schlimmWhy not just split the route, depending on some good market research? Why run the Crescent the whole distance when probably most folks would not continue through Atlanta.
The only issue here Schlimm is that Amtrak, as a matter of policy, isn't going to do that. At least not in the foreseeable future.
John
John WRRight now the Crescent leaves New Orleans at 7 am and arrives in New York Penn Station at 1:45 pm. If connections are not an issue the question then is how late is acceptable to arrive in New York.
With the new configuration, this would become day trains. If you did continue a night train, very few passengers, and certainly none in a hurry, ride the train from NOL to NYP, so it doesn't really matter. In the 21st century, a night train is designed for vacationers, not in a hurry, who want to use the night for travel. They aren't used by businessmen and haven't been with any regularity in ~50 years.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Don,
Megabus will never be a reasonable alternative to Amtrak because Megabus is narrowly focused on profitable routes, especially high profit routes. There is no disrespect to private business in observing that they are in business to make a profit and not to provide public service. Amtrak stops at many places that Megabus has no interest in.
The traditional bus companies, Greyhound and Trailways, do still stop at many smaller places although they are pulling back from that business. Perhaps if the Federal Government were to subsidize their unprofitable routes they could be a reasonable substitute for Amtrak. Certainly direct subsidies to these companies would be a lot less than Amtrak costs us but given the mood of the Congress I doubt a proposal to subsidize long distance bus companies would get very far.
John WR Don, Megabus will never be a reasonable alternative to Amtrak because Megabus is narrowly focused on profitable routes, especially high profit routes. There is no disrespect to private business in observing that they are in business to make a profit and not to provide public service. Amtrak stops at many places that Megabus has no interest in. The traditional bus companies, Greyhound and Trailways, do still stop at many smaller places although they are pulling back from that business. Perhaps if the Federal Government were to subsidize their unprofitable routes they could be a reasonable substitute for Amtrak. Certainly direct subsidies to these companies would be a lot less than Amtrak costs us but given the mood of the Congress I doubt a proposal to subsidize long distance bus companies would get very far.
schlimmI do think there is a definite place for directly subsidized transportation. However, if Megabus is serving profitable routes, given their low fares doesn't it seem likely they are serving people who want service? If Amtrak is serving many places Megabus has no interest in, could that be because those places are not much of a market, i.e., don't have many prospective passengers. If so, why is Amtrak there? The market is not a universal device, but it often tells us where demand is. Since Amtrak is supposed to provide transportation for the people, it follows that it needs to go where the most people are who want to travel (by rail).
Well, Schlimm, Megabus certainly does serve a lot of people who want transportation.
But what about the people who live in smaller places, too small to serve profitably. Should we simply abandon those people? Or should the government recognize their needs and provide a subsidy because the service cannot be profitable? An added point that Joe Boardman makes is that Amtrak is attracting increasing numbers of people with disabilities because they find trains more acceptable than buses.
oltmannd Better, yet. And, at least anecdotally, I know that to be true - few through passengers at Atlanta.
Better, yet. And, at least anecdotally, I know that to be true - few through passengers at Atlanta.
Don: I challenge your anecdotally figure. It has appeared to me that approximately 25 % of the passengers at ATL are thru and seem to go approximately to / from the same destinations north of ATL. Would that mean a higher revenue split ?a
John WR Don, Megabus will never be a reasonable alternative to Amtrak because Megabus is narrowly focused on profitable routes, especially high profit routes.
Megabus will never be a reasonable alternative to Amtrak because Megabus is narrowly focused on profitable routes, especially high profit routes.
Amtrak would be a feeder to Megabus's Atlanta hub. From Atlanta, Megabus can take you to Mobile, NOL, Memphis, Jax, Orlando, Montgomery, Birmingham, Nashville, Knoxville, Athens, and Charlotte.
