New Amtrak Proposed Routes Map has Dropped

[railiner]

It appears there are no quick flights to SLC - all that exists, apparently, is quick flights to Denver.

Going way back, UAL operated local service, stopping at all the major towns along the "Overland Route". That slowly disappeared thru the decades, but just pre-pandemic, there were AA regional flights from DFW. I understand those ended, and then the airport shut down for major runway reconstruction. Not sure what will come back after things get back to normal...

 

[rwb1122]

It appears there are no quick flights to SLC - all that exists, apparently, is quick flights to Denver.

Airlines simply do not provide inexpensive, or even reasonably priced service to smaller cities. Perhaps the service will be subsidized, but it will never be cheap. A train is a good investment for most places, contrary to popular belief.

 

[GoAmtrak]

For the most part, this map seems to have good coverage but not necessarily good connectivity. For example, Atlanta has five new corridor routes but no service to Florida or Chicago. Pueblo gains service to Denver, but still doesn't have a connection to the SWC. There are also three new separate routes in eastern Pennsylvania that don't interact with each other. The one major exception to this trend is the connection between Oklahoma City and Newton.

Another interesting observation from this map is the Canadian services. There was speculation on this forum of the Maple Leaf not coming back after the pandemic (it is also the only route I can find that is not in the booking system for the entirety of the next 11 months). Not only is that still on this map, but it indicates increased service and the addition of Toronto to Chicago service. Adirondack and Cascades service would be increased, with a new route also being added to Montreal along the Vermonter route that appears to be separate from the existing Vermonter.

Have all of these routes actually been studied? Most of them are familiar, but a few I have never seen plans for. For example, the Green Bay, Eau Claire, and Montgomery services.

Good analysis! First I was flashed by all the new routes and improvements. If only half of those plans go through, I would be very happy. That would already be a large improvement.

But you are right, connectivity is somewhat lacking in those plans.
A notable exeption to this you mentioned with the Oklahoma City-Newton line.

Other positive connections improving the network are Houston- College Station - Dallas, Atlanta - Macon - Savannah, Raleigh - Petersburg, Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati, Toledo - Detroit, Detroit - Windsor and Saint Albans - Montréal. Did I miss one?

Which of the those possible new connections improving the network do you think are the most important and can bring the most benefits?

Which of those improvements to the network are the most likely, or the least likely happen? What do you and other people in the forum think about it?

 

[CraigInNC]

I live in Charlotte NC. I understand that Raleigh and nearby cities are a major confluence of NS and CSX. With that being said, I have yet to understand why there is not a connection between Charlotte and southern points like Columbia SC.

 

[GoAmtrak]

I live in Charlotte NC. I understand that Raleigh and nearby cities are a major confluence of NS and CSX. With that being said, I have yet to understand why there is not a connection between Charlotte and southern points like Columbia SC.

I would also prefer a connection between Charlotte and Columbia. Concerning the Raleigh-connection, the map I found was not that clear. If I interpreted the expansion map correctly, the plan may be to go to Henderson, NC. Soon further northwards, the line ceases to exist according to my geo portal. Perhaps the goal is to built a completely new line to South Hill, VA - Petersburg, VA?


By the way, which of these new routes which offer more connectivity between existing routes would you put most emphasis to get passenger railway back?

For me, I would go for the Cleveland-Cincinnati connection because it would connect three large cities which are not so far away from each other. Cincinnati really should get more options to be reached by rail. The Toledo-Detroit route is perhaps even more a must as the gap between is that small and Detroit could get a direct railway connection to Cleveland again. Those two would probably be my first priorities.

To bring back to the Michigan Central Station in Detroit would also be amazing, not just because of nostalgia of this impressive station, but to get a direct railway connection to Canada again. Oklahoma City to Newton would also be nice to connect OKC with the Southwest Chief. Atlanta to Savannah is also almost a must for me - to bring Atlanta closer to Jacksonville and Florida. A direct Houston-Dallas-connection would also be interesting.

If the money isn't enough to go for every of the proposed improvements, for which would you and others here in the forum go?

 

[Bob Dylan]

I would also prefer a connection between Charlotte and Columbia. Concerning the Raleigh-connection, the map I found was not that clear. If I interpreted the expansion map correctly, the plan may be to go to Henderson, NC. Soon further northwards, the line ceases to exist according to my geo portal. Perhaps the goal is to built a completely new line to South Hill, VA - Petersburg, VA?


