My point, Schlimm, is that underlying Amtrak is a political consensus in America that we need a national passenger rail system. The foundation of that consensus is a system which serves the whole nation. Any long distance route we take away weakens that consensus and if enough are taken away the consensus will be destroyed. With no national consensus it doesn’t matter how efficient Amtrak is; we will loose Amtrak. Even now Amtrak critics argue that the fact that the Northeast Corridor has relatively slight losses or even operates at a profit is a reason to sell it to the private sector. Since I believe that Amtrak is rooted in a national consensus I do not believe the the important issue is whether or not individual routes lose money but rather how best do we preserve that national consensus.
I personally do not want to see Amtrak abandoned but I do understand the logic of those who do. If all subsidy is bad then any service subsidized by the government should be stopped. But if subsidy is bad it makes no sense to stop some subsidies and let others continue.
As far as Ibsen goes, I did not intend here to give you a homework assignment. If I recall correctly the parable of the lone scout is from The Master Builder. On a beautiful sunny day an army marches along a road. The soldiers and officers feel very strong and confident they are invincible and each reinforces everyone else’s belief. Then a lone scout who has been riding far ahead rides back to warn that up ahead is the enemy and the army is marching into an ambush. But the feelings of self confidence are so strong that the army ignores the lone scout’s warning and is ultimately destroyed.
I would like to see a real passenger rail system here. Pruning back the legacy routes which are irrational as transportation is a means to expanding corridors. Portions of some of those routes could be converted into new corridors. You value consensus, which is important. But there will be far greater support, by the numbers of passengers using it, if we build a real service network within the limitations of where passenger rail can compete, i.e., corridors of various lengths, dependent on sustained speeds, but generally no more than 4-5 hours between the rider’s start and destination points.
I agree with you about corridor service, Schlimm. I even agree that increasing and improving (speeding up) service along those corridors will increase support for Amtrak in places where the corridors exist. There is an irony in the fact that the recent reform cut back or eliminated money for precisely those corridors where Amtrak is most successful. Corridor service will come only to the extent that the states involved are willing to pick up the costs. I hope they will do that but I imagine different states will make different decisions.
However, to maintain a consensus for Amtrak it is not enough to have more people supporting it along new corridors. There also needs to be broad support over the whole country. The only way I can see to maintain that is to run the long distance trains that you so dislike. Cutting back on long distance trains will remove service from whole states. After taking away their rail service why should those states support Amtrak?
It will gather support because LD services serve so few people, even in those states, that the discontinuance will be largely unnoticed. Also you seem to have overlooked my suggestion that some of those routes could be developed into new corridors for a portion of the route, much as Don has proposed for the Crescent and Empire Builder and sam1 has mentioned for a different type of split. The role for subsidies will become largely for infrastructure (RoW and capital improvement) along with short-term operating subsidies for new corridors in partnerships with states. Along those lines, if the folks in Montana or Wyoming, for example, really want passenger rail, let them pony up like folks in NC and Illinois.
Here is an article about a group of 40 mayors from cities along what was the Sunset Limited Route between New Orleans and Jacksonville, FL. They met in Mobile because they want the service back. They believe there are adverse economic consequences for them by no longer having the service. The route operated up to Hurricane Katrina but has never been restored. It was a very lightly ridden route and a very expensive one from Amtrak but none the less the loss of it is noticed:
I acknowledged your suggestion and I agreed that paired city routes would be desirable. However, recent legislation specifically excludes corridor routes of less than 750 miles from Federal funding.
"The route operated up to Hurricane Katrina but has never been restored. It was a very lightly ridden route and a very expensive one from Amtrak but none the less the loss of it is noticed: "
Not quite sure why that makes any difference. The residents of the 40 cities apparently didn’t notice it when it was there. I’m sure there are plenty of mayors who would like a train service, but there needs to be a clear rationale established as to why that would be a wise use of funding.
It is not really up to the mayors to decide about paying for the Sunset Limited. But I imagine you are right and the states involved have not been forthcoming with any funds. On the other hand, this is part of a transcontinental route and states do not pay for other transcontinental routes.
Well, Schlimm, I visited parts of the Mississippi Gulf Coast when the Sunset Limited did run. Local communities had spent money to fix up their stations and seemed to be well aware of it.
