31.2 million passengers best ever, On-time performance up
WASHINGTON - Amtrak carried more than 31.2 million passengers in Fiscal Year 2012 ending September 30, marking the highest annual ridership total since America's Railroad(r) started operations in 1971 and the ninth ridership record during the last ten years.
A year-over-year comparison of FY 2012 to FY 2011 shows ridership grew 3.5 percent to a new record of 31,240,565 passengers and ticket revenue jumped 6.8 percent to a best ever $2.02 billion. In addition, Amtrak system-wide on-time performance increased to 83 percent, up from 78.1 percent and its highest level in 12 years.
"People are riding Amtrak trains in record numbers across the country because there is an undeniable demand to travel by rail," said President and CEO Joe Boardman. "Ridership will continue to grow because of key investments made by Amtrak and our federal and state partners to improve on-time performance, reliability, capacity and train speeds."
During FY 2012, ridership on the Northeast Corridor is up 4.8 percent to a record 11.4 million, state-supported and other short distance routes is up 2.1 percent to a record 15.1 million and long-distance services is up 4.7 percent to their best showing in 19 years at 4.7 million.
Also, FY 2012 produced other ridership achievements including new records for 25 of 44 Amtrak services, and 12 consecutive monthly records with July being the single best month in the history of Amtrak. Since FY 2000, Amtrak ridership is up 49 percent.
Boardman noted ridership numbers for FY 2013 will get an early boost this fall when the extension of Downeaster service to Freeport and Brunswick, Maine begins Nov. 1, and Amtrak Virginia Northeast Regional service is extended to Norfolk, Va., starting Dec.12.
Factors contributing to Amtrak long-term ridership growth include improved passenger services such as Wi-Fi and eTicketing, high gasoline prices, continued growth in business travel on the Northeast Corridor, the increased appeal and popularity of rail travel, dissatisfaction with congested highways and air travel, and effective marketing campaigns.
Amtrak intends to provide FY 2012 ridership information by state and station next week.
Ridership Highlights FY 2012 vs. FY 2011
*Northeast Corridor (NEC) The NEC between Washington and Boston had a 4.8 percent increase in ridership to its best year ever with more than 11.4 million passengers. Specifically, ridership on the Northeast Regional service is up 6.6 percent to a new record of more than 8.0 million and the high-speed Acela Express is up 0.5 percent to its second-best year ever to nearly 3.4 million.
*Northeast Ridership on the Keystone Service (New York - Harrisburg) is up 5.8 percent to a new record of more than 1.4 million. Other ridership record setting routes include: Downeaster (Boston - Portland) up 4.3 percent to more than 541,000; Adirondack (New York - Montreal) up 5.3 percent to nearly 132,000; and Ethan Allen (New York - Rutland, Vt.) up 10 percent to more than 54,000. Routes with notable percentage growth increases include Vermonter (Washington - St. Albans, Vt.) up 5.5 percent to more than 82,000, Empire Service (New York - Albany) up 3.8 percent to more than 1.06 million and Pennsylvanian (New York - Pittsburgh) up 2.2 percent to more than 212,000.
*Chicago Hub / Midwest The combined ridership on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor from Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle trains increased 11 percent to set a new record of more than 675,000 passengers. Other routes setting ridership records include: Hiawatha Service (Chicago - Milwaukee) up 2.3 percent to more than 838,000; Missouri River Runner (St. Louis - Kansas City) up 5.3 percent to nearly 196,000; and Blue Water (Chicago - Port Huron) up 1.1 percent to more than 189,000.
*West Coast San Joaquin (Bakersfield - Oakland) is up 7.2 percent to new record of more than 1.1 million riders. Capitol Corridor (San Jose - Sacramento/Auburn) up 2.2 percent also set a new record with nearly 1.75 million passengers.
