Does the Decline of the Boomer Generation Hurt Amtrak?

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
D

Devil's Advocate

⠀⠀⠀
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
14,135
Location
⠀⠀⠀TX
As boomers continue to die off and take their social safety net with them things could start to get a lot more interesting over time. There is no pending wave of retiring Gen-X'ers with private pensions and fully funded social security checks and guaranteed disability payments. The goals and priorities of the boomer generation have left succeeding generations with housing, healthcare, and legal costs that are skyrocketing even as our salaries stagnate and benefits shrink. Most working age folks today will be working longer and have less to show for it than the boomers before them. The grand tradition of leaving things better for future generations seems to have abruptly ended with the boomers. Ironically those who had it the very best will be the ones to leave substantially less than before. It would seem that Amtrak is likely to see some tough years ahead as fewer people retire comfortably and those that do have less time and money to spend casually enjoying sunset joyrides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The demographic of those that enjoy train travel is undoubtedly changing. A large segment of Amtrak passengers are middle age people and seniors. Younger people ride Amtrak as well but overall do not seem to have the same high level of interest as older folks do especially on the LD routes. This is my observation when we ride. Does this mean that ridership will decline? Not necessarily. One look at the dehumanizing picture of air travel today, with 16" wide seats 28" leg room, cramped filthy conditions, the overcharge for baggage, lousy food (if there is any) overbooking and a prison style security check , may eventually cause some people to seek a change. It drove me to change to Amtrak 16 years ago.

Its time for Amtrak to market the service better to people in their 20's, 30's and 40' as most people in these age groups do not realize that there is an alternative to air travel. Amtrak should print and give out millions of flyers that compare the intolerable travel conditions on airlines to the relaxing comfort of an Amtrak trip. In many cases Amtrak fares are also much better than air fares. In some cases (on regional routes) the train can be faster If Amtrak is to continue to grow the message must reach the younger generation. IMO, marketing directed to that demographic is the key to growth. .
 
At present the key to growth is getting equipment and increasing reliability, more than anything else.

If that is addressed then the point that DA is making comes into play with a vengeance. If there is smaller amount of disposable income there will be lesser amount of non essential travel no matter how much marketing is done. It will then be important to capture the essential travel market. To do so it might become necessary to wreck the LD system and focus on more corridor driven day time service, which some here may not like. OTOH if the equipment and reliability issues cannot be effectively addressed then the rest of the discussion just borders on fantasy.

The consequences of the demographic shifts is indeed quite hard to predict, but some scenarios can be pretty bleak as the world proceed through the collapse of neo-liberal utopia which has been pushing us more and more towards oligarchy.

I better stop while I am ahead ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm still wondering which planes have 16" wide seats with 28" pitch. I know the two planes I'll be on in a month have higher numbers than those.
 
Given the choice between a 4 hour flight from MSP to LAX on Spirit (with 28" seat pitch and 17.75" seat width) and a 3 night excursion in Amtrak coach to do the same route, I'll fly Spirit almost every time (unless Amtrak is somehow significantly cheaper than Spirit.)

Sure, Spirit is cramped and I have to pay for everything, but I'll make do by bringing on a backpack and maybe checking a bag (and paying for it.) I'll squeeze into a smaller seat as well, and with NEXUS I get PreCheck almost all the time. It's not worth sleeping three nights in Amtrak coach to get around the "indignity" of flying on an ultra low-cost carrier.

(Plus, I can choose to upgrade to either a nicer airline or nicer seating and still come out well ahead of Amtrak sleeper, and often not much worse than Amtrak coach.)

Amtrak is going to either have to get the money to build some ultra-high-speed rail or focus on corridor/short-route service for the most part if it wants to compete in the essential travel sector from major metropolitan areas to other major metropolitan areas. Long distance routes may survive under an "essential passenger transportation service" type justification, however, as many rural communities do not have the economical air travel that large metropolitan areas have.

(FWIW, I'm a "Millenial," though I speak only for myself and not the generation as a whole. :ph34r: )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMHO, it won't be a generational thing that hurts Amtrak. It instead will be a societal decision (or indecision) to not fully invest in our national rail infrastructure that will bring the most damage to Amtrak.

Plainly put, outside of the commuter services in a handful of major metro areas, 90% of the country could give a flying hoot about Amtrak or rail travel. Save a major investment of many Billions of $USD, outside and separate of the annual subsidy, to replace nearly the entire Amtrak rolling fleet in the next few years (pretty much an impossibility), I don't see the company or the system it operates lasting in its current capacity beyond a horizon a decade or so down the road.

