Passenger Trains > Amtrak reports record ridership -- again

"Amtrak trains carried 31.2 million passengers in the fiscal year ending in September, the highest annual ridership since the railroad was formed in 1971, the nation's intercity passenger railroad said Wednesday."

And sorry, the Denver Post injected politics, I didn't!

http://www.denverpost.com/businessbreakingnews/ci_21739245/amtrak-ridership-hits-record-high-amid-gop-attacks

Let's get it straight from Amtrak's mouth:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/636/294/Amtrak-Sets-New-Ridership-Record-FY2012-ATK-12-092.pdf

This story also appeared this morning in totally trainless Humboldt County (California)'s Times-Standard newspaper.

A good development as it begs the question as to why the Republicans so bent on destroying an obviously popular and useful program.

John Webb
Trinidad, CA

Winnemucca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A good development as it begs the question as to
> why the Republicans so bent on destroying an
> obviously popular and useful program.

================================================

Because to them it is not a passenger transport carrier.

It is a PROGRAM. And you, my friend, also have fallen into that trap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/12 08:26 by GenePoon.

Winnemucca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A good development as it begs the question as to
> why the Republicans so bent on destroying an
> obviously popular and useful program.

If we have a forced austerity where the politicians have to choose which promises to keep, the Democrats will be just as likely to kill off Amtrak. "Essential" corridor services will continue under other operators similar to what happens with commuter operations when they go up for bid. What "killing Amtrak" means is getting rid of the long distance trains. I find it interesting that despite the increases for LDT's, we are only back to the volumes of nineteen years ago. Another way of looking at it is what percent of the population actually rides long distance trains. If we divide the 4.7 million passenger count in half to account for roundtrips, but ignore foreign riders and multiple riders, we have less than one percent of the population that actually rides an Amtrak LDT in a year. You say people are in favor of long distance trains. The answer all depends on the context in which you ask the question. A question, "are you in favor of long distance trains", would have a much different answer than "would you rather have long distance trains or more teachers" or "should we spend a half billion a year on long distance trains."

In light of the Raton controversy, notice that the SW Chief had flat ridership.

My thoughts for years have been that Amtrak needs to restructure its LDT network to give it more reason for being. Now, I would guess that it is too late to change things. What will happen will happen.

Is the individual route ridership available? I cannot seem to find it beyond the statements in the news release that all long-hauls showed an increase.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is the individual route ridership available? I
> cannot seem to find it beyond the statements in
> the news release that all long-hauls showed an
> increase.

Should be page 4 of the 5 page PDF file for the news release.

TS1457......you forget something. We are at the same volume of ridership we had 19 years ago, but with barely 1/2 the routes. I'd like to consider what the ridership levels would be if we still had those routes. If Amtrak made no progress in ridership levels, then we should have lost ridership as each of those routes was terminated....ballpark.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/12 10:09 by KV1guy.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> answer than "would you rather have long distance
> trains or more teachers" or "should we spend a
> half billion a year on long distance trains."

Those are false choices. The phony deficit problem is entirely a result of (1) very low tax revenues (15% of GDP) and (2) high social spending on the unemployed.

> In light of the Raton controversy, notice that the
> SW Chief had flat ridership.

SW Chief is way up over the past 22 years (1990 vs. today), unlike some other LD routes, and also up over 1979.

> My thoughts for years have been that Amtrak needs
> to restructure its LDT network to give it more
> reason for being. Now, I would guess that it is
> too late to change things. What will happen will
> happen.

Expansion is a prerequisite for restructuring.

KV1guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TS1457......you forget something. We are at the
> same volume of ridership we had 19 years ago, but
> with barely 1/2 the routes. I'd like to consider
> what the ridership levels would be if we still had
> those routes. If Amtrak made no progress in
> ridership levels, then we should have lost
> ridership as each of those routes was
> terminated....ballpark.

Half the routes? You are exaggerating a bit.

Let's see, Desert Wind, Pioneer, Sunset (East), Three Rivers. Anything I'm missing? Of course, some of the traffic would have been picked up by other trains.

Some short route segments:

Birmingham- Mobile
Toledo-Detroit
Carbondale-St Louis
Jacksonville-Tampa via Ocala
St Albans-Montreal (this one made a big downward difference to the replacement train)
Philly-AC

Long Distance Ridership then and now.