That's a lot more places than Amtrak serves out of Atlanta. You're worried about Tuscaloosa and Meridian?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1 oltmannd Better, yet. And, at least anecdotally, I know that to be true - few through passengers at Atlanta. Don: I challenge your anecdotally figure. It has appeared to me that approximately 25 % of the passengers at ATL are thru and seem to go approximately to / from the same destinations north of ATL. Would that mean a higher revenue split ?a
25% of the ATL arrivals would be about 50 people most days. Let them tranfer to Mega bus to finish their trip if they are in a hurry. Otherwise, send them to the hotel.
I'd bet there are 100 to get in SC alone if it were a day train.
Amtrak has published a performance report for the Crescent. In 2010 the Crescent carried 298,688 passengers of of those about 23 per cent go through Atlanta. This works out to about 188 per day. The report shows that the number of passengers is increasing by about 2.3 per cent per year.
However, not all of them travel to cities that are served by Megabus.
There are two arguments available here, both of which are opposed to each other.
The first argument is that by running two daily trains that end at Atlanta Amtrak would carry more passengers. This is an argument that says Amtrak should provide more service to more people and could do so by simply restructuring the route. It is true there would be some losers, people who would lack train transportation between points south and north of Atlanta. . Some of those from places not served by buses would lack all public transportation from their homes. However, over all more people would be served assuming more would turn out to ride Amtrak. The argument is reasonable although unproven.
The second argument is that we should just stop providing passenger service for some people. We really don't care how many people there are or how much they need it or about anything else. Our only interest is in not paying for it any more. That argument proposes to simply dismantle one part of Amtrak. If there were support in the Congress to do that there would also be support for eliminating the Crescent completely and other long distance routes besides. So far Congress has not done that but I don't know that it will not in the future.
DON: I was almost correct on the thru passengers -- from PRIIA
Through Atlanta "the train carries traffic between northern and southern segments, representing
approximately 23 percent of passengers who contribute 30 percent of revenue.""
A review of the PRIIA report on the crescent is revealing. It would indicate that there should not be a flip north of Atlanta. For the whole route -----
75% of all traffic is purpose driven and only 25 % vacation & recreation. Changing the times north of Atlanta would seem to eliminate those passengers although others might fill some of the spots. Still believe solution is an additional train leaving 0600 - 0800 from the end points. The statement that 40% of all revene originates or terminates ATL seems to support additional service. Of all of the long distance trains it seems that no other route goes thru as much population density north of Atlanta ? That would especially be true if day train went thru Raleigh & Richmond. The Lakeshore might come closel 52% of Passengers and 63% of revenue O & Ds ATL.
It is obvious that PRIIA statement to drop 4 cars ( 3 coaches, 1 lounge ) south of Atlanta has merit. Then taking one of the coaches and making it 5 coaches north also seems important.
UPDATE
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/06/4090491/public-given-a-say-in-potential.html
From the meeting in Charlotte;:
Plans to build a high-speed rail line between Charlotte and Atlanta could cut at least an hour from the trip, but first officials need to decide on a route and find money.
The Georgia Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration are considering six rail routes for the potential line.
“At this point, there is no preferred alternative,” said GDOT Project Manager Derrick Cameron. “Alternatives can be modified based on the environmental process.”
Three of the six routes would follow existing rail lines, avoid the cost of buying right of way. But those routes would take longer.
Two of the options would run along right of way of existing highways.
Trains could go as fast as 220 mph under a new railroad alignment option. Trains would only travel at up to 79 mph if existing tracks are used.
At the fastest, the current 5 1/2-hour trip could be reduced to just over two hours. Other options might cut the trip by only an hour.
Transportation and railroad officials have now held three public meetings about the options for the proposed rail line, including one Thursday in Charlotte.
Cameron said feedback from the preliminary meetings has generally been positive. He said they should have an idea of which route would work best by summer 2015.
