Where are the Midwest trains?

[Palmetto]

I just took a look at the Amtrak train status map. As of this moment, there are no trains running between:

Chicago-Detroit

Chicago-Indianapolis/Cincy

Chicago-Toledo/Cleveland

I'm aware of the Midwest Highspeed Rail Initiative, but it's sad that we haven't been able to more quickly institute a service to move people in the Midwest more efficiently than we do now.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I just took a look at the Amtrak train status map. As of this moment, there are no trains running between:

Chicago-Detroit

Chicago-Indianapolis/Cincy

Chicago-Toledo/Cleveland

I'm aware of the Midwest Highspeed Rail Initiative, but it's sad that we haven't been able to more quickly institute a service to move people in the Midwest more efficiently than we do now.

You mean the service isn't running for today or in general? There are certainly trains scheduled in all three of those routes. Two of them are at lousy times but sure they run. There's at least three daily Wolverine trains that run Chicago-Detroit and a few others that are a single day a week.

I would say blame the 750 mile rule and Ohio. I have been plugging All Aboard Ohio for a few days now. They certainly have a lot of proposals on the table, including your Chicago-Indy-Cincinnati trip.

http://allaboardohio.org/hoosier/

 

[A Voice]

I just took a look at the Amtrak train status map. As of this moment, there are no trains running between:

Chicago-Detroit

Chicago-Indianapolis/Cincy

Chicago-Toledo/Cleveland

I'm aware of the Midwest Highspeed Rail Initiative, but it's sad that we haven't been able to more quickly institute a service to move people in the Midwest more efficiently than we do now.

Probably just a glitch in the status maps; As I type this, both 350 and 359 are showing on the Detroit line.

 

[A Voice]

I just took a look at the Amtrak train status map. As of this moment, there are no trains running between:

Chicago-Detroit

Chicago-Indianapolis/Cincy

Chicago-Toledo/Cleveland

I'm aware of the Midwest Highspeed Rail Initiative, but it's sad that we haven't been able to more quickly institute a service to move people in the Midwest more efficiently than we do now.

I would say blame the 750 mile rule and Ohio. I have been plugging All Aboard Ohio for a few days now. They certainly have a lot of proposals on the table, including your Chicago-Indy-Cincinnati trip.

That 750 mile rule never should have been implemented and needs to change, at least under specially defined circumstances if not completely. Interstate commerce is properly (and constitutionally) a federal responsibility.

 

[MikefromCrete]

If a state is willing and able to fund additional service on its routes, then it should be able to do it If some states are too cheap to fund that service, then it shouldn't be the responsibility of the rest of us to fund such services. Illinois, Michigan, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, etc., deserve all the service they want as along they pay for it. If the good people of Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, Wyoming, etc., have no interest or desire to fund local service, then so be it.

 

[west point]

Other states don't want service. Oh how we wish it was that simple. Its POLs who don't want it and as long as voters do not realize that is the POLs narrow vision nothing will happen.

 

[Railroad Bill]

Although I would very much like to see a :corridor train: running from Cleveland to Cincinnati, it is unlikely to happen. The state has just finished the paving on three lanes each direction on I-71 and it is now a nice drive between Cleveland and Columbus. I can get from north central Ohio to Cleveland Amtrak in about an hour, which is unlikely to occur if a train ran between Crestline, Ohio and Cleveland (and it would not take the passenger to the Amtrak station since the track logistics are just not there right now.

I would like a day train running via Cleveland to end our 1am - 4am boarding calls to Chicago, WAS or NYP but that also seems unlikely in the near future. Politics aside, there is just not overwhelming support in Ohio to abandon the automobile for a slower running train.

 

[neroden]

There are basically two possibilities for Ohio:

(1) Those highway lanes fill up. Takes about 2 years. Congestion, slow driving, people will want a train.

(2) Population keeps dropping. The highway lanes are empty. There is also no tax money to maintain the highways. The state starts discussing which roads to abandon... Takes 10 years or more.

 

[andersone]

The third lane to Cleveland (there has to be a song title there) has helped a lot. Many of us Buckeyes are praying for the re-election of Ted which would bring the Three C high speed rail initiative back to life. God help Amtrak if our current Governor becomes president.

 

[Ryan]

If a state is willing and able to fund additional service on its routes, then it should be able to do it If some states are too cheap to fund that service, then it shouldn't be the responsibility of the rest of us to fund such services. Illinois, Michigan, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, etc., deserve all the service they want as along they pay for it. If the good people of Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, Wyoming, etc., have no interest or desire to fund local service, then so be it.

