[Cirrus]

Waiting at the Station
Where, oh where, is that long-promised high-speed rail?
Joseph Schwieterman
Planning Magazine
May 2007

We could fill up trains with more seats than Boeing 747s," says Richard Harnish, executive director of the Chicago-based Midwest High Speed Rail Association, when asked about the benefits of faster and more frequent trains from Chicago.

But in the Windy City and other parts of the country, high-speed service has been slow to arrive at the station. In California, Florida, and Texas, planners have spent years working on bullet train systems only to see their efforts blocked by political and financial obstacles.

The good news is that, after a rough stretch, conventional passenger service along intercity corridors finally seems to be kicking into high gear. Amtrak revenue is up, new trains are pushing traffic to record levels, and 14 states are putting up more than $170 million for added service on short and mid-distance routes.

The result is a growing sentiment that intercity trains will become an integral component of plans to reduce congestion, promote sustainable development, and relieve crowded airports. "When you give travelers options," Harnish notes, "they respond."


'High performance'

Still, Harnish and other rail proponents are keeping their expectations in check until the federal government assumes a bigger role in the development of a high-speed system. There's far less talk than there used to be about crisscrossing the American countryside with super-fast trains like France's TGV, or about matching the achievements of Germany, Japan, or even Taiwan — the newest entrant in the high-speed fraternity.

Instead, the focus is on incremental improvements that allow for frequent and reliable service at moderately fast speeds. As F. K. Plous, a Chicago-based consultant with Corridor Capital, LLC, puts it, "We're seeing a viable market for moderately fast, high-frequency trains emerge in corridors outside of the Northeast."

To avoid promising more than they can deliver, planners are apt to describe their goals as "high performance" rather than "high speed." The current trend in rail service is to hit a target speed of between 79 miles per hour and 110 miles per hour, while providing enough amenities to make passengers smile and relax.

Part of the reason for downplaying the dream of ultra-fast trains is the high cost of achieving total grade separation, the elimination of at-grade highway crossings. That's why systems are now being designed for speeds of no more than 110 mph — impressive by American standards but modest by those of Europe, where the latest generation of TGVs cruises at close to 200 mph. Scaling back speed-of-travel goals also can help to avoid regulations that apply to freight and passenger trains sharing the same track.

Historians point out that high-speed trains are nothing new. The Milwaukee Road's Hiawathas were hitting 115 mph as early as 1936. By the early 1950s, a half dozen railroads ran streamliners at 100 mph. In the mid-'50s, federal rules limited trains to 79 mph unless the railroad supplemented its automatic block signals with systems capable of stopping a train if an engineer failed to stop at a red block signal.

Although railroads continued to experiment with fast trains, the competition from auto and air, both of which benefited from taxpayer support, was stiffening. "The advent of jet travel in the 1960s and the completion of most of the interstate network by 1970 essentially finished the job of killing off the passenger trains," notes attorney James Coston, who served on the Amtrak Reform Council. Most railroads exited the business in 1971, when Amtrak began service.


Who wouldn't be skeptical?

It's not surprising that U.S. rail advocates are a skeptical bunch. After all, it was 1969 when the federal government helped to launch the Metroliner service between New York and Washington, D.C. The Metroliner reached a top speed of 125 mph (later reduced to 110). The country's next high-speed milestone was the launching of Amtrak's 150-mph Acela Express between Boston and Washington in 2000.

The Acela was heralded as a breakthrough in high-speed surface travel. But undulating tracks along the Northeast Corridor, which is owned and maintained by Amtrak, kept trains at modest speeds for most of their run. On-time performance was initially mediocre, and mechanical problems routinely relegated trains to the shops. Although some of these problems have been resolved — and ridership is way up this year — the service never proved to be the jump-start that the national high-speed movement anticipated.

Then came September 11, 2001, and the diversion of federal funds to security needs. Tight budgets frustrated hopes of state officials that the federal government would provide matching dollars for more high-speed development. The seemingly interminable efforts to save Amtrak have also been demoralizing. Increasingly, high-speed rail advocates have looked to state governments for leadership and technical assistance. As the news below suggests, this strategy is beginning to pay dividends.


Bright spots

In the densely populated Northeast, advocates of fast trains had a banner year in 2006, marked by a sharp recovery in Acela traffic and the opening of the nation's newest high-speed corridor. In October, trains on the Harrisburg–Philadelphia Keystone Corridor began running at 110 mph, compared to 79 mph before.

After a rocky start, ridership on this 105-mile segment is growing sharply — up 18 percent in January over the previous year. Supported by state and federal funding for track and signal improvements, the $145 million project has allowed Amtrak to shave 20 minutes from the schedule, boost frequency without buying more equipment, and replace diesel engines with emission-free electric locomotives.

Officials in Maine are similarly enthusiastic about their corridor prospects. The Downeaster, a Boston-to-Portland train launched in 2001 with the support of three states, attracted 338,000 riders last year, a 23 percent increase over 2005. Track improvements have boosted the maximum speed to 79 mph (there are hopes of going faster) and lowered travel times, making possible a fifth daily train starting this summer.

"We've established the Downeaster as a viable transportation option, not just a regional attraction," says Patricia Douglas, executive director of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority.

In New Jersey, state planners are working to overcome the difficult hand they were dealt when they set out to link Hoboken, and thus metropolitan New York, with Scranton-Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, by train.

New Jersey's decision in the 1980s to do nothing when Conrail abandoned a critical rail line has made it tough for planners. After a long legal battle, the abandoned Lackawanna Cutoff route was brought under public control in 2001. The goal is now to work with the state of Pennsylvania to rebuild track and launch service using 79 mph trains on the 133-mile Hoboken–Scranton route.


News from the South

The push for corridor development is not limited to cities with a densely populated urban core. In North Carolina, a public corporation owns the 173-mile corridor linking Charlotte to Raleigh. Last year, the state-subsidized Amtrak service between these cities recorded double-digit ridership gains, thanks in part to state investments in track and signals that shaved a half-hour from the schedule.

