RESOURCE: DOT Annual Statistics

The Department of Transportation has an annual report of statistics. I’ve provided a link.

Of note: The NEC Carrie’s more passengers DC-NY/BOS by over 3x.

Overall though, there were 941 million passenger air boardings in 2022, while Amtrak handled 28.5 million passengers.

Here’s the link: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/7294 ... 43_DS1.pdf

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2024 2:23 pm The Department of Transportation has an annual report of statistics. I’ve provided a link.

Of note: The NEC Carrie’s more passengers DC-NY/BOS by over 3x.

Overall though, there were 941 million passenger air boardings in 2022, while Amtrak handled 28.5 million passengers.

Here’s the link: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/7294 ... 43_DS1.pdf

Therefore, Amtrak's market share nationally is a woeful 3%
Math = 28.5 / 941 x 100 = 3.028
And that's not accounting for those who drive their own vehicles intercity.

That 941 million passenger air boardings includes 187 million international flights, so the domestic market is 753 million. This means Amtrak carried (28.5 / 753) 3.78% of the domestic market (still small).

However, there were 711 billion revenue passenger air miles or an average air trip length of 944 miles, while the average Amtrak trip length was 204 miles on 5.8 billion passenger miles, so arguably Amtrak is serving very different markets for most of its operations.

In addition, you're comparing "all air boardings" with "Amtrak".

That includes your short-haul commercial flights.

So, you really should include at commuter rail boardings. Even if you want to set an arbitrary minimum limit (I mean can you really compare a 10 mile rail commute to something like Trenton-NYP?

Or even NYP to Ronkonkoma?

And as noted, rail and air serve different markets generally and one has to be careful when comparing them industry to industry.

There's few areas where rail and air actively compete (I don't consider LD routes as competition for the most part) such as NYP-WAS and NYP-BOS and rail seems to be doing quite well there!

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 3:42 pm In addition, you're comparing "all air boardings" with "Amtrak".

That includes your short-haul commercial flights.

So, you really should include at commuter rail boardings. Even if you want to set an arbitrary minimum limit (I mean can you really compare a 10 mile rail commute to something like Trenton-NYP?

Or even NYP to Ronkonkoma?

And as noted, rail and air serve different markets generally and one has to be careful when comparing them industry to industry.

There's few areas where rail and air actively compete (I don't consider LD routes as competition for the most part) such as NYP-WAS and NYP-BOS and rail seems to be doing quite well there!

So maybe the solution is disband Amtrak, create a NEC Regional Compact, and fund the one area where passenger rail really works?

Depends, what's the problem?

I suspect other parts of the country might disagree with your solution.

What I see is plenty of potential for Amtrak to expand corridors.

David Benton wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:21 am What I see is plenty of potential for Amtrak to expand corridors.

Yes. Amtrak should be looking at expanding corridors. While they are expanding it, realize they will be losing more money every year. How much more are the US taxpayers willing to subsidize Amtrak with poor service, poor reliability, and poor on time statistics?

A fraction of what the taxpayer subsidizes roads and air.

A fraction of the passenger traffic carried by those modes.

David Benton wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:38 pm A fraction of what the taxpayer subsidizes roads and air.

David Benton wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:38 pm A fraction of what the taxpayer subsidizes roads and air.

With respect to air, the US Department of Defense considers highways and civilian air essential to national security but does not consider passenger rail essential.

Per US DOD travel policy: "The only Continental United States (CONUS) passenger rail carrier is the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation, commonly known as Amtrak. . . . .

2. . . . Rail will be provided only when it meets mission requirements and is the most
cost-effective mode, taking into consideration best value, such as travel time, per diem, and
miscellaneous expenses." https://www.ustranscom.mil/dtr/part-i/d ... _i_105.pdf

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 4:12 pm A fraction of the passenger traffic carried by those modes.

David Benton wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:38 pm A fraction of what the taxpayer subsidizes roads and air.

Which was established in the first post.

Ken W2KB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:30 pm

David Benton wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:38 pm A fraction of what the taxpayer subsidizes roads and air.

With respect to air, the US Department of Defense considers highways and civilian air essential to national security but does not consider passenger rail essential.

Per US DOD travel policy: "The only Continental United States (CONUS) passenger rail carrier is the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation, commonly known as Amtrak. . . . .

2. . . . Rail will be provided only when it meets mission requirements and is the most
cost-effective mode, taking into consideration best value, such as travel time, per diem, and
miscellaneous expenses." https://www.ustranscom.mil/dtr/part-i/d ... _i_105.pdf

You would think those criteria are used when choosing which of any of the modes to use.

The real question is the cost of running passenger rail over a given route (lets say 200 miles or less) less than adding a highway over that route, given that freight highway congestion costs $11 billion a year. It seems clear that, at least for those states subsidizing passenger rail between major metro areas in or near the state is likely a cost effective tradeoff to further highway construction.

DoD travel policy is about cost effectiveness, not weither the form of transportation is essential for national security. When passenger rail is the best value, its hard to use other forms of transport (in Korea for example).