Trains in rural areas

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
MARC Rider said:
Also, the NEC might be the only place in the country where passenger rail is actually a significant part of the transportation mode share, especially if you consider the commuter lines that run on it. Abandoning the NEC would probably cause all sorts of traffic tie-ups and bring the region, which contains both the political and financial capitals of the country, to a grinding halt. The main goal should be to try to replicate the NEC in other parts of the country to get people out of their cars. Serving rural populations in remote areas is a spin-off benefit that's also needed to build the political support for the main purpose of taxpayer funded passenger rail -- getting a significant number of Americans out of their cars.
Click to expand...

Rural Amtrak service also gets rural residents out of their cars in the congested cities they go to via Amtrak. Many or most of those who take the train from rural stops to, say, Chicago (or LA or New York or DC) don't rent a car when they get there.
 
wildchicken13 said:
I struggle to understand the value that trains provide to people living in rural areas.
Click to expand...
I live in a rural area. My nearest Amtrak station is an hour away. The reality is that most people who live in my area don't even think of riding Amtrak. Those who ride Amtrak tend to be going to major urban areas and have a fear of driving in those places. Trips that are much more than a few hours usually result on this same people flying. I am one of the VERY few people in my area who takes Amtrak overnight.
Northwestern said:
Amtrak stops in rural areas, I think, are a vital and indispensable service to people living in those rural areas.
Click to expand...
Maybe. There are countless rural areas that are not served by Amtrak, and somehow life seems to go on in those areas. Whether other forms of transportation fill the vacuum, or there really is increased hardship, I am not sure. It's an even harder to argue that Amtrak is indispensable when they only run a couple of days per week.
 
I did not say the NEC was gold plated, I said that it appears to be so far as the rest of the country is concerned. It gets the new equipment and everything prettied up.

Guess what, almost all railroads everywhere are on 100 plus year old infrastructure. Age does not equal inadequate necessarily when it comes to alignment, roadbed, and yes even many of the structures. A major part of the reason so much money was spent on the NEC out of proportion to what would seem to be reasonable is the general deterioration of the track and power system and the basically obsolete and labor intensive train control system. I recall the first time I got a close look at what they had, manned towers every few miles being a primary example, mostly still jointed rail, although of a heavy rail section, etc., and my first thought was, Wow, suddenly it is 1920. Even today, despite megabucks being spent you still have a system that is very little faster than was permitted by the alignment geometry as it existed 100 years ago and clearances and track centers and other facilities that are more appropriate to 1920 than 2020. Yes, the speed limits have been increased and that essentially to the extent that the alignment geometry permits, which is a major reason that further increases in speed will occur only at great expense as almost all the "low hanging fruit" in that area has been picked. Due to the population density most alignment change proposals will result in major uproar from all in the area.
 
Something that isn't obvious to people is this:

All rural areas are dependent on cities.

This goes against the mythos of "rugged independent frontiersmen" but that was always a phony. Genuinely self-sufficient rural areas existed in the days of hunter-gatherers, and of nomadic herders, but started disappearing quickly with the rise of agriculture -- they became nonexistent with the Industrial Revolution.

So the people in those rural areas? *They have to go to cities*. Do they want to drive their cars to those cities? *Often they don't want to*. Do they want to fly to those cities? *Often that is very expensive, and often they don't want to*. They also need people from cities to come to them.

Your typical train trip is often between a "rural area" and a city. They are symbiotic. I live in a "rural area" and the economic ties to NYC are extremely tight.

Rural areas which lose their urban economic connections collapse economically. The degradation of the NYC-Upstate NY train services is actually an example of this; it can be linked tightly to the economic deterioration of upstate.
 
wildchicken13 said:
I apologize if this comes across as insensitive, but as someone from a major metropolitan area, I struggle to understand the value that trains provide to people living in rural areas. Even living in the suburbs of a major city, it is difficult to get anywhere without a car, and since public transportation is almost nonexistent in most rural areas, I would imagine that the situation there is even more dire.

For example, I often ride the Illini and Saluki trains between Chicago and Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. The train stops in Gilman IL, a small town with fewer than 2,000 people. The station is on the outskirts of the town, about a mile from the town center. I'm not sure what the public transportation situation is in Gilman, but there do not appear to be any bus lines (Greyhound, Peoria Charter, etc.) serving the town. The nearest major cities—Kankakee, Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, and Lafayette—all have Amtrak stations of their own. There are many other small towns in the area, but many of these towns are closer to these other cities than to Gilman.

