Most untapped market

[roadman3313]

For the SF to LA portion I know the California High Speed Rail Authority is alreay working on that segment... it will not be along the coast so I don't see much money going into the Coastal Route or increasing that for now. But it should also be noted that there are multiple Amtrak California Thruway trips along that corridor throughout the day and a trip overnight. The overnight bus trip can often be sold out so I see a need, but in terms of time efficiency it may be more cost effective to boost connections such as those that are present in California. Filling in the gap between Bakersfield and Palmdale (MetroLink)/LA will be one of the great landmarks for rail transportation in California... just need to get to that point.

I myself prefer a nice ride on the train from point A to point B but I think that the best way to increase rail service is to create a connecting bus network to increase options for passengers thus potentially increasing the ridership and demand to increase rail service in the long run.

Not trying to burst bubbles... just looking at the smaller short term investment that could lead to more longer term rail in the future...

 

[WICT106]

CHI - Madison, WI - MSP - Winnipeg ?

 

[Notelvis]

I like these threads also -

There are many, many underserved and unserved markets nationally and my list of where I would like to see additional service ranges from borderline realistic to near fantasy.

That said - here is my list ranging from most realistic to least realistic -

1) An additional New York-Atlanta frequency. I would propose operating overnight New York - Raleigh, NC via Richmond and then to Atlanta as a day train from Raleigh via Greensboro and Charlotte. The Raleigh-Charlotte portion would assume roughly the schedule of existing NCDOT Piedmonts 73 & 76 freeing up that equipment for an additional mid-day roundtrip in the NC corridor.

2) Restore the Broadway Limited with through NYC-Chicago sleeper and diner via Pittsburgh. I'd be OK if this service operates combined (linked by the transition dorm car) with the Capitol Limited west of Pittsburgh.

3) A daytrain St. Paul to Kansas City connecting to/from Los Angeles vis the Southwest Chief. Yes, there would also be a valid case for extending this new train all the way to Texas.

Tie 4) Chicago-Florida already discussed at length earlier in this thread.

Tie 4) Denver-Los Angeles (and here's where you'll know I'm nuts) operating on the UP via Wyoming, Ogden, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas. This train would need to be daily between Los Angeles and Las Vegas...... could probably exist as tri-weekly from Las Vegas east. This would get Wyoming back in the national network and utilize some of that extra space to come in the revitalized Denver Union Station.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

How about a train bypassing Chicago, like the Crescent star was going to do before that project died. A NYP to Meridian to Dallas/Ft. Worth train, then continue up to Denver. This market i can see as travel time between NYP and Dallas/ Ft. Worth can be cut and the Denver market served.

I don't like this because it takes a huge detour through DAL. I think it should run it ELP.

Chi- Indianapolis Should be 2x daily

Chi- Cincinnati Should be 1x daily

Chi- Louisville / Nashville Should be daily

Chi- MSP Should be 2x day

Chi-Toledo/ Cleveland Morning departure to evening departure back

KC St Louis / Indianapolis/ Cincinnati and or Columbus Daily

MSP Omaha KC Daily

Denver OKC Dallas Houston Daily

NOL Biloxi Mobile Pensacola Tallahasee JAX Daily

CHI To Atlanta To Florida ( can be continuatinon of Louisville or Cinci service)

BOS Montreal

1. I think this should run all the way to NYP like the National Limited.

2. I think this one should run all the way to DAL.

3. The DEN-DAL line goes through Amarillo, not OKC. Going through OKC would be a huge detour because there is currently no line from Amarillo to OKC. You would have to go through KCY. VERY bad idea to do that!

For the SF to LA portion I know the California High Speed Rail Authority is alreay working on that segment... it will not be along the coast so I don't see much money going into the Coastal Route or increasing that for now. But it should also be noted that there are multiple Amtrak California Thruway trips along that corridor throughout the day and a trip overnight. The overnight bus trip can often be sold out so I see a need, but in terms of time efficiency it may be more cost effective to boost connections such as those that are present in California. Filling in the gap between Bakersfield and Palmdale (MetroLink)/LA will be one of the great landmarks for rail transportation in California... just need to get to that point.