GDOT and FRA do not yet have funding secured, and it’s not clear how much it will cost.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet UPDATE http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/06/4090491/public-given-a-say-in-potential.html From the meeting in Charlotte;: Plans to build a high-speed rail line between Charlotte and Atlanta could cut at least an hour from the trip, but first officials need to decide on a route and find money. The Georgia Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration are considering six rail routes for the potential line. “At this point, there is no preferred alternative,” said GDOT Project Manager Derrick Cameron. “Alternatives can be modified based on the environmental process.” Three of the six routes would follow existing rail lines, avoid the cost of buying right of way. But those routes would take longer. Two of the options would run along right of way of existing highways. Trains could go as fast as 220 mph under a new railroad alignment option. Trains would only travel at up to 79 mph if existing tracks are used. At the fastest, the current 5 1/2-hour trip could be reduced to just over two hours. Other options might cut the trip by only an hour. Transportation and railroad officials have now held three public meetings about the options for the proposed rail line, including one Thursday in Charlotte. Cameron said feedback from the preliminary meetings has generally been positive. He said they should have an idea of which route would work best by summer 2015. GDOT and FRA do not yet have funding secured, and it’s not clear how much it will cost. Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/06/4090491/public-given-a-say-in-potential.html#storylink=cpy
I guess there are two good things that could come out of this process. One would be it could stir public interest. The second would be it could get SC off the sidelines and into the game.
I suspect the routes to be studied are serve the function of attracting the attention of the most folks. Really, all but the greenfield, NS route and I-85 corridor are complete losers by inspection.
The best "bang for the buck" on this route might be some hybrid of greenfield, NS and I-85 corridor. But, figuring that out will likely be another couple years and $100M for consultants.
We will never achieve high speed rail using the business model of paying freight railroads to let Amtrak use their tracks. The needs and capabilities of freight and passenger are different.
Do these people really think that NS is going to give up any portion of their right-of-way FOR FREE, or that they can operate at 220 MPH on a 19th Centrury alignment designed for cheap construction as opposed to even 100 MPH speed?? Looks like a welfare program for bureaucrats and consultants to me. The clowns are already on hand.
Mac
PNWRMNM Three of the six routes would follow existing rail lines, avoid the cost of buying right of way. But those routes would take longer. Do these people really think that NS is going to give up any portion of their right-of-way FOR FREE, or that they can operate at 220 MPH on a 19th Centrury alignment designed for cheap construction as opposed to even 100 MPH speed?? Looks like a welfare program for bureaucrats and consultants to me. The clowns are already on hand. Mac
The continued dependence on cheaply-built 19th century infrastructure in the 21st century sounds pretty clownish.
schlimm The continued dependence on cheaply-built 19th century infrastructure in the 21st century sounds pretty clownish
The continued dependence on cheaply-built 19th century infrastructure in the 21st century sounds pretty clownish
Schlimm.
You are missing three important points:
First the right of way belongs to NS.
Second the 19th century alignment works well enough for NS, so continuing to use it is far from clownish, it is simply good business sense.
Third a 220 MPH passenger line needs much broader curves, both horizontal and vertical, than does the existing line, so very little of the NS route would be useable for that purpose as a practical matter.
The consultants already know all of this.
PNWRMNMDo these people really think that NS is going to give up any portion of their right-of-way FOR FREE
No. NS would have to get paid, obviously.
PNWRMNMor that they can operate at 220 MPH on a 19th Centrury alignment
No. The 220 mph would have to be greenfield. You'd be hard pressed to get to 90 mph on the current alignment. It was build with 3 degree curves as standard which have 5" superelevation just to allow 70 mph running.
PNWRMNMLooks like a welfare program for bureaucrats and consultants to me.
Yes. This from a very deeply "red" state.
I hate to repeat myself but Megabus will never be an alternation to Amtrak because Megabus focuses on high profit routes. That is not a criticism of the company; that is what it is supposed to do. But Amtrak provides transportation for people who need it and don't happen to live in a high profit area. That's why Tuscaloose and Meridian passengers should not be denied service.
You list 10 cities that Megabus serves from Atlanta. When I looked it up there are actually more; it goes as far north as Chicago. But on the Atlanta to New Orleans route Amtrack, in addition to those cities serves Anniston, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Meridian, Laurel, Hattiesburg, Picayune and Slidell. Going north just to Charlotte Amtrak serves Gainesville, Toccoa, Clemson, Greenville, Spartanburg and Gastonia.
Of course the Crescent does not serve cities to the east or west of Atlanta.
