible north, like to Savannah, like they are now for Orlando/Tampa

I know that, when a train runs 27-31 hours end-to-end that all stations cannot have optimal times ... but, when both trains were running daily, both south in the AM and north in the PM in the Ga, North Fl area just seems like it could be improved.

Expanding the Long Distance network has got to be a top priority. The NOL/JAX

Restoring NOL to JAX should only take scheduling, no tracks or equipment should be needed.

 

[Seaboard92]

Under the 750 mile rule, it's harder to fund a multi-state corridor when you have to coordinate multiple states to cough up the funding. And if the state's recalcitrant (Like, say, Indiana or Ohio), it means no service.

That is 100 percent the truth. The more states you have funding a service the more difficult it is to get the funding needed. If Georgia would reverse their course on corridors and chose join in the Charlotte-Atlanta Corridor that North Carolina wants you need funding from South Carolina. So at this point you need not just one miracle but two for South Carolina to grow passenger rail as well.

The Charlotte-Atlanta corridor would be an interesting project because there are two really great routes for it. The direct route on the former Southern Railway mainline via Greenville/Spartanburg and the indirect route via the Southern R Line and the former Georgia Railroad via Columbia, and Augusta. Greenville would be faster time wise but the added population centers would be nice to have. I could honestly see having two CLT-ATL corridors to catch that large intermediate market.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

That is 100 percent the truth. The more states you have funding a service the more difficult it is to get the funding needed. If Georgia would reverse their course on corridors and chose join in the Charlotte-Atlanta Corridor that North Carolina wants you need funding from South Carolina. So at this point you need not just one miracle but two for South Carolina to grow passenger rail as well.

The Charlotte-Atlanta corridor would be an interesting project because there are two really great routes for it. The direct route on the former Southern Railway mainline via Greenville/Spartanburg and the indirect route via the Southern R Line and the former Georgia Railroad via Columbia, and Augusta. Greenville would be faster time wise but the added population centers would be nice to have. I could honestly see having two CLT-ATL corridors to catch that large intermediate market.

If Georgia wants it, they can have it.

If you take the 750 mile rule away how is that fair to states like North Carolina and Virginia that have invested so much?

Why should Georgia get for free, what NC has paid millions for?

 

[MARC Rider]

MARC Rider said:
Under the 750 mile rule, it's harder to fund a multi-state corridor when you have to coordinate multiple states to cough up the funding. And if the state's recalcitrant (Like, say, Indiana or Ohio), it means no service.

That is 100 percent the truth. The more states you have funding a service the more difficult it is to get the funding needed. If Georgia would reverse their course on corridors and chose join in the Charlotte-Atlanta Corridor that North Carolina wants you need funding from South Carolina. So at this point you need not just one miracle but two for South Carolina to grow passenger rail as well.

The Charlotte-Atlanta corridor would be an interesting project because there are two really great routes for it. The direct route on the former Southern Railway mainline via Greenville/Spartanburg and the indirect route via the Southern R Line and the former Georgia Railroad via Columbia, and Augusta. Greenville would be faster time wise but the added population centers would be nice to have. I could honestly see having two CLT-ATL corridors to catch that large intermediate market.

There are some exceptions to this situation, however. Maine apparently funds the Downeasters with no contribution from New Hampshire, even though the trains make several stops in New Hampshire. I don't know whether Massachusetts contributes anything, either. The Vermonter runs a few miles through New Hampshire and makes a stop in Claremont, but as far as I know, gets no financial contributions from the State of New Hampshire. I don't know whether any of the Michigan services get any financial support from either Illinois or Indiana, even though the train passes through and makes stops in both states. It's also not clear whether the Lincoln service gets any support from Missouri, even though the train serves St. Louis or the Hiawathas get any support from Illinois.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Anthony V]

That is 100 percent the truth. The more states you have funding a service the more difficult it is to get the funding needed. If Georgia would reverse their course on corridors and chose join in the Charlotte-Atlanta Corridor that North Carolina wants you need funding from South Carolina. So at this point you need not just one miracle but two for South Carolina to grow passenger rail as well.

The Charlotte-Atlanta corridor would be an interesting project because there are two really great routes for it. The direct route on the former Southern Railway mainline via Greenville/Spartanburg and the indirect route via the Southern R Line and the former Georgia Railroad via Columbia, and Augusta. Greenville would be faster time wise but the added population centers would be nice to have. I could honestly see having two CLT-ATL corridors to catch that large intermediate market.