But for bona fide high-speed service in the Carolinas, we may have to wait for the northernmost leg of the Southeast Corridor. The problem is that launching service between Raleigh and Washington, D.C., will probably require the resurrection of an abandoned CSX right-of-way in southern Virginia. The initiative must resolve sensitive issues related to laying tracks through historic Civil War battlefields.

In Florida, ambitious proposals for bullet trains running down the medians of Interstate 4 and Florida's Turnpike remain on the drawing board. But the enormous financial obstacles facing this effort — and painful memories of the demise of the heavily publicized Florida Overland Express proposal in 1999 — have prompted officials to take another look at operating conventional trains on existing rail lines.


Heartland initiatives

In the Midwest, several state-sponsored initiatives are attracting passengers back to the rails. Last summer, Michigan completed track and signal work that allows Amtrak to begin 100-mph service over 45 miles of the Chicago–Detroit route. The revenue generated last year on the Wolverine Corridor grew by 22 percent — one of the highest growth rates of any route on the Amtrak system.

Short travel distances make higher frequency service — rather than higher speeds — the priority for Amtrak's Hiawatha Service, which connects Chicago and Milwaukee. Last year, after Illinois and Wisconsin support allowed for a seventh daily round trip, the market responded with double-digit traffic growth, buoyed by the popularity of a new Mitchell Airport station in Milwaukee. The surge in traffic has reenergized efforts to extend the service to Madison and eventually to increase speed from 90 to 110 mph.

Excitement about the new Lincoln Service between Chicago and St. Louis is also building. Illinois's decision to double its funding for Amtrak corridor service allowed for fourth and fifth daily trains on the St. Louis line. Traffic has nearly doubled as a result.

"All the things we want to happen are happening. Ridership is growing and travelers are being given more flexibility," notes Harnish.

Nevertheless, without movement on the federal level, talk about creating the 3,000-mile system identified by the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative — a network of 110 mph routes backed by a consortium of states and radiating from Chicago — has subsided in recent years. Many planners see incremental improvements as the way to go, although the robust performance of the routes emanating from the Chicago hub has helped to energize efforts to create another system of routes — this one called the Ohio & Lake Erie Hub — radiating from Cleveland.


West Coast renaissance

In California, ambitious proposals for bullet trains have generated newspaper headlines, but less heavily publicized efforts involving more conventional services have earned praise from planners nationwide. Two of Amtrak's most heavily used routes — the Pacific Surfliner service linking San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obisbo, and the San Joaquin service linking Oakland and Bakersfield — have grown by 56 percent since 2000. Although maximum speed remains just 79 mph, the state has demonstrated that reliability and convenience can attract huge numbers to the rails. "In California, we can't add trains fast enough," says Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari.

This strategy is also evident on the Capitol Corridor service linking the Bay Area to Sacramento. Sixteen trains a day now run between Oakland and the state capital. "The Capitols are shredding the myth that you need a linear demographic pattern like the Northeast Corridor to support high-frequency service," says consultant F. K. Plous. "The trains follow a snaking, shore-hugging route that limits their speed, but the riders keep coming."

The California rail renaissance is now spreading to the Pacific Northwest. Although traffic between Portland and Seattle was sluggish in the early part of last year, the introduction of a fifth daily train turned things around, and there are high hopes for 2007.

Passengers are attracted to the Spanish-built Talgo trains, whose tilt systems allow rail cars to negotiate curves at higher speeds than conventional equipment. Investments by Oregon and Washington have already eliminated 30 minutes from trips between Portland and Seattle. Later this year, work crews will begin realigning two portions of the Cascade Corridor to allow even faster service.

None of these improvements has deterred advocates of state-of-the-art rail technology from advocating high-tech maglev (magnetic levitation) systems or bullet trains capable of operating at speeds of 180 mph or more. The California High-Speed Rail Authority's proposals for an entirely new system linking the Bay Area with San Diego remain in the planning stage, awaiting a breakthrough in the state legislature. There is also an effort to plan and build a maglev route between greater Los Angeles and Las Vegas.


Down the track

There's no shortage of ambitious initiatives designed to bring high-speed rail service to many parts of the U.S. A survey we conducted at DePaul University shows that there are now 21 systems in various stages of planning. These systems involve 64 corridors, the tracks of 21 freight railroads, and over 15,500 route miles.

Remarkably, these proposed corridors have the potential to link 163 of the 250 largest metropolitan areas in the continental U.S., including all of the 50 largest cities except Salt Lake City. But the challenges are immense. More than 87 percent of the existing railroad mileage identified for high-speed service is operated by freight-oriented railroads, with 70 percent being single-track routes.

Congestion and cost — and a lack of a political will — remain serious obstacles. Without a breakthrough in Washington, few new routes are likely to be upgraded for 110 mph service over the next few years.

Even so, for rail advocates, the news about revived rail interest throughout the country represents a refreshing turnaround. Amtrak president Alexander Kummant recently noted that "the stars may be aligning" for a resurgence of passenger rail.

Joseph Schwieterman is the director of the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul University in Chicago.

[BTinSF]

What concerns me personally is the long-distance intercity service which the article doesn't really discuss. In fact, the success of and funding targetted toward the short and medium distance services described could be taken as an argument for the Bush Administration's proposals to, essentially, break up AMTRAK and the let the states either run these services themselves and/or privatize them while eliminating the long-distance trains entirely.

The article says the proposed "corridors" would link 49 or the 50 largest cities which is true--but who wants to have to change trains every couple hundred miles while leapfrogging across the country?

