Amtrak stats surprising??

[oltmannd]

Here are some stats I pulled from NARP site and US Census. Look like Amtrak peaked under Bush I and is at lowest normalized useage now. Amtrak's recent growth has been slower than overall population. Capacity constrained? Demographics? What?

date 1000 pass-miles pop train feet travelled per person president
1970 4999 205,052,174 128.7 Nixon
1975 3939 215,973,199 96.3 Ford
1980 4582 227,224,681 106.5 Carter
1985 4825 237,923,795 107.1 Reagan
1988 5678 244,498,982 122.6 Reagan
1989 5859 246,819,230 125.3 Bush I
1990 6057 249,464,396 128.2 Bush I
1991 6273 252,153,092 131.4 Bush I
1992 6091 255,029,699 126.1 Clinton
1993 6199 257,782,608 127.0 Clinton
1994 5921 260,327,021 120.1 Clinton
1995 5545 262,803,276 111.4 Clinton
1996 5050 265,228,572 100.5 Clinton
1997 5166 267,783,607 101.9 Clinton
1998 5304 270,248,003 103.6 Clinton
1999 5330 272,690,813 103.2 Clinton
2000 5498 282,177,754 102.9 Bush II
2001 5559 285,093,813 103.0 Bush II
2002 5468 287,973,924 100.3 Bush II
2003 5503 290,809,777 99.9 Bush II

[PNWRMNM]

Interestings stats. I especially like passenger train FEET per year per person. ATK is irrelevant everywhere byt the NEC.

Mac

[Anonymous]

There were more trains and more routes 30 years ago than today's skeletal system.

Blame policymakers for tying Amtrak's hands and only giving this country a Third World passenger rail system.

When you get only crumbs, don't expect gigantic leaps in patronage. Till then, status quo will continue.

Even with the backwards funding Amtrak has gotten (it's been cut over the years, in terms of inflation, while federal highway and aviation subsidies have increased) ridership has grown, despite what critics want to believe.

Increased passenger rail demand won't materialize until

1) there are more trains to more places (CHI-FLa., Dallas-Denver, etc.)
2) the current trains have reliable and new equipment.

3) Most important - the anti-rail bigots in the White House and Congress are
defeated.

As far as demographics, the Sunbelt, SE, Northwest, West and SW are among the fastest growing regions in population. Yet many of those areas don't have train service or trains that run only 3 days a week.

Remember, you can't ride a train that isn't there.

Many of those areas are also more conservative or libertarian. They don't want no socialized rail service. They're happy, however, to have "commy" highways and airports, but not rail <g>

I would argue that government-mandated limiting of travel options - to only flying or the dangerous highways - is more socialistic and communistic, since there's little choice.

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Here are some stats I pulled from NARP site and US Census. Look like Amtrak peaked under Bush I and is at lowest normalized useage now. Amtrak's recent growth has been slower than overall population. Capacity constrained? Demographics? What?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Interestings stats. I especially like passenger train FEET per year per person. ATK is irrelevant everywhere byt the NEC.

Mac

Tell that to the 25 million people that rode Amtrak this past year.

Or to California, where rail service is booming. Or to the Texas Eagle, which had its highest ridership last year.

That's a myth that passenger rail is irrelevant to areas outside of the NE.

Using that same logic, you could say air service is irrelevant to low populated areas, such as the Plains states or the desert states.

[dldance]

The Amtrak stats are interesting but provide an incomplete picture of short-haul passenger rail such as ACE (Calif) or the Trinity Express (DFW). Short-haul is where much of the rail passenger growth is occuring.

dd

[jeaton]

May we check the numbers again? Column 2 is 1000 passenger miles and in 2003 the table then says that there were 5,503 times 1000 or 5,503,000 total passenger miles?

According to that remarkable statistic that means some 24,000,000 passengers boarding Amtrak only traveled an average of a of about 1200 feet on each of their trips.

You might want to do something about figuring in the very signifcant growth of traffic on shorter runs.

[gfjwilmde]

Say goodbye to Amtrak. Although ridership is strong, he(Bush) and his croanies will dismantle it within weeks, now that he's been re-elected. Also, say goodbye to all of our jobs too.

[Anonymous]

About Bush, the comments on goodbye to all of our jobs is well stated.

