Amtrak Heartland Flyer Discussion and Possible Extension

it's federal law, not amtrak policy

Yes, short distance trains do require subsidies from states per Federal law. Never-the-less, the once 1,000 plus mile Lone Star all the way from Chicago to Houston wouldn't require any state subsidy iaw Federal law.

But the Lone Star (and the other '79 cuts) was not discontinued because of "Amtrak policy," but because of the marching orders given to Amtrak by Congress and the Carter-era DOT (reinforcing again that not all Dems support Amtrak).

Back to the original topic, if the SWC were rerouted via the Transcon, I could see an additional frequency from Ft. Worth to Wichita as a connection. Otherwise, I'd tend to agree with Mr. Dunville that additional fequencies on the HF route would be the best approach at this time.

newsobserver.com wrote:But if it could be done, the Lone Star route today would serve up to 368,000 passengers per year, according to a service development plan completed in November.

Every new transportation proposal has nice large estimates for the number of passengers, and I always wonder just how reliable they are, on average. I know that when it comes to construction projects (new stadiums, racetracks, toxic waste dumps, etc.), the projected economic benefits are always ridiculously inflated.

Has anyone ever compared the projected passenger counts with the actual number for some of these proposals (that is, the ones that were actually implemented)? How often are they even in the ballpark?

My sense is that the current trend is to underpromise and overdeliver on ridership (at least that was true with the Lynchburg train). Cost estimates, on the other hand, .....

Regarding Mr. Smith's linked material, gotta say that advocacy group, Northern Flyer Alliance, scored big-time having two wire services, McClatchy and Associated Press, feeding at their trough whatever they chose to serve up.

At a time when Amtrak is under the budget microscope, they don't need to worry about starting up a dormant route when they already have quite enough Long Distance trains as is.

As I have consistently held throughout the entire Amtrak era, the LD's are not about moving people in an economic and efficient manner even though some "niche' groups find the service quite attractive. The LD's are simply about building political support so that what is a clearly, albeit essential, regional service - the Northeast Corridor - can garner Federal level funding.

Amtrak gets funded; the existing LD's are doing their job, Why have more?

Gilbert B Norman wrote:At a time when Amtrak is under the budget microscope, they don't need to worry about starting up a dormant route when they already have quite enough Long Distance trains as is.

As I have consistently held throughout the entire Amtrak era, the LD's are not about moving people in an economic and efficient manner even though some "niche' groups find the service quite attractive. The LD's are simply about building political support so that what is a clearly, albeit essential, regional service - the Northeast Corridor - can garner Federal level funding.

Amtrak gets funded; the existing LD's are doing their job, Why have more?

Except the proposal under discussion, extension of the Heartland Flyer to Wichita or Kansas City, wouldn't be a LD train. It would be a regional train requiring state subsidies (actually from three states, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas). The HF today is being subsidized by Texas and Oklahoma.
Funny, I don't recall if all the Regional trains running on the NEC are being subsidized by states.
Sure, Virginia subsidizes Regional extended NEC trains deep into Virginia - only the Virginia operations, Pennsylvania subsidies Regional extended NEC trains to Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, New York subsidies Regional non-NEC trains to Albany and Buffalo, Vermont subsidies Regional non-NEC trains to Vermont, and Maine subsidies non-NEC trains to Maine. But is there any state subsidy for Regional NEC trains that don't leave the NEC?

I suppose you could make the argument that the states shouldn't support it since the NEC only passes through a very small section of each of the states (therefore only serving a small fraction of the population) and the NEC is a predominantly interstate service, whereas other state supported services are entirely intrastate or only cross one state line but sufficiently serves both states. There is of course the Downeaster that passes through New Hampshire who doesn't pay into the service but again, they get a very negligible benefit from it while Massachusetts and Maine get a much bigger benefit. In any event, these states are usually already funding their own regional service within their state (MARC, SEPTA, NJT, etc). In the case of the Fort Worth-Kanas City service, both states would more heavily benefit and therefore would be a state supported service. Another possibility is that the ridership in state supported corridors isn't anywhere near the level of the NEC and therefore corridor service can't be justified without state support. Not that I agree with all this, I'm just speculating as to their line of reasoning. I really do think states need to play a larger role in passenger rail in general.

<BUMP> news....

Merged a bunch of Heartland Flyer threads with the more recent Lone Star thread. The subjects are related. The earliest thread, was, er, interesting. The "cleaner" had to make some creative edits......

Anyway, here's the news: ...Proposal to expand rail passenger service derailed.

Doesn't look like it's going to Newton, so likely the Lone Star discussion is out....

The department estimated the cost of improvements needed for the Newton route would be $87.5 million. The Kansas City route would cost about $245.5 million.

It's dead for a decade. I've posted for the past 4 years at another forum on this subject.

Here are the root causes:

- Failure to build TIMELY political support in the kansas House of Representatives. Just like Congress, gotta have both bodies onboard. Northern Flyer Alliance was happy with one. Ooops.