What I'd like to see is Federal money going into double-tracking that 70% of passenger routes that remain single-tracked, building more sidings adequate for freights (some freights are too long for existing sidings giving freight railroad dispatchers an excuse to sideline the passenger trains) and a Federal law mandating a priority for passenger trains over freights. That way, I believe that even long-distance passenger trains could come close to the schedules and approach the 79 MPH speed for much of their routes. As the article says, what people want is not so much high speed (although that would be wonderful) but reliability which means adhering to the schedule whatever it is.

[ardecila]

I'm not so sure about making the states responsible. Other than California, almost all successful medium-distance routes link cities that are in different states. A better approach would be regional rail corporations - a Northeast, South, Midwest, etc. Long distance routes would still be handled by Amtrak.

[BTinSF]

^^^That's the problem with their proposal: skim off the cream (the short/medium distance routes), which can be either profitable or self-supporting, and leave the long-distance routes to whither and die for lack of funding. It won't work. We need a national rail system with routes of all lengths, some of which will subsidize others. And we also need the creativity of management to realize that what draws passengers on a ride of an hour or two between two cities in the same region (perfect for business and commuter users) and a long-distance route (serving mainly retirees and other vacationers) are different.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^

This is just a devil's advocate question for you BT, but why keep a network where no overall profit is made and profitable routes support non-profitable routes, when clearly those routes are unprofitable because of lack of demand? Also, wouldn't it be better to start with regional, profitable routes, to get the system generating a profit, then use that profit to improve the regional routes, then, after that, use the profit to slowly add in demand high speed trains, then slowly add the less popular (and less useful) long distance trains?

I think a lot of the problem is that long distance trains, because they are much much slower than airplanes and just about as expensive are virtually useless to most consumers with the exception of those who do it for pleasure or happen to have a couple days lying around. No one will pay the $200 for an amtrak from Chicago to California that takes 36 - 48 hours when they can pay just as much or less for a 3 hour flight... It makes no sense to subsidize a useless service... So I ask you, can long distance routes become practical and useful?

[Cirrus]

I wonder what would happen if the long distance routes upped the luxury quotient and billed themselves as "overland cruises".

*That* would be a reason not to fly.

[glowrock]

I think it's an interesting idea, cirrus... Making trains luxurious once again would be a potentially very good way to attract the crowd willing to pay for such luxuries, but without such availablility today.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[BTinSF]

I wonder what would happen if the long distance routes upped the luxury quotient and billed themselves as "overland cruises".

*That* would be a reason not to fly.

I think they'd be very successful, however they would probably need to have two classes of service: the expensive "overland cruise" class for sleeping car passengers and basic coach service. That's because in the hinterlands, AMTRAK's long-distance routes serve a lot of small towns that don't have air service or other options (except maybe a bus) for travel. These local short and medium distance riders don't want (and can't afford) luxury--they just want to get to the nearest big city in most cases.

AMTRAK's sleeping car service is already pretty pricey. But they have been cutting the amenities, apparently in order to keep the fares in check. You used to get a free newspaper and all the non-alcoholic beverages you want included: That's mostly gone. The dining cars used to have actual cooked to order meals: Now it's all prepackaged although the quality is still pretty good (better than any airline food I've ever had). I don't know how much more they'd need to charge to put things back the way they were, but I don't think it would be that much.

I know from lots of AMTRAK travel, though, that what has people screaming "never again" after every trip is the miserable adherence to schedules. People expect trains to be slow (compared to air travel) but they don't expect to arrive 6 or 8 or even 12 hours later than the schedule says. That has to be fixed, somehow, and if it were, it would probably be enough to fill the trains.

[DenverTrans]

I wonder what would happen if the long distance routes upped the luxury quotient and billed themselves as "overland cruises".

*That* would be a reason not to fly.

Except for the price. Right now in the northeast it is often cheaper to fly than take the train. It is much cheaper to drive than take the train. Amtrak ridership is good, but the price constrains ridership. To put it in perspective, it is about $50 to go from Philly to NYC on Amtrak one way -- far too expensive.

Rail travel as it should be:

http://www.phillyideas.com/Bond.htm (http://www.phillyideas.com/Bond.html)

[JACKinBeantown]

The train is my favorite way to travel.

[Policy Wonk]

I know from lots of AMTRAK travel, though, that what has people screaming "never again" after every trip is the miserable adherence to schedules. People expect trains to be slow (compared to air travel) but they don't expect to arrive 6 or 8 or even 12 hours later than the schedule says. That has to be fixed, somehow, and if it were, it would probably be enough to fill the trains.

They also don't like getting off the train on the side of a highway somewhere to board yellow school buses to finish their trip because the freight traffic is so backed and only they fit in the sidings.

Nothing really changes the fact that the north american rail network is over-subscribed by freight traffic as it is, little to no investment is being made in the track stock and that shoe horning paxrail into that mess isn't going to work very well.

[zilfondel]

^^^

This is just a devil's advocate question for you BT, but why keep a network where no overall profit is made and profitable routes support non-profitable routes, when clearly those routes are unprofitable because of lack of demand?

No one will pay the $200 for an amtrak from Chicago to California that takes 36 - 48 hours when they can pay just as much or less for a 3 hour flight... It makes no sense to subsidize a useless service... So I ask you, can long distance routes become practical and useful?

Are you kidding?! I would love to take a cross-country train ride, and I bet it costs a lot more than $200... isn't it like a thousand bucks or more???
A lot of people absolutely hate sitting in stuffy, noisy, claustrophobic airplanes - particularly with the security threats (yea, say all you want, but trains are a thousand times safer in a crash than either a car OR an jet aircraft).

I have taken the train several times from Oregon to Seattle as well as the Bay Area... although that took about 16 hours when I rode it. Beautiful scenery, tho... well worth it!

[BTinSF]

They also don't like getting off the train on the side of a highway somewhere to board yellow school buses to finish their trip because the freight traffic is so backed and only they fit in the sidings.

Nothing really changes the fact that the north american rail network is over-subscribed by freight traffic as it is, little to no investment is being made in the track stock and that shoe horning paxrail into that mess isn't going to work very well.

