So, How do we pay for it?

[Swadian Hardcore]

There was one alternative left off that I think should be the one:

Redirect federal revenue to increase and improve Amtrak services without any increase in taxes. A dedicated rail funding mechanism should be implemented.

Any long distance route worth serving at all should have two (or more) trains per day.

You got it right there! I think that most of us would have voted for that option had it been there.

About the two trains a day scheme, I think it would be better if they have the same endpoints but different routes. Like the LSL and new BL, CZ and new COSF or SFZ, SWC and new DW, EB and new NCH and/or Pioneer, TE and new LS, etc..

 

[AlanB]

It is not just size but a huge concentrated population

Population density is really not a big part of the equation at all. If it were a requirement, then the Lynchburg would be a total failure. The population of Lynchburg, VA is just over 60K. The same for the next few stops that train makes on the way to DC. It's not until you're in the suburbs of DC, where VRE operates and better serves commuters, that one approaches any decent population density.

The anti-rail crowd loves to trot out that population density argument as to why it works in Europe and not here in the US. But it's simply not true. Not saying that density doesn't help things some, but it is simply not a major factor either in the success or failure of a train.

Listing the population of the city of Lynchburg understates the actual transportation market. Typical with older cities, the population of the municipality is not representative of the population of the metropolitan area. The population of the Lynchburg metropolitan area is 254,000. The population of the Charlottesville metropolitan area is 203,000. Those are pretty significant markets for travel to the major NEC destinations

The statement that population density is not a major factor in the success of passenger rail is simply not supported by transportation engineering principles. That does not mean that rail cannot be viable in low density situations, but population density is a very important parameter driving the success of passenger rail. Like the "anti-rail crowd" thinks rail is never the answer, sometime the "pro-rail crowd" thinks rail is always the answer. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Bill,

Well two can play that same game. I was comparing the actual populations of Lynchburg to DC, which is about 618K for DC. But the DC Metro area has a population of 5.58 Million. So again, Lynchburg pales in comparison when things are compared on the same level. The Lynchburg metro area represents about 4.5% of DC Metro area.

And I'm not suggesting that we build a train to every tiny city. I'm simply saying that while it should not be disregarded, population density is not nearly as important as some people believe.

Oh, and I don't think that rail is always the answer. I've stated here many times, as well as in my many posts around the net, that cities need the proper mix of transportation. That means rail, bus, car, & planes, although not all need all 4 options.

 

[AlanB]

It is not just size but a huge concentrated population

Population density is really not a big part of the equation at all. If it were a requirement, then the Lynchburg would be a total failure. The population of Lynchburg, VA is just over 60K. The same for the next few stops that train makes on the way to DC. It's not until you're in the suburbs of DC, where VRE operates and better serves commuters, that one approaches any decent population density.

The anti-rail crowd loves to trot out that population density argument as to why it works in Europe and not here in the US. But it's simply not true. Not saying that density doesn't help things some, but it is simply not a major factor either in the success or failure of a train.

I never said it was the only reason and you picked on one of the many items I listed as being the reason and claimed it wasn't true. It is true. It is part of the reason why "what makes train travel a more viable option today in Europe" exists. And the "anti-rail crowd" as you call them are not the only ones that consider it part of the reason train travel is more viable in Europe. The "success or failure of a train" of course has, in addition to the factors I mentioned for viability between Europe and the U.S., other reasons including local factors such as type of population, etc.

The success and extensiveness of Europe's rail system is in large part due to the many factors I mentioned. And no, Alan, I am not part of the "anti-rail crowd" as you so nicely put it.

First, I never said that you were part of the "anti-rail crowd." However, if you took it that way, then I do apologize as that was not what I intended to say.

Second, I picked that point because I consider it to be incorrect. Nothing more and I don't disagree with much of what you did say, which is why I didn't comment on it.

