http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/09/7688398-amtrak-rolls-toward-record-ridership
Front page of msnbc.com today - hopefully someone in Congress will get the message.
So where did msnbc get these figures?
Although I believe the article I have not seen the Amtrak posting on their website which is the ordinary way to announce these figures. Usually the past month’s ridership figures comes out about the 10th of next month and the full performance figures comes out about 6 weeks after the end of that month. For some reason June 2011 has not been posted and July will be due soon.
with all the flooding, Amtrak still has near-record highs? it’s hard to believe this articles true!
Someone needs to fax this stuff to Congress almost 29 million people use Amtrak every year. Them people need to be show they that true facts of how many people use Amtrak every year.[2c]
Got to stop this in the bud…if anyone finds out we can be successful carrying people from place to place we might be stuck having to actually do that!
If snark has become the standard for insightful commentary, I might add that Amtrak going from .1 percent of total passenger miles to .105 percent of total U.S. passenger miles is a happening that ought to get the attention of Congress. (Should I add an exclamation mark for emphasis?)
All snarking and kidding aside, for Amtrak to reach a record ridership is a Good Thing ™ for Amtrak, the travelling public, and for the taxpayer funding part of the enterprise. But there is such a thing as the big numbers fallacy.
The “U” has this energy saving campaign that seems to consist largely of either scolding or self-celebratory posters on public buildings. “Improvements to our heating plant save 500,000 tons of CO2 emissions each year!” (Yes, I think the exclamation point is part of the poster. Whenever I see liberal use of the exclamation point, I think either of some slick Madison-Avenue ad campaign or I think of the purported ransom note from a high-profile unsolved crime from the mid 1990’s.)
First off, people wanting to congratulate themselves use tons of CO2 whereas the scientific literature quantifies emissions in tons of carbon. CO2 has those two oxygen molecules making the CO2 tonnage about three times the C (elemental carbon equivalent) tonnage, and is a way to make numbers bigger. Secondly, what is 500,000 tons mean apart from it being a big number? It could mean that if every public university bought the same heating plant gear, we would make a dent in solving Global Warming? Or it could mean that this action is just plain arm flappage, that the amount of carbon emitted by our industrial civilization is so vast, that even everyone making that change would make a trivial difference
Paul: Unfortunately Amtrak has not published their performance stats for jun or July or the ridership figures for August. So I will have to post this with some doubts until those figures are published. The problems of weather certainly has had an effect this year. The slight increase cited in the above article certainly has been decreased by the weather. As Phoeebe Vet has stated it is all about frequency of service.
1. Basic NEC – Since the beginning of Metroliners and now Acela the percentage of rail to air and bus transport has moved very favorably to Amtrak. Boston - NYP especially has increased both with Acela and egional service. All this due to more frequency.
2. Dlowneaster – Has gone from 2 to 5 roundtrips every day. Many of the trips are sold out due to a lack of equipment. Route is going to be extended to Brunswick for some trips and a 6th RT IS NOW being planned. Ridership this summer is unknown but has increased this year about 6%.
3. Lynchburg – 0 trips then just 1. No need to cite and some trips are at the 14 car limit. Some days are selling out.
As I posted on the other thread, I wonder what the train/mile expenses for the various routes are? The monthly Amtrak metrics give expenses for each route and passenger/mile or seat/mile contributions, but that takes revenue and ridership into account. I would like to see a clearer picture of how much more expensive and wasteful most of the long distance routes, as well as some of the short distance and state-supported routes are. That way, a more realistic determination of where to get the most bang for the buck could be made, instead of diluting funding by continuing to throw funds down a black hole and short-changing the routes that are worthwhile.
Last week a Congressional investigating committee found $60 billion in military contractor waste and fraud. Medicare fraud can be as high as $100 billion. Would rather see $1.5 billion go to Amtrak and benefit 29 million people, rather than hundreds of billions to benefit crooks. Amtrak is not the best “poster child” for government waste.
They are alot of ways to give Amtrak more money Stop all the Fraud and give all that money to Amtrak.[2c]
These numbers were probably released by Amtrak’s News and Media Group. They appear to be reasonable.
As per page A-3.5 of the September 2010 Amtrak Monthly Operating Report, the number of Amtrak’s riders for FY10 was 28,938,943.
Reporting increases in ridership without addressing other operating and financial data tells only part of the story. The financials for the year, including revenues, operating costs, interest, depreciation, etc., should be examined and reported on to draw an appropriate conclusion about Amtrak’s operations, including its burden on the taxpayers. To tout the increase in ridership without mentioning the comparative increase in operating costs, subsidies, etc. tells only part of the story.