That's true as far as it goes, but it seems clear to me that the easiest and cheapest way to imporve passenger service would be to upgrade the tracks within existing rights of way: double (or even triple) tracking, lengthening sidings and so on, so that trains can pass each other without lengthy delays. There ought to be ways for AMTRAK to use government funds to help do this specifically to improve passenger service. Then, in oder to be sure that passenger service benefits, I think there should be a government mandate of passenger train priority on specific upgraded routes.

[BTinSF]

Are you kidding?! I would love to take a cross-country train ride, and I bet it costs a lot more than $200... isn't it like a thousand bucks or more???
A lot of people absolutely hate sitting in stuffy, noisy, claustrophobic airplanes - particularly with the security threats (yea, say all you want, but trains are a thousand times safer in a crash than either a car OR an jet aircraft).

I have taken the train several times from Oregon to Seattle as well as the Bay Area... although that took about 16 hours when I rode it. Beautiful scenery, tho... well worth it!

You can go to the AMTRAK web site to get specific fares, but the cost mightlily depends on whether you go in a sleeping car or not. For the SF/Chicago route--which has spectacular scenery because AMTRAK has set the schedule such that most of the daytime travel is through the Rockies and Sierra (and this particular train usually stays close to the schedule)--it is a 2-day trip and in coach should be around $200, but a sleeper puts it up around $600 (meals included).

It varies by route, but a "standard bedroom" or "roomette" (actually a small compartment with two facing seats that convert to upper and lower bunks at night) usually adds about $200 per night of travel to the fare but includes 3 meals.

http://www.amtrak.com/images/travel/sl_standard_day.jpg

http://www.amtrak.com/images/diagrams/sl_economy_diagram.gif

For me, the "roomette" works perfectly for a single person even though it can theoretically fit 2, but if I were actually travelling with another person I'd strongly consider the more expensive "deluxe bedroom" which WOULD put the fare up around $1000 (but not for both people--as I understand it, the cost of the bedroom is the same whether occupied by 1 or 2).

[DenverTrans]

http://www.phillyideas.com/transfer/2-Rail-over-lights.jpg

http://www.phillyideas.com/Images/6%20vlcsnap-8749558.png

[DenverTrans]

The map above shows the North American rail network, including many abandoned lines, shown in red. There is no one complete map of abandonments -- government data doesn't show all lines -- however one can easily see that much of the network has been abandoned. One can also see that 1.) railroads built the western part of the country (all lights are located on rail lines) and 2). the interstate highway system was built to parallel major railroads.

The freight network that remains is not set up for passenger trains, which are generally faster. There are fewer secondary lines parallel to the main lines that would allow for separating passenger and freight trains. Super elevation in curves has been removed.

The second image is from Casino Royale and shows what train diners would look like if Hollywood got to design them.

To close, you can compare Amtrak accommodations to European hotel trains, for example:

http://www.elipsos.com

http://www.citynightline.ch/
(double decker trains)

[whyhuhwhy]

I think Amtrak should completely abandon all long distance routes with little/no growth and focus all of their money on the short inter-city corridors that people actually use on a daily basis like the Hiawatha between Millwaukee-Chicago.

BTW I don't know about that map. I really doubt there are abandoned railroads crossing Lake Michigan!

[TheMeltyMan]

Acela has a low speed NE Corridor train linking all the major hubs in the region, but at relatively low speeds due to acceleration, deceleration and outdated tracks. As someone else mentioned - a second track should be created for 110mph+ more direct routes between destinations. Just DC, Philly, NYC, and Bastan.

http://www.amtrak.com/images/maps/largemaps/MAP-LG_acelaexpress.gif

I worked near Parkersburg surveying the tunnels underneath the Keystone Express (below) but it was before high-speed service was implemented. I saw it as simply a commuter train to Philly, but I wondered what I was doing out in Parksburg and Coatesville with the po people. Well it turned into rapid transit between Harrisburg - Philly - NYC.

http://www.tcrpc-pa.org/SRTP/SRTP_images/Chapter05/map_Keystone.gif

The problem is that nobody would use it for long distance travel. I once did Montreal - NYC and it took 12 hours with all the stops. Its not worth it on shoddy rails and commuter stops in every populated town.

On the bright side, with double tracks (for long distance) this small NE network could easily extend into Pittsburgh, PA. Portland ME is already planning on connecting to Boston (the Downeaster) and Scranton wants to build towards NYC. Its gotta start somewhere and I will have sex with any presidential candidate that brings it up.

[DenverTrans]

BTW I don't know about that map. I really doubt there are abandoned railroads crossing Lake Michigan!

They are former car ferry operations, I think, that have been abandoned.

http://home.frognet.net/~mcfadden/wd8rif/img/co_badger_card.jpg

[BTinSF]

I think Amtrak should completely abandon all long distance routes with little/no growth and focus all of their money on the short inter-city corridors that people actually use on a daily basis like the Hiawatha between Millwaukee-Chicago.

BTW I don't know about that map. I really doubt there are abandoned railroads crossing Lake Michigan!

This, of course, is the Bush idea and completely overlooks the fact that there are no routes that people don't "use on a daily basis". Congressmen undertand the need for long idstance train service because they get plenty of letters from constituents who will be stranded without it.

The long distance trains I've rodden--and I've ridden quite a few--are usually completely booked in the sleepers (I generally reserve 3 months ahead) and, while I haven't toured the coach sections, they look pretty full too. There is demand for train service as it stands and the point I've tried to make is there could be a lot more demand if the service was better quality.

The people riding trains now are mostly either those living in small towns who have no alternative or the hard core train lovers like me. But I see plenty of other folks trying the trains and getting disgusted by bad service and that can be fixed.

