National Rail, nationwide or regional focus

[waltlantz]

Taking too long to get on Railroad.net so I'll try it here.

We all know that infrastructure is not a conversation the powers that be have enough of. That's nothing to say of rail service which is often at best an after thought.

Considering the political realities of both our government system and current political climate, It's hard to have a "national" conversation on ANYTHING.

Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to have Amtrak be broken up in regional bodies so it could then focus more attention on the areas that actually WANT to invest in rail service?

[Eightball]

That's already happening though, with routes less than 750 miles now being subsidized by the states.

Second, you are forgetting that for many of the smaller areas served Amtrak is their only intercity transport, especially since many smaller airports have closed. Some of the LD routes would have much better financial and OTP if they weren't so delayed by freight. IIRC Amtrak intends to be more aggressive about enforcing their rights so there are less delays. I just don't think we need to worry so much about cutting vital LD routes (which also, it should be noted, also service large metropolitan areas) which only lose cumulatively 500 or 600 million a year. The routes and results should be improved, yes, but that is such a small amount on a huge federal budget.

[202_Cyclist]

waltlantz:

Considering the political realities of both our government system and current political climate, It's hard to have a "national" conversation on ANYTHING.

At least I didn't vote for the cut & destroy Republicans last Tuesday.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Eightball

That's already happening though, with routes less than 750 miles now being subsidized by the states.

Second, you are forgetting that for many of the smaller areas served Amtrak is their only intercity transport, especially since many smaller airports have closed. Some of the LD routes would have much better financial and OTP if they weren't so delayed by freight. IIRC Amtrak intends to be more aggressive about enforcing their rights so there are less delays. I just don't think we need to worry so much about cutting vital LD routes (which also, it should be noted, also service large metropolitan areas) which only lose cumulatively 500 or 600 million a year. The routes and results should be improved, yes, but that is such a small amount on a huge federal budget.

Good post. Rail transportation is effective and competitive with air travel over distances of about 400 miles, max., for HSR and about half that for regular passenger travel. The enormous capital cost of building dedicated, no grace crossing HSR lines is such that in the current political environment, not much is going to get built and Congress isn't going to approve more $ for Amtrak to do the necessary upgrades in the Boston-Washington corridor, either. However, rail may provide an alternative to bus, truck, or car for the hundreds of cities in the US that are not served by commercial or freight planes or don't have the $ to build and maintain a commercial airport.

At least a substantial part of the $ is going to have to come from state/local governments and private investors. I don't see the Feds approving it until there's a dramatic switch in control of Congress.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by waltlantz

wouldn't it make more sense to have Amtrak be broken up in regional bodies so it could then focus more attention on the areas that actually WANT to invest in rail service?

I don't see how that would make anything easier. What would a regional agency covering Scott Walker's Wisconsin and Mike Madigan's Illinois decide about expanding regional service to Chicago? There are lots of regions that are divided between red and blue states, and further subdivided into red rural areas and blue big cities. A national system needs to be run on a national basis, letting dense urban corridors cross-subsidize the necessary but unprofitable rural links—same as with Interstate highways.

Touting Amtrak as lifeline service to small towns, though, is a bunch of silliness. Intercity bus service would be much cheaper for the government to subsidize, could have much more convenient schedules (and better timekeeping), and would usually be much faster for the passengers.

[hipster duck]

^I guess that the Midwest is a challenge, but the rest of Amtrak's corridor services are either within a state (California, Empire Service, NC) or between states that don't typically have a problem coordinating with one another (Oregon and Washington, Downeaster service).

There's also the non-Amtrak in-state services like Front Runner, Rail Runner and, soon, AAF that have elements of semi long-distance regional operations.

I'm generally fairly optimistic about the future of passenger rail in the US.