What should we advocate for passenger rail and Amtrak?

[MARC Rider]

Here are some of my thoughts on this.

Passenger rail is an underused transportation mode in the United States, as compared to almost all other developed nations (and many developing nations). This should be reversed for a number of reasons, the main ones being that rail transport has the potential for reducing emissions and being a major strategy to deal with the climate crisis. This is because rail vehicles, properly designed, use less energy than internal combustion powered road vehicles and aircraft, and also because rail systems are a better fit into the kind of dense walkable urban environments that we will have to live in if we are going to be serious about dealing with climate change.

That said, rail is most competitive with other transportation modes in corridor service (trips under 400-500 miles.) These trips can be close to time competitive even with aircraft when also including the time needed to travel to the airport, checking in to the flight, passing through the security scan, retrieving checked baggage, and traveling from the airport to the final destination. (On average, airports need to be located at some distance from other land uses, whereas a rail corridor can have multiple stops in the same city.) As a matter of policy, rail travel should be encouraged for trips of "corridor" scale and actions should be taken to maximize the market share of rail in those cases.

This does not mean that long-distance service has no utility was part of a national mobility policy. Long distance service provides "corridor" scale service between rural locations that do not have enough passengers to justify their own corridor service. The service also allows people from rural locations to access large metropolitan areas with a one-seat ride, even if it takes longer than flying. There are also many people who, for medical reasons (including, but not limited to fear of flying), are unable to drive or fly. Finally, there is a significant number of travelers who prefer to travel by train for long distances. This results in a decent market for long-distance train travel, and, indeed, existing Amtrak long-distance trains are well patronized. If the trains were improved with slightly better running times (60 mph average), better on-time performance, and appropriate on-board service, they could significantly increase their appeal, justifying more service frequency and service to more places. Nonetheless, long-distance rail travel will always be a secondary mode of travel, both for people traveling long distances and for people traveling shorter distances to and from smaller rural communities.

It's thus quite reasonable to focus the primary effort in passenger rail on corridor level services, developing these services to the point that they maximize their market share among transportation modes. Public policy should be to get as many people as possible out of cars and planes and into trains. In this sense, Amtrak's "national" system should be as many corridors as possible in every part of the country where there is sufficient population to sustain ridership. In some parts of the country these corridors will connect with each other (e.g., New York - Albany - Buffalo - Cleveland - Toledo - Chicago) and long distance service is actually part of multiple corridor services. However, it is perfectly reasonable on a policy basis to focus Amtrak's efforts on developing additional corridor service. Whether using Federal or state funds, this will get the biggest bang for the buck in public investment to increase the use of rail transportation and provide national benefits.

Nevertheless, there is a place for support of long distance service that cannot be fully incorporated into the corridor framework. These trains provide essential mobility services to a significant population in rural states and to people who cannot drive or fly. Furthermore, support for this service helps build a political coalition between legislators in rural states with those in states with large metropolitan areas. Without this coalition, it might prove difficult to get sufficient political support for passenger rail, whether for corridor service or long distance trains.

In short, most of the benefits of passenger rail are achieved by providing corridor service. However, long-distance service also has significant benefits to the mobility of a significant minority of citizens, and should be supported both for social reasons and to build a larger coalition of supporters for funding of passenger rail.

 

[MARC Rider]

By the way, developing an intercity rail corridor service is more than just Amtrak adding some trains on a route. To be successful, they need to develop transit links (including commuter rail, light rail, rapid transit, etc.) and transit oriented development around the stations to feed passengers into the intercity trains. It might be interesting to see how well the corridor service outside the NEC has been doing this.

 

[jiml]

Well said.

 

[jis]

By the way, developing an intercity rail corridor service is more than just Amtrak adding some trains on a route. To be successful, they need to develop transit links (including commuter rail, light rail, rapid transit, etc.) and transit oriented development around the stations to feed passengers into the intercity trains. It might be interesting to see how well the corridor service outside the NEC has been doing this.

Amtrak California has been doing a stellar job of this. Feeder buses play a large integral role with coordinated schedules in California too.

Chicago is a matter of merely sharing station(s) with METRA which causes it to happen, though with virtually no schedule coordination or joint publicity. But the local service is often frequent enough for it not to matter. Also the Midwest Corridor service on most routes is not dense enough on most routes. Only the Hiawatha Corridor really rises to the level of actually being a regional corridor in terms of frequency of service. The rest have potential of getting there, but have ways to go, with Michigan probaby farthest along followed by Lincoln Service.