Not everybody wants to be treated like cattle in airports and get sick on an airplane. And why shouldn't those people get their share of government help just like the people who fly or drive. Airlines lose money too and the government heavily subsidizes both roads and the air system. It should stop bitching about subsidizing rail.

[BTinSF]

The problem is that nobody would use it for long distance travel.

Totally wrong. See :previous: . And I've taken the Canadian from Vancouver to Toronto as well--it was fully booked. In fact, try to get a seat for this summer now. It's possible there are none available.

I also took the train from Toronto to New York. The car I was in was also near full (I don't know about the rest). Yeah, it took 12 hours but I got to see a part of your country and mine I had never seen before and I arrived--on time--in the heart of New York (Penn Station) not needing to get into Manhattan from some outlying airport.

Why do people keep saying nobody rides long distance trains when lots of people do? And they do it in spite of the problems. Imagine how many would use it if it stuck to the schedule and had modern equipment.

[DenverTrans]

Trains magazine this month had an analysis of the on-off pattern of passengers on the Empire Builder (Chicago to Seattle). About 75% of the passengers are not riding from one end to the other. Many of the passengers are destined for the interior of Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, and Washington -- where there is not much public transportation of any kind. Air service and sometimes bus service is not an option for many of the customers.

[TheMeltyMan]

SF - It was an exagerration and It was more an argument for increased ridership. Of course people still use Amtrak. Plus i'm an American.

[Markitect]

BTW I don't know about that map. I really doubt there are abandoned railroads crossing Lake Michigan!

Those are railroad carferries, on which whole freight trains (depending on length) could be carried between various ports on either side of Lake Michigan. Their major advantage was that rail traffic could avoid having to hook around the southern end of the lake where they would be forced to snake their way through the congested rail lines and yards in the Chicago area, which sometimes could add several days onto each railroad car's trip.

In addition to carrying railroad freight cars, these carferries were fully outfitted to carry passengers too (though not passenger trains), with different types of staterooms and berths and dining facilities--more or less like a scaled-down cruise ship. They were also modified to carry auto/bus/truck traffic across the lake as well.

The cross-lake carferries were integrated into the national railroad network because they were operated by a handful of railroad companies, each of which had fleets consisting of several vessels to provide nearly around-the-clock operations all year long.

That is why they are marked as abandoned rail lines on the map posted above (and actually, there are a few of them missing), because the carferries were essentially "floating bridges" that carried significant rail traffic across Lake Michigan.

[Policy Wonk]

Totally wrong. See :previous: . And I've taken the Canadian from Vancouver to Toronto as well--it was fully booked. In fact, try to get a seat for this summer now. It's possible there are none available.

While The Canadian is popular as a tourist train, it is highly subsudized and it hasn't turned a profit since 1964. The CPR tried to shut it down in 1970 but the government refused the concession instead subsudizing it by 80%

If you want to be technical about it the Canadian was actually shut down in 1990. What is now called the Canadian is actually the route of the Super Continental. The original Canadian route was closed because ridership was basically zero on the more southernly route.

The Trudeau government created VIA Rail and it assumed the pax opperations of both CN and CPR. As both national railways had been trying to get out of the business since the early 70's. CP Rail at one point basically told Ottawa that you take our passenger cars or they will be in the scrap yard by the end of the year.

When it comes to the small town service, the tax payer would be much better spent applying the funds to the Essential Air Service program than maintaining long distance service. I also suspect that Amtrak pushing for money for a massive investment in improving rail infrastructure would be practically suicidal. If Amtrak goes up the hill and says we need several billion dollars to upgrade track so that we can be viable, Congress will say "that is a billion dollars we could be spending in Iraq"

[BTinSF]

If Amtrak goes up the hill and says we need several billion dollars to upgrade track so that we can be viable, Congress will say "that is a billion dollars we could be spending in Iraq"

Is living in Canada something like living on the moon? Congress doesn't want to spend another dime in Iraq but so far they haven't found the huevos to "just say no". On the other hand, for years they have been increasing Administration AMTRAK funding requests because their constituents want train service.

In 2005 (2006 budget):

The House, ignoring President Bush and the Republican leadership, voted Wednesday to reject planned slashes in Amtrak's budget that could have led to major service reductions, including the end of numerous long-distance train routes. By a voice vote, the House approved an amendment to a transportation appropriations bill offered by Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, that more than doubled the $550 million the appropriations committee had proposed for Amtrak. Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/30/MNG51DGTND1.DTL

For the 2007 Budget:

House Approves $1.294 billion for Amtrak - February 2, 2007

The U.S. House of Representatives picked up where the last session left off by approving $1.294 billion for Amtrak for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. The budget for FY 07 went into effect last October but the previous session of Congress failed to pass a budget. The Bush Administration's Office of Management and Budget called the funding "excessive" saying that this "undermines any incentive for the railroad to exercise fiscal discipline."

The $1.294 billion figure is less than what the Amtrak board had requested ($1.598 billion) but an improvement over the $1.1 billion that Amtrak had been getting in previous continuing resolutions. A funding bill now goes to the Senate for their action. Source: http://www.trainweb.org/crocon/amtrak.html

If we had an administration that actually came up with a comprehensive and sensible plan for nationwide service resoration and improvement, and if they would work for it, it could happen.

I'll let you speak for Canada except to say that when I rode The Canadian I saw exactly the same phenomenon I saw in the US--lots of riders boarding in small towns for short to medium range journeys in coach while the sleepers were full of tourists like me going all or most of the route (some were connecting with the service to Churchill on Hudson's Bay to see polar bears).

[AZheat]

I do see some sense in the idea of money making routes subsidizing long routes that tend to lose money. It reminds me of the telephone industry which I recently retired from. There's alot of money to be made in the big cities but it actually costs money to supply remote locations with phone service. However if we didn't do that there are many little towns that wouldn't even have phone service and of course that's not acceptable. I think we need to look at the total picture and try to provide the maximum amount of service that we can. That was a very good article and maybe there really is hope for rail transportation.