I myself prefer a nice ride on the train from point A to point B but I think that the best way to increase rail service is to create a connecting bus network to increase options for passengers thus potentially increasing the ridership and demand to increase rail service in the long run.

Not trying to burst bubbles... just looking at the smaller short term investment that could lead to more longer term rail in the future...

I am a heavy supporter of using buses to complement to trains, but I don't like how a huge city like LAX does not have any train to BFD and beyond. Bus service dosen't work here, especially since if I were to take a bus anyway, I could just take Greyhound nonstop LAD-SFD in just over seven hours.

CHI - Madison, WI - MSP - Winnipeg ?

I support this one, too. Pretty obvious gap in the network of you look at a combined Amtrak/VIA map. Also, JL discontinued bus service over this route, now buses only go to Grand Forks.

 

[JayPea]

4) Cascades service both directions from Seattle - low BNSF caps are frustrating

7) maybe MSP-Williston day train

Let's add:

4a) SEA-SPK daytime service, possibly via Auburn, Yakima, etc.

7a) MSP-CHI via Madison

I like 4a, but I'm also biased towards it. I'd love to see daylight service between Spokane and Seattle (come to think of it, the way the EB ran so late for most of the summer, we had that anyway! :lol: ) I'd also like to see service restored via Auburn and Yakima, along with Ellensburg. I'd even put in a stop at Cheney, WA, about 15 miles SW of Spokane, to accomodate students at my alma mater--Eastern Washington University. There's already a depot there. All it would take is to build a platform. Nothing much! :lol: :lol: I don't know how well-patronized such a service would be, as it currently takes about 8 hours between the two on the EB now, and to drive it takes about 4 1/2 hours. And the old Spokane-Seattle route on the EB via the Northern Pacific route through Yakima and Ellensburg took about 9 1/2 hours. But hey, we foamers don't care about practicality! All we want is more trains! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[EMDF9A]

4) Cascades service both directions from Seattle - low BNSF caps are frustrating

7) maybe MSP-Williston day train

Let's add:

4a) SEA-SPK daytime service, possibly via Auburn, Yakima, etc.

7a) MSP-CHI via Madison

I'm all for your 4a. A East/West Daylight Cascade SEA/YAK/PCO/SPK is something that has a definate market, especially since SWA abandoned the SEA/GEG flights and now its 100% Alaska/Horizon. I'm also sure that it would be well used by CWU & EWU students as well as the folks in the Yakima valley.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Thank you to everyone who has participated thus far. I would like to particularly thank afigg for the link to the city pair travel combinations. I find that at least in California, it could potentially be confusing though. Because many of our metro areas are so large, they are split up into multiple sections. For example, Southern California in that list would be three different "metro areas" with San Diego, LA/Orange, and Riverside/San Bernardino being the different metro areas. In NorCal, there are both San Jose, and San Fran/Oakland. I know especially in the case of SoCal, many people from a "metro area" will use an airport in a separate "metro area" for almost all of the travelling, and the large choice of airports makes the actual demand hard to determine. In addition, I find it especially annoying to not count the Inland Empire as part of LA. San Diego is a little different and much more isolated. The lack of development on the 15 and then the barrier imposed by Pendleton create a mental isolation and a uniquely different feeling for San Diego, like we have to TRAVEL to get to LA, but almost everyone I know will say, "I'm going to LA" (usually in an annoyed tone) even when referencing the Inland Empire. While San Jose is definitely separate in its own sense from San Fran as well, it is all the Bay Area to me. I feel like if they had a "Southern California" and "Bay Area/Northern California" option numbers would be more realistic, and rank for city pairs with at least one point in CA would go up significantly. Mind you, San Diego and Sacramento make sense to keep separate, but some merging would make these slightly more accurate.

