# Establish more lounges



## Palmetto (Feb 18, 2016)

There was a query earlier by a member concerning the planned lounge in Seattle, but it's not really in the plans at all apparently. This got me to wondering: if--a big if--there were money available to construct lounges for sleeping car / business class passengers, where would the money best be spent? My own feeling is that a place like Seattle would be low on the build list, since it hosts so few passengers with tickets in those travel classes.

I was also thinking that places where passengers connect might be good places to set up a lounge. Similarly, endpoint stations with few departures wouldn't be either, since people arrive close to departure time and don't want to spend time in the station upon arrival--generally.

Stations that have one-a-day service would not be worthwhile to have a lounge, I'd think.

So with the above in mind, perhaps these places would be candidates:

All major stations on the NEC, because of the sheer volume of passengers that move through them. Providence, New Haven, Stamford, Newark, Baltimore, etc.

Martinez, CA

Kansas City, MO

Any others? Any thoughts?


----------



## Eric S (Feb 18, 2016)

NARP has figures for 2014 for Sleeper/Acela First Class ridership at each station, but does not separate Coach and Business ridership.

For non-NEC stations, here are the top stations in terms of Sleeper ridership (as of 2014):

222,542 Chicago (Metropolitan Lounge)

77,088 Los Angeles (Metropolitan Lounge)

50,601 Seattle

40,025 New Orleans (separate waiting room)

34,426 Emeryville

27,825 Portland (Metropolitan Lounge)

23,891 Denver

21,710 Sacramento

17,279 Orlando

15,707 St. Paul (separate waiting room)

13,824 Memphis

11,724 Albuquerque

11,193 San Antonio

11,022 Whitefish, MT

9,901 Oakland

9,873 Flagstaff, AZ

9,550 Atlanta

8,969 Pittsburgh

8,635 Kansas City

8,929 San Jose

8,120 Salt Lake City

7,489 Tampa

7,478 Miami

7,150 Reno

6,960 Fort Worth

6,742 Dallas

6,544 Jacksonville

6,479 East Glacier Park, MT

6,377 St. Louis (separate waiting room)

6,310 Martinez, CA

5,663 Williston, ND

5,417 Fort Lauderdale

5,269 Richmond-Staples Mill Rd. Station

5,038 Buffalo-Depew Station

5,006 Galesburg, IL


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 18, 2016)

Thanks, Eric. I'm pleasantly surprised at the Seattle figure. Bring on a lounge there, then!


----------



## Eric S (Feb 18, 2016)

For what it's worth, here are the NEC First/Sleeper numbers from 2014:

338,468 New York (Club Acela)

215,575 Washington (Club Acela)

69,824 Boston-South Station (Club Acela)

69,460 Philadelphia-30th St. Station (Club Acela)

36,050 Route 128, MA

30,966 Newark

25,673 Boston-Back Bay Station

23,057 Providence

21,990 Stamford

20,857 Baltimore

20,658 Wilmington

11,581 BWI Marshall Airport

10,757 Metropark, NJ


----------



## fairviewroad (Feb 18, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> Thanks, Eric. I'm pleasantly surprised at the Seattle figure. Bring on a lounge there, then!


And those figures don't even include the seven daily departures from SEA that include Business Class seating


----------



## Eric S (Feb 18, 2016)

fairviewroad said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, Eric. I'm pleasantly surprised at the Seattle figure. Bring on a lounge there, then!
> ...


Right. Business Class numbers would certainly bump the CHI, LAX, SEA, and PDX (and some other stations) numbers even higher.

Without taking into consideration whether the station building could accommodate a lounge and just looking at those numbers, I'd say SEA is a very good candidate to look at for a lounge, with EMY and SAC and perhaps DEN as other possibilities.


----------



## neroden (Feb 18, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> There was a query earlier by a member concerning the planned lounge in Seattle, but it's not really in the plans at all apparently. This got me to wondering: if--a big if--there were money available to construct lounges for sleeping car / business class passengers, where would the money best be spent?


Transfer points. Most people at the origin show up as late as they can get away with, and at the destination head immediately for their hotel.

There are several types of transfer points. I think for these purposes we can leave out:

-- transfer points to high-frequency mass transit (San Diego Trolley, Washington Metro Rail, etc.); the high frequency means low wait times.

-- transfers which don't work in reverse, such as CL westbound to LSL eastbound in Cleveland.

-- long overnight "get a hotel" transfers, such as CL westbound to Pennsylvanian eastbound in Pittsburgh.

