3 ms·

> The Momentum framework calls on Amtrak and commuter rail agencies to […] shift their focus from increasing the geographic coverage and capacity of their rail

by Lammy 2y ago

> The Momentum framework calls on Amtrak and commuter rail agencies to […] shift their focus from increasing the geographic coverage and capacity of their rail services > When making changes to rail infrastructure or services, state and local railroad agencies often must negotiate with the freight railroad companies that own most of America’s track network. These companies [are] reluctant to allow more frequent passenger service that could reduce the amount of time their freight trains have access to track. This article completely fails to mention the actual cause of our modern situation. Before focusing on increasing geographical coverage we would first need to focus on not decreasing geographic coverage. Check out the Abandoned & Out-of-Service Rail map of North America and you can see the result of massive corporate consolidation where newly-combined railroads abandon parts of each constituent company's former network to end up with the most track they can run for the least money. There is zero redundancy left: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=10akDabya8L6nWIJi-4Zor-QawkoJmmMK&femb=1&ll=25.413577918794967%2C-45.05929601607611&z=2 https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=10akDabya8L6nWIJi-4...

tvb12 2y ago
Dang, there's a track on there, within a bike ride from me, that goes all the way to the biggest city in my state and passes within a few hundred feet of the university I attended. That could have made things easier.
jordanb 2y ago
> end up with the most track they can run for the least money ITYM "least track?" The railraods are all obsessed with this metric called "capital ratio" which is the revenue intensity of their equipment. Most of corporate america cares about "operating ratio" (how much money do you spend operating your business versus revenue). Railroads are a somewhat uniquely capital-intensive business, since they're the only transportation industry that owns and maintains their own roads. They consequently have come to see their best metric for efficiency is how small their capital asset base is, versus their revenue. This leads to the joke that "the optimal railroad has no track and runs no trains."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dangus 2y ago
There is a need for increased geographical coverage in the right corridors. Many corridors with high population density are just not covered. As bad as the passenger rail situation is in the US, I can totally understand how it got this way compared to other countries from a pure geographic point of view. The US landscape is ideal for freight trains and not quite as ideal for passenger trains. If you look at countries like Japan, the geography makes a perfect condition for passenger trains to be most ideal. Railroad as a shipping method for goods doesn't make a lot of sense, you can just put goods on ships that travel along the coasts and for shorter journeys trucks make more sense. Or look at China: massively higher population, and their population is much more concentrated in the East of the country than the US with its split up coastal populations. Maybe we could say that a high speed train between Indianapolis and Cleveland would be nice, but there isn't even a single direct commercial direct flight between those destinations, so how will anyone fill up a train? China's huge population makes it an extremely ideal high speed rail use case. But in the US, putting goods on a train from Chicago to LA makes way more sense than any sort of truck or ship situation. And even a high speed train on that route wouldn't make a whole lot of sense compared to a flight. But there's definitely room to improve geographical coverage in specific corridors where that expansion would have great positive impact.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  How does the geographic context explain how the US was (apparently) an excellent fit for passenger rail until the 1920s-1930s, but not anymore? I don't think geography is the explanation. US geography is great for passenger rail. Japanese geography is terrible for it (too many mountains). In my opinion Japan's passenger rail situation today would be no different than the US if American rail companies had managed Japanese rail lines throughout the 20th century. It's nice to imagine that geography is the reason, and so everything is as it should be, this was the fated result. But that's simply not the case. Of course, rail is not a good fit for a weekend getaway from LA to New York. Even in Japan, where you can ride the bullet train all the way from Kyushu to Hokkaido, almost anyone would book a flight for that unless they really hated flying. But that doesn't mean that rail isn't well suited to American geography.
  - 2y ago

by Lammy 2y ago

tvb12 2y ago

Dang, there's a track on there, within a bike ride from me, that goes all the way to the biggest city in my state and passes within a few hundred feet of the university I attended. That could have made things easier.

jordanb 2y ago

> end up with the most track they can run for the least money ITYM "least track?" The railraods are all obsessed with this metric called "capital ratio" which is the revenue intensity of their equipment. Most of corporate america cares about "operating ratio" (how much money do you spend operating your business versus revenue). Railroads are a somewhat uniquely capital-intensive business, since they're the only transportation industry that owns and maintains their own roads. They consequently have come to see their best metric for efficiency is how small their capital asset base is, versus their revenue. This leads to the joke that "the optimal railroad has no track and runs no trains."

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dangus 2y ago

There is a need for increased geographical coverage in the right corridors. Many corridors with high population density are just not covered. As bad as the passenger rail situation is in the US, I can totally understand how it got this way compared to other countries from a pure geographic point of view. The US landscape is ideal for freight trains and not quite as ideal for passenger trains. If you look at countries like Japan, the geography makes a perfect condition for passenger trains to be most ideal. Railroad as a shipping method for goods doesn't make a lot of sense, you can just put goods on ships that travel along the coasts and for shorter journeys trucks make more sense. Or look at China: massively higher population, and their population is much more concentrated in the East of the country than the US with its split up coastal populations. Maybe we could say that a high speed train between Indianapolis and Cleveland would be nice, but there isn't even a single direct commercial direct flight between those destinations, so how will anyone fill up a train? China's huge population makes it an extremely ideal high speed rail use case. But in the US, putting goods on a train from Chicago to LA makes way more sense than any sort of truck or ship situation. And even a high speed train on that route wouldn't make a whole lot of sense compared to a flight. But there's definitely room to improve geographical coverage in specific corridors where that expansion would have great positive impact.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
How does the geographic context explain how the US was (apparently) an excellent fit for passenger rail until the 1920s-1930s, but not anymore? I don't think geography is the explanation. US geography is great for passenger rail. Japanese geography is terrible for it (too many mountains). In my opinion Japan's passenger rail situation today would be no different than the US if American rail companies had managed Japanese rail lines throughout the 20th century. It's nice to imagine that geography is the reason, and so everything is as it should be, this was the fated result. But that's simply not the case. Of course, rail is not a good fit for a weekend getaway from LA to New York. Even in Japan, where you can ride the bullet train all the way from Kyushu to Hokkaido, almost anyone would book a flight for that unless they really hated flying. But that doesn't mean that rail isn't well suited to American geography.
- 2y ago