By the way, which of these new routes which offer more connectivity between existing routes would you put most emphasis to get passenger railway back?

For me, I would go for the Cleveland-Cincinnati connection because it would connect three large cities which are not so far away from each other. Cincinnati really should get more options to be reached by rail. The Toledo-Detroit route is perhaps even more a must as the gap between is that small and Detroit could get a direct railway connection to Cleveland again. Those two would probably be my first priorities.

To bring back to the Michigan Central Station in Detroit would also be amazing, not just because of nostalgia of this impressive station, but to get a direct railway connection to Canada again. Oklahoma City to Newton would also be nice to connect OKC with the Southwest Chief. Atlanta to Savannah is also almost a must for me - to bring Atlanta closer to Jacksonville and Florida. A direct Houston-Dallas-connection would also be interesting.

If the money isn't enough to go for every of the proposed improvements, for which would you and others here in the forum go?

I like yours, would add LA to Vegas and a Costal overnite from LA to the Bay Area.

 

[CraigInNC]

I would also prefer a connection between Charlotte and Columbia. Concerning the Raleigh-connection, the map I found was not that clear. If I interpreted the expansion map correctly, the plan may be to go to Henderson, NC. Soon further northwards, the line ceases to exist according to my geo portal. Perhaps the goal is to built a completely new line to South Hill, VA - Petersburg, VA?


By the way, which of these new routes which offer more connectivity between existing routes would you put most emphasis to get passenger railway back?

For me, I would go for the Cleveland-Cincinnati connection because it would connect three large cities which are not so far away from each other. Cincinnati really should get more options to be reached by rail. The Toledo-Detroit route is perhaps even more a must as the gap between is that small and Detroit could get a direct railway connection to Cleveland again. Those two would probably be my first priorities.

To bring back to the Michigan Central Station in Detroit would also be amazing, not just because of nostalgia of this impressive station, but to get a direct railway connection to Canada again. Oklahoma City to Newton would also be nice to connect OKC with the Southwest Chief. Atlanta to Savannah is also almost a must for me - to bring Atlanta closer to Jacksonville and Florida. A direct Houston-Dallas-connection would also be interesting.

If the money isn't enough to go for every of the proposed improvements, for which would you and others here in the forum go?

I think the service in NC beyond Raleigh is adequate. There isn't much economic activity east of Raleigh and there are already four trains that's pass through Raleigh. The Carolinian is a day train that originates in Charlotte and terminates in NYC. They pass through the Richmond area with at least two stops in that metro. The only other possible connection is to VA Beach but IDK. 8 trains run between Raleigh and Charlotte. 6 intrastate and the 2 Carolinians. I think passenger load from Charlotte south to Columbia would be more than adequate to sustain the service.

I would agree a connection between Toledo and Detroit would be worthy but wouldn't that be at night on the LSL ?

Part of the reason why intracity Texas wasn't as developed is that the airlines specifically Southwest make flying cheap instate. For many years you could fly between the big Texas cities for a fare that would make train travel a disincentive.

 

[Cal]

I would agree a connection between Toledo and Detroit would be worthy but wouldn't that be at night on the LSL ?

it'd be a new route with day service. It's on the ConnectUS map, marked as a new service.

 

[CraigInNC]

Toledo is not that big. I would think they would want to try and capture passengers from the Chicago and Cleveland markets as well. I have been on both the the LSL and the CL they will definitely need a day service. One interesting thing of note is there are a lot of Amish that get on in Indiana. A lot of them in the Chicago station and a lot use the SWC. They all get off between Galesburg and KC.

 

[west point]

If New Detroit <> Detroit <> Toledo could be made 110 MPH that route should be nearly the same as direct TOL New Buffalo in time.

 

[Cal]

A lot of them in the Chicago station and a lot use the SWC. They all get off between Galesburg and KC.

On my most recent SWC trip there were Amish on all the way from Chicago to LA. From what I could tell they got on and off throughout the trip.

 

[dlagrua]

Because taking the train is better than flying for under 400 miles. You boomers need to understand that that long distance rail doesn't fit modern America's travel needs and that multiple regional routes would be a much better use of resources.

Long distance routes also fill regional needs. Many rural small towns along those routes are not served by airports, some not served by buses going West or are miles away from major highways. If you have ever taken a LD western route, passengers get on and off all along the way and those trains do sell out.

