Hoosier State goes from Amtrak to Corridor Capital

[Ryan]

I'm just going to leave this here.

I think I'll add a tall cool draft to go with the hot buttered popcorn!

If they think that they can have this up and running in 3 months (even 6 months) Ill have what they are smoking.

:wacko: :help: :giggle:

Yeah, this is going to be fascinating to sit back and watch play out. I've got little to no faith in the IN government to not screw this up.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Have each community pay for a train was a interesting concept. Something like try to get each state to pay for a long distance train.

What to do when a state or town refuses to pay.

A bit hard to keep the door close at the first / final stop.

Oh well it a short and interesting idea, and now my popcorn is finished, and off to real world issues I go.

 

[Rob Creighton]

It's a shame... because with a couple of more trains... a couple of better arrival/departure times into Indy and a couple more options into and out of Chicago... it would work. It would've worked for me on multiple occasions to Chicago... and downtown Indy... is a really nice place to visit... and THAT would be a good short train day trip from where I lived in Lafayette. I think frequency is the key to success in this corridor. If not, I'm not sure Amtrak should do any more service than the Cardinal. (Which, in theory, wouldn't hurt service if it were a daily train. That, as a lot of know is a different kettle of fish!)

 

[MikefromCrete]

Having the communities along the line contribute to the train's operation was a bad idea in the first place. But what else would you expect from Indiana.

 

[The Whistler]

A separate Hoosier State train may end up benefiting the Cardinal. The Hoosier state is often coupled onto the Cardinal when it has the sleeper in rear. This puts the sleeper and the café in the middle of the train allowing coach passengers to walk through the sleeper if they want a sit down breakfast or a coffee from the café car. It breaks up the privacy of the sleeper car to a degree and has the potential to affect security. The Hoosier state couples on in IND around breakfast time when many of the sleeper passengers are having breakfast and not in their rooms.

 

[William W.]

A separate Hoosier State not only helps the Cardinal, but also frees the train from having to wait for a late arriving Cardinal. That gives a lot more flexibility to the schedule, and would significantly improve OTP.

I think that the primary goal of Hoosier State service should be to allow a passenger to get into Chicago at 9-10 AM, and leave at 7-8 PM. There also needs to be a morning south bound and evening northbound train. Both without having to get on and off at inconvenient times. As it currently stands, the HS is too slow to be a truly practical way to travel if one wants to spend a single day in Chicago, or vice versa. If they can change the departure of the HS out of IND to 7AM, and its arrival time into IND to 11PM (adjust appropriately for the opposite direction trains), I think that the service would be much more viable. Of course, that requires cooperation from CSX, and would ultimately require double tracking all the way from IND to CHI. The only way that will happen is if Indiana is willing to invest in its rail infrastructure. I'd wonder though if there is more potential for CSX to cooperate here than elsewhere. The single track situation can't be ideal for them either. I don't know what things are like on the ground, but doubling tracking should also benefit them.

I don't know how worrying IND's choice to pull out is. If Indiana state government really is committed to the train, I'd think that they'd be able to provide an incentive to the city, or could potentially put some sort of pressure on it to convince the mayor to reverse his decision. Then again, if the state isn't really committed to service, then IND's decision really could be the beginning of the end.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

It is the end. It's over. I was wondering when it would end. It ended now. This paves the way and provides pressure for a daily Cardinal.

 

[Paulus]

Eh. I'd be a bit surprised if they weren't able to improve the bottom line by $300K.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Yes but why would the 2nd biggest city not have to pay anything?

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

For the record I think have towns pay a part of the cost was and is a bad idea.

I also think the Southwest Chief plan to have a few states chip in, is also a bad idea.

 

[CHamilton]

Indianapolis' refusal to fund the Hoosier State hardly comes as a surprise. Some cities might support station improvements and operations, but unless you're a city that has large tourism income — which I doubt IND does — city councils can't be expected to see the benefits of network effects. This is the expected outcome of PRIIA 209. Those of us who care for the national network, and don't live in states with the money and political will to support trains, need to push for the repeal of, or at least revisions to, PRIIA 209.

 

[John Bobinyec]

Not so sure about the repeal of PRIIA 209. I do agree with a previous poster that the state of Indiana, not the individual towns along the line, should have been pushing to keep the Hoosier State.

jb

 

[jis]

I am not so sure about the repeal of 209 either. I think it is a good idea for the areas served by a train to have a stake in it. And if they don't want to have anything to do with it then no one should be surprised if there is no train lacking the existence of some other reason that would cause someone else to fund such.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[neroden]

Asking cities to pay for capital improvements is viable; asking them to pay for operations never was.

It is worth noting that Indianapolis is actually rather tourism dependent. They made a conscious decision to depend on tourism a decade or two back. The home of the Indy 500 probably isn't thinking about tourists arriving by train, though.

 

[jis]

You win some and you lose some. Remember that one of today's more successful LD trains started as an experimental train funded by New York and Ohio. OTOH, the nationally funded train between the same end points is no more. So one can never tell for sure how things will pan out over 40 years.

Even before 209, there were 403b trains that were funded by some, but not all states/communities on its path.

 

[neroden]

I should probably expand on why cities will almost never fund operations of intercity rail.

(1) By definition, an intercity line leaves the city and goes to other cities.

(2) If the city is small enough that the government thinsk of this as an opportunity, the city will have too small a budget to fund operations.

(3) If the city is large enough to have the budget to fund such a line, the city government will typically think of the route as siphoning passengers away from it, not as bringing passengers to it.