Moving on, again as I first said and I just pointed out to Bill, population density isn't nearly as important as people like to think. Again, it shouldn't be ignored either, but it is not the end all. If population density levels approaching those in Europe were needed, then the Lynchburger would be a failure. Additionally, so would Salt Lake City's light rail system. The pop density of SLC is one of the lowest in the US for a major city coming in at 1,678.0 people per square mile. Even Virginia Beach currently fighting over extending The Tide has a higher pop density with 1,758.9; Norfolk where The Tide currently runs has 4,486.4 people per/sq mile.

Yet few would argue that SLC's LRT system is a failure. Their buses only moved a little less than 8 million more rides in 2010 than LRT. With the new lines opening last year & this year, that gap will close even further if not disappear entirely. And light rail will still be cheaper than the UTA buses are.

 

[AutoTrDvr]

There was one alternative left off that I think should be the one:

Redirect federal revenue to increase and improve Amtrak services without any increase in taxes. A dedicated rail funding mechanism should be implemented.

Again, my apologies. Originally, I was interested only in preserving what we currently have, which is why I oriented the poll that way.

To be honest, it would seem to me that adding new revenue via more taxes would actually be easier (in Amtrak's case) than re-directing existing revenue. The logic being, once someone already has X% of the pie, they will defend it to the death. They won't let anyone just take it away to give to someone else. It would seem relatively easier to bake another pie which the other govt. agencies don't yet smell, nor in which they have their fingers. Yes, I understand two pies cost more than one. And that's why my initial questions and poll focused initially on just needing only one pie, just to preserve what we already have. But, as it seems, most are willing to spend money to bake another larger pie....

 

[Anderson]

In general, I support more funding (and yes, I'd take a tax hike to get that funding, but only if it is made clear to me that there's some sort of link); however, along with any expansion of LD service there needs to be a push to at least expand the regional networks as well. Preferably, you'd also get added streetcars and the like additionally, but I'll consider that to be a "warm fuzzy" in at least some cases, as well as something that, while desirable, might be hoping for too much.

Basically, while a much larger LD network would be ideal, I'm going to level with reality here and note that it won't do nearly as well as it could if you don't have "feeder" trains...for example, I think you'd see enough demand to support a separate, dedicated Denver Zephyr if you had a corridor operating along the Front Range. The best shot at getting a third train to Florida back may well be if the FEC's service takes off like a rocket and you get decent interchange options at Jacksonville. Your best shot at a revived Piedmont Limited (i.e. a schedule-swapped Crescent) would come from a regional hub around Atlanta. And so on.

Of course, I suspect there would be synergies to be had if, for an example from Florida, some part of SunRail (or another reliable connecting service) were extended from downtown to the airport (or indeed, even some sort of interchange were worked out at Kissimmee should the mooted FEC extension to Tampa come to pass). The point is still there: It's not just LD lines that are needed, it's better connections to cover more ground with greater frequency (and in such a way as to allow for "backup" trains to be available when an LD train misses a relatively close one due to weather, etc.).

 

[Nathanael]

Basically, while a much larger LD network would be ideal, I'm going to level with reality here and note that it won't do nearly as well as it could if you don't have "feeder" trains...for example, I think you'd see enough demand to support a separate, dedicated Denver Zephyr if you had a corridor operating along the Front Range. The best shot at getting a third train to Florida back may well be if the FEC's service takes off like a rocket and you get decent interchange options at Jacksonville. Your best shot at a revived Piedmont Limited (i.e. a schedule-swapped Crescent) would come from a regional hub around Atlanta. And so on.

Indeed.

Northeastern version: the sadly cancelled 3C route in Ohio would provide reason to have a 24-hours-offset LSL. Developing rail services around the major Indiana and Ohio cities would have a very substantial effect as those are the main underserved population centers between the network off the Northeast Corridor and the network off of Chicago. Connecting service to more of upstate NY and upstate PA would improve all the trains in the area as well. Et cetera.

Even without new feeder trains in the "middle", I think the Lake Shore Limited is in a very good position due to the booming number of feeder trains from NY, Boston, and Chicago.

