Passenger Trains >

On-time performance woes sink Amtrak’s 2014 ridership
TRAINS.com
by Bob Johnston
October 20, 2014

> WASHINGTON – A 10 percent September surge in both Acela Express and
> Northeast Regional patronage fell short of catapulting overall
> Amtrak ridership to an 11th record in 12 years during the 2014 fiscal
> year that ended on Sept. 30. The culprit: Long-distance train
> tardiness led by the Chicago-Seattle-Portland Empire Builder and
> Chicago-New York/Boston Lake Shore Limited. Those trains’ counts were
> off 17 and 11.6 percent, respectively, in September. The Builder
> carried 536,391 passengers in Fiscal Year 2013, the most of any
> long-distance train and more than 19 of the 29 state-supported
> corridors Amtrak separately measures, but it dropped to 450,932 in
> 2014. Now the Seattle-Los Angeles Coast Starlight, profiled in the
> July 2014 issue of Trains Magazine, leads the long-distance fleet
> with 459,450 annual passengers carried.

> For the year, Amtrak’s overall ridership fell from 31.56 million in
> 2013 to 30.92 million in 2014...

Full story:

On-time performance woes sink Amtrak’s 2014 ridership



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/14 13:54 by GenePoon.

Aside from the completely predictable drop off in LD ridership, the article also reveals an almost 600,000 rider negative delta between current and previous years' data on routes where multi-ride tickets are sold, such as the Capitols, Keystones and Downeasters. The difference is attributed to replacing the previous system of estimating ridership to the current one of scanning tickets. The raises the obvious question as to where the real truth is. Intuitively, I think scans would be more inclined to under report as conductors inevitably miss a percentage of passengers on busy trains, and perhaps are inclined to skip a scan if they have seen the actual ticket or know the rider as an every day commuter. I suppose the estimation method could go either way, although you could see how those making the estimates might be incentivized toward optimism.

Dave

No surprise to most of us. Some of us predicted this was coming.

I also predicted the naysayers politicians (in Washington, and some States) will use these declining numbers any way they can to reduce Amtrak funding. This hasn't happened yet, BUT IT WILL!!! Just wait.

As far as this article's characterization of "drooping reliability" causing ridership decline; sorry, but this is a ridiculous understatement. What caused it (and is still causing it) is the intolerable inhuman abuse that a 10 or 11 hour delay represents.

Who would have thought; it's NOT all the anti-Amtrak people like Mica; or the House of Representatives; that has stopped Amtrak's amazing 10 year growth record. It was the Norfolk Southern and the BNSF who did it.

Joe

PS: of course, the most important question is: can the Long Haul trains recover from all the human misery inflected on their customer base for over a year now. It's going to be very difficult, I'm afraid. These delays are too severe to be brushed off lightly by travlers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/14 16:37 by floridajoe2001.

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Who would have thought; it's NOT all the
> anti-Amtrak people like Mica; or the House of
> Representatives; that has stopped Amtrak's amazing
> 10 year growth record.

It was already stopped in 2009...

Does the Lakeshore really impact the total long distance passenger count as much as it seems? I'd have guessed that the Silver Service has a much larger base, with the same daily frequency.

(My question is more that Lakeshore has a nice ridership, but I'm surprised that it and the Builder would whack the total by such a %)

I guess the question is: Would *YOU* recommend a LD train to a (favored) relative or friend?

If those of us who are passenger train proponents can't, in all conscientiousness do that - how can Amtrak?

There are going to be some knee-jerk reactionary statements to that - "Of course I can - I DO!!" - fine, but as a serious means of transportation with same-day connections? There was a question not long ago about a guy going to Miami - and there wasn't *ONE* call to "go ahead, you'll be fine" - no, there were exclamations regarding the sanity ("are you CRAZY??") and at the best, exhortations to add a day whenever connections are in play.

If Amtrak can't be relied upon, then those anti-Amtrak pols have their job done for them. As an (otherwise VERY error-filled) article in Harper's had it "only hobbyists ride Amtrak [Long distance trains]." The article mentions 3 types of riders - "Foamers", tourists from Britain and those who can't physically or physiologically fly. I disagree with that, but it's not as far off the mark as many depictions are.

