Does the Decline of the Boomer Generation Hurt Amtrak?

[Green Maned Lion]

You can't really lay flat in a car safely.

 

[SarahZ]

The first thing to recognize is that, on the whole, Amtrak is competing with driving, not with flying.

This I can definitely agree with. It really makes more sense to pit Amtrak against driving versus flying.

Comparing Amtrak to flying is a losing game, as Amtrak is never going to achieve the same speed as an airplane. (But how cool would THAT be...?) Plus, I can get RT tickets from Chicago to many other major cities for anywhere from 30-50% less than the cost of an Amtrak RT coach ticket.

I know lots of people who've started taking Amtrak to Chicago now that the trip is faster. Word of mouth helps too. More and more people are starting to realize they can hop on a train and save the hassle of driving and parking.

 

[dlagrua]

The first thing to recognize is that, on the whole, Amtrak is competing with driving, not with flying.

This I can definitely agree with. It really makes more sense to pit Amtrak against driving versus flying.

Comparing Amtrak to flying is a losing game, as Amtrak is never going to achieve the same speed as an airplane. (But how cool would THAT be...?) Plus, I can get RT tickets from Chicago to many other major cities for anywhere from 30-50% less than the cost of an Amtrak RT coach ticket.

I know lots of people who've started taking Amtrak to Chicago now that the trip is faster. Word of mouth helps too. More and more people are starting to realize they can hop on a train and save the hassle of driving and parking.

Perhaps more and more people will take to the rails where the airport security gets even more intrusive. With each terrorist incident they blame the innocent air passenger. When you go to board a plane and the security officer says "OK now drop your shorts" is when Amtrak might start seeing an increase in ridership.

 

[jebr]

The first thing to recognize is that, on the whole, Amtrak is competing with driving, not with flying.

This I can definitely agree with. It really makes more sense to pit Amtrak against driving versus flying.

Comparing Amtrak to flying is a losing game, as Amtrak is never going to achieve the same speed as an airplane. (But how cool would THAT be...?) Plus, I can get RT tickets from Chicago to many other major cities for anywhere from 30-50% less than the cost of an Amtrak RT coach ticket.

I know lots of people who've started taking Amtrak to Chicago now that the trip is faster. Word of mouth helps too. More and more people are starting to realize they can hop on a train and save the hassle of driving and parking.

Perhaps more and more people will take to the rails where the airport security gets even more intrusive. With each terrorist incident they blame the innocent air passenger. When you go to board a plane and the security officer says "OK now drop your shorts" is when Amtrak might start seeing an increase in ridership.

Or maybe, instead of trying to find a way to convince a small portion of air travelers to take long distance trains when they're neither cost or time competitive, Amtrak should market to the driving market, where they can compete a bit more directly (at least on time, and depending on vehicle compete on operations cost as well.)

 

[neroden]

Someone was wondering about the "future of long distance trains". Well, in some ways I think they'll look more and more like corridor trains. This is what should happen. Most of the passengers are already taking "corridor-length" trips anyway, or "quicker than driving because you can sleep while moving" single overnights. Most of the so-called long-distance routes are running on corridor routes at either end.

As the tracks are purchased by the states and improved, the trains speed up. As the trains speed up, you see more and more "corridor like" traffic. Single overnights remain a highly viable and attractive market. If rolling stock is purchased (grind teeth) we will see a return of the Night Owl sleeper train on the NEC. And I can certainly hope that the Empire Corridor ends up looking similar to the NEC, with *ownership by the state*, multiple fast day trains, and a pretty fast sleeper running to Chicago. (Perhaps via the Michigan Corridor.)

I admit that this scenario doesn't look too hopeful for the Sunset Limited's long slog across the empty desert, or the Calfornia Zephyr's trek through emptiness from Salt Lake to Reno, but *most of the so-called long distance trains aren't like that*. I don't really care about those crawls through the empty desert. I want to be able to get from upstate NY to Chicago efficiently. As long as one link across the Rockies is maintained, I can get to the West Coast by train, and that's never going to be fast. But Denver-Chicago and Chicago-NY and Chicago-Dallas *can* be fast.