- Failure to have a sense of urgency. The handwriting was on the wall in 2008 that sam brownback would be the next governor of kansas. That should have been a big blue flag to NFA: Get the servicing done and clear the flag. He's not a believer in passenger rail.

- Failure to meet the specs of the grant request: CFR stated the expected speed for HSIPR funds was 110MPH. The grant proposals were for 79MPH. If I had been a policy analyst in the office of the DOT Secretary, I'd have rejected the kansas apps out of hand as well.

- Failure to hold the consultants' feet to the fire. Parsons-Brinkerhoff should have delivered the Service Development plan in early 2011, in time for the Legislature to do something last year. It arrived 1 December, in time for the 2012 session.

- Finally, failure of the grass-roots organization to understand the real timeline of all this. Heck, even I didn't. I thought reality was 3-5 years. Boy, was I optimistic. The SDP clearly stated the time horizon with the most optimistic political support was 7 years.

So, to the Northern Flyer Alliance's dreams of extending the Heartland Flyer, I simply offer the drumhead on the back of the Citys of Everywhere departing LA and Chicago April 30, 1971:

LJWorld opining on the delay:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan/2 ... y/?opinion

The plan being studied would extend Amtrak’s Heartland Flyer, which runs between Fort Worth and Oklahoma City, to the Southwest Chief, which runs from Chicago to Los Angeles and cuts across Kansas with stops at Lawrence, Topeka, Newton, Hutchinson, Dodge City and Garden City. The idea is to extend the Heartland Flyer route from Oklahoma City to either Newton or Kansas City to provide a connection to the south.

Dennis Slimmer, KDOT’s chief of planning, told the Kansas Senate Transportation Committee last week that the department wouldn’t do further review or engineering work on the project until the Legislature identifies funding for the project and service. Infrastructure improvements to make the connection to Newton would cost about $87.5 million along with an annual operating subsidy of $4.4 million, which would be shared by the participating states. The connection to Kansas City would cost substantially more: $245.5 million for infrastructure and $10 million in annual subsidies.

Officials have indicated that a rail extension to Newton would probably attract about 200,000 passengers per year, while one to Kansas City would have 270,000. Those numbers seem to indicate that the less-expensive plans to connect with Newton will provide more bang for the buck. Either plan would be a big asset for Lawrence and the volunteer group that has worked so hard to update the local Amtrak depot.

I'll glady pay tomorrow for a Hamburger today!

Looking at Amtrak's timetables,,,, a trip from DFW to LA would be quicker using the Heartland Flyer/Southwest Chief than using the Texas Eagle (assuming trains ran on time and the meet in Newton works, which would be risky). Amtrak could easily leave FW hours sooner to make this meet more secure.

TE > Leave FW at 1410 (Day 1), arrive SA at 2155; leave SA 0540 (Day 2), arrive LA 0830 (Day 3)
HF/SC > Leave FW at 1725 (Day 1), depart Newton 0245 (Day 2), arrive LA 0815 (Day 3)

At least you could try it all 7 days a week, vs just the 3 days a week for the TE west of San Antonio. I don't think many of Railroad.nets fans realize how a 3 days a week operation for the Sunset Limited cripples rail travel in the southwest.

Let me say this once again:

The. Proposal. Is. Politically. DEAD.

Sam Brownback, the governor of the sad state of kansas, is not pro-passenger rail. Period. Read this.

The window of opportunity was 2009, when there was money and political influence. NFA did not have their ducks in a row, KDOT didn't have a plan, and the kansas Legislature couldn't get the lower House to sign on. The next window will open after 2018, presuming sad Sam's re-election in 2014.

One of the key problems was running this service at traditional speeds. If the rate of advance is less than 60MPH, it's not worth it. Period. Newton is 4 hours from OKC and 7 from Dallas by I-35. Even the Hound gets you OKC - Newton in 3 1/2 hours.

Cue Dr McCoy.

Ok, potentially silly question - has anyone ever tried a Thruway bus? The scheduling is kind of tight, but the Southwest Chief is generally reliable.

Suggested schedule:

Connection from NB Heartland Flyer, arriving at 9:39 pm

Thruway 8822
Departure from Oklahoma City, OK at 10:10 pm
Stop at Perry, OK at 11:30 pm
Stop at Wichita, KS at 1:30 am
Arrival at Newton, KS at 2:20 am

Connection with WB Southwest Chief at 2:45 am
Connection with EB Southwest Chief at 2:59 am

Thruway 8821
Departure from Newton at 3:40 am
Stop at Wichita, KS at 4:30 am
Stop at Perry, OK at 6:30 am
Arrival at OKC at 7:50 am

Connection with SB Heartland Flyer, departing at 8:25 am

No one's arguing it's dead; just updating the news. And I agree Brownback is anti-rail. Your arguments dating back to when Hector was a pup are solid; where is the money? In this fiscal environment, it's not going get traction anywhere.