Chicago to West Coast Service: Past and Present

I was reading the PRIIA for reintroducing Pioneer service (http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/850/229/PioneerServiceStudy.pdf). It showed some history of Chicago to West Coast service.

Before the 1997 cuts, there were five trains from Chicago to the west coast:

Southwest Chief: To Los Angeles via Kansas City and Albuquerque

Desert Wind: To Los Angeles via Denver and Salt Lake City

California Zephyr: To the San Francisco area via Denver and Salt Lake City

Pioneer: To Seattle/Portland via Denver and Boise

Empire Builder: To Seattle/Portland via Minneapolis and Spokane

Of course the Desert Wind and Pioneer were cut.

Before the cuts, Amtrak tried operating different trains on different days

1996 schedules (timetables.org):

California Zephyr and Desert Wind: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0038

Empire Builder (and Texas Eagle): http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0037

Pioneer: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0039

The Southwest Chief was still running daily.

The assumption is that if you keep three trains then one has to serve LA, one has to serve the Bay Area, and one has to serve the Pacific Northwest. The California Zephyr is an obvious save. Even though you lose Las Vegas, you probably had to keep the Southwest Chief over the Desert Wind if you had to choose.

This brings up to the Pioneer vs. the Empire Builder. At the time, Amtrak was running to Minneapolis daily but only going west of Minneapolis four times a day with the Pioneer the other three days.

Since it has been pointed out that these west coast trains lose a ton of money, I wonder what if Amtrak had decided to keep the Pioneer instead of the Empire Builder with the assumption they did keep the daily Minneapolis to Chicago route?

Right now you have three different train routes with the only overlap in Illinois for the CZ and SWC. If you had kept the Pioneer instead of the Empire Builder, they would share the CHI-DEN route. You could then split/merge the Zephyr and Pioneer at Denver or if you wanted to be drastic require a transfer in DEN for the Pioneer. Right now it's two separate routes. Have the Pioneer instead and you only have to run it between Denver and Seattle as opposed to Chicago to Seattle. You can then run separate trains from CHI to MSP and Seattle and/or Portland to Spokane in the days before the 750 mile rule. You can say what about between Minneapolis to Spokane? I say what about Denver to Portland on the old Pioneer route? Something was going to be cut.

While the Empire Builder's ridership is very high, one of the highest if not the highest in the Amtrak system, I wonder how much of that is CHI-MSP (or SEA/PDX to Spokane) as this article hints at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/28/us-amtrak-finances-insight-idUSKBN0OD17R20150528#AIJ2K6CsDITHrde9.97

The train time to Seattle would have been much longer on the Pioneer as opposed to the Empire Builder. But you keep service between Seattle/Portland and Denver which you don't have now. You would take away MSP/Pacific Northwest service but then the CHI-MSP route would be much shorter and less susceptible to delays. Every time I mention of extending a route people always come back and say more delays will happen. The Spokane service could then be put at better times to better serve Washington/Oregon). Would you still need two branches or could you just do SEA to Spokane?

So assuming you keep the CHI-MSP and both Spokane branches, would running DEN to PDX be financially better than MSP to Spokane? The Pioneer PRIIA shows some old Pioneer data but I have no EB data and even if I did would you be able to show how many passengers actually travel between MSP and Spokane?

I still think they should have tried to keep SLC to LAX or at the very least Vegas to LAX.

As I've discussed in detail before, I really think the Pioneer has a lot of potential. I encourage everyone to read this executive summary published by the Cascadia Center back in 2009: http://trn.trains.com/~/media/import/files/pdf/0/f/1/pioneer_study.pdf

Having lived in northern Utah for most of my life, I know how common personal travel is between the Wasatch Front and southern Idaho. If a restored Pioneer served SLC, Ogden and Pocatello at reasonable hours, Amtrak would pick up a whole new set of riders who currently have no use for boarding the CZ in the middle of the night. While living in Utah, I very rarely heard of people in SLC/Ogden visiting family in Grand Junction and other points on the CZ route. But people were heading to Idaho Falls or Boise all the time. The report linked above explains in further detail why southeast Idaho is a key market for a restored Pioneer train.

