The latest on Silver Service rerouting

Looking at the plan to develop a corridor along the FEC route, it becomes very clear that there was some poor planning behind it. The selected alternative has both the Silver Star and the Silver Meteor using the eastern coastal route with three local roundtrips. This proposal would result in the Star and Meteor's main routes serving Tampa via Orlando after the trains are split up in Jacksonville.

The bad news? Winter Haven, Sebring, and Okeechobee would no longer be served by a train. Did anyone even bother to think about what kind of an impact that would have on the cities in question? Or did everyone just assume that the missing gap would be served by a bus, absent a Tri-Rail extension? Even more evidence of poor planning shows that 1) neither a Palmetto extension nor a supplemental Cross-Florida service between Miami and Tampa was considered by the state or Amtrak in the stimulus application and 2) the other alternatives would--in theory at least--enable Amtrak to keep the three stops mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph by continuing to have at least one Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami roundtrip. It is ridiculous that nobody could even think about the possibility of corridor service in other parts of Florida when there is clearly a market for it.

A new path for the Sunset Limited

Earlier this year, I proposed that the Sunset Limited be transfered to a consortium by an act of Congress. I will now expand on that idea by stating that there would be significant changes so that this route doesn't interfere with Amtrak's plan to combine the Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle into a daily train between Chicago and Los Angeles and convert the San Antonio-New Orleans segment to a standalone daytime train.

Without further adieu, here is what will make a daily Sunset different from what Amtrak is proposing:

• The new route will be restructured to be a daily route between Phoenix and Orlando
• New and rehabilitated stations will be served along the line
• The new Sunset will be part of a public-private partnership
• There would be a marketing organization that will handle all promotion of the route

The rehabbed Sunset Limited--or Desert Limited if Amtrak retains the Sunset name--will serve Phoenix, giving that city its first regularly scheduled passenger service since the Union Pacific's purchase of Southern Pacific in 1996 forced Amtrak to use a southern route via Maricopa. The Phoenix location will serve as a precursor to regional rail service in Arizona, and it will be the temporary western terminus until the out of service SP tracks are restored. Once the tracks are modernized, the Desert Limited will be extended to Los Angeles. A side benefit will include the implementation of a complementary corridor connecting L.A. with Nogales.

When it comes to the stations, the New Sunset will serve Phoenix's historic Union Station, the Union Terminal in Jacksonville, and the planned Sunrail station in downtown Orlando as ways of standing out from Amtrak. Also, Phoenix Union Station will serve as a placeholder for all trains until a system is built up. Once that happens, overnight service will be shifted to a new station at Sky Harbor International Airport, leaving Union Station as the place to be for commuter and intrastate express trains.

The PPP idea stems from what is currently taking place in Germany. A joint UK-US venture called Locomore will launch an express route between Hamburg and Cologne next April. If Congress wants to the public sector to play a limited role in rail travel, a Sunset Limited PPP is the way to go because public-private partnership can do wonders for this country. As a matter of fact, we got a possible demonstration of that last fall when Seattle-based Cascadia Center for Regional Development took apart the flawed Amtrak report on the Pioneer, provided its own analysis, and talked to a private operator who could run the train for considerably less than what the national carrier is asking for.

Needless to say, Congress would have to compensate the three Class I carriers for having a second passenger operator on their rails, but it can be done. Aside from the hosts, residents in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida's panhandle would benefit because they would have their route restored, leading to complementary daytime service and corridor development along the line. Amtrak would also win because they would no longer have to deal with the missing link, and it could focus on other matters.

A standalone Sunset Limited organization could even handle marketing by indicating various points of interest. Partnerships with hotels, airports, cities, and local and national landmarks can also abound. A Sunset PPP can spark other organizations like the CCRD to develop PPP routes for other overnight service that Amtrak axed. It is not far-fetched to imagine an independent Desert Wind Organization providing route information for people who want to travel between the Midwest and the western United States.

Intercity Rail Competition Part 2

America's intercity rail system needs a major overhaul because what we now have not only doesn't work but risks becoming dysfunctional. There needs to be a realistic vision that combines conventional and high speed rail as well as corridors and long-distance trains. The zero-sum mentality has got to stop!  We don't necessarily have to “start over,” however, monopoly control must give way to multiple operators.