It is critical for the states to purchase the right-of-way, since the "freight railroads" will reliably and consistently sabotage passenger rail service. Eventually when the millenials get into political power they will stop tolerating this nonsense.

 

[caravanman]

The current tendency is for younger people to forsake the small communities and move to cities that offer jobs. In the process, they learn to ditch cars and rely on bikes, buses, and trains to commute. This would easily transfer to longer distance train travel if the trains were fast and reliable. Amtrak's perpetual under-funding, of course, results in neither fast nor reliable, the result being the leveling off of ridership in recent years. "Build it and they will come". We seriously suffer from lack of vision.

I recently rode Denver's RTD train from airport to the southeast side and was astonished how inefficient the route is compared with Chicago's commuter systems. In Chicago, the homes and business grew up around the train lines, which have right of way. In Denver, the RTD line has to wind around all the NIMBY properties, even making frequent stops for traffic lights.

There is not much to compare between the Chicago and Denver situation... It is no longer that ethical to bulldoze a new train line through existing property, as they did back in the early days.

Ed

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

The current tendency is for younger people to forsake the small communities and move to cities that offer jobs. In the process, they learn to ditch cars and rely on bikes, buses, and trains to commute. This would easily transfer to longer distance train travel if the trains were fast and reliable. Amtrak's perpetual under-funding, of course, results in neither fast nor reliable, the result being the leveling off of ridership in recent years. "Build it and they will come". We seriously suffer from lack of vision.

I recently rode Denver's RTD train from airport to the southeast side and was astonished how inefficient the route is compared with Chicago's commuter systems. In Chicago, the homes and business grew up around the train lines, which have right of way. In Denver, the RTD line has to wind around all the NIMBY properties, even making frequent stops for traffic lights.

There is not much to compare between the Chicago and Denver situation... It is no longer that ethical to bulldoze a new train line through existing property, as they did back in the early days.

Ed

The newest rail line in Chicago (admittedly, not commuter, but rapid), the Orange Line out to Midway from the Loop snakes around due to using existing ROW and making due where there wasn't (originally, the 1920's/30's plan was for it to be a subway under Archer Avenue all the way to the airport).

So back on topic, I've seen articles saying that the majority of Millennials live in the suburbs by choice (albeit in more "urban"/lifestyle center areas, probably because of the availability of rental housing) - it's a minority of wealthy Millennials who live in cities. I think a lot of the supposed carlessness of their generation is from being driven everywhere, hence their embrace of Uber for instance. Whether that will translate into larger support for Amtrak, well, lets hope so!

 

[RSG]

The current tendency is for younger people to forsake the small communities and move to cities that offer jobs. In the process, they learn to ditch cars and rely on bikes, buses, and trains to commute. This would easily transfer to longer distance train travel if the trains were fast and reliable. Amtrak's perpetual under-funding, of course, results in neither fast nor reliable, the result being the leveling off of ridership in recent years. "Build it and they will come". We seriously suffer from lack of vision.

I recently rode Denver's RTD train from airport to the southeast side and was astonished how inefficient the route is compared with Chicago's commuter systems. In Chicago, the homes and business grew up around the train lines, which have right of way. In Denver, the RTD line has to wind around all the NIMBY properties, even making frequent stops for traffic lights.

There is not much to compare between the Chicago and Denver situation... It is no longer that ethical to bulldoze a new train line through existing property, as they did back in the early days.

Ed

Denver's situation was hampered by the general lack of foresight as to public transportation needs, largely due to the operating entity, which has never been confused with the term "visionary". After the first major energy bust in the 80s, many historic buildings were razed, not to build skyscrapers as would have been done a decade earlier, but for commercial parking lots. Even people right on major bus lines would not use the buses to go to their downtown jobs because the schedules were a bit out of wack with theirs, and because affordable parking was only a couple of blocks, at most, away.

When the concept of light rail was developed access rights to the most popular locations would have been prohibitive to purchase and would have tied up the project in litigation for years. So available rights-of-way were used for the most part, which is why the southern lines of the light rail generally run along major thruways, like Interstate 25. Naturally, this presents problems going into areas where the people are but the available transit space isn't. In downtown, that means running along existing streets and obeying traffic signals more like a streetcar than a rapid transit system. The alternative is to essentially close off much of downtown to most vehicular traffic, something which even largely pedestrian cities like New York haven't done.

