Why are there no passenger trains that go south of Kansas City???

Question

I know that Amtrac goes to Chicago from Kansas City and to the west coast from Kansas City and even the east coast from Chicago. Why are there no trains that go on the BNSF tracks or the Kansas City Southern tracks that run south from Kansas City???

Answer 1

I must agree with Tom SJ. However, speaking as a railroader, neither Democrat nor Republican, we are wasting time and money trying to keep AMTRAK propped up. As pointed out, we have been subsidizing operating revenue short falls for 35 years, to no avail.

Further funding is like pouring money into a meat grinder. We would all be best served if long distance AMTRAK service were discontinued so that those funds could be used to get the sorely needed infrastructure for high speed train travel under construction. The commute systems should be kept alive and well.

The truth is, I can't tell you when, if ever, I've spoken to someone who has contacted their government representatives. To accomplish the task at hand will take nothing less than a large, grass roots movement.

I would disagree on the projected costs represented here. We are talking about road bed that will cost nearly $1.5 million per mile, let alone the costs associated with purchase of right of way for the structure to be built on. Not all will be taken by eminent domain.

There will bridges to be built, Environtmental Impact Reporting, mitigation for what is needed there, tunnels as well as a whole slew of unanticipated costs, and the enevitable cost over runs.

Then there is man power, management, power supply, power distribution and I am sure a myriad of other costly details I can't begin to imagine.

All high speed equipment will have to be budgeted for as well.

This is no simple task, and probably more difficult than it was to construct the first transcontinental rail road. At the moment, I don't think Americans want to pony up the cash or even entertain the notion that high speed rail service is needed, which it certainly is.

Ultimately, it is we constituents who must get this ball rolling. A few million, perhaps in the tens of millions, e-mails, letters and phone calls to congressional and senatorial representatives should get someone's attention.

If you want to get Republicans' attention, tell them it would put people to work, on a scale surpassing the TVA and other work programs that hastened the end of the Great Depression, swelling the national Treasury with loads of tax dollars, which, in the next election cycle, the Democrats will be happy to spend.

See? Everybody wins.

And for my friend below, who was only here to fish for two points, it is spelled "stupid." Sorry, but your satirical wit was wasted on me. I know it probably took hours and toll on grey matter. Sorry.

But, if you must burn our flag, please, have the common courtesy to wrap yourself in it first.

Answer 2

Several reasons:
Money is #1. Ever since Amtrak was formed, way back in 1971, it has been supported mostly by Demcrats, and attacked by Republicans who think of it as a huge waste of taxpayers dollars. Right now, with the House, Senate and White House in solid Republican control, it is virtually impossible to get new funding for Amtrak, so the system is just dying a slow death.

The nation's railroads were losing tons of money on pax trains since the end of WW2, and after the failed Penn Central merger in 1968-69, the US gov't stepped in to take away passenger trains from the RRs by creating Amtrak to buy out all the equipment and employees from those RRs. The most important trains were in the Northeast Corridor betw Boston and Washington, DC; and to/from Chicago. Every other route was lower priority - and today, most of the states are subsidizing long-distance trains because the federal gov't is not paying enough.

I don't know if there were any passenger trains running in 1970-71 between KC and points south, but it is not likely there were many, and those that existed probably had low passenger loads.

Political will is #2.
If the US wanted to have a world-class train service to rival those in Japan or Europe, the investment needed would exceed $50 billon - and probably closer to $100 billion -- and that kind of taxpayer cash is just not lying. There is not enough political benefit to re-build the US passenger rail system - the unions are not strong enough and the railroads would see an expansion of Amtrak as an a serious impact on their freight operations.

#3 Train travel is extremely slow.
Except for high-speed rail, standard rail travel requires only the most patient type of person. Though trains can hit 80 mph is certain sections, most trains average less than half of that, due to bad track, or delays due to freight trains and track maintenance. Check the article in the source for how one of Amtrak's premier trains, the Coast Starlight, is now routinely 8 or more hours late, off its published schedule.

Wish I had better news.

Answer 3

There are Amtrak passenger trains from Kansas City to St Louis too. There is a service planned from Kansas City to the Oklahoma border, and there is talkings of a regional service from Kansas to Oklahoma via Tulsa. There is another proposal to extend the Heartland Flyer train from Oklahoma to Kansas City via Newton on the route of the former Lone Star train that was withdrawn in 1979.

Answer 4

Yes there are. I went to the Amtrak station in Biloxi Mississipi and that is on the Gulf Coast about as far south as you can go. Now maybe Katrina took away the station and the rails since then but it sure used to be true.

Answer 5

Amtrak seems to do the exact opposite of what people want. That's why they continue to need tons of government money to survive.

In other countries, trains run multiple times to places that are useful and they thrive!

Answer 6

Because Americans are stooopid