posted
Trainsmag.com just reported that Amtrak revenue from ticket sales is up 40 percent since the September 11 terriost attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., while ridership is up about 17 percent, railroad officials said today.
Although ridership remains robust-particularly on long-distance trains-there are signs that the wave of new passengers may be subsiding somewhat as airlines inch toward resuming a greater number of flights.
For example:
Last week, when airports were closed or virtually shut down and thousands of travlers were stranded, Amtrak's revenue from ticket sales was up 60 percent, and Intercity ridership was up by 35 percent.
Amtrak has stopped automatically adding extra cars to Northeast corridor and long-distance trains, spokeswoman Kajai Jhaveri said this morning from Washington. Last week, Amtrak added 200 seats to each train on the Northeast corridor, and added cars to long-distance trains when possible Now extra cars are added based on reservations or anticipated passenger levels
On Tuesday, Amtrak dropped its blanket poliyc of honoring airline tickets. The railroad will consider honoring airline tickets on a case by-case basis, however, Jhaveri said.
Amtrak Intercity spokesman Kevin Johnson said although hard figures aren't yet available, ridership appears to be leveling off. "It's going to be interesting over the next couple of weeks," he said, to see what the impact of reduced flight schedules and public's fear of flying will have on the railroad.
On the Northeast corridor, ticket revenue this week is up 8 percent. "The long-distance trains have really been the ones that are full," Johson said, adding that it's hard to find sleeping car accommadations.
Amtrak has boosted capacity 25 percent on long-distance trains, where needed, buy adding a coach or two to the consist, Johnson said.
Despite the increased ridership and revenue, Amtrak is not banking on a fincial windfall. That's because its expenses are up as well, Johnson said.
Nonetheless, trains are proving more popular than buses. Greyhoud said that earlier this week its passenger loads had returned to normal levels.
Well guys what is your reaction to this.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
This may be a difficult thing to gauge. Amtrak travel peaked last week because people needed it to get home. But now that they are home I think travel in general will be down for the forseeable future, and that will affect all forms of transportation, including Amtrak.
The numbers to watch are not overall ridership figures but the percentage of the market that Amtrak gets compared to the airlines. If Amtrak maintains a greater share of the market than before the 11th then that could be a sign that travelers are more reluctant to fly.
I think Amtrak had a bit more than 1% before the attacks.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
Heard TV news report this AM 9/24 that AMT ridership still increasing especially on NEC. Guess would be that increased check in times on airlines are making AMT more attractive.
CK Member # 589
posted
Mr Toy, I was very surprised to read that Amtrak has only a "bit more than 1%" of the market compared to the airlines. I never thought of it in terms of percentages before and that provides a different perspective. Thanks.
Kent Loudon Member # 902
posted
Mr Toy wrote: >>I think Amtrak had a bit more than 1% before the attacks.<<
What about the often heard statement that in the Northeast corridor, Amtrak handles more passengers than all the air shuttles combined? Can anyone verify this ?
CK Member # 589
posted
The San Francisco Chroncile had an article regarding the Amtrak ridership increase in the 9/24 edition. It said Amtrak carried 22.5 million passengers last year compared to 600 to 700 million for the airlines. If true, this seems to indicate much more than 1%.
Konstantin Member # 18
posted
There is a very large difference between the number of passengers and the number of passenger miles. I believe Mr. Toy is correct with 1% when speaking about passenger miles.
To me, passenger miles is a much more important statistic than the number of passengers.
------------------ Elias Valley Railroad (N-scale) www.geocities.com/evrr
CK Member # 589
posted
I'm curious was passenger miles would be a more important statistic than actual passengers carried.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
Possibly because 100 riders going from one station to just the next station might be less profit-earning than 50 riders going the full length of the route. Take into account meals, snack car, ...etc.
Geoff Mayo.
CK Member # 589
posted
That is a very good point. Thank you.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
As I understand it, that 1% I mentioned includes all forms of transportation including air, road, and rail. I first heard it on one of the Congressional hearings on C-SPAN. I don't remember if it referred to passenger miles or total passengers.
It should be noted that 1% corresponds with another figure. The US spends slightly less than 1% of its total transportation dollars on Amtrak. European countries spend anywhere from 15-25%.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
My understanding is that Amtrak carries 1% of intercity travelers nationwide, but that's an average. It carries a big proportion in the Northeast and a good proportion in other markets too, but it is averaged with markets where Amtrak doesn't go at all, so Amtrak's market share for, say, Phoenix-Denver (zero)drags down its overall share.
As for the figure about Amtrak carrying more passengers in the Northeast Corridor than the airlines combined, I saw this statement in a story by Don Phillips in the Washington Post on Sunday: "Amtrak already has 41 percent of combined rail-air travel between Washington and New York. If travel to intermediate cities such as Philadelphia is included, that percentage rises to 70 percent." Phillips is pretty reliable, and the story may still be on the Post website.
------------------ Steve Dunham Literalman@aol.com http://www.stevedunham.50megs.com/
rresor Member # 128
posted
Amtrak has well under 1% of the total US market, measured in passenger miles and including air, rail, and bus.
The most recent figures I've seen indicate that Amtrak had (in 1998) about 5.5% of the "air/rail" market, that is, the total passenger miles carried by air and Amtrak together. That was down from about 8% in 1988, even though Amtrak ridership had grown a bit. Air travel, until very recently, had been growing faster than rail travel.
To put a positive spin on their market share, Amtrak managers like to point out that they are, IIRC, the "fifth largest airline in the country" or something like that.
However, any way you slice it, outside California and the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak simply doesn't have the capacity to carry many more passengers. Without much more equipment, they'll never be able to replace any significant part of air travel.
posted