Boston Bound Acela Ridership Up 13%

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

AlanB

Engineer
Honored Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
28,402
Location
Queens, New York
Amtrak today reported a 13 percent increase in Acela Express ridership between Boston and New York resulting from new lower fares of $99 or less that took effect April 28.
In the five weeks since the fare reduction, Acela Express ridership north of New York increased to an average of 12,525 trips per week - up 13.1 percent from the five-week period preceding the fare change when average ridership was 11,073 trips per week.  

Amtrak also reported a 34 percent increase in the number of Boston-New York passengers opting to "step up" to Acela Express First Class service following the April 28 implementation of a $50 cap for the upgrade.  Average First Class ridership in the five weeks preceding April 28 was 1,106.  In the five weeks that followed, ridership surged to an average of 1,477.  First Class passengers enjoy at-seat meals served on china, premium wine by the glass, priority boarding where available and access to Amtrak's ClubAcela station lounges in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.

The encouraging data reflects a trend reversal in Acela Express ridership north of New York.  In the five weeks prior to the fare reduction, ridership on the high-speed service averaged 15.4 percent below the same period in 2002.  However, in the five weeks since fares were lowered, weekly ridership was up an average of 5.6 percent over last year - a shift of 21 points.  First Class ridership, which had been down an average of 24.6 percent from 2002 levels, was up an average of 9.5 percent in the five weeks after the fare change.

"Customers have responded enthusiastically to our new lower fares between Boston and New York," said Barbara J. Richardson, Amtrak Vice President of Marketing and Sales.  "In an environment of reduced travel budgets, many businesspeople have found that Acela Express is the right-on-the-money way to travel between major Northeast cities."

The lower fares have been supported by advertising in the Boston and New York markets, as well as direct passenger communication aboard trains, in stations, and online.  
The full press release can also be found here on Amtrak's website.
 
This is really a George Warrington style press release. It tries to spin success out of mediocrity.

There are 110 Acela trips each week between New York and Boston. With 12,500 weekly passengers, that is an average of 113 passengers per trip. With a passenger capacity of 302 per train, the average load factor (passengers carried divided by seating capacity) of Acela between Boston and New York is 38%. Every little bit helps, but a 38% load factor is pretty sad. Acela in the Boston to New York market needs to double ridership to be considered a success.

The fact is that the service north of New York is just too slow and too unreliable for New York to Boston business travel, and nothing short of drastic fare cuts to attract leisure passengers will fill those trains.
 
PRR 60 said:
This is really a George Warrington style press release.  It tries to spin success out of mediocrity.
There are 110 Acela trips each week between New York and Boston.  With 12,500 weekly passengers, that is an average of 113 passengers per trip.  With a passenger capacity of 302 per train, the average load factor (passengers carried divided by seating capacity) of Acela between Boston and New York is 38%.  Every little bit helps, but a 38% load factor is pretty sad.  Acela in the Boston to New York market needs to double ridership to be considered a success.  
PRR60,

I agree to a point that the numbers really aren't impressive, especially in the context that you've presented. However I think that there is more at play here than just trying to make it sound like a success.

The average traveler is not going to be aware of the numbers that you've presented. Therefore if a Boston or NY paper picks up Amtrak's press release and prints part or all of it, the average person will take note of it. To a large extent people are followers, if they think or see that someone else is doing something then they will do it too.

Ever walk by a new restaurant full of people and think I should try that? If you look in the window and there is no one inside but the staff, you might pass it by wondering what's wrong that no one else is eating there. The same applies to Acela, if people see feel good press releases they are more likely to try it themselves. If they think that no one else is using the train, then they will stay away.

PRR 60 said:
The fact is that the service north of New York is just too slow and too unreliable for New York to Boston business travel, and nothing short of drastic fare cuts to attract leisure passengers will fill those trains.
I agree that Amtrak needs to get the speeds up north of NY, however while I've heard reports here and there of late trains I don't know that I'd consider them unreliable (I'm not considering the repair problems). In a dozen trips to Boston from NY in the last year, I've only arrived seriously late once (more than 15 minutes). That time the delay was largely due to the train being late into NY from DC and missing the inbound window for the single tunnel under the Hudson. The other tunnel on the weekends is out of commission for repair work. On at least 5 occasions maybe more, I haven't really kept count, I arrived early.

Coming back to the time issue, as I said above, there is certainly room for improvement here. Even factoring in getting to and from the airport, security checks, and runway delays at LGA & Logan Amtrak is still loosing the race. They need to finish some of the improvements that are still pending on the tracks north of New Haven. They also need to finish the work at Shell Interlocking so that speeds can be increased over the current 5 MPH.