 

[Eric in East County]

Whenever we start thinking about making another trip from San Diego to Ohio, my wife will sometimes suggest that we consider driving. But then, when we start looking at what all is involved in driving across country, reality starts to set in. If we averaged 500 miles a day (which, at our age, is a good day’s worth of driving) it would take us about 5 days to get there. In addition to the cost of gas, we’d need overnight accommodations for 4 nights. Today, to find a hotel or motel that is clean and safe, we’d first have to do some on-line research and read the reviews posted by people who stayed there. Something halfway decent usually costs at least $175 to $200 a night. (We’d be suspicious of any place that charged less!) Add to this the expense of 5 days’ worth of meals and that’s just what it would cost to get us there. We’d still have the expense of the return trip. So, when having to choose between driving and taking the train for our long distance travel, the train wins out every time. As more and more people come to this same conclusion, the demand for Amtrak long distance trains will continue to exist.

 

[SarahZ]

I keep saying that I'd visit my family a lot more often if Amtrak went up north. The one thing that keeps me away is that long, boring drive.

Well, that, and they live in Suckyboringville. But really... if I could take a train and read on the way there and back, visits would be 50% more tolerable.

 

[RSG]

Plus, I can get RT tickets from Chicago to many other major cities for anywhere from 30-50% less than the cost of an Amtrak RT coach ticket.

While I agree that rail travel is more accurately compared with vehicular transport than air travel, the cost differential is a factor which will decline as an advantage in the coming years. The current airline fare structure is unsustainable without adding additional ridiculous fees and reducing services even more and squeezing more seats into an already crowded cabin. Most airline passengers don't pay what it costs to transport them from Point A to Point B by virtue of the ticket price alone. In the future, the surviving airlines will have to start charging closer to what the cost of transport is upfront since the options for reducing costs and charging fees elsewhere have already been maxed out. Then, the average airfare will be closer to railfare, if not more. As has been said, today's North American traveler is motivated by cost above all else. When the cost differential disappears, then the traveling public will start to explore other options to get where they want to go.

 

[ainamkartma]

The current tendency is for younger people to forsake the small communities and move to cities that offer jobs. In the process, they learn to ditch cars and rely on bikes, buses, and trains to commute. This would easily transfer to longer distance train travel if the trains were fast and reliable. Amtrak's perpetual under-funding, of course, results in neither fast nor reliable, the result being the leveling off of ridership in recent years. "Build it and they will come". We seriously suffer from lack of vision.

I recently rode Denver's RTD train from airport to the southeast side and was astonished how inefficient the route is compared with Chicago's commuter systems. In Chicago, the homes and business grew up around the train lines, which have right of way. In Denver, the RTD line has to wind around all the NIMBY properties, even making frequent stops for traffic lights.

There is not much to compare between the Chicago and Denver situation... It is no longer that ethical to bulldoze a new train line through existing property, as they did back in the early days.

Ed

Denver's situation was hampered by the general lack of foresight as to public transportation needs, largely due to the operating entity, which has never been confused with the term "visionary". After the first major energy bust in the 80s, many historic buildings were razed, not to build skyscrapers as would have been done a decade earlier, but for commercial parking lots. Even people right on major bus lines would not use the buses to go to their downtown jobs because the schedules were a bit out of wack with theirs, and because affordable parking was only a couple of blocks, at most, away.

When the concept of light rail was developed access rights to the most popular locations would have been prohibitive to purchase and would have tied up the project in litigation for years. So available rights-of-way were used for the most part, which is why the southern lines of the light rail generally run along major thruways, like Interstate 25. Naturally, this presents problems going into areas where the people are but the available transit space isn't. In downtown, that means running along existing streets and obeying traffic signals more like a streetcar than a rapid transit system. The alternative is to essentially close off much of downtown to most vehicular traffic, something which even largely pedestrian cities like New York haven't done.

