posted
Passenger Rail Fan asked "[W]hat are the chances for an addition of East/West service to St. Louis? Possibly the former National Limited route?"
Notelvis responded with the very practical and accurate answer, "Unlikely." He noted that the railroads have abandoned parts of the route.
irishchieftain noted that parts of the route are the Pittsburgh West Busway and provided photos of it.
This question merits further examination because it raises and illuminates important issues about passenger rail planning at a national level in the U.S. and what NARP isn't doing that it should be doing.
This question refers to the Amtrak National Limited, to be distinguished from the "true" National Limited operated by the B & O. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Limited The Amtrak train operated from New York to Kansas City until 1979. Id.
Today, the Amtrak Pennsylvanian operates the route on the Pennsylvania from New York to Pittsburgh, and the Amtrak Kansas City Mule and Amtrak Ann Rutledge run on the MOP between St. Louis and Kansas City. The Ann Rutledge connects with the Southwest Chief on the Sante Fe in Kansas City to Los Angeles.
The question addresses a new Amtrak bridge segment serving Pittsburgh (2,658,000), Columbus (1,725,000), Springfield (142,000), Dayton (1,074,000), Indianapolis (1,984,000), Terre Haute (170,000), and St. Louis (2,800,000). The numbers in parenthesis are metropolitan statistical area populations I got on wikipedia. They total 11,000,000, rounded. Excluding distorting effects of Northeast Corridor cities, Chicago, and Los Angeles, this seven city route would rank as one of the highest rail "route" populations in the country.
The population of 11,000,000 far exceeds the 7,500,000 population of Switzerland.
Interstate 70 follows this Pennsylvania rail route.
Since US Air reduced its hub at Pittsburgh and American took over TWA and reduced its operations in St. Louis, this route is not well served by the air industry.
This route also includes a short 50 mile branch from Dayton to Cincinnati.
The route intersects the Amtrak City of New Orleans to Chicago, Memphis, and New Orleans on the IC at Effingham.
The route intersects the Amtrak Cardinal and Hoosier State to Chicago and Cincinnati on the Big Four at Indianapolis.
The route intersects the Amtrak Texas Eagle to Chicago and Los Angeles on the MOP at St. Louis.
According to my June, 1941 Official Guide, the Pennsylvania operated seven through schedules on the route. That particular copy of the Guide also included a full page advertisement for the Jeffersonian, an all coach train. It left New York at 5:55 p.m. and arrived in St. Louis at 1:10 p.m. The fare was $31.75.
The original Pennsylvania line from Columbus to Indianapolis appears abandoned. See Ohio Access 2004 - 2030, fig 6.1 at 2 (map of Ohio rail lines, showing green Norfolk Southern line connecting Columbus with Springfield, former Big Four route, but no red line for the former Pennsylvania route between the two cities, and the truncated red line northwest from Dayton for the route onto Indianapolis)("Ohio plan")
Between Pittsburgh and Columbus, the Pennsylvania and the B & O had separate routes. The Amtrak National Limited ran on the Pennsylvania. The B & O went through Wheeling and Zanesville. According to the Official Ohio Railroad Map (link above), the B & O is now cut between Cambridge and somewhere in Belmont County. Service through Wheeling might serve more people and get support from Robert Byrd.
I included Springfield, Ohio above because the remaining Columbus Dayton route passes through it, and more people live along it.
So what do we have here? We have a transcontinental rail route connecting New York to Los Angeles via a succession of regional capitols that is probably second in total population among all transcontinental routes to New York - Los Angeles via Chicago.
The country has one other line like this one, serving a "succession of regional capitals," Chicago, Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Birmingham, Mobile, and New Orleans.
I would not suggest that this route is operable as is with the one train Amtrak long distance model. Dayton to Indianapolis has to be restored. To make this a viable corridor, it needs to be double tracked end to end with Amtrak controlling one track. I would estimate it at $1 billion, about the cost of some urban interstate interchanges. I think the present route and 79 m.p.h. technology would suffice. Part of the cost could come from local services in Indianapolis and between Dayton and Columbus. One train can't meet the constraints for the West coast connections in St. Louis, the connection to Washington in Pittsburgh, and reasonable times at Pittsburgh and New York City.
We have seven cities with 11,000,000 people with no connecting Amtrak service compared with 7,500,000 people in Switzerland with one of the best train systems in the world.