Off of that rant, I think something obvious in those figures is that the Sun Belt is really where we need to make a lot of improvement. A long day train network centered on Atlanta and radiating in many directions would make sense given these figures, in addition to intra-state Texas services. As well, I'd say SoCal-Phoenix and SoCal-Vegas all make sense, with multiple frequencies. I don't think many non-San Diegans understand the sheer volume of Zoni's that flood San Diego in the summer. There is a reason that being a Zoni is a derogatory term here

Other services definitely warranted would be a northbound connection out of Vegas as well, to get the Vegas-Denver and Vegas-Chicago markets with one car switch move, as well as direct SoCal-Denver. I still feel more service is in store for the NEC, and would continue to offset losses elsewhere around the system. I can't wait until an alternative is found to the cap on trains in Connecticut due to bridge openings. There is far more that could be done north of NYP, at least much much more than 1 train per hour per direction, meaning Regionals and Acelas have to take turns filling in these timeslots. VERY annoying. For its size, I can't imagine 3 departures will ever be enough for NFK, and I would wxpect to see many more through-WAS Regionals should cars magically appear. Long Bridge replacement is definitely necessary for this.

The obvious Chicago-Northeast and Northeast-Florida/Atlanta are very prevalent as well. Don't need to make a ton of suggestions here, because we can ALL agree that more frequencies are needed here, without a doubt. With regard to Chicago-Northeast service, I would place an emphasis on a NYP-CHI via PIT with an eastbound morning arrival ca. 6:30 in PHL and 8:15 in NYP. Westbound, a train leaving NY at night ca. 9:15, for an arrival in Chicago the next afternoon around 3:00p. Florida options are plentiful, with the most obvious and easy being a Silver Palm/Palmetto extension, but others in store.

I will stop now because I'm rambling on, but I like many of these ideas.

 

[Gord]

Michigan to Canada via Detroit/Windsor. Not only would it save a lot of backtracking and/or bussing for those of us wishing to travel east, it could open up a route to Niagara Falls, Toronto, and other tourist destinations.

I agree with the L.A. to Las Vegas route, or even Kingman to Las Vegas. Basically, anything that doesn't require a bus to Las Vegas in the middle of the night.

I'll second Chicago, Detroit / Windsor Toronto service. Getting from Toronto to connect with Amtrak trains in Chicago is a major pain. I really miss the Internaional which connected with the CONO. Toronto is Canada's largest city and a major tourist destination. One train a day to and from the US is ridiculous.

Gord

 

[Nathanael]

I know that this may be annoying for some, and I'm sorry, but I find that my favorite posts/threads to read are the "What if's" (ex: If you could start one route, what would it be? -type things). So I was wondering what every member thought was the most underserved market in the United States.

Not a member, but it's obviously Columbus, Ohio -- largest metro area in the US without Amtrak service (if you count Phoenix as served); less sprawly than Phoenix; closer to other metro areas than Phoenix. And yes, I'd use Columbus-Cleveland. Kasich killed the 3C project, so the main obstacle here is best described as "Ohio Republicans".

There's a lot of candidates for the second-most-underserved. Houston is probably it, though, with three-a-week which doesn't head towards Dallas or Austin -- it needs daily service to Dallas. That's thinking in terms of "single location".

I see everyone else is thinking *corridor* or *route* or *city pair*. If you're thinking that way, I think New York-Chicago is the most underserved. It needs more frequencies on more routes, including service via Pittsburgh, and at least one route via Detroit.

I mean, come on, it's *New York to Chicago*. Metro Area #1 to Metro Area #3, single-overnight, the entire NEC as connections on the east end, the entire "Chicago Hub" as connections on the west end, all the big cities of the Rust Belt in between.... what we have today is

- one a day (LSL)

- one convoluted connection a day (Capitol Limited)

- three a week on an extremely slow route (Cardinal)

The latter two barely qualify as NY-Chicago service. The Lake Shore Limited is bursting at the seams with passengers, and it isn't even as fast as it was in the 30s.

Of course, everything everyone else mentioned is underserved too. But you asked for "most" underserved.

 

[Nathanael]

If there is to be a discussion on the most untapped travel markets in the US for Amtrak, one place to start should be with the top city/metro region air travel corridors. Here is a Brookings Institute list from 2009 that I found linked to on wikipedia with the top 100 city/metro region pairs. It is not up to date - post-recession likely shuffled the order & numbers - and one should not get picky about the exact rankings. The busier corridors obviously also have a lot of connecting traffic, so it is not a clean city of origin to final destination list, but the list shows useful info to consider for a "untapped" market list for Amtrak.

