About Pennsylvania not picking up the tab for the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg:
"“We think this train is very important. It’s a link to the rest of the Amtrak system. It provides very important service for many communities, some of which have no other form of public transportation,” he said. A better idea to reduce per-passenger costs would be to add service, he said. And while the state might save money by eliminating it, the traveling public will pay more. “The less competition there is, the higher the prices on other modes of transportation. We need more options, not less,” Alexander said."
So, we need to subsidize trains, even if ridership is declining because it keeps bus fares down? (and turnpike tolls, too, I suppose).
How about we spend that money in places where actual benefit is generated by people actually riding the train instead?!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
They should drop this route for the moment. Amtrak can use the approx $6 million a year elsewhere. In the future when Amtrak has it's loss pared down they can look at activating the route again.
A few things have happened since the train went in.
The PA turnpike has had a good deal of straightening done on the west end and spots where even 55 mph was a bit of an adventure are now easily taken at 70 mph. This makes Phila/Hburg to Pittsburgh drives easier and faster.
US 22 has been improved in spots and I-99 exists. This certainly siphons off some trips to/from the interior stops.
The speed limit has gone from 55 to 65 mph in many places, although bits and pieces of the rail route have gone from 70 to 75/79 in the same frame.
It would be a heck of a route to try a tilting trainset...
Dropping the Pennsylvanian isn't the half of it. Amtrak also intends to drop all Philadelphia to Harrisburg service (14 trains a day) unless Pennsylvania pays all of the subsidy which is about $8 million.
And this has nothing to do with the need for service. At Harrisburg in 2011 there were 543,423 boardings and alightings; in 2012 there were 571,217. This is an increase of about 28,000, a little over 5 per cent.
There is a new law that says states must pay all of the subsidy for service totally within their state. If it could be shown that at Pittsburgh a significant number of passengers were changing between the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol limited the subsidy could be restored. However, that is very unlikely because the connection involves hours of waiting, sometimes in the middle of the night.
John WR Dropping the Pennsylvanian isn't the half of it. Amtrak also intends to drop all Philadelphia to Harrisburg service (14 trains a day) unless Pennsylvania pays all of the subsidy which is about $8 million. And this has nothing to do with the need for service. At Harrisburg in 2011 there were 543,423 boardings and alightings; in 2012 there were 571,217. This is an increase of about 28,000, a little over 5 per cent. There is a new law that says states must pay all of the subsidy for service totally within their state. If it could be shown that at Pittsburgh a significant number of passengers were changing between the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol limited the subsidy could be restored. However, that is very unlikely because the connection involves hours of waiting, sometimes in the middle of the night.
Yes, all the routes less than 750 miles are getting defunded by Amtrak. But....
The gist of the article was that the Harrisburg service would be funded. It was the Pennsylvanian that was on the block.
I wonder if you pruned the route at Altoona and dropped a set of equipment if they could find the money. Basically make it a daily turn to Altoona. The running time from Harrisburg to Altoona isn't too bad - its' west of there that's the trouble. Lewistown and Altoona are usually pretty big stops. I'll have to look up the boardings.
One train per day from Pittsburgh to Phil isn't a service worth running. Better to use the money to add more trains on other routes.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmanndThe gist of the article was that the Harrisburg service would be funded. It was the Pennsylvanian that was on the block.
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer Keystone Service between Philadelphia and Harrisburg could face "serious cutbacks." Pennsylvania has its own budget problems and may not be able to pick up all of the increased costs.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-08/business/34306866_1_amtrak-s-keystone-northeast-corridor-keystone-line
oltmanndLewistown and Altoona are usually pretty big stops. I'll have to look up the boardings.
Here they are:
--------------------------2011----------------2012----------
Altoona 25,800 26.978 up 1,178
Lewistown 8,200 8,315 up 115
Johnstown 23,573 23,964 up 391
Greensburg 13,097 13,395 up 298
schlimmOne train per day from Pittsburgh to Phil isn't a service worth running. Better to use the money to add more trains on other routes.
Do you mean Amtrak should add more trains somewhere else or that Pennsylvania should use the money for more trains on the Philadelphia to Harrisburg route?
The second, if the market warrants. If not, somewhere else that does.
And compared to Pittsburgh boardings, and through passengers, and how many of the Alltoona-Leeewistown, Johnstown, Greensburg passengers were going to Pittsburgh and not to Philly?
daveklepper And compared to Pittsburgh boardings, and through passengers, and how many of the Alltoona-Leeewistown, Johnstown, Greensburg passengers were going to Pittsburgh and not to Philly?
I used to ride between Altoona and Phila a good bit. My impression was most of the traffic was doing what I was doing. The train filled up heading east and emptied out going west.
Once upon a time, they tried turning the equipment in Pittsburgh and extending the run back to Altoona - essentially making a "commuter" run from Altoona - AM to Pittsburgh, PM trip back. That worked out terribly. The train was just too slow and the market too small.
