What states are the least/most friendly to Amtrak and passenger rail?

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

Lonestar648

Engineer
AU Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2015
Messages
2,803
Least - Arizona is a major candidate. The NE states with NEC are so dependent on passenger rail to survive.
 

xyzzy

Conductor
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
1,147
Location
NC
For least friendly, one could nominate Georgia -- currently the 8th most populous state -- which has allowed the inadequate station in Atlanta to remain unaddressed for nearly 40 years. Nor has Georgia been able to do anything for intrastate service or commuter rail for metro Atlanta. When the Jesup station burned, the city bought and rebuilt it; a federal grant covered most of the cost, and the city ate the rest. The state didn't pay a dime. The station in Savannah is in decent shape, but again it was owned by a city-related entity until Amtrak bought it several years ago.

For most friendly, among the southern states the answer is probably Virginia and North Carolina.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Bredin

OBS Chief
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
892
Location
suburban Chicago (Deerfield)
Wisconsin is rather bipolar or schizophrenic (in the colloquial sense) on Amtrak.

+ Unlike many states, it pays for Amtrak service, taking up 75% of the subsidy for the Hiawatha service vs. 25% by Illinois. That alone puts it above the Georgias and Arizonas of the nation.

- However, it (or more precisely Gov. Walker) also soundly rejected an extension of the Hiawatha to Madison at mostly federal expense. Ohio was merely copying Wisconsin/Walker when it rejected federal funding for the 3C corridor.
 

lo2e

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
361
Location
Maine
One could argue that the states that have absolutely zero passenger rail service of any kind - South Dakota and Wyoming - would be the least passenger rail friendly. I'm not sure how you can get any lower than zero.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
2,052
Location
Philadelphia Area
One could argue that the states that have absolutely zero passenger rail service of any kind - South Dakota and Wyoming - would be the least passenger rail friendly. I'm not sure how you can get any lower than zero.
But other states contribute zero state money, they just get free service from Amtrak's national routes. You can't say SD and WY are worse than other freeloaders.
 

bms

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
486
Location
Cleveland
I agree with the nomination of Ohio as least friendly. Governor Kasich's decision to turn down federal funding for the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati train was well publicized. But few people know that the state has cut funding for urban transit systems by 95 percent from 2001 through 2015. The state's subsidy is now less than a dollar per resident, leading Cleveland's RTA to double the fares on its local rail lines since 2006 while offering poorer service. If I give someone $1 to help with their fare, I have helped them more than the entire state government for that year.

There is some hope for rail funding, as Ohio will have a new governor seated in 2019.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TiBike

OBS Chief
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
709
Location
Alta California
I'd guess that Oregon and Washington are at least as friendly to rail as California. We're bigger so we have more, but I doubt we do significantly more passenger rail proportionately, if at all. California does support connecting bus service to a greater degree though.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Amtrak Forum mobile app
 

Thirdrail7

Engineer
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
4,490
Can you define friendly? I remember a certain state insisting that service continue to their state but they had a senator that routinely called for privatizing Amtrak.

You can be friendly to rail without being friendly to Amtrak and vice versa. I know of another state that is supportive of Amtrak but puts their own regional, state services through the wringer when it comes to funding and support.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
2,052
Location
Philadelphia Area
I'd guess that Oregon and Washington are at least as friendly to rail as California. We're bigger so we have more, but I doubt we do significantly more passenger rail proportionately, if at all. California does support connecting bus service to a greater degree though.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Amtrak Forum mobile app
I think service between SEA and SPK outside of the graveyard shift could be useful. Maybe Washington state can fund that in addition to the Cascades service.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thirdrail7

Engineer
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
4,490
I would say outside the NEC, Virginia has really followed through with their rail initiatives and have put their money where their mouth is.
 

zephyr17

Engineer
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
5,356
Location
Washington State
I'd guess that Oregon and Washington are at least as friendly to rail as California. We're bigger so we have more, but I doubt we do significantly more passenger rail proportionately, if at all. California does support connecting bus service to a greater degree though.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Amtrak Forum mobile app
I think service between SEA and SPK outside of the graveyard shift could be useful. Maybe Washington state can fund that in addition to the Cascades service.
That has been discussed, usually via Stampede Pass via Ellensberg, Yakima, and Pasco, but it never has been a high priority.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skyline

OBS Chief
Joined
Feb 19, 2016
Messages
765
You could make a blanket statement that states that are proactive about supporting and funding passenger rail are in the plus column. Those that are successful establishing NEW service get a double-plus.

The lack of passenger service supported with state dollars would therefore put a state in the minus column. Rejecting federal dollars to establish passenger service puts a state in the double-minus column.

This is rather black-and-white for me. Therefore, I don't know how to call out the very worst; you're either with us or you're not. There could be a formula for identifying the very best, however, but that's for people with access to a lot more data than me.
 

PerRock

Conductor
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,939
Location
Ann Arbor, MI
Indiana would be one, despite having Beech Grove, the government is pretty anti-Amtrak. Even switched their corridor train from Amtrak to Iowa Pacific. They've been a hassle for Amtrak, MDOT, & NS to get the Michigan Services thru & upgraded.

peter
 

cpotisch

Engineer
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
7,511
Location
Brooklyn, NY
New York is definitely up there. We contribute a tremendous amount of money to the Empire Corridor fleet and commuter rail.
 

cpotisch

Engineer
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
7,511
Location
Brooklyn, NY
New York is definitely up there. We contribute a tremendous amount of money to the Empire Corridor fleet and commuter rail.
Begrudgingly though. We're not getting creative like California and North Carolina have.
You might be right about creativity, but NY seems pretty willing to spend plenty on higher-speed rail, Empire Corridor equipment, and infrastructure improvements.
 

Northeastern292

Service Attendant
Joined
Nov 9, 2013
Messages
109
Location
Ferndale, NY/Brooklyn, NY
New York is definitely up there. We contribute a tremendous amount of money to the Empire Corridor fleet and commuter rail.
Begrudgingly though. We're not getting creative like California and North Carolina have.
You might be right about creativity, but NY seems pretty willing to spend plenty on higher-speed rail, Empire Corridor equipment, and infrastructure improvements.
Not going to completely disagree, but there's more we could be doing. New equipment, a new Livingston Avenue bridge, a new EIS...
 

Thirdrail7

Engineer
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
4,490
The current NY regime didn't want to chip in for new dual modes. While NY has budget problems, this is indeed shortsighted.
 
Top