This remains off topic, but I lived in the Denver area in the nineties when the LR system was first getting off the ground, and I can confirm all you say above. At the time, it was a popular joke around the Denver area that the LR system managed to avoid going near:

The old airport, Stapleton

The new airport, DIA

The city's major shopping area, Cherry Creek

LODO, the hot up and coming yuppie neighborhood

Amtrak

Greyhound

Coors Field, the brand new baseball stadium

Mile High Stadium, the wildly popular Broncos stadium

The hockey arena, which featured a new NHL team

Boulder, Golden, or any northern suburbs, which were already plagued by gridlock traffic

Any of the university campuses in the downtown area

Really, anywhere else people wanted to go other than the Denver Tech Center in the southeast

It sort of appeared that it was carefully designed to fail, and yet it turned out to be a big success anyway...

And I'll just mention that Colorado has zero hesitation in exercising Eminent Domain when it comes to big giveaways to private developers: witness what happened in Louisville, for example, to create the massive shopping centers outside of Boulder.

Ainamkartma

 

[SarahZ]

Plus, I can get RT tickets from Chicago to many other major cities for anywhere from 30-50% less than the cost of an Amtrak RT coach ticket.

While I agree that rail travel is more accurately compared with vehicular transport than air travel, the cost differential is a factor which will decline as an advantage in the coming years. The current airline fare structure is unsustainable without adding additional ridiculous fees and reducing services even more and squeezing more seats into an already crowded cabin. Most airline passengers don't pay what it costs to transport them from Point A to Point B by virtue of the ticket price alone. In the future, the surviving airlines will have to start charging closer to what the cost of transport is upfront since the options for reducing costs and charging fees elsewhere have already been maxed out. Then, the average airfare will be closer to railfare, if not more. As has been said, today's North American traveler is motivated by cost above all else. When the cost differential disappears, then the traveling public will start to explore other options to get where they want to go.

That's fair. I'm spoiled in that I live near three major airports, but not everyone has that luxury. I also have the benefit of being childfree, which means I can (and do) travel during non-peak periods. If I were looking for airplane tickets in the middle of the summer AND lived a few hours or more from a major airport, the train would DEFINITELY win out in many cases.

But then we get to the issue of time, and, well... we're back to my, "Why can't we have jet-powered trains?" pipe dream.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Perhaps I'm missing DA's initial post but I took it to mean that he we mainly referring to Long Distance "pleasure" travel...not medium corridor travel. That being said, I'm focusing on this:

That's the irony of the premise. In general boomers avoided trains during their working years, but now that they've retried they seem to form majority of the sleeper class customers. Or at least that's what I see on my trips. Gen-X and Y are generally more pro-rail than boomers were, but with less inflation adjusted income, longer working lives, and much shorter hospice style retirements they will have less time and money to spend on traveling by rail. That in itself is not a death sentence for Amtrak but it may begin to weigh on the overall health of the company as people with the necessary funds to spend lavishly on sleepers begin to disappear.

I fully agree with this statement. As Amtrak is under the gun to decrease losses and receives less funding, I have stated (although not necessarily on this board) that Amtrak is extremely expensive. Indeed, it is growing prohibitively expensive. It will get worse. For some, the trains are indeed a luxury that many can't afford. However, the accommodations aren't luxurious while the amenities and service are dropping.

A favorable impression is not being burned into the memories of future riders who as DA put it, may not have limited time and/or resources to commit to travel and/or vacation. When that happens, will Amtrak be the most bang for the buck? That depends on your perspective. There will always be people that will savor the journey. They will take a train or boat over a plane because the travel is part of the equation. However, if they can't afford the travel, it doesn't really matter.

I see it as an issue.

It's not an issue.

The first thing to recognize is that, on the whole, Amtrak is competing with driving, not with flying.

For the portion of the market who is boycotting the TSA or refuses to fly for other reasons... Amtrak is still competing with driving, not with flying.

Amtrak beats driving hands down in most of the so-called "long distance" markets where it exists: New York - Chicago, Upstate NY - Chicago, Chicago-Twin Cities, Chicago-North Dakota, Seattle-Spokane, Chicago-Denver, Montana-Seattle, Montana-Chicago, Montana-Portland, Portland-Sacramento, San Jose-Los Angeles, Denver-Chicago, Ski Areas - Denver, Reno-Sacramento, KC - Chicago, Pittsburgh-Chicago, etc. (I've left out the Southeast simply because I don't travel there so I don't understand it, but I am told the same is true for many Southeastern city pairings.)