-- where two routes overlap (such as the California Zephyr and the Coast Starlight), only the first and last point where the train service overlaps need be considered -- Emeryville or Sacramento, not random points in between

The following locations already have attended lounges:

New York

Chicago

Philadelphia

Washington DC

Boston

Los Angeles

Portland OR

The following locations have unattended lounges:

New Orleans

St. Louis

Raleigh

St. Paul

Now I will list ALL addtional Amtrak-to-Amtrak transfer points to consider:

Seattle -- Empire Builder to Cascades, Cascades-to-Portland to Cascades-to-Vancouver

Everett -- Empire Builder to Cascades-to-Vancouver (probably redundant with Seattle)

Sacramento -- Capitol Corridor (east end) / California Zephyr to Coast Starlight / San Joaquin

Emeryville -- Capitol Corridor / California Zephyr to Coast Starlight south

Martinez -- Capitol Corridor / California Zephyr to San Joaquin (west branch) (redundant with either Emeryville or Sacramento)

Spokane -- Empire Builder eastbound to Empire Builder westbound on the other branch

Kansas City -- SW Chief to Missouri River Runner

Galesburg -- SW Chief to California Zephyr, Quincy to both SWC and CZ

Fort Worth -- Heartland Flyer to Texas Eagle

San Antonio -- Sunset Limited to Texas Eagle

Battle Creek -- Wolverine to Blue Water

Greensboro -- Crescent to Piedmont/Carolinian

Cary -- Silver Star to Piedmont/Carolinian (Raleigh does the job, however)

Wilson -- Silver Meteor to Piedmont/Carolinian

Savannah -- Silver Star to Silver Meteor in the other direction

Petersburg -- Newport News to Silver Service

Richmond -- Norfolk or Newport News to Silver Service

Charlottesville -- Cardinal to Crescent

Pittsburgh -- Capitol Limited to Pennsylvanian

Cleveland -- Capitol Limited to Lake Shore Limited in other direction

Buffalo-Depew -- Lake Shore Limited to Maple Leaf in other direction

Schenectady -- Adirondack to Empire Service westbound

Albany -- Boston section LSL to Empire Service towards NYC

Springfield MA -- Boston section LSL (both halves) to Vermonter & Shuttles

Boston Back Bay (redundant with Boston South)

Boston North (waiting for the Downeaster)

New Haven -- Springfield Shuttles to NEC

I think this is actually the *complete* list of possibilities. Many of these are unreasonable.

Then I started thinking about same-direction transfer points between Amtrak and commuter rail, such as New Rochelle or Homewood. These are actually very important transfer points for people going to intermediate stops on the commuter rail. And they need good waiting rooms, but they are likely to have relatively few people making the transfer, and fewer in sleepers (more in coach).

I'm actually a little doubtful about this -- I think these don't need lounges... but I may be wrong. It might be worth making a list of them...

Some Metro-North to Amtrak transfer points:

Poughkeepsie

Croton-Harmon

Yonkers

New Rochelle

Stamford

South Norwalk

Stratford

And some for NJT:

Secaucus Junction

Newark NJ

Princeton Junction

Trenton

Rahway (for NJ Coast Line)

And for SEPTA:

Trenton

North Philadelphia

Newark DE

And for MARC:

Baltimore

Martinsburg WV

And for VRE:

Manassas

Fredericksburg

And for NICTD:

South Bend

And for Metra:

Glenview ( Lake Forest would be better )

Aurora IL

Joliet IL

Homewood IL (University Park would be better)

And at that point I gave up on counting Amtrak to commuter rail connections; someone else will have to list the west-of-the-Mississippi and Florida possibilities if they want to.


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2016)

Apparently you also counted some commuter rail to commuter rail transfers perhaps eventually feeding Amtrak elsewhere, e.g. Secaucus Jct. , South Norwalk and such?


----------



## neroden (Feb 18, 2016)

jis said:


> Apparently you also counted some commuter rail to commuter rail transfers perhaps eventually feeding Amtrak elsewhere, e.g. Secaucus Jct. , South Norwalk and such?


Ha, I counted places along existing lines where Amtrak *could* stop if they wanted to. This is how the list got way too long...
That's actually a totally separate issue, which I started thinking about before I decided I'd written too much already. Amtrak's stopping pattern is harmful to transfers to a number of the commuter rail branch lines. You want to be able to transfer at the closest point to the branch, but Amtrak's choice of intermediate stops often forces you to go out of your way and then backtrack. (Consider Memphis TN to University Park IL, or Boston to Danbury.) This is not ideal network design. Improving this might be worth a discussion: the unified predecessors to today's splintered commuter-rail/Amtrak services seemed better at making connection points.


