Passenger Trains > Amtrak route restructure targets new corridors

Just saw this:

https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Amtrak-route-restructure-targets-new-corridors-15928591.php <phorum break> <phorum break> ______________________________________________________________________________________________
Amtrak officials have been crisscrossing the United States in recent months, meeting with state transportation officials in places like Tennessee, Texas and Nevada  as they seek to bring train service to some of the nation's fastest growing population centers.

While most of the focus is on new routes in the South and West, New York state and the Capital Region likely would benefit from the effort as well.

Amtrak is focusing on developing new "corridors," routes tying together population centers that are several hundred miles apart and offer frequent train service. Some of the changes would be extensions of existing routes.

or example, Empire Corridor trains heading west from Albany to Buffalo could continue on to Cleveland. Some could also continue to Detroit via Toledo

Other services would be new. Ohio officials, for example, are looking at restoring service between Cleveland and Cincinnati via Columbus and Dayton

Steve Strauss, executive director of the Empire State Passengers Association, said another route under discussion is Detroit to New York City. It wasn't clear whether the Wolverine, which now travels between Chicago and Detroit, would be expanded. The Wolverine last served New York City, Albany, Buffalo, Detroit and Chicago in 1967.

The extension would provide another alternative from Albany to Midwestern cities.

Meanwhile, Amtrak is looking at restoring the corridor from New York City to Scranton, Pa., and possibly north to Binghamton, accessing New York's Southern Tier.

ay Lang, Amtrak’s senior director for national state relations, briefed the Rail Passengers Association, a Washington-based advocacy group, on the corridor expansion plan in a presentation in the fall. Since then, passenger rail supporters have been encouraged by the election of Joseph Biden and by plans to invest heavily in the nation's infrastructure as the economy recovers from the pandemic

Lang, in his presentation, said the "price of admission for new corridor service has gotten to be really, really expensive." Amtrak is proposing a five-year, $25 billion spending plan that would pay for trains and other equipment, as well as covering startup and other operating costs, with the operating support gradually shifting over a period of years to the state in which the trains are operating.

Also in Lang's presentation was the construction of new customs and immigration facilities shared by U.S. and Canadian officers in Montreal, eliminating the sometimes lengthy border stop for the Adirondack. The plan also has the Vermonter being extended to Montreal, and the Ethan Allen Express to Burlington. The Ethan Allen, which serves Albany, now terminates at Rutland, 

Completely new corridors would connect Chattanooga and Nashville with Atlanta; Atlanta and Charlotte; Jacksonville with Orlando, Tampa and Miami; Los Angeles with Las Vegas; Los Angeles with Phoenix and Tucson; and Denver with communities  along the front range of the Rocky Mountains.

Other corridors would see additional service. On the West Coast, the Coast Daylight would be added to the route of the Coast Starlight

Lang emphasized that this is a long-term plan, and individual states "would have the ability to do what they want."

Nevertheless, Amtrak would like to work on some areas "really fast." Those include the Nashville to Atlanta route and the front range of the Rockies in Colorado.

Congress still has to approve the plans. And Amtrak may get some resistance from the freight railroads over whose tracks most of its trains operate. In November testimony to Congress, Amtrak officials described the delays that Amtrak trains face from slow-moving freight traffic, sometimes making them fall hours behind schedule.

And building out the system could take decades. The map Lang displayed in his talk was entitled "The Amtrak System 2035."

But Amtrak officials say they're eager to get started.

 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/21 10:19 by scott9915.

Three-page thread at:

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,5192430,5192430#msg-5192430



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/21 11:39 by GenePoon.

About two weeks ago, there were lots of press reports from Ohio about Amtrak proposing about 5 major train/route additions in the state. Turned out that most of that was more wishful thinking on the part of Ohio passenger rail advocates than concrete Amtrak plans. 

The New York reports seem to be very similar although the press report you refer to does quote Amtrak officials. Nevertheless many of us rail supporters are dubious that any of this can be pulled off given the need to deal with freight railroads that are running longer and slower trains these days. 