Apologists will say this is "Anti-Amtrak" - but, really, those that settle for this sort of record are the anti-Amtrak crowd. That's what is going to kill it - not someone stating what should be obvious.

If the continued "death by a thousand cuts" method doesn't work (the downgrading of "first class", the diner issues, the issues with lounges, training, etc.) don't kill LD trains off after they are weakened by the scheduling issues, then they will be killed by those who WON'T say anything is wrong.

The one thing the article *DID* portray half way well is the fact that in certain parts of this country, Amtrak is *STILL* the only option. And, as this country ages, as we have more of our people coming back from Afghanistan & Iraq damaged (in many forms) and traveling, it will be *the* option for them as well.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does the Lakeshore really impact the total long
> distance passenger count as much as it seems? I'd
> have guessed that the Silver Service has a much
> larger base, with the same daily frequency.
>
> (My question is more that Lakeshore has a nice
> ridership, but I'm surprised that it and the
> Builder would whack the total by such a %)

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

What a lot of people do not realize is that in terms of PASSENGER-MILES, the Empire
Builder traditionally handled more than all the Northeast Corridor combined...Acela,
Regional, Keystones, all of it.

CORRECTION: Empire Builder produces more passenger miles than does Acela.

Sorry about that.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/14 20:09 by GenePoon.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Does the Lakeshore really impact the total long
> > distance passenger count as much as it seems?
> I'd
> > have guessed that the Silver Service has a much
> > larger base, with the same daily frequency.
> >
> > (My question is more that Lakeshore has a nice
> > ridership, but I'm surprised that it and the
> > Builder would whack the total by such a %)
>
> ==================================================
> ==
>
> What a lot of people do not realize is that in
> terms of PASSENGER-MILES, the Empire
> Builder has traditionally handled more than all
> the Northeast Corridor combined...Acela,
> Regional, Keystones, all of it.

I'll have to go back and look at the numbers, thanks for the heads up.

I've always viewed total revenue, revenue miles, and related costs as the more important metrics. Simply filling seats isn't much of an accomplishment if you're giving away seats. Increasing ridership AND revenue while containing costs is the critical role of everyone at Amtrak.

So a drop of 2% is being touted as "sinking" Amtrak's ridership? Any drop is unfortunate, in large part because it gives the forces of darkness ammunition, who will accuse me of being an Amtrak apologist. I think it is astonishing that Amtrak did so well, given the lousy service and OTP.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a lot of people do not realize is that in
> terms of PASSENGER-MILES, the Empire
> Builder traditionally handled more than all the
> Northeast Corridor combined...Acela,
> Regional, Keystones, all of it.

Gene, not even close from what I am looking at.

I calculate NEC as having 4.5+ times as many passenger-miles as the Empire Builder and I did not include Keystone Service or LDT routes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/14 16:10 by ts1457.

To: Gene Poon

Your statement "it stopped in 2009" makes absolutely no sense.

What are you talking about?

Joe

Of course this was in Trains magazine. There is no love in Milwaukee for Amtrak!

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No surprise to most of us. Some of us predicted
> this was coming.
>
> I also predicted the naysayers politicians (in
> Washington, and some States) will use these
> declining numbers any way they can to reduce
> Amtrak funding. This hasn't happened yet, BUT IT
> WILL!!! Just wait.
>
> As far as this article's characterization of
> "drooping reliability" causing ridership decline;
> sorry, but this is a ridiculous understatement.
> What caused it (and is still causing it) is the
> intolerable inhuman abuse that a 10 or 11 hour
> delay represents.
>
> Who would have thought; it's NOT all the
> anti-Amtrak people like Mica; or the House of
> Representatives; that has stopped Amtrak's amazing
> 10 year growth record. It was the Norfolk
> Southern and the BNSF who did it.
>
> Joe
>
> PS: of course, the most important question is:
> can the Long Haul trains recover from all the
> human misery inflected on their customer base for
> over a year now. It's going to be very difficult,
> I'm afraid. These delays are too severe to be
> brushed off lightly by travelers.