*Virginia and North Carolina In Virginia, the Washington - Lynchburg service is up 14.1 percent to a new record of almost 185,000 and the Washington - Newport News service is up 11.9 percent also to a new record of nearly 624,000 passengers. In North Carolina, the Piedmont (Charlotte - Raleigh) set a new record of more than 162,000 riders and had the best percentage increase of all Amtrak routes at 16.2 percent.
*Long-Distance Routes All 15 Amtrak long-distance routes experienced an increase in passengers resulting in their best combined ridership numbers in 19 years. Routes setting new ridership records include: Lake Shore Limited (Chicago - New York) up 4.3 percent to almost 404,000; Texas Eagle (Chicago - San Antonio) up 12.8 percent to nearly 338,000; and City of New Orleans (Chicago - New Orleans) up 8.5 percent to more than 253,000. Routes with significant percentage growth in ridership include: the Empire Builder (Chicago - Seattle/Portland) up 15.8 percent to more than 543,000; Coast Starlight (Los Angeles - Seattle) up 6.5 percent to more than 454,000; and Cardinal (New York - Chicago) up 4.9 percent to more than 116,000.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds great!!!!! Now, how much of AMTRAK's funding will be cut by President Romney and Veep Paul?
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
RRRich: I think you can rest easy and not worry about Amtrak with a Romney Admin. Honestly, when he takes office (not if, but WHEN), Amtrak is going to be the last thing on his mind. As the saying goes, Amtrak's budget in the overall scheme of things is like peeing in the ocean. Members of the House will not allow it---they've got their constituency to answer to. President Romney will be extremely busy dealing with Iran, stopping Obamacare, changing the tax laws, getting oil drilling and the pipeline on the fast track, etc, etc...Amtrak might be something that is placed into the Party Platform, but beyond that, it's not on their radar IMHO.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed Smitty. Amtrak may get on the agenda in 2035 or so...
Too bad we cannot promote it as a cheap form of green energy transportation. That should get Amtrak $400-$500 Billion from the frustrated Enviro-whackos...
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it disingenuous that the Romney supporters here seem to be distancing themselves from his oft-stated assertion that he intends to defund Amtrak. May I ask this group of members what THEIR position is on defunding Amtrak? If you disagree with Romney's ideological attack against Amtrak, what have you done about it? Have you written, emailed, and called his campaign to voice your opposition to his intention to dismantle Amtrak as we know it?
Please help me understand how you reconcile your outspoken support for Romney and his clearly articulated intention to defund Amtrak with your desire to see Amtrak continue its operations. Thanks for your insights.
Posts: 46 | From: Playa Del Rey, CA | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney is incapable of defunding Amtrak. Congress is the government entity that has the Constitutional authority to fund or defund any program.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: Romney is incapable of defunding Amtrak. Congress is the government entity that has the Constitutional authority to fund or defund any program.
You haven't answered ANY of the questions directed to you and the others.
If the Senate goes Republican either next month or at the midterm elections, Romney will obviously sign any budget presented to him that defunds Amtrak. So, I ask you again to answer my questions with no further obfuscation.
I am a lifelong Independent, the very voters that will decide this election, so I am looking for honest answers to my genuinely sincere questions. Thanks.
Posts: 46 | From: Playa Del Rey, CA | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did answer your questions. You do not seem to have understood my answer. If you want some response to Amtrak's funding, write your Congress critters. They control the spending. That is what I do.
I would never think to write or call the President. He will sign your mythical defunding Amtrak budget and he will sign a budget that has a mythical 20 billion dollar a year increase for Amtrak. Amtrak, by itself, would never be the item that killed a budget.
Now for one of my questions. Who is the last republican that you voted for?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
ColdRain&Snow: I've stated this before, and while it's not a very popular opinion, I feel that if the Amtrak long distance routes went away, I would be okay with that. In my mind, it is "novelty transportation". Why do all of us take train rides? Because it's fun, because it's enjoyable, because of the scenery, because it's relaxing, etc, etc...But nowhere in there is the reason of, "Because it's my only option". Maybe there are a teeny-tiny number of people who aren't capable of riding in a car, bus, or airplane, but that teeny-tiny number of people is not justification to keep a national rail network alive.