Next we need to get over this nonsense that some rich person in his pleasure boat should get priority over a train full of passengers. If the boat were full of commerce or passengers then it would be different. But someone going out for a pleasure cruise should not be dictating how many trains can go over a bridge.

Finally Amtrak really needs to put some serious pressure on the MTA and Metro North. We need to get over this nonsense that Amtrak can't run faster than 70 MPH while on MN territory. I'm not sure that I buy MN's excuse that the train tilts to far for their tracks, especially since Amtrak redesigned the Acela for that very problem. However even if MN is correct, that's still not a valid excuse to hold the train down to 70 MPH.

Amtrak’s Metroliners having been running at 125 MPH between DC and NY for over 30 years. They don't need a tilting mechanism. They infrastructure is just as old on the old Pennsy tracks as it is on the New Haven, so that's not an excuse. In my mind there is only one reason that the Acela's aren't at least pulling 110 MPH on MN tracks. That reason, MN doesn't want to have to inconvenience their rich Connecticut patrons by moving their express trains out of Acela's way.

An Acela traveling from Boston to New Haven making four stops covers 156 miles in two hours and six minutes. That same train making only one stop now takes one hour and 24 minutes to covers 75 miles. Thanks to that speed limit on MN, Acela covered 81 miles more north of New Haven using only an extra 45 minutes in travel time. If Amtrak could run at 110 MPH on the 56 miles of MN territory they could chop close to a half hour of the run time between NY & New Haven.

IMHO it's time for Amtrak to send a message to the MTA and let them know that 70 MPH is not acceptable. :angry: If the MTA doesn’t get it, well then I suspect that some serious persistant delays for LIRR trains into and out of Penn are in order. They’ll get the message then.
 
I do not doubt your personal experience with Acela, but you have been very, very lucky. The Boston to New York segment of the Acela operation has had serious and on-going reliability issues. Here are the stats for the year to date. These stats count any train up to 14 minutes late as “on-time” (the same as the DOT airline reporting criteria).

Boston to New York

January: 58% on-time; average trip length 3:43 (13 min. late)

February: 51% on-time; average trip length 3:47 (17 min. late)

March: 66% on-time; average trip length 3:42 (12 min. late)

April: 63% on-time; average trip length 3:42 (13 min. late)

May: 61% on-time; average trip length 3:41 (13 min. late)

June (to 6/20): 67% on-time; average trip length 3:39 (11 min. late)

New York to Boston

January: 68% on-time; average trip length 3:46 (13 min. late)

February: 51% on-time; average trip length 3:55 (21 min. late)

March: 61% on-time; average trip length 3:48 (15 min. late)

April: 68% on-time; average trip length 3:45 (12 min. late)

May: 63% on-time; average trip length 3:46 (14 min. late)

June (to 6/20): 76% on-time; average trip length 3:42 (11 min. late)

The problem is that the trip between New York and Boston is averaging 3 hours and 40 minutes, and only operates 10 times a day each way. Not only are you on the train for nearly 4 hours, the lack of schedule frequency can result in waiting up to two hours for the departure.

The competition are the air shuttles that fly BOS to LGA in 60 minutes, leave almost every 30 minutes, and have 90%+ on-time records. Unless Acela can reliably operate in the Boston to New York market in less than 3 hours and with at least hourly frequency, it will remain at a serious disadvantage to the shuttles.
 
Frankly, I wouldn't cry over a 10 minute delay per run. Also don't compare Acela to the airlines, because they are not the same. US Air has already cut there Shuttle flights and with the airlines you must purchase tickets a week in advance or else you'll be paying about $800 round trip, per person. Also where are the stats for Regional trains, they too take up quite a bit of the Northeast Corridor market.

The fact is Acela may take a few hours longer than a shuttle flight, but it gets you downtown to downtown, the ride is more relaxing, and the cost is quite a bit less at about $200 round trip.
 