You can look at Amtrak and ask where would you get the most bang for your investment buck. This question doesn't turn on your ideological orientation. If you believe in the profit system, you would ask where could you invest in Amtrak and get the most return on your investment. You would ask where are people who travel and could travel by train but cannot now do so. Where is there a market not for $15 fares but of families who will pay $1,700 for tickets for everyone. The word is "opportunity." Where are the market opportunities? If you are a socialist, you ask how can you maximize passenger miles to maximize utility of the service. The word is "need." If you are an environmentalist, you would ask where could you most reduce automobile miles and green house emissions.
The answer doesn't depend on which question you ask. Today, and since Amtrak dropped the National Limited in 1979, at the top of the Amtrak route "opportunity" and "need" lists lies Pittsburgh - St. Louis. That's were the people are, 11,000,000 of them. Willy Sutton stated the principle when he observed that you rob banks because that's where the money is.
How you heard this from Amtrak? Of course not. Amtrak management has always sought to operate what it had and has never had service objective, profit, social, or otherwise.
Have you heard this from NARP? Does NARP have a national plan identifying expansion opportunities or needs putting Pittsburgh and St. Louis near or at the top of the list? I don't know. It published a "wish list" map in the July, 2007 newsletter including this route. I thought something more was coming, but haven't heard anything since then.
Is anybody doing any planning?
Yes.
However, this story gets worse.
In the vacuum of planning created by Amtrak and not filled by NARP, things have happened at the state level. The Lott-Lautenberg bill endorses state planning with a system of federal matching funds for state funds for improvements.
In figure 6.3 at 12 and figure 6.4 at 13 of the "Ohio Plan" (see link above), guess what is not in the plan? Pittsburgh-Columbus-St. Louis. The most developable passenger rail corridor in the country with 11,000,000 people doesn't even appear on the Ohio plan.
Not only does the plan not include this route, the plan doesn't connect to Chicago, see fig. 6.3. But it shows a line to Toronto. It does connect Cleveland to Pittsburgh.
I won't comment on the number of Ohio politicians when this plan was developed who are now in jail.
The Ohio plan makes sense if you want to optimize rail within the borders of Ohio, as if Ohioans only travel within Ohio. Unfortunately this kind of thinking pervades state governments.
In defense of Ohio, Ohio can ask how is Ohio supposed to plan a national system? How is Ohio supposed to work with Pennsylvania and Indiana? Why should Ohio concern itself with Amtrak's ability to sell $1,600 tickets to some family going from New York to Terre Haute? Ohio can further ask how is it supposed to plan around a national plan when there isn't one?
You cannot plan a national rail passenger system at the state level. In no individual state is Pittsburgh-St. Louis a priority for funds yet it is high at a national level. Someone has to say that. You have to plan a national system at the national level.
And here comes my beef with NARP. Somebody has to say we must expand passenger service with a national plan and coordinate state and national ones. But to say that, you must have one. In the vacuum created by Amtrak itself, who else but NARP can say that? The "N" in NARP stands for national. It is NARP's job to articulate national concerns, say we must have a national plan, provide one if no one else does, and state national priorities.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very thorough and thought provoking. However, one thing I believe you have only hinted at is that of connecting trains. Once you have a route, say A-B-C, you can have a certain traffic level. But if you add route B-D, the traffic on A-B and on B-C *also* increases - the effect ripples outwards. This has been borne out of several studies of actual traffic levels - both expansion (adding B-D) and reduction (removing B-D) studies.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We all probably need to do some more reading on NARP and what the extent of their plan, and what they envision for the future, really is. From what I know, NARP is an organization with limited resources whose purpose is to champion a national passenger rail system. It would be Amtrak, an office of the government charged with operating a national rail system, who could make the necessary decisions, and come up with a thorough and wide-ranging national plan, and put that plan into place.
I think your observations are quite correct. My thoughts are that these problems of planning and organizing have their roots in a nationwide unconcern towards passenger trains, and in the perception among average citizens that passenger rail is on a course to go slowly out of existence. Passenger trains were in decline for a long time, as anyone who looks at the NARP maps can see. Given the thinking and policy that brought about that state of affairs, one would question how much real planning for passenger rail has been done recently. That thinking was in error, so to speak. But perhaps it has resulted in an absence of the structure and the resources necessary to plan for an expanded Amtrak.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have provided a very interesting and detailed review of rail passenger plans in Ohio. I did see 'down the road' a study of Pittburgh to Columbus line was mentioned (presumably using the Ohio Central, that does run occasional raifan trips now). The Midwest corridor initiative also shows the Chicago-Indy-Cinci line.
I think realistically, these corridors must be underway before there is any hope for Amtrak service between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis. The funding just isn't there for them to do it alone.
