Trains.com

Eliminate low ridership stops on Amtrak routes/trains

5645 views
51 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Eliminate low ridership stops on Amtrak routes/trains
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 11:09 AM

Using this link's data, it seems obvious that certain stops could/should be eliminated on certain routes/trains to speed up times.  Starting with the NEC, on Acela service, two stops should go: New London (5355) and Trenton (6272).  Since they are well-served by Regional service, New Haven (90,589) and Metropark (88,126) could also be eliminated.

Regional Service:

Cornwell's Heights - 2225

New Brunswick - 8137

North Philadelphia - 806

Newark, DE(?) - 12,530

Westerly - 40,459

There might be others and some stops might be made for only a few selected trains daily.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 12:15 PM

You have to balance the lost riders against the ones you'd gain from three or four minute quicker trip time on that one train a day.  I suspect the yield works in Amtrak's favor for keeping the stop.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 2:47 PM

oltmannd

You have to balance the lost riders against the ones you'd gain from three or four minute quicker trip time on that one train a day.  I suspect the yield works in Amtrak's favor for keeping the stop.

 

Three or four minutes?  Counting deceleration, acceleration and dwell time, more likely a stop costs 7_10 minutes.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 422 posts
Posted by Dragoman on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 2:53 PM

schlimm

Using this link's data, it seems obvious that certain stops could/should be eliminated on certain routes/trains to speed up times.  Starting with the NEC, on Acela service, two stops should go: New London (5355) and Trenton (6272).

...

Some stops are important as major transit hubs/connection points to smaller off-line stops:

Trenton connects to both NJ Transit (to the north) and SEPTA (to the south).

New London connects to Shore Line East commuter rail and the Cross Sound Ferry.

If the numbers are low, perhaps there should be more promotion of the inter-line possibilities.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 3:04 PM

New Haven Passengers need to change for local trains to express and vice versa

New London- Has very limited regional commuter service and people are coming from Long Island via ferry as they have for the last 150 years even before the New Haven Railroad was built.

and Oh By the way these small cities towns pay billions of dollers of federal taxes and vote too.

  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 122 posts
Posted by Philly Amtrak Fan on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:21 PM

I think the bigger fish to fry would be tiny stops on LD trains or even eliminate some low performing LD trains altogether. 

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 5:02 PM

schlimm

Using this link's data, it seems obvious that certain stops could/should be eliminated on certain routes/trains to speed up times.  Starting with the NEC, on Acela service, two stops should go: New London (5355) and Trenton (6272).  Since they are well-served by Regional service, New Haven (90,589) and Metropark (88,126) could also be eliminated.

Regional Service:

Cornwell's Heights - 2225

New Brunswick - 8137

North Philadelphia - 806

Newark, DE(?) - 12,530

Westerly - 40,459

There might be others and some stops might be made for only a few selected trains daily.

In my view when Amtrak stops at the same station a Metro rail service does and the ridership figure is low then Amtrak should interline with the Metro rail service to take the passenger to their final destination and skip the stop as you mentioned.

Amtrak has probably never applied Census Bureau Tracts to many of it's low ridership stations to see what the market is, it just inherited the stations from the Class one railroads decades before and sat on them.     I think MN Dot brought up a good point about Milwaukee Station Stop in that the current location only serves about 33-40% of Metro Milwaukee and that an additional station stop in Pewaukee, WI could add significant ridership to both Chicago and Twin Cities end points.    MN Dot seems to have applied current market analysis to the station stops in Wisconsin at least......something Amtrak should have done years ago.

City of Milwaukee is at least working on boosting Milwaukee Amtrak Station as intermodal with the new proposed Streetcar line that will stop in front of it and circulate among major hotels as well as sports / entertainment venues.   So there is hope at increasing the reach of the Milwaukee Amtrak station.

I am willing to bet all Amtrak corridors are littered with nonsensical station stops with low ridership while bypassing other station stops that could have high ridership potential.

The point is Demographics shift over time and what was a good station stop in the 1950's might not be so today.    Army Recruiting applies Demographic analysis to the placement of it's Recruiting Stations, General Motors does the same with it's Car Dealerships..........it's why you see both over time move across the map of most metropolitian areas.    A station or car dealer location should maximize the reachable consumers that want to use your service or purchase from you.