Look at how CEO robber barrons almost get off scot-free. THeir salaries are increasing, I read. THey say that's due to the worshipped and almighty free market system.
You know, the same system that says it's okay to ship jobs overseas and pay software engineers, for example, pennies instead of dollars.

If that's the case, why can't we outsource those greedy CEOs that raise their salaries even whilst their companies are sinking?

That particular political party had so much contempt and hatered for its stockholders - the American people - that it outsourced its campaign calls to a Third World nation.

So much for caring about the economy.

Bush has to answer for the "outsourcing is good for the economy" lame argument his administration advanced. While that nonsense may look good on paper and make a company's stock rise, losing your job surely isn't good for the American people.

Too bad he gets to keep his job.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak ridership IS AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL E-V-E-R.

Hear that? That means more people - on short distance AND long distance trains - have ridden Amtrak than any other past year.

I don't know how many times this has to be said.

It's up. And ridership has also increased while air travel hasn't increased at the rate Amtrak's ridership has gone up, according to past NARP information.

Here's more evidence, from NARP.

http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=hot%2Ehtm

Amtrak has set yet another ridership record for fiscal 2004. Over 25 million riders were carried on the nation’s passenger rail system from October 2003 through September 2004. Leading the way were the Cardinal (23.1%), the three Michigan Corridor services (Wolverine 12.2%, Blue Water 16.7%, Pere Marquette 19.6%), Heartland Flyer (16.8%), Capitol Limited (17.4%), Texas Eagle (9.5%), and Southwest Chief (6.1%). Overall, corridors were up 4.4% and National Network (long distance) trains were up 3.3%. These numbers, especially National Network, are even more impressive given several long-term and high profile service disruptions this past year, particularly the four hurricanes to strike Florida, the Republican and Democratic conventions, and the two month long service disruption to the Silver Service due to CSX Transportation trackwork

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

May we check the numbers again? Column 2 is 1000 passenger miles and in 2003 the table then says that there were 5,503 times 1000 or 5,503,000 total passenger miles?

According to that remarkable statistic that means some 24,000,000 passengers boarding Amtrak only traveled an average of a of about 1200 feet on each of their trips.

You might want to do something about figuring in the very signifcant growth of traffic on shorter runs.

I goofed. Its millions, not thousands.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

Amtrak ridership IS AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL E-V-E-R.

Hear that? That means more people - on short distance AND long distance trains - have ridden Amtrak than any other past year.

I don't know how many times this has to be said.

It's up. And ridership has also increased while air travel hasn't increased at the rate Amtrak's ridership has gone up, according to past NARP information.

Here's more evidence, from NARP.

http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=hot%2Ehtm

Amtrak has set yet another ridership record for fiscal 2004. Over 25 million riders were carried on the nation’s passenger rail system from October 2003 through September 2004. Leading the way were the Cardinal (23.1%), the three Michigan Corridor services (Wolverine 12.2%, Blue Water 16.7%, Pere Marquette 19.6%), Heartland Flyer (16.8%), Capitol Limited (17.4%), Texas Eagle (9.5%), and Southwest Chief (6.1%). Overall, corridors were up 4.4% and National Network (long distance) trains were up 3.3%. These numbers, especially National Network, are even more impressive given several long-term and high profile service disruptions this past year, particularly the four hurricanes to strike Florida, the Republican and Democratic conventions, and the two month long service disruption to the Silver Service due to CSX Transportation trackwork

Ridership is NOT at a peak if normalized for population. The avg American went less than 19 miles on Amtrak last year, the lowest number since the mid 70s

The highest number of passenger miles EVER WAS IN 1991. HEAR THAT? They may have a record number of passengers, but they also have a record number of trains miles.

The system is not currently more "skelatal" than is was in the early 70s - go dig out your old system maps and timetables and check it out!

My point was that Amtrak ridership is NOT KEEPING UP with population growth. This suggests problems like capacity constraints on the existing network or poor marketing or shrinking market or some combination.

[Anonymous]

So there's MORE train routes now than 30 years ago???

How come I rode trains in the late 70s that aren't running now? Was I on another planet??

You must be looking at the wrong maps, pal.

The system IS a lot more skeletal. It's tiny out west by comparison.

