QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch The PRRs Broadway died running a 16 hour businessman's schedule. How would recreating the 1950 Broadway work now when it didn't work then? It wasn't the stewardess that got business traveller to fly. It was the extra nights they got to spend at home, flying in the morning an evenings instead of trying to sleep in a roomette. The PRR and NYC (and others) tried mightily to hang on to business travellers. They even tried to shave another 30 minutes off their schedules for a while, but by the mid 50s, the game was over. Let's talk a few moments about the extra night sleep at the end of a business day in New York. First and foremost. In my father's post war era, most decisions were based on being modern. My fathers group was getting over the Great Depression, and the trauma of WWII. We were moving into the jet age and the space age in the '50s. We were moving into suburbia, and Heffner said it was OK to look at things in a glossy magazine that heretofore was unthinkable. They were going to be junior executives with a new slant. Disney predicted the future with superhighways where one wouldn't even have to steer their car. You wouldn't catch James Bond on the Limited, and you wouldn't see the President of the United States on one either. Movies had shown people on trips with clips of trains going by. Now it would be clips of TWA 707s landing and Zsa Zsa Gabore stepping off with a pink poodle, getting into a Cadillac. So you have to be at a meeting in New York City at 11.30 am and you want to fly. It's 1950 and you've booked passage on American Airlines flight 14, "The American Brigadier," due out of Chicago's Midway Airport at 7.00am. You have to be at the airport around 6.30 am to get your tickets and board. Since a trip to the airport involved local streets and Boulevards it takes an hour to get there. You have to leave the house by 5.30am. So you're up at 5am. You had to get to bed early that night and couldn't really sleep because you had to get up early for the flight, and you couldn't afford to oversleep. Flight 14 arrives at LaGuardia at 10.55am if it's on time. Thirty-five minutes is all youhave to make the meeting in Manhattan. On the way back you take flight 21, "The American Commodore." Your client stops talking by 3pm so you can get a cab to the airport. The flight arrives back at MDW at 7.15pm. You're in the door at 8.15pm at home. Pheh. Eight hours of travel in one day for a 4 hour meeting. But we did it because it was new and exciting. We didn't do it if MDW wassnowbound or enshrouded in snow. Let's look at 1957. The Boeing 707 is making its first appearance shaving half the air time off the trip. The recession of that year plus the 707 drove the businessman off the trains enmass. Of course you'll fly. If you go to the depot you see nothing but old stuff, and you have to pay for your meals. There's nothing but other men and old folk on the train. Out the window is nothing but steel mills. Now for today. First. The 707 and the "Supersonic Transport" are on their way to museums, and it's sometimes tough to book a room on a poor train, let alone a great one. I'm not looking for all the business travel today, just a share. There's people out there that want a good train experience, and a good night on a good train is not beyond their thinking. Business people are different. It's not just the man in the grey flannel suit who looks like Mell Cooley. It's young, vibrant people who are a lot more sociable, cross gender, et al. So for business or just travel a "1950" type of Century service would be welcomed if handled correctly. In the '70s, the Broadway was fun, close to on-time, and had a somewhat reasonable schedule until '76. I used it a lot on semi-monthly trips to NYC. I've found recently that on-board Amtrak people are genuine and decent. I've also found that airline people of today are cranky and much like the old railroad folks of years ago. Now you'll have to buy your meal on the plane, and it's free to sleeping car passengers on the train. Prospective, repeat rail passengers are out there if only they got a variety of good services to choose from. Repeat business is the key. Don't forget, nowadays you can spend your night on a cot in the airport. Mitch
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch The PRRs Broadway died running a 16 hour businessman's schedule. How would recreating the 1950 Broadway work now when it didn't work then? It wasn't the stewardess that got business traveller to fly. It was the extra nights they got to spend at home, flying in the morning an evenings instead of trying to sleep in a roomette. The PRR and NYC (and others) tried mightily to hang on to business travellers. They even tried to shave another 30 minutes off their schedules for a while, but by the mid 50s, the game was over.
QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Crunch some numbers: What is the cost of a Chicago to NY flight, plus hotel and dinner? Include the time and hassle of going from hotel to resturant and back. Now, what would be the cost of a Chicago to NY overnight train? If the price of the train ticket includes all the amenities, and if that is marketed correctly and used in comparison to the usual travel plans, that might make a new impression on the business traveler.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by futuremodal Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations." Nice try, but that in no way indicates 99.7% of Americans haven't tried or don't have access to Amtrak. So..... the 500 million or so who flew last year.... they in no way can be per person. Those are likely people that have flown 20-30 times a year and include many foreigners. Get this: Amtrak ridership - INCLUDING THE LDS - is at an all-time high. Even that isn't enough to please picky "railfans" who would prefer people fly. What a joke. (They don't advocate privatizing the airline infrastructure and stiffing THAT industry out of proper funding). Again, so-called railfans continue slamming Amtrak. If we only repeat lies long enough, the monster that no one wants will go away.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:04 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by futuremodal Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations." Nice try, but that in no way indicates 99.7% of Americans haven't tried or don't have access to Amtrak. So..... the 500 million or so who flew last year.... they in no way can be per person. Those are likely people that have flown 20-30 times a year and include many foreigners. Get this: Amtrak ridership - INCLUDING THE LDS - is at an all-time high. Even that isn't enough to please picky "railfans" who would prefer people fly. What a joke. (They don't advocate privatizing the airline infrastructure and stiffing THAT industry out of proper funding). Again, so-called railfans continue slamming Amtrak. If we only repeat lies long enough, the monster that no one wants will go away.... Who are you calling a liar? Myself and others are repeating the statistics that are well known and available to anyone who bothers to pull his or her head out of the sand and see the truth about Amtrak. Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%, it is still not enough to justify a national subsidy. Highways and airports are legitimate in their subsidization (if indeed there is such a thing as a legitimate subsidy) because a majority or plurality of the nation's population use them. If highways and airports only resulted in Amtrak-esque ridership numbers, we'd be calling for those subsidies to end too, but the fact is they do garner enough of a market share, so case closed. Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate, but the fact may be that the market niche necessary for such a share probably doesn't even exist, even with tax breaks and other incentives. And no, we don't want to start quadrupling the gas tax to force people to use passenger rail, because such a move would destroy the economy and we'd be left with double digit unemployment like France and Germany. Quadrupling the gas tax would not result in people switching to passenger rail, because the fundamentals needed for them to use it still would not exist, and the end result would only be to make peoples lives more miserable, without really aiding the cause of passenger rail. Amtrak was and is a miserable failure, it was designed to be a failure by an incompetent federal government, it can only continue to exist as a miserable failure in the future......UNLESS.....the whole thing is dumped and reconfigured from the ground up to allow some form of competitive spirit to exist (the better to facilitate innovations that will please potential patrons) and for the niche markets to be developed out of the theoretical spectrum into a basic reality. If passenger rail can somehow be allowed to evolve into a transportation option that a plurality of all Americans will use, then and only then will we see if all the ascribed characteristics associated with the concept of passenger rail worldwide (e.g. can't make a profit, can't compete with airlines without high speed spending, can't compete with highways, et al) are fundamental truisms or simply steriotypical urban myths. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:32 PM Dave, Sorry, you're wrong. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 18, 2004 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Who are you calling a liar? Myself and others are repeating the statistics that are well known and available to anyone who bothers to pull his or her head out of the sand and see the truth about Amtrak. Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%, it is still not enough to justify a national subsidy. Highways and airports are legitimate in their subsidization (if indeed there is such a thing as a legitimate subsidy) because a majority or plurality of the nation's population use them. If highways and airports only resulted in Amtrak-esque ridership numbers, we'd be calling for those subsidies to end too, but the fact is they do garner enough of a market share, so case closed. Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate, but the fact may be that the market niche necessary for such a share probably doesn't even exist, even with tax breaks and other incentives. And no, we don't want to start quadrupling the gas tax to force people to use passenger rail, because such a move would destroy the economy and we'd be left with double digit unemployment like France and Germany. Quadrupling the gas tax would not result in people switching to passenger rail, because the fundamentals needed for them to use it still would not exist, and the end result would only be to make peoples lives more miserable, without really aiding the cause of passenger rail. Dave, With all respect, the initial statement that 99.7% of the public doesn't have access to or doesn't ride Amtrak, despite how much you want to spin it, is incorrect. Amtrak serves 85% of this country's metropolitan statistical areas. 