----------



## neroden (Feb 18, 2016)

OK, so I

(1) integrated the ridership number list for Non-NEC Sleeper and for NEC First/Sleeper,

(2) stripped out anything under 10K passengers,

(3) removed the ones which already have separate waiting rooms or lounges,

(4) attempted a rough analysis based on transferring traffic and gave a YES NO or MAYBE to a lounge

and I get:

50,601 Seattle -- multiple slow transfers, YES

36,050 Route 128, MA -- transfer point to MBTA only -- probably NO

34,426 Emeryville -- multiple slow transfers, YES

30,966 Newark -- many transfers but most transfers go to NY Penn instead, MAYBE

25,673 Boston-Back Bay Station -- many transfers but so close to Boston South, MAYBE

23,891 Denver -- transfers mostly fast, main waiting room enormous, NOT YET (until main waiting room fills up...)

23,057 Providence -- few transfers, NO

21,990 Stamford -- relatively few transfers, high frequency local rail, MAYBE

20,857 Baltimore -- relatively few transfers, high frequency local rail, MAYBE

21,710 Sacramento -- multiple slow transfers, YES

20,658 Wilmington -- relatively few transfers, high frequency local rail, MAYBE

17,279 Orlando -- transfers to airport or theme parks or cruise ships, MAYBE

13,824 Memphis -- I don't think there are many transfers though I don't know, NO

11,724 Albuquerque -- very few transfers, while Lamy shuttle still operates NO

11,581 BWI Marshall Airport -- transfers only from the airport, high frequency... MAYBE

11,193 San Antonio -- most transfers are on through cars, NO

11,022 Whitefish, MT -- no transfers, NO

10,757 Metropark, NJ -- no transfers, NO

----

So I would say definitely Seattle, Sacramento, and Emeryville. Though if the terminus of the California Zephyr were moved to another station in the Bay Area, I'd move the lounge with it.

Other locations should get a lounge if, well, the number of infrequent connections increases, and the number of riders increases until it starts overwhelming the main waiting room. If Denver keeps up its expansion of service, it's probably going to want a lounge fairly soon.

But Seattle, Sacramento, and Emeryville could use lounges *right now this minute*.


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 19, 2016)

Given the numbers riding the NEC and Rte. 128 in particular, I wonder if a lounge is in order. One question about the figures cited: those numbers are both departures and arrivals, aren't they? If so, given the premise that arriving passengers are not usually interested in "hanging around", we could cut the numbers in half roughly to show only departing passengers. So, in the case of Rte. 128, that would be about 18,000 passengers, but we don't know how many of those would have a ticket to get them into the lounge. Under the current scenario, only Acela First and sleeping car passengers are allowed in NEC lounges. That really cuts the number down, although some people may buy a day pass. Some big unknowns here about use of any future lounge.

Also, I did not know that the lounge in Portland, OR was an attended one.


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2016)

At Rt 128 most of those passengers are arriving at the station by car/bus to board Amtrak and leaving by car/bus after arriving by Amtrak, and their Amtrak usage pattern is almost like that of a commuter train. I can't see much reason for a lounge in that sort of a situation. The situation is similar in Metropark. In both case they are also Acela and Regional passengers who typically do not arrive hours before departure. They just come and board with little time to spare in between, except when they are AU members. It is more akin to a commuter situation than a staid LD/MD situation.


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 19, 2016)

I really don't see Rte. 128 as being any different than Providence, then. I really don't understand the argument about "how" one arrives at a particular station as relevant to the need for a lounge or not. What you say about Rte. 128 can also apply to Portland, OR, having used both stations and having lived in both places.


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2016)

The difference Portland and Rt. 128 is Route 128 is purely a commuter station with no sleeper traffic, while Portland arguably has very little commuter traffic and significant sleeper and BC traffic on relatively slow trains. They are not really the same at all. If you actually visit stations like Route 128 or Metropark it will become very obvious what I am talking about. I do agree that there is no need for a lounge in Providence either, as it is very much like Rt 128. But of course we could still disagree on the matter of Portland, and that is fine too.In general I would expect it to be more likely that a originating/terminating point of an LD train with Sleepers would have a lounge facility than other locations.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 19, 2016)

One difference with Portland is that there is Amtrak-to-Amtrak transferring, unlike Providence or Route 128.

