PRESS RELEASE
AMTRAK RIDERSHIP ON RECORD-BREAKING PACE 13.6 million passengers ride during first six months of FY 2010
WASHINGTON – Amtrak is on pace to break its annual ridership record carrying a best ever 13,619,770 passengers during the first six months of fiscal year 2010 with the historically busier summer travel season still ahead.
The 13.6 million passengers who rode on Amtrak trains during the first two quarters of FY 2010 (October 2009 – March 2010) contributed to a 4.3 percent increase over the same period the prior year. It also is about 100,000 more riders than the 13.5 million posted in FY 2008, which turned out to be Amtrak’s best ridership year in company history when America’s passenger railroad carried 28.7 million passengers.
“Americans are beginning to travel again and are choosing Amtrak as an affordable and efficient way to move around the country,” said President and CEO Joseph Boardman, noting a slowly improving economy and continued high fuel prices as factors in Amtrak ridership growth. Ridership Highlights
Comparing March 2010 to March 2009, ridership increased by 13.5 percent to a record 2.47 million passengers for the month. In addition, every single Amtrak route carried more passengers with several experiencing double-digit growth.
The Northeast Corridor experienced strong ridership growth in March with Amtrak’s high-speed train, Acela Express, seeing a 14.3 percent increase and Northeast Regional trains up 12.9 percent. For the first six months of FY 2010, Acela service increased 2.9 percent and Northeast Regional service grew by 4.7 percent.
Ridership on long-distance trains increased by 16 percent in March and is up 5.2 percent for the first two quarters of FY 2010. Long-distance trains posting strong six-month numbers include City of New Orleans (Chicago – New Orleans ) up 16.4 percent, Sunset Limited (New Orleans – Los Angeles) up 15.1 percent, Silver Star (New York – Raleigh – Tampa – Miami) up 8.3 percent and Coast Starlight (Los Angeles – Seattle) up 7 percent.
In the Chicago hub, ridership on Lincoln Service (Chicago – St. Louis) showed significant growth with an 18 percent jump in March and 11.6 percent for the six month period. Hiawatha Service (Chicago – Milwaukee) continues to grow with a 14.3 percent increase in March and up 4.8 percent fiscal year to date. Elsewhere in the Midwest, the Missouri River Runner (Kansas City – St. Louis) is up 24.2 percent for March and 15.8 percent for the first half of the Amtrak fiscal year, while the Blue Water (Chicago – Port Huron) increased by 21.7 percent in March and 5.2 percent for fiscal year to date.
In the West, ridership on San Joaquin (Bakersfield – Oakland) is up 13.2 percent for March and 5.4 percent for the year. Pacific Surfliner (Los Angeles – San Diego) increased 7.5 percent in March and its six-month figures are about even with the same period a year ago. Amtrak Cascades (Eugene, Oregon – Vancouver, B.C.) increased by 11.4 percent in March and saw a 16.7 percent increase for the first six months of the fiscal year.
Amtrak’s popular Auto Train saw significant growth in the month of March, increasing 25.1 percent over March 2009, and carrying nearly 25,000 passengers and their cars, motorcycles and other personal vehicles between Lorton, Va., and Sanford, Fla. For fiscal year to date, Auto Train ridership has increased by 8.6 percent.
The FY 2010 Amtrak ridership figures are consistent with the annual growth seen during the last several years that saw a 32 percent increase in passengers from FY 2002 to FY 2008. In order for Amtrak to continue to accommodate increasing demand for intercity passenger rail service it must replace, expand and modernize its fleet of aging locomotives and passenger rail cars. Mr. Boardman describes this as the railroad’s “most urgent unfunded need” and recently requested $446 million from Congress to fund its Fleet Acquisition Program.
PDF Pages: 1 2
About Christopher DeMorro
Meanwhile, Travelling from Chicago to Seattle or Portland takes about 45 hours. According to wikipedia, its averages 50Mph including stops. See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Builder Look at the stops on the right side!