Look back at that map and tell me how many routes were in existence 30 years ago that aren't there now.

There's ONLY ONE Chicago-Texas train now. Then, there were two.

There's ONLY ONE CHI-SEA train now. Then, two.

Of course, the ones gutted are mostly west of Pittsburgh.

A few that come to mind.

-CHI-FLorida
-CHI-HOU
-CHI-SEA
-CHI-SLC-BOISE-PDX-SEA
-CHI-SLC-LV-LA
-NYC-PGH-COL-IND-STL-KCY

Those are very large populated routes that left big cities like Louisville, Nashville, Columbus, Ohio, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, Montgomery, Boise, and others such as Missoula, and Dayton, without service.

The loss of individual routes wasn't the only thing that hurt the system.
Fewer individual routes meant fewer connections.

Here are a few examples of where one CANNOT travel by train to/from:

Up until the mid-90s, you could travel from CHI or DENVER directly to Vegas by train, or DEN to LA or DEN to PDX and SEATTLE directly by train. That's impossible now.

Kansas City - Texas is no longer possible with direct service.

CHI-Nashville, CHI-Birmingham, CHI- Louisville.
St. Louis - Columbus.

CHI-Minneapolis used to have 2 separate trains. Now, just one.

Until 1979, Montana's largest cities had rail access.

Tulsa and Oklahoma City had no train service from 1979 to the early 2000s. Tulsa still doesn't have train service.

Nashville has zippo service.

Fewer trains to fewer places equal fewer travel options = fewer passengers.

--

The loss your one statistic highlights is likely due to political meddling, where policymakers ordered Amtrak to gut routes, not passenger demand.

OF course Amtrak can't keep up with population growth if it keeps getting its hands tied and is forced to cut back as it was during the late 1970s, in the 80s, mid-90s and recently under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

No money = no trains = no passenger growth.

It isn't a shrinking market, or lessening demand, since the trains are often sold out and Texans are frequently requesting train service to Colorado, a popular travel market that hasn't had a passenger train since the mid-60s.

Overall ridership - I'll say it again - IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH.

You can't ride a train that isn't there.

[daveklepper]

Again, a healthy Amtrak is necessary for National Preparedness.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

So there's MORE train routes now than 30 years ago???

How come I rode trains in the late 70s that aren't running now? Was I on another planet??

You must be looking at the wrong maps, pal.

I said early 70s. The map sprouted like crazy under Carter. Try 1972, not 1979.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier



Overall ridership - I'll say it again - IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH.

You can't ride a train that isn't there.

Amtrak ridership has not kept up with population growth, not to mention economic growth. Are you not understanding this or just choosing to ignore it? I wasn't asking if this was true - a facts a fact, you know. But I was asking WHY this was so.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
[I said early 70s. The map sprouted like crazy under Carter. Try 1972, not 1979.

This is fallacious. How did the Amtrak map "sprout like crazy?"
There have never been enough rail routes to serve the population (i.e. no Texas-Denver service, or Dallas-New Orleans, or Memphis- west).

The system was even more skeletal after Carter's reign.

Amtrak was a small system during all of the 70s and got even smaller at the end of the decade with a few trains here and there added (Pioneer, Desert Wind) but soon those were ordered to stop running due to politics, not ridership.

I've told you WHY ridership hasn't kept up with population growth.

No money, no equipment, no routes. How hard is that to understand?

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Again, a healthy Amtrak is necessary for National Preparedness.

Amtrak is not a consideration for National Preparedness. Congress has been trying to kill it since its inception.

[mucable]

This is another one of those useless statistics... sort of like if you watch every car during rush hour and you find that there are 1.2 persons in each car...then that means that every sixth car has nobody in it.

To say that AMTRAK is not keeping up with population growth is silly since AMTRAK doesn't go everywhere. There are many many AMTRAK problems, but where it does compete it does very well... The NEC is a good example.

What's wrong with the picture is that we have spent billions for highways that we can't maintain, and that certainly don't keep up with population growth. Just drive around ATLANTA or the Nation's capital sometime if you don't believe this one!

[oltmannd]

I live in Atlanta - tell me about it.

You say the Amtrak competes in the NEC. Agreed! There has been investment there and market share has increased.

The "national" network is another story. The original Amtrak map had LESS routes than there are now - much less than in 1979.