 

[neroden]

Well written.

I try to emphasize that the natural, optimal length of a train route is actually much longer than, even twice as long as, the length of the average trip on that route. This is because you have intermediate stations and most people are going partway. A one-ended corridor is imbalanced in ridership -- you ideally want to run from one megacity to another, even though most passengers are going from a megacity to a smaller city in the middle. By having an anchor on each end, you can fill the train all the way along the route. This is why NY-Chicago is better than NY-Cleveland or Cleveland-Chicago.

Right now, the politics for the long-distance routes which don't constitute corridors is actually looking quite secure to me. They have Senators.

I worry, rather, about the so-called long-distance routes which actually *are* providing corridor service, most notably the Lake Shore Limited (but also the Cardinal, Crescent, Silver Service, and Coast Starlight), but which are not being given the respect they deserve for their corridor functions. There has been a continuous drumbeat of aggressive service downgrades on the Lake Shore Limited which can only be described as a program to drive away passengers from what is naturally an extremely popular train. The same is true to some extent on all the "megacorridor" trains, but the LSL is getting the worst of it. (The Coast Starlight, which is also a "megacorridor" route, seems to be surviving best so far, but I still worry that it has inusfficient political backing.)

----

The "can't-fly / won't-fly" population is estimated to about 10% of the nation's population. This is a large enough market that it should be taken seriously and catered to, and I appreciate this point being made. It is currently not taken seriously by Amtrak planners, despite being a core market for them. Perhaps the biggest thing people in this category want is *access* -- we'd like to be able to get to Columbus Ohio or to Phoenix Arizona. Severing connections is something we fight against; we need SOME way to get from the east to west coast, preferably at reasonable speed.

The same priorities apply to the "can't-drive / won't-drive" population (which is again about 10% of the population). Most of them, however, fly. There are some people who neither drive nor fly, of course.

Where these two populations differ is in standards of amenities. Can't-fly/won't-fly people compare Amtrak to driving; the experience must be at least comparable quality to driving, getting hotel rooms, and eating at roadhouses. (This is where Amtrak's "Contemporary Dining" fails miserably; the food is well below Denny's standards.) By contrast, can't-drive/won't-drive people compare Amtrak to flying. (The food available onboard is still worse than the food available in most airports.)

However, Amtrak competes far better on time with driving (it is often faster, especially if you sleep on a train running overnight) than with flying. So the can't-fly/won't-fly population is a core market for Amtrak and the can't-drive/won't-drive population isn't.

 

[neroden]

By the way, developing an intercity rail corridor service is more than just Amtrak adding some trains on a route. To be successful, they need to develop transit links (including commuter rail, light rail, rapid transit, etc.) and transit oriented development around the stations to feed passengers into the intercity trains. It might be interesting to see how well the corridor service outside the NEC has been doing this.

The local governments seem to be quite aggressive about developing transit links around intercity rail stations. Off the top of my head, on the Lake Shore Limited, nearly every station has been well-connected to the local bus or rail system, at least if one exists at all. This is the case despite one-a-day, often late service. Exceptions are Cleveland (due to the timing) and South Bend. Even on the three-a-week Sunset Limited, Tucson made a point of connecting its local streetcar and bus service to its intercity rail station. The same is true even at Cardinal stations.

In other words I wouldn't generally worry about that, it happens in nearly every city without doing much other than running more trains. South Bend might need a bit of a kick in the pants, though.

 

[Larry H.]

I don't think I agree that long distance is a money drain.. Those in the East use the Florida Trains, the Lake Shore, and the Auto Train. Those are not short routes but carry a fair amount of passengers. If you are going to suggest that other areas don't deserve the same service then you are actually working against the savings in pollution. People need to be able to access all major and minor locations in the western half just as they do in the East. Yet the west is denied upgraded equipment and served with poor equipment. The reason other nations carry hundreds of trains a day in many stations is because they don't live in a country where rail is seen as a antiquated service as we seem to do here. And those governments are willing to spend to support rail services. The idea that decent diners or lounges or other amenities are not money draws, then look at the European and Japanese and other nations to see what they have to offer. It makes our trains look like the slums in comparison.

 

[Qapla]

To say the without Gov't money Amtrak cannot survive and should therefore be discontinued is to deny the fact that ALL modes of transportation are helped with Gov't money. The main difference is whether that money is overt or covert.