I offer five alternatives to the status quo:

1. Return all passenger routes to the host railroads (aka the Wilner Solution).

Benefits

• Before the dark days of the 1960s, passenger service was a natural fit for the railroads
• With BNSF going private, Warren Buffett could fire an opening salvo in the Class I railroads resuming passenger service as a business model

Drawbacks

• Congress opened up a big Pandora's Box in 1970 when it created Amtrak. Not all host railroads—specifically, Union Pacific—would want to resume intercity service
• Passengers would have to change trains if an existing Amtrak route is on more than one railroad line
• Corridor service would be more expensive to run than longer routes
• Since most railroads opted to hand their trains over to Amtrak in 1971, they would have no experience of how to handle passenger crews. As a result, the Class Is would have to rely on foreign operators for advice since Amtrak would no longer exist in this scenario

2. Return all long-distance routes to the host railroads. Amtrak to continue operating corridors.

Benefits

• The hosts would be able to better coordinate long-distance routes with each other than with Amtrak
• The odds of a profit being made on overnight trains increase
• Frequencies can be added to popular routes like Chicago-Albuquerque-Los Angeles and New York-New Orleans and could easily lead to branch routes like Flagstaff-Phoenix or Meridian-Dallas-Fort Worth
• Amtrak would no longer be able to force states to pay up for overnight service

Drawbacks

• The problems of passengers having to change long-distance trains would resurface
• There could be a potential monopoly in the HSR market, which would kill innovation. If that happens, the bidding process would become a big waste of time for not only Amtrak's various competitors but also for the railcar manufacturers  
• Congress may get involved and demand that the hosts keep certain routes and harm any possible innovative measures the railroads could conjure up

3. Amtrak retains operation of long-distance routes and the Northeast Corridor. All other corridors would be operated by domestic transit agencies and foreign rail operators. (the worst possible outcome out of the five)

Benefits

• Some states would welcome the chance to work with another company because they would no longer feel that their voice is being ignored by a company that has its main focus elsewhere
• These competitors will be given the chance to revolutionize the U.S. Intercity rail industry

Drawbacks

• Some hosts may like the foreign operators even less than Amtrak and could impose crippling restrictions
• Amtrak could retain a near monopoly in the overnight travel market with only a couple of hosts competing
• Amtrak may be subject to scorn from Congress over losses from certain long-distance routes
• Current Amtrak management has already stated that it has no plans to expand their long-distance routes. Even with predominately overnight routes, future management could still primarily focus on the NEC

4. Assign operators of corridors to several regions.

Benefits

• The move would randomly allow the world's best operators to demonstrate what they're all about
• Amtrak and its competitors would all be on equal footing

Drawbacks

• This model is akin to the pre-1978 airline system as well as the current setups of cable and telephone companies where competitors are limited to specific regions
• The hosts would have to deal with many operators in particular regions like the Midwest
• Foreign operators may have route coordinating issues with each other and/or Amtrak

And, finally, my preferred option

5. Open up all long-distance routes and corridors to everyone—Amtrak, hosts, transit agencies, foreign rail operators. (the best)

Benefits

• Amtrak would be forced to demonstrate why it should operate new routes and why it should continue operating existing routes
• Monopoly rule would end as other companies innovate
• Competitors can freely select where they want to operate
• The best companies will stand out from the rest
• Via a consortium, the hosts would work out a partnership with other operators that outbid Amtrak
• There would be no congressional scrutiny over long-distance routes not operated by Amtrak

Drawbacks

• Strange bedfellows—railfans and highway lobbyists—may squash this option mainly because it's the best of all solutions, and it may not fit their ideologies
• Based on the December 2009 article Don Phillips wrote for Trains Magazine, the hosts may pull enough strings on Capitol Hill to the point that Congress appoints them as the only operators of the trains. Such a move would avoid the hosts dealing with other passenger companies on U.S. soil  

Intercity Rail Competition Part 1

When it proposed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Congress could have drafted the competition portion a bit better than it actually did. It seems that the process that Congress approved leaves it up to the states. I would have started the bidding process for all corridors next April and mandated that the states hand their HSR corridors over to their operator of choice by October 2013. This would also apply to Conventional routes that would be subject to speed upgrades. The move would make any transition from Amtrak to a new operator should a state or states decide to move in a different direction as smooth as possible.

