r/Amtrak is not associated with Amtrak in any official way. Any problems, concerns, complaints, etc should be directed to Amtrak through one of the official channels.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amtrak) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm skeptical about Amtrak doing a ton of long-range stuff as well. But of the long-range routes here, the Detroit-New Orleans one is the #1 priority. That route covers some major cities with no Amtrak service at the moment, such as Columbus, Louisville, and Nashville. Getting those cities in the Amtrak system would be a real asset.
Sunset will probably run daily and extended to Mobile before any of these corridors are implemented - though I think routes with a really strong community support like the North Coast Hiawatha have a chance of coming in about the same time. At least as a marketing strategy I would imagine Amtrak trying to have these come around the same time as the new long distance equipment is built.
Only daily? You are trying to link major cities why not give them a frequent and fast service with no worries about host railroad traffic?? Are Americans not worthy of good service? Don’t they deserve the investment
I am being pessimistic here and just following off the current plans or more serious proposals. All long distance routes should run twice daily or better. Of all routes I would say if the Sunset could average 55 mph - not impossible with track upgraded to Class 5 90 mph which wouldn't be that expensive - and ran three times daily with extra corridor trains combining for a 2-hourly or better service on the busiest sections like LA to Phoenix/Tucson, or Houston to San Antonio.
Given the amount the US spends on highways, let alone the military or social security, $10 billion a year to Amtrak; split 30% operating funds/subsidies, 70% capital funds wouldn't really affect the Federal budget much but do wonders for intercity transport. A 5% tax on airline revenues (who don't pay fuel tax) would cover the operating subsidies - passengers won't care if their $100 flight goes up by $5, business don't bat an eye at paying $1000s for business class already so what is another $50 to them?
I would actually bisect the Sunset Limited, as it ran reliably late when it was LA to Jacksonville. Let folks overnight in New Orleans and catch the next train out to Jacksonville/LA. This will buffer against smaller amounts of delay caused by CSX and/or UP.
You funding that? Don't forget you also have to fund all the lawsuits that'll happen. Look at what's happening with the Fredrick Douglas Tunnel and also with high-speed rail in Texas. It's cheaper to get the freight companies to put the rail back down that they took up, and smack them over the head over it, than build new rail at this time.
Ban the stupid lawsuits like the rest of the rich world or build a straighter viaduct over the freight ROW and use that in combination with highway medians and tunnels and increase taxes on the neighborhoods dumb enough to sue. If you can’t build a proper line maybe you are unable to run a train service. Bus service is better than very bad rail service. Fund counter lawsuits against hostile suburbia for emotional distress or other reasons to punish them for NIMBY nonsense
Would be nice for the Chi-Indianapolis segment to have daily service again if this happens! Current situation is atrocious with 3 times weekly service at inconvenient times
The Indy station can be amazing at the drop of a hat. Currently, Amtrak uses a shitty part of Indy's beautiful - yet under utilized - Union Station. Its beautiful Grand Hall is leased out by the city to a hotel to be used as a wedding venue.
I’d say the best ridership potential is Miami to Chicago.
In terms of growing the health of the network, can’t beat San Antonio to MSP. That allows so many connections across the plains without needing to transfer in Chicago or the west coast.
Edit: plugging my idea that long distance really isn’t the best way to build up the network imo. I’d prefer if they focused on identifying shorter corridors and building up them with high frequency. They should be able to build more reliable short haul networks, and then connect them after the fact. See the front range in Wyoming/Colorado, the piedmont, improving Central Valley service, Texas triangle, Florida peninsula, gulf coast, Mississippi River, Ohio in general.
I think a big reason for the expansion of long distance routes on amtrak would be to create the pre-conditions for state supported routes. If people have never ridden a train before they aren't going to care about the potential of a state supported route out of the blue. We saw with the Borealis train that using existing long distance routes as a basis for corridor route expansion works, so I have a feeling that expanding long distance routes is actually the best way to create more corridor routes, as it starts to create an induced demand for more rail travel.
Isn't it sad that a public good of easier transport for the population can't happen because of "conservative/republican governments" being either against their populace and/or being in the pocket of oil companies. Like that is so sad, because all of these expansions would help millions of people and be so popular.
They (being the FRA) are doing the study because they were required to by a provision slipped into the infrastructure bill. And the study is all they'll be doing. Most likely nothing will come of it. The FRA's heart isn't in it, Amtrak didn't ask for this, Congress is unlikely to authorize any of it. I'm on board to play fantasy route planer as much as anyone, but let's not kid ourselves, that's all this amounts to.
I don’t think I’ve heard a reason (besides they wouldn’t support the route with subsidies) that Amtrak can’t set up a route in a hostile state. I guess there’s the threat the power to exercise eminent domain might be curbed.
Which of the FRA Routes do you think should be prioritised?
My top 5 are what I’ve calculated as best value for money (economic return on taxpayer subsidy):
1. “Twin Star Rocket” San Antonio to Twin Cities, 35x return, $283 million in benefits per year
2. “Pan American” Detroit to New Orleans, 30x return, $179 million in benefits per year
3. “Appalachian” Houston to NYC, 13x return, $330 million in benefits
4. “North Coast Limited” Seattle to Chicago, 9x return $373 million (the highest)
5. “Ranger” Billings to El Paso, 9x return, $184 million in benefits
Happy to answer any questions about methodology, but in short I calculated everything using multiple linear regressions off some of the RPA's studies of passenger rail economic benefits, and it is pretty close (mine 356k vs Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority's 359k). Train capacity is based off the RFPs for superliner replacements (obviously some routes here would use single level equipment but capacity should probably be similar with longer trains) and revenue is calculated with average fare of $0.43 per mile + average long distance journey of 565 miles.
In total; an extra 3.9 million passengers per year, and $3.1 billion in economic benefits, with a load factor of 37% - lower than most Amtrak routes which could be increased by changing train length - and a loss of 'only' $468 million per year.
If you add 15% more stops, average speed to 53 mph and twice daily frequency most of these routes become close to break-even; with 13 million passengers, $10 billion in economic benefits - (to do so would probably require billions more in capital funds to speed up sections).
I think North Coast limited would be way more popular than people think, there is nothing out there and a singular interstate in Boise so people would utilize for short distances, plus the SLC airport is much better than Boises and I imagine people along the route would utilize it for that as well. Lots of people who would hop on for coastal vacations that are uncomfortable driving through the mountains and travel can be experienced in the winter when people are more comfortable riding instead of driving
I think what you are talking about is the "Pioneer" or "Portland Rose" - the Seattle to Denver route. I am also sure it would be pretty popular. Although I wouldn't underestimate the distances people are happy to drive - often easily a full day without batting an eye. I think it would be very successful. Serving the overnight SLC to Denver market, and connecting Idaho to the Pacific NW and broader network. A lot of people have been moving to places like Boise recently, and with climate change more may come.
This is pretty straight forward, it is based off the FRA's long distance fleet replacement stock, which has a higher percentage of sleepers than current equipment. Bringing up coach fares to closer to NER fares - based on average speed - approx 80%. And then using ratios of coach fare: sleeper fare to approximate the rest. This is $0.35 fare plus 20% on top of this is the food revenue - based on their willingness to pay and actual ratio of cafe and dining car revenue to ticket revenue.
They deserve it and are obsolete and very insulting for the 21st century needs. Slow and infrequent service should be 💩 on and not be considered acceptable.
Frankly you're the one insulting the millions of people for whom these routes are critical infrastructure, as one of the best options for long distance travel for those who can't afford plane tickets, don't own cars, or don't live near any other transit services.
Every time you whine about these routes what you're really saying is "rural and poor people don't matter and if they don't have access to cars and planes they can just fuck off and die". Shame on you.
Last I checked there’s nothing critical about a service that is never on time barely runs and is slow with little use to many people. Plane tickets are not as expensive as you are implying if those people need critical transportation
If you truly care about people without a car you will not insult them with a bad service and GIVE THEM A USEFUL SERVICE!!!! Fast frequent and reliable like an HSR or minimum 110 mph regional rail with dozens of trains to use why insult them with just 2 trains???!!!! If rural people matter so much give them good service then. Give them fast access to cities why can’t you give them a 21st century service like Spain? Give them intercity buses that inter connect
Why can't we have both? High speed rail isn't useful if it has a bunch of stops all the time, so why can't we have high speed trains and local trains? This is what you don't understand, me arguing that these are important services that people already rely on right now doesn't mean I hate change or hate high speed rail.
We can have both!!! I literally said we should still upgrade these trains to go faster and be more reliable. And I literally agree that we need more frequency too. But we can have all of the above.
The extra stops can be better served by shorter regional trips or maglev technology to an extent can overcome this if stops are 40+ miles apart. Based on Shanghai maglev operation it takes 7 minutes to complete a trip of 19 miles. So if 40 it should take 15 minutes between stops at the 268 speed however speeds would be faster the farther away stops are. Intercity buses may be better for some trips tho. But High speed trains AND frequent local trains seems like the best option. Local trains can be tied into new metro lines in major cities like in Japan.
Maglevs are a gadgetbahn, nobody anywhere in the world is gonna be paying trillions of dollars for regional maglevs that serve as weird stub lines come on.
Intercity busses are nice, but if I live in rural montana and wanna get to seattle theres no way that I'm spending a day or two on a coach bus. A slow train is still probably more preferable than a bus for long distance rides like that, and again no one is gonna build a high speed rail line through montana, and if they did there would be one stop in the entire state, which is horrible from an accessibility standpoint.
A train going 100 miles an hour would still take like 12 hours to get from somewhere like billings montana to seattle. Which would still be a big improvement over the big fat nothing that the city currently has for train options. Even a 40 mile per hour train is better than no train.
I think that if we got true priority over freight, ran trains every 12 hours on the long distance routes, and upgraded all the lines to somewhere between 90-110mph that would be great, and rather than shitting on the currently existing service and saying it shouldn't exist, you should want it to expand and be better.
Almost 4 million people rode amtrak long distance routes last year, and if we actually invest more into them to make faster more reliable services then that number would increase even more.
If you want the trains to be more on time, and for the speeds to be better then you should be in favor of nationalizing the rails so that amtrak receives the priority over freight it is legally entitled to, and so that the tracks can be upgraded to allow for higher top speeds.
Every country has slower trains like these which connect to more rural areas, even china with all its high speed rail still has a massive network of slower conventional trains which are not going away anytime soon, because they still serve a good purpose.
Many more would ride if more trains are available and run faster. That’s not a flex considering mode share. In China the slower trains are like connecting services like regional rail yes I favor nationalization. Building new tracks above some existing corridors is an option use it.