Finally, in the US I believe that surface transportation should be a mix of passenger train and intercity buses. However, one thing that Megabus does not provide is restrooms for handicapped people. Greyhound does not provide them either but Greyhound generally makes more frequent rest stops. One thing that Joe Boardman emphasizes is the increasing preference of people with disabilities for trains over buses and planes.
John WRAnniston, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Meridian, Laurel, Hattiesburg, Picayune and Slidell. Going north just to Charlotte Amtrak serves Gainesville, Toccoa, Clemson, Greenville, Spartanburg and Gastonia.
Birmingham is a fairly large city. But the rest? Lets take them in order. Tuscaloosa is a college town. Might be a good source of riders but with huge peaks and valleys. Laurel, Hattiesburg, Picayune - are tiny little places not near anything else. Slidell is a NOL suburb. Gainesville is the stop metro Atlantans use because there is no stop in the northern Atlanta suburb. Toccoa is super tiny - a flag stop. Greenville - Spartanburg is larger than Birmingham but there is only a dribble of ridership because the train goes ther in the dead of night. Gastonia is a Charlotte suburb - only a dribble of riders because of time of day. The train doesn't even stop at the north side of Charlotte because of time of day...
So, why, again do these select small southern towns get a big dose of transportation aid while others with real potential get ignored? There is an inherent unfairness here....
John WR Don, I hate to repeat myself but Megabus will never be an alternation to Amtrak because Megabus focuses on high profit routes. That is not a criticism of the company; that is what it is supposed to do. But Amtrak provides transportation for people who need it and don't happen to live in a high profit area. That's why Tuscaloose and Meridian passengers should not be denied service
I hate to repeat myself but Megabus will never be an alternation to Amtrak because Megabus focuses on high profit routes. That is not a criticism of the company; that is what it is supposed to do. But Amtrak provides transportation for people who need it and don't happen to live in a high profit area. That's why Tuscaloose and Meridian passengers should not be denied service
If you don't want to tinker with the Crescent's route or schedule, it is why the train should be a feeder for the bus (not the other way around). It would open up all those major locations not served by Amtrak to potential passengers on the route. It would mean that someone from Picayune could get to Mobile, or someone from Toccoa could get to Nashville, for example.
In a rational world (even in the planning-only stage) buses should provide services to smaller places with fewer potential passengers because they are more efficient (on that level) and flexible.
oltmannd The train doesn't even stop at the north side of Charlotte because of time of day...
The train doesn't even stop at the north side of Charlotte because of time of day...
Since the Amtrak station in Charlotte is in the North quadrant of the city, and the Crescent does stop there, I assume you mean the suburban city of Kannapolis. There is no need for the Crescent to stop in Kannapolis at 2 and 3 AM. Kannapolis is served by the Carolinian and the Piedmont, 3 times a day in each direction during normal hours. A better question would be why doesn't the Crescent go through Raleigh. Perhaps it should run twice a day at 12 hour headways.
oltmannd John WR Don, I hate to repeat myself but Megabus will never be an alternation to Amtrak because Megabus focuses on high profit routes. That is not a criticism of the company; that is what it is supposed to do. But Amtrak provides transportation for people who need it and don't happen to live in a high profit area. That's why Tuscaloose and Meridian passengers should not be denied service If you don't want to tinker with the Crescent's route or schedule, it is why the train should be a feeder for the bus (not the other way around). It would open up all those major locations not served by Amtrak to potential passengers on the route. It would mean that someone from Picayune could get to Mobile, or someone from Toccoa could get to Nashville, for example.
Don:
That doesn't make sense to me. Using a long distance train to feed passengers to a central location so they can catch a bus? That just sounds backward.
That sounds more like a job for a short run DMU.
My wife after my questions put forward several points that made sense.
1. Why do you prefer a train trip?. " Don't like to drive long distances by myself and about twice tha distance with you "
2. Why not take a bus? --- "Oh god no !! do not want to be that confined. would rather travel twice as long on a train ".