(4) If the city is so large that the government knows all the passengers are coming to it (e.g. Chicago), the government typically doesn't care about attracting more passengers and treats the line as supporting the cities on the other end

(5) The only exception: if the entire city is a tourist trap, like Las Vegas.

For some reason, capital investments don't trigger the same mentality. (Perhaps because the capital investment always goes directly into the city paying for it.)

Anyway, the result for the Hoosier State is:

- Chicago doesn't care because it thinks of the line as supporting Indiana cities

- Indianapolis doesn't care because it thinks of the line as supporting Chicago and the smaller cities

- the smaller cities don't have the money

States are large enough and integrated enough that their governments can think in terms of connecting cities. Cities generally aren't. Even a line as short as NM Railrunner had to be created by the state government.

 

[railiner]

You win some and you lose some. Remember that one of today's more successful LD trains started as an experimental train funded by New York and Ohio. OTOH, the nationally funded train between the same end points is no more. So one can never tell for sure how things will pan out over 40 years.

Even before 209, there were 403b trains that were funded by some, but not all states/communities on its path.

The case of the Lakeshore was a 'fluke'....that route never should have been discontinued.....

 

[railiner]

I should probably expand on why cities will almost never fund operations of intercity rail.

(1) By definition, an intercity line leaves the city and goes to other cities.

(2) If the city is small enough that the government thinsk of this as an opportunity, the city will have too small a budget to fund operations.

(3) If the city is large enough to have the budget to fund such a line, the city government will typically think of the route as siphoning passengers away from it, not as bringing passengers to it.

(4) If the city is so large that the government knows all the passengers are coming to it (e.g. Chicago), the government typically doesn't care about attracting more passengers and treats the line as supporting the cities on the other end

(5) The only exception: if the entire city is a tourist trap, like Las Vegas.

For some reason, capital investments don't trigger the same mentality. (Perhaps because the capital investment always goes directly into the city paying for it.)

Anyway, the result for the Hoosier State is:

- Chicago doesn't care because it thinks of the line as supporting Indiana cities

- Indianapolis doesn't care because it thinks of the line as supporting Chicago and the smaller cities

- the smaller cities don't have the money

States are large enough and integrated enough that their governments can think in terms of connecting cities. Cities generally aren't. Even a line as short as NM Railrunner had to be created by the state government.

Perhaps Indianapolis is correct in its assessment of who benefits, but not Chicago....

If the schedule was flipped so that the train would come into IND for the day, and then return in the evening, IND would benefit from the 'small town folks' coming in to spend their money for shopping, medical services, etc. As it stands, CHI now receives that benefit, although they don't consider it enough to be worth their support....

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Lots of valid ideas. However Indianapolis is just dropping out and not trying to make it a plus for them. Sure sign of poor leadership, but Indianapolis is not the only city with issues of leadership.

Had a meeting about my Post Office losing window hours. The big guy just did not care for feedback and was just going thur the motions.

Much easier to quit than come up with a plan. If it was just Indianapolis and not a bunch of smaller city to work with, they may of been a chance.

.

 

[CHamilton]

neroden has laid out all of the reasons that I think 209 has the potential for significant harm to the national network. I agree that states and cities should help fund rail service, but they are not going to want to fund anything that is perceived as taking business elsewhere.

 

[MikefromCrete]

I agree that cities should have nothing to do with funding intercity services. States, however, should be encouraged to do so. Section 209 actually rewards the states who have boosted passenger service for a long time. States that have no interest in local services shouldn't receive them free of charge, if other states are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Indiana's attempt to extort money from the on-line cities is backwards thinking.

 

[jis]

I agree that cities should have nothing to do with funding intercity services. States, however, should be encouraged to do so. Section 209 actually rewards the states who have boosted passenger service for a long time. States that have no interest in local services shouldn't receive them free of charge, if other states are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Indiana's attempt to extort money from the on-line cities is backwards thinking.

Wholly agreed.
Trying to make Section 209 the devil in all this is highly misguided and counter-productive IMHO. Section 209 is not about national system. It is about regional systems. Similar mechanisms have been put in places like Germany and France too.

 

[andersone]

Somebody remember why the articles of confederation didn't work?

oh yeah, no ability to get things done on a larger scale,,,,

viola - here comes the constitution,,,,,,,

follow this to it's natural end,,,,,

 

[jis]

And the constitution was a federal one (as in creating a federation of states), not a monolithic one, allowing states considerable freedom in most areas of commerce, provided they followed some core rules of the game, laid down eventually in the Commerce Clause. That is the model we should be striving for, not a monolithic one. I think Section 209 actually proceeds in that direction and is enabling introduction of many regional services by providing a relatively level playing field for regional players, and incidentally forcing additional levels of transparency from the current monolith. It does not and should not detract from maintaining and enhancing a national network. Similarly Section 212, which many railfans hate too, is forcing some level of transparency on the NEC too.

Specifically as applied to passenger rail this would mean participation in a common reservation and ticketing system encompassing all passenger services (which we do not have at present). Basic passenger's bill of rights (which we do not have at present). A well defined appeals process to handle things when they go wrong (which we seem not to have an effective one at present). Governance of passenger rail related contracts and agreements, and specially enforcing of them (which we have very little of today) etc. So clearly we have work to do in setting up a framework to enable growth of passenger service. What we have in place is really neither adequate, nor sustainable with the framework that we have in place. Unfortunately, instead of pushing for these basic needs, we endlessly bicker on about relatively minor issues.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

You know Railfans, Jishnu. All change is bad.