Amtrak in 1971

Whenever someone laments about the state of passenger trains in the US, they often recall that before Amtrak, there were many more passenger trains. Check out where these trains went on the day before Amtrak began service.

Green represents Northeast Corridor trains. Red represents daytime, short-haul trains while blue shows the routes of long-distance, overnight trains.

On April 30, 1971, there were approximately 191 daily passenger trains, operated by railroads which elected to join Amtrak. Five railroads declined to join, Denver & Rio Grande Western, the Georgia Railroad, the Reading Railroad, Rock Island Railroad, and the Southern Railway, but all eventually discontinued their trains by the 1980’s.

The Pennsylvania Railroad had extensive passenger service while the New York Central had significantly trimmed theirs. The Central had about 17 daily trains including just two long-distance ones. Some of their long-distance trains were converted into Chicago-Buffalo or New York-Buffalo day trains which cost significantly less to operate. In contrast, the Pennsy had about 50 daily trains including six long-distance ones, three of which competed with the Central on the New York-Chicago route.

Some corridors had multiple railroads serving the same market. Chicago-Milwaukee, Chicago-Minneapolis, and Chicago-Detroit. It was sensible to combine competing routes into a single line.

There were many more long-distance overnight trains than operate today. About 44 daily round trips operated overnight and some markets had multiple trains to choose from. New York-Chicago travelers had five trains, Chicago-Los Angeles passengers had three, and there were four New York-Miami trains. About 14 daily long-distance trains remain with no route receiving multiple trains.

The Northeast Corridor was a bit of a mess as it had many short-haul trains such as New Haven to Hartford or New York to Philadelphia. Combined with ancient ex-PR GG1 electric locomotives and unreliable Metroliners, plus decades of deferred maintenance, years would pass before operational profitability was achieved. At the time, planners thought that Northeast Corridor profits would subsidize the rest of the system but significant operational “profits “only materialized in the mid-2000’s and even then, some question whether Amtrak’s accounting system overstates Northeast Corridor “profits” at the expense of long-distance trains.

By 1971, most passenger trains had already disappeared, especially the small towns. However, most large cities retained passenger service. The largest city to lack service was Dallas although Fort Worth had service nearby. Of the 48 continental states, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and South Dakota had no service at all. Today, South Dakota still lacks service and Wyoming last saw service in the early 1990’s. Looking at major cities, Dallas and Austin now have train service but many more large cities have no service today.

Ten largest cities without passenger trains in 1971

• Dallas, TX 844,401
• Austin, TX 253,539
• Des Moines, IA 201,404 in 1970 Rock Island canceled service
• Shreveport, LA 182,064
• Knoxville, TN 174,587
• Huntsville 139,282
• Springfield, MO 120,096
• Columbia, SC 112,542
• Allentown, PA 109,871
• Manchester, NH, 87,754

Ten largest cities without passenger trains in 2019

• Phoenix, AZ 1,626,078
• Columbus, OH 879,170
• Nashville, TN 667,560
• Las Vegas, NV 648,224
• Louisville, KY 621,349
• Colorado Springs, CO 465,101
• Tulsa, OK 403,505
• Wichita, KS 390,591
•  Lexington, KY 321,959
• Madison, WS 255,214

Some service was added shortly after Amtrak began. Vermont subsidized the Montrealer from Washington to Montreal. New York State paid to resume its own Montreal service. Massachusetts paid to extend two trains from Washington-Springfield to Boston, restoring the Inland route. Illinois reactivated train service to Quincy almost immediately. Only in 2001 did Maine begin subsiding the Downeaster train, restoring passenger service which had been discontinued in 1965.

While many famous trains had disappeared long before Amtrak, about half disappeared with the creation of Amtrak. While a few routes have more trains than they did then, service along most of these routes is likely gone for good. 

Replacing Amtrak long-distance trains with shorter ones?

Amtrak is considering breaking up some long-distance trains into shorter corridor ones as part of its Congressional reauthorization. While in some cases it may make sense, the financial advantages may not pan out.

