Passngers Now vs 1940's are about the same

[dlagrua]

One thing that puzzles me is how the current day Amtrak ridership relates to the number of routes. Currently Amtrak is on target to serve approximately 30 million passengers in FY 2011. This is almost the exact same amount of passengers as back in the 1940's during the Golden Age of Passenger railroads.

Now for the big question. If in fact todays passenger load is exactly the same as it was in the 1940's how come we have only a fraction of the passenger rail routes that we had back then? I just can't figure it out.

With 7 continusous years of steady growth it should be obvious the new routes will increase revenue. We can only hope that Washington wil recognize that passenger rail may be the future of day and overnight transportation in this country. Gas prices show no sign of letting up and I predict that 10% growth is not only very possible but very likely to happen.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Here's a difference. It is actually quite obvious... We have more people, and planes now. Cross country travel and vacations were not available to everybody as it is now...

 

[TacoMan]

if the numbers they serve now are the same then in actuality they have lost a lot of business when you take population then and now into consideration. Also, you must consider a few routes in the Northeast will probably be where most of their business happens.

 

[TransitGeek]

if the numbers they serve now are the same then in actuality they have lost a lot of business when you take population then and now into consideration. Also, you must consider a few routes in the Northeast will probably be where most of their business happens.

This. While the number of boardings may be the same, the pattern of boardings is no doubt very different. During the "golden age," the railways handled a lot of long-distance travelers. Only the super-rich could afford to fly. Now, the most well-traveled routes in the Amtrak system are the NEC and the California corridors, with probably some respectable competition coming from the Cascades and the medium-distance trains in the Midwest. Given the choice between three days on a train and six hours on a plane, the choice is often the latter- especially for business travelers, who really don't have a choice.

 

[WICT106]

One major quibble regarding this: The Revenue Passenger Miles were huge, and I mean huge, for the 1940s. I seem to recall something on the order of 970+ billion revenue passenger miles during the World War Two years, followed by a dropoff. According to "All Aboard," by George Douglas, there were over 600 million riders during 1944, and 246 million riders during 1949.

That's a lot more than what Amtrak has carried in a year, ever. Amtrak generated 5.557 billion RPMs in 2004 (couldn't find statistics for 2010). Amtrak's greatest amount of RPMs was in 1991, with 6.273 billion.

 

[zephyr17]

In some areas, there is actually more service. I am not sure about the NEC, but my feeling is there might well be more service there than during the 40s. I do know that between Santa Barbara-Los Angeles-San Diego there is considerably more service now than in the 40s. There is more service between the Bay Area and Sacramento as well. The Cal P is well on its way to being a primarily passenger railroad. I think that the Cascades corridor may also have more passenger service than the 40s in the near future. The complexion of rail travel is considerably different than the 40s, but overall the outlook is not nearly as bleak as it was in the 60s and 70s.

As a side note, having been there in the beginning of Amtrak, it simply amazes me that passenger survived these last 40 years and the current picture, while not great, is considerably brighter than it was a couple of decades ago. Rail passenger travel then was pretty much considered a terminal case by even many of its supporters and proponents, and we were just trying to see how much longer we could keep what little was left on life support. It felt like just a matter of time before it was completely gone, and Railpax/Amtrak was just some window dressing so the politicians could say, well, we tried.

 

[jphjaxfl]

In the 1940s and 1950s, business people still traveled by train, because the air system wasn't as developed as it is now. Business travelers were reimbursed for traveling via Pullman, though some businesses like the Federal government only reimbursed for berths. Dining car meals were reimbursed.

Now if you mentioned taking a business trip by train outside the NEC, companies look at you like you are crazy. Back in the 1950s as a kid when our family traveled, it was taken for granted it would be by train....it was the question of which railroad and which train we would take. My Dad worked for the New York Central so that offered the best deal for us, but we used to do others. One time we took the Nickle Plate/Lackawanna from Chicago to New York. At some places, you actually followed the NYC tracks, but it was something different and fun to see the differences in operations like dining cars etc. I think there were a lot more people traveling by train then compared to now. It easy to make contraversial statements if you didn't have any experience taking trains back in the day when it was the major mode of intercity travel.

 

[HotlantaAl]

Another major difference between now and the 1940s is the Interstate Highway system. Also, the average car today can handle a cross county trip where in the 1940 it was doubtful. Car production had to stop completely during the war and it took awhile to ramp back up after the war. During the war there was also gas rationing so that forced more train travel.

 

[jis]

To get a complete picture shouldn't the ridership of Amtrak and all the commuter agencies, specially the large ones be taken into consideration? Similarly the revenue passenger miles figure should include the whole lot,no? Just wondering.

 

[Ryan]

With 7 continusous years of steady growth it should be obvious the new routes will increase revenue.

Unfortunately it will also increase cost and more than likely the increased costs will be greater than the increased revenue.