If a private company were able to run this and make money, or if Amtrak were able to run it without constantly losing money, then I might feel differently. But now, the way things are set up, it's a money loser. The ONLY way Amtrak survives is through government funding. They've never been self-sufficient.
I should note that I'm talking about the long distance lines, not the commuter and medium haul routes (such as the Surfliners, San Joaquins, etc).
As far as writing to the president about Amtrak, no, I would never do that. I would write to my rep on Capitol Hill though.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney can submit a budget that includes the defunding of Amtrak. If Congress and the Senate choose not to restore that funding, and there is no presidential veto (obviously), it is done. Fortunately in the past, Amtrak had some influential friends on the Republican side of the aisle, such as Trent Lott and Kay Bailey Hutchison. They are getting fewer and fewer.
According to bipartisan experts, after the entitlements Romney says he won't cut, his tax cuts, and his increases to military spending, a 40% cut in remaining programs will be required to make his numbers add up. Every expenditure, no matter how small, would probably be looked at. Loss of the LD's would not be much of a political risk.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly it would be appropriate at this juncture to insert a X-link to the Open Topic Forum. Mr. Mike Smith and myself have been active over there of late:
posted
Hmm, this is the Amtrak forum, and my questions pertain specifically to a potential threat to its ongoing operations. Hence, I believe this is the right place to pose these questions.
Let's stop the dancing around the question I asked. As TSR points out to you, a Romney budget will defund Amtrak, and he has made it abundantly clear that he plans to do this. If we end up with a Republican House AND Senate while Romney is president, there's no reason to believe that the Republicans won't keep their RNC platform promise to kill off Amtrak through strangulation of its funding.
I have heard and accept Smitty's position that he supports the dismantling of our national rail network. That position aligns with the stated Republican Party line, so I understand his position.
Do we have any Republican members who DO support a national rail network? If yes, how do you reconcile your support for Romney with his crystal clear position that he intends to dismantle our current national rail network AKA Amtrak?
And let's not even open up that can of hypocrisy that singles out Amtrak as being unprofitable while conveniently contracting amnesia about how we directly and indirectly prop up the airline and highway industries -- neither of which are honestly profitable -- through massive subsidies of their own. We "invest" in airports/FAA/TSA and our highway system, but we "subsidize" Amtrak. What a hypocritical crock of crap!
While I await your answers, I am happy to answer Mr. Smith in that I last voted Republican for both terms of George W. Bush.
Posts: 46 | From: Playa Del Rey, CA | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I voted for W yet vociferously objected to his early positions on Amtrak. And I regularly vocalized my objections to his office.
So that's what I am getting at...
Are current Republican Romney supporters who also support Amtrak doing anything to stand up for Amtrak? Or are they going mute and changing the subject when they're challenged about it? My experience to date has been the latter, so I am trying to draw some conclusions by asking members here.
Posts: 46 | From: Playa Del Rey, CA | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. ColdRain, somehow I think your first immediate was directed at me. Allow me to share I'm not a Republican, but I am an independent voter - and my lifetime Presidential voting record of 6R 5D 1I bears that out. I am also an undecided voter and likely will be until all debates are completed (I'll watch 'em on C-SPAN; the "warm-ups" are interesting to watch and no talking head will influence my thoughts on such).
Now that having been said, I accept the political necessity of a passenger rail system national in scope. This is hardly because it provides any meaningful transportation (even if NARP's "vision" were to be realized) away from some niche segments, but rather if there is to be any Federal level funding of "what counts" - first and foremost the Northeast Corridor - there has to be a piece of "bacon" the critters voting to fund it (even if just a line item buried deep in an Omnibus Bill) can bring home. I do not favor a system any greater in scope than is necessary to accomplish that political objective. If any route is redundant towards that end, let it be gone.