While most rail fans assume that a restored Pioneer should split off of the CZ in Denver (or SLC), I believe being a split-off is a bad idea if it means the train serves Pocatello and Boise at a bad hour (the Boise Depot is too gorgeous of a station to be seen without sunlight ). I agree with Cascadia that the Pioneer would be better as a stand-alone train if it meant having an optimal schedule. In a perfect world with plenty of funding and equipment, the Pioneer could continue on from Denver to Chicago roughly 12 hours opposite of the established CZ schedule. My understanding is that CZ ridership falls more heavily on the CHI-DEN segment, so perhaps both the CZ and the Pioneer could be shorter trains and sufficiently provide for DEN-CHI passengers.

When considering the Pioneer, try not to think of it as another way to get from Chicago or Denver to the PNW. Instead, think of it in terms of reaching an untapped market in Idaho, Utah and Wyoming.

I know I've stated it before but the section of the EB between Spokane and MSP really doesn't have a interstate or airline travel. So the only form of transportation is the train. So that's important to think about. But if we are adding a Pioneer I agree it should be a stand alone

As far as a "stand-alone Pioneer", would we be talking about a CHI-DEN-SEA train? I like this idea for a few reasons, but the big one is that you could basically take the pre-1997 Pioneer and stick it together with a "Denver Zephyr" schedule. If you could additionally run said train via Des Moines (e.g. ex-RI) east of Omaha I think you'd have a winner (and indeed might be able to negotiate with a few states (IL and IA come to mind) for at least some support for said train if you could pad out the stop at DEN enough to hope for reliable OTP most of the time). Maybe not 100% of losses, but at least something on the table.

Stand alone Pioneer? Did Amtrak recently win the lottery? Did they just find a whole bunch of sleepers they're not using? DEN to SEA on the old Pioneer route is already 1625 miles (via the timetables.org old schedule). A full Pioneer is 2662 miles and would run just under 54 hours (according to the old schedules which today might be an hour or two longer)! Like it or not, there are tons of better uses for the money if somehow Amtrak could afford it and I won't even include the one I want. Just from an LD standpoint, how about re-establish Sunset East? Or how about bringing back Desert Wind service between SLC and LAX (788 miles)? I would probably choose a full Desert Wind over a full Pioneer because of Vegas and because Los Angeles is a way bigger Amtrak market than Seattle or Portland (probably more passengers than Seattle and Portland combined). That's not even counting all of the < 750 mile services.

I think the Pioneer has been pretty high in my mind because of the mess with the Builder over the last few years. I guess the questions for something like this, at least in my mind, are (all presuming equipment could be acquired):
(1) Is there sufficient demand along the CHI-DEN portion of the route to support a second train on that route? I suspect the answer here is a qualified yes (the demand clearly exists Chicago-Omaha on the Des Moines route per the Iowa study).

(2) Can that demand be tapped into? Again, I suspect the answer here is a qualified yes: As long as you can get solid OTP east of Denver or Omaha (take your pick) with an appropriate pad, you should be able to tap into this. Some major delays will be unavoidable...but at the same time almost any train is subject to trespassers, grade crossings, and weather issues.

Basically, the way I would see this playing out is as follows:
-Get Iowa to get (back) on board with the Omaha-Chicago route.

--There's one stub train in that package (e.g. it terminates at Des Moines instead of Omaha). The deal I would offer is that if Iowa/Illinois are willing to pick up a share of the hypothetical losses for "just" Des Moines-Chicago operation, Amtrak should look to cover a reasonable chunk of the balance (if only through the federal subsidy) for Des Moines-Denver.

--The equipment difference for CHI-DSM and CHI-DEN is around one to two sets of coaches plus sleepers. I know all of the issues that are going to be referred to here, but I think we have to presume that some sort of additional bilevel order will enter the picture down the line.

-If you can get Denver-Chicago operation, then "attaching" the Pioneer to that becomes feasible without having to make a mess of the Zephyr.

There's a second option that comes to mind, and that's running a Pioneer-Desert Wind train which is timed to arrive into SLC before the WB Zephyr, sit around on the second track for about 4-5 hours, and depart after the EB Zephyr arrives. There would be some games in terms of who gets to occupy which space(s) when, but that would get you both of the axed Western trains without making a total morass of the Zephyr with connecting cars and the like.

Suffice it to remind all that originally the Pioneer and the Desert Wind were both conceived as trains starting respectively from Salt Lake City and Ogden and going to their destinations (Seattle and Los Angeles). Cinnection from the then Sna Francisco Zephyr was cross platform at Ogden to both trains, and that is how even the Salt lake City passengers from Chicago made it to Salt lake City.