Very useful list. Thanks. Allows me to correct my biases against Florida

The untapped markets really should be no more than 500-600 miles apart for a viable corridor service. That is not to say that LD trains can't be considered, but LD trains are more viable if they can operate over busy corridor segments for large portions of their route. The top city pairs are:
1. NYC/Newark to Miami/Fort Lauderdale: the Silvers

2. LA/Long Beach to San Francisco/Oakland: There is a market for the Coast Daylight and the CA HSR.

3. Atlanta to Miami/Ft Lauderdale: big gap in the Amtrak system.

Atlanta-Macon-Jacksonville-onward would do nicely. But Being In Georgia, it won't get state funded in the next 30 years.

4. Chicago to NYC/Newark: LSL; Bring back the Three Rivers?

Chicago-Ft. Wayne-Toledo HSR (yes, it's a proposal); Detroit-Niagara Falls sealed train through Canada; Broadway Limited revival; lots of good options.

5. Atlanta to NYC/Newark: One often maxed out Crescent.

Get a decent station at Atlanta and the Crescent can cut off cars there and match demand better. Then try for a second train. But again, it's Georgia.

6. LA to NYC/Newark: long trip on Amtrak.

Make NYC-Chicago service better, retain the Southwest Chief, and you'll get as much of the market as you're likely to.

7. NYC/Newark to Orlando: the Silvers

8. NYC/Newark to London: ok, difficult to do by train.

Interestingly, this is the route of the last regularly scheduled ocean liner service in the world (on Cunard). I guess it's the most popular route which can't be done by train, among people who don't want to take planes.

9. LA/Long Beach to Las Vegas: X-Train and Xpress-West are looking to fill this gap.

10. LA/Long Beach to Phoenix: An argument for a LA to Phoenix day train if UP were to cooperate and Arizona was interested.

Indeed. But... Arizona. UP. Ugh. I've wondered if one of the alternate railroad routes would be viable if Arizona was interested (specifically, the BNSF/ ARZC/ BNSF route).

Below the top 10 is where one finds a number of city pairs where there should be passenger rail corridor service.

11. Chicago - LA

Long, but justifies my argument for supporting anyone who wants to take trains from NY-LA with a Chicago-LA service.

12. NY - SF

Again long, but handled by California Zephyr (and NY-Chicago again). I wonder if the Zephyr route could be improved in any way. The Wyoming route is actually faster.

13. Dallas-Houston

Badly needs corridor service.

14. Atlanta-Orlando

More justification for filling the Atlanta-Florida service gap.

15. Dallas-LA

Again long. Further, the Sunset Limited is indirect and isn't daily. Hmm.

16. Boston-NY

Well, I think Amtrak's doing almost as well as it can here. Maybe Inland Regionals can be made faster than the Coast Line.

17. Denver-LA

Here's an interesting one. Long, but I wonder if it could be coherently served.

18. LA-Seattle

Coast Starlight serves this long route.

19. Atlanta-DC

More evidence that the Crescent needs to be beefed up.

20. Los Vegas - San Francisco

Seriously? This has to be connecting traffic. XPressWest + CAHSR will serve this, though.

21. Chicago-Denver

Could use a train which stopped in the major cities in Iowa, which has been proposed.

22. Hilo, HI to Honolulu, HI

Seriously?!? Get a ship! The ridership is cratering, however.

23. San Diego to San Francisco

Coast Daylight should perhaps continue direct to San Diego. CAHSR will also succeed.

24. Chicago-DC

And this is the Capitol Limited route...

25. NY-DC

Again, Amtrak's doing nearly as well as they can here.

26. Atlanta-LA

Long. And Georgia. Forget it.

27. Honolulu-Kahululi, HI

Again, I am shocked this makes this list. However, the ridership appears to be cratering as with the other all-Hawaii route.

28. Charlotte - NY

More evidence that the Crescent should be improved.