In my working days, we called this vaporware:-)

WP17

I just can't see Nashville to Atlanta making sense. The route between Chattanooga and Nashville has to go up and over the Cumberland Plateau through some steep grades along curvy track, Cowan TN still has manned helper service, or did until very recently. Not only that, but that route goes 1-1.5 hours (rail time) out of the way into northeast Alabama. Now Atlanta-Chattanooga I think makes a lot of sense, whether you take CSX or NS. NS gets you Rome, GA and I think is a little faster, but the CSX line isn't as busy, more closely follows I-75 and possibly gets you a few more stations in higher population areas (principally suburban Cobb County). Either one will require building a transfer track though. Assuming the same Atlanta station, if you ran CSX, you'd need a new track at Howell. If you run the NS (route of the current Crescent until Austell) then you'd need a track at Dalton, but there looks like there's one disused one there. The reason for the track at Dalton is the NS mainline swings too far out to Cohutta, GA to be able to remain competitive, you'd have the same problem you do with Chattanooga-Nashville.

I apolozige in advance if I missed it, but does anyone know what the expansion in Texas is reported to be?

Thanks,

Bob Andrews
The Catalpa Falls Group, LLC

BAG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I apolozige in advance if I missed it, but does
> anyone know what the expansion in Texas is
> reported to be?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob Andrews
> The Catalpa Falls Group, LLC

- Heartland Flyer Extension up to the BNSF transcon (Newton and perhaps to Kansas City). 
- Ft. Worth/Dallas to Houston. 

Most of these proposed corridor routes (except the Front Range corridor proposal) and a few others are encompassing routes where former LD trains used to operate (including the Floridian), only now they are breaking them down to "segments." And the costs, instead of being part of a national network cost, are being offloaded to the States. Even at a discounted rate to start up services, I don't know what money Amtrak expects that the States will use (after being slammed with the effects of COVID). As much as I'd like to see corridor growth, Amtrak should perhaps look at bringing back those LD trains that they think will cover multiple corridor routes outlined AND THEN OVER TIME - as certain segments pick up with traffic - carve out a corridor for the States to absorb. But first UNITE with a LD train, then piece and parcel two new corridors from it. 

For example, re-instate the Lone Star - Chicago to Houston via Kansas City. It would cross over connecting Kansas City with Oklahoma City (a new corridor that's on the 2035 map), adding another frequency from Chicago to Kansas City that's needed (but not on the 2035 map), and connect Ft. Worth with Houston (a corridor that is looking to be built on the 2035 map). It's a way at least to get a National Network train on the map and covering the corridors on the 2035 map. It's built and brought in as part of the National network. Perhaps the two individual corridors could get state funded with additional frequencies as the State gets money available. Could a Chicago to Florida train be put into the national network yet cover/connect from Chicago to Louisville (round two for that corridor hopes on the 2035 map) and perhaps Nashville to Atlanta, 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/21 15:02 by jp1822.

The whole point of Amtrak's propaganda mission was to push for new services they do not have to pay for beyond start-up costs and two years. They have no interest in the LD network, and have a no-growth strategy as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they were interested, at the very least, they would specifically request funds to repair wrecked LD equipment. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/21 16:11 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The whole point of Amtrak's propaganda mission was
> to push for new services they do not have to pay
> for beyond start-up costs and two years. They have
> no interest in the LD network, and have a
> no-growth strategy as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> If they were interested, at the very least, they
> would specifically request funds to repair wrecked
> LD equipment. 

Sad but true Joe, I for one am not happy about this at all!

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 As much as I'd like to see
> corridor growth, Amtrak should perhaps look at
> bringing back those LD trains that they think will
> cover multiple corridor routes outlined AND THEN
> OVER TIME - as certain segments pick up with
> traffic - carve out a corridor for the States to
> absorb. But first UNITE with a LD train, then
> piece and parcel two new corridors from it. 
>

I disagree with that premise as a generalization.  There is value in developing the Chicago - St. Paul route into a corridor, independent of a new long-distance train serving the area.  Likewise, increased service between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg should not be predicated on reinstatement of the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers.  If a New York - Pittsburgh - Chicago service is bought back, that would be nice, but increasing the frequency of Pennsylvanian service (thus extending the Keystone corridor across the state) should be the priority.  

16 years after the Three Rivers demise, and that "priority" has gotten you nowhere, no closer now to getting that than you were then. But keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

Had western Pennsylvania advocates, NARP, and Amtrak interpreted and carried out the Capitol Ltd thru car PIP plan, it would have increased ridership and improved bottom line on both trains, and there would be far more initiative by Penn DOT to have market for a 2nd frequency, with far more end point permutations of direct access from south Jersey and the rest of Pennsylvania to the Midwest. The Capitol Ltd is now a pathetic 4 car train. At least the rest of the LDTs have about normal consists with tri-weekly, during the winter, within a pandemic.