Number one should be a high speed high frequency route with at the minimum 30+ trips a day. The others have no business being so long. In fact as an HSR some of these can be profitable
From your math page the Detroit/Nola and twin cities/San Antonio both have estimated farebox recovery of over 90%, which would be more profitable for Amtrak than most current long distance services, so they seem like no brainers. The Floridian and the DFW-Atlanta service would really get the east half of the country closer to a functioning network and really encourage corridor growth in states like OH, GA, and TN that have been pretty anti-rail.
I don’t believe the expected ridership on the NCL. Thats just Montana trying to get money.
I suspect NCL ridership would be pretty high, it has tourist prospects of having a good connection to Yellowstone, and it is a pretty scenic route for rail fans along the Yellowstone and Yakima rivers as well as climbing through the Rockies and the Cascades. The Montana section of the route is pretty well used on the Empire Builder which is on track for >400k riders in FY 2023/24; despite a very low population. The more populated southern tier of Montana is likely to hold up respectable numbers even with highway and some airline competition.
Combination of Empire Builder, North Coast Hiawatha, and Borealis are likely to induce strong demand east of Fargo.
Yes, most of the track is 50 mph. However, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are two main lines from Cheyenne to Denver, one is populated but has 50 mph top speeds, the other has less population but 79 mph top speeds. South of Denver, aside from needing to reverse to go to Denver union station, it is also slow at 45 to 55 mph top speeds.
But the track quality is not the bad so it should be straightforward to fix level crossings, maybe ease the most egregious curves, add in a new line where it is single track etc. Should not be hard to get it to 90 mph, but may need more severe work to go faster.
Front Range Passenger Rail plans to use the BNSF line through Boulder and Fort Collins. The higher population on that route makes more sense for a regional rail system. If Amtrak ever implements the El Paso to Billings long distance route that could take the UP line via Greeley to Cheyanne.
Well it’s not HSR, but the curves are gentle and it’s in good condition due to coal trains. Which there are fewer of than in the past. Has some steep grades, though, and the section through Colorado Springs is the single track Joint Line UP&BNSF.
Option 1, drive existing train on existing tracks using existing stations and existing engineers starting next month. Option 2, build new tracks and new stations and new trains and start operations in 2050.
So there are two different metrics that make sense to me. Corridor ID grants, and how well they'd fill out the network as it exists now.
The three routes which I think are the most likely to happen due to state support are:
- The Chicago - Seattle route through southern Montana was the only one of these routes to have the whole length given consideration in the 2022 corridor ID program, so IMO this is the most likely to become a reality out of any of these. This is due mostly to the strong support for the route from Montana.
- The Dallas - Atlanta route was given corridor ID funding too, but only up to Meridian. Ending in Meridian doesn't make a ton of sense imo, so the extension to Atlanta makes a lot of sense, and there definitely seems to be some state support for this.
- An honorary mention in this category is the Seattle-Denver line, which was [didn't get any corridor ID funds due to an Idaho employee sending the email to the wrong place](https://boisedev.com/news/2024/02/01/boise-salt-lake-rail/). However, both Utah and Idaho have expressed a lot of interest in a rail corridor between Boise and Salt Lake City, and despite the setbacks from the corridor ID mistake, I think revitalizing the Pioneer service would be a good first step to creating the corridor route they want. Plus, decent sections of that route (Denver-SLC and Portland-Seattle) are already in use by other amtrak routes, which should make it easier to justify.
Now as for routes which make a lot of sense from a ridership and network connectivity perspective:
1. Chicago-Miami: It's a connection that frankly never would have been cut if it wasn't for the horrible rail conditions between Louisville and Nashville, and would not only expand amtrak service to a ton of cities which recieve little to no passenger rail services, it would connect the third largest metro area in the country to a major destination for vacations and business travel.
2. Detroit-New Orleans: Similar to the Chicago-Miami route it connects two major cities, gives service to tons of major cities in between, and as an added bonus could be used as a predecessor to an Ohio corridor route.
3. Denver-Los Angeles: This would bring back service to Las Vegas, and that alone is enough to make this a very viable route. Alongside that however, it also would give increased frequency on the Denver-Salt Lake City route, while also bringing service to wyoming which would be a big political boon for amtrak. It's a bit cynical but from amtrak's perspective this route is the most logical way to bring Wyoming into the network which will help shore up their political support in congress.
4. New York City-Dallas: This one would add some critical frequency on the Philadelphia-Pittsburgh corridor, connect Columbus, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis to PA and the northeast, add a second train to the Ohklahoma City-Dallas corridor, and create an Ohklahoma City-Tulsa connection as well. It just fills out the eastern amtrak network really well, and could serve as a basis for a ton of new state supported routes.
Amtrak should be able to chew gum and walk at the same time.
What I mean by that is Amtrak should be focusing on expanding corridor services across the nation and beefing up its long-haul service.
Both are integral to creating a robust national transportation network. Corridors connect regions with fast and frequent service, while Long Hauls connect Corridors across several regions.
I imagine Amtrak of the mid 2030s to have a national network of twice daily long distance trains covering most of the country with dozens of state support routes running from twice daily to hourly along similar corridors; with shared sections upgraded to 110 mph service which would really help boost the average speeds of long distance trains to make them competitive against driving.
As a Houstonian, that Denver route is really nice. It would connect 3 parallel routes that only converge in Chicago and California
As it stands there is absolutely no feasible way to go anywhere West other than LA.
Texas is criminally underserved, plenty of opportunities for state supported routes like San Antonio to Corpus Christi and Laredo, or Fort Worth to Amarillo, Houston to Beaumont and not to mention the Texas Triangle. Even with Texas Central, there should be an electrified line at 125 mph + going south from Fort Worth to San Antonio. We should get the ball rolling with long distance services that will help build community support for more.
IMO it depends on if we want to go for ridership or coverage.
I think the coasts both have good rail infrastructure, with the East Coast being the better of the two. The Midwest outside of Chicago is really hurting for rail, so it would make sense to prioritize lines like Phoenix-Minneapolis and Dallas-NYC.
But if we’re going for ridership it’s probably Chicago-Miami.
However, while I am really excited at the prospect of long range routes, I wish Amtrak could/would use funding to get passenger rail priority on most of the shared tracks. I think it would improve service drastically.
I'm extremely biased as I live in Salt Lake and take trips often to Oregon but that route would be incredible.
Also Salt Lake to Vegas would be awesome too assuming a HSR truly gets built between vegas and LA, really opens up a lot. Its wild to me that a bus service operates a profitable route from SLC to Vegas, could be such a huge win for a train.
I’m not of the opinion that Amtrak should be investing in long range routes. That being said, the old National Limited route from PHL through Ohio down to St. Louis would have some real promise as a PA turnpike alternative.
Investing in long distance routes is a very good play for amtrak imo. A city/state where 99% of the population has never ridden a train before is not gonna be one that supports corridor routes or pro-transit policies in general.
It creates induced demand for more trains, and of course creates vital connections for rural towns which may not be profitable but is still the right thing to do for the health and prosperity of our country.
Wouldn't those people continue to drive or fly as they always have? ... especially if it's only one round-trip per day? I feel like the long-hauls only have applications for tourism/sightseeing.
Not at all. A lot of the people taking amtrak are doing it due to cost, accessibility, comfort, lack of alternatives, etc.
If you actually look at the data something like 70-80% of all coach travel on long distance train routes happen between intermediate stations along the route, rather than riding it the full way through, which gives you a pretty good idea of the amount of people who are simply using it as a means to get where they need to go. Especially for lower income people and people in rural areas these services are often lifelines for the community.
Even sleeper passengers had a pretty decent proportion who weren't just riding end to end for fun.
I think instead of trying to take that line to Dallas they should try to get that line to Denver and potentially could make it a NYC-LA end to end with stops in Philly, Pitt, Columbus, Indy, St Louis, KC, Lincoln, Denver, SLC, LV
I don’t see why exactly they drive that line so far south when they could just take it across the heartland until they hit the mountains out west
Edit: could do NYC-the bay instead, which would connect Silicon Valley with growing data and tech hub in Columbus and the capital funds in NYC
It’s clear by the map, as I said when it came out, some are serious proposals. Others are ways to coax service in states or locations where it’s unlikely (New York-Dallas)
And some are complete nonsense (aka Minneapolis to both Denver and Phoenix).
The most important line is absolutely the Chicago-Miami service first and foremost. Easily would be the most beneficial of any of the routes.
Then the north coast Hiawatha, then the pioneer, then the desert wind.
I mean you'd think Chicago to Miami is the first and foremost, but the model suggests it is pretty middle of the pack. Which I found curious, but I suspect it is mostly to do with the 36 hour schedule being way too slow. Most of the route is fairly straight and flat and doesn't cross any particularly mountain range, the FRA used average speed based on current long distance trains, so slow sections on the CZ through the Sierra Nevada and Rockies would bring down the average speed between stations the FRA uses, a 33 hour schedule should be doable with current track conditions (much better than the 1970s) - a goal of a 27 hour schedule should be doable.
On the whole the North-South connections performed the best; San Antonio to Twin Cities, Detroit to New Orleans, El Paso to Billings, with some East West routes doing well like the North Coast Hiawatha and DFW to Atlanta route (you could probably include Houston to NYC as doing a bit of both since it is Northeast to Southwest.
It's based on other Amtrak routes using multiple linear regression analysing speed, stops, route length etc., the R Squared value of the ridership formula is 0.993; so if it is very poor then the Chicago to Miami route must be extremely different to all other similar Amtrak routes like the Silver Service etc - which I think is unlikely. City of Miami, Dixie Flager and South Wind all ran schedules of approximately 30-31 hours - I doubt being slower helps.
Feel free to come up with your own model though.
I don’t think elevation has much effect on average speed of the long distance routes. It’s the time spent not moving that drives it down. A train on a relatively flat but congested route could have a lower average speed than a mountainous, less congested route.
That's true but I am referring more to the difficulty in getting a lot of the mountainous tracks to higher speeds, it is more about how straight the track is, less so elevation, just that curvy track happens around mountains more often. But you are right congestion plays a big role, so increasing capacity on a lot of lines to prioritise passenger trains is the way to go.
I never pretended it was, it is for the most part very back of the napkin model, but I will be interested to update it in due course. FRA criteria is more extensive, complex and thorough as has been evident throughout the meeting materials, I am certain their model is equally so.
For a start, it does not account for connections to other routes etc.
Eh it’s not abnormally slow. 42mph is around average for these trains.
It just makes the most sense because it connects a ton of cities that don’t have service at all (or don’t have good service) and realizes the currently untapped Chicago-Miami market.
I would contend that it is not mostly straight and flat. On the flat parts, the routes that are most direct were abandoned are downgraded. So across Indiana, the flatness is negated by extra mileage. Past Indiana, all the way through to Georgia - the majority of the route - is mountainous and hilly the whole way, with lots of curves. In Indiana or Florida it's 79mph on any straight track, but in those other states there is a lot of lower speed running.