Amtrak’s Financial Performance of Routes Report includes the allocation of all costs, except depreciation and interest expense, by route. It also includes the contribution or loss per passenger mile and seat mile by route. One can use these numbers to estimate the subsidy a passenger gets on average, for example, from Dallas to Chicago. However, the subsidy cannot be determined for coach passengers vs. sleeping car passengers. Independent studies have suggested that the per passenger mile subsidy for sleeping car passengers is greater than the comparable subsidy for coach passengers, although given the cost of sleeping car accommodations, which have reached the price of up-market hotel rooms in major cities, it is hard to see how this is the case today.
In FY10 the long distance trains had an operating loss of $575.5 million before depreciation and interest. The operating loss for the short corridor trains was $231.1 million. The NEC trains had an operating profit of $51.5 million, thanks to a solid operating profit of $100.6 million for the Acela trains, offset by an operating loss of $48.8 million for the NEC regional trains and $.2 million for NEC Special Trains.
The long distance trains accounted for 76.2% of Amtrak’s operating los
The number of people carried by Amtrak was not 29 million. It was approximately 29 million passengers, which is different than people.
Amtrak carried 28.9 million passengers in FY10, but many of those passengers, especially along the NEC, would have been one person making multiple trips over the year.
I took eight trips on Amtrak in FY10, including four trips on the Texas Eagle from Temple, Texas to Dallas or Taylor, Texas to San Antonio. For reporting purposes I am one person who made eight passenger trips on Amtrak in FY10. The same statistical analysis, of course, applies to any form of transportation.
Amtrak’s comparative market share of commercial passenger transport along the NEC needs explanation.
Amtrak’s share of the NEC market has been increasing. It is not true, however, that Amtrak carries more passengers between New York and Washington than the airlines. Amtrak compares the whole New York to Washington NEC market to alternate commercial forms of passenger transportation. It counts passengers for intermediate points along the NEC, i.e. New York to Philadelphia or Philadelphia to Washington, for example, in its comparative numbers. But the market for the airlines is New York to Washington. They offer practically no flights, for example, from the New York metropolitan area to Philadelphia or other intermediate points except for passengers connecting in New York or Washington for overseas or national flights.
Another comparative point that is left out of the picture is the cost. Amtrak does not cover its fully allocated costs for the NEC, or any other operation for that matter, with the possible exception of the Lynchburg service, whereas the airlines and bus companies must cover their fully allocated costs and provide a return to their shareholders.
In Fy10 The Downeaster had an average load factor of 32.7%. Undoubtedly, it was probably sold out on a few occasions. More often than not, however, it ran with light loads. In any case, the load factor was not sufficient to cover its costs. In FY10 it lost $1.9 million before depreciation and interest.
The average FY10 load factor on the state supported and other short distance corridor trains in FY10 was approximately 41 per cent. The Lynchburg service had a load factor of 51.4%. It had an operating profit of $2.1 million. It was the only route outside of the Acela routes to cover its operating costs and earn an operating profit.
The load factors do not support the contention that Amtrak’s routes are constrained by equipment shorta
Sam1, your comparison explanation underscores the folly of comaring transportation modes and information and explains why there is an essential need for each mode of transportation and why the whole system has to be supported and rationalized. Again, if rail passenger service received the same and equal financial support as air and highway over the past 50 to 75 years, then the comparisons would be more even. To say there are fewer rail passengers only relfects the lack of the availability of the service and not about the choice made by passengers for instance. Corridors prove that point because that is where there are three almost equal choices while over long distance routes the choices are fewer.
If rail passenger service received the same and equal federal financial support as air, that same and equal subsidy dollar would serve 1/10 the passenger miles as the airlines. If rail passenger service received the same and equal federal financial support as highways, those subsidy dollars would serve 1/30 the passenger miles as the roads.
Sez who? The Vision Report. And where do they come up with that? In the Appendices, where they extrapolate the performance of passenger rail subsidy in Europe.
And how can one talk about a service carrying .1 percent of passenger miles in the U.S. as being essential? It may be desirable, and putting more money into rail may confer some future social and economic benefit. But to speak of it as being essential when we are conducting our affairs in the U.S. pretty much without it?
I don’t agree with the notion that the indicated load factors are evidence that “people won’t ride Amtrak” or “won’t ride Amtrak in enough numbers to cover expenses.”
Airlines have much higher load factors at the expense of providing a much lower grade of service. Planning any kind of airline trip is at least one evening or maybe even a couple of days of figuring out to adjust your plans around when the airlines want to take you. We put up with that inconvenience along with the many other inconveniences of air that people are quick to remind us of because of the speed of the air travel, or at least once you get airborne. Or one could pay a lot more for the fare and have much more choice in when to travel.