Whether you run a single through train Los Angeles - Las Vegas - Salt Lake City - Boise - Portland - Seattle and v.v. or you run two trains, one from LAX to SLC and anoher from SLC to PDX and SEA amounts to basically the same thing.

Whether you do cross platform transfer or through cars is a secondary issue. Maybe start with cross platform transfer and then if demand materializes for enough through traffic add through cars, maybe Coaches first to be followed by Sleepers.

Actually, trying to run the Zephyr on the Moffat Line considerably screwed up convenient schedules at the Wasatch front. (SLC), and there is no easy way to fix it.

The attraction of running the Pioneer as a DEN - OGD - PDX - SEA and the Desert Wind as an OGD - SLC - LAX train has some additional merit in reintroducing service through Wyoming. Again whether the connections to the Zephyr are cross platform or through cars is an issue that can be addressed independent of the existence of the trains.

Beyond that of course is what Anderson proposes as a separate CHI - DEN - OGD - PDX - SEA train.

Of course, I am expecting Neroden to pipe in right about now to point out that all these proposals are completely hopeless, financially speaking, Specially the parts being discussed west of Denver.

For every through car to Salt Lake City from Chicago, expect annual costs of $440,000 in fuel, $600-920,000 in maintenance costs, and $320,000 in on board labor expenses for a total of $1.36-1.68 million.

Assumptions: 0.15 gallons per mile for additional bilevel car and fuel at $2.5 dollars per gallon, 4 cars required to have one through car per train, maintenance costs equal averaged Superliner capital charges, and one OBS per car at an average cost of $80,000 in wages and employer paid taxes, benefits, etc.

I should note that, given Amtrak's apparent direct costs (~$45/train mile for sleepers and ~$30/train mile for coach trains), one could run 8 daily trains Chicago-Omaha via Iowa Interstate for the same cost as a single Chicago-Seattle Pioneer and that this would have far better patronage, perform a more useful function, and almost certainly run with lower losses.

The fundamental problem with running any train through Idaho is the population is tiny and the cities are very far apart.

-- Pocatello has a smaller metro area population than Ithaca, NY.

-- Idaho Falls is only slightly larger.

-- Boise has a population comparable to the Binghamton, NY metro area.

-- There aren't any other cities in Idaho with any population to speak of.

Rather than running a train through these desolate locations in Idaho, I suggest reviving Ithaca - Owego - Binghamton - Scranton - New York City service. It would be cheaper to operate, faster, and a lot more popular, since the roads are more crowded here in the east.

And I'm willing to wait my turn, because if we look further east, Bethlehem / Allentown, PA service is more valuable than that. And has lower capital costs.

Why is anyone discussing such uneconomical routes as the Pioneer when there's low-hanging fruit like Allentown waiting for service? I suppose you can make the "Two Senators Per State" argument, but although that works for Montana or Vermont which have supported train service repeatedly, Idaho's senators are openly hostile to all train service.

Also, what Paulus said.

neroden said:

Rather than running a train through these desolate locations in Idaho, I suggest reviving Ithaca - Owego - Binghamton - Scranton - New York City service. It would be cheaper to operate, faster, and a lot more popular, since the roads are more crowded here in the east.

And I'm willing to wait my turn, because if we look further east, Bethlehem / Allentown, PA service is more valuable than that. And has lower capital costs.

Click to expand...

I believe NJ Transit has proposed New York to Scranton via Hoboken: http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=Project019To

The problem is the last date listed was October 2009.

Assuming we can get to Scranton, what would the route(s) from Scranton to Ithaca be? Could it be extended west to Rochester or Buffalo? If so, on what route(s)?

I am originally from Wilkes Barre so a Scranton to NYP and/or to BUF would be interesting. If it could connect in BUF or Rochester at a reasonable hour to the LSL to/from CHI, I could go from Scranton to CHI that way.

Everything north and west from Scranton would be via Binghamton on NS from Scranton to Binghamton and then various railroads from there. Buffalo would be via the Southern Tier but no one has proposed that yet. Nor has anything to Ithaca or Syracuse been seriously proposed by anyone. For NY to Binghamton NY DOT's preferred route is via Scranton.

jis said:

Everything north and west from Scranton would be via Binghamton on NS from Scranton to Binghamton and then various railroads from there. Buffalo would be via the Southern Tier but no one has proposed that yet. Nor has anything to Ithaca or Syracuse been seriously proposed by anyone. For NY to Binghamton NY DOT's preferred route is via Scranton.

Click to expand...

Is there a formal proposal for Binghamton to NYP via Scranton?