Amtrak has proposed to replace an unspecified number of overnight, long-distance trains with daytime corridor service, presumably sponsored by states. Of Amtrak’s 15 long-distance routes, the Palmetto is already a daytime train. Other trains are likely too long or lack substantially sized cities along their routes to make this transition worthwhile, think the Auto Train, California Zephyr, Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, and Sunset Limited. But the remaining nine trains could theoretically be replaced by daytime corridor service.

Background 

Amtrak’s key rationale for cutting long-distance trains is cost savings, primarily labor costs. Day trains only require some café service, coach seating and sometimes business class, with an engineer, conductor, and a café attendant as labor. Overnight trains require a dining car, coach seating and sleeper cars, with at least two engineers, two conductors, several dining car crew, and sleeping car attendants. This would also reduce the number of expensive sleeper and dining cars it needs to replace its aging long-distance fleet of Superliner railcars.

Amtrak’s proposal has been tried before. In the late 1960’s, the New York Central Railroad replaced several of its overnight services with day trains to save money. One of Amtrak’s largest costs is labor. Its New York City-Buffalo-Detroit-Chicago train was split into two day trains, New York City-Buffalo and Chicago-Detroit-Buffalo. One of its New York City-Cleveland-Chicago trains became two trains, New York City-Buffalo and Chicago-Cleveland-Buffalo. One of the trains referenced by the WSJ, the City of New Orleans, was originally a fast day train and would leave Chicago at 8 AM and arrive in New Orleans at 11:55 PM, taking just 15h55m and averaging 58 mph despite 22 stops. Two of those stops requiring connecting other trains from St. Louis and Louisville in ten minutes, a move that takes an hour on Amtrak’s Lakeshore Limited. Amtrak’s Palmetto train runs on a similar schedule, leaving New York City at 6:02 AM and arriving in Savannah at 9:04 PM. It leaves Savannah at 8:20 AM and arrives at 11:56 PM back in New York City.

Other countries have also seen their overnight service disappear, particularly in Europe with the proliferation of low-cost airlines and expanded high-speed train service. After Germany’s Deutsche Bahn dropped all overnight service, half of the service was taken over by Austrian Railways. After high-speed service began between Madrid and Barcelona, overnight service from Madrid to Paris was dropped even though high-speed trains take a little over 9h and require a transfer. In contrast, the UK is investing its two overnight services with its London-Scotland service receiving new cars.

Short-haul trains in the US benefit from subsidies from states. In 2008, the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act (PRIIA) required all states to subsidize trains running less than 750 miles within their borders. When Amtrak began service in 1971, it inherited some state services and subsidized those itself. But over time, states began subsidizing additional service and by 2008, the situation had become unequal with some states receiving “free” trains from Amtrak while others had to pay the entire amount. PRIIA equalized that situation and states such as New York found themselves subsidizing train service it had previously received from “free”. Long distance trains were explicitly omitted from those rules and would continue to be subsidized by Congress. But Amtrak’s reauthorization provides an opportunity to rework those rules and could allow Amtrak to obtain additional subsidies from states.

Amtrak’s proposal would also allow better departure and arrival times for key markets along corridors. For example, the Lakeshore Limited’s current schedule has poor timings for the Chicago-Cleveland market with arrivals in the middle of the night or early morning. It also requires an hour stop in Albany to split the train for Boston and New York City sections. Retiming the train would allow for more reasonably arrival times in Cleveland and provide another day train on the New York City-Niagara Falls corridor. In theory, this could attract more riders than would be lost from overnight services.

Old schedule

	New York City	Albany	Depew	Cleveland	Chicago
Departure/Arrival	3:40 PM	6:10 PM	12:12 AM	3:33 AM	9:50 AM
	Chicago	Cleveland	Depew	Albany	New York City
Departure/Arrival	9:30 PM	5:38 AM	8:46 AM	2:31 PM	6:23 PM

New schedule

	New York City	Albany	Niagara Falls	Niagara Falls	Cleveland	Chicago
Departure/Arrival	9 AM	11:30 AM	6:50PM	9 AM	10:50 AM	6:20 PM
	Chicago	Cleveland	Niagara Falls	Niagara Falls	Albany	New York City
Departure/Arrival	9 AM	5:30 PM	8:20PM	9 AM	4:20 PM	5:50 PM

Amtrak’s proposal will have to address fundamental challenges of US passenger service 

First, all long-distance trains run on tracks controlled by freight railroads. Reconfiguring service would require their cooperation as schedules would move from overnight to the daytime.

