Amtrak proposal to create new rail passenger connections for major cities

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

This is a fun site to play with:
https://www.flightconnections.com/fl...-cleveland-cle

Amazing how few places you can fly to from Cleveland.

Incidentally, you can fly to 49 states from O'Hare (the 50th is Delaware, which of course you can easily access from PHL). Not sure any other airports let you access 49 states (ATL is missing at least ND and NH, MSP is missing at least AL/MS, DEN is missing at least RI, DTW is missing at least HI, etc.).

Atlanta is the runner up (47 states, missing DE, NH, ND),

DFW/DEN - 45 states
CLT/MSP - 44
DTW/IAH - 43
LAS/LAX - 42

[Labtec]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's weird that you can't even fly from Cleveland to another major Ohio city.

Wonder why Atlanta is the most popular destination from Cleveland at 251 flights a month. Chicago is second at 198 flights a month. Perhaps Delta connection flights? Detroit would be closer.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Labtec

Wonder why Atlanta is the most popular destination from Cleveland at 251 flights a month. Chicago is second at 198 flights a month. Perhaps Delta connection flights? Detroit would be closer.

Are you counting just O'Hare? Southwest flies to Midway from Cleveland.

On Friday I helped some a family of four Clevelander tourists navigate the Metra Electric between Hyde Park and downtown. Since they didn't drive to HP (presumably to the MSI?), I'm guessing they flew?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Labtec

Wonder why Atlanta is the most popular destination from Cleveland at 251 flights a month. Chicago is second at 198 flights a month. Perhaps Delta connection flights? Detroit would be closer.

Atlanta's probably the busiest domestic route for most cities east of the Mississippi. It's the busiest route for every city in Ohio, along with Detroit, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee. It's the second busiest for Minneapolis and St. Louis. The only large airport in the Midwest that ATL doesn't place in the top 3 appears to be Chicago O'Hare.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That’s where driving comes in

Car ownership in midwest metros is so high that building train routes between these cities in unnecessary and likely unprofitable. Hell, even the airlines didn’t think it was worth it. What makes you think that a private train operator would?

You think you know everything. Why didn't private companies form and raise capital to build fully grade-separated toll expressways between cities just like the railroads did 50-100 years earlier?

Turns out that when you build the world's most extravagant network of toll-free expressways, people go hog wild. The government induced demand. The airlines and airports are also heavily subsidized.

Since you love the free market so much, why don't we let foreign airlines operate domestic routes?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

And to make things even more confusing, one of Ohio's primary airports isn't even in Ohio.

Although CVG is apparently a giant cargo hub. The last few times I've been there, I've seen more planes coming in and out with DHL and Amazon liveries than Delta, American, United, Allegiant, etc.

Cincinnati's airport was the #2 Delta hub for many years. That ended abruptly in 2005 when Delta bought Northwest and moved the Cincinnati hub operation to Detroit.

The cargo carrier DHL has its United States hub in Cincinnati and the Amazon Prime Air hub is almost ready. CVG is going to leapfrog Louisville and Memphis to become the top U.S. cargo airport sometime in the 2020s.

The rail network in the industrial Midwest is still robust. There are many parallel lines and redundancies. For example, there are two duel-track mainlines between Cincinnati and Dayton separated by a few thousand feet. Much of the time, the freight railroads do northbound only on one pair and southbound only on the other pair.

BUT, because the railroads have been given over completely to freight, it is going to be very difficult to create reliable intercity passenger service on some routes because the freight railroads have grown accustomed to letting their freight trains sit on mainlines for hours at at time waiting to enter yards. The historic passenger stations are typically integrated with those yards. For example, look at how not one but two freight trains are made to sit for extended periods of time on this bridge over the Ohio River (FFWD to 2:00):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNCKTO_ZP9A

This sort of thing NEVER happened 100 years ago. Freight switching operations had to occur in the slots between passenger trains. When there are no passenger trains, there are fewer passenger sidings and the freight railroads are content to let their mile-long trains block the very tracks that any passenger train would need to use to get in or out of town.

[tayser]

A lot of the same old "we need high speed rail and nothin' else" on here - same old same old arguments you see everywhere when you could implement better inter-city services relatively cheaply. Low hanging fruit etc.

Victoria only has 6.5 million but we have 4 corridors leading out of Melbourne that can take trains at 160kph/100mph and we're looking at "speeding up" one of them (to Geelong) to possibly 200kph/120mph.

This is like a network emanating out of Atlanta to Savannah, Charlotte, Birmingham and Nashville - like on that Amtrak map on the first page.

All rail corridors here have existed for over 150 years but in the 2000s each went through various states of upgrades. We introduced a new rail class (Class 1) which has the heaviest rail and concrete sleepers throughout and has a top speed of 160kph. Some of the corridors had corners eased (you need a cruve radius around 1600-1800m for 160kph) and some corridors have mised 130kph (Class 2U) and 160kph (Class 1) track.