BTW, schlimm your going to irritate the nostaligic railroaders here that see a station stop as nostalgia from yesteryear that should be preserved no matter if nobody uses the station.    Entertaining to read but again, one reason Amtrak fails is some of it's supporters view it as a private full scale Lionel Trainset instead of viewing it as a business that should earn as much money as it can....... as it should be viewed.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 5:04 PM

Dragoman
Trenton connects to both NJ Transit (to the north) and SEPTA (to the south).

As I said, Trenton has and heavily uses Regional Service.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 297 posts
Posted by CJtrainguy on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 7:11 PM

schlimm

New Brunswick - 8137

New Brunswick's number may not be too bad after all. Only a very few Amtrak trains per day make the stop there. I sure appreciated being able to catch a train from Washington DC in early evening that made the stop in New Brunswick last time I was in the area. Made the trip more convenient and faster than if I'd had to change trains in Trenton.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 9:12 PM

CJtrainguy

 

 
schlimm

New Brunswick - 8137

 

 

New Brunswick's number may not be too bad after all. Only a very few Amtrak trains per day make the stop there. I sure appreciated being able to catch a train from Washington DC in early evening that made the stop in New Brunswick last time I was in the area. Made the trip more convenient and faster than if I'd had to change trains in Trenton.

 

New Brunswick is a stop on four Regional trains daily, one SB and three NB on weekdays only. 8137/260 days = 31 passengers daily.  So they should keep it.  To really do an analysis, one would have to look at the number of passengers annually divided by the total number of trains stopping there annually.  But the annual passenger count is the starting point.

As CMStPnP said, status quo is a sacred cow around here, especially the hard-to-rationally-justify LD services.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Thursday, September 8, 2016 12:26 AM

The Pacific Sufliner service dod have one express train for a while, 599 which was the second northbound train of the day. This was replaced by a normal train some three years ago and some of the non-rush hour trains had additional Coaster stops added.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:54 AM

The New Haven statistic is misleading, both Acela and NE Regional.  It does NOT include the transfer passengers to and from the shuttles to Hartford and Springfield.  The number should be multiplied by about three to accurately include these passengers.  The number is for passengers ticketed from New Haven.

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Thursday, September 8, 2016 6:29 AM

High speed limited stops "express" and a "local" that leaves about the same time.

It is an age old concept.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, September 8, 2016 8:40 AM

daveklepper

The New Haven statistic is misleading, both Acela and NE Regional.  It does NOT include the transfer passengers to and from the shuttles to Hartford and Springfield.  The number should be multiplied by about three to accurately include these passengers.  The number is for passengers ticketed from New Haven.

 

What is your basis for this statement?  The link does not include the shuttles, but you are suggesting enormous boardings in Hartford and Springfield to and from New Haven for transfer.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Thursday, September 8, 2016 9:02 AM

By this reasoning, a city bus that runs into town from the suburbs should only stop at street corners where 5 or more people are waiting. (Or some similar arbitrary number). The people who happen to live near bus stops with fewer potential riders can just walk, or not make it to their doctor's appointments, or employment.

Transportation is a service. It is provided to citizens so that the Society at large can function. Sometimes it has to be provided when the cost/benefit advantages aren't so apparent.

Furthermore, the aggregate of all the people who are picked up at all those "little" stops can add up to a far greater total usage of the transportation mode. This is mass transit, and the mass is made up of lots of smaller components.

Tom

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, September 8, 2016 9:46 AM

I decided to do more research in support of Dave Klepper's statement re: New Haven.


From Amtrak's State Fact Sheets:  Springfield 124,580 boardings + alightings; Hartford 171,690.

The ridership from those two station on the Vermonter is small (3715 and 2632) and tiny for VA service.  Numbers are not given for Springfield for the Lake Shore, but probably similar to Northampton, ~12000.  So pretty clearly, we can infer that most passengers in Springfield and almost all in Hartford are transfering in New Haven.