I predict that 10% growth is not only very possible but very likely to happen.

Over what time frame?

To get a complete picture shouldn't the ridership of Amtrak and all the commuter agencies, specially the large ones be taken into consideration? Similarly the revenue passenger miles figure should include the whole lot,no? Just wondering.

I agree.

 

[dlagrua]

What I am concluding in this discussion is that while the number of passengers back in the 1940's may have been the same as today, as WICT106 has pointed out, the passenger revenue mileage was far greater as everyone in that era took short and long distance trains. Today the Amtrak passenger load may be primarily focused in the NEC, a basically short distance run and N-S in Calif. on the San Francisco to San Diego trains.

In 1940 the population of the United states was about 122 million. The passenger numbers were in fact in the 30+ million range. Today Amtrak serves this amount of passengers with far fewer routes with a comparatively light amount of cross country passengers. Therefore the passenger revenue miles is the main factor, not the total amount of travelers. Still, lets suppose that Amtrak added back routes i'e. Floridian, Desert Wind, Broadway Ltd.; would the number of rail passengers increase? I would think that they would.

At NTD Philadelphia the impression that I got was that many people were impressed with the Viewliner Tour. Will more people ride Amtrak in 2011?

I'd say its likely.

 

[ScottC4746]

Here's a difference. It is actually quite obvious... We have more people, and planes now. Cross country travel and vacations were not available to everybody as it is now...

Another thing to remember is in the 40's the trains owned the tracks. For the most part, Amtrak has to lease or rent the tracks to use. One drawback in the 40's for example was my grandmother told me about taking the train from Houston to Spartanburg and going Houston to New Orleans and then taking a cab to the station across town to take the train to Spartanburg. I may get the companies wrong but I think it was SP from HOU-NOL and then Soutern from NOL - Spartanburg. You would not see trains in the wrong owned station IE Southern would not be in SP and viseversa unless it was a Union Station (as I understood it).

 

[The Davy Crockett]

With 7 continusous years of steady growth it should be obvious the new routes will increase revenue.

Unfortunately it will also increase cost and more than likely the increased costs will be greater than the increased revenue.

It is like the old retail sales joke: "We lose money with every sale, but make up for it in volume."

Unfortunately, this is a lot like the dilema Amtrak finds itself in, as increased ridership does not cover costs, let alone provide money for growth. What is needed for expansion is a political climate which values rail passenger service enough to consistently provide funding in the long term - just like the environment which allowed for the massive expansion of our highway system.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Here's a difference. It is actually quite obvious... We have more people, and planes now. Cross country travel and vacations were not available to everybody as it is now...

Another thing to remember is in the 40's the trains owned the tracks. For the most part, Amtrak has to lease or rent the tracks to use. One drawback in the 40's for example was my grandmother told me about taking the train from Houston to Spartanburg and going Houston to New Orleans and then taking a cab to the station across town to take the train to Spartanburg. I may get the companies wrong but I think it was SP from HOU-NOL and then Soutern from NOL - Spartanburg. You would not see trains in the wrong owned station IE Southern would not be in SP and viseversa unless it was a Union Station (as I understood it).

I am not sure about the "Union Station" thing having that exact meaning. I would like to hear from others about that.

It might have had that meaning originally but I am not sure that it was meticulously followed all over the country and for all times. For example, Atlanta had two stations, one called Union Station and one called Terminal Station yet four different roads operated out of each.

Of course some of the railroads with different names may have been connected with each other behind the scenes in business ways not commonly known to us laymen.

The route would indeed be Southern Pacific from HOU to NOL.

From New Orleans, two routes were available:

1. present day route via Meridian and Birmingham, Southern all the way.

2; NOL to Montgomery, Louisville and Nashville; Montgomery to Atlanta, Atlanta and West Point, and Atlanta to Spartanburg, Southern.

Since the route via Meridian and Birmingham has survived to this day I think folks have forgotten the more traveled route (initially at least) from via Mobile and Montgomery.

About 1954 A new station was built in NOL, called Union Station, and all the lines called there.

 

[TWA904]

The number of riders today may be the same as in the 40's, but Amtrak has no one to blame for

that but themselves. Everyone needs to go to the web sight of the United Rail Passenger Alliance and read articles by J. Bruce Richardson and Andrew Selden about the future. Aren't these two guys supposed to be experts in the field of rail passenger travel? If Selden's

matrix projections on expanding the system are correct, it would take 3 or 4 trains a day just

to handle the increased loads on the Southwest Chief.

Years ago Congress forced Amtrak to extend the Palmetto from Savannah to Jacksonville, Amtrak's studies and projection were that the local passengers between the two points. Amtrak failed to take into consideration the additional passengers to/from Jacksonville from cities

north of Savannah.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

The number of riders today may be the same as in the 40's, but Amtrak has no one to blame for

that but themselves.