500 cities v. 150-200 at most from any single airline. Just because you want that contention to be accurate doesn't mean it's so. QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%," How can INCREASING RIDERSHIP (!!!!!!!) be irrelevant? If you didn't know, Amtrak has a new private-industry background CEO. He's changing things. Therefore, if I understand you correctly, facts don't matter. The fact that Amtrak is seeing more passengers means nothing to you. You've disqualified yourself in this argument. QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate" QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal If passenger rail can somehow be allowed to evolve into a transportation option that a plurality of all Americans will use, then and only then will we see if all the ascribed characteristics associated with the concept of passenger rail worldwide (e.g. can't make a profit, can't compete with airlines without high speed spending, can't compete with highways, et al) are fundamental truisms or simply steriotypical urban myths. How can a system designed - and funded - to serve only a small part of the travelling public earn such a market share? The airline industry doesn't even have THAT big of a market share. It's more like 12% with automobiles being 85%. A lot of "railfans" - they're not real railfans if they hate trains - demand unreaslistic goals for Amtrak, since airlines don't even have a 20% share of the marketplace. Just how are subsidies deteremined? Before the Interstate highway system was developed, auto travel had a very small percentage of the market. Only after subsidies to build the high-speed highways did market share improve. If the airline system was as subsidized as Amtrak- if it received only a billion or so a year v. $15-30 billion - there would only be tri-weekly flights and many cities wouldn't have service. I imagine that kind of service would be bad-mouthed too. To build ridership and market share, you have to have service. To have service, you have to pay for it. And there's the blind spot of many "railfans" - they narrowly think only passenger rail has to pay for itself. They seem to ignore that taxpayer-built freeway they drive on to their favorite railfan site or the federally-funded aviation system and airport when they fly on the personal trips. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 18, 2004 4:34 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? So what? Amtrak doesn't have a big market share in the commuting market of New York? AMTRAK DOESN'T SERVE NYC COMMUTERS. Therefore, few, as you point out, ride Amtrak. Last I looked, Amtrak's next stop out of NY was some ways out. There's no way Amtrak would compete against the subways or MN. So you doubt many ride Amtrak? Have you had your head buried in the sand? How can Amtrak command the leading market share of travel from Washington to NYC? It was around 50% last I heard and cause Delta to grumble about Amtrak "muscling in" on its subsidized market. Where do you think the bulk of Amtrak's Florida service passengers come from? I forget. No one from New York rides Amtrak. Man, the knowledge on this board is impressive. Another case of "railfans" citing false information to denegrate Amtrak. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 19, 2004 7:39 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Milwaukee-Chicago??? What do you want? That business is up by 12 percent for the year, is looking at about 230,000 passenger round trips, and the people who can use it from Milwaukee to Chicago save at least thirty minute for the trip. That's exeactly my point. Despite almost 25 years of promotion, $2+ gasoline prices, 6 trains a day in each direction service, excellent end-point connections in Chicago, and allowing for seasonal and daily variances, each train is hauling an average of only about 100-200 passengers. That's equivalent to 1 double deck commuter car on Metra or assuming it's not gridlocked, maybe 30 seconds worth of traffic on I94. Again I'm not suggesting paving it. A thousand passengers a day is enough to continue the service, but not nearly enough to spend a couple billion turning it into a high speed rail corridor - Catch-22 Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 19, 2004 10:05 AM An up-grade of a product increases patronage. The South Shore Line in 1925 carried very few passengers. In 1926 the whole thing was re-done, new cars purchased, and the line was extended (via tackage rights) into Chicago. Ridership immediately rose into the millions. You can't go about things waiting for optimum useage and then make the improvements. Everything good in life has been a gamble. You have to have the will to operate. The clear vision of the future. That's something you can sense. I feel that any quality improvement of any rail service will bring dramatic increases. Playing it safe spells stagnation and that's just what we have now. I worked the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor in the '70s. When I hired out there were 7 departures from either end that were well patronized on a memory schedule. Then the thinkers got involved and played with departure times and the number of trains. That tended to shake patronage off the trains. A train every hour, on the hour, with red-cap assistance for luggage, a club car with a small parlor section for those who want a reserved seat and you'll get business. It's convenience, dependability, cleanliness, ample parking, et al, that brings and keeps patronage. The business itself has to portray respectablity, and the service has to have respect and confidence in itself. I base my sentiments on conversations I've had, and remarks overheard from passengers throughout the years. I agree that perhaps a corridor such as CHI-MKE might be re-thought to Aurora-Oconomowoc via Chicago-Milwaukee as corporate centers now reside far outside the traditional downtown sectors. Mitch Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Sunday, September 19, 2004 11:32 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark An up-grade of a product increases patronage. The South Shore Line in 1925 carried very few passengers. In 1926 the whole thing was re-done, new cars purchased, and the line was extended (via tackage rights) into Chicago. Ridership immediately rose into the millions. You can't go about things waiting for optimum useage and then make the improvements. Everything good in life has been a gamble. You have to have the will to operate. The clear vision of the future. That's something you can sense. I feel that any quality improvement of any rail service will bring dramatic increases. Playing it safe spells stagnation and that's just what we have now. I worked the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor in the '70s. When I hired out there were 7 departures from either end that were well patronized on a memory schedule. Then the thinkers got involved and played with departure times and the number of trains. That tended to shake patronage off the trains. A train every hour, on the hour, with red-cap assistance for luggage, a club car with a small parlor section for those who want a reserved seat and you'll get business. It's convenience, dependability, cleanliness, ample parking, et al, that brings and keeps patronage. The business itself has to portray respectablity, and the service has to have respect and confidence in itself. I base my sentiments on conversations I've had, and remarks overheard from passengers throughout the years. I agree that perhaps a corridor such as CHI-MKE might be re-thought to Aurora-Oconomowoc via Chicago-Milwaukee as corporate centers now reside far outside the traditional downtown sectors. Mitch Pleasure to read your remarks.