The Sunset Limited, with its ridiculous three-a-week schedule, is an exception to this rule. The ultra-slowpoke Texas Eagle, competing with ultra-fast Texas freeways, may also be an exception. In most of the markets, Amtrak will be chosen preferentially over driving, which is *also expensive*.

Maybe people, being poorer, will take fewer trips. This will hurt gasoline sales. It won't hurt Amtrak.

The high, and increasing, pricing is a sign that demand for Amtrak is way higher than Amtrak's capacity. Remember, prices aren't based on cost, they're based on "what the market will bear". Worry about where Amtrak will get new coaches. Don't worry about ridership or revenue: they're still headed up.

While Amtrak may not compete against the airlines, it still must compete against time and finances. That is my concern. While I will not pin this on a specific generation, I can't help but agree with DA's statement above and when it comes to younger riders, I'm zeroing in on this part of DA's post:

. The goals and priorities of the boomer generation have left succeeding generations with housing, healthcare, and legal costs that are skyrocketing even as our salaries stagnate and benefits shrink. Most working age folks today will be working longer and have less to show for it than the boomers before them.

I'd like to apply this to Amtrak's current Thanksgiving program. Years ago, there were so many trains operating, the timetables were literally books. Most lines had additional service. Some lines had significant additional service requiring an influx of leased equipment. You don't see that these days. I believe one of the reasons involves the fact that more people are working during the Thanksgiving period. Years ago, it was difficult to find something open on Thanksgiving. in a few more years, it will be difficult to fond something closed. Additionally, a lot of younger people can't even afford to move out or move far away from their families. They don't need to travel to get together.

If you have limited time, you may not want to spend a large portion of it traveling...particularly if there isn't a significant savings. While this may have a small impact on the corridor service trains, it does present a challenge for the Long Distance network, particularly if on time performance continues to drop.

 

[neroden]

I'd like to apply this to Amtrak's current Thanksgiving program. Years ago, there were so many trains operating, the timetables were literally books. Most lines had additional service. Some lines had significant additional service requiring an influx of leased equipment. You don't see that these days. I believe one of the reasons involves the fact that more people are working during the Thanksgiving period.

I don't think so. Everything is still closed on Thanksgiving. And Amtrak still leases equipment...
I think the problem is that Amtrak simply doesn't have enough equipment to operate more. And the agencies they used to lease from? They don't have extra either.

There is a nationwide shortage of passenger rolling stock. This is the real problem, not some phony claim of reduced demand.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I'd like to apply this to Amtrak's current Thanksgiving program. Years ago, there were so many trains operating, the timetables were literally books. Most lines had additional service. Some lines had significant additional service requiring an influx of leased equipment. You don't see that these days. I believe one of the reasons involves the fact that more people are working during the Thanksgiving period.

I don't think so. Everything is still closed on Thanksgiving.
.

Really? Ever hear of Walmart?

 

[jphjaxfl]

I'd like to apply this to Amtrak's current Thanksgiving program. Years ago, there were so many trains operating, the timetables were literally books. Most lines had additional service. Some lines had significant additional service requiring an influx of leased equipment. You don't see that these days. I believe one of the reasons involves the fact that more people are working during the Thanksgiving period.

I don't think so. Everything is still closed on Thanksgiving. And Amtrak still leases equipment...
I think the problem is that Amtrak simply doesn't have enough equipment to operate more. And the agencies they used to lease from? They don't have extra either.

There is a nationwide shortage of passenger rolling stock. This is the real problem, not some phony claim of reduced demand.

In the pre Amtrak era, many Railroads had "mothballed" passenger train equipment that they could pull out for use in peak times such as Thanksgiving. Most passenger railroads built at least some new equipment every 15-20 years. I remember riding coaches with celestory roofs and walkover seats at peak times even in the late 1960s. The L&N had an interesting heavy weight dining car that they ran on the Pan American up until Amtrak started. The trains normally carried streamlined Counter Lounge Dining Cars that came from the Maine Central Railroad. When one of them was out of service, the heavy weight built in the 1920s was substituted.