3. What about a bus connection to finish or begin a trip" -- "OK but not more than 3 hours preferable 2 hours. "
4. How about traveling coach overnight ? -- " fine can read & or sleep part way "
5. What about multiple overnights ? -- OK but prefer a sleeper at least one night or stay a couple days at a city hotel "
All this got me curious. Had vaguley remembered some items in the PRIIA reports so I went fishing. -
Amtrak has not consistenly presented their stats reports so comparsions between reports is difficult or impossible. For example could only find pass miles/ train miles.--- CNOL, Coast starlight, EB, SW chief, Cal Z all had a 160 - 220 pass miles / tr mile. but other reports were hard to find.
One item consistent was average distance traveled on all LD routes in the 500s except Palmetto 450. Only 15 - 29% of east coast trips were vacation or leisure.
A very startling figure only found in the East coast trains report was the % of riders not counting children was ----------.
62% Lakeshore, 68% Star, 69% Meteor, 71% Crescent, 74% Palmetto were female riders. If this is true for all LD trains then IMHO Amtrak is not marketing these LD routes properly to this large of %. What is going to happen when some equal rights people say by cancelling LD routes that the government is discriminating against women ? It certainly needs for Amtrak to look at each train to get a close figure of this ridership ? I suspect NEC is entirely different.
oltmanndSo, why, again do these select small southern towns get a big dose of transportation aid while others with real potential get ignored? There is an inherent unfairness here....
The answer to your question is that Amtrak runs along certain historical routes. Historically, this is where the rails ran and this is what has been preserved. Originally much of America was built along rail lines.
The unfairness argument says we really should have a lot more rail lines than we do. I have seen Amtrak called "A skeleton of a skeleton." I think you are aware that on the NARP website there is a map of what NARP thinks Amtrak should be and, using your criterion, it would be much more fair. So shall we push for the NARP vision of Amtrak?
These historic routes exist because they had the most riders.
And Amtrak does not provide the same service on some of these historic routes as it did when it assumed the operation on them--because of insufficient ridership. If you compare the Crescent's stops shown in the August 3, 1980, timetable with those shown in the current timetable, you will see that Monroe, Va., Eutaw and Livingston, Ala., and Purvis and Poplarville, Miss., no longer have passenger service. You wil also see that Picayune, Miss., has passenger service, which it did not have in 1980.
Johnny
Monroe is sufficiently close to Lynchburg that one cannot say it lacks service. I don't know the facts of the other two.
Deggesty These historic routes exist because they had the most riders. And Amtrak does not provide the same service on some of these historic routes as it did when it assumed the operation on them--because of insufficient ridership. If you compare the Crescent's stops shown in the August 3, 1980, timetable with those shown in the current timetable, you will see that Monroe, Va., Eutaw and Livingston, Ala., and Purvis and Poplarville, Miss., no longer have passenger service. You wil also see that Picayune, Miss., has passenger service, which it did not have in 1980.
Exactly the point. They run where and when because of what was true in the 1950s - or even 1980. Times change, but the trains haven't. Particularly along the Piedmont.
blue streak 1Only 15 - 29% of east coast trips were vacation or leisure.
What were the rest? What else is there besides business?
Does "vacation or leisure" mean the train ride itself was the vacation/liesure activity or was transport to/from the activity?
John WR oltmanndSo, why, again do these select small southern towns get a big dose of transportation aid while others with real potential get ignored? There is an inherent unfairness here.... The answer to your question is that Amtrak runs along certain historical routes. Historically, this is where the rails ran and this is what has been preserved. Originally much of America was built along rail lines. The unfairness argument says we really should have a lot more rail lines than we do. I have seen Amtrak called "A skeleton of a skeleton." I think you are aware that on the NARP website there is a map of what NARP thinks Amtrak should be and, using your criterion, it would be much more fair. So shall we push for the NARP vision of Amtrak?
Sure, you paying? I don't want to.
My vision of "fairness" is trains run where there is demonstrated cost vs benefit and/or where train service is the best alternative.
My vision includes trains as integrated into a single air/highway/rail network - not a stand-alone, all things to all people circa 1920 network.
It does not include trains as an instrument of social welfare. There are better/cheaper ways of doing social welfare.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.