And yet, according to the Amtrak fact sheet for the state of Illinois, Gilman had 2,128 boardings and alightings in 2019. That may not seem like much, but that's more than the population of the entire town! By comparison, Chicago had 3.3 million boardings and alightings in the same year—not bad for a city of 2.7 million people (9.6 million living in the metro area).

The only reason I can think of that Amtrak chose to put a station here is because the town is located at the intersection of Interstate 57 and U.S. Routes 24 and 45, so people can easily drive from Gilman to… where, exactly? There's really not that much to see or do in the area. And again, all of the major cities nearby are already served by Amtrak.

I'm not saying that Amtrak should or should not serve small towns—I know that trains have great value to small towns. I am simply wondering what that value is, and how rural people use the train.
Click to expand...
American culture prides itself on the small town... and the railroads that helped built them. Rail service provides transportation for that small town, the rural farmers nearby... as well as other small towns in the vicinity... often having small colleges and universities with students wanting to travel back to their homes. Amtrak also provides an important service... as was previously mentioned... to those of us who require handicapped access and cannot get around with a car.

Trite but true... Amtrak connects small towns with the rest of America. I do hope rail service will continue to grow in the face of the environmental crisis and that it will help reduce gas emissions.

24montana-railroad4-superJumbo.jpg
 
As someone who is about to send a kid off to college just outside of Fargo, ND, I am not sure that the train is as vital as we think in many of these rural areas. The train only stops in Fargo at 2:18 AM and 3:24 AM, assuming it is running on time. When I spoke with staff on campus about the train, nobody took it seriously as an option.

** Okay, Fargo isn't technically rural, but you get my point.
 
Exvalley said:
** Okay, Fargo isn't technically rural, but you get my point.
Click to expand...

No, because Fargo's situation is very different from an actually small rural town. Fargo has an airport with service from five different airlines, including two ULCCs. There's also intercity bus service in all four directions out of Fargo. With all those other options, it's not surprising that a once-a-day train in the middle of the night isn't top of mind, or even really considered much.

However, go further down the line, particularly out into western North Dakota, and Amtrak starts to become more relevant. I recall some quite packed trains with lots of seat checks for Williston, ND, particularly during the oil boom of the early 2010s. Even there there's a small airport, but Amtrak is still relevant due to a lower cost than airline tickets and significantly more limited flight options (only United and Delta historically, though it appears ULCC Sun Country now offers flights out of Williston too.) Staples, MN has a large Amish population nearby which frequently uses the train there as well.
 
Amtrak seems to be a big deal in towns like Alpine. Even supposedly anti-rail outpost Sanderson apparently likes Amtrak enough to warrant a stop. 😅

Link: Ribbon-cutting Held for New Amtrak Facility in Sanderson, Texas – Great American Stations

I live in a metro of a few million that is in the process of merging with another metro, but I often travel to much smaller cities and towns. For me it's not a rural vs city divide so much as commuter vs interstate. Maybe things would improve if the NRPC created two subsidiaries that could focus on each core business.
 
I have been on many trains through Williston and Fargo, and there are usually quite a few people getting on or off, especially Williston. And then there was this one time in a blizzard, where they canceled all the flights, and every single seat or roomette on the EB filled up. People at breakfast next morning explained that, without the train, they'd lose DAYS of their time off, because they would not know how long the storm would last, and how long after it ended that it would take to clear out the backlog of passengers. With the train, they could be at MSP airport in the morning, fly out from there, and only lose a few hours.
 
Last edited:
neroden said:
So the people in those rural areas? *They have to go to cities*. Do they want to drive their cars to those cities? *Often they don't want to*. Do they want to fly to those cities? *Often that is very expensive, and often they don't want to*. They also need people from cities to come to them.
Click to expand...

You're not entirely wrong, but often they don't want to travel by train either. Driving to a city may not be particularly enjoyable, but it's a lot easier than scheduling travel around a once daily train. I like Amtrak well enough, and I have a regional line fairly close to me, but even so, nine times out of ten I drive straight past the station to the nearest NEC terminus. And the other strike against Amtrak is that a lot of the time, travel to the city is for the purpose of flying out of a major airport. You have to really love trains to shoehorn Amtrak and local transit into a trip that could just be driving to the airport.
 
Exvalley said:
I live in a rural area. My nearest Amtrak station is an hour away. The reality is that most people who live in my area don't even think of riding Amtrak. Those who ride Amtrak tend to be going to major urban areas and have a fear of driving in those places. Trips that are much more than a few hours usually result on this same people flying. I am one of the VERY few people in my area who takes Amtrak overnight.