According my link in the initial post, the number of passengers using Acela in New Haven is large, 90,589, while the number using Regional Services is huge, 394,980.  I see no likelihood that the number of passengers in New Haven should be tripled to 1.4 million, as even adding in ALL the Springfield and Hartford passengers would only add 296,000.  It seems the numbers reported already include those transfer passengers.  Many folks in New Haven going to and from NYC (includes commuters) take Regional trains or Metro North expresses.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, September 8, 2016 9:51 AM

Tom:  In the NEC, at least, there are commuter trains to serve smaller cities.  And even they have express or limited stop services.  65+ years ago, prior to the growth of air services, when the US had many LD routes, some trains made almost every stop, others were limiteds.  Times change. 

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 297 posts
Posted by CJtrainguy on Thursday, September 8, 2016 11:38 AM

schlimm

 

 
CJtrainguy

 

 
schlimm

New Brunswick - 8137

 

 

New Brunswick's number may not be too bad after all. Only a very few Amtrak trains per day make the stop there. I sure appreciated being able to catch a train from Washington DC in early evening that made the stop in New Brunswick last time I was in the area. Made the trip more convenient and faster than if I'd had to change trains in Trenton.

 

 

 

New Brunswick is a stop on four Regional trains daily, one SB and three NB on weekdays only. 8137/260 days = 31 passengers daily.  So they should keep it.  To really do an analysis, one would have to look at the number of passengers annually divided by the total number of trains stopping there annually.  But the annual passenger count is the starting point. 

I didn't have the number of trains stopping in New Brunswick in front of me. Just recalled that there aren't that many. 

As you point out, the annual passenger count is one piece of the puzzle. What's respectable considering just a few trains stopping would be pitiful with a boatload of trains stopping each day.

For a station like New Brunswick, where there is the option to also use NJT north and south bound, I'd be really interested in how many people board there and at some other station transfer to Amtrak to complete their journey.

I traveled Washington DC - New Brunswick on Amtrak, then took NJT from there to NY Penn and eventually continued my trip from there on the Lake Shore Limited.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, September 8, 2016 1:33 PM

There certainly are not many Amtrak trains stopping in New Brunswick. I just looked at the schedule effective 1/11/16 and found one daily train stopping southbound--the Palmetto (daily), and a mixture stopping northbound, all in the afternoon--one M-F Keystone (discharge only), one M-Th Washington-New York, and one Friday only Washington-Springfield.

Johnny

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:07 PM

Mosr passengers going to and from New Brunzwick from major Amtrak points like Washington and Baltimore and Boston and Springfield would tranfer to an NJT local train at either Newark or Trenton.  I would hope that some arrangement now exists that Amtrak tickets to and from New Brunzwick are honored for the approrpiate distance on NJT trains, but possibly this is too much to hope for at the present time?   Amtrack schedules are somewhat more demand responsive than many give them credit for, and possibly there are specific reasons why the few specific trains are the ones that stop at places like New Brunzwick and Newark Delaware.  Possibly Townsen, Maryland?  I once did board the only train north from Newark, Delaware that stopped there northbound, returning from a consulting project.

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:27 PM

schlimm

Tom:  In the NEC, at least, there are commuter trains to serve smaller cities.  And even they have express or limited stop services.  65+ years ago, prior to the growth of air services, when the US had many LD routes, some trains made almost every stop, others were limiteds.  Times change. 

 

To put this in the context of the original posting, it mentioned eliminating stops. No mention was made of any other service to fill the gap thus created. My point was that theses lesser stops must still be served in some way. I did not intend to imply that all trains had to stop at the smaller stations.

Tom

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 297 posts
Posted by CJtrainguy on Thursday, September 8, 2016 5:01 PM

daveklepper

Mosr passengers going to and from New Brunzwick from major Amtrak points like Washington and Baltimore and Boston and Springfield would tranfer to an NJT local train at either Newark or Trenton.  I would hope that some arrangement now exists that Amtrak tickets to and from New Brunzwick are honored for the approrpiate distance on NJT trains, but possibly this is too much to hope for at the present time?  

