Do people love or hate Amtrak?

I would challenge that assertion about millennials. Now given I've only ridden on the NEC and the Downeaster, but I seem to recall the majority of my fellow passengers being younger folks, often annoyed about inconsistent wifi service and the like.

Also many of my friends here in Boston often take Amtrak when they go home to visit family in PA, NJ, NY, or CT.

It would then make sense for Amtrak to be experiencing record ridership at a time when young people are shunning cars in favor of urban, transit-dependent living.

However I would expect the reverse to be true for long-distance trains. Given that they are essentially land cruises, I would expect them to be primarily patronized by old, retired folks who can spend a week cruising across the west.

I don't doubt that Amtrak is experiencing growth with the Millenial generation. However, their market-share I would think is pitiful. Everywhere I go if someone is recommending ways of travel, it is rarely by train. People always suggest Megabus, Bolt Bus, or a similar service over Amtrak because of the ticket price. Often driving is the same price as taking the train so it doesn't provide much incentive to take the train instead. Millenials are not as financially well off as other generations both because of their age and the economy. So ticket price is a big factor in deciding which mode to take.

I don't have any concrete numbers to back this claim up, just from anecdotal experience. I'd like to see some research regarding this issue. It's pretty well established that Millennials are much more inclined to use transit in general, especially within the city. But when it comes to intercity travel, I don't see a strong movement to specifically use Amtrak.

deathtopumpkins wrote:. . . long-distance trains. Given that they are essentially land cruises, I would expect them to be primarily patronized by old, retired folks who can spend a week cruising across the west.

Do we have to debunk this tired, bogus stuff yet again? Guess so.

Your expectations are ignorant.

Fact is that more than 90% of the passengers on a western long distance train are not going end to end, much less end to end and back again. So "a week cruising the west" is very damn rare indeed, perhaps thousands out of the million plus riders. The trains are NOT land cruises (and if they were, revenues and results would improve, because cruisers pay steeply for sleepers and dining service). That is a lie about Amtrak told by haters and repeated by those ignorant of the facts.

Instead, the vast majority of passengers are going part way, like Chicago to Kansas City, Chicago to Galesburg, Galesburg to Topeka, Kansas City to Dodge City, Raton to Albuquerque, Kansas City to Flagstaff, Flagstaff to San Bernadino, Albuquerque to L.A. -- and a single seat Chicago-L.A. can be occupied by three, four, or five different passengers one after another. Trips too short to be cruises.

It follows that more than 90% of the passengers on these long distance trains are NOT riding for the scenery. Surveys show that they are going to visit family or doctors, making appointments for business and professional reasons, riding to or from college, using the trains the same way that you do.

The demographics of the Plains States and much of the Mountain West skews older, so the passengers reflect that. But the crack about "old, retired folks" -- being different from you, somehow, and what, less worthy? -- seems just snotty ageism. Please wipe you nose.

Why does every differing opinion on this site always have to be met with personal insults?

I'm a supporter of Amtrak. I wasn't saying anything negative. I just think that the demographics of passengers on long distance trains are likely to be older than passengers on corridor trains, based on my experience and logical assumptions.

deathtopumpkins wrote:Why does every differing opinion on this site always have to be
met with personal insults?

I'm a supporter of Amtrak. I wasn't saying anything negative. I just think that the demographics of passengers on long distance trains are likely to be older than passengers on corridor trains, based on my experience and logical assumptions.

"I wasn't saying anything negative." I took it differently: propaganda-fed opinion contrary to facts. Though I'll accept that your intent may have been harmless.

"Land cruises" is an extremely negative phrase. It's a cute capsule of the ugly claim that these trains are luxuries for the few, subsidized by the rest of us.

The haters want to divide and conquer Amtrak supporters, pitting corridor riders against long distance riders. So I expect to hear "land cruises" from the haters, not from a supporter of Amtrak.

Let's look again at facts re the Southwest Chief that I referred to before, chosen because a possible route change is being hotly debated hereabouts.
Source: NARP, http://www.narprail.org/resources/ridership-statistics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

The Fact Sheet shows the end-to-end trip length to be 2,256 miles. But Chicago-L.A. is only the third ranked city pair, behind Chicago-Kansas City and Albuquerque-L.A. All riders between Chicago and several California stops plus all riders from L.A. to several Illinois stops, the trips of 2,000 miles or more, amount to merely 14.2% of the Chief's total.

Even counting all sleeper passengers as old, retired cruisers on a vacation -- and ignoring the fact that business people and old, retired people going to medical appointments as well as others use sleepers -- the sleeper pax are 61,000 out of 349,000 total, barely 17%, or 1 out of 6.

The 83% of riders in coach, 4 out of 5, travel on average 773 miles, about 1/3rd of the distance L.A.-Chicago. And I'll assert that riders not in a sleeper, especially those sitting in coach thru one or two overnights, can't be "land cruising". They're simply trying to get from here to there as best they can.

Surely no one will claim Chicago-Kansas City (the number one city pair) as a "land cruise"; it's a corridor served by a LD train. Even ABQ-L.A., (the second most popular segment) at 924 miles with one overnight, hardly seems a "land cruise" since it sails past the Grand Canyon stops.