Me pitching in and helping to pay for things that you use, and you pitching in to pay for things that I use is pretty much what government does. People without kids still pay for schools, and we all pay for the fire department although it isn't likely that our house is going to burn down. But we all benefit from things like that, as do we all benefit from a robust passenger rail system, even if some people never set foot on a train. The commuters out there sitting in traffic benefit greatly from the ~1000 people sitting on the train with me now as we head into DC. They'd certainly notice if all of a sudden we were all on the road with them!

While I agree that states that are willing to put some money up are more deserving of help, there is a benefit to spreading passenger rail service in places like Ohio that has anti-rail politicians in office.

 

[Joeker]

Interstate commerce AKA highway bill may be a federal responsibility but it was not always so, and some Politicians think it should be solely a states' responsibility based on that state's gas tax and other revenues. It was the National Defense Highway Bill otherwise known as the Interstate Highway bill signed by Eisenhower in 1956 that empowered the Federal government to build highways with a 90/(federal) /10 (state) split of costs. This is when the so called Highway trust fund was funded with the national gas tax.

 

[A Voice]

Interstate commerce AKA highway bill may be a federal responsibility but it was not always so, and some Politicians think it should be solely a states' responsibility based on that state's gas tax and other revenues. It was the National Defense Highway Bill otherwise known as the Interstate Highway bill signed by Eisenhower in 1956 that empowered the Federal government to build highways with a 90/(federal) /10 (state) split of costs. This is when the so called Highway trust fund was funded with the national gas tax.

The regulation of interstate commerce has indeed been a federal responsibility since the adoption of the United States constitution in 1787, or nearly 230 years ago.

 

[John Bredin]

Interstate commerce AKA highway bill may be a federal responsibility but it was not always so, and some Politicians think it should be solely a states' responsibility based on that state's gas tax and other revenues. It was the National Defense Highway Bill otherwise known as the Interstate Highway bill signed by Eisenhower in 1956 that empowered the Federal government to build highways with a 90/(federal) /10 (state) split of costs. This is when the so called Highway trust fund was funded with the national gas tax.

The Interstates may have started the 90/10 split but the Federal gov't was contributing to state highways going back to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1921 at least. There were U.S. (black & white shield, not red, white, & blue shield) highways in the 1920s, long before WWII made Eisenhower a general, much less President. And the Constitution provides that the Federal gov't can designate post roads.

 

[Alex M.]

If I may play devil's advocate, the rational behind the financial largesse benefitting highways is that over 85% of intercity travel is by car. That is a fact that will not change anytime soon, much as we would like it to.

 

[jebr]

If a state is willing and able to fund additional service on its routes, then it should be able to do it If some states are too cheap to fund that service, then it shouldn't be the responsibility of the rest of us to fund such services. Illinois, Michigan, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, etc., deserve all the service they want as along they pay for it. If the good people of Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, Wyoming, etc., have no interest or desire to fund local service, then so be it.

Except that we already fund the NEC to nearly commuter-like frequencies despite it being under the 750 mile rule (and despite those states not directly funding that infrastructure or frequencies.) Many of the corridor services that would be useful but aren't implemented go through multiple states (Chicago - Minneapolis is one I can think of.) I could possibly see the argument for intra-state service, but a lot of the traffic on interstates and other federally funded routes are also intra-state, so I'm not sold that that's a good distinction either.

 

[jis]

If a state is willing and able to fund additional service on its routes, then it should be able to do it If some states are too cheap to fund that service, then it shouldn't be the responsibility of the rest of us to fund such services. Illinois, Michigan, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, etc., deserve all the service they want as along they pay for it. If the good people of Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, Wyoming, etc., have no interest or desire to fund local service, then so be it.

Except that we already fund the NEC to nearly commuter-like frequencies despite it being under the 750 mile rule (and despite those states not directly funding that infrastructure or frequencies.) Many of the corridor services that would be useful but aren't implemented go through multiple states (Chicago - Minneapolis is one I can think of.) I could possibly see the argument for intra-state service, but a lot of the traffic on interstates and other federally funded routes are also intra-state, so I'm not sold that that's a good distinction either.

That is an interesting and incomplete interpretation of the situation. Actually states fund most of the frequencies run on the NEC. They are just not run by Amtrak. Also states do directly fund certain infrastructure improvements on the NEC. Amtrak provides nothing like commuter like frequencies in most places. The commuter like frequencies are provided by state and FTA funded commuter railroads. The entire reconstruction of the NEC trackage between Dock interlocking and Bergen interlocking including all those extra tracks built as a part of Secaucus Junction and most of Swift interlocking was directly or indirectly funded by NJ State. So in effect, what Mike says, is already happening on the NEC.