I further favor a national system in that if any locality chooses to fund a passenger train (and even if Florida East Coast Ry chooses to operate a passenger system for their own account and contracting out to an established operator represents the most economic and efficient means to provide the service), ready to go expertise in operating a passenger train is available. There is no point in a sponsoring agency looking to the Class I industry as they have long since disbanded their institutions necessary to operate a passenger train. Considering that a private sector operator was responsible for Chatsworth (so much for training and supervision of their employees), I don't think any regional intercity agency would be looking to such (several regional agencies have or are about to come back to Amtrak) - even if some from time to time "talk the talk".
As for myself, my view on Amtrak is that it is simply a non-issue so far as my vote goes. If it's there, fine - and I'll use it when convenient for my travel requirements. But if it ain't there, I'd not loose much sleep over that. After all, I still have my memories of riding the "great trains" during the '50's and '60's - and I was young enough to want to get out there and ride. .
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said Mr. Norman. Although I vote Rep more than Dem both parties are a mix and both spew a lot of rhetoric that never materializes for a lot of reasons.
But I must admit it would be a sorrowful event if the LD trains were to land in the trash bin. They do have case to be made. I have tried to get my meager brain cells around all the issues and have decided that simple profit/cost debate is not as easily determined as it might appear.
Can anyone show me any major transportation system that does not rely on federal subsidies? The problem with applying that test to LD Amtrak is that every system is different. Tough to line them up point by point. Also, as others have said, Amtrak LD train's cost is tiny when federal budget is viewed as a whole. So what's the beef? I would like to see a list of federally subsidized activities in this country, many of which don't make a "profit". I think it would be a long list.
Does anyone ever vote for a candidate who is perfectly aligned with the all of the voter's beliefs, opinions, and principles? I find that hard to beleive. Yes, I am going to vote for Romney, despite his silly Amtrak remarks, and despite my support for Amtrak (I am a NARP member) because, on the balance, I believe Romney is far and away the best thing for this country.
Having said that, I hope to see the St. Louis Cardinals nail another world championship. Go Red Birds!
Posts: 140 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Iron Mountain: Does anyone ever vote for a candidate who is perfectly aligned with the all of the voter's beliefs, opinions, and principles? I find that hard to beleive. Yes, I am going to vote for Romney, despite his silly Amtrak remarks, and despite my support for Amtrak (I am a NARP member) because, on the balance, I believe Romney is far and away the best thing for this country.
Perhaps it's my younger age, but I DO care about the survival of Amtrak. It's the national rail system we have, and once it's destroyed by a misguided ideologue so out of touch with the many millions of us who do use it for so many different and valid reasons, it cannot and will not ever come back.
I injected myself into this dialogue by calling out those Romney supporters on this discussion board who disingenuously distance themselves from his veiled intention to destroy Amtrak. So far, what I hear from these members and other Romney supporters I've spoken with are things like...
"Oh, don't you worry. Mitt will have so many other things to worry about that he won't remember/get around to dismantling Amtrak. Maybe in 2035."
"Oh, don't you worry. Mitt is incapable of defunding Amtrak regardless of the ubiquitously communicated threats he's made throughout his candidacy."
"Oh, don't you worry. Mitt is just at it again making silly comments. Don't take him seriously as he's just being a silly guy. That Mitt, he's such a silly goose!"
All of these lame responses have one painfully obvious common denominator -- they attempt to minimize the nature of the threat Romney is levying against Amtrak while also insulating the author from the uncomfortable position of having to defend their candidate's ridiculous, purely ideological tirade against Amtrak.
Look, I get it. If I were a Romney supporter, I would be terribly embarrassed too about his misguided attention and attacks on Amtrak. But that brings us to personal responsibility. And that's what I do NOT see forthcoming from Romney supporters who also support an America that includes a national rail network.
