Just curious - in an article by Michael Flaherty about the Wisconsin hsr Milwaukee-Madison project, he writes about 500 Eurostar passengers getting off at St Pancras, 20 trains a day, and more than a million passengers a year. Big numbers; but that works out to an average range of only 137-204 passengers a train, less than 40% of the capacity. Am I missing something; or is this not as successful as it might be? If not, what's the problem? And why crow about something seemingly flawed and subject to criticism when advocating hsr?
I got this off Jack Ferry's "From the Observation Car" (Flaherty is president of Flaherty & Associates public relations in Madison. He is a former reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal and the Dow Jones News Corp.)
FWIW the Hiawathas have a similar low average passenger count despite #330 & #339 carrying near-full loads of around 400 passengers with six coaches now. The 10-ride and monthly pass used by frequent travelers and commuters to downtown Chicago are discounted, the latter deeply so, where parking, gas, and tolls cost as much as a 1-way fare round trip. Few can afford to take the Hiawathas anywhere else in the Chicago Area when you add in CTA or Metra fares and remove the parking cost; and that represents a lot of travel that isn't being captured.
HarveyK400 Just curious - in an article by Michael Flaherty , 20 trains a day, and more than a million passengers a year. Big numbers; but that works out to an average range of only 137-204 passengers a train, . Am I missing something; or is this not as successful as it might be? Flaherty did not tell the whole story. 20 trains on Fridays and holidays. Weekends much fewer and Mon - Tue low spot. He needed to look at a whole week as each day is different and when the ash cloud hampered air travel Eurostar put on extra trains. Pull up Eurostar reservations and you will see how much difference in each day and even each week! I got this off Jack Ferry's "From the Observation Car" (Flaherty is president of Flaherty & Associates public relations in Madison. He is a former reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal and the Dow Jones News Corp.) FWIW the Hiawathas have a similar low average passenger count despite #330 & #339 carrying near-full loads of around 400 passengers with six coaches now. The 10-ride and monthly pass used by frequent travelers and commuters to downtown Chicago are discounted, the latter deeply so, where parking, gas, and tolls cost as much as a 1-way fare round trip. Few can afford to take the Hiawathas anywhere else in the Chicago Area when you add in CTA or Metra fares and remove the parking cost; and that represents a lot of travel that isn't being captured.
Just curious - in an article by Michael Flaherty , 20 trains a day, and more than a million passengers a year. Big numbers; but that works out to an average range of only 137-204 passengers a train, . Am I missing something; or is this not as successful as it might be?
Flaherty did not tell the whole story. 20 trains on Fridays and holidays. Weekends much fewer and Mon - Tue low spot. He needed to look at a whole week as each day is different and when the ash cloud hampered air travel Eurostar put on extra trains. Pull up Eurostar reservations and you will see how much difference in each day and even each week!
The airlines manage to have very high load factors, but there is substantial inconvenience regarding the highly variable fares -- traveling when you want to may cost 3-4 times as much as an less convenient time.
There is a claim that the French TGV trains run at high load factors.
A load factor of around 40%, however does not mean that the train is not successful. It is kind of like a highway -- the highway is jammed in rush hour but has plenty of capacity at other hours. In my opinion, 40% load factor is what you can expect unless you start playing games like the airlines, trading off convenience for the passengers for running full much of the time.
The other thing about the Hiawatha is that they run the same consist for the off-peak times -- I guess it does not pay to switch out cars. Somewhere in Model Railroader magazine of all places, I got the impression that Metra does vary consists -- they have a cab car midway in a rush-hour consist, and for off-peak, they just leave the string of cars beyond the intermediate cab car behind. This method requires a kind of cab car that can be switched into the middle of a train -- see the other recent discussion about "push pull" and collision safety.