[:)] Andrew Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Sunday, September 19, 2004 11:56 AM Interesting thought that I haven't seen directly addressed (not that it hasn't been done), coming off Mitch's remark above about "Aurora-Oconomowoc" For the high-speed FRA/DOT-identified 'corridors' -- what are the likely endpoints for the actual high-speed service, and what are the required feeder routes (perhaps including "limousine" bus service) that would be necessary to provide adequate volume from corporate "endpoints" and other desirable traffic areas that are either off the high-speed routing or would kill the schedule to include as additional stops? I'm not advocating a NYW&B 'suicide' approach that thinks a transfer to public transit at the earliest point it can be reached is an alternative to reaching city population concentrations, but I do think that more and better kiss 'n rides isn't going to be the answer for Amtrak in making their service actually useful to a wider variety of target markets and potential riders. I do know that without effective public bus and subway service, I would never ride Amtrak to central New Jersey or Philadelphia -- it would be far more convenient and cost-effective (net of tolls and parking) just to drive there. The question is what approaches to providing 'appropriate' feeder service (instead of pathetic Greyhound-leaser "thruway bus services") would make 110mph corridor trains practical time-savers (instead of political showpieces) Personally, I don't think a high-speed train to Oconomowoc would fare well in Congressional debate -- "And you thought a train from Kalamazoo to Timbuctoo was stupid...!" -- regardless of what common sense might indicate otherwise. It would need some clever service name -- a 21st-Century savvy name, not something like 'clocker' that has a very different meaning to lots of folks. Any takers on ideas, both humorous and serious, on what this corridor line should be? (The Chicago-Madison Bucky Badger Bullet is already taken) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 19, 2004 2:00 PM Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm Read 'em and weep. Some interesting discoveries: 1. Amtrak's percentage share of the federal budget is double it's market share, whereas highways and airports are paid for by user fees and ticket taxes, not out of the general budget, thus not truely subsidized in that respect. Indeed, much of the highway budget has been used to cover Amtrak's losses.......... 2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right? 3. Contrary to populare wisdom, privatized rail passenger operations do exist in Japan and New Zealand, and apparently they do make a profit. How much of this is due to tax favors and the like I do not know, but there it is..... 4. Even the European market share of rail passengers is less than 7% based on passenger miles. Interesting. I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references....... Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, September 19, 2004 3:21 PM I still wi***o bring up that matter of preparedness for national defense. Energy independence. How may pieces of passenger rolling stock can the troops use today as compared with either WWII or even the Korian War? Probably about 5%! Also, back then you could takejust about any kind of passenger car, commuter, MU, lightweight, whatever, and couple it together . Brake systems were compatible, steam heat was normal (OK, except for mu's), and you could even mix a few freight cars in if you wanted. Today? Mark and NJ transit have some commuter equipment that is compatible with Amtrak's Amfleet. Most of the others? And try mixing Amfleet with Suuperliners? A few transition cars? I think a lot more money should be spent on Amtrak than David Gunn is asking for, just for this reason alone! It would be a far better investment toward energy independence than any fuel cell research, that is for sure! Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Sunday, September 19, 2004 4:09 PM Interesting thing I and others might of missed. Can you see the problem of having an NEC high-speed service along the west coast? I'm thinking of the San Andreas fault. How would somebody address this problem if such a proposal was to be passed do you figure? Andrew Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:34 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton oltmannd and others on "market share" Amtrak's July monthly report for July came out yesterday and the ridership numbers indicate that the 25 million pasenger count will be made for FY2004. This does NOT INCLUDE the passenger counts for the commuter services run by Amtrak nor any of the services that use Amtrak owned track. Getting to the number of individuals takes some guesses, but I have made a stab at it. First, it is reasonable to assume that 100% of the riders are on round trips, which drops the number to 12.5 million. The commuters I'm referring to are the regulars who ride Clockers, Harrisburg Line, NEC regional, etc. You may be surprised how many people commute from Philly to NY each day and Harrisburg/Lancaster to Philly for example. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm Read 'em and weep. Some interesting discoveries: 1. Amtrak's percentage share of the federal budget is double it's market share, whereas highways and airports are paid for by user fees and ticket taxes, not out of the general budget, thus not truely subsidized in that respect. Indeed, much of the highway budget has been used to cover Amtrak's losses.......... 2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right? 3. Contrary to populare wisdom, privatized rail passenger operations do exist in Japan and New Zealand, and apparently they do make a profit. How much of this is due to tax favors and the like I do not know, but there it is..... 4. Even the European market share of rail passengers is less than 7% based on passenger miles. Interesting. I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references....... I'll bite. 1. True enough. But it's hardly apples to apples. RRs have to pay property tax and highways/airports do not, for example. The bottom line is this arguement is irrelevant. If a majority or Americans want to keep Amtrak around as a bizzare, costly form of kinetic art, Amtrak will and should exist. 2. OD pair/lane comparison would be better. Airlines are in more major markets than Amtrak. 3. who knows. Does it really matter? 4. So maybe the current underfunded version of Amtrak really isn't all that terrible? Is that the point? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:50 PM About 30 Million people in the U.S. don't even Travel to Citys or Beaches, Because alot of them don't care to stay in Hotels or Travel in General and alot of don't have alot of money. Them people would care less about the Airplanes or Amtrak. I Love to Ride amtrak and Stay in Great Hotel across the U.S.. The people who Travel in the U.S. should have some Choices to Travel like Amtrak,Airplanes, Boats, Greyhound Bus, and Cars. The Greyhound Bus Systems is going down the Tubes in Services cutting most 1800 miles from they System's, and UsAir is going down the Tubes Too. We need Amtrak more than ever Before to Travel in the U.S. People Its about Choices to Travel. We the people need Choices here to Travel by Amtrak, airplanes, Bus, Boats, and Car. [:)][8D] Reply 1234567»Last » Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by futuremodal Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations."