The good news is that freight railroads are moving from more frequent unscheduled service to less frequent scheduled service. In theory, this creates more track capacity and would allow Amtrak to better schedule its trains to avoid delays due to freight trains. In addition, the number of coal trains has declined, typically the slowest and most capacity intense ones, and fewer oil trains are running due to the decline in crude oil prices.

Even if a freight railroad agrees to allow more passenger trains, running more than one train per day would likely require some investment, particularly if Amtrak wants its new service travel times to be competitive with driving. Presumably, its reauthorization to Congress would include specific projects and cost estimates to be funded by Federal grants, loans, or state grants.

Second, while operating day trains cost less, ticket revenue is also substantially lower. While the Empire Service to Niagara Falls averages $61.76 a ticket, the Lakeshore Limited averages $77.63. Amtrak’s Silver Palm used to run between New York City and Miami but was truncated to Savannah in 2004. While the Silver Meteor averages $109.38 a ticket on the Miami run, the daytime Palmetto receives just $75 a ticket. However, the Palmetto costs $32.7 million and loses just $3.3 million but the Silver Meteor costs $72 million, more than double the Palmetto, and loses $34.7 million, ten times as much.

Third, labor costs should be better addressed on existing routes prior to any major change. Railroad unions remain strong but there needs to be a frank discussion of fewer staff members on long-distance trains in exchange for more trains overall for staff to operate. While sleeping car attendants in every car made sense at some point in the past, some functions should be automated such as dinner reservations and setting up beds. Amtrak has tried replacing dining car service with cheaper options, most recently last year, and ended up returning some hot food items. Whether this option balances between cost and customer satisfaction remains to be seen.

Fourth, Amtrak’s financial accounting has long been described in many circles problematic or even fatally flawed. For example, the Rail Passenger Association claims that the Amtrak Performance Tracking system allows the company to understate its Northeast Corridor costs and overstate its long-distance train costs. Congress has required Amtrak to substantially improve its accounting system but a 2013 Amtrak OIG report and 2016 GAO report both found the company was overly reliant on cost allocation and still lacked accurate cost information. Amtrak has made smaller changes without accurate cost information before. While the company made substantial changes to its private railcar program in 2018, it did not know the true cost of providing that service before making those changes.

Fifth, PRIIA required Amtrak to write a series of performance improvement plans for its long-distance trains. While staff came up with a lot of great ideas, relatively few have been implemented. Prior to a major change, implementing more of those improvements may attract more passengers and more revenue. 

While I understand Amtrak’s rationale, it is hard to say whether two corridor trains will attract more passengers and cost less overall than a single overnight train. I think it makes more sense to provide additional service along current long-distance routes first. Amtrak has the key ingredients for developing realistic service expansion plans. In May 2007, Amtrak made a successful presentation for additional service to Lynchburg along an existing long-distance route. This service was a runaway success and paved the way for substantial state investment in passenger trains. There are other good candidates such as Chicago-St. Paul and Chicago-Cincinnati which would generate strong ridership with some travel time reductions. While tempting to gamble a lot for a reauthorization opportunity, a cautious approach may pay off instead.

Nine long-distance routes possibly targeted for replacement corridor service
Capital Limited: Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Washington>
Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh
Washington-Pittsburgh

Cardinal: Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Charleston (WV)-Washington-New York City>
Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati
Washington-Charleston (WV)-Cincinnati

City of New Orleans: Chicago-Carbondale-Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans>
Chicago-Carbondale-Memphis
Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans

Coast Starlight: Los Angeles-San Jose-Sacramento-Portland-Seattle>
Los Angeles-San Jose-San Francisco
San Jose-Sacramento-Portland-Seattle

Crescent: New York City-Washington-Charlotte-Atlanta-New Orleans>

New York City-Lynchburg-Charlotte
Charlotte-Atlanta
Atlanta-New Orleans

Lakeshore Limited: New York City-Albany-Buffalo-Cleveland-Chicago>
New York City-Albany-Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Chicago-Cleveland-Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Boston-Albany