NYSDOT has at one point looked at various alternatives and informally shown a preference for that one since it has the fastest potential running time of all alternatives considered. Of course it all depends on NJDOT completing restoration of the Lackawanna Cutoff and PennDOT upgrading Slateford Jct. to Scranton.

Why do I think I've read a proposal for a Southern tier route. I would be for it

They actually compared the Port Jervis route vs. the Scranton route and came to the conclusion that there was no way to ever do a train service on the Port Jervis route that is time competitive with driving on Rt 17, whereas it is feasible to get close or better using the Lackawanna Cutoff route in NJ and PA via Scranton. Hence they rejected the Port Jervis route, which incidentally also has much smaller population en route.

I looked up the Port Jervis route actually. I was surprised how little population lives out there. I'm shocked they even run a commuter train out so far.

jis said:

Everything north and west from Scranton would be via Binghamton on NS from Scranton to Binghamton and then various railroads from there. Buffalo would be via the Southern Tier but no one has proposed that yet. Nor has anything to Ithaca or Syracuse been seriously proposed by anyone.

Click to expand...

There has, however, been a casual proposal by Senator Schumer and a number of Representatives for Syracuse-Cortland-Binghamton. (It's an existing operating shortline; it's grade-separated at the Syracuse and Binghamton ends; the Cortland station site is still intact.)

I was being a bit snarky by suggesting Ithaca-Owego-Binghamton; I've plotted out the route, but Ithaca-Owego would be a complete rebuild of a line abandoned prior to railbanking, so very tedious and NIMBY-prone to collect the land again, as it would literally run through people's backyards. My point was merely that this was more worthwhile in terms of population density and potential ridership than *anything* in Idaho.

jis said:

NYSDOT has at one point looked at various alternatives and informally shown a preference for that one since it has the fastest potential running time of all alternatives considered. Of course it all depends on NJDOT completing restoration of the Lackawanna Cutoff and PennDOT upgrading Slateford Jct. to Scranton.

Click to expand...

The odds of PennDOT putting the money in get higher every year as the legislature shifts more and more urban. Even if PennDOT doesn't, the counties (Monroe and Lackawanna) are very clearly on the record as being willing to put in their *own* money.

So the problem is strictly in New Jersey. Where rail improvement proposals seem to go to die, in recent years. I'm finding that bizarre.

With Mr. Blowhard in command nothing will happen. After that there is a possibility of somethings happening.

Getting back to CHI-West Coast...

I would probably be OK with Pioneer service from DEN-SEA or SLC-SEA but not an entire CHI-SEA Pioneer. If I had to choose one of the old west coast routes to serve again it would be the Desert Wind because LAX is a bigger market/more popular destination than SEA/PDX and the route would bring back service to Las Vegas.

The cheaper option would be through cars splitting at SLC to Vegas/LAX as the PRIIA suggests: https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/652/435/PRIIA-210-CaliforniaZephyr-PIP.pdf

In addition to being cheaper, if there is a larger demand east of DEN than west you can then split cars off in DEN rather than run with less capacity west of DEN (similar situation with the Crescent north vs south of ATL).

The more expensive option would be a separate train CHI-LAX via DEN/SLC/Vegas. The advantage of separate trains would be if you stagger the times you can have two trains daily between CHI-DEN-SLC. Hopefully the new DW could then serve SLC at better times than the current ones.

Let's say we did a 7 hr shift from the old 35 and a 4 hr shift from the old 36:

New 35: CHI 10:05pm, DEN: 3:45/4:35pm, SLC 7:01/8:00am, Las Vegas: 3:05/3:20pm, LAX: 10:35pm

New 36: LAX 6:45am, Las Vegas 1:35/1:50pm, SLC 11:20pm/12:30am, DEN 3:10/4:30pm, CHI 12:15pm

So CHI-DEN would be 2:00pm-8:35am and 10:05pm-3:45pm west and 4:30pm-12:15pm and 7:10pm-2:50pm. The new eastbound times would arrive in CHI earlier so anyone transferring east probably would use the DW to CHI. The westbound DW could serve as a "cleanup" train to passengers from the LSL/CL who miss the CZ/SWC and if I am able to get my new Cardinal schedule you'd still be able to take one train west from CIN/IND. Passengers in SLC almost certainly would take the DW to/from CHI.

If not a new DW, would a 2nd CHI-DEN train be feasible? If so, when should the second train be scheduled?