I'm sorry, but would you please clarify this statement? What is Amtrak's fault? The huge sums of tax dollars that go to highways? Amtrak's increasing ridership? That Amtrak is subject to micromanagement by Congress?

 

[Ispolkom]

I am not sure about the "Union Station" thing having that exact meaning. I would like to hear from others about that.

It might have had that meaning originally but I am not sure that it was meticulously followed all over the country and for all times. For example, Atlanta had two stations, one called Union Station and one called Terminal Station yet four different roads operated out of each.

Other data points: in Minneapolis the Great Northern Station was used by a variety of railroads, as was the Milwaukee Road station. Across the river in St. Paul, all railroads used Union Depot. I believe a state law was passed that allowed St. Paul to force them to use Union Depot.

On the other hand, even small towns could have more than one station. Little Minot, North Dakota, had two separate railroad stations less than 200 yards apart, even though the Soo Line (now Canadian Pacific) crosses the Great Northern (now BNSF)just a few yards from the Great Northern (now Amtrak) depot.

 

[ButFli]

What is needed for expansion is a political climate which values rail passenger service enough to consistently provide funding in the long term - just like the environment which allowed for the massive expansion of our highway system.

Or what is actually required is passengers prepared to pay a fare that covers the cost of providing the service. Of course, for that to happen the subsidy on interstates and airports would have to be dropped too. Reduce taxes and let the people decide where their money should go by choosing to pay to use an interstate, airport or rail.

That is sounding very Tea Party of me, isn't it? Funny how Tea Partiers never seem to mention small-government as it might apply to interstates and airports. I guess Amtrak hasn't paid the right lobbyists.

 

[AlanB]

To get a complete picture shouldn't the ridership of Amtrak and all the commuter agencies, specially the large ones be taken into consideration? Similarly the revenue passenger miles figure should include the whole lot,no? Just wondering.

Yes it should be taken into consideration. According to data from APTA, in 2009 RPM's for the commuter RR's was 11.232 Billion, Amtrak in 2008 had 5.897 million to bring to the party.

I don't know the old numbers included subways & trolleys (aka light rail), but those numbers were 16.805 billion and 2.199 billion in 2009.

 

[Ryan]

What is needed for expansion is a political climate which values rail passenger service enough to consistently provide funding in the long term - just like the environment which allowed for the massive expansion of our highway system.

Or what is actually required is passengers prepared to pay a fare that covers the cost of providing the service. Of course, for that to happen the subsidy on interstates and airports would have to be dropped too. Reduce taxes and let the people decide where their money should go by choosing to pay to use an interstate, airport or rail.

That is sounding very Tea Party of me, isn't it? Funny how Tea Partiers never seem to mention small-government as it might apply to interstates and airports. I guess Amtrak hasn't paid the right lobbyists.

That's because that notion is a ridiculous fantasy that will never come to pass.

 

[jis]

What is needed for expansion is a political climate which values rail passenger service enough to consistently provide funding in the long term - just like the environment which allowed for the massive expansion of our highway system.

Or what is actually required is passengers prepared to pay a fare that covers the cost of providing the service. Of course, for that to happen the subsidy on interstates and airports would have to be dropped too. Reduce taxes and let the people decide where their money should go by choosing to pay to use an interstate, airport or rail.

That is sounding very Tea Party of me, isn't it? Funny how Tea Partiers never seem to mention small-government as it might apply to interstates and airports. I guess Amtrak hasn't paid the right lobbyists.

That's because that notion is a ridiculous fantasy that will never come to pass.

I agree it is quite an impractical and silly idea IMHO of course. It is sort of like saying instead of including the elevator and the stairs in the building lease charges we will reduce the lease charges to zero and let everyone pay a toll each time they get on an elevator or use the stairs or use the toilet or sit in their cube. How quaint!

 

[WICT106]

One other thing: I suspect that the passenger traffic was a great deal more than 30 million in 1944. I think it may have been over 1 billion, but I have no source, and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics website doesn't appear to have the Stats from the 1940s era.

It has also been difficult to locate the number of Revenue Passenger Miles for Amtrak for 2010.

 

[Eric S]

One other thing: I suspect that the passenger traffic was a great deal more than 30 million in 1944. I think it may have been over 1 billion, but I have no source, and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics website doesn't appear to have the Stats from the 1940s era.

It has also been difficult to locate the number of Revenue Passenger Miles for Amtrak for 2010.

I suspect you are correct. I'm curious if anyone has a reference for this number.

 

[AlanB]

It has also been difficult to locate the number of Revenue Passenger Miles for Amtrak for 2010.

6,332,074

 

[Ispolkom]

It has also been difficult to locate the number of Revenue Passenger Miles for Amtrak for 2010.

6,332,074

Should there be three more zeros there?