Silver Meteor: New York City-Washington-Charleston-Savannah-Orlando-Miami>
New York City-Washington-Charleston-Savannah
Miami-Orlando-Savannah

Silver Star: New York City-Washington-Columbia-Savannah-Orlando-Miami>
New York City-Washington-Columbia-Savannah
Tampa-Orlando-Savannah

Texas Eagle: Chicago-St. Louis-Little Rock-Dallas-Fort Worth-San Antonio>
Chicago-St. Louis-Little Rock-Dallas-Fort Worth
Fort Worth-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio

Alexandria’s 1974 Bike Plan

Similar to many cities in the early 1970’s bike boom, Alexandria residents created a bike plan which would connect the entire city. Some of the projects have been built while others languish. Special thanks to Casey Kane for sharing the map from his FOIA request!

By the late 1960’s, bicycling was relegated to a children’s hobby. Few adults rode bikes and few bike shops even existed as most bikes were sold in children’s toy stores or department stores. But by the early 1970’s, biking boomed, in part responding to congestion and the 1973 oil crisis. Similar to many cities around the country, Alexandria officials created the first bicycle master plan in 1974. 

Overall, the 1974 plan was ambitious with the goal of putting bike infrastructure within 3,000’ of every resident. While modern bike plans are usually written by consultants, this plan was created by the Committee on Bicycle Lanes and Storage Facilities, led by chairperson Barbara Lynch. Mrs. Lynch had played a pivotal role in building the Mt Vernon Trail in the early 1970’s. While the plan lacked the fancy graphics and crowd-sourced maps, the details and projects were reasonably well-defined. In fact, city staff even proposed separating bike lanes from traffic using physical barriers or pylons in addition to paint. While the plan incorporated previous city plans for recreational cycling, it was the first plan to include commuter cyclists too.

 
The plan proposed loop bikeways connecting to three areas; the future Van Dorn Metro station (Blue), the future King St/Braddock Rd Metro stations (Green), and along the waterfront in Old Town (Red). However, the 1970’s bike boom gradually faded and vehicular cycling took over city traffic departments. Some trails were built across the city but it took until the middle of the 2000’s for the city’s first on-street bike lanes to appear. Over time, many of the 1974’s planned routes have been partially built. The Holmes Run Trail, the Eisenhower Trail and the Four Mile Run Trail link diverse neighborhoods together. Pitt St was the main north-south route linking two parts of the Mt Vernon Trail but now Union St hosts the most cyclists. Added to the 1974 plan by city staff, the King St bike lanes were built out to the high school in 2014 and 2016 despite intense opposition from a vocal minority although a compromise gap remains.

While some great infrastructure has been built, many areas lack low-stress connections to other parts of the city. There is no low-stress connection between the West End and Old Town as people must ride along wide, multi-lane streets in between. Even on Commonwealth Ave has a half-mile gap despite going through neighborhoods with a high rate of bike commuters. While the 1974 plan called for an on-street bike route via Seminary Rd, buffered bike lanes were only recently proposed and would be the first low-stress connection between the east and west. Still, a vocal minority opposes any changes to the street.

Some connections are informal or not designed for bikes such as the Ivy Hill Cemetery connection where the gates are left open and the Fort Williams Park footbridge. At some point, the city banned people biking from using the waterfront trail and even as that trail is gradually being built out, people biking are relegated to unimproved Union St.

Other connections are likely impossible to restore. While the 1974 plan proposed using the W&OD right of way as a trail, only a quarter-mile segment was built and even after an upcoming extension to Richmond Highway, the 1.4 mile segment to Arlington has mostly been obliviated. There no low-stress connections to the Van Dorn Metro and only a handful in the West End.

Some neat infrastructure has built that was incomprehensible in 1974. The Wilkes St Railroad Tunnel was still in service until 1975 and only opened as a trail in 2008. Potomac Yard was an integral part of the freight rail network but we now have the Potomac Yard Trail. In the 1970’s, few new bridges had bike paths but in 2009, the new Wilson Bridge included one, allowing Alexandrians to walk and bike to Maryland for the first time.

While some outstanding infrastructure has been built since 1974, a lot of work remains. Filling in the gaps will go a long way towards improving cycling.