Amfleet said:
Frankly, I wouldn't cry over a 10 minute delay per run. Also don't compare Acela to the airlines, because they are not the same. US Air has already cut there Shuttle flights and with the airlines you must purchase tickets a week in advance or else you'll be paying about $800 round trip, per person. Also where are the stats for Regional trains, they too take up quite a bit of the Northeast Corridor market.
The fact is Acela may take a few hours longer than a shuttle flight, but it gets you downtown to downtown, the ride is more relaxing, and the cost is quite a bit less at about $200 round trip.
Not to belabor the point, but Acela very definitely is in competition with the air shuttles, and between Boston and New York it is a battle Acela is losing. A couple of points:

1. Comfort: Acela wins here without a doubt.

2. Time: Most business travelers would rather spend 1 hour on a plane than nearly 4 hours on a train no matter what the comparative comfort level. Look at it this way. You live in the Boston Area, and have a 10a to 2p meeting in Manhattan. To make that meeting, you can catch the 7am shuttle at Logan, get to LGA at 8, cab to Manhattan easily in time for the 10a start. Heading home you catch a cab a 2p, get the 3:30p shuttle, you’re back at Logan at 4:30p. For Acela, you need to catch the 5:15a at South Station to get to Penn at 8:45 (maybe) and a cab to the 10a meeting. If Acela were reliable, you might chance the 6:15a departure, but considering the poor on-time performance, the 5:15 is the better bet. Leave at 2p, hopefully catch the 3:03p return, getting to South Station at 6:29p (maybe). Acela costs you an extra 4 hours.

3. Convenience: The often-cited “downtown to downtown” advantage of the train is way overplayed. On one end, it is likely that the traveler is leaving from home, and it is likely that home is not downtown. Using my own situation, I can get from home (Cherry Hill, NJ) to Philadelphia International easier than I can get to 30th Street Station. For many in the Boston area, Logan may be more convenient than South Station.

4. Schedule: Amtrak has 10 trains each weekday, with 2 hour frequency between trains during the mid-day. The last train leaves Boston at 5:15p, and New York at 7p. Between US Airways (15 flights) and Delta (16 flights), the shuttles have flights every 30 minutes from 6a to 9p each way. That is not counting the American Eagle service. Using the air shuttles, you can even have an early dinner with a client in New York and still get home that evening. With Acela that is not possible.

5. Cost: The fare differential is not as great as you think. The round trip, unrestricted “walk-up” fare for the air shuttles is $446 verses $198 for Acela. However, various discounts for advance purchase, or bulk purchase can significantly reduce the airfare. For example, if you can buy a Shuttle Smart Pack which offers four unrestricted, walk-up roundtrips for the price of three ($334.50 round trip). Or you can buy your ticket 7 days in advance, fly at off-times (10a to 2p, after 7p, or weekend), and pay under $200 round trip. Other than the weekend fares, there are no discounts available for Acela.

6. On-time reliability. Absolutely no contest. The air shuttles are regularly posting 90% on-time rates, and Acela rarely hits even 70%. Second only to the inability to run Boston to New York in under three hours, this to me has been the biggest disappointment in the Acela operation. Amtrak just can’t run that service on-time.

4. Regional trains: The Regional service to too slow to be a player in the business travel market. The Regionals are not a factor.

This is not to say that Acela isn’t a nice ride. It is. But the fact is that it is too slow, too unreliable, and runs too infrequently to effectively compete with the air shuttles in the Boston - New York market.
 
PRR60,

I do agree with much of what you’ve said and in fact I wasn’t aware that the on-time stats were quite as bad as they are. I do want to comment on a few of the points that you’ve made though.

I certainly agree, as mentioned in my post above, that Amtrak needs to get the travel time from NYP to Boston down. Also while I suspect that there are people who only compare the actual flight time vs. the actual train travel time, that’s not really a fair comparison. While I think that the idea of needing to show up earlier for the plane vs. the train is somewhat over blown, it is nonetheless true that one can basically get to the train station with only a minute or two to spare. However realistically one should show up for either mode at least ½ hour early if one is smart.

Where Acela does gain an advantage is getting from the airport to your ultimate destination. I have no experience with Logan since I always take the train to Boston. However since I live less than five minutes from LGA I can tell you that unless your final destination is at the mouth of the Midtown tunnel you will need at least ½ hour in a cab and quite possibly more depending on your ultimate destination. So on this side being downtown does add to the convenience of Acela. Yes that half hour doesn’t make travel times equal but it does bring total time needed to fly much closer to two hours now.

I will also add that even though I can reach LGA from home in five minutes without traffic, it’s pretty rare that I encounter that condition. Usually I need to allow at least 15 minutes. I can reach Penn in 15 minutes too. Now to be fair most people don’t live just a few blocks from the LIRR’s Woodside train station, but there are many people who live on Long Island. They also can reach Penn just as quickly on the LIRR as they can drive to LGA from their respective homes.