Originally posted by futuremodal
QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by futuremodal Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations." Nice try, but that in no way indicates 99.7% of Americans haven't tried or don't have access to Amtrak. So..... the 500 million or so who flew last year.... they in no way can be per person. Those are likely people that have flown 20-30 times a year and include many foreigners. Get this: Amtrak ridership - INCLUDING THE LDS - is at an all-time high. Even that isn't enough to please picky "railfans" who would prefer people fly. What a joke. (They don't advocate privatizing the airline infrastructure and stiffing THAT industry out of proper funding). Again, so-called railfans continue slamming Amtrak. If we only repeat lies long enough, the monster that no one wants will go away.... Who are you calling a liar? Myself and others are repeating the statistics that are well known and available to anyone who bothers to pull his or her head out of the sand and see the truth about Amtrak. Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%, it is still not enough to justify a national subsidy. Highways and airports are legitimate in their subsidization (if indeed there is such a thing as a legitimate subsidy) because a majority or plurality of the nation's population use them. If highways and airports only resulted in Amtrak-esque ridership numbers, we'd be calling for those subsidies to end too, but the fact is they do garner enough of a market share, so case closed. Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate, but the fact may be that the market niche necessary for such a share probably doesn't even exist, even with tax breaks and other incentives. And no, we don't want to start quadrupling the gas tax to force people to use passenger rail, because such a move would destroy the economy and we'd be left with double digit unemployment like France and Germany. Quadrupling the gas tax would not result in people switching to passenger rail, because the fundamentals needed for them to use it still would not exist, and the end result would only be to make peoples lives more miserable, without really aiding the cause of passenger rail. Amtrak was and is a miserable failure, it was designed to be a failure by an incompetent federal government, it can only continue to exist as a miserable failure in the future......UNLESS.....the whole thing is dumped and reconfigured from the ground up to allow some form of competitive spirit to exist (the better to facilitate innovations that will please potential patrons) and for the niche markets to be developed out of the theoretical spectrum into a basic reality. If passenger rail can somehow be allowed to evolve into a transportation option that a plurality of all Americans will use, then and only then will we see if all the ascribed characteristics associated with the concept of passenger rail worldwide (e.g. can't make a profit, can't compete with airlines without high speed spending, can't compete with highways, et al) are fundamental truisms or simply steriotypical urban myths. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:32 PM Dave, Sorry, you're wrong. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 18, 2004 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Who are you calling a liar? Myself and others are repeating the statistics that are well known and available to anyone who bothers to pull his or her head out of the sand and see the truth about Amtrak. Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%, it is still not enough to justify a national subsidy. Highways and airports are legitimate in their subsidization (if indeed there is such a thing as a legitimate subsidy) because a majority or plurality of the nation's population use them. If highways and airports only resulted in Amtrak-esque ridership numbers, we'd be calling for those subsidies to end too, but the fact is they do garner enough of a market share, so case closed. Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate, but the fact may be that the market niche necessary for such a share probably doesn't even exist, even with tax breaks and other incentives. And no, we don't want to start quadrupling the gas tax to force people to use passenger rail, because such a move would destroy the economy and we'd be left with double digit unemployment like France and Germany. Quadrupling the gas tax would not result in people switching to passenger rail, because the fundamentals needed for them to use it still would not exist, and the end result would only be to make peoples lives more miserable, without really aiding the cause of passenger rail. Dave, With all respect, the initial statement that 99.7% of the public doesn't have access to or doesn't ride Amtrak, despite how much you want to spin it, is incorrect. Amtrak serves 85% of this country's metropolitan statistical areas. 500 cities v. 150-200 at most from any single airline. Just because you want that contention to be accurate doesn't mean it's so. QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%," How can INCREASING RIDERSHIP (!!!!!!!) be irrelevant? If you didn't know, Amtrak has a new private-industry background CEO. He's changing things. Therefore, if I understand you correctly, facts don't matter. The fact that Amtrak is seeing more passengers means nothing to you. You've disqualified yourself in this argument. QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate" QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal If passenger rail can somehow be allowed to evolve into a transportation option that a plurality of all Americans will use, then and only then will we see if all the ascribed characteristics associated with the concept of passenger rail worldwide (e.g. can't make a profit, can't compete with airlines without high speed spending, can't compete with highways, et al) are fundamental truisms or simply steriotypical urban myths. How can a system designed - and funded - to serve only a small part of the travelling public earn such a market share? The airline industry doesn't even have THAT big of a market share. It's more like 12% with automobiles being 85%. A lot of "railfans" - they're not real railfans if they hate trains - demand unreaslistic goals for Amtrak, since airlines don't even have a 20% share of the marketplace. Just how are subsidies deteremined? Before the Interstate highway system was developed, auto travel had a very small percentage of the market. Only after subsidies to build the high-speed highways did market share improve. If the airline system was as subsidized as Amtrak- if it received only a billion or so a year v. $15-30 billion - there would only be tri-weekly flights and many cities wouldn't have service. I imagine that kind of service would be bad-mouthed too. To build ridership and market share, you have to have service. To have service, you have to pay for it. And there's the blind spot of many "railfans" - they narrowly think only passenger rail has to pay for itself. They seem to ignore that taxpayer-built freeway they drive on to their favorite railfan site or the federally-funded aviation system and airport when they fly on the personal trips. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 18, 2004 4:34 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? So what? Amtrak doesn't have a big market share in the commuting market of New York? AMTRAK DOESN'T SERVE NYC COMMUTERS. Therefore, few, as you point out, ride Amtrak. Last I looked, Amtrak's next stop out of NY was some ways out. There's no way Amtrak would compete against the subways or MN. So you doubt many ride Amtrak? Have you had your head buried in the sand? How can Amtrak command the leading market share of travel from Washington to NYC? It was around 50% last I heard and cause Delta to grumble about Amtrak "muscling in" on its subsidized market. Where do you think the bulk of Amtrak's Florida service passengers come from? I forget. No one from New York rides Amtrak. Man, the knowledge on this board is impressive. Another case of "railfans" citing false information to denegrate Amtrak. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 19, 2004 7:39 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Milwaukee-Chicago??? What do you want? That business is up by 12 percent for the year, is looking at about 230,000 passenger round trips, and the people who can use it from Milwaukee to Chicago save at least thirty minute for the trip. That's exeactly my point. Despite almost 25 years of promotion, $2+ gasoline prices, 6 trains a day in each direction service, excellent end-point connections in Chicago, and allowing for seasonal and daily variances, each train is hauling an average of only about 100-200 passengers. That's equivalent to 1 double deck commuter car on Metra or assuming it's not gridlocked, maybe 30 seconds worth of traffic on I94. Again I'm not suggesting paving it. A thousand passengers a day is enough to continue the service, but not nearly enough to spend a couple billion turning it into a high speed rail corridor - Catch-22 Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 19, 2004 10:05 AM An up-grade of a product increases patronage. The South Shore Line in 1925 carried very few passengers. In 1926 the whole thing was re-done, new cars purchased, and the line was extended (via tackage rights) into Chicago. Ridership immediately rose into the millions. You can't go about things waiting for optimum useage and then make the improvements. Everything good in life has been a gamble. You have to have the will to operate. The clear vision of the future. That's something you can sense. I feel that any quality improvement of any rail service will bring dramatic increases. Playing it safe spells stagnation and that's just what we have now. I worked the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor in the '70s. When I hired out there were 7 departures from either end that were well patronized on a memory schedule. Then the thinkers got involved and played with departure times and the number of trains. That tended to shake patronage off the trains. A train every hour, on the hour, with red-cap assistance for luggage, a club car with a small parlor section for those who want a reserved seat and you'll get business. It's convenience, dependability, cleanliness, ample parking, et al, that brings and keeps patronage. The business itself has to portray respectablity, and the service has to have respect and confidence in itself. I base my sentiments on conversations I've had, and remarks overheard from passengers throughout the years. I agree that perhaps a corridor such as CHI-MKE might be re-thought to Aurora-Oconomowoc via Chicago-Milwaukee as corporate centers now reside far outside the traditional downtown sectors. Mitch Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Sunday, September 19, 2004 11:32 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark An up-grade of a product increases patronage. The South Shore Line in 1925 carried very few passengers. In 1926 the whole thing was re-done, new cars purchased, and the line was extended (via tackage rights) into Chicago. Ridership immediately rose into the millions. You can't go about things waiting for optimum useage and then make the improvements. Everything good in life has been a gamble. You have to have the will to operate. The clear vision of the future. That's something you can sense. I feel that any quality improvement of any rail service will bring dramatic increases. Playing it safe spells stagnation and that's just what we have now. I worked the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor in the '70s. When I hired out there were 7 departures from either end that were well patronized on a memory schedule. Then the thinkers got involved and played with departure times and the number of trains. That tended to shake patronage off the trains. A train every hour, on the hour, with red-cap assistance for luggage, a club car with a small parlor section for those who want a reserved seat and you'll get business. It's convenience, dependability, cleanliness, ample parking, et al, that brings and keeps patronage. The business itself has to portray respectablity, and the service has to have respect and confidence in itself. I base my sentiments on conversations I've had, and remarks overheard from passengers throughout the years. I agree that perhaps a corridor such as CHI-MKE might be re-thought to Aurora-Oconomowoc via Chicago-Milwaukee as corporate centers now reside far outside the traditional downtown sectors. Mitch Pleasure to read your remarks.[:)] Andrew Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Sunday, September 19, 2004 11:56 AM Interesting thought that I haven't seen directly addressed (not that it hasn't been done), coming off Mitch's remark above about "Aurora-Oconomowoc" For the high-speed FRA/DOT-identified 'corridors' -- what are the likely endpoints for the actual high-speed service, and what are the required feeder routes (perhaps including "limousine" bus service) that would be necessary to provide adequate volume from corporate "endpoints" and other desirable traffic areas that are either off the high-speed routing or would kill the schedule to include as additional stops? I'm not advocating a NYW&B 'suicide' approach that thinks a transfer to public transit at the earliest point it can be reached is an alternative to reaching city population concentrations, but I do think that more and better kiss 'n rides isn't going to be the answer for Amtrak in making their service actually useful to a wider variety of target markets and potential riders. I do know that without effective public bus and subway service, I would never ride Amtrak to central New Jersey or Philadelphia -- it would be far more convenient and cost-effective (net of tolls and parking) just to drive