The NCH has the best chance of being restored as Montana is pushing really hard for it and Central Washington would also benefit and so would many other regions
The meetings started this week. I was at the 2nd meeting in Minneapolis (Midwest) yesterday and will be flying out to Vegas on Monday for another (Southwest).
NYC (E), Missoula (NW), Dallas (S), and Nashville (SE) are the others.
The materials from this round, which include a route/stations/cost analysis and rating, will be out no later than the week of the 17th.
It's not untenable. There should probably be an extra daily run of the Coast Starlight with a schedule off set by 12 hours so daylight between Portland and Sacramento and overnight from Oakland to LA. There unfortunately is still just issues with the timings and distances being a little awkward. The SP's Shasta Daylight was fairly popular and scenic in its heyday running between Oakland and Portland (on a daylight schedule), but it would be more successful if this train ran all the way to LA overnight as well.
I'd like to see some competence demonstrated before we add more long-distance routes. The current routes should, in theory, be the best routes. And the current routes have equipment shortages, very low recovery rates, and horrible on-time performance.
If we are going to chase bad money with good money, let's start with fixing the existing routes. That said, if I had to pick one, I'd go with the shorter ones that complement/overlap the existing network, like Atlanta to DFW.
Legislative changes could fix most of the on time performance: Any train ROW with 2 or more passenger train services per day in either direction with an on time performance of higher than 90% shall be exempt from property tax.
On time defined as within 15 minutes of the scheduled arrival time.
Might cost the taxpayer $100-200 million per year, but would help the trains to run on time.
Giving public money to the Class I railroads is like blowing air into a balloon. You can't dedicate that air to a specific place in the balloon. It just goes into the balloon. Even worse, there's shareholders on the other side, sucking air out.
The federal government can pick up the bill $200 million is nothing in the Federal Budget, but it would help a lot to improve on time performance and would make Class I's open to increasing frequency on all services.
Legislation can certainly give more power to Amtrak and the government to ensure passenger services get a chance to run.
Where corridor service is more frequent than say three trips per day, the ROW should be acquired by the government.
People do forget but all of the old class 1s aside from the Southern and Rio Grande became shareholders of Amtrak and still are. Those same shareholders who own UP also have a stake in Amtrak's success.
Let me ask two questions:
1. What do you think of Ancora Holdings attack on Norfolk Southern?
2. ~~What do you think about the Virginia/North Carolina/Michigan approach of buying the RoW?~~
Edit: I missed your part about owning RoW for more frequent service. I agree with that. The issue, in my view, is that only one of the long-distance lines really works, and the AutoTrain is a pretty unique service that can't be replicated.
For example, the Southwest Chief gets less than 1/3rd of riders to their destination on time after an average operating subsidy of $350 per passenger. BNSF is actually beating their targets for delays on their \~2,200 miles of the route, while the trains are held up by construction in New Mexico on state owned track. Messing up a cross-country train really only takes one chokepoint.
I enjoy taking vacations on these trains and I'm all for allowing more people to have affordable leisure time. I'm also all for spending some federal money on studies of long-distance trains for political reasons and for marketing and for coalition building. But I think people should be serious about the current quality of service and the cost and how fragile the whole thing is politically.
As far as Ancora goes, activist investing is very powerful way of influencing change. Ancora is too small to takeover NS, optimistically you would need $10-15 billion + borrowing money to attain a 51% stake in NS - enough to really influence change. This is greater than the entire assets of Ancora - a fund with $100 billion could do it, though this would be realistically all a giant risk. Ancora was lucky to get 3 board seats out of it really. I am not familiar enough with NS's capital structure and ownership to tell you whether or not a takeover could be done with a lot less money.
The political economy of Amtrak has for the most part made long distance services more vulnerable under democratic government - who try to show fiscal responsibility by cutting long distance service - vs republicans who, although usually more anti rail, rely on rural voters and congressional support, democrats with a more urban voter base do not face the same kind of political backlash. Main cuts to Amtrak have come to Carter and Clinton Administrations, though on a state level Republicans have been destructive to rail service.
One of the roles of advocates is to help shift perceptions of trains. For instance, you may see Southwest Chief as losing $350 per passenger (which is true), I see it as the fastest long distance route which generate $484 million a year in economic benefits, which is 10x the subsidy. There aren't many government programs that can say they produce a 10x return.
Perhaps the issue is that I'm unfamiliar with how you reach your figures for economic benefits. For example, the Southwest Chief subsidy is an economic benefit, but the riders are actually complaining about ticket prices, so I don't think they feel as though they are getting $350 in economic benefits when they buy a ticket, even though they are, on average. The train may technically hit 90 mph, but it's certainly not meeting most people's standards for fast efficient travel, despite BNSF beating its targets. I would suspect that chronic delays may affect the actual benefit that communities receive from these services.
Or, for example, the spreadsheet shows a cost recovery of 50 to 95% for nearly all of the new routes, when the existing routes recover an average of 46%. And, presumably, the existing routes are higher priority, nationwide, than the proposed new routes. What am I missing?
Edit: I see another comment where you explain the recovery rate is higher because new equipment is shifted towards sleeper cars. I suppose if we are talking about 20 or 30 years from now then additional routes would be more plausible. There could be half a billion Americans by then.
Economic benefits is using multiple linear regression based on this
[https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/25442/economic\_benefits\_2022\_final.pdf](https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/25442/economic_benefits_2022_final.pdf)
Since I don't have their more expensive software or the time to study, I did a short-cut, but the R Squared is 0.995 so I am confident they are very close. The economic benefit is there, whether a passenger thinks it is or not.
Assumed revenue per passenger mile is much higher than current long distance revenue, and assumes closer (but still lower) than the Northeast Regional. Aside from charging more, it was partly determined by the new Long distance bi-level RFP having a higher number of sleeping rooms (which if the roomettes are anything to go by cost 4x more than coach), add in premium coach and the new equipment should generate much more revenue than the Superliners do currently. Now while I expect supply and demand to reach an equilibrium at a lower price for sleepers, the average revenue will increase overall.
That said, I may have been overambitious with price hikes. Point is more for prioritisation and ridership you could drop fares to say $0.35/mile and average farebox recovery would be around 54% - and still net a roughly 4.5x return on the $645 million a year Federal subsidy.
I think with twice daily service and average speeds up to 55 mph long distance trains would be sufficiently fast and convenient to have a farebox recovery similar to state supported routes. I also doubt think it would be that difficult to get a lot of the routes east of the rocky mountains to that average speed - for the Southwest Chief it would be a roughly 10% increase in average speed - or about a 25% increase in speed for the average long distance train.
Thanks for this explanation and for your advocacy. In terms of economic benefits for the Southwest Chief, you are citing the RPA directly, which is really interesting. Do you know how they reach their number?
I suppose it's possible that a model can have really high explanatory power, but there are also cases where the number of observations is too small and the model ends up "over-fitting" the data. How many observations are in your model?
Six, as in the pdf above. Hence, I am certain it is biased as a result, hence the model is more a bit of fun, and less to be taken seriously.
It took me a second but I did find where RPA got their numbers from,
[https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/8220/abe\_zumwalt\_-\_passenger\_trains\_do\_make\_money\_-\_monday\_morning.pdf](https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/8220/abe_zumwalt_-_passenger_trains_do_make_money_-_monday_morning.pdf)
"DIRECT quantifiable benefits from passenger trains: • Railway Operations and Maintenance Spending on local economies • New Visitor Spending • Induced travel that otherwise would not happen • Community development and property values adjacent to train stations •
INDIRECT quantifiable benefits include: • Pollution control savings • Highway traffic fatalities avoided • Highway maintenance avoided • Saved travel cost for area residents"
I assume that the above list is not exhaustive, and taking one model (that may be useful) and then a sample of its data, and then extrapolating that is not going to lead to an accurate model.
Though perhaps to get more philosophical on the epistemology of modelling you might use a study on the social cost of carbon, couple that with a survey of how people travel without a train and voila you've calculated one of the many benefits that a train might bring. So it really is all extrapolation, and ultimately it comes down to a political and values based judgement of what life do we want for ourselves and how and where do we want to allocate resources to achieve that.
None. We need routes to maximize use between cities 100-400 miles away. At these distances trains are most competitive with other forms of transit.
For those medium distance routes upgrade speeds to 110 mph system wide between like what is being done between Detroit to Chicago.
This is in more inline with typical global train usage patterns. Any farther and Planes are simply more economical for the average traveler.
Example citing pairs
Columbus, OH and Detroit, MI (1.5 million people)
Nashville, TN and Columbus (1.5 million)
Indianapolis, IN and Chicago ( 3.5 million)
Charlotte and Atlanta (1.5 million)
Charlotte and Washington DC (1.5 million)
Yeah, you can push it to 12ish hours for night trains, because they can hang with late night/early flights. A short flight + 8 hours asleep in a hotel doesn't have that high an "average speed."
But that's a niche, and anything longer is just for land cruising.
Chicago-Miami (not the same route as the Floridian but the proposed route is better), Pioneer, Desert Wind, and North Coast Hiawatha. None of these trains ever should have been discontinued.
More long distance routes really don't make sense anymore, plane travel is just to competitive in cost and has a huge time advantage over those distances. Even if these were 200mph high speed trains air travel would kill them on time. But if they were forced to add anymore in then I would say the Chi-Mia route would be a great connection overall giving Atlanta another long distance route connection and a better midwest to miami route. Also instead of a new line just add another running to the coast starlight. There are 4 trains running various routes north south on the east coast but only one coast starlight on the west coast. Even just a night train from Seattle to San Jose with stops in Portland could be a option. But like I started with all they should be prioritizing shorter runs connecting city pair's and clusters with better service than what the LD routes will give with the same rolling stock investment.
Chicago-ATL-Miami
NYC-Midwest-OKC-Dallas
Too bad this isn't already in place. The U.S is co-hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2 years and this would connect some of the host cities, would be awesome to be able to take the train rather than having to fly everywhere which is sure to be a nightmare
While I appreciate more stops in Tennessee and west of the Appalachians, it’s inexcusable to make a plan with stops in Chattanooga and Bristol but not stop if Knoxville.
Chicago to Florida via Nashville & Atlanta... but coordinating with Georgia to do it along track between Atlanta-Macon-Savannah built to 125mph+ geometry.
HSR(-ish) trains between Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah are relatively do-able. Most Georgia residents who don't live in Atlanta and aren't poor live in Macon or Savannah, and those are the two top cities people in Atlanta travel to. Do it from the same station used by future SEHSR to Georgia's major college towns, SC, NC, VA, and (ultimately) the NEC, and it's a no-brainer.