Apparently. When I go to Amtrak's website and search for Washington, DC to New Brunswick, I get 2 options

NE Regional from Washington DC that stops in New Brunswick at 7:51pm

and 

Acela from DC with change in Philladelphia to Keystone service, getting to New Brunswick at 6:04pm

No mention of any possibility of changing to NJT at Trenton.

It would be wonderful to have coordination between Amtrak and regional carriers like NJT.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, September 8, 2016 5:59 PM

CJtrainguy

 

 
daveklepper

Mosr passengers going to and from New Brunzwick from major Amtrak points like Washington and Baltimore and Boston and Springfield would tranfer to an NJT local train at either Newark or Trenton.  I would hope that some arrangement now exists that Amtrak tickets to and from New Brunzwick are honored for the approrpiate distance on NJT trains, but possibly this is too much to hope for at the present time?  

 

Apparently. When I go to Amtrak's website and search for Washington, DC to New Brunswick, I get 2 options

NE Regional from Washington DC that stops in New Brunswick at 7:51pm

and 

Acela from DC with change in Philladelphia to Keystone service, getting to New Brunswick at 6:04pm

No mention of any possibility of changing to NJT at Trenton.

It would be wonderful to have coordination between Amtrak and regional carriers like NJT.

 

Coordination may well be possible, but only by coordinating yourself between Amtrak's and the transit operator's websites.  Amtrak really needs to get some good website developers to bring them up to date.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, September 9, 2016 11:08 AM

l

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 297 posts
Posted by CJtrainguy on Friday, September 9, 2016 11:49 AM

schlimm

 

 
CJtrainguy

It would be wonderful to have coordination between Amtrak and regional carriers like NJT.

 

 

 

Coordination may well be possible, but only by coordinating yourself between Amtrak's and the transit operator's websites.  Amtrak really needs to get some good website developers to bring them up to date.

 

 

It would take more than a few fixes on the Amtrak website to get through ticketing established. NJT and Amtrak would have to work out details on revenue sharing and all that good stuff. Would be nice if they could do that though.

In general, the ability to buy a long distance train ticket and get transportation on local/regional transit at start or goal included, would make train travel more attractive to people who now find all that coordination too complicated.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, September 9, 2016 12:57 PM

A way to increase ridership at low ridership stations might be as simple as working with Uber.  Uber ride share to <> from station ? ? ? ?

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, September 9, 2016 2:47 PM

CJtrainguy

 

 
schlimm

 

 
CJtrainguy

It would be wonderful to have coordination between Amtrak and regional carriers like NJT.

 

 

 

Coordination may well be possible, but only by coordinating yourself between Amtrak's and the transit operator's websites.  Amtrak really needs to get some good website developers to bring them up to date.

 

 

 

 

It would take more than a few fixes on the Amtrak website to get through ticketing established. NJT and Amtrak would have to work out details on revenue sharing and all that good stuff. Would be nice if they could do that though.

In general, the ability to buy a long distance train ticket and get transportation on local/regional transit at start or goal included, would make train travel more attractive to people who now find all that coordination too complicated.

 

In the "good old days" of passenger rail, it happened routinely, sans computer technology.  I have dim memories as a 9 year old of a train trip from the western suburbs of Chicago to New York in 1956.  We had multi-part tickets purchased at the Wheaton C&NW depot.  A C&NW ticket to the city, a Parmalee transfer to LaSalle St. Station and a coach ticket on the NYC's Pacemaker.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, September 9, 2016 3:06 PM

schlimm
CJtrainguy
schlimm
CJtrainguy

It would be wonderful to have coordination between Amtrak and regional carriers like NJT.

Coordination may well be possible, but only by coordinating yourself between Amtrak's and the transit operator's websites.  Amtrak really needs to get some good website developers to bring them up to date.

It would take more than a few fixes on the Amtrak website to get through ticketing established. NJT and Amtrak would have to work out details on revenue sharing and all that good stuff. Would be nice if they could do that though.

In general, the ability to buy a long distance train ticket and get transportation on local/regional transit at start or goal included, would make train travel more attractive to people who now find all that coordination too complicated.

In the "good old days" of passenger rail, it happened routinely, sans computer technology.  I have dim memories as a 9 year old of a train trip from the western suburbs of Chicago to New York in 1956.  We had multi-part tickets purchased at the Wheaton C&NW depot.  A C&NW ticket to the city, a Parmalee transfer to LaSalle St. Station and a coach ticket on the NYC's Pacemaker.