Instead, there was that silly "Daily Cardinal Campaign" a few years ago, which got no traction, no surprise here. Its PIP for daily service did not look very impressive with additional federal subsidies required. But then, mundane facts in the PIPs did not matter to the so-called advocates. . 

Your St Paul analogy is not valid. It actually proves my point - LD service comes before supplemental frequencies. That route already has a LD train; the Pennsylvanian route does not. Yet Minnesota still punted for another year due to the CP's random demand. 

There is nothing in Amtrak's wet dream involving any route over 400 miles or requiring federal operating subsidies. That is a fact, not a generalization. And even then, I don't recall reading anything about 2 trains to Pittsburgh. West of Harrisburg is not the Empire Corridor, and never will be. There is no equivalent of Syracuse and Rochester, it is 10MPH slower, and oh BTW, one of New York's 4 frequencies goes to Chicago, with large westbound boardings in central and western NYS.
 
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/21 04:22 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 16 years after the Three Rivers demise, and that
> "priority" has gotten you nowhere, no closer now
> to getting that than you were then. But keep
> doing the same thing and expect different
> results.
>
Even though there has been no increase in long-distance passenger train service (defined as greater frequency or establishment of a new route) in nearly 30 years (when the Pioneer was routed through Wyoming), I would never disparage the efforts of those who advocate for more long-distance passenger trains.  It is unfortunate that you as a New Jerseyean, are essentially telling Pennsylvania passenger rail advocates to give up on more Pennsylvanian service.

Your claim that Pennsylvania passenger rail advocates are no closer to increasing service on the Pennsylvanian route than they were in 2005 is not true.  

> Had western Pennsylvania advocates, NARP, and
> Amtrak interpreted and carried out the Capitol Ltd
> thru car PIP plan, it would have increased
> ridership and improved bottom line on both trains,
> and there would be far more initiative by Penn DOT
> to have market for a 2nd frequency, with far more
> end point permutations of direct access from south
> Jersey and the rest of Pennsylvania to the
> Midwest.

Common courtesy suggests that you spell out acronyms when communicating in a thread.  [For anyone else reading this exchange PIP is "Performance Improvement Program."]

To whom did you speak at PennDOT to come to that conclusion?

The Capitol Limited PIP is not a substitute for what Pennsylvania passenger rail advocates are seeking.  

The Capitol Ltd is now a pathetic 4 car
> train.

Your inference that non-implementation of the PIP is reason for the Capitol Limited's short length is unconvincing.  The Capitol Limited remained a decent-sized train for at least nine years after the PIP was completed.

At least the rest of the LDTs have about
> normal consists with tri-weekly, during the
> winter, within a pandemic.
>
> Instead, there was that silly "Daily Cardinal
> Campaign" a few years ago, which got no traction,
> no surprise here. Its PIP for daily service did
> not look very impressive with additional federal
> subsidies required. But then, mundane facts in the
> PIPs did not matter to the so-called advocates.

Whatever could have happened with the Cardinal or will happen with the Cardinal is irrelevant.

That said, I downloaded a Capitol Limited Performance Improvement Plan and will read it sometime.  Let us know when upper level managers at Amtrak, Federal Railroad Administration and state Department of Transportation are currently basing (or in the near future will be basing) their decisions on these documents.  Otherwise, I will see the Capitol Limited Performance Improvement Plan, at best, as an interesting document and nothing more.
 

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jp1822 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>  As much as I'd like to see
> > corridor growth, Amtrak should perhaps look at
> > bringing back those LD trains that they think
> will
> > cover multiple corridor routes outlined AND
> THEN
> > OVER TIME - as certain segments pick up with
> > traffic - carve out a corridor for the States
> to
> > absorb. But first UNITE with a LD train, then
> > piece and parcel two new corridors from it. 
> >
>
> I disagree with that premise as a
> generalization.  There is value in developing the
> Chicago - St. Paul route into a corridor,
> independent of a new long-distance train serving
> the area.  Likewise, increased service between
> Pittsburgh and Harrisburg should not be predicated
> on reinstatement of the Broadway Limited/Three
> Rivers.  If a New York - Pittsburgh - Chicago
> service is bought back, that would be nice, but
> increasing the frequency of Pennsylvanian service
> (thus extending the Keystone corridor across the
> state) should be the priority.  