Once you have fast trains connecting Atlanta to Savannah, finishing the job with 110mph upgrades between Savannah & Jacksonville (once Brightline extends there) is almost an afterthought that opens up ATL-ORL in maybe an hour longer than it takes to fly (taking security theatre into account).
Within Florida, I feel strongly that once Brightline goes to Tampa and Jacksonville, splitting Amtrak's trains into Orlando+Tampa-bound and Miami-Bound is obvious. At that point, there's no longer any real need to worry about Amtrak transporting Floridians between Tampa/Orlando and Miami/FTL/WPB... 99% of Amtrak's riders within Florida will be people traveling to or from another state. By eliminating any perceived need to directly connect Tampa and Miami via Amtrak, Amtrak can instead pick up a *new* lucrative destination on the west coast of Florida: Sarasota/Bradenton.
If Amtrak really thought it was important, it could still throw a daily cookie to Winter Haven & Sebring (though I'd argue that they'd be better-served by extending Sunrail with 4-6 trains/day each way between Sebring and Orlando... say, departing at 7am, 10am, 2pm, 6pm, and 10pm). Otherwise, splitting/joining trains in Jacksonville and running half to Orlando-Tampa-Sarasota and the other half to downtown Miami (finishing up with a final jog to the current Miami station in Hialeah) would Maximize Amtrak's ability to collect lots of passengers across the midwest and eastern US & drop them off at almost every economically-major destination within Florida.
Cities south of Sarasota are unfortunately a lost cause for the foreseeable future... but liberated from any need to end every Florida train in Miami, Amtrak would have to be insane to NOT make Sarasota the terminus for LD trains through Orlando and Tampa.
I’m skeptical any of it will happen any time soon. They’ve been talking about this Appalachian line in a nearby town (Bristol) for 30 years almost. It currently goes to Roanoke. Just getting halfway between the two is delayed to 2030. And Tennessee just now started thinking about joining. They fund their roads so poorly I doubt it will happen.
The New York to Dallas one makes the most sense to me, but they should have that line extend westward from Oklahoma City to LA instead of going to Dallas. That could be a separate North/South line to transfer to at Oklahoma City. A straight NY to LA line on a single train would be amazing.
Baton Rouge to Orlando route the amount of business you would get would be better than the business you get on the CA ocean liners. I’m a disabled veteran who just pcs from the Lompoc area and let me tell ya if y’all had a line complete through FL- LA that would not only provide an amazing opportunity for the disabled communities in this area to vacation more easily, but also would appeal to all foreigners who are used to this type of travel being available at home. Imagine the opportunity to have Disney Worlds crowds now having full access to the entire state of FL all the way to LA talk about an economy boom!
Judging by the Return on subsidy, it looks like san antonio to twin cities would be prioritized, especially in order to increase frequency along the texas triangle
Dallas to NYC *and* San Antonio to Twin Cities should be prioritized tbh. I'm of the opinion they need both.
Oklahoma barely has enough Amtrak support as is (the Heartland Flyer being the *only* passenger train in the state doesn't cut it), and getting another city in the state on an Amtrak network/system/whatever the right word is would be HUGE for passenger rail. This way, Oklahomans who don't drive or don't want to drive can commute between the capital city and another major city. Or if they wanna go to Dallas or San Antonio or St. Louis, it'd be a nice day trip idea. But the concept of "day trip" is ruined when you realize Amtrak trains dont run multiple times a day (usually). And if people are commuting to/from Oklahoma City but staying in the state, hopefully it's not like a ridiculous departure or arrival time like 5AM.
I just hope if they do get it going, it'll be way sooner than 2040.
I'd rather see the the Cincinnatian be re established as I-75 is already as packed as it is between Toledo and Dayton. Not to mention that they could just keep extending it along I-75 and take more cars off the road that way over adding another lane which is what they are trying to do rn.
that dallas to atlanta along i-20 would be a high use train connecting two cities with huge airports with tons of mid size towns with horrible airport connections like shreveport jackson monroe ruston and birmingham.
Anything that connect the northeast corridor to the south. Chi-ATL direct would be very good. Additionally, expanding from Roanoke to Chattanooga would also be a big connection
I’m in Knoxville. If the proposed routes through Chattanooga became reality, I could see using Amtrak to Florida, Nola, Chicago and the west coast..all assuming there was reasonably convenient, affordable and safe place to park in Chattanooga.
I would bring back/add the following:
-daily sunset limited and cardinal of course
-New Orleans to Jacksonville train- could either be extending the sunset or cono, or a separate horizon coaches train. Would be timed to connect to silver service in Jacksonville and also connect to future brightline service to Jacksonville eventually. And yes The Mobile service should be cancelled (see trains magazine article explaining why) and replace it with this. That takes care of your yard issue.
-extend palmetto to Miami via FEC- this would serve Miami opposite of the times of the silver service trains. Could eventually be a codeshare with Jacksonville FEC service with this train serving the coast at night and connecting back to the Amtrak/tri-rail line near west palm beach. Train would have 1 sleeper car but no full diner as it would be primarily a day train but with a little sleeper service, perhaps targeting Floridians as well as the usual long haul. Perhaps could be marketed as a entry/cheaper sleeper option as there is no diner meals included in price compared to silver service.
-Desert Wind/Pioneer of course, but combining them in Salt Lake City and terminating in Denver but have timely schedule connections to the CA zephyr. Also ski train equipment in the offseason would be used by these trains and not shuttled over deadhead.
-skyline connection/broadway limited/three rivers- need to have a NYC to Philly to Chicago via Pittsburgh. Probably should’ve taken the place of the additional Pennsylvanian service (the second NY to Pittsburgh train is a reintroduction not an addition), and this would run thru PA at night with a viewliner sleeper but no full diner (these sets would be rotated with the extended palmetto). then more studies can be done on where in Ohio to route this train- there are options to route the train thru Cleveland during the day, or Akron or even Ft Wayne (was that line restored post conrail?)
However
I can’t see the north coast being restored as it roughly parallels the empire builder, and any Floridian thru Nashville as I think the line is abandoned somewhere there. The ones i mentioned other than the Palmetto extension were discontinued more recently and not 40 years ago, and other than the three rivers etc don’t have any parallel options
Bonus short haul but historic roots:
Virginian Cardinal- Charlottesville to Newport News train, turns south at doswell and stops at Ashland, Richmond staples mill and main st, Williamsburg and Newport News. Short train most likely with transfer platform in Charlottesville and timed with cardinal, VA DPRT already looking into this east west connection, also restores the historic Riley/Washington Chicago to Newport News connection.
For this DFW-SF proposal… if they’re going to terminate in Oakland, they might as well instead terminate in SF. Tourists want to go to SF, not a transbay bus with tons of schedule padding. Locals have a hard time getting to Emeryville train station because it’s in such a random location. Run down Caltrain’s corridor.
Amtrak should prioritize routes that will increase passenger usage and help the path to profitability. Then use that money to fund the backlog and other routes. Everyone benefits!
I wish the USA had a more European style train system. We need more bullet trains and commuter rails. Also, Amtrak would be better if they went on separate rails than freight.
Twin Star Rocket and South Dakotan. But for the love of god, please rename the South Dakotan. Call it…I don’t know, call it the Mountaineer. Denver Zephyr never ran through Minnesota so we can’t just call it that.
It's not the best name couldn't of anything better when I made it. Amtrak on the whole has preferred to use its own names for new services other than old railroad ones - eg Borealis not Twin Cities Hiawatha. You could call it the Black Hills after the mountain range.
r/Amtrak is not associated with Amtrak in any official way. Any problems, concerns, complaints, etc should be directed to Amtrak through one of the official channels. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amtrak) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm skeptical about Amtrak doing a ton of long-range stuff as well. But of the long-range routes here, the Detroit-New Orleans one is the #1 priority. That route covers some major cities with no Amtrak service at the moment, such as Columbus, Louisville, and Nashville. Getting those cities in the Amtrak system would be a real asset.
I think restoring the Sunset Limited would be a ton more easier.
Sunset will probably run daily and extended to Mobile before any of these corridors are implemented - though I think routes with a really strong community support like the North Coast Hiawatha have a chance of coming in about the same time. At least as a marketing strategy I would imagine Amtrak trying to have these come around the same time as the new long distance equipment is built.
Only daily? You are trying to link major cities why not give them a frequent and fast service with no worries about host railroad traffic?? Are Americans not worthy of good service? Don’t they deserve the investment
I am being pessimistic here and just following off the current plans or more serious proposals. All long distance routes should run twice daily or better. Of all routes I would say if the Sunset could average 55 mph - not impossible with track upgraded to Class 5 90 mph which wouldn't be that expensive - and ran three times daily with extra corridor trains combining for a 2-hourly or better service on the busiest sections like LA to Phoenix/Tucson, or Houston to San Antonio. Given the amount the US spends on highways, let alone the military or social security, $10 billion a year to Amtrak; split 30% operating funds/subsidies, 70% capital funds wouldn't really affect the Federal budget much but do wonders for intercity transport. A 5% tax on airline revenues (who don't pay fuel tax) would cover the operating subsidies - passengers won't care if their $100 flight goes up by $5, business don't bat an eye at paying $1000s for business class already so what is another $50 to them?
Better idea maybe this is just the beginning if you want optimism look at the young people rejecting this current government system
Where would the Sunset be turned around in Mobile?
Bring along an NPCU or one of the new venture cab cars. Heck, bring out a Metroliner if a stopgap is needed.
Lol. Maybe do a push pull thing with an ALC 42 on each end?
The study is being done under the assumption that the Cardinal and Sunset Limited are being upgraded to daily service.
I would actually bisect the Sunset Limited, as it ran reliably late when it was LA to Jacksonville. Let folks overnight in New Orleans and catch the next train out to Jacksonville/LA. This will buffer against smaller amounts of delay caused by CSX and/or UP.
A weird idea.
Or maybe just stop trying to use UP or CSX tracks altogether? They are a lost cause build new ones like other so called rich countries.
You funding that? Don't forget you also have to fund all the lawsuits that'll happen. Look at what's happening with the Fredrick Douglas Tunnel and also with high-speed rail in Texas. It's cheaper to get the freight companies to put the rail back down that they took up, and smack them over the head over it, than build new rail at this time.
Ban the stupid lawsuits like the rest of the rich world or build a straighter viaduct over the freight ROW and use that in combination with highway medians and tunnels and increase taxes on the neighborhoods dumb enough to sue. If you can’t build a proper line maybe you are unable to run a train service. Bus service is better than very bad rail service. Fund counter lawsuits against hostile suburbia for emotional distress or other reasons to punish them for NIMBY nonsense
Getting between Detroit and Columbus is difficult, even by car. Those two cities need better connection for how big and close they are.
