WASHINGTON — A Houston-New York route received the highest preliminary ranking in the Federal Railroad Administration’s newly released Long-Distance Service Study final report, which considers 15 previously identified routes for new or restored Amtrak service.
However, the report says the rankings “do not reflect prioritization for implementation funding,” but may “provide guidance on future priorities for the next phase of project planning.”
Chicago-Miami, Dallas/Fort Worth-New York, Detroit-New Orleans, and Phoenix-Minneapolis-St. Paul received the next highest rankings. In a separate section, the report also recommends expanding the currently triweekly Cardinal and Sunset Limited to daily service.
The 15 routes had been identified in a preliminary report issued last June [see “FRA long-distance study seeks to quantify …,” Trains News Wire, June 21, 2024]. They are ranked according to three factors, which are weighed in importance based on stakeholder input:
— Level of complexity in implementing a route, based on railroad use and some, but not all, capital project requirements (40%)
— Level of public benefits from the route (50%)
— Estimated operating cost (10%).
The highest possible ranking under this system is 15 points, while the lowest is three. The resulting rankings for the preferred routes:
— Houston-New York, 14 points;
— Chicago-Miami, 11;
— Dallas/Fort Worth-New York, 10;
— Detroit-New Orleans, 10;
— Phoenix-Minneapolis/St. Paul, 10;
— Denver-Houston, 9;
— Dallas/Fort Worth-Atlanta, 8;
— Dallas/Fort Worth-Miami, 8;
— Denver-Minneapolis/St. Paul, 8;
— Los Angeles-Denver, 8;
— San Antonio-Minneapolis/St. Paul, 8;
— Seattle-Denver, 7;
— El Paso-Billings, 6.
The Seattle-Chicago North Coast Hiawatha route, along with daily Cardinal and Sunset Limited service, were not considered because of their selection last year in the FRA’s Corridor Identification and Development Program.
As in the earlier preliminary report, the 133-page final document offers a range of estimated startup costs for each route, including equipment needs, station and maintenance facility costs, and estimated infrastructure improvements; those figures include a 35% contingency to address “unknown factors such as site conditions, environmental conditions, and other factors. More planning and analysis would be required for further development and refinement of accurate total cost estimates.”
Those preliminary estimates are considerable. The Denver-Twin Cities route alone, which includes a substantial segment in South Dakota where track would require significant upgrades, is estimated to cost up to $5.83 billion for infrastructure improvements, more than the next two most expensive routes combined. Overall, the costs range from $9.29 billion to $12.02 for rolling stock; $17.15 billion to $23.96 billion for stations and maintenance facility costs; and $17.95 billion to $23.05 billion for infrastructure. The total cost for the entire package: $44.39 billion to $59.03 billion.
The report says the 15 routes would add 23,200 route-miles, serve an additional 39 million people, and increase the number of possible city pairs served by long-distance trains by 157,600 pairs, or 87%. Some 32,000 city pairs would receive more direct service.
A document accompanying the report calls it “a crucial early step in a comprehensive process” to expand service. It notes that there is currently no sustained financial report or program to advance the selected routes, although some may be eligible for additional planning funds through the Corridor ID program.
Congress ordered the FRA study as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, and called for specific attention to routes discontinued since Amtrak’s launch in 1971. Eleven of the 15 routes would at least partially restore service that has been discontinued.
Time and again I have emphasised the most direct efficient route for the Houston – New York service is via Palestine, Longview, Little Rock, Memphis, Huntsville (now the largest city in Alabama), Chattanooga, Knoxville, Bristol (Virginia), Roanoke, and Washington. My recommended route would fill a tremendous void between Houston, northeast Texas, Arkansas, Memphis, and the Tennessee Valley.
This is without neandering through the cities of New Orleans, Birmingham, and Atlanta already served by Amtrak to go northwest to Chattanooga as displayed on the concept map for expansion.
Charles, you forgot George Bush Jr to your list who almost ran Amtrak into insolvency much like he did to the whole country. I’m sure Don the Con (convicted felon & con man) will outdo George though.
Mr Smith don’t forget Amtrak spreads their losses across the entire system which means all the huge losses from trying to maintain 100 yr old + NEC gets shifted to the rest of the network. Short distance corridors will have stagnant growth because there will be no outside ridership feeding into it to grow. So eliminating the LD routes will solve all those issue you mentioned? Be real! The money will come from the same pot that has bailed out the Hwy Trust fund for now nearly $200 billion since 2008, the same pot that is used to fund the Air Traffic Controllers & TSA, the same pot that funds the money losing Essential Air Svc, services I don’t feel my tax money should be used for. I sure you’re an “R” but what the hell does student loan, mortgages & credit card debt have to do with Amtrak???? I think there’s many bigger fish to skin than Amtrak..Good starting point Defense spending!
For the three years ended FY24, the long-distance trains had a loss of $1,794.5 million. The national debt is north of $36 trillion and growing at a rate of more than $1 trillion a year. Add in state and local government debt, mortgage debt, student loan debt, credit card debt, etc., and total debt burden is approximately $60 to $65 trillion. Just where the money to expand the long-distance trains will come from is a mystery.
Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors. The long-distance trains should be terminated, and the equipment used to expand service on existing corridors or develop new ones, i.e., DFW to San Antonio, Tucson to Phoenix, etc.
I really wonder, given recent events, and the new administration, whether there is any point to this at all. If Amtrak can’t run, seemingly at all, in cold weather, and since we now have an anti-rail administration, maybe the plug should be pulled. Or maybe it will be pulled anyway.
I don’t know that we have an anti-rail administration. It’s too early to tell. As I write, Trump hasn’t been president for a full 24-hours. As for his first term, 2017 – 2021, I don’t recall any actions against passenger rail.
It seems to me that the three most anti-rail administrations in North America haven’t been conservatives, but ultra-leftist socialist greenies. Those being Joe Biden in USA, Gavin Newsom in California, and Justin Castreau in Canada. In America, Amtrak has fallen to shambles under Amtrak Joe. In Canada, where Justin has been PM for a decade, VIA is the world’s sickest excuse for passenger rail. In California, very admirable advances in passenger rail were made PRIOR to Newsom being governor, but while he’s been governor CalHSR has been a colossal flop.
Going back to the article itself, I think we’ve known for fifty years that you can’t get LDs by taking a sharpie to a map. There’s very few of these routes that are viable under current conditions. Early in Amtrak, Chicago to Miami failed miserably. Should we try again? Not until we get on top of the game. Amtrak’s Chicago to Florida service was maybe the slowest train in the timetable. If we re-established that route under today’s freight railroad operating conditions and policies, my guess it would be even slower.
Larry, after reading the article I was moved to write a comment, but you said exactly what I planned on writing.
Sir Charles, Trump may not have directly hurt Amtrak but he didn’t exactly embrace it either. And yes, Smokin’ Joe really disappointed a lot of railfans/travelers in his handling (or lack of) of Amtrak.
re: Charles.
Simply absurd about Mr. Biden. In contrast to all evidence.