At any rate, both Neroden and I suggested that Seattle, Emeryville, and Sacramento make sense as candidates. So, how feasible would it be to add lounges to those three stations. I've been to each of them but can't say that I looked around enough to really have a good idea as to how much space is available and how easy it would be add on if necessary.


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2016)

It seems to me that at least in Seattle and Sacramento there is real estate space that can be negotiated for. I am not sure that there is space to incorporate a reasonable lounge of any sort in the Emeryville building. So that might be a more expensive venture.


----------



## jebr (Feb 19, 2016)

Most people that are doing long-layover transfers (essentially not the SF shuttle buses) in Emeryville can also do them in Sacramento, if a lounge is important to them. The same cannot be said for transfers done in Sacramento.


----------



## rrdude (Feb 19, 2016)

Amtrak, please hire an experienced sales rep, let them call on "partner" companies, who in turn will be asked to pay for the creation and upkeep of the "Microsoft Lounge" at Seattle King St. Station. Or the "Coors Lounge" in Denver's rennovated Union Station............. In addition to Sleeper Class ticket holders, open it up to Biz Class, and one day passes, like the Legacy Club in CUS.

These companies waste so much money on other promotional and advertising BS, it would be a drop in the bucket for them, but no one is asking them.........


----------



## neroden (Feb 20, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> I really don't understand the argument about "how" one arrives at a particular station as relevant to the need for a lounge or not.


OK, let me try explaining it again. I believe that lounges are *not* used by Origin traffic or Destination traffic. I believe that lounges are used by *Transferring* traffic -- people who arrive on one train and leave on a different train, or arrive on a train and leave on a bus, or arrive on a bus and leave on a train. Specifically, the lounges are used when there is a *long wait time* between the arrival of your first train and the departure of your second train. Accordingly, my analysis gives heavy weight to the question of how much *transferring* traffic there is.
In the case of Portland, there is:

-- Empire Builder to/from Coast Starlight

-- Cascades (to Eugene) to/from Empire Builder

-- Cascades (northbound) to/from Empire Builder

-- Cascades (northbound) to/from Coast Starlight

-- Greyhound to/from Amtrak

This isn't a huge number of passengers, but they have long waits.



jebr said:


> Most people that are doing long-layover transfers (essentially not the SF shuttle buses) in Emeryville can also do them in Sacramento, if a lounge is important to them. The same cannot be said for transfers done in Sacramento.


Agreed. Sacramento should be a high priority. Along with Seattle.


----------



## fairviewroad (Feb 22, 2016)

I would venture that lounges are used for more origin traffic than you might think. Amtrak says you have to arrive at least 45 minutes before train time to check a bag...and all stations that have a lounge also offer checked baggage service. I'm guessing that sleeping car passengers frequently arrive a good hour before departure...if you're spending the next 48 hours on a train, it's not especially important to cut it close and arrive at the station as close to departure time as possible.


----------



## jis (Feb 22, 2016)

Unless I have baggage to check in, which I never do, I never arrive at a station an hour before departure. I do that at airports for passing through security. The beauty of trains is you don;t need to go through security, and they don't give away your seat until after the train has left without you on board, unlike the airlines, who will happily give your seat away to a standby if you are not checked in by cutoff time way before departure.


----------



## fairviewroad (Feb 22, 2016)

jis said:


> Unless I have baggage to check in, which I never do, I never arrive at a station an hour before departure. I do that at airports for passing through security. The beauty of trains is you don;t need to go through security, and they don't give away your seat until after the train has left without you on board, unlike the airlines, who will happily give your seat away to a standby if you are not checked in by cutoff time way before departure.


I hear you. I'm just speculating that LD sleeping car passengers are less time sensitive than, say, a short-haul corridor passenger. High value ticket purchasers who are traveling by train partly for the "experience" are probably more likely to arrive an hour in advance, not just for the purpose of checking a bag but to soak in the ambiance, etc. A lounge would be ideal for those passengers, regardless of whether they are making a connection or not, if the passenger numbers are there.


----------



## jis (Feb 22, 2016)

You're absolutely correct in that assessment. That is why I had mentioned earlier that it makes sense to have lounges at major LD O/D points and interchange points. I think the Club Acelas a re primarily used by people who are O/D with some additional ones that are connecting.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 23, 2016)

A lot of the folks hanging out in the Club Acela in DC are AGR Select Plus folks (like me!) and are not riding sleeper/first class. I wonder if under the new AGR with the elimination of the 100 point minimum, you're going to see fewer Select Plus members, and thus less business in the lounges.


----------