The boardings and alightings for Altoona east to Hburg add up to about 60 people per train. If 2/3rds of them were retained if you cut the train at Altoona, it might be a workable solution. You'd have to push the schedule up in the morning and back in the evening to make it work. You should be able to turn the crew with the train, too.
You could handle the Latrobe, Greensburg, Johnstown passengers with a bus connection - they'd get a faster ride.
Also, I notice that there is no bus connection to State College for this train. Ahem....
schlimm One train per day from Pittsburgh to Phil isn't a service worth running. Better to use the money to add more trains on other routes.
In this day and age, that's correct. But, I'm not sure this train's route runs through "this day and age". Altoona is 120 miles and 30 years from Harrisburg!
John WR oltmanndLewistown and Altoona are usually pretty big stops. I'll have to look up the boardings. Here they are: --------------------------2011----------------2012---------- Altoona 25,800 26.978 up 1,178 Lewistown 8,200 8,315 up 115 Johnstown 23,573 23,964 up 391 Greensburg 13,097 13,395 up 298
Johnstown is surprising to me. I wonder what the east/west spilt is there. I've only ridden a couple of times thru there.
John WR oltmanndThe gist of the article was that the Harrisburg service would be funded. It was the Pennsylvanian that was on the block. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer Keystone Service between Philadelphia and Harrisburg could face "serious cutbacks." Pennsylvania has its own budget problems and may not be able to pick up all of the increased costs. http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-08/business/34306866_1_amtrak-s-keystone-northeast-corridor-keystone-line
$8M to keep the Keystones running for 1.3M riders and $7M to keep the Pennsylvanian alive for a 100,000 or so riders. Hmmm.....
oltmannd$8M to keep the Keystones running for 1.3M riders and $7M to keep the Pennsylvanian alive for a 100,000 or so riders. Hmmm..
Good example of priorities. Spend the money where it does the most good. Simple cost-benefit analysis. same with baggage cars, game cars, exercise cars, diners, sleepers. etc.
We know from experience that one train each way a day or less is not rail passenger service but lip service to politicians. Even two a day on such a populated route through the mountainous territory cannot be construed as service. The increasing number of passenger loading suggest the potential for service is there. The pot hole s on Route 80 and the problems of maintaining the Turnpike, the truck traffic and congestion on these highways is also on the rise. Removing rail passenger traffic will not be very productive nor save any money if only because it will have to be restarted again in the near future. Congress, however, has made it so that states have to contribute more to passenger train operations than they have in the past...which could be problematical from the state's coffers. And with the impact of interstate travel on top, the concept of Amtrak accepting more of the operation and financing of such traffic has to be realized and understood. Train travel is not like going to town for a quart of milk and a loaf of bread in the car but a more involved trip and has to be dealt with differently.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I believe the trouble lies in outdated notions of where markets are. That route is based on a time long gone. Even a simple, cheap market analysis looks at demographics. Look at the populations of the places served:
Johnstown
A steady decline to 1/3 of what it once was.
Altoona:
Steady decline, though not so bad.
Pittsbugh
The problem is looking at passenger rail as though we were still in the 1940's or 1950's. To do so ignores the dramatic changes in where people live now, 60+ years later.
Contrast that with places like Atlanta with one train twice a day or other "new" cities with zero trains, like Phoenix. That's one of many reasons it is hard to take Amtrak seriously. Outside the NEC and maybe a few other corridors, it is stuck in a route structure and service/equipment mindset of the 1950's.
The concept is based on people traveling the route to and from NY and Chicago. But that is basically air traffic today and the intermediate Philadelphia's, Harrisburg's, Altoona's, Johnstown's, etc are the reasons for trains more than the end points. Thus the idea to serve PA, for instance, has to be connections from 30th St. through to Pittsburg and on to Cleveland...you can run every two or three hours in each direction on the segment in part or in full and get better loading response than worrying about a NY to P'brg or Chi. train. If one can go from Insidepennsylvaniatown to Phil or P'brg and back in one day (even one long day) could spur more travel and be a better service. Markets, reasons for travel, and end points of trips have changed since the PRR's Broadway polished the rails.
schlimm I believe the trouble lies in outdated notions of where markets are. That route is based on a time long gone. Even a simple, cheap market analysis looks at demographics. Look at the populations of the places served: Johnstown 1940 66,668 −0.5% 1950 63,232 −5.2% 1960 53,949 −14.7% 1970 42,476 −21.3% 1980 35,496 −16.4% 1990 28,134 −20.7% 2000 23,906 −15.0% 2010 20,978 −12.2% A steady decline to 1/3 of what it once was. Altoona: 1940 80,214 −2.2% 1950 77,177 −3.8% 1960 69,407 −10.1% 1970 63,115 −9.1% 1980 57,078 −9.6% 1990 51,881 −9.1% 2000 49,523 −4.5% 2010 46,320 −6.5% Steady decline, though not so bad. Pittsbugh 1940 671,659 0.3% 1950 676,806 0.8% 1960 604,332 −10.7% 1970 520,117 −13.9% 1980 423,938 −18.5% 1990 369,879 −12.8% 2000 334,563 −9.5% 2010 305,704 −8.6% The problem is looking at passenger rail as though we were still in the 1940's or 1950's. To do so ignores the dramatic changes in where people live now, 60+ years later.