In 1972, there was:

no Adirondak
no Lake Shore Ltd.
no svc west of Buffalo on PC (no Toronto or Detroit train)
no svc between Jax and NO
only one route across Montana
no Desert Wind
no Pioneer
no Hilltopper
no Shenendoah
no Capital Ltd.
no Atlanta - Mobile train
no Pt Huron Train
no Grand Rapids train
no KC Mule

The only two routes on the orig map that went away in 1980 were the Floridian and the Nat'l Limited. And, the Chic - Texas train was on a different route.

So, taking out the NEC (and it's Empire and Harrisburg "branches"), you get an even WORSE picture of Amtrak ridership vs. population growth.

The Crescent is a good example. It's roughly the same size train as in 1980 even though the population of Atlanta, Greensboro, Charlotte and other points along the route have doubled in size since then.

Why is this?

[oltmannd]

You aren't seriously trying to say that Amtrak is a solution to highway congestion, are you? Even NY-Wash DC, Amtrak isn't worth more than a couple of lanes of highway in each direction.

Don't get the idea I'm anti-Amtrak or anti-passenger rail. I'm pro-both! But I've yet to see a really good economic argument for Amtrak's long haul routes.

You must not have been old enought to remember the Amtrak's first decade.....

[Anonymous]

Don, the routes you cite are only at the very beginning of Amtrak.

The system is much smaller today than it was when it was at its peak, mid- to late 70s - early 80s.

Nearly half of the routes you name are gone. The Pioneer, Desert Wind were ordered to stop by Congress during the 1990s.

The Shenendoah and Hilltopper are also gone.

The last three cited- the MO. and MICH trains - are all state-funded, and all three of those almost went awaythis year, thanks to backwards-looking state governments. Another reason insisting states fund Amtrak won't work.

The system NEVER "sprouted like crazy."

Sprouted like crazy implies there were trains that weren't necessary. That never happened. There has never, under any year or any administration, been enough passenger trains.

The Crescent is the same size because there's no money to buy more equipment. Never has been enough money.

Nor has there been any money to run a needed second train on that same route - one that would run DC-Atlanta in the daytime, serving the large Carolina population.

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
The "national" network is another story. The original Amtrak map had LESS routes than there are now - much less than in 1979.


In 1972, there was:

no Adirondak
no Lake Shore Ltd.
no svc west of Buffalo on PC (no Toronto or Detroit train)
no svc between Jax and NO
only one route across Montana
no Desert Wind
no Pioneer
no Hilltopper
no Shenendoah
no Capital Ltd.
no Atlanta - Mobile train
no Pt Huron Train
no Grand Rapids train
no KC Mule

The Crescent is a good example. It's roughly the same size train as in 1980 even though the population of Atlanta, Greensboro, Charlotte and other points along the route have doubled in size since then.

[Anonymous]

Why hasn't Amtrak grown with population?

The answer is simple: lack of investment.

Any business doing the same amount of business today as is did 30 years ago, in terms of sales, would be dead.

To make more sales, a business needs more inventory.

To make money, you have to spend money. This is something the feds have never understood. They seem too eager to spend money on nearly everything else, though.

Amtrak funding adjusted for inflaction has declined over the past 30 years while aviation and highway funding has doubled or tripled.

Amtrak is like a store.

There's plenty of demand, with customers requesting service (Dallas-Denver, CHI-Florida, Nashville - CHI, Atlanta - Florida, just a few of many missing markets).
But since there's no money to run such routes, no sale. Hence no expansion in ridership v. population.

Amtrak can't expand because it's never been given the money necessary to run a real system. It's always had its hands tied. The DOT a couple of years ago, BTW, said to do it right, Amtrak needed about $2 billion a year.

Imagine how loudly the critics would whine if it were ever given sufficient resources to do the job right.

To be fair, past Amtrak management hasn't been very aggressive in terms of marketing. Amtrak has made a lot of mistakes. In the past, there has been very little in advertising outside of the NEC. And the times they did advertise, it was so generic, not providing schedules or travel information.

Amtrak wrecks, it has been said, publicized the trains more than the system ever did in the past.

As Mark implied, DC seemed more interested in spending federal funds on the NEC, instead of improving and expanding the national system - i.e. the growing Sunbelt - , where the vast majority of this country's population resides.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

That's only at the very beginning of Amtrak.