there. The question is what approaches to providing 'appropriate' feeder service (instead of pathetic Greyhound-leaser "thruway bus services") would make 110mph corridor trains practical time-savers (instead of political showpieces) Personally, I don't think a high-speed train to Oconomowoc would fare well in Congressional debate -- "And you thought a train from Kalamazoo to Timbuctoo was stupid...!" -- regardless of what common sense might indicate otherwise. It would need some clever service name -- a 21st-Century savvy name, not something like 'clocker' that has a very different meaning to lots of folks. Any takers on ideas, both humorous and serious, on what this corridor line should be? (The Chicago-Madison Bucky Badger Bullet is already taken) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 19, 2004 2:00 PM Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm Read 'em and weep. Some interesting discoveries: 1. Amtrak's percentage share of the federal budget is double it's market share, whereas highways and airports are paid for by user fees and ticket taxes, not out of the general budget, thus not truely subsidized in that respect. Indeed, much of the highway budget has been used to cover Amtrak's losses.......... 2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right? 3. Contrary to populare wisdom, privatized rail passenger operations do exist in Japan and New Zealand, and apparently they do make a profit. How much of this is due to tax favors and the like I do not know, but there it is..... 4. Even the European market share of rail passengers is less than 7% based on passenger miles. Interesting. I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references....... Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, September 19, 2004 3:21 PM I still wi***o bring up that matter of preparedness for national defense. Energy independence. How may pieces of passenger rolling stock can the troops use today as compared with either WWII or even the Korian War? Probably about 5%! Also, back then you could takejust about any kind of passenger car, commuter, MU, lightweight, whatever, and couple it together . Brake systems were compatible, steam heat was normal (OK, except for mu's), and you could even mix a few freight cars in if you wanted. Today? Mark and NJ transit have some commuter equipment that is compatible with Amtrak's Amfleet. Most of the others? And try mixing Amfleet with Suuperliners? A few transition cars? I think a lot more money should be spent on Amtrak than David Gunn is asking for, just for this reason alone! It would be a far better investment toward energy independence than any fuel cell research, that is for sure! Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Sunday, September 19, 2004 4:09 PM Interesting thing I and others might of missed. Can you see the problem of having an NEC high-speed service along the west coast? I'm thinking of the San Andreas fault. How would somebody address this problem if such a proposal was to be passed do you figure? Andrew Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:34 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton oltmannd and others on "market share" Amtrak's July monthly report for July came out yesterday and the ridership numbers indicate that the 25 million pasenger count will be made for FY2004. This does NOT INCLUDE the passenger counts for the commuter services run by Amtrak nor any of the services that use Amtrak owned track. Getting to the number of individuals takes some guesses, but I have made a stab at it. First, it is reasonable to assume that 100% of the riders are on round trips, which drops the number to 12.5 million. The commuters I'm referring to are the regulars who ride Clockers, Harrisburg Line, NEC regional, etc. You may be surprised how many people commute from Philly to NY each day and Harrisburg/Lancaster to Philly for example. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm Read 'em and weep. Some interesting discoveries: 1. Amtrak's percentage share of the federal budget is double it's market share, whereas highways and airports are paid for by user fees and ticket taxes, not out of the general budget, thus not truely subsidized in that respect. Indeed, much of the highway budget has been used to cover Amtrak's losses.......... 2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right? 3. Contrary to populare wisdom, privatized rail passenger operations do exist in Japan and New Zealand, and apparently they do make a profit. How much of this is due to tax favors and the like I do not know, but there it is..... 4. Even the European market share of rail passengers is less than 7% based on passenger miles. Interesting. I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references....... I'll bite. 1. True enough. But it's hardly apples to apples. RRs have to pay property tax and highways/airports do not, for example. The bottom line is this arguement is irrelevant. If a majority or Americans want to keep Amtrak around as a bizzare, costly form of kinetic art, Amtrak will and should exist. 2. OD pair/lane comparison would be better. Airlines are in more major markets than Amtrak. 3. who knows. Does it really matter? 4. So maybe the current underfunded version of Amtrak really isn't all that terrible? Is that the point? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:50 PM About 30 Million people in the U.S. don't even Travel to Citys or Beaches, Because alot of them don't care to stay in Hotels or Travel in General and alot of don't have alot of money. Them people would care less about the Airplanes or Amtrak. I Love to Ride amtrak and Stay in Great Hotel across the U.S.. The people who Travel in the U.S. should have some Choices to Travel like Amtrak,Airplanes, Boats, Greyhound Bus, and Cars. The Greyhound Bus Systems is going down the Tubes in Services cutting most 1800 miles from they System's, and UsAir is going down the Tubes Too. We need Amtrak more than ever Before to Travel in the U.S. People Its about Choices to Travel. We the people need Choices here to Travel by Amtrak, airplanes, Bus, Boats, and Car. [:)][8D] Reply 1234567»Last » Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by futuremodal Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations." Nice try, but that in no way indicates 99.7% of Americans haven't tried or don't have access to Amtrak. So..... the 500 million or so who flew last year.... they in no way can be per person. Those are likely people that have flown 20-30 times a year and include many foreigners. Get this: Amtrak ridership - INCLUDING THE LDS - is at an all-time high. Even that isn't enough to please picky "railfans" who would prefer people fly. What a joke. (They don't advocate privatizing the airline infrastructure and stiffing THAT industry out of proper funding). Again, so-called railfans continue slamming Amtrak. If we only repeat lies long enough, the monster that no one wants will go away....