1 corridor (Geelong) sees a train every 20 minutes outside of peak, all others see at least hourly outside of peak and they're operated by trains that can actually do up to 200kph. The trainsets started as 2 car pairs and 10 years ago there was an enhancement project to make each train 3 cars and regularly we see 2 x 3 car trains operating on these trunk routes.

There's a plethory of projects now to upgrade track beyond the regional hubs the original 4 high(er) speed corridors service (Geelong - 280k, Ballarat - 115k, Bendigo - 105k and the La Trobe Valley (~100k) so they can at least get services running at 130kph.

low-hanging fruit peeps - get that right before going banans with the high speed rail (300+kph).

Atlanta-Charlotte @ ~400km could be done in under 3 hours @ 160-200kph with a few stops in between. Likewise, Atlanta-Birmingham @ 230km could be done in around an hour to an hour and a half @ 160-200kph - low-hanging fruit.

Ps. stop comparing air route traffic for anything under 400km, it'll be the car traffic where the railways soak up passengers - plus, they can drive intensive development in regional areas making the projects stack up even better financially.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's weird that you can't even fly from Cleveland to another major Ohio city.

That is weird. Ohio isn't exactly a lowly populated state. It has over 11 million people living there.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Camelback

That is weird. Ohio isn't exactly a lowly populated state. It has over 11 million people living there.

ohioans are just going to have to transfer planes in denver to cross 1/2 the state

its still faster/more efficient than a 120 mph train they say

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

You think you know everything. Why didn't private companies form and raise capital to build fully grade-separated toll expressways between cities just like the railroads did 50-100 years earlier?

Turns out that when you build the world's most extravagant network of toll-free expressways, people go hog wild. The government induced demand. The airlines and airports are also heavily subsidized.

Since you love the free market so much, why don't we let foreign airlines operate domestic routes?

So what you're saying is that we already have a massive network of free highways that people use...


You don't say. So we don't need these trains.

[the urban politician]

^ Exactly. In a sense he’s making my point for me.

Why would we spend hordes of money to undo what generations of people have built, and created our living worlds around, just to appease a few Urbanists who want everyone to ride trains instead?

It doesn’t make sense

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

So what you're saying is that we already have a massive network of free highways that people use...

Anti-train people always imagine flying and driving at their best. A 2-hour flight means the whole episode is 2 hours, not 5 door-to-door. The cost of the flight is the cost of the flight, not the gas to drive, the parking cost, and the cab rides when you get to the destination. Before you know it you're just another fat American buried in credit card debt.

The drive from Nashville to Knoxville is 3 hours...except when it's 6. Anyone who has driven a lot around the Great Lakes region and the Mid-South knows that there are 2+ hour shutdowns of the interstate highways all of the time. During the day, in the middle of the night, winter, summer, rain, perfect weather. Not just on I-75's Jellico Mountain or I-40 over the Cumberland Plateau but on dead-flat I-70 and I-71 and I-65 and the rest.

A drive from Nashville to Cincinnati might involve 2-3 individual hour-long backups. An hour sitting near Bowling Green. Then an hour around Carrolton, KY. Then another hour cuing across the Ohio River.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Why would we spend hordes of money to undo what generations of people have built, and created our living worlds around, just to appease a few Urbanists who want everyone to ride trains instead?

We weren't all given cars when we turned 16 like you were.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

So what you're saying is that we already have a massive network of free highways that people use...


You don't say. So we don't need these trains.

Freeways are irrelevant to the utility of trains. Not sure why people keep bringing that up. Every other country that has high-speed rail also has good freeways, lol.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Anti-train people always imagine flying and driving at their best. A 2-hour flight means the whole episode is 2 hours, not 5 door-to-door. The cost of the flight is the cost of the flight, not the gas to drive, the parking cost, and the cab rides when you get to the destination. Before you know it you're just another fat American buried in credit card debt.

The drive from Nashville to Knoxville is 3 hours...except when it's 6. Anyone who has driven a lot around the Great Lakes region and the Mid-South knows that there are 2+ hour shutdowns of the interstate highways all of the time. During the day, in the middle of the night, winter, summer, rain, perfect weather. Not just on I-75's Jellico Mountain or I-40 over the Cumberland Plateau but on dead-flat I-70 and I-71 and I-65 and the rest.

A drive from Nashville to Cincinnati might involve 2-3 individual hour-long backups. An hour sitting near Bowling Green. Then an hour around Carrolton, KY. Then another hour cuing across the Ohio River.

You think SF, NYC, Chicago...not Cincinnati to Columbus or Nashville to Atlanta. Most people won't need a cab once they reach their destination, there is plenty of cheap or free parking where they are going.


Yes, there can be massive traffic delays on the interstates. However, the biggest issues I've found are highways around our worst trafficked cities, like DC. Driving from Knoxville to Nashville will be fine outside of Nashville traffic probably 98% of the time. I'll take those odds. And again, parking in Nashville and certainly Knoxville are abundant and mostly free, so no issue there.