Of course, when it comes to subsidy the Sunset Limited is the most expensive transcontinental route in the country. And the Jacksonville to New Orleans segment is the most expensive part of the the most expensive route. As far as I know Amtrak has never announced the abandonment of that part o the route. For several years after Hurricane Katrina it appeared on their schedule with a note saying service was suspended there. Finally the portion was omitted all together but there still is a note about the suspension. It ends “Future service has not been determined.” It seems to me Amtrak just doesn’t want to spend the money to reinstate it.
Of course, Louisana, Mississippi and Alabama could get together and fund service between New Orleans and Mobile as paired cities. They could even set up their own service which would be cheaper for them than Amtrak. But they haven’t.
“part of a transcontinental route” seems to be a loophole for lightly used intrastate or at most a four state service but instead of the states funding, it gets Amtrak to foot the bill. I wonder how many folks actually used the discontinued segment? And of those, how many rode the train to TX and the west coast?
I don’t know how many people used this route. But I do know that fewer people used it than used the route west of New Orleans. I also know that much of it ran in the late night and very early morning hours. I am not arguing that it should be restored; I am only arguing that the mayors along the route would like to see it restored. And yes, they would like to see it restored with Federal money.
My own thinking is that part of this route offers a real opportunity to carry out Don’s suggestion of intercity service between New Orleans and Mobile with the states served funding the service. However, I would propose that the states operate the service themselves rather than have Amtrak do it. They could acquire a married pair of mu’s and shuttle back and forth during the daylight hours. They could organize it in such a way that the costs would be substantially less than with Amtrak. Today the Mississippi Gulf Coast has a lot of casinos and a much greater population working in them than it has traditionally had. I think there are enough customers to support it. But I doubt the states involved will do it.
The west has huge untapped opportunities for both inter-city and interstate routes to be developed. Unfortunately, Amtrak has no equipment and cannot add service. For example, the most scenic routes like the Coast Starlite and California Zephyr have at best one train a day, serving many communities in the middle of the night. They are mostly sold out well in advance. If weather (snow) delays trains, connections are impossible to make up the lost time. Riding intercity is almost hopeless since the train arrives at 2 am and gets to a major metro area by 10 am after delays from freight service. Actual trains scheduled are about 10% of scheduled service in the postwar, pre-Amtrak era. Scanty service means far fewer passenger miles and badly distorts the cost/revenue statistics.
The problem with the Gulf Coast is that most of the travel is to/from the north. You might make a case for Mobile to NOL, but east of Mobile there’s not much there.
The notion that MS and LA would find $$ to start service from Mobile to NOL is pretty far fetched. You are talking about states that are "infr
Er, not so much. They sell out during peak times and seasons but the overall load factor is 60% or less. You can’t get a sleeper during the summer, but you can get a coach seat mid week just about any time.
You can get seat from Chicago to Emeryville for tomorrow right now.
You can get seat from Chicago to Seattle for tomorrow right now.
You can get seat from Chicago to Dallas for tomorrow right now.
You can get seat from New Orleans to Los Angeles for tomorrow right now.
You can get seat from Seattle to Los Angeles for tomorrow right now.
Tomorrow’s SW Chief is sold out Chicago to LA, but you can get a sleeper from KC to LA.
I agree with you that the “middle of the night” times make the trains pretty much useless to those locations. I think the solution is to ditch the sleepers and only run trains during the day, as much as possible. Let the overnight passengers sleep in hotels
About splitting all trains into day trains ? How will they fit into the 750 mile short distance restrictions ? Wash - ATL / SAV /Pittsburg / sCLE / TOL are aall under 750 miles + ATL NOL / NYP - TOL CHI - MSP, CHI - MEM. amound other rooutes. Now NYP - ATL / SAV can meet the 750 restriction
That’s why I tried to make the case from New Orleans to Mobile, Don.
And I agree it is unlikely Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama would fund a Gulf Coast rail line. I’m not able to do any objective research but I do wonder if research would show it would benefit the whole area.
There was a time when the Crescent divided at Birmingham and sent some cars down to Mobile. But that was long ago. I find it ironic that the first north south transcontinental was the Mobile and Ohio to the Ohio River where it met the Illinois Central to Chicago.