It should also be noted that in your example thanks to the times that you picked, the traveler was leaving from home. That is clearly not the case for many people. Otherwise there would be no need for shuttles between the hours of 10:00 AM and say 2:00 PM. People flying during those times have most likely gone to their offices for a little work, before heading out to the airport. In that case they need to again allow for at least a half hour and to be safe they need to allow more.

All that said there is still no doubt that Amtrak must get the Acela run time much closer to 3 hours if not even slightly below that mark. This will give them the advantage that they need to really compete with the airline shuttles. Yes a few more frequencies will help too, but the killer is the run time. When you start comparing an average trip time of three hours including short cab rides vs. two to two and a half hour flights with cabs rides, the air shuttle advantage fades.

Especially once you factor in the comfort levels of Acela, then add in the ability to get food & alcohol while on board. Finally Acela does offer you the ability to be productive during your trip. One can hold a meeting at one of the tables, one can use their laptop, and finally one can stay in touch with their cell phone (assuming that you picked the right provider).

Now moving over to the reliability factor, as I mentioned I wasn’t aware that the stats were that bad. That also is no doubt hurting Acela badly. I’m sure that part of the blame does rest with Amtrak here; just like any travel mode there are occasionally problems. I also think that Bombardier shares some of the blame too, especially since they are under contract to provide the maintenance for the Acela’s. Not to mention the major design issues that Bombardier is responsible for.

However I also feel that a big part of the problem lies again with Metro North. While my track record wasn’t bad in terms of lateness, with one exception every time I was late it occurred while on Metro North tracks. In this case I’m considering even 5 minutes off the mark as late. I constantly find that we have to slow down for a Metro North train or Metro North construction. While I have no stats with which to prove it, I would not be shocked to learn that MN is responsible for 50% of the late Acela’s. I’m sure that they certainly can be blamed for at least 30% of the late trains.

I know that I’m really bashing Metro North here, but the simple fact is that they are currently the biggest thorn is Amtrak’s side when it comes to the Acela service. It’s the one variable that Amtrak has absolutely no control over. Just like happens with the freight RR’s, Amtrak comes out the looser. The MTA must fix the problem with Metro North or Amtrak must start treating the LIRR the same way that Metro North treats them.
 
I was just reading the latest issue of National Corridors Initiative, which provides a very reliable source of passenger rail and other rail informaton. In the June 23 issue they listed the ontime performance of Amtrak trains from October 1 to June 13. This article also talks about the gain in Acela ridership.

PRR60, I'm very curious as to where you have been finding your stats on Amtrak's and the airlines ontime performance.
 
Amfleet said:
PRR60, I'm very curious as to where you have been finding your stats on Amtrak's and the airlines ontime performance.
First, the easy answer: Airline on time statistics are reported monthly to the DOT and are available on the internet. The web site is:

http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/SummaryStatistics/

Just go to that site, select the “origin and destination airport” option, and you can find the on-time stats for all the major airlines, city pairs, and for any time period you wish. Data is posted about 5 weeks after the end of the month.

Now if only Amtrak was that easy.

Acela first launched back in late 2000. On January 11, 2001 Amtrak issued a press release touting the on-time record of the single weekday Acela roundtrip verses the air shuttle operations (http://www.amtrak.com/press/ATK-011101-03.html). My curiosity was raised. I wondered how Acela would standup when multiple trips were running and Amtrak could no longer clear the road as they were doing for the single round trip. So, in February 2000 I began logging the arrival times of each and every Acela trip as listed on the “Train Status” feature of Amtrak.com. At first that was 80 trains each month. Now it is over 1400 trains monthly. I check the Amtrak site every three days or so and transcribe the status of all the Acela and Metroliner trips into an Excel spreadsheet. I look at Boston - New York as one city pair, and New York - Washington a second city pair. A train that runs through from Boston to Washington is counted twice.

The spreadsheet crunches that raw arrival time data and gives me all kinds of neat info such as: on-time rates for any selected arrival tolerance (14 minutes is the DOT standard), average trip time, and average minutes late (or early). The data is further broken down by Acela and Metroliner, day of the week, time of day, you name it.. At the end of each month I post a summary and some detailed data on another rail discussion site, along with a side-by-side comparison with the air competition.

Why do I do this? Well, I think it is an interesting and entirely objective measure of Acela’s performance. Amtrak, unlike the airlines, has no obligation to post the data and they keep most operational statistics secret. When Amtrak elects to make this data public themselves, and I have confidence that the data released by Amtrak is accurate, I will gladly retire my spreadsheet. Until then, I will dutifully check each and every arrival, record the data, and post the results. Besides, in a strange way it's kind of fun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top