In today's age of computerization, is it Amtrak's responsibility to 'go out' and look for various commuter carrier connections?  Or is it the communter carriers responsibility to notify Amtrak of possible connections to Amtrak trains?

Turf boundries!

In the 'good old days' ticket agents poured over 'The Official Guide' to seek out connections and then make contact with the connecting carriers reservation bureau so that a full route ticket could be sold.  A very skilled undertaking at that time.  Totally different set up than exists today.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, September 9, 2016 4:20 PM

BaltACD

 

 
schlimm
CJtrainguy
schlimm
CJtrainguy

It would be wonderful to have coordination between Amtrak and regional carriers like NJT.

Coordination may well be possible, but only by coordinating yourself between Amtrak's and the transit operator's websites.  Amtrak really needs to get some good website developers to bring them up to date.

It would take more than a few fixes on the Amtrak website to get through ticketing established. NJT and Amtrak would have to work out details on revenue sharing and all that good stuff. Would be nice if they could do that though.

In general, the ability to buy a long distance train ticket and get transportation on local/regional transit at start or goal included, would make train travel more attractive to people who now find all that coordination too complicated.

In the "good old days" of passenger rail, it happened routinely, sans computer technology.  I have dim memories as a 9 year old of a train trip from the western suburbs of Chicago to New York in 1956.  We had multi-part tickets purchased at the Wheaton C&NW depot.  A C&NW ticket to the city, a Parmalee transfer to LaSalle St. Station and a coach ticket on the NYC's Pacemaker.

 

In today's age of computerization, is it Amtrak's responsibility to 'go out' and look for various commuter carrier connections?  Or is it the communter carriers responsibility to notify Amtrak of possible connections to Amtrak trains?

Turf boundries!

In the 'good old days' ticket agents poured over 'The Official Guide' to seek out connections and then make contact with the connecting carriers reservation bureau so that a full route ticket could be sold.  A very skilled undertaking at that time.  Totally different set up than exists today.

 

Good point.  Turf boundaries are difficult to overcome but AFAIK, no one is even trying.  With high tech, it should be easier.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 9, 2016 5:06 PM

schlimm

 

 
BaltACD

 

 
schlimm
CJtrainguy
schlimm
CJtrainguy

It would be wonderful to have coordination between Amtrak and regional carriers like NJT.

Coordination may well be possible, but only by coordinating yourself between Amtrak's and the transit operator's websites.  Amtrak really needs to get some good website developers to bring them up to date.

It would take more than a few fixes on the Amtrak website to get through ticketing established. NJT and Amtrak would have to work out details on revenue sharing and all that good stuff. Would be nice if they could do that though.

In general, the ability to buy a long distance train ticket and get transportation on local/regional transit at start or goal included, would make train travel more attractive to people who now find all that coordination too complicated.

In the "good old days" of passenger rail, it happened routinely, sans computer technology.  I have dim memories as a 9 year old of a train trip from the western suburbs of Chicago to New York in 1956.  We had multi-part tickets purchased at the Wheaton C&NW depot.  A C&NW ticket to the city, a Parmalee transfer to LaSalle St. Station and a coach ticket on the NYC's Pacemaker.

 

In today's age of computerization, is it Amtrak's responsibility to 'go out' and look for various commuter carrier connections?  Or is it the communter carriers responsibility to notify Amtrak of possible connections to Amtrak trains?

Turf boundries!

In the 'good old days' ticket agents poured over 'The Official Guide' to seek out connections and then make contact with the connecting carriers reservation bureau so that a full route ticket could be sold.  A very skilled undertaking at that time.  Totally different set up than exists today.

 

 

 

Good point.  Turf boundaries are difficult to overcome but AFAIK, no one is even trying.  With high tech, it should be easier.

 

 

It IS doable.  You can get through ticketing on NJT to/from stops on the Atlantic City Line from Amtrak - left over from when Amtrak pulled out of the market.  But, that's it.  I wonder if anyone ever discussed expanding it.  

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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