I think it's back to basics right now, sorry! Amtrak was formed to operate a NATIONAL network. Liken that to the Interstate Highway system.

Let the states handle their own corridor expansion. States are not in the position during COVID or immedlately post-COVID (2 to 5 years from now) to finance passenger rail corridors, no matter how much help they are going to get from Amtrak. And no matter how long the transition period - they can't take the gamble right now to invest in rail passenger corridors. Had COVID not occurred, you would have seen the second frequency corridor between St. Paul and Chicago.

I am not predicating anything - meaning you have to do this first in order to get that. I am only trying to think through - what has the best chance of getting of the ground financially. If Amtrak has this "extra money" to help jump start corridor development, regardless of what dog and pony show is put forth, the States are just not going to take the bait right now. Use the funds instead to to look more at what multiple corridors can be incorporated and what can they do to connect them. It's like a LD train, which is back to Amtrak's roots. A friendly Amtrak President and DOT may just go for the funding. The state's are not biting. 

Except for perhaps Virginia, and even that may be debatable right now, I don't see any other states taking the bait to develop passenger rail corridors.  

There's also something about consolidating and splitting an Amtrak train to help create or grow a corridor. Splitting and combining cars at Pittsburgh to get an additional frequency between Pittsburgh and Philly or through cars to Chicago. Split/combine cars at Cleveland with the Lake Shore to get a corridor from Cleveland to Philly. The Eagle used to have a Ft.Worth to Houston section. Just some ideas - split/combine, get the train to more places. Florida service seemed more robust when it split/combined cars at Jacksonville. Amtrak is not even looking at trying to make better utilization of its LD routes.  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/21 20:40 by jp1822.

jp1822 Wrote:

> I think it's back to basics right now, sorry!
> Amtrak was formed to operate a NATIONAL network.
> Liken that to the Interstate Highway system.

Amtrak and the 8 state NE Congressional delegation truly believe Amtrak exists to run the NEC, all else being a hobby. Either PRIIA-209 should be implemented for NEC service, or it should be abolished

> There's also something about consolidating and
> splitting an Amtrak train to help create or grow a
> corridor. Splitting and combining cars at
> Pittsburgh to get an additional frequency between
> Pittsburgh and Philly or through cars to Chicago.
> Split/combine cars at Cleveland with the Lake
> Shore to get a corridor from Cleveland to Philly.
> The Eagle used to have a Ft.Worth to Houston
> section. Just some ideas - split/combine, get the
> train to more places. Florida service seemed more
> robust when it split/combined cars at
> Jacksonville. Amtrak is not even looking at trying
> to make better utilization of its LD routes.  

Imagine the Empire Builder without the Portland section. Alan Boyd got that added even with Reagan, Drew Lewis, and David Stockman exhaling fire at him. Amtrak knew from prior to 1971 that Portland was just as important a market as Seattle. Ditto for the Boston section of the LSL, to a lesser degree. California Zephyr has become something of a basket case without Seattle and LA sections. They won't even run Denver cut cars. In 2010, there were doing so with a 3rd sleeper and 4th coach. It was very easy to do backing into a stub terminal. 

Amtrak lost the ability to cut/add a St Paul coach with SPUD. Why did they agree to a station design that does not permit that ? 

Right-sizing consists for parts of the journey in beyond their repertoire. They do not understand the concept of long distance travel, or en-route feeder business.They view a train as an aircraft fuselage that cannot be altered en-route.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even though there has been no increase in
> long-distance passenger train service (defined as
> greater frequency or establishment of a new route)
> in nearly 30 years (when the Pioneer was routed
> through Wyoming), I would never disparage the
> efforts of those who advocate for more
> long-distance passenger trains.  It is
> unfortunate that you as a New Jerseyean, are
> essentially telling Pennsylvania passenger rail
> advocates to give up on more Pennsylvanian
> service.

I did nothing of a kind to tell you give up on more Pennsylvanian service. I said your strategy has not worked, obviously, and should change your tactics, because you are obviously not going to get a 2nd frequency. Anyone in your own state west of Philly or Paoli and east of Pittsburgh is stuck with the middle-of-the-night PGH shuffle. To get to Cleveland and beyond, a New Jerseyean must schlep to DC and take the CL, or go to Manhattan and take the LSL. We will not be Pennsylvanian passengers. 