Silver Service
1979 - 839K (Floridian was 171K)
1990 - 897K
2012 - 901K

Cardinal
1979 - 145K
1990 - 133K
2012 - 116K

Empire Builder
1979 - 196K (North Coast Hiawatha was 204K)
1990 - 454K
2012 - 543K

Capitol Limited
1979 - 246K (as Broadway Limited - both sections, National Limited was 225K)
1990 - 168K (Broadway Limited was 203K, Pennsylvanian was 200K)
2012 - 227K (Pennsylvanian had 212K)

California Zephyr
1979 - 310K (Pioneer was 171K)
1990 - 724K (included Pioneer and Desert Wind)
2012 - 376K

Southwest Chief
1979 - 311K
1990 - 287K
2012 - 355K

City of New Orleans
1979 - 239K
1990 - 212K
2012 - 253K

Texas Eagle
1979 - 183K (Lone Star was 289K)
1990 - 220K
2012 - 338K (Heartland Flyer had 88K)

Sunset Limited
1979 - 109K
1990 - 105K
2012 - 101K

Coast Starlight
1979 - 542K
1990 - 607K
2012 - 454K (to be fair, some ex-ridership is on Surfliners to SLO and the Cap Corridor)

Lake Shore Limited
1979 - 306K
1990 - 375K
2012 - 404K

Palmetto
1979 - 465K (included ridership on NY-DC NEC cars)
1990 - 237K
2012 - 198K

Crescent
1979 - 182K (8 months - full year would be around 240K)
1990 - 388K (included Gulf Breeze)
2012 - 304K

Auto Train
1979 - can't find the figure right now, but it was around 200K going on memory
1990 - 198K
2012 - 264K

Carolinian
1979 - no train
1990 - 76K (8 months - first full year was 117K)
2012 - 306K

FYI ... based on existing ridership, the new Viewliner sleepers on order should add around 75-100K new riders and $18M in revenue - roughly $3-3.5M and 15,000 riders per Viewliner line placed in service - assuming 1 new car per train, and 1 car through on the Capitol Limited and Pennsylvanian.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> St Albans-Montreal (this one made a big downward
> difference to the replacement train)

Not that big relative to a low base.

Montrealer/Vermonter then and now:

1986 - 99K
1990 - 107K
1992 - 122K
1995 - 74K
1998 - 82K
2005 - 50K
2008 - 73K
2012 - 82K

A question, "are you in favor of
> long distance trains", would have a much different
> answer than "would you rather have long distance
> trains or more teachers" or "should we spend a
> half billion a year on long distance trains."
>
>
Such questions create a false dichotomy designed to cause trouble, not get information. It gives the impression that the reason we can't have more teachers is because we have Amtrak, which of course is absurd. Moreover, those who ask such questions tend to be both against more teachers and Amtrak.

Passengers Miles per Train Mile makes far more sense than the above.
The Empire Builder was slightly higher than the NCH.
We all know the Vermonter has a busload aboard north of WRJ at best. That waas not the case with the Montrealer.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Such questions create a false dichotomy
> designed to cause trouble, not get information.
> It gives the impression that the reason we can't
> have more teachers is because we have Amtrak,
> which of course is absurd. Moreover, those who
> ask such questions tend to be both against more
> teachers and Amtrak.

My point is that LDT's really don't matter to the population in general or to most politicians (other than to quiet certain vocal constituencies). The dangers to LDT's are coming, no matter who wins the election. After all, what has the current administration actually done for LDT's other than cutting Amtrak' operating budget? I guess it did repair a few cars, but other than that?

Of course there are 100 million more potential riders today than there were in 1980.

"record ridership" means EXACTLY that. The naysayers who "bust their butts" to denigrate Amtrak's success story are no different than the "talking heads" in the Media who spin everything in a negative fashion. Amtrak "Good News" doesn't sell with them--well, it does with us rail supporters.

If you're paying attention, responses to Amtrak's ridership gains clearly shows who is an Amtrak supporters and who isn't. Supporters will respond with a "boy, this is great!"; and the naysayers will respond, "it's a lie; the numbers are phony; or, we had to fire teachers to subsidize Amtrak"

My only hope is Boardman gets a chance to jam them down Mica's throat at the next hearing.

Joe

not surprised the SWChief is flat...
only 3 coaches all summer vs 4 coaches last year
and reduced to 2 coaches in mid-Sept and selling out
these days with 2 coaches.........stifled

And the thing is, if they still had all those other trains, I bet ridership would be going through the roof! The LD Network is just as important as the corridors, TS, why can't you see that!