The West Coast, Midwest, and Northeast already have quite a few feeder trains, though. The South and Mountain West are particularly lacking in feeder trains. Though global warming is projected to make both regions much less viable, so maybe it's not worth investing that much in them.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

In general, I support more funding (and yes, I'd take a tax hike to get that funding, but only if it is made clear to me that there's some sort of link); however, along with any expansion of LD service there needs to be a push to at least expand the regional networks as well. Preferably, you'd also get added streetcars and the like additionally, but I'll consider that to be a "warm fuzzy" in at least some cases, as well as something that, while desirable, might be hoping for too much.

This is what means that the Broadway Limited could be restored right now if the equipment is there. There's big networks to both CHI and NYP.

 

[jis]

In general, I support more funding (and yes, I'd take a tax hike to get that funding, but only if it is made clear to me that there's some sort of link); however, along with any expansion of LD service there needs to be a push to at least expand the regional networks as well. Preferably, you'd also get added streetcars and the like additionally, but I'll consider that to be a "warm fuzzy" in at least some cases, as well as something that, while desirable, might be hoping for too much.

This is what means that the Broadway Limited could be restored right now if the equipment is there. There's big networks to both CHI and NYP.

A New York - Chicago train via Pittsburgh is likely to be restored but Boradway Limited on its original route is not possible anymore. Tracks have been removed at the west end of the route. It is a convoluted ride through a few rail yards that it takes now to get from the Fort Wayne Line into Chicago Union Station, which is unlikely to be used for any passenger service.

OTOH using the route used by the last run of Broadway limited is still possible, CSX willing. At that time Broadway Limited was running on ex-B&O CSX Line through Youngstown, Akron, Garrett and Nappanee

 

[Phil S]

I just wrote a fairly detailed reply, hit "add reply" and the whole thing disappeared. Not very nice way for forum software to behave. I'll try again after breakfast. Aaargh!

 

[Trogdor]

Northeastern version: the sadly cancelled 3C route in Ohio would provide reason to have a 24-hours-offset LSL.

We already have one. It's called the next day's Lake Shore.

 

[AutoTrDvr]

A New York - Chicago train via Pittsburgh is likely to be restored but Boradway Limited on its original route is not possible anymore. Tracks have been removed at the west end of the route. It is a convoluted ride through a few rail yards that it takes now to get from the Fort Wayne Line into Chicago Union Station, which is unlikely to be used for any passenger service.

I recall when it went CHI-->Gary, Ind.--->Valparaiso Ind. --->FTW--->Lima OH--->Crestline OH---->Canton OH--->PIT

I guess that can't happen anymore.

 

[jis]

Northeastern version: the sadly cancelled 3C route in Ohio would provide reason to have a 24-hours-offset LSL.

We already have one. It's called the next day's Lake Shore.

:lol: ! Exactly the same thought came to my mind. Although I think he meant 12 hours rather than 24

 

[johnny.menhennet]

A New York - Chicago train via Pittsburgh is likely to be restored but Boradway Limited on its original route is not possible anymore. Tracks have been removed at the west end of the route. It is a convoluted ride through a few rail yards that it takes now to get from the Fort Wayne Line into Chicago Union Station, which is unlikely to be used for any passenger service.

I recall when it went CHI-->Gary, Ind.--->Valparaiso Ind. --->FTW--->Lima OH--->Crestline OH---->Canton OH--->PIT

I guess that can't happen anymore.

Jeez, Fort Worth sure is a pretty far out of the way, but then again Amtrak has done weirder things...

 

[AutoTrDvr]

A New York - Chicago train via Pittsburgh is likely to be restored but Boradway Limited on its original route is not possible anymore. Tracks have been removed at the west end of the route. It is a convoluted ride through a few rail yards that it takes now to get from the Fort Wayne Line into Chicago Union Station, which is unlikely to be used for any passenger service.

I recall when it went CHI-->Gary, Ind.--->Valparaiso Ind. --->FTW--->Lima OH--->Crestline OH---->Canton OH--->PIT

I guess that can't happen anymore.

Jeez, Fort Worth sure is a pretty far out of the way, but then again Amtrak has done weirder things...

Sorry... Ft. Wayne .... Getting use to Train codes. I used to know IATA air codes really well.

 

[Eric S]

I think FWE was Amtrak's code for Fort Wayne.