You asked an interesting question:

Philly Amtrak Fan said:

would a 2nd CHI-DEN train be feasible? If so, when should the second train be scheduled?

Click to expand...

YES. This is my thinking on a second Chicago-Denver train, focusing strictly on the Chicago-Denver market.

The current California Zephyr runs on this schedule:

Chicago 2:00 PM

Omaha 11:05 PM

Lincoln 12:14 AM

Denver 7:15 AM (arrive)

Denver 7:10 PM

Lincoln 3:25 AM

Omaha 5:14 AM

Chicago 2:50 PM (arrive)

A second frequency (the "Denver Zephyr") could run 7 hours later westbound and 7 hours earlier eastbound:

Chicago 9:00 PM

Omaha 6:05 AM

Lincoln 7:14 AM

Denver 2:15 PM (arrive)

Denver 12:10 PM

Lincoln 8:25 PM

Omaha 10:14 PM

Chicago 7:50 AM (arrive)

Three trainsets.

-----

However, I actually think the *current* CZ schedule should be used for the standalone "Denver Zephyr", and should run Chicago-Denver-Grand Junction (four trainsets).

I think the alternative schedule should be used for the California Zephyr, which should run via the Overland Route from Denver to Salt Lake, saving 3 hours:

(7 hrs later than current schedule)

Chicago 9:00 PM

Omaha 6:05 AM

Lincoln 7:14 AM

Denver 2:15 PM (arrive)

Salt Lake City 6:05 AM (arrive)

(4 hours later than current schedule)

Reno 12:36 PM

Sacramento 6:13 PM

Emeryville 8:10 PM

(4 hrs earlier than current schedule)

Emeryville 5:10 AM

Sacramento 7:00 AM

Reno 12:06 PM

Salt Lake City 11:05 PM (arrive)

(7 hrs earlier than current schedule)

Denver 12:10 PM

Lincoln 8:25 PM

Omaha 10:14 PM

Chicago 7:50 AM (arrive)

By my count this is five trainsets. 5 + 4 = 9 trainsets versus the 6 trainsets currently used, so it's a net addition of 3 trainsets. Both would naturally be shorter than the current trainsets.

This is a Denver-centric scheme.

neroden said:

(4 hrs earlier than current schedule)Emeryville 5:10 AM

Sacramento 7:00 AM

Reno 12:06 PM

Salt Lake City 11:05 PM (arrive)

(7 hrs earlier than current schedule)

Denver 12:10 PM

Lincoln 8:25 PM

Omaha 10:14 PM

Chicago 7:50 AM (arrive)

By my count this is five trainsets. 5 + 4 = 9 trainsets versus the 6 trainsets currently used, so it's a net addition of 3 trainsets. Both would naturally be shorter than the current trainsets.

This is a Denver-centric scheme.

Click to expand...

And when would you have to leave San Fran on the Thruway Bus to Emeryville to get there by 5:10am? Or from San Jose to Emeryville/Richmond? I cannot believe the CZ can practically leave EMY at 5:10am. You would destroy most if not all interest/ridership in the Bay Area with that schedule.

So no interest in the DW?

The biggest problems with the Desert Wind, in order:

(1) There is nothing between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas.

(2) There is nothing between Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

(3) It's 8 hours from Salt Lake to Las Vegas.

(4) It's 8 hours from Las Vegas to Los Angeles.

(5) Salt Lake takes way too much time from Denver, particularly by the mountain route

Think about this: what markets are you serving? West of Chicago along the CZ route, the only two cities which might justify direct service to LA are Salt Lake and Denver, and you just can't make a reasonable route without building HSR. The Southwest Chief is faster for Chicago to LA and is just barely fast enough to get any business at all; the Desert Wind and Pioneer would definitely have no through traffic from Chicago to LA except for railfans taking scenic tours.

Of course, HSR from Vegas to LA is a great idea, and so is a standalone Reno-San Francisco train.

Basically the Pioneer would be a train for people from Denver and Salt Lake; and so would the Desert Wind. At the moment, those two cities cannot produce the ridership to sustain trains crossing through emptiness in *four directions*, which is why they have one to the east and one to San Francisco, and they barely produce the ridership for the west-bound one. Building up Denver-Chicago might make it more viable to make western expansions in the future, and should be the priority in any case.

I'm actually skeptical of the entire CZ route west of Denver, frankly; it has a lot of the same problems as the Pioneer and the Desert Wind. It still requires more operational subsidy than any other route. Reno-Salt Lake just can't attract the customers.

