A Strategy for the '28 Olympics

If Amtrak were to get on the same page with either Caltrans and Nevada DOT (or both), it could counter Brightline West’s pending service just in time for the next Summer Olympics in three steps.

The first step would be to roll out conventional Los Angeles-Las Vegas service with four or five roundtrips during the Olympic Games (and then cutting back to its planned two roundtrips as per ConnectsUS afterwards). Part of the inspiration comes from this article from 2021.

Secondly, if Amfleets, Horizon Cars or surplus cars from California prove to be unavailable, then, the soon to be discontinued Talgo Cars should be the first backup plan once the Cascades get the new Airo equipment. Another strategy would be to borrow commuter equipment that isn’t being used and tidy it up until Amtrak can get its older fleet to the West Coast.

Finally, there’s the marketing aspect. Since Brightline West would easily outpace Amtrak on speed and amenities, Amtrak, Caltrans and Nevada should hit the HSR operator on its weak spot: The lack of a direct connection to L.A. Union Station. Brightline West will initially have its southern terminus in Rancho Cucamonga where passengers will have to transfer to/from Metrolink. Until Brightline West can build a direct connection there, provide its own shuttle train westward or the High Desert Corridor opens, some last-minute passengers might choose Amtrak over Brightline West based on that alone. Easy marketing for the Olympics: “We have the only direct route to the Olympics. You have to change trains while traveling with the other guys.” (Note: this could work the other way around for Super Bowls to Vegas)

The Floridian is coming back...sort of

For the first time in 45 years, Amtrak is providing direct Chicago-Florida service, but if you read the fine print--from the horse's mouth itself--it becomes evident very quickly that it's just a combination of the Silver Star and Capitol Limited and that it's only happening because the East River Tunnels in NYC are being rehabilitated.

This temporary route will use the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers old numbers of 40 and 41, which may be more of a preview of the Long Distance Service Study version of the Floridian, which will serve Atlanta instead of Birmingham (side note: since the Midwest Connect route is a corridor route, it's very likely that the Chicago-Fort Wayne-Columbus-Pittsburgh route will get triple-digit numbers).

What this means for the long-heralded New York-Florida service is that it will once again be reduced to one frequency. For most of 2022, it was the Silver Star that was picking up the slack while the Silver Meteor was suspended due to Covid-19 related issues. Now, it'll be the Meteor having to ferry all the people north of D.C. This is where an extended Palmetto would have been helpful. 

The FRA Identifies New Long-Distance Routes

Last week, the FRA released its list of preferred routes for the Long Distance Service Study. This would double the Long-Distance Network to 30 routes, the list "spreads the wealth" as all regions are covered, and there a number of nonlinear routes.

The longest is the North Coast Hiawatha at 2,096 miles while the shortest is the Atlanta-Fort Worth service at 870 miles (50 hours vs 22 hours).

My only gripe is that neither one of these two routes should have been forced to use the Corridor ID Program just to secure funding. That's a large failing on Amtrak and the feds.

Direct Chicago-Florida service is long overdue as it hasn't had as much as connecting service in 32 years. This is a missing need since the late 1970s and the reroute via Atlanta would serve more people along better tracks.

Another need regarding Florida service is east-west service via the "suspended" Sunset East route. Reimplementing the Gulf Wind and extending it to Dallas/Fort Worth would provide riders with a brand new train running on a much more reliable schedule. Also, the Gulf Coast route would have more roundtrips with three long-distance routes between New Orleans and Mobile as opposed to the beleaguered corridor service.

The plan shows that Phoenix can be a hub with two overnight routes and planned corridor service without rerouting the Sunset Limited as the former depot and the airport would both draw a lot of passengers.

Going back to Chicago, it's nice to see the FRA paying attention to the city's congestion issues enough to move northern termini of three routes to Detroit (one) and the Twin Cities (two) and to use Indianapolis, St. Louis and Kansas City as hub cities for northeast-southwest routes instead funneling everything to a crowded Union Station.