Hopefully, Floridajoe, Amtrak's and STB's lawyers will be pointing this dynamic out to the Supreme Court in the upcoming hearings as proof that Amtrak needs to be involved in the metrics of holding the railroads accountable for their terrible performance with Amtrak operations. If the freights were half-way intelligent they could see this for themselves and conduct their operations in more responsible fashion. To do otherwise simply brings more regulation and bad press down on their heads.

John Webb
Trinidad, CA

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No surprise to most of us. Some of us predicted
> this was coming.
>
> I also predicted the naysayers politicians (in
> Washington, and some States) will use these
> declining numbers any way they can to reduce
> Amtrak funding. This hasn't happened yet, BUT IT
> WILL!!! Just wait.
>
> As far as this article's characterization of
> "drooping reliability" causing ridership decline;
> sorry, but this is a ridiculous understatement.
> What caused it (and is still causing it) is the
> intolerable inhuman abuse that a 10 or 11 hour
> delay represents.
>
> Who would have thought; it's NOT all the
> anti-Amtrak people like Mica; or the House of
> Representatives; that has stopped Amtrak's amazing
> 10 year growth record. It was the Norfolk
> Southern and the BNSF who did it.
>
> Joe
>
> PS: of course, the most important question is:
> can the Long Haul trains recover from all the
> human misery inflected on their customer base for
> over a year now. It's going to be very difficult,
> I'm afraid. These delays are too severe to be
> brushed off lightly by travlers.


No. 1, the reduced funding isn't gonna happen, why, because it's always been like that for years on end and there's always enough for Amtrak to get by every year which I'm fed up with, 2, your blaming on NS and BNSF on causing the delays, what, you don't pay attention to the factors that lead to it? NO you didn't, don't jump to conclusions on stuff like that without getting the facts straight in the 1ST place, NS had too much traffic on their line into Chi Town which resulted in the delays of the Lake Shore and Capitol, BNSF had a hard time just trying to keep everything moving with all the oil trains all over the place in North Dakota that resulted in that massive track project on DT on key areas, so Joe, your blaming on NS and BNSF just by itself doesn't hold water!

Well...yeah it does. By both railroad's admission, a large part of the problem was crew shortages - crews that were cut back. That they are hurriedly hiring to rectify. Also, they both admit that capital outlays were lower than usual and that that caused power shortages, deferred maintenance, deferred replacements. It's fine to say they couldn't move freight, but a lot of it was their own fault...however....

Most of that fault *SHOULD* lay at the feet of Wall Street (even BNSF which is privately owned) - they demand (short term) bottom line improvements at the expense of (long term) vitality. Too much capacity, cut, cut cut! Which works when traffic is down and stays down, never to return, but is hardly a way to look toward the future. Start down the deferred maintenance path and the end result is almost always slow failure - or very expensive (in terms of capital, PR, time and Wall Street "love)."

Keep cash reserves high, lower capital costs, lower "excess capacity," cut "frills," eliminate "excessive benefits - " and you keep Wall Street and their media happy. Prepare for a rosier future, and you fail to get bonds issued, pay higher rates, etc.

Wall Street, somehow believes that no interest rates are great - you have "cheap" money. The problem is, as you keep rates artificially low (and threaten the economy whenever anyone breathes "higher interest rates,)" you eliminate one means of producing wealth, retaining wealth, and bringing in foreign investment (and private investment). Let's face it, no one is running out for those "high, high, high!" CD rates under 2%. No one is rushing in to grab bonds and debt at low rates either. Follow the money, see who does benefit.

But, yes, (admittedly)short sighted management at all railroads have kept things muddy for years, and will continue to do so for months, if not years to come - to the point of fulfilling their own prophecy of poorer economic vibrancy. But to say that the reason the couldn't move passenger trains is due to their inability to handle the load of freight is far too simplistic.



ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
so Joe, your
> blaming on NS and BNSF just by itself doesn't hold
> water!

rswebber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well...yeah it does. By both railroad's
> admission, a large part of the problem was crew
> shortages - crews that were cut back. That they
> are hurriedly hiring to rectify. Also, they both
> admit that capital outlays were lower than usual
> and that that caused power shortages, deferred
> maintenance, deferred replacements. It's fine to
> say they couldn't move freight, but a lot of it
> was their own fault...however....
>
> Most of that fault *SHOULD* lay at the feet of
> Wall Street (even BNSF which is privately owned) -
> they demand (short term) bottom line improvements
> at the expense of (long term) vitality. Too much
> capacity, cut, cut cut! Which works when traffic
> is down and stays down, never to return, but is
> hardly a way to look toward the future. Start
> down the deferred maintenance path and the end
> result is almost always slow failure - or very
> expensive (in terms of capital, PR, time and Wall
> Street "love)."
>
> Keep cash reserves high, lower capital costs,
> lower "excess capacity," cut "frills," eliminate
> "excessive benefits - " and you keep Wall Street
> and their media happy. Prepare for a rosier
> future, and you fail to get bonds issued, pay
> higher rates, etc.
>
> Wall Street, somehow believes that no interest
> rates are great - you have "cheap" money. The
> problem is, as you keep rates artificially low
> (and threaten the economy whenever anyone breathes
> "higher interest rates,)" you eliminate one means
> of producing wealth, retaining wealth, and
> bringing in foreign investment (and private
> investment). Let's face it, no one is running out
> for those "high, high, high!" CD rates under 2%.
> No one is rushing in to grab bonds and debt at low
> rates either. Follow the money, see who does
> benefit.
>
> But, yes, (admittedly)short sighted management at
> all railroads have kept things muddy for years,
> and will continue to do so for months, if not
> years to come - to the point of fulfilling their
> own prophecy of poorer economic vibrancy. But to
> say that the reason the couldn't move passenger
> trains is due to their inability to handle the
> load of freight is far too simplistic.
>
>
>
> ProAmtrak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> so Joe, your
> > blaming on NS and BNSF just by itself doesn't
> hold
> > water!

---------------

Others contend that much of the problem on the Elkart to Chicago line is due to tracks out of service due to repair work, the flyover, new crossovers, etc. Which has led to slow and stopped trains, crews burned out on hours, etc.

That's not to say NS should be staffing for the maximum possible peak demand, but if you lose 25% of your track capacity while train volume grows by 25%, you're going to have problems. No way around that, literally.

I'm not sure that I agree with the thrust of the article - that declining on-time performance is the cause of the drop in overall ridership.

Based on the first 11 months of FY2014 (public 12 month report not released), two of the larger Amtrak ridership drops were with the Keystone Service and the Capitol Corridor. These two services combined lost 404,000 passengers in the first 11 months of FY2014 compared to FY2013. That is a greater loss than all the long distance services combined (down 203,000). All Amtrak was down 718,000 riders. The Keystones and Capitols accounted for 56% of the entire Amtrak decline.

What is puzzling about the Keystone and Capitol Corridor numbers is that they are two of the best performing train services operated by Amtrak. Over the last 12 months, the Keystones operated 86% on time and the Capitols operated 93% on time. If, as the article claims, the primary issue driving Amtrak's ridership drop is poor on time performance, how can it be explained that two of the best performing trains are posting the largest losses?

I'm going to answer my own question. The losses related to the Keystones and Capitols were paper losses. Amtrak restated FY2013 ridership downward to account for less use of 10-ride and monthly passes than previously estimated. That downward adjustment impacted commuter corridors like the Keystone and Capitol heavily. Compared to FY2013 adjusted ridership, the Keystones were up a little and the Capitols were down a little. So, never mind.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GenePoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What a lot of people do not realize is that in
> > terms of PASSENGER-MILES, the Empire
> > Builder traditionally handled more than all the
> > Northeast Corridor combined...Acela,
> > Regional, Keystones, all of it.
>
> Gene, not even close from what I am looking at.
>
> I calculate NEC as having 4.5+ times as many
> passenger-miles as the Empire Builder and I did
> not include Keystone Service or LDT routes.

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

Mea culpa.

I rechecked my source. The Empire Builder produces more passenger-miles
than all of ACELA.

Original post corrected.

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To: Gene Poon
>
> Your statement "it stopped in 2009" makes
> absolutely no sense.

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

Amtrak ridership dropped from FY2008 to FY2009 and barely returned to FY2008 levels in FY2010.

source: Amtrak



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/14 20:14 by GenePoon.

---