The system is much smaller today.

Nearly half of the routes you name are gone. The Pioneer, Desert Wind were ordered to stop by Congress during the 1990s.

The last three cited are all state-funded, and all three of those almost went awaythis year, thanks to backwards-looking state governments.

The system NEVER "sprouted like crazy."

Sprouted like crazy implies there were trains that weren't necessary. That never happened. There has never, under any year or any administration, been enough passenger trains.

The Crescent is the same size because there's no money to buy more equipment. Never has been enough money.

Nor has there been any money to run a needed second train on that sane route - one that would run DC-Atlanta in the daytime, serving the large Carolina population.

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
The "national" network is another story. The original Amtrak map had LESS routes than there are now - much less than in 1979.


In 1972, there was:

no Adirondak
no Lake Shore Ltd.
no svc west of Buffalo on PC (no Toronto or Detroit train)
no svc between Jax and NO
only one route across Montana
no Desert Wind
no Pioneer
no Hilltopper
no Shenendoah
no Capital Ltd.
no Atlanta - Mobile train
no Pt Huron Train
no Grand Rapids train
no KC Mule

The Crescent is a good example. It's roughly the same size train as in 1980 even though the population of Atlanta, Greensboro, Charlotte and other points along the route have doubled in size since then.

Why is this?

Between 1972 and 1979 the system map added lots of lines. Do you have a copy of the 1972 map?

Lines added:

Buffalo to Detroit
Boston to Albany
Buffalo to Chicago
2nd route thru Montana
Salt Lake City to Portland
Salt Lake CIty to LA
Wash DC to Martinsburg WV
Wash DC to Cincinati (via B&O)
Albany to Montreal
Seattle to Vancouver
San Antonio (?) to Texas/Mexico border
Day train to Charleston SC/Savannah GA
plus a couple short haul routes out of Chicago (IL 403b)

That's a lot of coloring on a map in my view!

I do get your point about a day train to Atlanta. More service = more ridership, always.

I DON'T get your point about the equipment funding. The Crescent usually runs four coaches, about same as in in 1980 when it was converted to rebuilt Heritage equip., yet it rarely sells out, despite the increase in population on the route. If all things are equal and you have a bigger market, then you should have more riders. This suggests that some things are unequal. What are they? Lower airfares? Cheap gas? More car ownership? Better roads? Higher Amtrak fares? Lousy food? Stinky toilets? Rude train crew? Nicer automobiles? Less travelling per person? What???

It's hard to defend these routes to non-train people without understanding what's going on. They would say, "The Crescent goes away. So what?" I'm not so sure the status quo is defendable on economic grounds. I'd sure like to see a good defense.

[oltmannd]

I really wasn't trying to imply passenger acceptance as a reason for declining "normalized" ridership. I was really wondering why it's declining. Reasons 1 & 2 would be really hard to measure. Reson #3 may be hard ot find data for. Reason 4 & 5 should be pretty easy to figure. I'll have to do some hunting around for stats.

I'm not all that hopeful that there is any reasonable economic justification for the long distance trains although there may be good social justification for them.

If there's some good analysis out there somewhere, I wish someone would point me to it!

[jockellis]

Don - fellow Atlantan -- et al: A commuter's car at speed on I75, 85 or 20 will take up at least 50 feet and should be more. As I pointed out in my column in the Atlanta Constitution back in March, the 1,800 cars that DOT exp[ects to take off the road when the Griffin to Atlanta red line is opened would be two lanes wide by three miles long. I believe AMTRAK's NEC trains carry a total of much more than that so it does help. What is really needed is a Rail Appreciation Day whereby all passenger rail takes a holiday and the US road systems get to take up the slack and see how they like it. I don't think Atlantans and interlopers realize how many of their fellow cubicle dwellers take MARTA. They would add about 100 cars per minute past a given spot if they were unable to take the trains which during rush hour cram about 85 people (I count) into each of the six cars on each run.
Jock Ellis

[Wdlgln005]

Part of the reason must be that Amtrak has failed to match or reach people in areas of high population growth. Nashville has grown rapidly the last 5-10 years, and the only chance we had was a daily run of the Louisville Cardinal. Our only train is the City of New Orleans. The train takes forever to get to Chicago, you can drive I-65 or I-57 in a day, or you can fly Southwest. I'm sure there's other Southern cities with similar problems. THe Interstates are clogged and there's no room to put more lanes.