Other interesting tidbits:

• The Northeast Region has the fewest routes at two
• The Central Region has the most routes at 11
• The Gulf Wind would be Amtrak's way of utilizing the FEC route
• The FRA flipping the script on the Desert Wind and Pioneer in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming
• The Atlanta & West Point route via Montgomery being used is a long overdue alternative between Atlanta and New Orleans
• South Dakota would finally get Amtrak service with two routes

Left out:

• Additional Silver Service routes
• Service via the S-Line in Florida
• Direct service from the Carolinas to Texas
• Other Midwest-Florida service
• Broadway Limited revival

For the excluded routes, I think that it's a case of having to make due with what's already in place with Silver Service. For some of these routes, the Nightjet and Dreamstar models would be useful in filling gaps (*cough* direct NC-FL service). Other Midwest cities that could use Florida service could have connecting cars to either an existing route or one these new routes. As far as the S-Line in Florida, it may be a lost case outside of a future Gainesville-Miami route as part of an expanded Southeast Corridor. Parts of the western half of the Broadway Limited are expected to be covered by the proposed Chicago-Fort Wayne-Columbus-Pittsburgh route and the eastern half will be covered by the second Pennsylvanian.

In conclusion, I think that the "spread the wealth" approach is tbe FRA quitely nudging Amtrak management to actually behave as a national operator instead of an NEC-first entity that also shakes down non-NEC states for money to operate routes under Section 403(b). Perhaps, once the next reauthorization rolls around, we could eventually see other operators handling state routes while Amtrak fulfills its obligations under the 1970 law that created it.

Random thoughts #17

1. As an appendix to my last post: The open access model would also apply to any operator who wants to take on Amtrak in its most favorable region, the NEC.
2. What was notable in Wisconsin was which funded route Senator Baldwin omitted--namely, the West Central Wisconsin route. It's almost like these elected officials only recognize Amtrak as a legitmate operator even though they themselves signed off on legislation that makes it easier for other operators to get federal funding for routes.
3. Improving the existing Cascades vs investing in the ultra HSR Cascadia Rail service is a good problem to have on the other side of the country.
4. Competition for Channel Tunnel service is coming.
5. AMLO is trying to reverse a gigantic mistake that was made by the Mexican government almost three decades ago when NdeM was privatized and then curtailed passenger service.
6. It would be so ironic if the Fort Worth-Dallas section of high speed rail turned a wheel before the Dallas-Houston one given all of the focus on the latter until last month.
7. Operators like SEPTA and METRA are sending the wrong message in closing their ticket windows and incovniencing their passengers who may walk up at the last minute.

Decentralizing Amtrak?

The FRA Long Distance Service Study could lead to the separation of Amtrak's three business units, but the question for me is whether it will be a voluntary or involuntary one.

Involuntary Splitting

In the case of the latter, it could happen during the next passenger rail reauthorization bill once the current bill expires in 2026. The fiasco around the Biden Administration nominating way too many Northeastern representatives onto the Amtrak Board to the point where a Western senator from his own party had to block said nominees could only be the beginning. Assuming that there is no change in the House and the Senate flips next year, I could see a Republican Congress being all too happy to strip powers from Stephen Gardner.

Under this formal separation, the NEC and other adjacent parts of the Northeastern states would continue to be run by Gardner but the rest of Amtrak would be in the hands of someone who will make every destination west of Harrisburg, PA and south of Washington, D.C. matter.

Voluntary Splitting

The other option would require an incredible amount of self-awareness from the current Amtrak management and/or Board that is seriously lacking at this moment. In other words, an informal separation would happen due to either Amtrak leadership or the Board realizing that the company is stretched thin due to a number of factors: an overemphasis on the NEC at the expense of the rest of the country, the expansion of long-distance routes as recommended by the FRA, equipment breakdowns/shortages, etc.