 

[sttom]

The main reason to have train service between two cities like Dallas and Houston isn't only for the end to end travelers, it's also for the people in the middle or live in the metro area but are two far from the airport. Not to mention air travel is more than gate to gate time. You have to get to the airport, check in, get harassed by the TSA, go rebuy all your liquids and then wait for boarding. For something like a Dallas - Houston flight, that could easily add 2 hours of time on the originating end of the trip. And then you have to get from the other airport to somewhere interesting. Which adds yet more time for what an hour of flying? When you add all the time in, you could be running up to four hours worth of travel and even driving is competitive with that.

 

[Anthony V]

One route they need to add to the ConnectUS map: The former Milwaukee Road Varsity route between Chicago-Janesville-Madison. The Lake Country Limited in the early 2000s may have had a fighting chance to be successful if it had served Madison directly and if the WSOR portion of the route had been upgraded to at least class 3 trackage. (Btw, I met former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, the man who got the Lake Country Limited started, at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (I'm currently a student there) a few weeks ago!) Also, a revived Varsity would be a much more direct route from Chicago to Madison than extending the Hiawatha service would be.

 

[WWW]

One route they need to add to the ConnectUS map: The former Milwaukee Road Varsity route between Chicago-Janesville-Madison. The Lake Country Limited in the early 2000s may have had a fighting chance to be successful if it had served Madison directly and if the WSOR portion of the route had been upgraded to at least class 3 trackage. (Btw, I met former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, the man who got the Lake Country Limited started, at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (I'm currently a student there) a few weeks ago!) Also, a revived Varsity would be a much more direct route from Chicago to Madison than extending the Hiawatha service would be.

It seems odd that the Wisconsin State Capitol is not connected by rail where it once was.
With possible addition of a second MSP Chicago train at Portage there was a branch line that leads off to Madison to complete this service ?
Seems dumb to not include college town Capitol city to college town Capitol city service instead of connecting bus service at Portage or Columbus
No this would not bypass Milwaukee - the old rail bed is still there Google Map - Glacial Drumlin Recreational Trail appears to be intact - - -
Factor in the NIMBY for restoring rail service ###
Maybe that Lake Country Limited line went direct Madison to Chicago ?
Madison may not have the ridership draw that Milwaukee does but the two together should be a deal.

With air service between short distance cities in the (upper) midwest passenger rail service can be just like the NEC - functional & workable beating
the clock city center to city center !

Build it and they will come ? ? ?

 

[west point]

Amtrak short of engineers.
Job Matches:
Block Operator - 90006733 - Washington - Washington, DC, US, 20002
Train Dispatcher - 90109807 - Boston - Boston, MA, US, 02110
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90299185 - Los Angeles - Los Angeles, CA, US, 90012
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90299193 - Denver - Denver, CO, US, 80202
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90256365 - Sanford - Sanford, FL, US, 32771
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90299177 - Washington - Washington, DC, US, 20002
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90211794 - Jacksonville - Jacksonville, FL, US, 32209
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90299184 - Savannah - Savannah, GA, US, 31415
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90184611 - Indianapolis - Indianapolis, IN, US, 46225
PASSENGER CONDUCTOR TRAINEE - 90264510 - Toledo - Toledo, OH, US, 43602

 

[GoAmtrak]

Long distance routes also fill regional needs. Many rural small towns along those routes are not served by airports, some not served by buses going West or are miles away from major highways. If you have ever taken a LD western route, passengers get on and off all along the way and those trains do sell out.

I agree with you. Rural communities shall not be forgotten. But on the other hand, many people in rural locations firmly vote Republican (of course not every person in rural areas, depending the location - but a vast majority). And most Republicans are against Amtrak, against passenger railway or even against public transport in general. Why they still vote so heavily Republican? Aren't they aware that with Republicans, the likelihood of passenger railway improvements is so low? Or do they simply not care or have other priorities which fit well with those of the Republicans?

 

[CraigInNC]

I agree with you. Rural communities shall not be forgotten. But on the other hand, many people in rural locations firmly vote Republican (of course not every person in rural areas, depending the location - but a vast majority). And most Republicans are against Amtrak, against passenger railway or even against public transport in general. Why they still vote so heavily Republican? Aren't they aware that with Republicans, the likelihood of passenger railway improvements is so low? Or do they simply not care or have other priorities which fit well with those of the Republicans?