A generational shift will change things, for sure, but its not the reason for the "hurt." Its just another burden placed on a system that was never meant to survive in the first place. :unsure:
 
I've met college age young adults taking long distance trains for transportation in both the USA and Canada. I've also met many business men and women who are able to travel by train and work while they travel on their computers, this is seen more on single overnights like the coast starlight, capitol, etc.

But they do exist.

My current job has forced me to get used to flying and it's really not that bad as long as you stick with the major carriers (southwest, jet blue, delta are the ones I've flown with). While I don't like the security procedure and think it's over the top, I haven't had any terrible experiences and nothing as bad as Amtrak police questioning my ️very motive for traveling by train!
 
AmtrakBlue said:
I'm still wondering which planes have 16" wide seats with 28" pitch. I know the two planes I'll be on in a month have higher numbers than those.
Click to expand...
A seat width of 17.2-18" wide has become a common coach seat size in the industry. A 28" pitch is becoming a very common pitch on many Airbus A 320 flights. Here seat sizes of all airlines are listed; https://www.cheapflights.com/news/airline-legroom-guide/

Now I did read that 16" seats are on the way but cannot locate the article but really now if the number was 17.5" would that really make a big difference in comfort? If it keep going like this, airline travel will only be for the contortionist. Compare that to Amtraks 50-52" pitch on Superliners with a 23" wide seat. You can almost recline to a bed position.
 
jebr said:
Given the choice between a 4 hour flight from MSP to LAX on Spirit (with 28" seat pitch and 17.75" seat width) and a 3 night excursion in Amtrak coach to do the same route, I'll fly Spirit almost every time (unless Amtrak is somehow significantly cheaper than Spirit.)

Sure, Spirit is cramped and I have to pay for everything, but I'll make do by bringing on a backpack and maybe checking a bag (and paying for it.) I'll squeeze into a smaller seat as well, and with NEXUS I get PreCheck almost all the time. It's not worth sleeping three nights in Amtrak coach to get around the "indignity" of flying on an ultra low-cost carrier.

(Plus, I can choose to upgrade to either a nicer airline or nicer seating and still come out well ahead of Amtrak sleeper, and often not much worse than Amtrak coach.)

Amtrak is going to either have to get the money to build some ultra-high-speed rail or focus on corridor/short-route service for the most part if it wants to compete in the essential travel sector from major metropolitan areas to other major metropolitan areas. Long distance routes may survive under an "essential passenger transportation service" type justification, however, as many rural communities do not have the economical air travel that large metropolitan areas have.

(FWIW, I'm a "Millenial," though I speak only for myself and not the generation as a whole. :ph34r: )
Click to expand...
I'm with Jeb, even though I'm part of Generation X, not a Millennial.

Until Amtrak can get me to the west coast in fewer than three days AND comes up with some kind of slumber-coach design so I can save money without having to cuddle up next to a stranger, I'll stick with flying.

I use Amtrak LD service for leisure travel only. If I want to experience a route and see the scenery, then I use my vacation time for the train trip. If my goal is to visit another city far, far away, I fly. When I have a week off and want to see L.A. or Seattle, I'm not going to take a train there, only to get on the train the next day to come home. That's ridiculous. Try to remember that many of us who are not retired only get 1-2 weeks of vacation every year. I was lucky to have three weeks of vacation at my last job, but I was HIGHLY discouraged against using more than 1.5-2 weeks at a time.

Now, where you're going to get my money and the Millennials' money is regional service. The Michigan trains are PACKED on weekends and often sold out. If I lived on the east coast, you bet I'd be taking a train to NYC, DC, and Boston any time I felt like spending a weekend in one of those cities. If I lived somewhere on the west coast, I'd be all over the Cascades or CalTrain service.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the best example of DA's point is the Auto Train. I don't think you'll have the sheer number of people that are able to afford a full house in the Northeast and one in the Southeast in the future.
 
I'll echo what Jeb and Sarah both said. I am a Gen-Xer, by the way.

When I took my trip to Orlando, it was almost a toss-up between taking Amtrak (which I did) and flying. What tipped the scale for me was not wanting to go through the airport security procedures.

I've mentioned before that I would like to someday take the California Zephyr and/or Southwest Chief, but it really comes down to practicality for me. If I'm going to a specific event during a fixed time frame (like in Orlando), and if it's nearly cross-country, then flying would be the better option. However, if I'm on a leisurely vacation and I want to experience cross-country train travel, then I would lean toward the SWC or CZ.

At this point, Amtrak would get the most money from me via the Northeast Regionals................... :)
 
I believe Amtrak hurts Amtrak the most. Honestly, for me (a GenX'r) it's harder and harder for me to justify taking the train. The time and cost involved for even the most basic of trips is not worthwhile unless I'm alone, and that defeats the purpose of enjoying it with family.