If I'm looking west of the Mississippi (& west of San Antonio/west of Fort Worth) and east of the West Coast, I'm looking at the least promising area of the entire US for passenger rail. Within that area, the Chicago-Omaha-Denver market seems the most promising: doubling service from Chicago to Denver would attract riders and leverage economies of scale. It might be possible to expand the Denver-Salt Lake ridership, given careful rescheduling and the use of the faster Overland Route. Doubling Chicago-Denver needs to come first. And nonsense like the Desert Wind and Pioneer needs to be postponed until the entire railway network of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New York, and Indiana is restored.

neroden said:

I'm actually skeptical of the entire CZ route west of Denver, frankly; it has a lot of the same problems as the Pioneer and the Desert Wind. It still requires more operational subsidy than any other route. Reno-Salt Lake just can't attract the customers.

Click to expand...

[SIZE=12pt]If you feel the same way about the western half of the CZ as Neroden does, the following information may not matter to you. If not, below is a ridership base comparison which, IMO, shows that the Pioneer is not a nonsense idea. [/SIZE]

Of course no comparison can ever be 100% apples to apples, but I think a good way to compare the ridership base of two different routes is to look at populations which are *not* within close distance of an international airport. After all, one of the primary advantages of rail is serving intermediate markets.

Using 2010 census figures, let’s compare the existing CZ route from Denver - Reno, and a potential Pioneer route of Denver - Boise via Wyoming. This comparison is summarized as follows:

CZ: Denver - 570 miles - SLC - 594 miles - Reno

Pioneer: Denver - 590 miles - SLC - 398 miles - Boise (train “dips” into SLC from Ogden as proposed by the Cascadia Center)

I've chosen these segments because the first two metro areas are the same, while the Reno and Boise metro areas have similarly-sized populations (425,000 for Reno and 581,000 for Boise - notice Boise is bigger). The comparison becomes trickier when considering both routes all the way to their west coast endpoints. For example, how would ridership from the Cascades to the Pioneer compare with ridership from the Capitol Corridor to the Zephyr? I'm confident the CZ's west end wins over the Pioneer's, but I have excluded this from my analysis below due to the confounding variables.

Now let’s compare segment against segment by intermediate ridership base (i.e., the riders who aren't close to an international airport). The first segment comparison is the DRGW route vs. Overland Route to SLC from Denver. This comparison assumes the much-advocated routing of the Pioneer via Ft. Collins instead of Greeley. Here are the intermediate populations for both segments:

Overland Route: 513,000 - includes the five southernmost Wyoming counties along I-80, plus the Ft. Collins metro area (Larimer County) - Ridership base per mile: 869 (513,000/590)

DRGW Route: 305,000 - includes the following CO and UT counties from Winter Park to Helper: Clear Creek, Gilpin, Grand (CO), Garfield, Delta, Mesa, Grand (UT), Emery, and Carbon. Ridership base per mile: 535 (305,000/570)

Overland Route wins.

The next segment comparison is SLC to Reno vs. SLC to Boise.

To Reno: 77,000 - this is a very generous estimate which includes all of Elko, Humboldt, Lander, and Pershing counties in northern Nevada. Ridership base per mile: 131 (77,000/594)

To Boise: 185,000 - this is a conservative estimate which includes the tri-county area around Pocatello (Bannock, Power and Bingham Counties), Twin Falls, and Lincoln County (Shoshone). Notice that this estimate doesn’t account for ridership from Idaho Falls, Sun Valley, BYU-Idaho in Rexburg, or tourists visiting national parks. Ridership base per mile: 466 (185,000/398)

Southern Idaho wins.

Once again, this comparison isn't perfect. But I think that a better-scheduled Pioneer could be just as successful as the Zephyr, especially with booming population growth in the intermountain west since 1997 and the advent of local rail transit in Denver and SLC.

Any idea of the intermediate population between MSP and SPK on the EB? Unless there's more than I think, this is probably why I thought it made more sense to keep the Pioneer instead of the EB (have the EB be just CHI-MSP and then MSP would never have to wait because the train got delayed in North Dakota or Montana).

If it were up to me and we could add a 4th CHI-West Coast train, end points do matter and I would want one to LA (DW) before the Pacific NW (or the Bay Area). Of course like Nate I would rather expand CHI-East Coast first. It would be absolutely messed up if there were two daily trains between CHI-PDX/SEA and no daily trains between CHI-PHL.