As a result, someone would be tasked to run the overnight routes on a laissez-fare basis while Gardner and others would then focus on Amtrak's other units and equipment orders.

Conclusion

Given the pending competition that will be coming after Brightline, Amtrak risks falling behind if it doesn't revamp, so either option would be in its best interest.

How the Dutch Model Could Work Here

The Background

Applying the Dutch Model to Each Amtrak Business Unit

The Northeast Corridor

The NEC is the U.S. equivalent of the Main Line Network. The logistics and politics would at very best require major compromises. Under the Dutch Model, Amtrak would keep the service via a no-bid contract but in exchange for that exclusivity, track and infrastructure would be transferred to a new USDOT entity--nullifying any false claims of the NEC being "privatized" once and for all.

That infrastructure company would be responsible for restoring the 457-mile route back to acceptable shape, leaving Amtrak to exclusively focus on running trains (let's face it, the 1976 decision to burden Amtrak with NEC ownership has been a bane on passenger rail). 

State-Supported Routes

For routes under 750 miles, the tender system will be used and applied to individual states, multistate compacts and California's Joint Powers Authorities. These routes would be put up for bid for contracts ranging anywhere from five to 10 years, and the commuter rail model could also be worth a look.

This would allow these entities more freedom to explore other companies who could expand and vastly improve service in ways that are currently unimaginable. The West Central Wisconsin Rail Coalition is currently doing a version of competitive bidding with its proposed Eau Claire-Twin Cities service which last saw passenger service six decades ago.

If enough states use the tender system, innovations from the most ambitious of these companies could largely render the Amtrak Connects US plan obsolete outside of Virginia (has a 30-year contract), Illinois (home to the Chicago Hub), Michigan (only place outside of the NEC where Amtrak has track rights) and parts of Southern California (Pacific Surfliners and future Coachella Valley and Las Vegas routes).

Long-Distance Routes

The overnight trains should be handled via the open access model. In addition to the FRA's Long Distance Service Study being utilized, other companies would run overnight service on the track via intense negotiations and assuming full responsibility. 

Two potential examples are Dreamstar Lines and the Southeast Passenger Rail Initiative. The former plans to launch an overnight route between Los Angeles and San Francisco (in the mold of the SP's Lark route) while the latter is a rail advocacy group pushing for the Nightjet model, which would provide express or semi-express services throughout the Southeast.

CNBC on CAHSR's troubles

 

The lack of a champion

In the latest sign of how the U.S. is no longer willing to do bold things, the first leg of the CAHSR line, a portion of the 119-mile segment between Bakersfield and Merced is now scheduled to open between 2030 and 2033. This will come after the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. Instead of the usual environmental reviews, lawsuits and various interests trying to kill the project as well as relative indifference from Governor Gavin Newsom, this route needed a champion as laid out by an advocate two years ago.

A different approach was needed

The portion between 13:40 and 14:05 is probably the most vital part of the video. Bent Flyvberg is technically correct in a sense that the segments connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco should have been the first two to open. Think about it, the latter was technically a part of a pair of Initial Operating Segment schedules in a past business plan by the CAHSR Authority alongside Merced-Bakersfield. The Authority should have just gone ahead and put out some DB schedules upon the completion of the Caltrain Electrification Project and then started the work between San Jose and Merced.

Meanwhile on the other end, building the Los Angeles-Bakersfield segment would have gotten more bang for the buck as it would have also ended more than half a century of no train service between the two cities (back in the early 2000s, Union Pacific rejected a plan to extend San Joaquin train service to L.A. via the Tehachapi Pass).

Speaking about the Danish expert being "technically" correct, the Merced-Bakersfield IOS is as a political thing as the HSR route skipping I-5. I'll take a further step and say that it mirrors Florida HSR's ill-fated attempt to build Tampa-Orlando before Miami-Orlando--a mistake that was only corrected by Brightline's parent company owning tracks and right of way between Miami and the Orlando Airport.