I really wish that there were some better distance based pricing. It's ridiculous that it costs between $111 and $250 from Savannah to DC per person, each way in coach, but it's only $20 more or so to go all the way to NYP.

I can get a really restricted, no baggage, don't pick your seats round trip to Newark from Savannah for $111 ROUND TRIP. There's a LOT I can do with the time and money I save flying. And it's easier to afford to take the kids & wife.

Never mind the cost of a sleeper. I can get a REAL nice room in Manhattan for the cost of a roomette.

But all that aside, it's the lack of service, lack of communication when something goes wrong, lack of empathy towards passengers (yeah - that exists on airlines, too), the superiority complex of a few bad crew that makes riding the train outside of the NEC a novelty more than real transportation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I certainly qualify as a Boomer (born 1956), but between a parent in dementia care and college tuition for three kids I'm not exactly rolling in disposable income! In fact, I'm going to have to work to at least age 70 to make ends meet.

That said, my kids LOVE taking the train. My eldest didn't even bother with a driver's license until age 19; he much prefers public transit. I don't think he's all that uncommon. This includes LD, BTW, at least for single overnights. So, provided the trains are there, I don't think riders will be lacking.
 
Goodness no. You have it exactly backwards.

Several people have looked at the demographics. It is precisely the Boomer generation who DOESN'T ride trains. Who thinks that "road trips" are the best thing ever, who thinks that trains are "19th century technology", who thinks of flying as enjoyable, etc. etc. etc.

David Lubic has been commenting on this for years. The decline of the *pre-baby-boom* generations have been hurting Amtrak for decades. The decline of the *boomers* is *great* for Amtrak because *every subsequent generation rides trains more than they do* and *every subsequent generation likes trains more than they do*. When the Boomers are finally out of public office, we'll get reliable train funding.

ThirdRail is probably right that the Auto Train -- a strange product of car culture and Florida retirement -- will decline.

The so-called "long-distance" trains will thrive just like the corridor routes. Ever looked at who fills the overnight coaches on the Lake Shore Limited? It ain't boomers. It's younger families. Ever looked at who fills the overnight coaches on the Empire Builder going to the oilfields in North Dakota? Young singles. How about the overnight coaches from Oregon to the Bay Area? Young techies. The overnight coaches from Denver to Chicago? Etc., you get the idea. The sleepers are often a bimodal mix of really old people and the portion of the post-boomer generations who've got money.

I have stated previously that double overnights are just too slow for most people if they don't have a lot of time, but single overnights are so popular that Amtrak can charge more for a coach seat than an airplane flight does -- despite the airplane flight being quicker. This secures the ridership base of most of the so-called long-distance trains. I am not worried about the situation for the exceptions (the Empire Builder has a practicallly captive market thanks to the state of the roads and air service; the Zephyr is basically two single-overnight trains stuck together in Denver; the SWC is two single-overnight trains stuck together in Albuquerque; and the Sunset Limited is probably a hopeless route in any case).

It is worth knowing that train service, with its multiple classes of service, developed and thrived during a period of high inequality. Cars... not so much. The late 19th and early 20th century (pre-New Deal) was a world where cars were toys for the rich and upper middle class (or sometimes farm tools for the rural), while trains moved the masses of impoverished industrial workers.

As a supporter of economic equality and of train service, I'm not entirely comfortable saying this, but from what I can see, economic inequality is *good* for train service, particularly trains of the old-fashioned multi-class variety. Train service can add coaches fairly cheaply to add huge numbers of cheap seats, and can add first class or sleepers to extract a large amount of money from the pockets of the wealthy, and can run them on the same train without problem. It's possible to do this with airplanes and they sure do try, but it's harder (due to the extremely strict space and weight limits when putting something into the air -- aircraft first class is typically garbage compared to a sleeper), and completely impossible to do it cost-effectively with buses or cars. (The Rolls Royce and the Toyota both leave you sitting in a cramped seat stuck in traffic.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any train that serves cities that are homes to larger colleges and universities have an automatic and interested audience. Even our little Heartland Flyer picks up a lot of college traffic from the University of Oklahoma, some of it just going to FTW and a lot of it connecting to one of the Texas Eagles. And there are SEVERAL major colleges and universities on that route.
 
Being of the rustic minority generation and always having to put vacation time at a premium, train travel was never an option until the last few years. When I finally realized the best way to shut down, was to get on a train to relax, visit a destination for few days and then jump on a plane for the return. I wouldn't want to depend on Amtrak's time schedule though. I get a kick out of people who complain about spending a half hour going through security to catch a plane when 3-4 Hrs late on a LD train is common
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top