Your candidate seeks to kill off Amtrak. So own it. And if you disagree with it, speak up about it! Don't play it off as if it isn't happening or doesn't involve you. It does. When you vote for Mitt Romney next month, you are voting to kill off Amtrak as part of the package. If he's successful in destroying Amtrak, you as his supporters will be complicit to Amtrak's demise.
So long as you take full responsibility for your vote and what it may mean for the future of passenger rail in America, so be it. But please stop the disingenuous musings that your support for Romney is somehow benign to the welfare of Amtrak and passenger rail in this country.
Posts: 46 | From: Playa Del Rey, CA | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it wasn't, Henry. He made a huge, wrong assumption.
quote:It's the national rail system we have, and once it's destroyed by a misguided ideologue so out of touch with the many millions of us who do use it for so many different and valid reasons, it cannot and will not ever come back.
You just described obama, our current president. As you mature, it will become crystal clear for you that he was the epitome of a misguided ideologue.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gee, CRS is Obama perfect in every respect for you? If there is something that you disagree with about your candidate whomever that may be does that make you disingenuous? What makes you think that I among others don't let the politicians know what we think is important? I will leave it there. Case closed.
Posts: 140 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
I roundly reject your weak attempt at condescension by crowing about my maturity. And I can say with great certainty that after having read your writings for a few years now, you are most certainly in no position to imply that your intellectual prowess is somehow superior.
Sorry to break it to you, but it is not and will never be.
Posts: 46 | From: Playa Del Rey, CA | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Iron Mountain: Gee, CRS is Obama perfect in every respect for you? If there is something that you disagree with about your candidate whomever that may be does that make you disingenuous? What makes you think that I among others don't let the politicians know what we think is important? I will leave it there. Case closed.
Who said I was an Obama supporter? I haven't committed to anyone, but that's beside the point since this is about Romney's preoccupation with attacking Amtrak. It's only happening in his campaign, so these questions can only be directed to you, his ardent supporters.
To answer your question, it's disingenuous when Romney supporters, when confronted with his outspoken views about dismantling our national rail network, then distance themselves from his position and tell the rest of us that we just shouldn't worry about it. I don't have to tell you how weak that is! If you think Romney is foolishly attacking Amtrak because it's part of the 2012 Republican playbook, then say so instead of telling me that I just shouldn't worry about it because he's silly or incapable.
Posts: 46 | From: Playa Del Rey, CA | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ColdRain&Snow: To Mike Smith:
I roundly reject your weak attempt at condescension by crowing about my maturity. And I can say with great certainty that after having read your writings for a few years now, you are most certainly in no position to imply that your intellectual prowess is somehow superior.
Sorry to break it to you, but it is not and will never be.
I wasn't utilizing any form of condescension, nor was I crowing. But I do understand why you did not understand what I posted and why you felt the need to denigrate my intelligence.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ocala... Big Bird makes $314,000 a year. Romney wants to cut out federal subsidies for Big Bird. That amount to 12% of their budget, so Big Bird will have to make do with $276,320 a year. It is not surprising that ABC does not understand what Romney proposed.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Petty snipes notwithstanding, let us resume our regularly scheduled program about Mitt Romney's position on Amtrak and passenger rail in America.
Posts: 46 | From: Playa Del Rey, CA | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ColdRain&Snow: Petty snipes notwithstanding, let us resume our KERFLUFFLE.
FTFY
Over and out; going to watch Christina Applegate hosting SNL now. I'm an old fart, but I luv me some Christina Applegate!
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get SNL for another 3 hours. I hope it's a good one. I keep hoping for a hilarious episode like the old days--but lately it's been so "eh". Whenever Justin Timberlake is the guest host, it's usually VERY funny.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like that kerfluffle word, Ocala. It accurately describes this mild discussion we are having. And I use "mild" because of the intense discussions I encounter in usenet, the bow hunting forums, and the woodworking forums I visit on a daily basis.
Kerfluffle: noun. a disturbance or hubbub; a small scale disturbance. an upsetting event. A kind of flatulence that is both silent and lacks scent.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