We will be lucky that the new Music City Commuter RR will begin construction soon. The first line is the old Tennessee Central, now Nashville & Eastern, not clogged by CSX traffic. So another element is some local control & don't have all decisions made by the fools in Washington. A huge key is to get the state DOT onboard, if only to help match the 25% the feds don't provide for the project.

http://www.nashvillentrak.org/mcstar/mcstar.html
The link will take you to a picture of an F40 & a car painted in the new scheme.
I like the way the star takes advantage of the A.

[mucable]

I was in Viet Nam in 1971, so I may be older than you think.

There are a bunch of things wrong with transportation in this country. I'm not saying AMTRAK is the solution, but you have to admit that building two more lanes on I95 ain't gonna make it any better.

As to long distance trains...most, if not all are political animals. But I am really dead set against the middle part of the country financing the NEC and the California corridors while receiving nothing in return.

What do you think would happen if AMTRAK inaugurated a Savannah to Atlanta service with hourly departures in each direction? Would it get some of those guys out of their pickups? I bet $2.50 per gallon for gas might, and that's the way things seem to be heading these days.

You probably could make a case for the long-distance trains providing some ridership into the NEC and California corridors too!

I'd really like to see something happen in transportation that would get these subsidies for air and highways apportioned more equitably than they are now. But I suppose it all goes around to "How big's your lobby?"

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis

Don - fellow Atlantan -- et al: A commuter's car at speed on I75, 85 or 20 will take up at least 50 feet and should be more. As I pointed out in my column in the Atlanta Constitution back in March, the 1,800 cars that DOT exp[ects to take off the road when the Griffin to Atlanta red line is opened would be two lanes wide by three miles long. I believe AMTRAK's NEC trains carry a total of much more than that so it does help. What is really needed is a Rail Appreciation Day whereby all passenger rail takes a holiday and the US road systems get to take up the slack and see how they like it. I don't think Atlantans and interlopers realize how many of their fellow cubicle dwellers take MARTA. They would add about 100 cars per minute past a given spot if they were unable to take the trains which during rush hour cram about 85 people (I count) into each of the six cars on each run.
Jock Ellis

Here's the math for the NEC/lanes of highway:

Amtrak ridership = 25M/yr

figure 1/2 on the NEC

Figure that's concentrated over 8 hours of the day (4 in the moring, 4 in the evening)

Figure weekends have 1/2 the rider ship, so divide by 6 days per week.

That yields 5000 riders per hour.

If 1/2 are north bound and half south, that's 2500 riders in each direction.

A lane of highway is good for roughly 1800 vehicle per hour.

If each rider drove alone, then you'd need an additional lane and a half in each direction to accomodate the traffic.

To figure the distance between cars on the highway, allow 2 seconds on average for spacing between cars. Multiply that by speed in feet/sec and then add the length of a car.

At 70 mph, that'll give you 2 * 70 * 88/60 + 15 = 220 feet (it only looks like 50 feet when you're driving!)

[DSchmitt]

Why hasn't Amtrak grown with population Very simple. There are less expensive more efficient ways for the individual to travel for non-recreational and often even recreational purposes in the corridors Amtrak serves.

In California, and I am sure most othe States, the services that are growing provide good service primairly to workers and business travelers. They have a large component of State/local financing.

A modest proposal:

Spin off local and regional services to the States and local/regional agencies. Those that provide needed services (and many do) will survive. Take Federal funding out of the picture and let the riders and the governments closest to them deside how huch the service is worth.

Spin off the national system as a private company operating tourist oriented luxury trains scheduled to make the most of the scenery and with direct access (or connection to good luxury bus access) to parks, monuments, theme parks, historic cities and towns, and other points of interest to tourists.

[Paul Milenkovic]

oltmannd:

That 5000 travellers per hour (avg) is a lot -- think of it as 20 767's or A-310 airliners per hour.

What do you suppose the breakdown is by route segment. The story I keep hearing is that Amtrak is running a New York-Philly commuter operations and the rest of the NEC is much less heavily travelled.