I have long since figured out that most of the cleavages in politics in rural areas are more cultural and not economic. I would not be surprised if you interviewed rural residents who were regular riders of Amtrak their political leanings differed from the overall leanings of their community. Amtrak ridership is a small percentage of the population so it would be unlikely to encounter a hard-core anti-infrastructure voter that is also an Amtrak rider. As has been said before, "hard" infrastructure used to be pretty broadly supported because there was always something in it for everybody. Not just useless "pork" but like the bridge from Covington KY to Cincinnati OH that has been a source of complaint for many years. But hey we are living in an age when even universal good works programs like that create partisan tension. I guess we are supposed to wait every 8 years when "our" party is in power to get anything we want done done?

 

[Willbridge]

A lot of people on both sides of the divide are unaware of how transport services are financed. Back in the olden days when we coach passengers were permitted to dine with our betters I was seated across from a gentleman who wore a MAGA hat to dinner. I didn't talk politics with him but did learn that he thought Amtrak was a private company. That makes it easy to support opposing ideas. A conservative activist who is a friend of mine through our church was a lobbyist for the coal industry. But he also supports having a basic national rail passenger network. He served in the military and understands the value of having alternative modes.

The restoration of good track on the Southwest Chief route took the efforts of small city folks of both parties. One of the legislators told me that he was an "infrastructure Republican". He DID understand the financing and he understood what needed to be done politically. He worked to keep the ideologues in his party from automatically shredding the project. In the same project, a small city Democrat kept his urban colleagues from their knee-jerk opposition to "giving money to big business."

In modern politics being able to keep something from being killed is a necessary skill.

 

[CraigInNC]

A lot of people on both sides of the divide are unaware of how transport services are financed.

A lot of people on both sides of the divide are unaware of how most things work. That is part of the problem. With the internet and 500 cable channels people look for confirmation bias now rather than looking at an issue with an open mind and coming to a judgement based on facts and circumstances. Then again there are a handful of "true believers" that are opposed to something and know exactly why they are opposed to it (whether they are right or not in that belief.)

Back in the olden days when we coach passengers were permitted to dine with our betters I was seated across from a gentleman who wore a MAGA hat to dinner. I didn't talk politics with him but did learn that he thought Amtrak was a private company. That makes it easy to support opposing ideas.

I rode the Crescent in December 2016 from Charlotte, NC to DC and had breakfast in the diner and was seated with an older gentleman (probably 60s I imagine) and after a number of minutes of small talk the topic turned to the recent election and I could tell that he was gauging his comments by my reactions. He wasn't wearing a MAGA hat but apparently he felt comfortable based on some of my responses to small talk to reveal that he was a Trump supporter. I was tight lipped about issues and was able to dance around the conversation enough to not be confrontational. Never got to a discussion of Amtrak funding but now that I think of it I might have asked in a round about way because a true MAGAt and a true railfan would be an unusual confluence IMO. I am speaking of passengers. I could see certain employee groups of Amtrak, namely the non-passenger facing ones like engineers, mechanics, etc being a mixed crowd due to cultural issues.

The restoration of good track on the Southwest Chief route took the efforts of small city folks of both parties. One of the legislators told me that he was an "infrastructure Republican". He DID understand the financing and he understood what needed to be done politically. He worked to keep the ideologues in his party from automatically shredding the project. In the same project, a small city Democrat kept his urban colleagues from their knee-jerk opposition to "giving money to big business."

Once upon a time that was all but the most controversial or brand new ideas happened. Only when one party or President wanted to try a completely new approach to something did things become notable partisan because it was understandable to some extent that a new strategy was usually something someone campaigned on and there was necessarily a higher hill to climb to achieve consensus. Broad level spending like hard infrastructure was usually passed with little note in the sense that it would be reported locally in the form of what project was being done etc but never became a national debate. Now everything is a national debate even within the same party as we saw with the "progressives" refusing to allow a vote on the bipartisan in order to gain leverage for the social bill and the R's wanting to oppose it just because because. It doesn't inspire much confidence for my generation about how we move forward with pressing matters. Which is why many railfans openly wonder that if control of Congress and/or WH switches at some point in the future that everything that is/was done now could be subject to revocation just because because.