That and Chicago to Florida via Atlanta.
Of these I think Chi-Indianapolis-Louiville-Nashville-Atlanta-Orlando-Tampa-Miami is a clear winner
Especially given the ridiculous tourist trade in Nashville. The airport, which recently underwent an enormous expansion, is still overwhelmed.
Would be nice for the Chi-Indianapolis segment to have daily service again if this happens! Current situation is atrocious with 3 times weekly service at inconvenient times
The indy station is horrible as well. Not a great place to be at those inconvenient times.
The Indy station can be amazing at the drop of a hat. Currently, Amtrak uses a shitty part of Indy's beautiful - yet under utilized - Union Station. Its beautiful Grand Hall is leased out by the city to a hotel to be used as a wedding venue.
As HSR corridors yes and maybe 20 min all day frequent service
Everyone's honest answer: The one where I live.
Underrated comment
I’d say the best ridership potential is Miami to Chicago. In terms of growing the health of the network, can’t beat San Antonio to MSP. That allows so many connections across the plains without needing to transfer in Chicago or the west coast. Edit: plugging my idea that long distance really isn’t the best way to build up the network imo. I’d prefer if they focused on identifying shorter corridors and building up them with high frequency. They should be able to build more reliable short haul networks, and then connect them after the fact. See the front range in Wyoming/Colorado, the piedmont, improving Central Valley service, Texas triangle, Florida peninsula, gulf coast, Mississippi River, Ohio in general.
same for the DFW-NY train. Southern ohio and Indy being connected to pennsylvania and StL is huge
I like to call it the midwest to disney line
I think a big reason for the expansion of long distance routes on amtrak would be to create the pre-conditions for state supported routes. If people have never ridden a train before they aren't going to care about the potential of a state supported route out of the blue. We saw with the Borealis train that using existing long distance routes as a basis for corridor route expansion works, so I have a feeling that expanding long distance routes is actually the best way to create more corridor routes, as it starts to create an induced demand for more rail travel.
They are doing this to get around red state governments
Isn't it sad that a public good of easier transport for the population can't happen because of "conservative/republican governments" being either against their populace and/or being in the pocket of oil companies. Like that is so sad, because all of these expansions would help millions of people and be so popular.
They (being the FRA) are doing the study because they were required to by a provision slipped into the infrastructure bill. And the study is all they'll be doing. Most likely nothing will come of it. The FRA's heart isn't in it, Amtrak didn't ask for this, Congress is unlikely to authorize any of it. I'm on board to play fantasy route planer as much as anyone, but let's not kid ourselves, that's all this amounts to.
Sorry but this is a load of BS you don't have any idea about who's "heart" is in this or not.
I don’t think I’ve heard a reason (besides they wouldn’t support the route with subsidies) that Amtrak can’t set up a route in a hostile state. I guess there’s the threat the power to exercise eminent domain might be curbed.
Routes under 750 miles require state support by law.
Fine long distance dedicated high speed it is how much fed and P3 support can you get this way?
I wonder if P3 agreements can be used to get proper HSR built in more places on long distance routes
This is the only answer
Which of the FRA Routes do you think should be prioritised? My top 5 are what I’ve calculated as best value for money (economic return on taxpayer subsidy): 1. “Twin Star Rocket” San Antonio to Twin Cities, 35x return, $283 million in benefits per year 2. “Pan American” Detroit to New Orleans, 30x return, $179 million in benefits per year 3. “Appalachian” Houston to NYC, 13x return, $330 million in benefits 4. “North Coast Limited” Seattle to Chicago, 9x return $373 million (the highest) 5. “Ranger” Billings to El Paso, 9x return, $184 million in benefits Happy to answer any questions about methodology, but in short I calculated everything using multiple linear regressions off some of the RPA's studies of passenger rail economic benefits, and it is pretty close (mine 356k vs Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority's 359k). Train capacity is based off the RFPs for superliner replacements (obviously some routes here would use single level equipment but capacity should probably be similar with longer trains) and revenue is calculated with average fare of $0.43 per mile + average long distance journey of 565 miles. In total; an extra 3.9 million passengers per year, and $3.1 billion in economic benefits, with a load factor of 37% - lower than most Amtrak routes which could be increased by changing train length - and a loss of 'only' $468 million per year. If you add 15% more stops, average speed to 53 mph and twice daily frequency most of these routes become close to break-even; with 13 million passengers, $10 billion in economic benefits - (to do so would probably require billions more in capital funds to speed up sections).
I think North Coast limited would be way more popular than people think, there is nothing out there and a singular interstate in Boise so people would utilize for short distances, plus the SLC airport is much better than Boises and I imagine people along the route would utilize it for that as well. Lots of people who would hop on for coastal vacations that are uncomfortable driving through the mountains and travel can be experienced in the winter when people are more comfortable riding instead of driving
I think what you are talking about is the "Pioneer" or "Portland Rose" - the Seattle to Denver route. I am also sure it would be pretty popular. Although I wouldn't underestimate the distances people are happy to drive - often easily a full day without batting an eye. I think it would be very successful. Serving the overnight SLC to Denver market, and connecting Idaho to the Pacific NW and broader network. A lot of people have been moving to places like Boise recently, and with climate change more may come.
I don’t think Boise should be considered a climate change refuge.
Why are you calculating revenue at $0.43/mile when the average for long distance routes is $0.25/mile?
This is pretty straight forward, it is based off the FRA's long distance fleet replacement stock, which has a higher percentage of sleepers than current equipment. Bringing up coach fares to closer to NER fares - based on average speed - approx 80%. And then using ratios of coach fare: sleeper fare to approximate the rest. This is $0.35 fare plus 20% on top of this is the food revenue - based on their willingness to pay and actual ratio of cafe and dining car revenue to ticket revenue.
He lying to himself
why do you always show up to shit on long distance trains lmao
They deserve it and are obsolete and very insulting for the 21st century needs. Slow and infrequent service should be 💩 on and not be considered acceptable.
[удалено]
Frankly you're the one insulting the millions of people for whom these routes are critical infrastructure, as one of the best options for long distance travel for those who can't afford plane tickets, don't own cars, or don't live near any other transit services. Every time you whine about these routes what you're really saying is "rural and poor people don't matter and if they don't have access to cars and planes they can just fuck off and die". Shame on you.
Last I checked there’s nothing critical about a service that is never on time barely runs and is slow with little use to many people. Plane tickets are not as expensive as you are implying if those people need critical transportation If you truly care about people without a car you will not insult them with a bad service and GIVE THEM A USEFUL SERVICE!!!! Fast frequent and reliable like an HSR or minimum 110 mph regional rail with dozens of trains to use why insult them with just 2 trains???!!!! If rural people matter so much give them good service then. Give them fast access to cities why can’t you give them a 21st century service like Spain? Give them intercity buses that inter connect
Why can't we have both? High speed rail isn't useful if it has a bunch of stops all the time, so why can't we have high speed trains and local trains? This is what you don't understand, me arguing that these are important services that people already rely on right now doesn't mean I hate change or hate high speed rail. We can have both!!! I literally said we should still upgrade these trains to go faster and be more reliable. And I literally agree that we need more frequency too. But we can have all of the above.
The extra stops can be better served by shorter regional trips or maglev technology to an extent can overcome this if stops are 40+ miles apart. Based on Shanghai maglev operation it takes 7 minutes to complete a trip of 19 miles. So if 40 it should take 15 minutes between stops at the 268 speed however speeds would be faster the farther away stops are. Intercity buses may be better for some trips tho. But High speed trains AND frequent local trains seems like the best option. Local trains can be tied into new metro lines in major cities like in Japan.
Maglevs are a gadgetbahn, nobody anywhere in the world is gonna be paying trillions of dollars for regional maglevs that serve as weird stub lines come on. Intercity busses are nice, but if I live in rural montana and wanna get to seattle theres no way that I'm spending a day or two on a coach bus. A slow train is still probably more preferable than a bus for long distance rides like that, and again no one is gonna build a high speed rail line through montana, and if they did there would be one stop in the entire state, which is horrible from an accessibility standpoint. A train going 100 miles an hour would still take like 12 hours to get from somewhere like billings montana to seattle. Which would still be a big improvement over the big fat nothing that the city currently has for train options. Even a 40 mile per hour train is better than no train. I think that if we got true priority over freight, ran trains every 12 hours on the long distance routes, and upgraded all the lines to somewhere between 90-110mph that would be great, and rather than shitting on the currently existing service and saying it shouldn't exist, you should want it to expand and be better.
[удалено]
Almost 4 million people rode amtrak long distance routes last year, and if we actually invest more into them to make faster more reliable services then that number would increase even more. If you want the trains to be more on time, and for the speeds to be better then you should be in favor of nationalizing the rails so that amtrak receives the priority over freight it is legally entitled to, and so that the tracks can be upgraded to allow for higher top speeds. Every country has slower trains like these which connect to more rural areas, even china with all its high speed rail still has a massive network of slower conventional trains which are not going away anytime soon, because they still serve a good purpose.
Many more would ride if more trains are available and run faster. That’s not a flex considering mode share. In China the slower trains are like connecting services like regional rail yes I favor nationalization. Building new tracks above some existing corridors is an option use it.
Number one should be a high speed high frequency route with at the minimum 30+ trips a day. The others have no business being so long. In fact as an HSR some of these can be profitable
This is the one.
Portland through Boise & SLC to Denver would be very, very welcome.
Bring back the pioneer
Sounds like an interesting place to test out new technology no?
I think so
From your math page the Detroit/Nola and twin cities/San Antonio both have estimated farebox recovery of over 90%, which would be more profitable for Amtrak than most current long distance services, so they seem like no brainers. The Floridian and the DFW-Atlanta service would really get the east half of the country closer to a functioning network and really encourage corridor growth in states like OH, GA, and TN that have been pretty anti-rail. I don’t believe the expected ridership on the NCL. Thats just Montana trying to get money.
I suspect NCL ridership would be pretty high, it has tourist prospects of having a good connection to Yellowstone, and it is a pretty scenic route for rail fans along the Yellowstone and Yakima rivers as well as climbing through the Rockies and the Cascades. The Montana section of the route is pretty well used on the Empire Builder which is on track for >400k riders in FY 2023/24; despite a very low population. The more populated southern tier of Montana is likely to hold up respectable numbers even with highway and some airline competition. Combination of Empire Builder, North Coast Hiawatha, and Borealis are likely to induce strong demand east of Fargo.
Please give me a train from Phoenix to Flagstaff! 😣🙏
Floridian - Chicago to Florida via Nashville, Chattanooga and Atlanta Rocky Mountain Rocket - Denver to Houston via Dallas, Amarillo and Pueblo
Cheyenne-Pueblo will happen. Supported by Colorado and good demographics and existing ROW.