However, I think it is more feasible for Amtrak to resurrect a National Ltd. route by beefing up the anemic Cardinal. With additional equipment, it would be relatively easy to split a section off the Cardinal at either Cinci or Indianapolis and head west to St. Louis. Certainly CSX line from Indy is in decent shape but getting Amtrak on that high volume route wouldn't be easy. Some creative thruway bus connections from Cinci-Dayton and Ashland, KY to Columbus (if not on to Pittsburgh would begin to tap the Ohio market.
Another alternative would be to use CSX line from Cinci to St. Louis - yes the route of the 'real' National Ltd. At least the east end of the line would have to be upgraded to handle 79 mph passenger but this is a lot more direct alternative to once again link the east with St. Louis, a worthy goal for Amtrak.
An even more doable approach that could be implemented tomorrow (subject to surplus superliners) is run the Capitol through to St. Louis. I know this doesn't help the area you are interested in, but a through train to St. Louis would probably help ridership of both the Capitol and the Chicago-St. Louis segment.
For instance the Capitol arrives Chicago at 8:40am and the Lincoln service leaves at 9:25. Of course the Capitol OT performance would be critical, but the total time Washington to St. Louis would be 23 hours. B&O's National Ltd did it in 18.5.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think perhaps the issue with NARP is that they have had to be so much on the defensive for so long now just trying to preserve the National network from still further retrenchment that they haven't really had the resources to 'go proactive'.
Years ago.......in the 1970's.......NARP produced an annual 'wish list' map indicating routes that should be added to the national network 'within 10 years'. That became a somewhat futile exercise in the face of the Carter Cutbacks and Reagan (budget) Rationalizations.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The former B & O line in Eastern Ohio is severed on the east side of Cambridge, and is abandoned for about 50 miles east to Bellaire on the Ohio River. That line is not only abandoned, but it is gone in many areas where the right-of-way has been used for highway construction, or absorbed into the fabric of the locality.
The former Pennsylvania rail line to the north of the B & O is intact from Columbus to the Ohio River at Mingo Junction, but the link into Pittsburgh is gone. It does connect to Pittsburgh via the former Wabash Bridge and line.
Rail service to Wheeling, WV is completely gone, and the right-of-ways have been removed. CSX is active to the south into Benwood, WV and the bridge to Bellaire, OH.
Posts: 76 | From: Steubenville, OH | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Heaven only knows where he proposes to get $210 billion. That point aside, however, $20 to $25 billion, I think, would be a reasonable amount for Amtrak, since it would go to increasing energy independence.
Needless to say, I think $1 or $2 billion of that $210 billion should go for an essentially dedicated passenger main Pittsburg to St. Louis.
Also, needless to see, I think $2 or $3 billion should go to build a passenger main to revive the L&N Humming Bird, Chicago, Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Birmingham, Montgomery, Mobile, to New Orleans. I understand that route now is almost all single track.
Now that I have spent $5 billion, how do I propose to spend the other $20 billion? I have reached the end of my planning rope with $5 billion. However, I am $5 billion ahead of NARP, which at the moment to my knowledge doesn't have a national spending plan for ten cents.
Where should the other money go for Amtrak? NARP should answer and should have answered that question long ago with a plan from which to generate propaganda in case money appeared on the horizon, something that has now happened. The propaganda machine should have been going full blast a few weeks ago. That is what a national advocacy group is supposed to do.
When I say NARP here I mean the NARP Board. Plenty of people on that Board have knowledge of the state of Amtrak, unserved markets, equipment needs and availability, problems, the possibility of quick employment for rebuilding equipment, and where bang could be gotten for bucks, certainly equal to top Amtrak management.
That knowledge in the Board has never found its way into a plan and a program for a political advocacy move to grab a slice of Obama's $210 billion for Amtrak.
We need that now.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, before any new service can be even considered, AMTRAK needs to invest in the purchase of some new equipment............