Amtrak receives money directly (overt) in the form of budget money assigned to them while those driving their cars are getting the money indirectly (covertly) in the form of the roads they drive on, traffic lights, even RR crossing barricades - the same holds true of many of the facilities the airlines use.

If people would stop looking at Amtrak as the "only" means of transportation that receives the benefit of Gov't money ... maybe they would be more willing to support it.

 

[sttom]

A few things need to be discussed when it comes to expanding rail in any form in this country:
1) No form of transit pays for itself, it's all subsidized and explain that rail costs less than highways.
2) Rail shouldn't be purely a state concern. Highways aren't purely a state concern, why should any other form of transit?
3) Examining existing long distance lines and see if there should be added trains. There is no reason why the Starlight should be a once per day when it connects four major cities. Examples would be adding the old SP services like the Coast and Shasta Daylights, the Lark and SP Cascade back.
4) Add budget options for sleeper passengers. Whether it's a slumber coach, open section or couchette, Amtrak needs a budget option. The above overnight trains should focused on budget travel instead of tourists traveling for the experience.
5) Convince states to put money into rail. Here in California we have SB 1 for highways which has given some scraps to rail, but rail needs its own plan. We need to work on the state level in the meantime and work on the feds over time.

 

[me_little_me]

5) Convince states to put money into rail. Here in California we have SB 1 for highways which has given some scraps to rail, but rail needs its own plan. We need to work on the state level in the meantime and work on the feds over time.

When it's bundled, it might be safer since it is a smaller part of a big transportation expense. When it stands alone, it is an easy target to remove to "save money". Just look at the federal transportation. Bundle in a couple of billion for Amtrak with the multi-billions for air and highway and it looks like it isn't even there.

 

[neroden]

Bundling seems to work if you're passing it through a legislature. If you're doing a *referendum*, it's now documented that "rail only" referendums pass more often than "rail plus roads" referendums. So.

 

[sttom]

When it's bundled, it might be safer since it is a smaller part of a big transportation expense. When it stands alone, it is an easy target to remove to "save money". Just look at the federal transportation. Bundle in a couple of billion for Amtrak with the multi-billions for air and highway and it looks like it isn't even there.

$1 billion out of $50 isn't protecting or advancing public transit. We need a $20 billion project just for heavy rail to even have a chance at dealing with traffic and maybe coming close to hitting our climate targets.

Bundling seems to work if you're passing it through a legislature. If you're doing a *referendum*, it's now documented that "rail only" referendums pass more often than "rail plus roads" referendums. So.

But we need rail + roads like I need a longer belt!

 

[Qapla]

Many guys wear a belt and suspenders - with the roads so overcrowded now, rail and roads is a good idea

 

[EchoSierra]

I think that the first thing I'd want to advocate for is some sort of regulatory authority to oversee Amtrak (and possibl when it comes to customer relations and consumer protection regulatory policy.

When an airline wrongs you, you can file a complaint with the USDOT who will view it, and determine whether USDOT regulations and/or laws were violated, and levy fines if applicable. Every year, the USDOT also compiles customer complaint statistics.

When Amtrak wrongs you, you have no recourse if Customer Relations ignores you. You can try appealing to your Congresspeople, but in most cases, they are useless. Short of suing Amtrak, there is no higher authority to make sure Amtrak is following all the regulations and laws when it comes to consumer protection and/or rights. Perhaps the USDOT could simply pick up Amtrak and hold them to the same consumer standards as airlines.

Maybe when consumers know that there's someone to complain to that's not the subject of the complaint itself, they'll be more willing to give Amtrak another shot when they screw up. When an airline screws up, the consumer simply chooses to fly with another airline, or will book based on price and put up with it. When Amtrak screws up, people are just going to fly or drive when they realize that they have no recourse.

 

[jis]

There definitely needs to be a rail passenger's bill of rights and an authority that can effectively handle appeals when such rights are violated and levy fines and such to correct repeated violations.

In the process of dealing with the court decision that FRA is to create OTP metrics, FRA has been at a bit of a loss. One of the suggestions that RPA has privately given them is as a starter to simply pick up what FAA does with the airlines both in terms of measuring OTP and enforcing regulations and adopt it with minor modifications to meet the needs of the rail mode. Seems like they liked the idea. Now it is yet to be seen what comes of it.