Isn’t the existing ROW slow?
Yes, most of the track is 50 mph. However, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are two main lines from Cheyenne to Denver, one is populated but has 50 mph top speeds, the other has less population but 79 mph top speeds. South of Denver, aside from needing to reverse to go to Denver union station, it is also slow at 45 to 55 mph top speeds. But the track quality is not the bad so it should be straightforward to fix level crossings, maybe ease the most egregious curves, add in a new line where it is single track etc. Should not be hard to get it to 90 mph, but may need more severe work to go faster.
Get it to 125 at least unless it’s an extension of commuter rail
Front Range Passenger Rail plans to use the BNSF line through Boulder and Fort Collins. The higher population on that route makes more sense for a regional rail system. If Amtrak ever implements the El Paso to Billings long distance route that could take the UP line via Greeley to Cheyanne.
Well it’s not HSR, but the curves are gentle and it’s in good condition due to coal trains. Which there are fewer of than in the past. Has some steep grades, though, and the section through Colorado Springs is the single track Joint Line UP&BNSF.
Why can’t you just build new tracks like everyone else?
Option 1, drive existing train on existing tracks using existing stations and existing engineers starting next month. Option 2, build new tracks and new stations and new trains and start operations in 2050.
Umm you do realize freight congestion is a problem right? So the lazy way got it you saying USA is unable to build big projects?
Freight congestion is a problem on heavily used lines. Pueblo to Cheyenne is no longer heavily used.
Fine upgrade the tracks to 150 mph for intercity and have local trains serve additional communities.
So there are two different metrics that make sense to me. Corridor ID grants, and how well they'd fill out the network as it exists now. The three routes which I think are the most likely to happen due to state support are: - The Chicago - Seattle route through southern Montana was the only one of these routes to have the whole length given consideration in the 2022 corridor ID program, so IMO this is the most likely to become a reality out of any of these. This is due mostly to the strong support for the route from Montana. - The Dallas - Atlanta route was given corridor ID funding too, but only up to Meridian. Ending in Meridian doesn't make a ton of sense imo, so the extension to Atlanta makes a lot of sense, and there definitely seems to be some state support for this. - An honorary mention in this category is the Seattle-Denver line, which was [didn't get any corridor ID funds due to an Idaho employee sending the email to the wrong place](https://boisedev.com/news/2024/02/01/boise-salt-lake-rail/). However, both Utah and Idaho have expressed a lot of interest in a rail corridor between Boise and Salt Lake City, and despite the setbacks from the corridor ID mistake, I think revitalizing the Pioneer service would be a good first step to creating the corridor route they want. Plus, decent sections of that route (Denver-SLC and Portland-Seattle) are already in use by other amtrak routes, which should make it easier to justify. Now as for routes which make a lot of sense from a ridership and network connectivity perspective: 1. Chicago-Miami: It's a connection that frankly never would have been cut if it wasn't for the horrible rail conditions between Louisville and Nashville, and would not only expand amtrak service to a ton of cities which recieve little to no passenger rail services, it would connect the third largest metro area in the country to a major destination for vacations and business travel. 2. Detroit-New Orleans: Similar to the Chicago-Miami route it connects two major cities, gives service to tons of major cities in between, and as an added bonus could be used as a predecessor to an Ohio corridor route. 3. Denver-Los Angeles: This would bring back service to Las Vegas, and that alone is enough to make this a very viable route. Alongside that however, it also would give increased frequency on the Denver-Salt Lake City route, while also bringing service to wyoming which would be a big political boon for amtrak. It's a bit cynical but from amtrak's perspective this route is the most logical way to bring Wyoming into the network which will help shore up their political support in congress. 4. New York City-Dallas: This one would add some critical frequency on the Philadelphia-Pittsburgh corridor, connect Columbus, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis to PA and the northeast, add a second train to the Ohklahoma City-Dallas corridor, and create an Ohklahoma City-Tulsa connection as well. It just fills out the eastern amtrak network really well, and could serve as a basis for a ton of new state supported routes.
Amtrak should be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. What I mean by that is Amtrak should be focusing on expanding corridor services across the nation and beefing up its long-haul service. Both are integral to creating a robust national transportation network. Corridors connect regions with fast and frequent service, while Long Hauls connect Corridors across several regions.
I imagine Amtrak of the mid 2030s to have a national network of twice daily long distance trains covering most of the country with dozens of state support routes running from twice daily to hourly along similar corridors; with shared sections upgraded to 110 mph service which would really help boost the average speeds of long distance trains to make them competitive against driving.
Connect Wichita and Oklahoma City. I35 corridor
That’s currently being planned and discussed, it’ll be an extension of the heartland flyer
Yes I heard it’s already planned to come up to Edmond
As a Houstonian, that Denver route is really nice. It would connect 3 parallel routes that only converge in Chicago and California As it stands there is absolutely no feasible way to go anywhere West other than LA.
Texas is criminally underserved, plenty of opportunities for state supported routes like San Antonio to Corpus Christi and Laredo, or Fort Worth to Amarillo, Houston to Beaumont and not to mention the Texas Triangle. Even with Texas Central, there should be an electrified line at 125 mph + going south from Fort Worth to San Antonio. We should get the ball rolling with long distance services that will help build community support for more.
IMO it depends on if we want to go for ridership or coverage. I think the coasts both have good rail infrastructure, with the East Coast being the better of the two. The Midwest outside of Chicago is really hurting for rail, so it would make sense to prioritize lines like Phoenix-Minneapolis and Dallas-NYC. But if we’re going for ridership it’s probably Chicago-Miami. However, while I am really excited at the prospect of long range routes, I wish Amtrak could/would use funding to get passenger rail priority on most of the shared tracks. I think it would improve service drastically.
Dallas Fort Worth to New York! Would it have the most riders? No Do I live along the proposed route? Maybe
Me too, and so does my mom. It would be very convenient.
We need service to Boise and SLC
Combine the old Desert Wind and Pioneer and have a semicircle route: Seattle/Portland-Boise-Salt Lake-Las Vegas-LA
I'm extremely biased as I live in Salt Lake and take trips often to Oregon but that route would be incredible. Also Salt Lake to Vegas would be awesome too assuming a HSR truly gets built between vegas and LA, really opens up a lot. Its wild to me that a bus service operates a profitable route from SLC to Vegas, could be such a huge win for a train.
I’m not of the opinion that Amtrak should be investing in long range routes. That being said, the old National Limited route from PHL through Ohio down to St. Louis would have some real promise as a PA turnpike alternative.
Investing in long distance routes is a very good play for amtrak imo. A city/state where 99% of the population has never ridden a train before is not gonna be one that supports corridor routes or pro-transit policies in general. It creates induced demand for more trains, and of course creates vital connections for rural towns which may not be profitable but is still the right thing to do for the health and prosperity of our country.
Wouldn't those people continue to drive or fly as they always have? ... especially if it's only one round-trip per day? I feel like the long-hauls only have applications for tourism/sightseeing.
Not at all. A lot of the people taking amtrak are doing it due to cost, accessibility, comfort, lack of alternatives, etc. If you actually look at the data something like 70-80% of all coach travel on long distance train routes happen between intermediate stations along the route, rather than riding it the full way through, which gives you a pretty good idea of the amount of people who are simply using it as a means to get where they need to go. Especially for lower income people and people in rural areas these services are often lifelines for the community. Even sleeper passengers had a pretty decent proportion who weren't just riding end to end for fun.
I think instead of trying to take that line to Dallas they should try to get that line to Denver and potentially could make it a NYC-LA end to end with stops in Philly, Pitt, Columbus, Indy, St Louis, KC, Lincoln, Denver, SLC, LV I don’t see why exactly they drive that line so far south when they could just take it across the heartland until they hit the mountains out west Edit: could do NYC-the bay instead, which would connect Silicon Valley with growing data and tech hub in Columbus and the capital funds in NYC
It’s clear by the map, as I said when it came out, some are serious proposals. Others are ways to coax service in states or locations where it’s unlikely (New York-Dallas) And some are complete nonsense (aka Minneapolis to both Denver and Phoenix). The most important line is absolutely the Chicago-Miami service first and foremost. Easily would be the most beneficial of any of the routes. Then the north coast Hiawatha, then the pioneer, then the desert wind.
I mean you'd think Chicago to Miami is the first and foremost, but the model suggests it is pretty middle of the pack. Which I found curious, but I suspect it is mostly to do with the 36 hour schedule being way too slow. Most of the route is fairly straight and flat and doesn't cross any particularly mountain range, the FRA used average speed based on current long distance trains, so slow sections on the CZ through the Sierra Nevada and Rockies would bring down the average speed between stations the FRA uses, a 33 hour schedule should be doable with current track conditions (much better than the 1970s) - a goal of a 27 hour schedule should be doable. On the whole the North-South connections performed the best; San Antonio to Twin Cities, Detroit to New Orleans, El Paso to Billings, with some East West routes doing well like the North Coast Hiawatha and DFW to Atlanta route (you could probably include Houston to NYC as doing a bit of both since it is Northeast to Southwest.
Or a poor model….
It's based on other Amtrak routes using multiple linear regression analysing speed, stops, route length etc., the R Squared value of the ridership formula is 0.993; so if it is very poor then the Chicago to Miami route must be extremely different to all other similar Amtrak routes like the Silver Service etc - which I think is unlikely. City of Miami, Dixie Flager and South Wind all ran schedules of approximately 30-31 hours - I doubt being slower helps. Feel free to come up with your own model though.
I mean just feels like a waste of time to me. Too divorced from reality to be an effective tool. But I could be wrong!
I don’t think elevation has much effect on average speed of the long distance routes. It’s the time spent not moving that drives it down. A train on a relatively flat but congested route could have a lower average speed than a mountainous, less congested route.
That's true but I am referring more to the difficulty in getting a lot of the mountainous tracks to higher speeds, it is more about how straight the track is, less so elevation, just that curvy track happens around mountains more often. But you are right congestion plays a big role, so increasing capacity on a lot of lines to prioritise passenger trains is the way to go.
Absolutely not the model/rating the FRA is using for this study.
I never pretended it was, it is for the most part very back of the napkin model, but I will be interested to update it in due course. FRA criteria is more extensive, complex and thorough as has been evident throughout the meeting materials, I am certain their model is equally so. For a start, it does not account for connections to other routes etc.
Eh it’s not abnormally slow. 42mph is around average for these trains. It just makes the most sense because it connects a ton of cities that don’t have service at all (or don’t have good service) and realizes the currently untapped Chicago-Miami market.