Maybe railroad load factors are so low because people will not put up with the kind of inconvenience that airline travel presents in order to ride a much slower mode. But rail load factors are not evidence of people not being willing to ride, rather, there is an economic tradeoff between load f
[quote user=“Paul Milenkovic”]
I don’t agree with the notion that the indicated load factors are evidence that “people won’t ride Amtrak” or “won’t ride Amtrak in enough numbers to cover expenses.”
Airlines have much higher load factors at the expense of providing a much lower grade of service. see
Maybe railroad load factors are so low because people will not put up with the kind of inconvenience that airline travel presents in order to ride a much slower mode. But rail load factors are not evidence of people not being willing to ride, rather, there is an economic tradeoff between load factor and inconvenience, and Amtrak is operating on a different part of the curve.
This comparsion of load factor argument needs some thought. As someone who has flown for years it comes down to this: Any trip that has intermediate stops looses load factor. I once flew a seven stop trip that had an average load factor in the low 40s % to high 30s%. why was it kept you may ask? 2 non adjaecent legs were full constantly. Only at holiday periods were the other legs near full. Airlines in the late 1950s - 1970s had many trips that could not fly long legs so the airlines had load factors in the 40% to 60 % depepnding on the season.
With the advent of aircraft that can fly the US coast to coast non stop and with hub and spoke operations routes can be designed to bring load factors up much higher and the ability to offer lower fares . Now our very limited RR route structure does not yet permit that kind of load planning.
I rode the TGV from Paris - Lyon - french coast 2 stop. Sold out to both legs. Came back on a 5 or 6 stop with only 1 leg sold out. Same as the US
But that Amtrak does not keep extra cars in their fleet to adjust capacity to peaks is telling.
Yes Congress made sure of that by not allowing purchase of spa
SAM:
[quote user=“Sam1”]
In Fy10 The Downeaster had an average load factor of 32.7%. Undoubtedly, it was probably sold out on a few occasions. More often than not, however, it ran with light loads. In any case, the load factor was not sufficient to cover its costs. In FY10 it lost $1.9 million before depreciation and interest.
The average FY10 load factor on the state supported and other short distance corridor trains in FY10 was approximately 41 per cent. The Lynchburg service had a load factor of 51.4%. It had an operating profit of $2.1 million. It was the only route outside of the Acela routes to cover its operating costs and earn an operating profit.
Here we go again on load factor. Lets take Downeaster first. Boston North station [ downeaster only ]. 413K passengers FY 2010 Portland Me 174K and 116 miles. So other stations are less with the 239K traveling less miles. Summer time outbound trains are full on fridays full returning on Sundays. Return trips close to empty. So a full train 100% return 20 - 30%.
When the extension of the Downeaster is implemented I believe not all trips will go on the extension?? Someone?
LYNCHBURG route - FY 2010 327K passengers. Top riderships are Charlottesville - WASH, NYP, PHL, ALX, LYN - PHL COMES IN 9TH. LYN - WASH 173 miles CVS - WASH 112 MILES. CVS had 89077 in FY 2010. So the short riders lower the load factors. CVS of course has passengers that also get on the Cardinal and Crescent. The use on weekends by U of Va students swells ridership one way especially the Cardinal. These students may cause many cars of the equipment positioning of those necessary cars to lower the load factor. [ ie 8 empty cars WASH - LYH - CVS then full back to WASH ]&
[quote user=“blue streak 1”]
SAM:
Sam1:
In Fy10 The Downeaster had an average load factor of 32.7%. Undoubtedly, it was probably sold out on a few occasions. More often than not, however, it ran with light loads. In any case, the load factor was not sufficient to cover its costs. In FY10 it lost $1.9 million before depreciation and interest.
The average FY10 load factor on the state supported and other short distance corridor trains in FY10 was approximately 41 per cent. The Lynchburg service had a load factor of 51.4%. It had an operating profit of $2.1 million. It was the only route outside of the Acela routes to cover its operating costs and earn an operating profit.
Here we go again on load factor. Lets take Downeaster first. Boston North station [ downeaster only ]. 413K passengers FY 2010 Portland Me 174K and 116 miles. So other stations are less with the 239K traveling less miles. Summer time outbound trains are full on fridays full returning on Sundays. Return trips close to empty. So a full train 100% return 20 - 30%.
When the extension of the Downeaster is implemented I believe not all trips will go on the extension?? Someone?
LYNCHBURG route - FY 2010 327K passengers. Top riderships are Charlottesville - WASH, NYP, PHL, ALX, LYN - PHL COMES IN 9TH. LYN - WASH 173 miles CVS - WASH 112 MILES. CVS had 89077 in FY 2010. So the short riders lower the load factors. CVS of course has passengers that also get on the Cardinal and Crescent. The use on weekends by U of Va students swells ridership one way especially the Cardinal. These students may cause many cars of the eq