What I said was to give the Pennsylvanian a long distance orientation to push up loadings, make it more difficult to book for even intra-state travelers, but THEN you have a business case to add a 2nd frequency, sans eastbound reliability problems off the NS from Indiana. What you have now with a complete disconnect between the 2 trains (won't even hold 42 for late 30), is no business case to add frequencies, and Penn-DOT is perfectly content with the status quo. That is the quagmire you have been in since 2005 and will likely forever because you all continue to stack your priorities, must have this before we have that. And yes, some Pennsylvanian-residing potential rail travelers wish to go west of the state boundary.

As long as you completely compartmentalize the CL's PIP and the Pennsylvanian frequency expansion, as I said, keep doing the same thing and you will keep getting the same result - absolutely nothing. The advocates are no better than Amtrak artificially looking at each individual train as a stand-alone products.  

> Your inference that non-implementation of the PIP
> is reason for the Capitol Ltd's short length
> is unconvincing.  The Capitol Limited remained a
> decent-sized train for at least nine years after
> the PIP was completed.

My "inference" is the Capitol Ltd was in fact rated as the 4th worst performing LD train, and now beyond 9 years (2014), likely even worse, thus the PIP to begin with. All the other eastern LD trains have maintained their off-season size despite tri-weekly. Not this train. Two coaches off-season is not a "decent sized" train, when Amtrak said in 2005 they would leave it at 3 was 40//41 came off. That lasted 2 years. The fact is, it is, and remains a weak train. Transfers at Pittsburgh are ugly. Intermediate business between PGH and DC is minimal, as is local PGH - DC patronage - it is too slow and unmarketable. The 3rd coach is mostly empty east of Pittsburgh anyway when they do run it. 

> That said, I downloaded a Capitol Limited
> Performance Improvement Plan and will read it
> sometime.  Let us know when upper level managers
> at Amtrak, Federal Railroad Administration and
> state Department of Transportation are currently
> basing (or in the near future will be basing)
> their decisions on these documents.  Otherwise, I
> will see the Capitol Limited Performance
> Improvement Plan, at best, as an interesting
> document and nothing more.

Amtrak, FRA, and Penn-DOT have no interest in improving the CL's performance other than to cut consists. I long since printed the CL and the Cardinal's, of course they were removed from the Amtrak website. When you read it, you would find all its ratios would improve, and its bottom line remains within $700K of current. They also made much of the switch removed in the depot to facilitate it. It can be done without with a little thought. One can also conclude they killed the wrong train in 2005. The CL should be the DC-PGH stub train, and the Pennsylvanian turned into the Bway Ltd via CLE. 

Perhaps if yourselves and NARP regarded the PIP's as something more than an at best a boring "interesting read", based on some inconvenient truths of analyzing numerical FACTS and data, including network transfer revenue anywhere besides Chicago, they would be more successful than just a cheer-leading squad, Advocacy by Nagging, having nothing to show for it, and focus on what would work, rather than focus on what will not from a business perspective ((i.e. the Daily Cardinal, and now things like Ohio state corridor propaganda), but just to whine to hand Amtrak more money to go on and squander, unchecked, when in fact they have no commitment to the LD network that they were incorporated to run. Penn-DOT will throw you a chewy toy in the form of a new study for your entertainment every few years, but that is all, absent new business forthcoming, which your one isolated train is not going to give you, even with the recent add of a baggage car. That is one of numerous reasons why I gave up on NARP dues - they do not much care what actual rail passengers want, nor taking professional empirical facts about the passenger markets seriously, or numerous customer dis-service issues, seldom listening to even their own Council members. 
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/21 07:42 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

It's late and as I need to get to bed soon, I don't have the time for detailed responses to your post, but...

> I did nothing of a kind to tell you give up on
> more Pennsylvanian service. I said your strategy
> has not worked, obviously, and should change your
> tactics, because you are obviously not going to
> get a 2nd frequency.

The implication of your original post is that we should give up.  But thanks for clearing that up.  

By the way, for a few years, the focus was just on keeping the Pennsylvanian service as the state was seriously considering not funding the train.  It was due to the efforts of Pennsylvania passenger rail advocates that service still exists.