Maybe. There are countless rural areas that are not served by Amtrak, and somehow life seems to go on in those areas. Whether other forms of transportation fill the vacuum, or there really is increased hardship, I am not sure. It's an even harder to argue that Amtrak is indispensable when they only run a couple of days per week.
Click to expand...
Actually it would make sense to make the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Los Angeles operate 6 days a week. Running 3 days a week means that Amtrak must pay the crew for the New Orleans lay over and pay the hotel bill too. So why not just run the train?
 
John from RI said:
Actually it would make sense to make the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Los Angeles operate 6 days a week. Running 3 days a week means that Amtrak must pay the crew for the New Orleans lay over and pay the hotel bill too. So why not just run the train?
Click to expand...
Probably due to not enough maintenance staff.
 
Exvalley said:
I live in a rural area. My nearest Amtrak station is an hour away. The reality is that most people who live in my area don't even think of riding Amtrak. Those who ride Amtrak tend to be going to major urban areas and have a fear of driving in those places. Trips that are much more than a few hours usually result on this same people flying. I am one of the VERY few people in my area who takes Amtrak overnight.

Maybe. There are countless rural areas that are not served by Amtrak, and somehow life seems to go on in those areas. Whether other forms of transportation fill the vacuum, or there really is increased hardship, I am not sure. It's an even harder to argue that Amtrak is indispensable when they only run a couple of days per week.
Click to expand...
I've worked on rural and small city transportation projects in Oregon and Colorado, and nothing is indispensable. However, what happens without some basic connectivity is that transport problems turn into social problems. Medical care is deferred, family links are lost, kids grow up in isolation, people relocate or refuse to locate in those communities in the first place.

In Klamath Falls in '73 the local Red Cross chapter was thrilled to help get our two-bus transit system set up, The reason? Their volunteers' time was being consumed in driving people around for medical and dental care. In the summer, the parks and rec people reported that now kids could get to the lake on the edge of town instead of waiting for a ride. My wife came down on one of my field trips and rode the buses, meeting women who had been able to get part-time jobs on the bus lines.

Not everyone approved of this: the manager bought a German Shepherd after the threatening phone calls came in. I was encouraged to use a local Highway Division car rather than one labeled "Salem Motor Pool" for laying out the routes. But after some struggles the area found the idea of local transit useful. And, due to its location, the community had Amtrak and intercity bus service all along,
 
neroden said:
Something that isn't obvious to people is this:

All rural areas are dependent on cities.
Click to expand...
How about this side of it? All urban areas are dependent upon rural areas.

If you want to continue to eat you must have agricultural areas, which are rural. Food is not manufactured in the back of the supermarket. There are quite a few other things that make urban areas dependent upon rural areas, but this one is surely the most obvious.
 
keelhauled said:
You're not entirely wrong, but often they don't want to travel by train either. Driving to a city may not be particularly enjoyable, but it's a lot easier than scheduling travel around a once daily train.
Click to expand...
So here's where my comment that rural areas are dependent on cities comes in.

From a given rural area, is is better to drive to the city or take the train to the city? ***That depends on the CITY.*** It doesn't depend on the rural area, because driving is almost always easy in rural areas.

Driving into NYC sucks. Despite the time delay I'd rather drive to the nearest railhead and take the train from there to NYC. Even driving to Newark Airport sucks, and driving to LaGuardia Airport sucks horrendously. The parking fees alone are astronomical in NYC.

Driving into SF sucks. Driving into LA sucks, including driving to the airport. If I'm coming from a rural area to one of these places, I don't want to be driving.

Driving into Minneapolis, eh, not bad at all. Driving in is easy enough (unless you really hate driving, like I do)
 
George Harris said:
How about this side of it? All urban areas are dependent upon rural areas.

If you want to continue to eat you must have agricultural areas, which are rural. Food is not manufactured in the back of the supermarket. There are quite a few other things that make urban areas dependent upon rural areas, but this one is surely the most obvious.
Click to expand...
You would think it is obvious, but I recall Jay Leno asking people on the street questions like "Where does milk come from?" - more said "the grocery store" than answered "cows".
 
keelhauled said:
You're not entirely wrong, but often they don't want to travel by train either. Driving to a city may not be particularly enjoyable, but it's a lot easier than scheduling travel around a once daily train. I like Amtrak well enough, and I have a regional line fairly close to me, but even so, nine times out of ten I drive straight past the station to the nearest NEC terminus. And the other strike against Amtrak is that a lot of the time, travel to the city is for the purpose of flying out of a major airport. You have to really love trains to shoehorn Amtrak and local transit into a trip that could just be driving to the airport.
Click to expand...