29. SF - Seattle

Coast Starlight for this long route.

30. Atlanta-Chicago

Finally we get to this fairly common request. It would require a massive amount of track improvement crossing mountains, through three or possibly four states which have shown no support for passenger rail. While I see the value in a Chicago-Florida train, notice how many common city pairs come far ahead of this in terms of demand.... Seems like back-burner material.

 

[TML]

With respect to Chicago, it seems that Amtrak has designed schedules such that western long-distance trains have guaranteed connections with eastern long-distance trains. For example, in the Cardinal's performance improvement plan a couple years ago, Amtrak noted that attempting to drastically improve the Cardinal's calling times in Cincinnati would result in connections with western long-distance trains being lost, and that such connecting passengers contribute a substantial amount of the Cardinal's ridership. As such, I wonder if Amtrak would be willing to accept a westbound long-distance train arriving in Chicago during the afternoon/evening hours, or an eastbound long-distance train leaving Chicago during the morning/early afternoon hours, since such a train would not be able to connect with some or all of the long-distance trains west of Chicago.

The last incarnation of the International had scheduling hours which made it impossible to connect with long-distance trains west of Chicago. If the next incarnation of a Chicago-Toronto train were an overnight train, it would definitely allow such connections, but that might run into the problem of crossing the border at a time when most passengers are sleeping.

 

[jis]

With respect to Chicago, it seems that Amtrak has designed schedules such that western long-distance trains have guaranteed connections with eastern long-distance trains. For example, in the Cardinal's performance improvement plan a couple years ago, Amtrak noted that attempting to drastically improve the Cardinal's calling times in Cincinnati would result in connections with western long-distance trains being lost, and that such connecting passengers contribute a substantial amount of the Cardinal's ridership. As such, I wonder if Amtrak would be willing to accept a westbound long-distance train arriving in Chicago during the afternoon/evening hours, or an eastbound long-distance train leaving Chicago during the morning/early afternoon hours, since such a train would not be able to connect with some or all of the long-distance trains west of Chicago.

The last incarnation of the International had scheduling hours which made it impossible to connect with long-distance trains west of Chicago. If the next incarnation of a Chicago-Toronto train were an overnight train, it would definitely allow such connections, but that might run into the problem of crossing the border at a time when most passengers are sleeping.

Also it would have the same problem that many connecting LD trains have, which is they serve a significant part of the market that they travel through very poorly, and serve only end points and a select few en-route points well.

Frankly Amtrak needs to start believing in Chicago as a legitimate stand alone O/D market in addition to just being a transfer point, and start designing an LD and MD network around Chicago serving those specific markets in daytime, in addition to the overnight longer distance LDs. Amtrak does that out of New York quite a bit. Chicago would be the next logical place to do that from. Unfortunately Chicago's position as the premier transfer point in the network, and shortage of resources to run 2x service on some routes makes Chicago and its hinterland suffer.

Out of New York we have Palmetto, Carolinian, Maple Leaf, Adirondack as prime examples of trains that serve long corridors in daytime without concern for preserving connections at the end points, and they all seem to do quite well. But then I can hear a few s****, that "well Chicago ain't New York!" True. But it is plenty big to keep a few daytime trains busy.

 

[Notelvis]

With respect to Chicago, it seems that Amtrak has designed schedules such that western long-distance trains have guaranteed connections with eastern long-distance trains. For example, in the Cardinal's performance improvement plan a couple years ago, Amtrak noted that attempting to drastically improve the Cardinal's calling times in Cincinnati would result in connections with western long-distance trains being lost, and that such connecting passengers contribute a substantial amount of the Cardinal's ridership. As such, I wonder if Amtrak would be willing to accept a westbound long-distance train arriving in Chicago during the afternoon/evening hours, or an eastbound long-distance train leaving Chicago during the morning/early afternoon hours, since such a train would not be able to connect with some or all of the long-distance trains west of Chicago.

The last incarnation of the International had scheduling hours which made it impossible to connect with long-distance trains west of Chicago. If the next incarnation of a Chicago-Toronto train were an overnight train, it would definitely allow such connections, but that might run into the problem of crossing the border at a time when most passengers are sleeping.