My objection to this isn't because I hate trains and love cars (I love both). My objection is two-fold:

1. Setting bad examples. California is being used by those on the Right and by publications like Reason as an example of how expensive and useless these projects will be. When people realize a 33 billion project ballooned to like 100 billion, they are going to be rather suspicious.

2. We do not have unlimited money. So why invest in travel that mainly benefits wealthier travelers? Investing that money into cities is way more equitable and smart when looking at its actual impacts on lives (daily vs occasional travel) and on urban living.

3. It might not be a either/or situation, but this is also politics. Defund the police is to make the case we should invest in more social services. Ok, well, why does that money have to come from the police? Why not just add social services? Well, because politics and economic realities.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Anti-train people always imagine flying and driving at their best. A 2-hour flight means the whole episode is 2 hours, not 5 door-to-door. The cost of the flight is the cost of the flight, not the gas to drive, the parking cost, and the cab rides when you get to the destination. Before you know it you're just another fat American buried in credit card debt.

The drive from Nashville to Knoxville is 3 hours...except when it's 6. Anyone who has driven a lot around the Great Lakes region and the Mid-South knows that there are 2+ hour shutdowns of the interstate highways all of the time. During the day, in the middle of the night, winter, summer, rain, perfect weather. Not just on I-75's Jellico Mountain or I-40 over the Cumberland Plateau but on dead-flat I-70 and I-71 and I-65 and the rest.

A drive from Nashville to Cincinnati might involve 2-3 individual hour-long backups. An hour sitting near Bowling Green. Then an hour around Carrolton, KY. Then another hour cuing across the Ohio River.

^ I'm not at all anti-train. I'm just not so in love with them that I will see past reason to support them no matter what.

Most American cities are way too decentralized for city to city high speed rail to be either desirable or convenient. I already said that there are some places where high speed rail makes sense. Bos-Wash being one of them, and perhaps the Hiawatha Corridor between Milwaukee and Chicago, as both cities are very close to eachother and highly centralized, plus downtown Chicago is one of North America's most prominent urban cores.

There may be one or two other examples, but that is it. I don't think HSR is anything more than an expensive and superfluous expenditure beyond that.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I'm not at all anti-train. I'm just not so in love with them that I will see past reason to support them no matter what.

Most American cities are way too decentralized for city to city high speed rail to be either desirable or convenient. I already said that there are some places where high speed rail makes sense. Bos-Wash being one of them, and perhaps the Hiawatha Corridor between Milwaukee and Chicago, as both cities are very close to eachother and highly centralized, plus downtown Chicago is one of North America's most prominent urban cores.

There may be one or two other examples, but that is it. I don't think HSR is anything more than an expensive and superfluous expenditure beyond that.

Exactly. But we are talking about small midwestern towns recruiting students because of HSR. It's silly.

If this plan simply stated: We will work on completing the California HSR, making the NEC a true HSR, and improving Chicago's connections to Milwaukee, I would be on board.

However, a train from Nashville to Louisville? Total waste. Stop.

[the urban politician]

The cost to upgrade Hiawatha to HSR would probably be the least expensive and likely generate the biggest bang for the buck of any proposal.

You literally would overnight turn Milwaukee into true commuter suburb of Chicago, and vice versa, and the growth in ridership would be dramatic, probably in both directions. For the higher speed line you'd have to eliminate all stops in between except for Mitchell Airport, though (IMO).

I could see that one line even being operated by a private company.

[mhays]

Some corridors are capacity-strained for ALL forms of transportation -- air, roads, and existing trains. We need to do something in these places, or they'll stagnate. Rail should be part of the solution.

The PNW Van-Sea-Por corridor is exactly this, along with the smaller cities from Eugene northward. The airports need capacity, the freeway and secondary roads jam, and the existing regular-speed Amtrak services are popular but limited.

HSR is estimated at $50 billion. Adding a lane to I-5 is $100 billion. The three main airports are all growing with many billions in projects underway or planned, and in Seattle's case we might choose to build a second major one in 2040 or so at a cost in the many billions. We also just started passenger service at one of our general aviation + Boeing fields.

I-5 will never be wholesale expanded. Maybe we build that additional major airport, along with whatever the other cities plan.

Improving train service makes a ton of sense for a bunch of reasons. One is that all three cities are relatively transit-oriented, and rail benefits from and supports that. All of us are paying attention to climate as well.

The $50 billion idea would be ideal. But we could do sooo much with 10% of that to improve the frequency, reliability, and speed of the existing services. The main problems are busy track and landslides. Some additional sidings, some grade separations, some retaining walls, and some rolling stock would do wonders.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The cost to upgrade Hiawatha to HSR would probably be the least expensive and likely generate the biggest bang for the buck of any proposal.

You literally would overnight turn Milwaukee into true commuter suburb of Chicago, and vice versa, and the growth in ridership would be dramatic, probably in both directions. For the higher speed line you'd have to eliminate all stops in between except for Mitchell Airport, though (IMO).

I could see that one line even being operated by a private company.

Why does Hiawatha need to be high-speed rail for daily commuting? This doesn't make sense. High speed rail is not for daily commuting.