Granted that L.A.-Flagstaff at 565 miles actually could include a lot of tourists, along with others having other reasons for going to Flagstaff or to L.A. Yet passengers traveling more than 500 but less than 600 miles (and so including for example, Chicago-Kansas stops as well as L.A.-Flagstaff), all these amount to only 8.4% of the Chief's riders. Again this suggests that tourists are less than 10% of the Southwest Chief's passengers. Those who might be "cruising" for a week are extremely rare.

Furthermore, the average sleeper trip is 1,391 miles, not quite 2/3rds of the end-to-end length. That's about the length of Chicago-ABQ, implying that many if not most sleeper riders have business, family and other personal, or medical reasons for traveling and they aren't heading to the Grand Canyon or Sedona.

Anyway, if you wash the hateful phrase "land cruises" out of your vocabulary, I'll try to calm down and avoid future insults.

Edited by a Moderator (compact the page).

Or you could just avoid the insults to begin with and try to maturely respond to his points.

trainmaster611 wrote:I don't doubt that Amtrak is experiencing growth with the Millenial generation. However, their market-share I would think is pitiful. Everywhere I go if someone is recommending ways of travel, it is rarely by train. People always suggest Megabus, Bolt Bus, or a similar service over Amtrak because of the ticket price. Often driving is the same price as taking the train so it doesn't provide much incentive to take the train instead. Millenials are not as financially well off as other generations both because of their age and the economy. So ticket price is a big factor in deciding which mode to take.

I don't have any concrete numbers to back this claim up, just from anecdotal experience. I'd like to see some research regarding this issue. It's pretty well established that Millennials are much more inclined to use transit in general, especially within the city. But when it comes to intercity travel, I don't see a strong movement to specifically use Amtrak.

Just to expand on my point and get us back on track, I looked up prices for tickets going between Washington DC and New York City. Here is a price comparison for the lowest price given for July 30:

Megabus: $12
Bolt Bus: $14
Amtrak: $84
Flying: $119

You can see why Millenials would not have a hard time making a decision about which travel option to take and why Amtrak is not nearly as popular.

As an individual and millennial, I sure as hell prefer taking the train or other public transit over driving; I take the train to college, and then transfer to a bus to get there. Albeit, it's Shore Line East, not Amtrak, as Amtrak doesn't provide monthly ticketing or anything even approaching that for more local travel.

And in the experience of my group of friends, most of who aren't millennials, they have the preference as well. We often travel up and down the East Coast for conventions, and the Regionals are the preferred method on transportation. Transporting large props isn't something you get to do on trains, so often driving or taking the bus is the only other solution. Expenses are there as well, as chinabuses or even Greyhound is cheap as hell. No one ever likes taking coach buses, however. I've yet to talk to anyone who's had a single positive experience on a coach bus. It's more a thing of necessity


And for a not-anecdotal entry, there's just about as many reasons for and against Amtrak as there are people. For some people, it's a political: some people see it the government's duty to step in where little private enterprises will, and others see it as an invasion of a centralized government or European Socialism. There's also the tried-and-true idea of not wanting to pay taxes for something they won't use (which is contrary to the entire concept of taxation, but I digress). For others, it's cultural: there are some who see passenger trains compromising Individuality by taking vehicles off the road, and others from those same rural areas who see the trains as a way to the outside world. Personal attachments and conflicts of interest are definitely a thing, too: I doubt many economically involved with the more openly hostile freight railroads, nor those with Amtrak are going to be vowing out of their interests. And around this website, we all certainly like trains, but we all have visions of what we want railroading to be.

Ultimately, though, the conclusion I would draw is that it comes down to if people see the goal of Amtrak as being a service like roads or in vein of the Transit Authorities cities have but on a larger scale, something more in the vein of the original goals with Amtrak (and Conrail, as well) to make a profitable, non-government controlled corporation, or just "not my problem". I have a feeling that just like really any other political topic, there's much more in the crowd of "meh", "don't care", and "not my problem", which gives more room for the people more passionate about the issue, be it positive or negative.

YamaOfParadise wrote: ... as Amtrak doesn't provide monthly ticketing or anything even approaching that for more local travel.

http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak/multiride

YamaOfParadise wrote:As an individual and millennial, I sure as hell prefer taking the train or other public transit over driving; I take the train to college, and then transfer to a bus to get there. Albeit, it's Shore Line East, not Amtrak, as Amtrak doesn't provide monthly ticketing or anything even approaching that for more local travel.

That's pretty much the opinion of the millenial generation in general too. Transit in general is well regarded. However, the problem is specifically with Amtrak and its prices. While no one would prefer to ride a coach over a train, it's hard sell when Amtrak tickets are twice as expensive or more.

You mention whether Amtrak should be treated as a service or not. I would say yes. Transit systems around the country are treated as a service and Amtrak should be no different. We already know it's more cost effective to transport people by train when you take into account infrastructure costs and externalities so there's no reason Amtrak should be more expensive than a bus. Honestly our federal government needs to invest in and subsidize Amtrak to a level where it is treated as a service and not a struggling business begging for handouts. Ticket prices need to go down and service needs to be improved. Amtrak has the potential to be the mass transit equivalent for the interstate highway system but we haven't unlocked that potential yet.