I agree with Dave. Amtrak does look to demographics and that is why it is working with the states to set up inter city service. And Amtrak will continue to work with states to set up inter city service.
But, and it is a big but, Joe Boardman has stated fairly clearly that in 1970 Congress made a contract with the American people to maintain the long distance routes and while he is President Amtrak will honor that contract. The contract trumps current demographic trends. And Amtrak’s Board of Directors has just renewed Boardman’s contract for two more years so it appears that the Board agrees with Joe Boardman.
Right now North Carolina funds Piedmont service. There are 4 trains a day, two in each direction, serving the state. If Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia would do the same thing they could have daytime service between Atlanta and New York. But the other states are unwilling to come up with with funding. I am struck by the fact that Virginia won’t. Virgina already funds trains about halfway through the state. If it would add enough to connect with North Carolina’s Piedmonts there could be rail service for those two states to Washington with easy connections if not through service to New York.
You have it backward. The states work with Amtrak. The push (and money) come from the states. Amtrak does not go to the states and say, “Hey! Want to fund some new service here?”
Can you explain why Amtrak has no suburban Atlanta stop? I know for a fact they have never approached NS about the possibility.
Perhaps the answer is a US/state government “Network Rail” to provide capital for expanded infrastructure and maintenance on current and future passenger routes. If the route is a private freight line, some shared cost arrangements could be negotiated. Privatize the operating services as Don has mentioned. The routes that are determined to be necessary to serve low population areas could be heavily subsidized by those states.
I assume you mean restoring the Petersburg to Raleigh direct route? What do you mean Virginia “won’t”? From what I read, I’d say they “want to” and have been funding the engineering work that has to be completed before anyone lifts a shovel.
VA has committed to funding the extension of Lynchburg train to Roanoke. In terms of intercity funding passenger rail service improvements, I’d put VA in third place behind CA and IL.
There are three Piedmonts. NC owns the RR, the equipment and directs and markets the service. Amtrak pretty much just operates the trains. The fourth train is the Carolinian - a day train to NY. That and the Palmetto were probably the last two Amtrak-initiated attempts at providing service based on demographics - day trains through a growing region. They are both 30+ years old now.
The Carolinian might have started as a 403b train - I’m not sure, but I don’t think so. The Palmetto was the result of flipping (and cutting back) the third overnight NY- FL train.
The Piedmont and Carolinian schedules are integrated to compliment each other.
The Carolinian originates in Charlotte in the morning and the Piedmont originates in Raleigh in the morning, providing opposite direction service. Approximately noon, the Piedmont returns from Charlotte to Raleigh and another Piedmont originates in Raleigh. At evening rush hour, the Noon Piedmont train returns from Charlotte to Raleigh and the Carolinian passes through Raleigh on it’s way back to Charlotte from NYP.
NCRR owns the track and makes money leasing it to NS & CSX. It, therefor operates without state funds. There are plans to add an additional round trip, if the money is sufficient. The recent political reversal in the state government has resulted in money being diverted from NCRR to the general fund.
I think it makes perfect sense to extend one or more of those trains to Atlanta.
I don’t know what the schedules will be when the Southeast Corridor is completed.
In fact I did have trips to Charlotte and Greensburg. But that was in the Southern Railroad pre-Amtrak days and I could go overnight on the Owl from Boston to NY, spend a day working in BBN’s NY office, and then get a sleeper with a decent time of arrival in Charlotte or Greensburg (Gulf Coast Limited, former Havana Speical? Forget which train.). Going home the vey late departure of the Crescent wasn’t a problem. On occasion, I would continiue on the Piedmont to New Orleans for further work, and then the Sunset to LA or the Flying Crow? to Shreveport, or the overnight MP sleeper to Houston, then reverse and the City of New Orleans to Jackson, and the Panama to Chicago, or just to Champaign for further work (UofI).
I do not know if Dave means Greensboro or Greenville. Back when the Southern had six or so passenger trains between Washington and Atlanta, the Peach Queen provided overnight service from New York to Greensboro and Charlotte, and arrived in Greenville just before noon. The Piedmont Limited left Charlotte at noon and Greenville about four, and arrived in New Orleans the next morning. If he had gone back to New York directly, the Crescent would have been the train to take from Greenville or Charlotte, and the Piedmont Limited would have been the one to take from Greensboro.
Well yes. But the states that are willing to fund service have that service. I cannot explain why Amtrak does not have another stop in Atlanta. Can you explain why the Acela stops at Back Bay which is one mile from South Station, Boston?
Maybe they stop at Back Bay because they always did before Amtrak, while adding a new stop in suburban Atlanta would represent a change from the past. Amtrak’s problem seems to be an inability to adapt and change.
I agree with you, Schlimm, that the only reason to stop at Back Bay is the historical reason.
As far as Amtrak’s “inability to adapt and change” I think Amtrak has made a conscious decision here. Joe Boardman has said that back in 1970 Congress made a contract with the American people to maintain a national rail network. That is what the long distance routes are and that is why Amtrak will not change them although Amtrak will seek to run them as efficiently as possible. Also, Amtrak’s Board of Directors has just extended Boardman’s contract for 2 years so the Board supports his statement. So as long as Joe Boardman is President there will be no change in Amtrak’s long distance routes.