Every single place with a stop light gets its Own stop, and each stop requires a long slow down, a stop for a bit, (even if its just 15 min) and getting back up to speed again. I don’t think it will ever get better for Amtrak until they close some of their rural stations. (really, Columbus, WI, Portage, then the dells? 3 stops? Columbus is about 30 min from the dells.) People don’t expect flights into these towns, even though the planes have to fly over them. Why do they seem to think the train needs to stop at each of them?
Meanwhile, Travelling from Chicago to Seattle or Portland takes about 45 hours. According to wikipedia, its averages 50Mph including stops. See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Builder Look at the stops on the right side!
Every single place with a stop light gets its Own stop, and each stop requires a long slow down, a stop for a bit, (even if its just 15 min) and getting back up to speed again. I don’t think it will ever get better for Amtrak until they close some of their rural stations. (really, Columbus, WI, Portage, then the dells? 3 stops? Columbus is about 30 min from the dells.) People don’t expect flights into these towns, even though the planes have to fly over them. Why do they seem to think the train needs to stop at each of them?
I disagree that cars killed off high speed rail. Airplanes killed off high speed rail, it could be argued that cars killed off or depressed growth in commuter rail. As much as you may want high speed rail to be feasible for America, it will always be constrained by geography..thats why the tightly packed market of the Northeast is the only viable place. If you look at Japan and Europe this also holds true, high speed rail only being present between geographically close and high population areas. Unfortunately geography is still destiny.
I disagree that cars killed off high speed rail. Airplanes killed off high speed rail, it could be argued that cars killed off or depressed growth in commuter rail. As much as you may want high speed rail to be feasible for America, it will always be constrained by geography..thats why the tightly packed market of the Northeast is the only viable place. If you look at Japan and Europe this also holds true, high speed rail only being present between geographically close and high population areas. Unfortunately geography is still destiny.
What they really need is some kind of “docking” service where riders at each of the stations get on a
docking shuttle train that hooks up to the train as it’s moving.
It would not be all that difficult if you think about it: Train passes, shuttle full of riders gets on track and catches up to train, shuttle docks to moving train, extends a short walkway, passengers exit shuttle onto train, shuttle undocks and heads back to station. At most, the train may have to slow down a bit during the transfer.
What they really need is some kind of “docking” service where riders at each of the stations get on a
docking shuttle train that hooks up to the train as it’s moving.
It would not be all that difficult if you think about it: Train passes, shuttle full of riders gets on track and catches up to train, shuttle docks to moving train, extends a short walkway, passengers exit shuttle onto train, shuttle undocks and heads back to station. At most, the train may have to slow down a bit during the transfer.
Chris, please check your facts. I believe that you will find that these foreign “hig speed” trains max out at 300 Kilometers per hour, NOT 300 Miles per hour. This is only 186 MPH. Still considerably faster than our ?”high”? speed, but not 3 times as fast.
And I agree with those who wrote that the milk runs that stop at every wide spot on the route must be eliminated. This will require bypasses, or better yet new tracks with no slow speed trains. Shuffling trains with greatly differing speeds onto the same track is inviting crashes.
Chris, please check your facts. I believe that you will find that these foreign “hig speed” trains max out at 300 Kilometers per hour, NOT 300 Miles per hour. This is only 186 MPH. Still considerably faster than our ?”high”? speed, but not 3 times as fast.
And I agree with those who wrote that the milk runs that stop at every wide spot on the route must be eliminated. This will require bypasses, or better yet new tracks with no slow speed trains. Shuffling trains with greatly differing speeds onto the same track is inviting crashes.
Actually ChuckL, the fastest train in the world, the JR-Maglev MLX01 has achieved a maximum velocity of 581 kph while pulling three cars. That translates to about 360 mph. At least according to Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JR-Maglev
Actually ChuckL, the fastest train in the world, the JR-Maglev MLX01 has achieved a maximum velocity of 581 kph while pulling three cars. That translates to about 360 mph. At least according to Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JR-Maglev
When we built the interstates in the 50s we should of ran rail right down the middle instead of constantly adding auto and(worse yet)truck lanes.
When we built the interstates in the 50s we should of ran rail right down the middle instead of constantly adding auto and(worse yet)truck lanes.