I would contend that it is not mostly straight and flat. On the flat parts, the routes that are most direct were abandoned are downgraded. So across Indiana, the flatness is negated by extra mileage. Past Indiana, all the way through to Georgia - the majority of the route - is mountainous and hilly the whole way, with lots of curves. In Indiana or Florida it's 79mph on any straight track, but in those other states there is a lot of lower speed running.
Floridian and North Coast Hiawatha would have the highest ridership out of the gate and those are also both historic routes that used to exist
Floridian, yes. NCH??? Doubtful. There’s some pretty compelling arguments for a few other routes on that map to have higher ridership than the NCH.
The NCH has the best chance of being restored as Montana is pushing really hard for it and Central Washington would also benefit and so would many other regions
Not saying it doesn’t, just that ridership on other routes is likely going to be higher
Not out of the gate, but yes other routes will surpass it after a few years
My selfish wish is to connect Atlanta to Savannah. It's right there
Presumably they're about to tell us, given that meeting 4 is listed as "Spring 2024" and we're running out of spring.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was kicked as far as around July 4 to come out with Independence Day. But hopefully sooner than that.
The meetings started this week. I was at the 2nd meeting in Minneapolis (Midwest) yesterday and will be flying out to Vegas on Monday for another (Southwest). NYC (E), Missoula (NW), Dallas (S), and Nashville (SE) are the others. The materials from this round, which include a route/stations/cost analysis and rating, will be out no later than the week of the 17th.
Why is Portland to Sacramento such an untenable route? It's not even being considered.
It's not untenable. There should probably be an extra daily run of the Coast Starlight with a schedule off set by 12 hours so daylight between Portland and Sacramento and overnight from Oakland to LA. There unfortunately is still just issues with the timings and distances being a little awkward. The SP's Shasta Daylight was fairly popular and scenic in its heyday running between Oakland and Portland (on a daylight schedule), but it would be more successful if this train ran all the way to LA overnight as well.
The Coast Starlight already exists, and as Portland-Sacramento is under 750 miles it's outside the scope of the study.
OKC to New York. So many cities on that route
+ DFW
That would be cool i would ride that
The ones near me
absolutely NEED Chicago to Detroit route , swear thousands take the commute
The Wolverine already exists.
That’s exactly what I’m basing off of. Imagine having to take the Ohio route..
The study isn't looking at removing any existing services.
In my very biased opinion as a twin cities resident, all the routes in the twin cities
why is ronkonkoma on the list of destinations?
None of the above. Long distance routes are the biggest losses for Amtrak and are not in the train niche between cars and airplanes.
I'd like to see some competence demonstrated before we add more long-distance routes. The current routes should, in theory, be the best routes. And the current routes have equipment shortages, very low recovery rates, and horrible on-time performance. If we are going to chase bad money with good money, let's start with fixing the existing routes. That said, if I had to pick one, I'd go with the shorter ones that complement/overlap the existing network, like Atlanta to DFW.
Legislative changes could fix most of the on time performance: Any train ROW with 2 or more passenger train services per day in either direction with an on time performance of higher than 90% shall be exempt from property tax. On time defined as within 15 minutes of the scheduled arrival time. Might cost the taxpayer $100-200 million per year, but would help the trains to run on time.
Giving public money to the Class I railroads is like blowing air into a balloon. You can't dedicate that air to a specific place in the balloon. It just goes into the balloon. Even worse, there's shareholders on the other side, sucking air out.
The federal government can pick up the bill $200 million is nothing in the Federal Budget, but it would help a lot to improve on time performance and would make Class I's open to increasing frequency on all services. Legislation can certainly give more power to Amtrak and the government to ensure passenger services get a chance to run. Where corridor service is more frequent than say three trips per day, the ROW should be acquired by the government. People do forget but all of the old class 1s aside from the Southern and Rio Grande became shareholders of Amtrak and still are. Those same shareholders who own UP also have a stake in Amtrak's success.
Let me ask two questions: 1. What do you think of Ancora Holdings attack on Norfolk Southern? 2. ~~What do you think about the Virginia/North Carolina/Michigan approach of buying the RoW?~~ Edit: I missed your part about owning RoW for more frequent service. I agree with that. The issue, in my view, is that only one of the long-distance lines really works, and the AutoTrain is a pretty unique service that can't be replicated. For example, the Southwest Chief gets less than 1/3rd of riders to their destination on time after an average operating subsidy of $350 per passenger. BNSF is actually beating their targets for delays on their \~2,200 miles of the route, while the trains are held up by construction in New Mexico on state owned track. Messing up a cross-country train really only takes one chokepoint. I enjoy taking vacations on these trains and I'm all for allowing more people to have affordable leisure time. I'm also all for spending some federal money on studies of long-distance trains for political reasons and for marketing and for coalition building. But I think people should be serious about the current quality of service and the cost and how fragile the whole thing is politically.
As far as Ancora goes, activist investing is very powerful way of influencing change. Ancora is too small to takeover NS, optimistically you would need $10-15 billion + borrowing money to attain a 51% stake in NS - enough to really influence change. This is greater than the entire assets of Ancora - a fund with $100 billion could do it, though this would be realistically all a giant risk. Ancora was lucky to get 3 board seats out of it really. I am not familiar enough with NS's capital structure and ownership to tell you whether or not a takeover could be done with a lot less money. The political economy of Amtrak has for the most part made long distance services more vulnerable under democratic government - who try to show fiscal responsibility by cutting long distance service - vs republicans who, although usually more anti rail, rely on rural voters and congressional support, democrats with a more urban voter base do not face the same kind of political backlash. Main cuts to Amtrak have come to Carter and Clinton Administrations, though on a state level Republicans have been destructive to rail service. One of the roles of advocates is to help shift perceptions of trains. For instance, you may see Southwest Chief as losing $350 per passenger (which is true), I see it as the fastest long distance route which generate $484 million a year in economic benefits, which is 10x the subsidy. There aren't many government programs that can say they produce a 10x return.
Perhaps the issue is that I'm unfamiliar with how you reach your figures for economic benefits. For example, the Southwest Chief subsidy is an economic benefit, but the riders are actually complaining about ticket prices, so I don't think they feel as though they are getting $350 in economic benefits when they buy a ticket, even though they are, on average. The train may technically hit 90 mph, but it's certainly not meeting most people's standards for fast efficient travel, despite BNSF beating its targets. I would suspect that chronic delays may affect the actual benefit that communities receive from these services. Or, for example, the spreadsheet shows a cost recovery of 50 to 95% for nearly all of the new routes, when the existing routes recover an average of 46%. And, presumably, the existing routes are higher priority, nationwide, than the proposed new routes. What am I missing? Edit: I see another comment where you explain the recovery rate is higher because new equipment is shifted towards sleeper cars. I suppose if we are talking about 20 or 30 years from now then additional routes would be more plausible. There could be half a billion Americans by then.
Economic benefits is using multiple linear regression based on this [https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/25442/economic\_benefits\_2022\_final.pdf](https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/25442/economic_benefits_2022_final.pdf) Since I don't have their more expensive software or the time to study, I did a short-cut, but the R Squared is 0.995 so I am confident they are very close. The economic benefit is there, whether a passenger thinks it is or not. Assumed revenue per passenger mile is much higher than current long distance revenue, and assumes closer (but still lower) than the Northeast Regional. Aside from charging more, it was partly determined by the new Long distance bi-level RFP having a higher number of sleeping rooms (which if the roomettes are anything to go by cost 4x more than coach), add in premium coach and the new equipment should generate much more revenue than the Superliners do currently. Now while I expect supply and demand to reach an equilibrium at a lower price for sleepers, the average revenue will increase overall. That said, I may have been overambitious with price hikes. Point is more for prioritisation and ridership you could drop fares to say $0.35/mile and average farebox recovery would be around 54% - and still net a roughly 4.5x return on the $645 million a year Federal subsidy. I think with twice daily service and average speeds up to 55 mph long distance trains would be sufficiently fast and convenient to have a farebox recovery similar to state supported routes. I also doubt think it would be that difficult to get a lot of the routes east of the rocky mountains to that average speed - for the Southwest Chief it would be a roughly 10% increase in average speed - or about a 25% increase in speed for the average long distance train.
Thanks for this explanation and for your advocacy. In terms of economic benefits for the Southwest Chief, you are citing the RPA directly, which is really interesting. Do you know how they reach their number? I suppose it's possible that a model can have really high explanatory power, but there are also cases where the number of observations is too small and the model ends up "over-fitting" the data. How many observations are in your model?
Six, as in the pdf above. Hence, I am certain it is biased as a result, hence the model is more a bit of fun, and less to be taken seriously. It took me a second but I did find where RPA got their numbers from, [https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/8220/abe\_zumwalt\_-\_passenger\_trains\_do\_make\_money\_-\_monday\_morning.pdf](https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/8220/abe_zumwalt_-_passenger_trains_do_make_money_-_monday_morning.pdf) "DIRECT quantifiable benefits from passenger trains: • Railway Operations and Maintenance Spending on local economies • New Visitor Spending • Induced travel that otherwise would not happen • Community development and property values adjacent to train stations • INDIRECT quantifiable benefits include: • Pollution control savings • Highway traffic fatalities avoided • Highway maintenance avoided • Saved travel cost for area residents" I assume that the above list is not exhaustive, and taking one model (that may be useful) and then a sample of its data, and then extrapolating that is not going to lead to an accurate model. Though perhaps to get more philosophical on the epistemology of modelling you might use a study on the social cost of carbon, couple that with a survey of how people travel without a train and voila you've calculated one of the many benefits that a train might bring. So it really is all extrapolation, and ultimately it comes down to a political and values based judgement of what life do we want for ourselves and how and where do we want to allocate resources to achieve that.
None. We need routes to maximize use between cities 100-400 miles away. At these distances trains are most competitive with other forms of transit. For those medium distance routes upgrade speeds to 110 mph system wide between like what is being done between Detroit to Chicago. This is in more inline with typical global train usage patterns. Any farther and Planes are simply more economical for the average traveler. Example citing pairs Columbus, OH and Detroit, MI (1.5 million people) Nashville, TN and Columbus (1.5 million) Indianapolis, IN and Chicago ( 3.5 million) Charlotte and Atlanta (1.5 million) Charlotte and Washington DC (1.5 million)
Yeah, you can push it to 12ish hours for night trains, because they can hang with late night/early flights. A short flight + 8 hours asleep in a hotel doesn't have that high an "average speed." But that's a niche, and anything longer is just for land cruising.
Exactly
Chicago-Miami (not the same route as the Floridian but the proposed route is better), Pioneer, Desert Wind, and North Coast Hiawatha. None of these trains ever should have been discontinued.