[Policy Wonk]

Is living in Canada something like living on the moon? Congress doesn't want to spend another dime in Iraq but so far they haven't found the huevos to "just say no". On the other hand, for years they have been increasing Administration AMTRAK funding requests because their constituents want train service.

While that was intended to be sarcastic, Amtrak seeking massive sums of money would be seen as a good pretense to shut it down. The types of improvements you are proposing would not be well received in Washington - or well received by the rail industry.

While I am Canadian, most of my work relates to transportation in the United States.

The problem is there is effectively no way to make long-haul rail travel economically sustainable. And the same small town service could be acheived at a much lower cost through the EAS program. And I really don't think tourist trains for well heeled travellers is really the responsibility of either government.

The greatest problem for Amtrak is the only railroad they have an even marginally good relationship with is BNSF, once they are off their own track and BNSF's track they are in opperational hell as the host rail traffic controllers do everything in their power to keep their traffic and other high yielding traffic on sched. the Amtrak traffic, which just happens to fit so nicely in the sidings, is not a priority. Hence the epic delays.

The further problem is that each year additional rail lines are falling into disrepair causing them to either be abandoned or so weight or speed restricted as to be nearly useless. This pushes more and more highly profitable traffic onto an over-subscribed and fairly dysfunctional network from which Amtrak is easily squeezed out.

[whyhuhwhy]

This, of course, is the Bush idea and completely overlooks the fact that there are no routes that people don't "use on a daily basis". Congressmen undertand the need for long idstance train service because they get plenty of letters from constituents who will be stranded without it.


I think you misunderstood. I said people don't use these long distance trains on a daily basis as in, commuters. Obviously there are "people" on these trains everyday. But is Joe Urban using the Minneapolis to Seattle route to commute from his home in Minneapolis to his job in Seattle everyday like people do on routes like Milwaukee-Chicago? Of course not. And what percentage of these routes that literally take DAYS to travel are business and frequent travelers? Probably almost none.

The long distance runs lose a lot of money, period. Everyday they are run there is less money for the rest of the system, including the ones that are packed with commuters and that have the high inter-city growth. I would rather have the hundreds of millions of dollars that would come from losing these long distance tourist lines and put all that money into making high speed rail viable between the major cities, wouldn't you?

High speed rail will never happen until we get rid of these cross country loss leaders.

[zilfondel]

^ You're right, only commuters should use trains.

Everyone else, STAY AT HOME!!!

[mhays]

I wonder if the small towns could be better served by buses. I don't mean buses going cross-country, but more of a hub and spoke system centered on major cities.

Passenger rail is well-suited to the 100-400-mile segment with a big city at each end. In the Eastern US that can mean going the whole N-S distance because there's always another major city just a couple hundred miles further. On the West Coast you could make the argument that Van/Sea/Por should connect to Sac/Oak/LA/SD though the gap is longer. But the Interior West probably isn't populated enough to cross E-W, or N-S for that matter.

I'd love to see hourly service Vancouver-Seattle-Tacoma-Portland. I think we're up to five a day to Portland and two a day to Vancouver.

[whyhuhwhy]

^ You're right, only commuters should use trains.

Everyone else, STAY AT HOME!!!

There is no getting away from the fact that these long distance lines are loss leaders and that the commuters and business travelers are subsidizing the cost of the leisure traveler. Meanwhile we wonder why Amtrak inter-city high speed rail improvements seem to flounder yet we send $1.6 billion in subsidies just to keep the system and the long distance rolling pork barrels maintained in their current state. It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. If money grew on trees I would agree with you, but in the real world you have to budget your spending and choose what you spend your money on. The fact is every single day these long distance routes continue to run, there is less money for the rest of the system, and I'm sorry but I'd like to see inter-city high speed regional rail happen before I die.

[GVNY]

All arguments against long haul passenger trains are bogus. There should be no reason why these routes cannot be funded.

[Policy Wonk]

That is the problem, they have to be funded. It is right up their in terms of ROI with firing your furnace with uncut cocaine.

In terms of service to isolated communities, the same end can be achieved through the EAS program (http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/rural/easwhat.pdf) at much lower cost.

[Smiley Person]

Maybe I'm a sappy hippie, but Amtrak is both transportation and recreation, or, as we like to say here, mixed use.

Seperating housing from workplaces leads to sprawl and gross inefficiencies. Seperating transportation from all other things has given America such things as air rage, downtown freeways, parking lots, cruise ships, drive-in gyms, and the like.

[Policy Wonk]

there is no greater gross inefficiency that long-distance passenger rail the seat mile cost is exorbitant.

[jamesinclair]

On the bright side, with double tracks (for long distance) this small NE network could easily extend into Pittsburgh, PA. Portland ME is already planning on connecting to Boston (the Downeaster) and Scranton wants to build towards NYC. Its gotta start somewhere and I will have sex with any presidential candidate that brings it up.

Service cannot be extended north of Boston. South Station and North Station are not connected.

[BTinSF]

there is no greater gross inefficiency that long-distance passenger rail the seat mile cost is exorbitant.

^^^Easy to say and it is said a lot--with no hard data.

Besides, there are plenty of examples of "gorss inefficiency in competition for the "greatest" title: Running electrical power and phone service to rural farmhouses, bridges "to nowhere" (islands with 50 residents), many rural roads used by only a few farmers, San Francisco's Muni system where I read today that fares only cover about 20% of the costs and many more.

First of all, if the trains are full, there's no reason long distance service has to lose more per mile than short-distance service. Second, I've already agreed that I and most passengers would be willing to pay a bit more. I'd love to see a figure telling us exactly how much a trip on, say, the Sunset Limited (which is AMTRAK's long-distance whipping boy) should cost if it were going to break even.