 

[jebr]

I'd like to apply this to Amtrak's current Thanksgiving program. Years ago, there were so many trains operating, the timetables were literally books. Most lines had additional service. Some lines had significant additional service requiring an influx of leased equipment. You don't see that these days. I believe one of the reasons involves the fact that more people are working during the Thanksgiving period.

I don't think so. Everything is still closed on Thanksgiving.
.

Really? Ever hear of Walmart?

Isn't Walmart closed until 5 PM (or whenever they start their "Black Friday Thursday" sales?)

 

[keelhauled]

Thanksgiving *Day* most people have off. But the peak travel time is the period surrounding Thanksgiving (especially Wednesday and Sunday), which I'm pretty sure was what Thirdrail was referring to, and I think it's reasonable to say that many more people continue to work through the end of Thanksgiving week and the weekend than once did, which translates into fewer traveling.

 

[A Voice]

I'd like to apply this to Amtrak's current Thanksgiving program. Years ago, there were so many trains operating, the timetables were literally books. Most lines had additional service. Some lines had significant additional service requiring an influx of leased equipment. You don't see that these days. I believe one of the reasons involves the fact that more people are working during the Thanksgiving period.

I don't think so. Everything is still closed on Thanksgiving.
.

Really? Ever hear of Walmart?

Isn't Walmart closed until 5 PM (or whenever they start their "Black Friday Thursday" sales?)

The point remains that while most people still have Thanksgiving off - and many a few days besides - more and more retailers have started opening on the holiday; Initially for the evening, but in trying to outdo each other the hours get earlier every year (can't recall what Walmart did last year, specifically, but I don't see them staying closed if competitors open). It is really a shame, frankly.

But "retailers" (department stores, restaurants, etc.) opening on the very day of a holiday is a very different matter from the fact most businesses, offices, schools, and government buildings remain shuttered, and that shows no sign of changing. If all you have is the one day, chances are you weren't travelling very far anyway. Persons in better paying positions are both more likely to travel (holiday or anytime) and more often employed in jobs which remain closed for holidays (with the inverse also true).

 

[RSG]

Isn't Walmart closed until 5 PM (or whenever they start their "Black Friday Thursday" sales?)

Walmart hasn't been closed on Thanksgiving Day for a number of years. The only time all stores close is at 6 PM Christmas Eve until 6 AM Boxing Day (known to those of us in the States as "December 26th"). Major supermarkets have taken note, with chains like Kroger and Safeway/Albertsons being open until 4 PM Turkey Day. What was once the exclusive purview of convenience stores is now mainstream retailing. :mellow:

 

[jis]

Walmart also does close entirely for a day or two after the visit of a hurricane, due to inability to get deliveries to stock shelves, as we saw in Melbourne and Palm Bay after Irma.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Skyline]

If you are travelling alone, the private auto can be expensive. More expensive than coach on many trains.

If you are part of a group travelling by car, suddenly the economics favor the auto.

I've noticed one of the traits of millennials is that they like to do things and go places with their friends, as opposed to solo.

 

[jis]

It also depends on which private auto one is using and if leased, what lease deal one is getting to use, and what bucket the rail fare is sitting at.

The difficulty in comparing the cost of traveling by private auto vs. any fare collecting commercial service is that most people just use the marginal cost of traveling by auto with the actual cost of traveling by commercial service. I.e. the real fully allocated cost of traveling by auto is usually not used. Then again, the cost of a ticket also is seldom the real fully allocated cost of travel by any of the commercial means.

 

[cirdan]

It also depends on which private auto one is using and if leased, what lease deal one is getting to use, and what bucket the rail fare is sitting at.

The difficulty in comparing the cost of traveling by private auto vs. any fare collecting commercial service is that most people just use the marginal cost of traveling by auto with the actual cost of traveling by commercial service. I.e. the real fully allocated cost of traveling by auto is usually not used. Then again, the cost of a ticket also is seldom the real fully allocated cost of travel by any of the commercial means.

On the other hand, costs do play a role of course, but are just one factor among many.

Unless you are very poor, you don't optimize by cost alone but go for a solution that provides the most acceptable combination of factors overall.

Otherwise everybody would be travelling as stowaway by freight train.