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Who are you calling a liar? Myself and others are repeating the statistics that are well known and available to anyone who bothers to pull his or her head out of the sand and see the truth about Amtrak. Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%, it is still not enough to justify a national subsidy. Highways and airports are legitimate in their subsidization (if indeed there is such a thing as a legitimate subsidy) because a majority or plurality of the nation's population use them. If highways and airports only resulted in Amtrak-esque ridership numbers, we'd be calling for those subsidies to end too, but the fact is they do garner enough of a market share, so case closed. Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate, but the fact may be that the market niche necessary for such a share probably doesn't even exist, even with tax breaks and other incentives. And no, we don't want to start quadrupling the gas tax to force people to use passenger rail, because such a move would destroy the economy and we'd be left with double digit unemployment like France and Germany. Quadrupling the gas tax would not result in people switching to passenger rail, because the fundamentals needed for them to use it still would not exist, and the end result would only be to make peoples lives more miserable, without really aiding the cause of passenger rail.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%,"
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate"
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal If passenger rail can somehow be allowed to evolve into a transportation option that a plurality of all Americans will use, then and only then will we see if all the ascribed characteristics associated with the concept of passenger rail worldwide (e.g. can't make a profit, can't compete with airlines without high speed spending, can't compete with highways, et al) are fundamental truisms or simply steriotypical urban myths.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year?
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Milwaukee-Chicago??? What do you want? That business is up by 12 percent for the year, is looking at about 230,000 passenger round trips, and the people who can use it from Milwaukee to Chicago save at least thirty minute for the trip.
QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark An up-grade of a product increases patronage. The South Shore Line in 1925 carried very few passengers. In 1926 the whole thing was re-done, new cars purchased, and the line was extended (via tackage rights) into Chicago. Ridership immediately rose into the millions. You can't go about things waiting for optimum useage and then make the improvements. Everything good in life has been a gamble. You have to have the will to operate. The clear vision of the future. That's something you can sense. I feel that any quality improvement of any rail service will bring dramatic increases. Playing it safe spells stagnation and that's just what we have now. I worked the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor in the '70s. When I hired out there were 7 departures from either end that were well patronized on a memory schedule. Then the thinkers got involved and played with departure times and the number of trains. That tended to shake patronage off the trains. A train every hour, on the hour, with red-cap assistance for luggage, a club car with a small parlor section for those who want a reserved seat and you'll get business. It's convenience, dependability, cleanliness, ample parking, et al, that brings and keeps patronage. The business itself has to portray respectablity, and the service has to have respect and confidence in itself. I base my sentiments on conversations I've had, and remarks overheard from passengers throughout the years. I agree that perhaps a corridor such as CHI-MKE might be re-thought to Aurora-Oconomowoc via Chicago-Milwaukee as corporate centers now reside far outside the traditional downtown sectors. Mitch
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton oltmannd and others on "market share" Amtrak's July monthly report for July came out yesterday and the ridership numbers indicate that the 25 million pasenger count will be made for FY2004. This does NOT INCLUDE the passenger counts for the commuter services run by Amtrak nor any of the services that use Amtrak owned track. Getting to the number of individuals takes some guesses, but I have made a stab at it. First, it is reasonable to assume that 100% of the riders are on round trips, which drops the number to 12.5 million.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm Read 'em and weep. Some interesting discoveries: 1. Amtrak's percentage share of the federal budget is double it's market share, whereas highways and airports are paid for by user fees and ticket taxes, not out of the general budget, thus not truely subsidized in that respect. Indeed, much of the highway budget has been used to cover Amtrak's losses.......... 2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right? 3. Contrary to populare wisdom, privatized rail passenger operations do exist in Japan and New Zealand, and apparently they do make a profit. How much of this is due to tax favors and the like I do not know, but there it is..... 4. Even the European market share of rail passengers is less than 7% based on passenger miles. Interesting. I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references.......
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.