As for long-distance routes, Amtrak would have been mandated to submit an evaluation of its top third, middle tier, and worst performing routes to Congress 18 months after the passage of PRIIA. Bidding for these routes would have taken place in October 2013 with the host railroads operating them a year later. Congress should give a subsidy and/or grant to the hosts running overnight routes in place of Amtrak. In return, the host would operate the route for five years. After the five-year period, the host railroad would have the option to either operate the route permanently if the entire route is on its rails or lease the route to another operator like Keolis for a decade. If the route is on multiple rails, then the Class Is would come together and select a new operator to run the entire route a part of a consortium.

Now, it seems that January's big winners scheduled to operate Emerging and Regional HSR as well as additional Conventional frequencies will select Amtrak as the operator. While, it seems to be a deterrent, other companies should follow SNCF's lead and begin developing their own alternatives--whether those include Express HSR, Regional HSR, or just a direct alternative to Amtrak that could possibly lead to an Express corridor.

I look at the Midwest, where the French rail operator has provided some interesting alternatives--all of them Express routes--since Amtrak will upgrade many of its existing Conventional lines to Regional status. First, a Chicago-Detroit route via Fort Wayne could compete with the Wolverine route. Second, its proposed Chicago-St. Louis route would be parallel to Amtrak's current Lincoln service. In the end, travelers between the two cities could end up choosing from three different rail companies since MWHSR has also proposed another Express route that would utilize Champaign and Decatur. The thing is that some companies could target specific travelers while others could cater to everyone.

Furthermore, there are openings in Wisconsin and Minnesota as there are some uncertainties over where the Madison-Twin Cities portion of MWHSR will stop. Hypothetically, a rival organization can fill in whatever gaps that aren't covered by either the U.S. or French carriers. Amtrak may be tapped to operate the Hiawatha extension in 2013, but there is an opening to provide a Madison-Chicago alternative by way of Rockford that companies like Deutsche Bahn, RENFE, Virgin Trains, and others could take advantage of. Also, one of these companies could negotiate with NEWRails to run trains between Milwaukee and Green Bay.

Amtrak's Worst-Case Scenario

After thinking it over, I have decided to go ahead and publish this viewpoint.

During the Amtrak Era, many rail advocates have tied the future of intercity rail travel to one party. However, overconfidence with Democrats controlling two branches in D.C. has resulted in Amtrak service being slashed within a 2 1/2 year span--the Carter administration ordered the 1979 cuts while Tom Downs took consulting firm Mercer's advice 16 years later and reduced the system to almost nothing while Clinton did nothing to stop the systematic destruction of passenger rail.

Now, I don't think that President Obama will allow any gutting of the Amtrak system--even with the fear of what could happen in November. Even if the GOP does win one or both chambers of Congress, they wouldn't have the necessary 67 votes to kill Amtrak (a veto-proof majority in the Senate is what we should really be talking about). After all, Obama can veto any anti-rail measures that a transit-hostile legislative branch throws at him. Furthermore, does anyone think that a President Palin or Romney would even have 60 Senate votes to do away with the national carrier if either one wins in two years? I certainly don't think so.

Instead, the absolute worst thing that can happen to Amtrak is for its system to be gutted by competitors. How? Amtrak could strike out on much of the HSR bidding by watching foreign operators and domestic transit agencies outbid them, lose some of its long-distance routes to friendly host railroads like Norfolk Southern, and watch new companies experiment in other areas of intercity rail travel.

So, a future lineup would leave Amtrak with the following: the NEC, every other Northeastern route, Midwestern routes that qualify at the Regional HSR level and below, existing California Conventional service, Cascades service, Carolinian, all Silver Service routes, Cardinal, the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle's successor, and Coast Starlight, with its only pickups being the northern portion of SEHSR (with which the present-day Piedmont will be integrated into) and part or all of the Ohio Hub. The short story being that everything else would go to the hosts, transit agencies, and foreign operators, but in the end, Amtrak would still operate the most routes in the U.S.

If anyone doubts anything I said in the preceding two paragraphs, I can only tell you that it would only take one member of Congress. For argument's sake, let's say that Amtrak runs the 3C route and Spain's RENFE operates the Chicago-Cincinnati and Columbus-Cincinnati routes. A congressman or congresswoman from the Cincinnati area could threaten to hold up funding for Amtrak unless the Spanish carrier is included in future funding plans. Suddenly, Congress--regardless of which party has control--would have to evenly spread out the money to anybody running a railroad in America.