Better, more frequent, and reliable schedules would go a a long way toward making Amtrak a viable option for more of us in rural areas.

Instead, in the southeast at least, Amtrak's moved in the opposite direction with its egregious revised Crescent schedule--apparently permanent, not Covid-related. Arrival times are inconvenient at BOTH ends, and the entire section of the route between Atlanta and Charlotte stops in the middle of the night northbound. Used to be, I could drive two hours to a station where I could hop on Amtrak before midnight, sleep on the train, arrive in DC in the morning---and a day or two later, leave DC 6:30PMish, sleep on the train, and hop off in the early AM. (Getting to New Orleans didn't work this well--but that too has become even worse, with a late-evening arrival time.) Now, I can't make Amtrak's schedule work for ANY travel to/from ANY station within half a day's drive of where I live.

End rant. Sorry to continue to harp on this. I love Amtrak, but find it ridiculous that the only way I can reasonably use our NATIONAL passenger rail system is to fly to a city where there are better connections.
 
Looking at a 1930's rail map, there were 40 towns served by rail lines going between Atl and the North Carolina/Tennessee state lines (and onward to cities further north). Now none other than Atl have any passenger service.

I live in one of those towns formerly served by rail. Talking to old-timers, they said it took the train nearly an hour to get to Atlanta from here. The trains ran at appropriate times to get people to and from work.

Things are so much improved now. We have freeways - it only takes an hour to two hours to drive the same distance, depending upon traffic. Amtrak has 5 stops in the entire state. And you have to catch a train at o'dark-30. They used to leave at a convenient time for business people - after work, just in time for a nice dinner and a good night's sleep aboard.

Amtrak has done everything they can to discourage use. What next, making the passengers push the train?

Let's take a popular weekend destination for people in my area:
Atlanta to Savannah:
Amtrak 29 hours $149
Driving 3hrs 30min, < $50 gas for most passenger cars

Neither Atlanta nor Savannah are exactly "rural areas" - so I guess Amtrak doesn't serve the non-rural areas either. Just the northeast corridor. Any wonder why rational people don't like paying taxes for that kind of "service"?
 
Last edited:
One thing worth noticing is that better to good rail service is available only in those states which invest themselves in rail transport in addition to whatever Amtrak does.

Anyone who believes that they will get reasonable passenger rail service without any participation from their state, purely provided by Amtrak using federal funds alone, is not quite connected with reality IMHO. This does not even quite happen on the NEC once you look under the covers. Admittedly it would be really nice, but I at least do not see that happening in the near future $66B for infrastructure or not. States will have to come up with operating support sooner or later.
 
John from RI said:
Actually it would make sense to make the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Los Angeles operate 6 days a week. Running 3 days a week means that Amtrak must pay the crew for the New Orleans lay over and pay the hotel bill too. So why not just run the train?
Click to expand...

Besides Union Pacific not cooperating the last time Amtrak time they tried increasing frequency on the Sunset Limited, the cost of a couple of hotel days is going to be quite a bit lower than the cost of the additional crews needed to run 6 days/week. A 6x/weekly schedule would require 5 trainsets vs. the current 3 (no equipment available to do so), and a similar increase in total crew requirements, both for OBS and T&E (and no staff available to do so, either).

Combine that with the billion or so dollars that UP has demanded (though I guess Amtrak could take UP to court over it if they were serious), and you have your answer to "why not?"
 
jis said:
One thing worth noticing is that better to good rail service is available only in those states which invest themselves in rail transport in addition to whatever Amtrak does.

Anyone who believes that they will get reasonable passenger rail service without any participation from their state, purely provided by Amtrak using federal funds alone, is not quite connected with reality IMHO. This does not even quite happen on the NEC once you look under the covers. Admittedly it would be really nice, but I at least do not see that happening in the near future $66B for infrastructure or not. States will have to come up with operating support sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Two points: 1) It's nuts to think that a rational NATIONAL passenger rail system will somehow magically assemble itself from bits and pieces each state is willing to support. (I don't think jis is advocating for this--he's just noting the current reality. And this is probably a topic for another thread.)

2) Lack of state funding in no way excuses what's been done to the Crescent schedule. The geniuses at Amtrak decided---in a part of the country with dysfunctionally few service frequencies---to have the Crescent nearly duplicate existing service between Charlotte and DC. While making the timing at New Orleans, Atlanta, DC, and points north worse, and for stations in between Atlanta and Charlotte just about unusable. And the dang trains STILL don't run on time.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top