Finally, we've had any number of examples in recent years of why America needs an alternative to air travel. Just ask those Jet Blue passengers who sat on the runway for 12 hours because planes couldn't take off. Snowstorms, thunderstorms and other weather events regularly shut down air service to large parts of the country. So might terrorism and other kinds of things. Society subsidizes all sorts of incfrastructure for all sorts of reasons. There's no reason rail service should be different.

[BTinSF]

we send $1.6 billion in subsidies just to keep the system and the long distance rolling pork barrels maintained in their current state. It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. If money grew on trees I would agree with you, but in the real world you have to budget your spending and choose what you spend your money on. The fact is every single day these long distance routes continue to run, there is less money for the rest of the system, and I'm sorry but I'd like to see inter-city high speed regional rail happen before I die.

Not all the $1.6 billion is for operating subsidies. A lot of it is intended for unpgrades to rails and rolling stock. The idea is to fianlly get ahead of the maintenance and service issues so that AMTRAK can provide the quality of service that brings in repeat customers.

To everyone here who keeps talking about the long distance lines losing money, I suspect you of simply repeating a conclusion you've read or heard. Give us numbers. They probably do lose money, but do they lose more than the medium distance lines NOT COUNTING STATE SUBSIDIES? Do they lose more than airlines (another article about that in today's Wall Street Journal) or urban transit systems--things we feel we need anyway?

Would, for example, California's San Joaquin lose less than the Coast Starlight if Caltrans weren't subsidizing it (to provide a transportation option to residents of Central valley towns)? I know for a fact most riders going to LA would rather use the Starlight (because it goes all the way) if it didn't live up to its recent nickname, "The Coast Starlate". Even better would be a night train between LA and the Bay Area such as there used to be: Get on, go to sleep in LA or Oakland, wake up at the other end (Oakland or LA). Such trains could sell out and if AMTRAK had sufficient rolling stock, could move lots of people.

[Policy Wonk]

First of all, if the trains are full, there's no reason long distance service has to lose more per mile than short-distance service. .

Uhh... not only do some of the short haul routes break-even, some are even profitable. The difference is that on a short-haul route it is easier to charge a fare that can cover or exceed the cost of providing the service. That is more or less impossible on longer-haul routes. A train that is running the short-haul break-even or profitable routes can complete the profitable route a two dozen times in the time it might take for one of the non-profitable long distance routes to complete its multiday journey.

It is a question of the best utilization of resources,

Another example would be in aviation, aircraft like the Boeing 737 and Airbus A319 are capable of transatlantic flights. A few are even used for them but not frequently because the seatmile cost on the smaller airplanes is too high and can complete a more profitable route multiple times in the time it would be tied up to oppperate the transatlantic route.

It doesn't matter if the train is full, when every seat on the train is highly subsudized it is losing money when the same equipment could be opperating a profitable route.

[ardecila]

Service cannot be extended north of Boston. South Station and North Station are not connected.

Well, eventually Boston WILL build a tunnel, and we all know how good you guys are at that. Pennsylvania and Washington have rail tunnels through their downtowns, and many European cities are building these now so trains can run through.

But seriously... I think Boston, being on the Northeast Corridor, will get a downtown rail tunnel before us Chicagoans do (and we already have plans!)

[BTinSF]

Uhh... not only do some of the short haul routes break-even, some are even profitable. The difference is that on a short-haul route it is easier to charge a fare that can cover or exceed the cost of providing the service. That is more or less impossible on longer-haul routes. A train that is running the short-haul break-even or profitable routes can complete the profitable route a two dozen times in the time it might take for one of the non-profitable long distance routes to complete its multiday journey.

It is a question of the best utilization of resources,

Another example would be in aviation, aircraft like the Boeing 737 and Airbus A319 are capable of transatlantic flights. A few are even used for them but not frequently because the seatmile cost on the smaller airplanes is too high and can complete a more profitable route multiple times in the time it would be tied up to oppperate the transatlantic route.

It doesn't matter if the train is full, when every seat on the train is highly subsudized it is losing money when the same equipment could be opperating a profitable route.

The long-distance trains are used for short-haul trips by a significant percentage of the passengers. We've already discussed that. If short-haul trips can be charged at profitable rates, why isn't that being done for these passengers. In many cases, AMTRAK does have a monoploy since there's no air service to these smaller towns.

Second, you blythly say its impossible to charge a breakeven fare for passengers actually going long distances. I've already challenged you to tell me what the actual cost is of such service and I'll tell you if I would pay it. I've said I'd be willing to pay more to keep the service and under the right conditions (good service, a bit of inexpensive luxury like good food) so might many of the other passengers (mostly affluent retirees).

Finally, there is no mode of transportation in this country that isn't helped, subsidized or facilitated by the government--as they should be. To suggest that rail, long or short-distance, uniquely should be unsubsidized is ridiculous, yet it's where those opposed to AMTRAK always end up.

The aircraft analogy is irrelevent since few passengers care what kind of plane they are in. Many do care very much whether they are on the ground or in the air. There's only one kind of train available. if AMTRAK wants to buy more efficient equipment, good for them.

[Policy Wonk]

Two or three people going between Alpine and El Paso Texas on The Sunset Limited route isn't the same as several hundred people going along routes on the Northeast Corridor.

The train is tied up on an unproductive route for days, while a train on the Northeast Corridor is repeditly opperating a lucrative route in that time.

If you don't understand that, well that is your problem. The economics are very straight forward. There is nothing wrong with the government subsudizing transportation - but maintaining service that could be provided by other means at a lower cost is senseless.

According to David Gunn the former president of Amtrak the transcontinental service account for only 18% of their passengers, but greater than 75% of their losses.

If you want the exact trip mile costs you have to make a FOIA request. But anyone who knows anything about the economics of transportation can figure out the gist of it.

[alexjon]

They need to move service into downtown phoenix, create a spur line that runs ONLY between PHX and LA, and shave down the number of E-W trips each week.