I don’t suggest we should necessarily agree with that perspective but I do think we have to accept it as the way things are, at least for a while. I don’t see any change as long as Barak Obama is President.
I would like for AMTRAK to add two suburban ATLANTA stops in the future on the exisiting CRESCENT route. My suggestions for NEW stops are DOUGLASVILLE or BREMEN between ATLANTA and ANNISTON oing toward BIRMINGHAM and NEW ORLEANS, I would also like to see at least ONE new stop at NORCROSS or DULUTH which is between ATLANTA and GAINESVILLE. Suburban ATLANTA has grown a lot since AMTRAK took over the CRESCENT from SOUTHERN RAILWAY (now NORFOLK SOUTHERN) in 1979. I also feel that AMTRAK needs a NEW route from CHICAGO to MIAMI through ATLANTA in the future.
“Joe Boardman has said that back in 1970 Congress made a contract with the American people to maintain a national rail network.”
“Amtrak was initially created as a for-profit enterprise with common stock issued only to railroads, though only four chose to become stockholders./8 The law also charged the federal transportation secretary with choosing the metropolitan areas that would constitute the basic system of service. The initial plan was for lines radiating out from Chicago and New York, with routes chosen based on a set of clear criteria including cost effectiveness. However, once the plan was released for comment, “political resource allocation abounded through the system” and additional routes were added./9” This language was taken from Page 2 of A New Alignment: Strengthening America’s Commitment to Passenger Rail, which is a Brookings Institute study on the renaissance of passenger rail in America.
The Brookings Institute generally gets high marks for the thoroughness and objectivity of its studies. The quoted paragraph does not imply that Amtrak had a contract to maintain a system of long distance trains. It had a mandate to develop a cost effective passenger rail system. Given the costs of the long distance trains, it would have been impossible to have a cost effective passenger rail network as long as they were a part of it. On the other hand, one could claim that because of politics, i.e subsequent interventions by politicians to maintain their favorite routes, the long distance trains were baked into the mandate, although I don’t see it that way.
If as Boardman maintains the Congress contracted with the American people to maintain a long distance passenger train network, then why was Amtrak permitted to discontinue the National Limited, the North Coast Limited, the Pioneer, etc. If one has a contract for a national train system, they should be required
Precisely! Although it is quite clear that Amtrak was pressured into adding some ridiculous trains by powerful congressmen (the Staggers West Virginian / Potomac (Turbo) Special, aka, “Staggers Express” ), some LD trains have come and gone. The continuance of multiple LD routes seems less a function of a mandate or even political pressure, and more a function of inertia and lack of rational planning, the latter aspect as the OIG report makes clear. A reading of the original 1970 legislation establishing Amtrak does not suggest a “Contract with America” (a term from 1994 by Gingrich’s GOP) to maintain LD services.
I think sam1’s proposal represents the kind of progressive advocacy needed. Run one or even two trains to SF with connections up and down the coast. No one rides those trains for speed, so adding more hours to LA, SD, Portland or Seattle should not be a problem.
At the outset I want to state I am trying to understand this from Joe Boardman and the Amtrak Board of Directors perspective. I neither support nor oppose the “contract” position.
To answer your question, in the early days of the contract it could be adjusted and it was. And an overwhelming storm like Hurricane Katrina could certainly be a reason for a further adjustment. However, for many years now Congress has been funding the current long distance trains so I think Amtrak can argue the "contract position is valid.
For the record I never believed you would accept the “contract with America” argument and I certainly do not suggest that you should. To my mind there is an implicit acknowledgment in the argument that Amtrak does not operate in the best way possible and maybe not even in a reasonably good way. But, the argument would have us believe, this is necessary because this is what the Congress has traditionally support it. I offer it because I think it is something we all need to consider, not because I regard it as correct.
" In formulating such recommendations the Secretary shall consider
opportunities for provision of faster service, more convenient service,
service to more centers of population, and service at lower cost, by
the joint operation, for passenger service, of facilities of two or more
railroad companies; the importance of a. given service to overall
viability of the basic system; adequacy of other transportation facil-
ities serving the same points: unique characteristics and advantages
of rail service as compared to ether modes of transportation; the rela-
tionship of public benefits of given servicca to the costs of providing
such services; and potential profii.ibility of the service."
Schlimm,
I think this is the sentence you refer to. To my mind it is typical of government bureaucratic language that can mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. It really doesn’t tie down Amtrak to do anything at all.
I have been trying to understand and present Joe Boardman’s position as well as I can. To add a personal note, I don’t disagree with the things you and Don say about Amtrak could simply be supplying more transportation to more people for the government money spent on it. But the simple truth is that government simply does not do things the way the private sector does and it is not going to. Not Amtrak or any other part of government. But both government and the private sector are here to stay and we all will live with both of them for a long time to come. Change is not impossible for either; however no small group of individuals is going to secure that change. That is my own opinion.
I thought I posted this earlier, but may have failed to push the right button:
At Back Bay one has a better connection between corridor trains, both "T’ and Amtrak, and the Lake Shore and “T” trains to Worcester, Framingham, and other western suburbs of Boston. It is an 8 minute Orange Line ride between Back Bay and North Station, with Downeaster servce to Maine and T service to northern suburbs. Back Bay is more conveniinet to hotels and the Convention Center.