Also it would have the same problem that many connecting LD trains have, which is they serve a significant part of the market that they travel through very poorly, and serve only end points and a select few en-route points well.

Frankly Amtrak needs to start believing in Chicago as a legitimate stand alone O/D market in addition to just being a transfer point, and start designing an LD and MD network around Chicago serving those specific markets in daytime, in addition to the overnight longer distance LDs. Amtrak does that out of New York quite a bit. Chicago would be the next logical place to do that from. Unfortunately Chicago's position as the premier transfer point in the network, and shortage of resources to run 2x service on some routes makes Chicago and its hinterland suffer.

Out of New York we have Palmetto, Carolinian, Maple Leaf, Adirondack as prime examples of trains that serve long corridors in daytime without concern for preserving connections at the end points, and they all seem to do quite well. But then I can hear a few s****, that "well Chicago ain't New York!" True. But it is plenty big to keep a few daytime trains busy.

Yes - Chicago could support additional frequency day trains to St. Paul and Duluth, Toledo and Cleveland.... perhaps even Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and Cincinnati, probably as far south as Memphis, Kansas City for sure, likely even Omaha and Lincoln. No question about it.

 

[Nathanael]

Frankly Amtrak needs to start believing in Chicago as a legitimate stand alone O/D market in addition to just being a transfer point, and start designing an LD and MD network around Chicago serving those specific markets in daytime, in addition to the overnight longer distance LDs.

Well, I think Amtrak does believe in Chicago as a legitimate O/D market. First, the "corridor" trains serve Milwaukee, will soon serve practically all of downstate Illinois, most of Michigan, and lots of Missouri, and they're definitely designed for Chicago O/D traffic, not for connections. Second, the LD schedule times are actually good for Chicago-Denver, Chicago-St Louis, Chicago-NY, Chicago-upstate NY, Chicago-DC, and Chicago-New Orleans traffic.

What the schedules are not good for is service from Indiana and Ohio to Chicago. However, PRIIA made it clear that Congress considers this to be the responsibility of Indiana and Ohio, and they've been unwilling to pay for it. A similar problem applies to Wisconsin service beyond Milwaukee, and to Iowa service beyond the Quad Cities. The schedules are mediocre for Twin Cities-Chicago service, but again this is currently Minnesota's responsbility, and perhaps Minnesota will do something about it. mMinnesota is also pursuing Duluth

The schedules are also not good for service from Pennsylvania to Chicago, which should be reinstated; this actually does seem to be on Amtrak's mind.

Out of New York we have Palmetto, Carolinian, Maple Leaf, Adirondack as prime examples of trains that serve long corridors in daytime without concern for preserving connections at the end points, and they all seem to do quite well.

Carolinian is state funded, Adirondack is state funded, Maple Leaf will soon have to be state-funded. Same with the Vermonter.

I only see one opportunity for designing a suitable route out of Chicago which is just over the PRIIA length limit (as the Palmetto is), and that is Denver to Chicago. The problem is that such a route would still cost a lot of money to operate (the Palmetto still isn't profitable, remember) and Congress *still* has Amtrak on a starvation budget, and there's very little which could be cut to provide the operating funding. If the Quad Cities - Omaha route in Iowa is rebuilt for passenger service (which the Iowa legislature seems to be unwilling to fund right now) then the numbers for a renewed Denver Zephyr might pencil out better.

Now, if you want to advocate for Congress to go back to national funding of corridor routes -- I'm there with you. But this doesn't seem to be in the cards in the near future.

 

[jis]

Point taken, but when I talked about day trains I was thinking of day trains like the Carolinian or the Palmetto, where you cannot do a round trip in a day. I was not considering the details of the source of funding, and hence was loosely using the phrase "Amtrak service". Chicago appears to not have those longish day trains which cannot complete a round trip in a day, whether starting from out station towards Chicago in the morning or vice versa.

 

[afigg]

Frankly Amtrak needs to start believing in Chicago as a legitimate stand alone O/D market in addition to just being a transfer point, and start designing an LD and MD network around Chicago serving those specific markets in daytime, in addition to the overnight longer distance LDs.