Anyone in your own state west
> of Philly or Paoli and east of Pittsburgh is stuck
> with the middle-of-the-night PGH shuffle.

That's only if they are traveling west of Pittsburgh.  If you think that should be the focus of Pennsylvania passenger rail advocates, fine you're entitled to your opinion.  Others, believe the priority should be increasing Pittsburgh - Harrisburg service.  Personally, I'd like to see increased Pittsburgh - Cleveland service, but there is also great value in better Pittsburgh - Harrisburg - Philadelphia - New York service.

To get
> to Cleveland and beyond, a New Jerseyean must
> schlep to DC and take the CL, or go to Manhattan
> and take the LSL. We will not be Pennsylvanian
> passengers. 

Well, then, enjoy your rides on the Lake Shore Limited.


>
> What I said was to give the Pennsylvanian a long
> distance orientation to push up loadings, make it
> more difficult to book for even intra-state
> travelers, but THEN you have a business case to
> add a 2nd frequency,

Until 2020, Pennsylvanian ridership has been steadily increasing to the point that it has sold out several times.  I'm of the belief that adding more frequency to services in markets of 200 - 400 miles will generate even greater ridership increases (i.e. 1 + 1 = 3) as with more frequent service, it becomes more convenient for travelers to use.  This has been proved in California.


>
> Amtrak, FRA, and Penn-DOT have no interest in
> improving the CL's performance other than to cut
> consists. I long since printed the CL and the
> Cardinal's, of course they were removed from the
> Amtrak website. When you read it, you would find
> all its ratios would improve, and its bottom line
> remains within $700K of current. They also made
> much of the switch removed in the depot to
> facilitate it. It can be done without with a
> little thought. One can also conclude they killed
> the wrong train in 2005. The CL should be the
> DC-PGH stub train, and the Pennsylvanian turned
> into the Bway Ltd via CLE. 
>
Well you've kind of made my point.  If those who make decisions on rail passenger service do not use it as a guide for decision-making, I have no reason to regard it as anything more than an interesting document. 

How many other passenger rail advocates focus on the PIPs like you do and has that resulted in any long-distance passenger train service improvements since 2010?

RuleG Wrote:
> The implication of your original post is that we
> should give up.  But thanks for clearing that
> up.  

I did not say give up. I said start scratching your head, stop being so defensive, and put the horse before the cart, because in 16 years, nothing in Pennsylvania has changed. You have one PRIIA train and increasingly emaciated Capitol Ltd, and fail to link the two issues. 

> By the way, for a few years, the focus was just on
> keeping the Pennsylvanian service as the state was
> seriously considering not funding the train.  It
> was due to the efforts of Pennsylvania passenger
> rail advocates that service still exists.

And now you think they will run 2 or 3 of them. Keep dreaming. Harrisburg - Pittsburgh needs to be restored as part of the national network. What you have is a one train a day branch line like Port Huron and Grand Rapids that will never expand. 

> That's only if they are traveling west of
> Pittsburgh.  If you think that should be the
> focus of Pennsylvania passenger rail advocates,
> fine you're entitled to your opinion.  Others,
> believe the priority should be increasing
> Pittsburgh - Harrisburg service.  Personally, I'd
> like to see increased Pittsburgh - Cleveland
> service, but there is also great value in better
> Pittsburgh - Harrisburg - Philadelphia - New York
> service.

Pretty clear after 16 years that is not going to happen unless you either develop an elaborate dedicated Thruway bus network, which is the only way California expanded, OR expand west to justify to more frequencies with the mathematics of more end-point permutations. You have neither. 

> Until 2020, Pennsylvanian ridership has been
> steadily increasing to the point that it has sold
> out several times.  I'm of the belief that adding
> more frequency to services in markets of 200 - 400
> miles will generate even greater ridership
> increases (i.e. 1 + 1 = 3) as with more frequent
> service, it becomes more convenient for travelers
> to use.  This has been proved in California.

Your own Penn-DOT studies showed tripling frequencies merely doubles ridership. That is more like (1 + 1 + 1 = 2) That does not work from a financial perspective, despite your opinion in "great value in better Pittsburgh - New York". California added many dedicated feeder buses. Why are there none to Williamsport, State College, and Monroeville ? Penn DOT is not interested. . You are still on square one in 2021, as you were in 2005.  Adding parallel Greyhound frequencies to the AMtrak timetable between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh pretty much indicates Penn DOT is not adding any train frequencies.