The president could have given $16.5 billion to Amtrak, but he gave $8.5 billion to the states to develop their high-speed rail plans last year. That move should say something to the Amtrak higher ups: The most Amtrak-friendly president in history diverted more than half of the economic stimulus money intended for intercity rail away from the national carrier! I have said for some time now that Amtrak can only get better if the likes of East Japan, DB, and SNCF beat it out for many of the nation's high speed rail corridors. Being cornered by multiple operators would mean that Boardman and Company would have to reinvent itself rather than be complacent.

We must develop high-speed rails for NE Corridor - TheHill.com

We must develop high-speed rails for NE Corridor - TheHill.com

Mica's statements are in italics while I provide a response in the paragraphs thereafter.

Nowhere is the lack of investment in true high-speed more glaring than in the Northeast Corridor. This is, in fact, the only corridor owned by Amtrak. Amtrak continues its Soviet-style control over this vital transportation asset linking our nation’s financial and political capitals. Amtrak’s supposed high-speed service, the Acela, is an international joke. While high-speed trains in Europe and Asia speed along at an average of 150 mph or faster, Acela averages only 83 mph and is little more than a nice looking train that just makes fewer stops than the Amtrak regional service. The Acela simply doesn't compare to any true high-speed international service.

Mica's had this obsession of opening up the NEC to private competition since 2002. Perhaps, a separate express HSR line between Washington and Boston is needed, but only after Florida and California have their shots at running trains that are on par with trains in Europe and Asia. There's nothing wrong with opening the 456-mile corridor to private competition. But, the congressman has to realize that the Northeast has gotten preferential treatment from Amtrak for decades and that the congressional delegation will go out of its way to bar any competitors that could outshine Amtrak.

Unfortunately, 76 of the 78 stimulus grants the administration awarded under the $8 billion in the Recovery Act are for incremental speed improvements for Amtrak and do nothing to advance high-speed rail. Most of the projects selected are designed to allow passenger trains to operate only slightly faster while continuing to commingle with slower freight traffic. Much like their plan for the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak supports these projects out of self-interest — there is little doubt who will be the service provider in these new projects over routes where Amtrak currently operates.

As far as the field being tilted so heavily in Amtrak's favor, this is the one area where I agree with the congressman given that I am worried about Amtrak being the only operator of high speed rail. It would be criminal if the president didn't allow qualified operators like JR Central of Japan or SNCF to have the chance to run HSR trains because that would force Amtrak to step up its game with the NEC. If anything, Congress should subdivide Amtrak's funds into NEC and non-NEC so Amtrak can use the money wisely for other parts of the nation.

Of State Corridors and Amtrak

The February issue of Trains Magazine featured an article on California's success with intercity rail. However, the thing that I paid the closest attention to was the line that states have until October 2013 to pay Amtrak for their corridors by agreeing on a single formula or they risk losing those trains.
Given the current dire situation most states have with their budgets, several state legislatures have threatened to end funding for certain state-supported routes. For now, nothing has happened, but suppose that the economy doesn't get better in 32 months, what would the Amtrak system look like? Furthermore, would the states even care enough to keep these conventional, 79 mph services running, or will have most of them jumped on the high speed rail bandwagon? If the bulk of the states choose the latter, they risk stopping the upcoming passenger rail renaissance dead in its tracks (for the lack of a better term).
Back in 2003, the Missouri legislature came very close to handing its trains over to Herzog. Now, if Herzog were running the Missouri River Runner trains today, it might have been able to not only have a better working relationship with Union Pacific, but, it could have also been able to add frequencies between St. Louis and Kansas City!
I really hope that President Obama encourages competition for not only the fast trains but also the conventional speed trains--regardless of whether they're long distance trains or short runs. So, I would like to see him persuade the companies currently bidding for HSR corridors to operate some of these corridors in the event that Amtrak cuts off ties with a state in the fall of '13. Such a goodwill gesture could potentially put an end to the annual begfests that we all read about in a handful of states. After all, if passenger rail is going to prosper, we can't have certain states taking the hostile view that rail service is expendable.