Well, I think Amtrak does believe in Chicago as a legitimate O/D market. First, the "corridor" trains serve Milwaukee, will soon serve practically all of downstate Illinois, most of Michigan, and lots of Missouri, and they're definitely designed for Chicago O/D traffic, not for connections. Second, the LD schedule times are actually good for Chicago-Denver, Chicago-St Louis, Chicago-NY, Chicago-upstate NY, Chicago-DC, and Chicago-New Orleans traffic.

What the schedules are not good for is service from Indiana and Ohio to Chicago. However, PRIIA made it clear that Congress considers this to be the responsibility of Indiana and Ohio, and they've been unwilling to pay for it. A similar problem applies to Wisconsin service beyond Milwaukee, and to Iowa service beyond the Quad Cities. The schedules are mediocre for Twin Cities-Chicago service, but again this is currently Minnesota's responsbility, and perhaps Minnesota will do something about it. Minnesota is also pursuing Duluth

Yes, the medium distance corridor services from CHI would require state subsidy support, but that does not mean that they should not be pursued or have basic route studies done, so the option for corridor service is on the table to be brought forward when the political situation in the state changes to a more favorable environment. jis's point is valid, there are a number of potential Chicago hub corridor services that could be implemented over existing LD train routes that should have modest or manageable start-up costs.

1. CHI to the Twin Cities. Probably the best prospect in the nearer term for a new Midwest day time corridor train. Minnesota is interested and is the subject of a current study.

2. CHI to Cleveland. Yes, Gov. Kasich would never go for this, but his successor might. Perhaps a daytime corridor train should been have pushed when Strickland was Governor. In the meantime, the IL and IN segment of the corridor will get improvements from the Englewood Flyover and IN Gateway projects in the next 2+ years. After the corridor bi-level cars free up many of the Horizon cars, could propose to use the Horizon cars for a demonstration 2 year CHI to Cleveland corridor service.

3. CHI to Memphis. See if TN is interested in teaming with IL to support an extension of a Saluki/Illini service to Memphis. Use the remaining HSIPR bi-level order funds to buy enough cars to support an additional trainset for a Memphis service.

4. CHI to Kansas City over the SW Chief route. Both IL and MO are supporters of passenger rail and the route has excellent trip times for an LD train. While the SWC provides day time hours, might be enough demand to support a second day train that would be more reliable than the SWC.

5. CHI to IND to CIN: lowest ranking of this set because of the slow speeds over the route. Should have a daytime corridor service, but the route will need considerable investment to get to competitive speeds. Best approach is to keep the Cardinal running, expand it to 7 days a week if possible, get some improvements from the CREATE projects for faster times in and out of CHI, and wait for Indianopolis & Cinncinati businessmen & citizens to see the growth in ridership and market share for the other corridors in the Midwest & start asking hey, why not us?

6. CHI to Des Moines: Not a current route, but if the extension to Iowa City can get built and start service, IMO, then extending to Des Moines will surely follow. Iowa has not said no to the Iowa City extension, the Governor and Republican controlled Iowa House of Representatives have stalled the project. Political balance of power may get shifted to some extent in the Iowa state legislatures this November.

7. CHI to MI to Toronto: Michigan's Governor and state officials are interested in this. Won't happen soon, but if the CHI-DET corridor ridership takes off and VIA is in a position to support it, might see this happen in a few years.

 

[Michael061282]

off the top of my head without doing any research.

#1- The Texas Triangle DFW/Hou/SA

#2- Nashville - Atlanta

#3 Nashville - Birmingham

#4 A Spokane Cascade either on the GN line the Builder uses or on the old NP Line (this would be my choice because it'd serve markets with no current service, although I doubt if it is even feasible any more)

of course I'm coming into a 20 minute conversation in the 16th minute so its probably all been discussed and dismissed

 

[George Harris]

off the top of my head without doing any research.

#2- Nashville - Atlanta

No chance. Best rail time ever about 6 hours. Probable best time now more like 8 hours. Drive time just over 4 without breaking any speed limits.