It is also interesting that the local advocacy group is chanting "The planned Madison train is not a Madison-Milwaukee commuter train, the planned Madison train is not a Madison-Milwaukee commuter train." It is an "intercity train" they assert. Don't know what that is supposed to mean. The Hiawatha seems to be serving a strong Milwaukee-Chicago commuter if not frequent shuttle traveller market . If there is such a strong market for travel on the short segments, such as Milwaukee-Chicago and shortly-to-be Madison, Milwaukee, what is the problem? If there is demand for an express commuter service over these routes, why not serve the market.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The advocacy community seems to be hung up on the definition of intercity service and may fail to realize that the difference between short-haul intercity and commuter service can be pretty fuzzy. As an example: Does Chicago-South Bend on the South Shore (90 miles) constitute a short-haul intercity service or a long commuter operation?
CSSHEGEWISCH The advocacy community seems to be hung up on the definition of intercity service and may fail to realize that the difference between short-haul intercity and commuter service can be pretty fuzzy. As an example: Does Chicago-South Bend on the South Shore (90 miles) constitute a short-haul intercity service or a long commuter operation?
A publically funded train as does a publically funded highway as does a publically funded airport serves a multitude of purposes and markets. The Interstate "National Defense Highway System", I suppose, serves some national defense purpose of having high bridges to allow armored vehicles to be moved around on low-boy trailers. It also serves people on their family vacations, visits to Grandma on Thanksgiving, commuters in abundance, and over-the-road trucks, lots of over-the-road trucks that bring us all of our "stuff." An airport serves the public going place on airlines, both business as well as personal travel. It may also serve a National Guard squadron of tankers or fighter bombers. And general aviation, serving the mission of recreation, pilot training, med flight, high priority transportation of people and goods, and other purposes, is also part of the picture.
Likewise, the Madison-Milwaukee train will serve people in Dane County who want to connect through the Chicago hub to the long-distance trains. It will also serve UW students living in the Milwaukee area who may want to go home on weekends. And there will be an important commuter market -- people making if not daily trips between Madison and Milwaukee or Madison and Chicago, perhaps multiple trips a month if not per week.
I am seeing, however, a problem that some in the advocacy community have an agenda that the main reason they want the train is to have a train feeder service to the Chicago hub rather than rely on the Van Galder motor coach bus from Langdon Street to Chicago Union Station. I mean that's fine, that a portion of the market for the Madison train will utilize the Amtrak network. The problem I see is that if that is the main justification for the 810 million dollar expenditure, that people who like to travel cross country on the long-distance trains, are inconvenienced by a bus connection for a short leg of their trip, that justification is pretty weak.
What is the evidence for this agenda? The vocal protest against Mayor Dave getting the station at 1 East Wilson instead of at the Dane County Regional Airport. The mantra "we need to counter ignorance and misinformation that this is a Madison-Milwaukee commuter train, this is an intercity train." The protest against Amtrak's plan for push-pull operation with fixed seat orientation, with half the seats in the "backwards" direction. The demand for checked baggage service and ticket agents (and a national Amtrak map, prominently displayed) at the Madison station.
The greater public can be sold on the idea that this is indeed a Madison-Milwaukee short-haul intercity service with an option of going to Chicago. It may even be sold on the idea of the Chicago hub connecting to St Louis and Detroit, if these trips can be made in daylight hours. The greater public is not sold on the idea of spending 810 million dollars so the small number of people in Dane County who are "in" to long distance train travel can avoid a connecting bus ride.
As a postscript, if the real reason the advocacy community wants the Madison train is for the "1000 destinations" (I thought there were only 500 Amtrak stations, but they come up with the round number of 1000 destinations somehow), I would suggest the following plan. Use the 4 Talgo train sets to double the Milwakee-Chicago Hiawatha service. People in Madison have a false sense of the importance of this town -- the Milwaukee airport has multiples of the departures of the Dane County Regional Airport, for example. Their is strong demand on Milwaukee-Chicago, so lets serve it.
Next, take up WisARP's idea of a second Chicago-Milwaukee-St Paul train to the Empire Builder. After that, build up the parking in Columbus and set up a Madison-Columbus shuttle bus to meet the two trains. That way the train doesn't have to "dog leg" through Madison, and the advocacy people can get the park-and-ride and connections into Chicago to take long-distance trains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.