> How many other passenger rail advocates focus on
> the PIPs like you do and has that resulted in any
> long-distance passenger train service improvements
> since 2010?

Perhaps if other so-called rail advocate groups were not simply railfans out to run more trains on the basis of nothing, having no use for hard data, analysis, and financial projections when handed to them on a silver platter, as were in the PIPs, they would be more successful.

NARP ignored them since they are in the sack with Amtrak, wasted several years taking up expansion oxygen in the room whining about a daily Cardinal, despite the PIP proving it was not financially feasible, and now they can't even pay much attention to or will  do much to distribute to Congess the Fully Allocated Cost accounting White Paper that several of the competent old-guard Directors wrote, becasue it would displease Amtrak.   

As I said, amateurish Advocacy By Whining doesn't accomplish anything. But if you want to keep running on that same old tread mill, go right ahead. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/21 04:46 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 >
> As I said, amateurish Advocacy By Whining doesn't
> accomplish anything. But if you want to keep
> running on that same old tread mill, go right
> ahead. 

In so much of the commentary you've posted on the Passenger Trains board, you present yourself as an advocate for long-distance passenger trains.  Your commentary describes a long-distance network which has deterioriated considerably.  In the context of what you wrote in this thread, this begs the question, what have YOU accomplished in 16 years to make long-distance passenger trains better???

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/21 22:21 by RuleG.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 16 years after the Three Rivers demise, and
> that
> > "priority" has gotten you nowhere, no closer
> now
> > to getting that than you were then. But keep
> > doing the same thing and expect different
> > results.
> >
> Even though there has been no increase in
> long-distance passenger train service (defined as
> greater frequency or establishment of a new route)
> in nearly 30 years (when the Pioneer was routed
> through Wyoming), I would never disparage the
> efforts of those who advocate for more
> long-distance passenger trains.  It is
> unfortunate that you as a New Jerseyean, are
> essentially telling Pennsylvania passenger rail
> advocates to give up on more Pennsylvanian
> service.
>
> Your claim that Pennsylvania passenger rail
> advocates are no closer to increasing service on
> the Pennsylvanian route than they were in 2005 is
> not true.  
>
> > Had western Pennsylvania advocates, NARP, and
> > Amtrak interpreted and carried out the Capitol
> Ltd
> > thru car PIP plan, it would have increased
> > ridership and improved bottom line on both
> trains,
> > and there would be far more initiative by Penn
> DOT
> > to have market for a 2nd frequency, with far
> more
> > end point permutations of direct access from
> south
> > Jersey and the rest of Pennsylvania to the
> > Midwest.
>
> Common courtesy suggests that you spell out
> acronyms when communicating in a thread. 
>
> To whom did you speak at PennDOT to come to that
> conclusion?
>
> The Capitol Limited PIP is not a substitute
> for what Pennsylvania passenger rail advocates are
> seeking.  
>
> The Capitol Ltd is now a pathetic 4 car
> > train.
>
> Your inference that non-implementation of the PIP
> is reason for the Capitol Limited's short length
> is unconvincing.  The Capitol Limited remained a
> decent-sized train for at least nine years after
> the PIP was completed.
>
> At least the rest of the LDTs have about
> > normal consists with tri-weekly, during the
> > winter, within a pandemic.
> >
> > Instead, there was that silly "Daily Cardinal
> > Campaign" a few years ago, which got no
> traction,
> > no surprise here. Its PIP for daily service did
> > not look very impressive with additional
> federal
> > subsidies required. But then, mundane facts in
> the
> > PIPs did not matter to the so-called advocates.
>
> Whatever could have happened with the Cardinal or
> will happen with the Cardinal is irrelevant.
>
> That said, I downloaded a Capitol Limited
> Performance Improvement Plan and will read it
> sometime.  Let us know when upper level managers
> at Amtrak, Federal Railroad Administration and
> state Department of Transportation are currently
> basing (or in the near future will be basing)
> their decisions on these documents.  Otherwise, I
> will see the Capitol Limited Performance
> Improvement Plan, at best, as an interesting
> document and nothing more.
>  

The PIPs were a joke then and the same math holds true today. Everyone of them were debunked in short order thank goodness.

Posted from iPhone

NYC to Scranton and Binghamton??!! Say what..??!! Too much icing on the cake again.....

Posted from Android