[BTinSF]

The train is tied up on an unproductive route for days, while a train on the Northeast Corridor is repeditly opperating a lucrative route in that time.

If you don't understand that, well that is your problem. The economics are very straight forward.

If the train is full or near full, the route is not unproductive. If you don't understand THAT, it's YOUR problem.

If David Gunn couldn't figure out how to make full trains economical, it was HIS problem.

[Policy Wonk]

Just because you can fill any vehicle with warm bodies doesn't mean it is an economically viable route. Airlines are enjoying some record load factors but many are still mired in red ink. If you discount or subsudize something enough people will use it. But just because people will use it doesn't mean people will use it as a profit making price. If people will not use it at a price point that is profitable to the carrier it is not viable. And that is why most passenger rail has been unprofitable since the 1960's.

It doesn't much matter if the trains were full or if they were empty - if the transcon opperations that represent less than 20% of Amtrak's opperations but represented more than three quarters of their losses.

The transcontinental routes are a big bloody gash in an otherwise marginally sucessful enterprise. If the routes are not profitable they should be free to abolish them. That is what Gunn got fired by the utterly inept board of Amtrak that is staffed by a bunch of romantic but naive civil servants. Who think a mandate signed by Richard Nixon in 1970 is in the same league as the ten commandments.

If Amtrak wants to survive they need to tune their opperations to where they are either profitable, or where there is really no alternative service. Does Amtrak need to offer service between Dallas and OKC? A route that is served by eleven hour long flights daily with an average fare of $90? The stops in between are more or less suburbs of either city.

[digme]

Speaking as a consumer, I want faster/more frequent rail travel from Madison to Milwaukee, Chicago, and Minneapolis. I want it to be price competitive with air travel, and time competitive with car travel.

I agree that national routes are also important. As a leisure traveler, I wouldn't mind taking a couple extra days to take the train (and would even pay slightly more than air cost). But the shorter routes are the ones that can be improved more cheaply and are a better bet for increasing ridership.

I have an idea. Lets reduce federal funding on the interstate system and spend it on rail. I would much rather see better train service than another highway widened.

[The Cheat]

I have calculated the operating ratios of commuter railroads and it seems that commuter trains can make a profit with about a 66% load factor, when only considering operating expenses. The big part missing from the equation is the capital cost (track, stations, vehicles, etc.), which is so big that no passenger service can earn its cost of capital.

But airports, river and sea ports, and highways are subsidized too, so it's hard to compare modes.

But we can compare NEC, short-distance, and long-distance Amtrak trains. You can find the info in Amtrak's monthly reports, where they break down the costs and revenues for each route. You will see that NEC trains consistently have an operating profit which subsidizes the other trains, primarily the long-distance trains.

From an efficiency standpoint, those long distance trains are taking up space on transcontinental routes that would be more profitably replaced with freight trains shipping goods from China and coal from the Powder River Basin.

From an operating standpoint, having 3 crews working on a train (to handle 24-hour service), being paid overtime, and needing crew sleeping quarters is more costly than trains which can complete their runs in under 12 hours.

Still, I would like to take a transcon train ride some day, but I fear I will have to take it soon, before it becomes history like the canal system or stagecoach lines.

[digme]

This is an interesting read. Long article, but worth the read.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010614133724/wwics.si.edu/outreach/wq/WQSELECT/TRAIN.HTM

[ajfroggie]

Joining in this conversation really late...but I noticed a comment from BTinSF early in the thread where he suggests Congress should pass a law giving passenger trains priority over freight trains.

And therein lies the problem...do you support passenger rail, which gets cars off roads? Or do you support freight rail, which gets trucks off roads?

Without costly double- or triple-tracking, you can't have both...

[mhays]

Yes, adding actual rails is crucial. This is a huge problem in Seattle/Tacoma. Our ports' container traffic is limited by our lack of rail capacity over the Cascade Mountains. Our local (Sounder) and Amtrak passenger service is limited by low capacity on the main West Coast rail route, including stretches of single rail and many at-grade crossings where they have to slow down.

[Nutterbug]

Sleeper cars are to trains what Winnebagos are to road automobiles--wastefully hauling around sleeping spaces and other accommodations facilities that are better served by stationary hotels.

[BTinSF]

Sleeper cars are to trains what Winnebagos are to road automobiles--wastefully hauling around sleeping spaces and other accommodations facilities that are better served by stationary hotels.

Seats are to airplanes what cars are to roads (as opposed to cattle trucks), wastefully taking up space that could be occupied by stacking human bodies like cordwood.

And what does it all mean? An AMTRAK "roomette is 3'6" by 6'2"--a bit over 21 sq ft-- and contains seating/sleeping accommodations for 2 people. You might be able to squeeze twice that many people into such a space in coach-style seating, but AMTRAK charges way in excess of twice the fare for roomettes--usually it's more like 3 times the fare.

If your objective is to haul as many bodies as possible, the Nazis had it right: use cattle cars. If you want people to use a particular mode of transportation voluntarily, give them what they want and charge appropriately. And don't yammer on about things you obviously don't know much about.

[mhays]

Yeah, sleeping cars are actually pretty efficient.

[arbeiter]

I am considering taking the Coast Starlight from PDX to Emeryville(SF). has anyone taken this route? It says 17 hours, but would I need to tack at least another 3-4 on to be safe? I've heard that this is a very unreliable line...

[GVNY]

Coast Starlight is notorious for being impossibly late, sometimes more than 24 hours. Of course, this is not Amtrak's fault, but the nature of the railroad system of Union Pacific which has actually held contempt for Amtrak. They do not give the trains priority.

However, Amtrak just recently brought on a new president, and he had a chat with executives at UP, and now what do you know, that Coast Starlight is often running on time, or even early. Of course, there are still days when it is a little bit behind, but not as bad as it was.


And the route is stunning. Too bad you will not start it in King Street and head to Southern California.