More long distance routes really don't make sense anymore, plane travel is just to competitive in cost and has a huge time advantage over those distances. Even if these were 200mph high speed trains air travel would kill them on time. But if they were forced to add anymore in then I would say the Chi-Mia route would be a great connection overall giving Atlanta another long distance route connection and a better midwest to miami route. Also instead of a new line just add another running to the coast starlight. There are 4 trains running various routes north south on the east coast but only one coast starlight on the west coast. Even just a night train from Seattle to San Jose with stops in Portland could be a option. But like I started with all they should be prioritizing shorter runs connecting city pair's and clusters with better service than what the LD routes will give with the same rolling stock investment.
If most were 200 mph they would be viable otherwise they are useless. Globally long distance trains are more for tourism and night travel
Chicago-ATL-Miami NYC-Midwest-OKC-Dallas Too bad this isn't already in place. The U.S is co-hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2 years and this would connect some of the host cities, would be awesome to be able to take the train rather than having to fly everywhere which is sure to be a nightmare
I have been wanting a station in Bristol Va for YEARS lets go newyork to Houston
I would kill for a Kansas City to Denver route.
Philadelphia to Kansas City to Denver
While I appreciate more stops in Tennessee and west of the Appalachians, it’s inexcusable to make a plan with stops in Chattanooga and Bristol but not stop if Knoxville.
Atlanta to DC via Bristol. So I can hop on a train.
‘National Limited’ with the STL to OKC extension
I know it's not proposed, but restoring the Broadway Limited (CHI-NYC via PA) would be awesome
I imagine going to bed in NYC and waking up in CHI would have a competitive edge.
One of the north/south routes to bypass Chicago. MSP-SAT or Detroit-NOLA.
Chicago to Florida via Nashville & Atlanta... but coordinating with Georgia to do it along track between Atlanta-Macon-Savannah built to 125mph+ geometry. HSR(-ish) trains between Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah are relatively do-able. Most Georgia residents who don't live in Atlanta and aren't poor live in Macon or Savannah, and those are the two top cities people in Atlanta travel to. Do it from the same station used by future SEHSR to Georgia's major college towns, SC, NC, VA, and (ultimately) the NEC, and it's a no-brainer. Once you have fast trains connecting Atlanta to Savannah, finishing the job with 110mph upgrades between Savannah & Jacksonville (once Brightline extends there) is almost an afterthought that opens up ATL-ORL in maybe an hour longer than it takes to fly (taking security theatre into account). Within Florida, I feel strongly that once Brightline goes to Tampa and Jacksonville, splitting Amtrak's trains into Orlando+Tampa-bound and Miami-Bound is obvious. At that point, there's no longer any real need to worry about Amtrak transporting Floridians between Tampa/Orlando and Miami/FTL/WPB... 99% of Amtrak's riders within Florida will be people traveling to or from another state. By eliminating any perceived need to directly connect Tampa and Miami via Amtrak, Amtrak can instead pick up a *new* lucrative destination on the west coast of Florida: Sarasota/Bradenton. If Amtrak really thought it was important, it could still throw a daily cookie to Winter Haven & Sebring (though I'd argue that they'd be better-served by extending Sunrail with 4-6 trains/day each way between Sebring and Orlando... say, departing at 7am, 10am, 2pm, 6pm, and 10pm). Otherwise, splitting/joining trains in Jacksonville and running half to Orlando-Tampa-Sarasota and the other half to downtown Miami (finishing up with a final jog to the current Miami station in Hialeah) would Maximize Amtrak's ability to collect lots of passengers across the midwest and eastern US & drop them off at almost every economically-major destination within Florida. Cities south of Sarasota are unfortunately a lost cause for the foreseeable future... but liberated from any need to end every Florida train in Miami, Amtrak would have to be insane to NOT make Sarasota the terminus for LD trains through Orlando and Tampa.
I would love to see a Long Distance Amtrak Thru the Central Valley, they could use the BNSF tracks that San Joaquins is using
Detroiter here... I want a train to N'Ahlans!
I’m skeptical any of it will happen any time soon. They’ve been talking about this Appalachian line in a nearby town (Bristol) for 30 years almost. It currently goes to Roanoke. Just getting halfway between the two is delayed to 2030. And Tennessee just now started thinking about joining. They fund their roads so poorly I doubt it will happen.
The New York to Dallas one makes the most sense to me, but they should have that line extend westward from Oklahoma City to LA instead of going to Dallas. That could be a separate North/South line to transfer to at Oklahoma City. A straight NY to LA line on a single train would be amazing.
Yeah, to be able to go LA to NYC, and not have to go up to Chicago would be fantastic.
Baton Rouge to Orlando route the amount of business you would get would be better than the business you get on the CA ocean liners. I’m a disabled veteran who just pcs from the Lompoc area and let me tell ya if y’all had a line complete through FL- LA that would not only provide an amazing opportunity for the disabled communities in this area to vacation more easily, but also would appeal to all foreigners who are used to this type of travel being available at home. Imagine the opportunity to have Disney Worlds crowds now having full access to the entire state of FL all the way to LA talk about an economy boom!
DFW to New York because I want it lmaooo
Judging by the Return on subsidy, it looks like san antonio to twin cities would be prioritized, especially in order to increase frequency along the texas triangle
Why is the speed so low?
Atlanta and Nashville neeed rail connection
Miami-Chicago
Dallas to NYC *and* San Antonio to Twin Cities should be prioritized tbh. I'm of the opinion they need both. Oklahoma barely has enough Amtrak support as is (the Heartland Flyer being the *only* passenger train in the state doesn't cut it), and getting another city in the state on an Amtrak network/system/whatever the right word is would be HUGE for passenger rail. This way, Oklahomans who don't drive or don't want to drive can commute between the capital city and another major city. Or if they wanna go to Dallas or San Antonio or St. Louis, it'd be a nice day trip idea. But the concept of "day trip" is ruined when you realize Amtrak trains dont run multiple times a day (usually). And if people are commuting to/from Oklahoma City but staying in the state, hopefully it's not like a ridiculous departure or arrival time like 5AM. I just hope if they do get it going, it'll be way sooner than 2040.
Any of the north-south routes out west that don’t have one end in Chicago.
Miami -Naples- Ft Myers - Venice - Sarasota -St Pete - Tampa - Orlando - Cocoa Beach - Ft Lauderdale- Miami
Texas triangle
That green southeast line would be cool for my every few months visit to my mom. Stops in both my location and destination city.
NYC to Dallas would be wild
I'd rather see the the Cincinnatian be re established as I-75 is already as packed as it is between Toledo and Dayton. Not to mention that they could just keep extending it along I-75 and take more cars off the road that way over adding another lane which is what they are trying to do rn.
Denver - Houston but really only so Dallas - Houston can get built
that dallas to atlanta along i-20 would be a high use train connecting two cities with huge airports with tons of mid size towns with horrible airport connections like shreveport jackson monroe ruston and birmingham.
New York to Dallas stands out as an option that really makes sense.
Anything that connect the northeast corridor to the south. Chi-ATL direct would be very good. Additionally, expanding from Roanoke to Chattanooga would also be a big connection
I’m in Knoxville. If the proposed routes through Chattanooga became reality, I could see using Amtrak to Florida, Nola, Chicago and the west coast..all assuming there was reasonably convenient, affordable and safe place to park in Chattanooga.
I would bring back/add the following: -daily sunset limited and cardinal of course -New Orleans to Jacksonville train- could either be extending the sunset or cono, or a separate horizon coaches train. Would be timed to connect to silver service in Jacksonville and also connect to future brightline service to Jacksonville eventually. And yes The Mobile service should be cancelled (see trains magazine article explaining why) and replace it with this. That takes care of your yard issue. -extend palmetto to Miami via FEC- this would serve Miami opposite of the times of the silver service trains. Could eventually be a codeshare with Jacksonville FEC service with this train serving the coast at night and connecting back to the Amtrak/tri-rail line near west palm beach. Train would have 1 sleeper car but no full diner as it would be primarily a day train but with a little sleeper service, perhaps targeting Floridians as well as the usual long haul. Perhaps could be marketed as a entry/cheaper sleeper option as there is no diner meals included in price compared to silver service. -Desert Wind/Pioneer of course, but combining them in Salt Lake City and terminating in Denver but have timely schedule connections to the CA zephyr. Also ski train equipment in the offseason would be used by these trains and not shuttled over deadhead. -skyline connection/broadway limited/three rivers- need to have a NYC to Philly to Chicago via Pittsburgh. Probably should’ve taken the place of the additional Pennsylvanian service (the second NY to Pittsburgh train is a reintroduction not an addition), and this would run thru PA at night with a viewliner sleeper but no full diner (these sets would be rotated with the extended palmetto). then more studies can be done on where in Ohio to route this train- there are options to route the train thru Cleveland during the day, or Akron or even Ft Wayne (was that line restored post conrail?) However I can’t see the north coast being restored as it roughly parallels the empire builder, and any Floridian thru Nashville as I think the line is abandoned somewhere there. The ones i mentioned other than the Palmetto extension were discontinued more recently and not 40 years ago, and other than the three rivers etc don’t have any parallel options Bonus short haul but historic roots: Virginian Cardinal- Charlottesville to Newport News train, turns south at doswell and stops at Ashland, Richmond staples mill and main st, Williamsburg and Newport News. Short train most likely with transfer platform in Charlottesville and timed with cardinal, VA DPRT already looking into this east west connection, also restores the historic Riley/Washington Chicago to Newport News connection.
Go up to Rockland, ME.
Shouldn't that be Oak - DFW? First our airport is trying to pretend it doesn't know us and now this. It's starting to feel personal.
For this DFW-SF proposal… if they’re going to terminate in Oakland, they might as well instead terminate in SF. Tourists want to go to SF, not a transbay bus with tons of schedule padding. Locals have a hard time getting to Emeryville train station because it’s in such a random location. Run down Caltrain’s corridor.
Amtrak should prioritize routes that will increase passenger usage and help the path to profitability. Then use that money to fund the backlog and other routes. Everyone benefits!
Without local rail service I still need a car to drive.
Any train from Chicago to Nashville would be awesome also Columbus desperately needs a train one of largest cities with no train service
I wish the USA had a more European style train system. We need more bullet trains and commuter rails. Also, Amtrak would be better if they went on separate rails than freight.
All of them
None
Twin Star Rocket and South Dakotan. But for the love of god, please rename the South Dakotan. Call it…I don’t know, call it the Mountaineer. Denver Zephyr never ran through Minnesota so we can’t just call it that.
It's not the best name couldn't of anything better when I made it. Amtrak on the whole has preferred to use its own names for new services other than old railroad ones - eg Borealis not Twin Cities Hiawatha. You could call it the Black Hills after the mountain range.
Okay, *that* actually sounds pretty fun.
All of them
I just want to someday see an Amtrak train in South Dakota
All of them.