#3 Nashville - Birmingham

Somewhat more likely, but don't see a huge demand there. Best rail time just under 4 hours, probable best time now about 4.5 to 5 hours. Drive time around 3 hours.

 

[Michael061282]

off the top of my head without doing any research.

#2- Nashville - Atlanta

No chance. Best rail time ever about 6 hours. Probable best time now more like 8 hours. Drive time just over 4 without breaking any speed limits.

#3 Nashville - Birmingham

Somewhat more likely, but don't see a huge demand there. Best rail time just under 4 hours, probable best time now about 4.5 to 5 hours. Drive time around 3 hours.

Oh! I didn't know it had to be realistic <j/k> If If If If If they could find a way to cut the time down, I really think ATL - Nas could be a decent market. Just grab some DMUs and have at it <I know.. I dream>

 

[MattW]

A hypothetical HSR running 220mph Atlanta-Chattanooga-Monteagle-Manchester-Murfreesboro-Nashville would take 1:38. Upgrading all the track to 79mph would cost into the billions for a 5:30 trip uncompetitive with driving more than likely on just Atlanta-Nashville. By the time you spend that much, you might as well just cut a new HSR segment Atlanta-Nashville-St. Louis-Chicago (and points in between) and run trains at 220mph on it for a 5 hour end to end run time, competitive with airlines when the convenience factors are factored in, competitive time-wise with airlines over certain segments, and beats driving on any segment.

 

[Ben]

Narrowing down the largest markets that do not have ANY passenger rail service:

1. Los Angeles-Las Vegas

2. Houston-Dallas

3. Chicago-Atlanta-Miami

My sentiment is that lets get all the largest markets around the country served by at least some service first, then add frequencies and speed to existing services. I read that the Heartland Flyer was started as a trial service through a grant by the federal government. Could the FRA provide grants to initiate new routes?

 

[jis]

Narrowing down the largest markets that do not have ANY passenger rail service:

1. Los Angeles-Las Vegas

2. Houston-Dallas

3. Chicago-Atlanta-Miami

My sentiment is that lets get all the largest markets around the country served by at least some service first, then add frequencies and speed to existing services. I read that the Heartland Flyer was started as a trial service through a grant by the federal government. Could the FRA provide grants to initiate new routes?

It could, if Congress gives it the money. FRA by itself has no money to distribute.

Incidentally I understand that any practical usable service from Chicago to Atlanta will probably take more money than can be found for that purpose.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Narrowing down the largest markets that do not have ANY passenger rail service:

1. Los Angeles-Las Vegas

2. Houston-Dallas

3. Chicago-Atlanta-Miami

My sentiment is that lets get all the largest markets around the country served by at least some service first, then add frequencies and speed to existing services. I read that the Heartland Flyer was started as a trial service through a grant by the federal government. Could the FRA provide grants to initiate new routes?

Agee with you, but would like to add DAL-DEN and possibly more north-south routes.

 

[Anderson]

Narrowing down the largest markets that do not have ANY passenger rail service:

1. Los Angeles-Las Vegas

2. Houston-Dallas

3. Chicago-Atlanta-Miami

My sentiment is that lets get all the largest markets around the country served by at least some service first, then add frequencies and speed to existing services. I read that the Heartland Flyer was started as a trial service through a grant by the federal government. Could the FRA provide grants to initiate new routes?

It could, if Congress gives it the money. FRA by itself has no money to distribute.

Incidentally I understand that any practical usable service from Chicago to Atlanta will probably take more money than can be found for that purpose.

I agree. ATL-MIA could believably work (and I think you might even be able to make through cars to either the Crescent or to a daylight ATL-WAS-NYP train work under the right scheduling environment), but north of Atlanta things more or less head off to visit Helena Handbasket. For the record, this would strike me as a way to get the CLT-Florida service mooted in the PIP last year running without actually screwing with the Star's schedule.

 

[PaulM]

6. DEN-DAL, Amtrak also needs this connection and it serves new markets.

Since it would effecively restore the Chief Connection, it would also serve DEN, ABQ, LAX