Notwithstanding the out right hostility with which some rail aficionados view the airline industry and by extension possibly its regulation, actually the passenger rail industry does have a lot to learn from the airline industry, notwithstanding the obvious difference between the two modes. The passenger rail industry is truly way behind times on many matters in the US.

 

[sttom]

Many guys wear a belt and suspenders - with the roads so overcrowded now, rail and roads is a good idea

In California, we really don't have the space to widen most of our highways. Unless we are going to plow over 2 blocks on either side of a lot of highways. Widening a few miles of highway in Oakland is probably going to cost as much as UP would charge to add capacity over Tehachapi for passenger trains.

 

[MARC Rider]

In California, we really don't have the space to widen most of our highways. Unless we are going to plow over 2 blocks on either side of a lot of highways. Widening a few miles of highway in Oakland is probably going to cost as much as UP would charge to add capacity over Tehachapi for passenger trains.

But that widened highway in Oakland will carry a lot more passenger-miles than you'll get from a couple or a few passenger trains a day between the Bay areas and LA crossing the Tehachapi.

A better cost comparison would be to compare the cost of extra lanes on I-880 in Oakland vs the cost of a rebuild of the paralleling rail line that would (1) separate passenger and freight, (2) end the street running in the vicinity of Jack London Square, and (3) allow for faster and more frequent passenger train service on the Capitol Corridor through Oakland. I'm thinking NEC style frequencies with both intercity Capitol Corridor/San Joaquin trains and commuter service that would serve the East Bay area, something that might have a chance of diverting significant numbers of cars off of I-880 and I-80.

 

[sttom]

But that widened highway in Oakland will carry a lot more passenger-miles than you'll get from a couple or a few passenger trains a day between the Bay areas and LA crossing the Tehachapi.

A better cost comparison would be to compare the cost of extra lanes on I-880 in Oakland vs the cost of a rebuild of the paralleling rail line that would (1) separate passenger and freight, (2) end the street running in the vicinity of Jack London Square, and (3) allow for faster and more frequent passenger train service on the Capitol Corridor through Oakland. I'm thinking NEC style frequencies with both intercity Capitol Corridor/San Joaquin trains and commuter service that would serve the East Bay area, something that might have a chance of diverting significant numbers of cars off of I-880 and I-80.

We're talking past each other, my point was that highway widening in a city would require buying such expensive real estate that it wouldn't be worth it compared to literally any rail project that we could dream up. A trench through Jack London Square is something that needs to be planned it the Capitol is ever going to be an hourly or more service.

 

[MIrailfan]

AWmtrak should run monorails. T hey wou ld go above freight t rack. Huge initial cost but savings down the road.

 

[Palmetto]

AWmtrak should run monorails. T hey wou ld go above freight t rack. Huge initial cost but savings down the road.

I don't see that happening to--let's say--the California Zephyr or any other long distance one-a-day, so I'm assuming you mean in corridors.

 

[jis]

AWmtrak should run monorails. T hey wou ld go above freight t rack. Huge initial cost but savings down the road.

I say they should directly go for Hyperloop, if they cannot get early dibs into the move towards the wireless transporters

 

[MIrailfan]

I don't see that happening to--let's say--the California Zephyr or any other long distance one-a-day, so I'm assuming you mean in corridors.

woud be great for the lossan corridor asnd the bay area and the northeast corridor.

 

[neroden]

For any who might wonder, monorails are silliness. They essentially cost a lot more than normal elevated trains (cost more to build, cost more to maintain, cost more to operate) and have no advantages whatsoever (especially since the emergency exit walkway requirements were introduced).

 

[MARC Rider]

I say they should directly go for Hyperloop, if they cannot get early dibs into the move towards the wireless transporters

Wireless transporters? No way! Hackers could intercept the transmissions and clone copies of people traveling! (It would make a good Star Trek episode,though.)

 

[MARC Rider]

For any who might wonder, monorails are silliness. They essentially cost a lot more than normal elevated trains (cost more to build, cost more to maintain, cost more to operate) and have no advantages whatsoever (especially since the emergency exit walkway requirements were introduced).

Also, switches for monorails are much more costly and complicated than switches for conventional rail, so the lines are best deployed as simple continuous loops. Which might be fine to get you from the Disney Parking lot to the Magic Kingdom, but less useful for an actual intercity or commuter rail line.