Large Cities w/o great ridership numbers

If I may quote from the Cardinal forum:

David Benton wrote:Population does not always mean ridership, many big cities don't have large ridership figures and v.v.

I think this is worth exploring and want to posit 3 reasons and get your thoughts:

1) Too few trains. Example: Atlanta. One train a day in each direction doesn't permit much ridership. But, that one train does do pretty well.
2) Horrible times. Example: Toledo. Yes, I've gotten on and off here for Ann Arbor, but realistically, it's not very practical.
3) "Tradition". Not sure of an example, but I'd say some cities would probably take more to trains than others. i.e. it's ingrained in them as a possibility. I'll use Albany as a counter example here. It seems its ridership is outsized compared to the local population. Yeah, being close to NYC helps, but I think too, it's simply assumed, "the train is a possibility"

For the first two, it seems "more trains" is part of the answer. i.e. a train that arrived/departed Toledo during daylight hours would probably help.
For Atlanta, I think no doubt a day train to WAS could be supported.

But, what about the 3rd cities. Is this a real problem? I mean would Toledo generate enough ridership with a practical train or is "highway driving" so ingrained it would be a hard sell?

Thoughts?

I think when I have some time I'll try to calculate 'metro population per passengers per departure'

Let's see...
Denver
Albuquerque
Omaha
Kansas City
Phoenix
El Paso

What do all these cities have in common (save KC)?

1 movement/direction/day ... and even KC has but 3...

I'm not sure if any city would fall under the "tradition" category. I think if any big city with "good" intercity trains they would ride them. Of course lack of trains and awful times (like Cleveland and Cincinnati) would make trains less attractive. You mentioned Albany? According to Station Aficianado's post (viewtopic.php?f=46&t=164096" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), Albany is #9. I wouldn't put them in the category of without great ridership numbers.

Buffalo, NY has two stations and I bet the ridership numbers aren't that high.

Atlanta is a good example but compare it to Tampa with much higher ridership. Tampa == better destinations.

John_Perkowski wrote:Let's see...
Denver
Albuquerque
Omaha
Kansas City
Phoenix
El Paso

What do all these cities have in common (save KC)?

1 movement/direction/day ... and even KC has but 3...

Actually, El Paso doesn't see one train per direction per day. It sees 6 trains per week for both directions, that's less than half a train per direction per day. Therefore, the largest city with the smallest ridership should be Houston.

I suggest (4) how many people own cars and (5) how far they are willing to drive them. Maybe both are part of "tradition".

Re (4): Partly depends on local public transportation. Partly depends on the habits of the local colleges as to allowing banning charging for helping students have cars. Once someone is paying to own a car, driving is often cheaper than train in terms of current, avoidable costs.

Re (5): I moved out of New England I was really surpirsed how far people are willing to drive for a day trip or for a weekend. As a Boston kid I figured a couple hours each way was the absolute outside of a daytrip, but here I know people who do three. I was also surprised at how far people will drive all at onece. All my Denver and Salt Lake relatives think it's reasonable to do the 500 miles between them with just one or two stops. Some of them will do Denver Phoenix with no hotel, driving shifts. Maybe it was just my family but I think northeasterners are less likely to do that, and more likely to fly or maybe think of trains.

And what about 6, number of nearby destinations? A lot of midwestern and western cities don't have many good places to go within a few hours of train, especially good places to be eithout your car.

Cincinnati deserves a mention, too.

Phoenix is"served" (via bus)by Maricopa Az.
You might want to add Tucson Az to the list.

Backshophoss wrote:Phoenix is"served" (via bus)by Maricopa Az.
You might want to add Tucson Az to the list.

It's worse than that.
Phoenix doesn't even have a bus! The PRIIA study said they'd contacted the bus and limo companies at the airport. They all said they'd be interested in serving the Amtrak station for a daily train. But 3 days a week, thanks anyway. What would they do with the drivers and buses on the other 4 days?

Tucson should be on the list, of course.

BTW, I'll have to admit, I used the word "tradition" because at the time (and I still can't) I really couldn't think of a good word for it.

Perhaps culture is a better word.
Consider the difference between NYC where mass-transit is considered the norm and many residents never even bother with a driver's license vs. LA which is like the exact opposite.

So in place of tradition, I think culture works.

Yes, some of it may be a result of never really having strong rail connectivity, but I'm thinking the more recent changes.

Consider Atlanta, a city founded on rail, that was once a southern (and Southern hub but is now devoid of any real rail service (and even expanding its local metro system has hit resistance.)

Let's be honest.

Amtrak, outside selected areas, exists as a funding mechanism for the Corridor. Even Mr Moorman in his recent speech came out and said so.

Unless/until fuel prices become insane enough that air travel is a non-starter ... or unless/until air pollution by air becomes a major environmental cause, many cities are going to see 1/direction/day, come what may.

Greg Moore wrote:BTW, I'll have to admit, I used the word "tradition" because at the time (and I still can't) I really couldn't think of a good word for it.

Perhaps culture is a better word.
Consider the difference between NYC where mass-transit is considered the norm and many residents never even bother with a driver's license vs. LA which is like the exact opposite.

So in place of tradition, I think culture works.

Yes, some of it may be a result of never really having strong rail connectivity, but I'm thinking the more recent changes.

Consider Atlanta, a city founded on rail, that was once a southern (and Southern hub but is now devoid of any real rail service (and even expanding its local metro system has hit resistance.)

Fresno and Bakersfield do very well even though they are driving cities with abysmal local transit.

Give people the train as a decent option and people will take it.

Backshophoss wrote:Phoenix is"served" (via bus)by Maricopa Az.
You might want to add Tucson Az to the list.

Not two trains per day. The Sunset Limited isn't a daily train. While both Phoenix and Tuscon are large cities, I suggest neither is as large as Houston.