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This looks like a good thread people let's keep it going, but less flank attacks on an advo groups and more attack on the frontal problem of passenger rail service enhancements. Amtraksupporter, I like the fire I'm hearing from you and I believe Notelvis point is dead on. But, let me add some of my concerns to help for more passenger rail: 1) per Ohio. It needs more rail in daylight hours, now just about everything, except delays, happen at night time. Daylight hours would increase available use by daytime, most of us, people, if Pitt-StL does it great, let's do it. 2) Right of ways. The interstates, in the 50's to late 20th Century, never let farms, homes, and dreams stand in the way when they drew straight lines on a maps. Passenger rail supporters need to be more 21st Century observant and sensitive but hard nosed determined that a realtime transportation policy in the nation must include rail and the political will to forge ahead. Links can be reconnected were possible, re-routed where possible, linked to interstates where advantageous and combined with other transit forms where necessary. A tunnel or right of way can be used by wheeled vehicle and still have track installed to serve one or more daily trains, it is just a scheduling/safety thing management can handle. 3) Transcontinental. Passenger rail proponents should not fall down that slippery slope of many airline enthusiasts, namely thinking of the vast majority of the nation as "fly over territory". Even if Amtrak picks up only 40-50 people at a national "Heartland Station," that station means a lot to the people using Amtrak. Some want long-distance trains with limited stops, going coast to coast and superfast. That's how airlines, and roads to a degree, miss the point. The point being people and how their lives are served. If the Heartland can not be served by air or highway what is left for those that may need a hitchhike, bike, cane, walker, wheelchair, bus or friends to get them to a real station that serves their real world needs and desire for travel? That may be served by over 500 stations stops on Amtrak's gateway to the rest of this nation. Let's just not forget the folks inbetween, the small towns the small stops and the big-hearted folks that should have a voice also. If we are talking the any other way, we need to be on the fly-over boys and girls website. 4) East-to-West, West-to-East. Amtrak already has a lot of E-W/W-E. One west coast, one Mississippi River, one east coast are the only North-South routes. What we need are more North-South routes. Minn-Texas, Arizona/NM-Montana/Idaho. At least cross the "X" of the Cresent Route with one Chicago-Atl/Savanna or Fla. Got no problem with Pitt-StL, the demo figures are right, but let also think N-S/S-N also. 5) Double tracking. We need it, we want it, the political will must make it so. Don't expect Amtrak to run it or build it. Passenger rail folks, politicians and the big freight rails have to come to terms. The only way Amtrak, or any future passenger rail service, is to move with realistic OTP is to get back on a priority track. To do that freights must see the hard advantage of working with Federal money to help them also move freight more effectively. NS wants out of Michigan so that it focus (energy, time, money) on the Crescent Route. Freights can not do everything, everywhere. They need capital, not with strings like in the past, but with a real vision of a Federal/passenger/freight partnership that moves this country-the infrastructure thing.
Posts: 39 | From: Detroit, MI, USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robert L: The interstates, in the 50's to late 20th Century, never let farms, homes, and dreams stand in the way when they drew straight lines on a maps. Passenger rail supporters need to be more 21st Century observant and sensitive but hard nosed determined that a realtime transportation policy in the nation must include rail and the political will to forge ahead. Links can be reconnected were possible, re-routed where possible...
Yes. Too many people seem to be getting discouraged and attaching unnecessary importance to the fact that lines have been abandoned or downgraded. Sure, but isn't that a lot better than having no right-of-way, or precedent for train service, at all? I can't emphasize this enough, especially because railroad tracks take up far less space than, for example, interstate highways, for the amount of traffic they handle. Sure it will cost something, but when we are talking about the most economic ways to spend money on transportation, I think reconnecting old rail routes is getting way too little serious consideration.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would add the following to my original post.
The economic analysis of this route should include Cincinnati (MSA pop. 2,113,000) because it is only 50 miles to the Pennsylvania main line at Dayton. The total route population, Pittsburgh - St. Louis, is 12.5 million. The route length, including Cincinnati, is approximately 651 miles. This works out to 19,000 persons per mile. The whole route sounds like commuter train territory.
Switzerland had 3,125 passenger route miles, see http://www.swissworld.org/en/economy/transport/rail/ (1965 SBB and 1,250 private) The Swiss density works out to 2,333 persons per route mile. Thus, Pittsburgh-St. Louis has eight time the route population density of Switzerland but zero Amtrak trains.
Incredibly, neither Amtrak management nor NARP headquarters show any understanding of the economic Importance or potential of this route.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps once the expansion of Amtrak really gets going, the Pittsburgh-St. Louis route would be part of the system, whether or not it is part of NARP's or Amtrak's tentative plans at the moment.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the term NIMBY mean anything to folks here?
These days the quickest way for a Congresscritter to get himself put out of office is to vote for new basic infrastructure. Rebuild, certainly. Someone else's district? Certainly. Your own district, Heck No!
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Does the term NIMBY mean anything to folks here?
These days the quickest way for a Congresscritter to get himself put out of office is to vote for new basic infrastructure. Rebuild, certainly. Someone else's district? Certainly. Your own district, Heck No!
I don't think so. Do you have any examples? For the most part NIMBY's are relatively few in number, but very noisy.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