To be fair to Pittsburgh, you need to look at the metro area. But, then again, if true, where are the suburban stops? (other than Greensburg)
Altoona area has some sprawl to it, too. I'd bet the "metro" Altoona is holding steady around 60k.
Johnstown is just dead.
schlimmGood example of priorities. Spend the money where it does the most good. Simple cost-benefit analysis. same with baggage cars, game cars, exercise cars, diners, sleepers. etc.
I don't see this as a particularly good example of priorities, Schlimm. The Federal Government will provide no money for either Philadelphia to Harrisburg service or Harrisburg to Pittsburgh service. It looks to me like John Mica's "Holy Jihad against Amtrak" has won.
Whether a state-subsidized service or Amtrak or a private rail, we still need to prioritize how to invest in equipment and services.
henry6 the intermediate Philadelphia's, Harrisburg's, Altoona's, Johnstown's, etc are the reasons for trains more than the end points.
There is a paradox here Henry. As Schlimm points out, populations in places west of Harrisburg to Pittsburgh is declining. But the number of Amtrak riders has increased over the last 2 years. (Statistics for a longer period of time are not available).
Might it perhaps be a good idea to look into the increase in Amtrak riders? Might we want to consider better scheduling? Might we want to consider operating the service with a couple or 3 DMU's as they do in Europe and Canada? Might we want to consider that the increasing number of riders shows a limited but real need for the service? We're not interested in any of this. All we want to do is to shut it down.
oltmannd To be fair to Pittsburgh, you need to look at the metro area. But, then again, if true, where are the suburban stops? (other than Greensburg) Altoona area has some sprawl to it, too. I'd bet the "metro" Altoona is holding steady around 60k. Johnstown is just dead.
But the real crux is that Pennsylvania services are being sloughed off to the state by Amtrak legislation. Amtrak is following Congress's orders to make the states pay for the train inside their borders even if they begin or end their trips out of any given state. Clever these Japanese putting in such legislation that is only now being understood! All states are being asked to kick in to Amtrak so that Amtrak doesn't get the bill. It is sneaky but seemingly effective overlooking the need and the charge that the US Government's Congress be in charge of regulating interstate commerce, or at least defining it in terms of dollar support.
henry6But the real crux is that Pennsylvania services are being sloughed off to the state by Amtrak legislation. Amtrak is following Congress's orders to make the states pay for the train inside their borders even if they begin or end their trips out of any given state.
Exactly. The issue is not whether this service is needed. The issue is simply doing whatever it takes to get rid of Amtrak. It's an ideological position that goes back to the days of Andrew Jackson. Government should not be involved in internal improvements. Period.
What we need is objective standards about transportation as public policy.
Just because you seem to have little evidence of a need to have a train running between two points doesn't justify invoking the conspiracy card.
oltmannd $8M to keep the Keystones running for 1.3M riders and $7M to keep the Pennsylvanian alive for a 100,000 or so riders. Hmmm.....
FY08 200,999
FY09 199,484 (FY09 was a down year for Amtrak systemwide due to the recession)
FY10 203.392
FY11 207,422
FY12 212,006
Ticket reveniue for the train is up more than ridership in the recent monthly reports, so Amtrak may be able to ask for a smaller subsidy than the FY12 loss numbers.
Alan F oltmannd $8M to keep the Keystones running for 1.3M riders and $7M to keep the Pennsylvanian alive for a 100,000 or so riders. Hmmm..... FY2012 ridership on the Pennsylvanian was 212 thousand. This is for passengers getting on or off west of 30th Street. Passengers taking the train between 30th St and NYP are counted as NEC passengers. Also, ridership on the Pennsylvanian is NOT declining, just slow growth the past 4 years. Total passenger count in Pittsburgh is down a bit, but that could be due to some small fall-off from the Capitol Limited. From the Amtrak Monthly reports, the Pennsylvanian ridership for the past 5 fiscal years was: FY08 200,999 FY09 199,484 (FY09 was a down year for Amtrak systemwide due to the recession) FY10 203.392 FY11 207,422 FY12 212,006 Ticket reveniue for the train is up more than ridership in the recent monthly reports, so Amtrak may be able to ask for a smaller subsidy than the FY12 loss numbers.
I would assume the Phila-Hburg portion of the schedule would be kept. The red ink bleeding occurs west of Hburg.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.