There's also the route via Athens, GA (the former route of the Silver Comet), which is also fairly direct.

 

[Seaboard92]

There's also the route via Athens, GA (the former route of the Silver Comet), which is also fairly direct.

It doesn't service the Charlotte market without either reversing directions in Monroe, NC, or a convoluted loop move on the Lancaster & Chester. Unless you build a connection in downtown Chester you would have to shoot down via the L&C to the industrial park.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

There's also the route via Athens, GA (the former route of the Silver Comet), which is also fairly direct.

Atlanta to Athens, Atlanta to Macon, Atlanta to Chattanooga, and Atlanta to Birmingham should all be regional rail routes. But they, along with Atlanta to Charlotte need to be funded by the state(s) that wish to have that service.

 

[Trogdor]

If Georgia wants it, they can have it.

If you take the 750 mile rule away how is that fair to states like North Carolina and Virginia that have invested so much?

Why should Georgia get for free, what NC has paid millions for?

It's fair to them because now they can have access to federal funding to expand their service even further.

The "I never had it, so you shouldn't get it either" argument is ... specious, at best.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

It's fair to them because now they can have access to federal funding to expand their service even further.

The "I never had it, so you shouldn't get it either" argument is ... specious, at best.

That’s not the argument I was making at all.

Georgia has invested virtually nothing in public transit, and that’s what they have.

Other states have chosen to invest, so they have nice regional transit that continues to grow.

That’s the system we currently have, and it works, and it’s fair imho. There’s no need to change the system or the law.

 

[Trogdor]

That’s not the argument I was making at all.

Georgia has invested virtually nothing in public transit, and that’s what they have.

Other states have chosen to invest, so they have nice regional transit that continues to grow.

That’s the system we currently have, and it works, and it’s fair imho. There’s no need to change the system or the law.

Ok. You lost me when you said the system we currently have works.

The system we currently have is entirely stacked against the development of new intercity passenger rail corridors.

 

[Eric S]

There are some exceptions to this situation, however. Maine apparently funds the Downeasters with no contribution from New Hampshire, even though the trains make several stops in New Hampshire. I don't know whether Massachusetts contributes anything, either. The Vermonter runs a few miles through New Hampshire and makes a stop in Claremont, but as far as I know, gets no financial contributions from the State of New Hampshire. I don't know whether any of the Michigan services get any financial support from either Illinois or Indiana, even though the train passes through and makes stops in both states. It's also not clear whether the Lincoln service gets any support from Missouri, even though the train serves St. Louis or the Hiawathas get any support from Illinois.

[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Both Illinois and Wisconsin contribute to operating Hiawatha, IIRC on a 25% IL/75% ratio.

As for the other examples, I think the point is that the costs need to be covered by a non-Amtrak entity (or group of entities), not necessarily each individual state.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

As for the other examples, I think the point is that the costs need to be covered by a non-Amtrak entity (or group of entities), not necessarily each individual state

Agreed. I don’t care who pays for it, as long as it’s not Amtrak’s general fund coming from federal dollars.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Ok. You lost me when you said the system we currently have works.

The system we currently have is entirely stacked against the development of new intercity passenger rail corridors.

If that means the system is stacked towards long-distance rail service, that’s exactly how it should be as far as Amtrak’s federal funding is concerned. (imho)

We who like Amtrak can’t even agree on what it should and shouldn’t be, it seems.

 

[Trogdor]

If that means the system is stacked towards long-distance rail service, that’s exactly how it should be as far as Amtrak’s federal funding is concerned. (imho)

We who like Amtrak can’t even agree on what it should and shouldn’t be, it seems.

Except, given the state of LD trains (even pre-COVID), it’s quite evident that it isn’t “stacked towards long-distance rail service,” either.

 

[NES28]

Interestingly, the INVEST Act (the Transportation Act reauthorization that the House passed last June) had a couple of interesting provisions: a clear preference for interstate projects and 90% federal share for capital projects (as well as a lot of money)! Thus, a high speed rail project like Atlanta-Charlotte would be likely to be built. The nice thing about "real" high speed rail is that it has no operating deficit. Now all we need to do is press the new Senate to pass something like this in 2021.