Southwest Chief News & Future Operations

[ohle]

It is being reported that NMRX has received funds from Uncle Sam to get PTC up and running, so this would be good news for Amtrak's operation in New Mexico. It would not surprise me to hear that Mr. Anderson is very annoyed with this turn of events.

True.

This crummy CEO's idea of "improved service" is to replace vital and successful long-distance trains with BUS ROUTES.

Turns out, substituting buses for the trains will ... eh... be more expensive than running the train.

Bus travel is also far more dangerous, compared to trains.

Every week, 167 people die on the roadways. Passenger trains? Maybe 10 a year.

Who figured.

Guess it took a genius CEO who only knows how to cut, cut, cut to know that.

 

[ohle]

I wonder just how the general ridership of Amtrak feels about all of this, as compared to advocate's...meaning organization's like RPA et al, as well as forum's like AU?

That may be the ultimate measure of whether Anderson remains in office, or not. While it is all very much in our thoughts, how many 'ordinary' Amtrak passenger's know about what is going on, or how much they are really concerned about it?

The general traveling public is very upset with this crummy CEO's actions.

Most don't know about it, so they have to be told of all the negative changes which could mean the ending of the trains they travel.

When I pass-out Save Amtrak flyers at stations and on trains, most are receptive and many tell me they plan to write Congress to stop this madman from destroying America's passenger train system.

 

[fredmcain]

It is being reported that NMRX has received funds from Uncle Sam to get PTC up and running, so this would be good news for Amtrak's operation in New Mexico. It would not surprise me to hear that Mr. Anderson is very annoyed with this turn of events.

True.

This crummy CEO's idea of "improved service" is to replace vital and successful long-distance trains with BUS ROUTES.

Turns out, substituting buses for the trains will ... eh... be more expensive than running the train.

Bus travel is also far more dangerous, compared to trains.

Every week, 167 people die on the roadways. Passenger trains? Maybe 10 a year.

Who figured.

Guess it took a genius CEO who only knows how to cut, cut, cut to know that.

Ohle,

167 people EVERY WEEK? Actually, the highway news is even worse than that. According to one web site I just looked at, 40,200 people lost their lives in traffic accidents last year. That comes out to 110 people EVERY DAY ! Or, over four people every hour. To me, those numbers are unacceptable. If it were a war, terrorism or school shootings, the whole entire country would be in a state of uncontrollable outrage. But traffic deaths? Oh well? So what? I guess nobody has any idea what to do about it so we just try not to think about it and the news media ignores it. So, I agree, Anderson's safety concerns where their is no PTC are overdone. (See Ross Capon's take on this earlier in this thread).

Regards,

FMC

 

[Palmetto]

The trouble is you're reaching a limited audience. You need to be on 42nd St and Broadway in New York City.

 

[keelhauled]

True.

This crummy CEO's idea of "improved service" is to replace vital and successful long-distance trains with BUS ROUTES.

Turns out, substituting buses for the trains will ... eh... be more expensive than running the train.

Bus travel is also far more dangerous, compared to trains.

Every week, 167 people die on the roadways. Passenger trains? Maybe 10 a year.

Who figured.

Guess it took a genius CEO who only knows how to cut, cut, cut to know that.

That's a useless statistic without knowing the population it's drawn from. In 2016, there were about 4.3 million million passenger miles traveled on US roadways, compared to 6,520 million passenger miles on Amtrak.

 

[ohle]

It isn't useless.

Amtrak ridership overall, including the long-distance trains, is increasing and is at record levels.

LD trains ridership:

https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3435/ld.pdf

 

[fredmcain]

Ohle,

Uh, well, it WAS increasing before Anderson took the reins but hasn't patronage been heading south again? And that brings up another thing. His numbers are not looking all that great.

Regards,

FMC

 

[jis]

That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.

Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?

From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart

 

[cpotisch]

That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.

Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?

From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart

Yeah, that's some pretty odd logic. I think he meant that for the past few years, ridership has been the highest ever, but it still has no connection whatsoever that I see to fatality rates on the rails.

 

[ohle]

That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.

Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?

From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart

4.68 million is very similar to 4.7 million.

Ridership is up and is at record rates, not only this year, but in recent years.

This is something that should be applauded, how Amtrak (albeit slowly) has helped reverse the trend in declining train travel which began after World War II and continued through the 1980s.

The post isn't about fatality rates, which are very low (compared to other transportation modes).

 

[ohle]

That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.

Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?

From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart

Yeah, that's some pretty odd logic. I think he meant that for the past few years, ridership has been the highest ever, but it still has no connection whatsoever that I see to fatality rates on the rails.

My post wasn't about fatality rates. Move on to the next subject.

 

[ohle]

how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?

From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart

Those numbers are the same.

Like 1.9 million is very similar to 2 million.

Who can't understand statistics?

 

[keelhauled]

It sounds like we have a case of alternative facts in here, with a side of attempted Gish galloping.

 

[ohle]

The fact is, Amtrak long-distance ridership is at record levels. And has been the last five years.

The slight decline from the earlier high is likely due to all the freight-related delays, which are numerous.

There's nothing "untruthful" about my point that ridership of the trains is at an all-time high.

 

[jebr]

Trying to draw an argument that since there's so many more road fatalities than rail fatalities that trains are super safe ignores a lot of variables: how many people die per x amount of miles traveled, mixing road accidents by amateur drivers (most of us, myself included) vs. professional drivers, etc.

I couldn't easily find a non-biased source for deaths per x unit of vehicle miles traveled, at least from a non-biased source (there was something from the Cato Institute, but it was in a very anti-rail policy brief, so I didn't want to rely on it.) The best calculation I could do from the non-biased information I could find was to compare the highway bus fatality count compared to highway bus total miles traveled vs. rail, passenger "train accidents" and potentially "rail, other" deaths compared to Intercity/Amtrak and Commuter rail miles traveled. (I'm not sure if "rail, other" is a category to include for deaths, but it does exclude trespasser and rail crossing deaths. I'm also not sure if rail, passenger includes commuter rail, but it's not specifically called out elsewhere so I'm assuming it's considered part of rail passenger, whereas transit isn't.)

According to Table 1-40 from the National Transportation Statistics, published by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2014 (the latest year with full data) there were 339,177 million passenger miles traveled by highway bus, versus 18,275 million passenger miles traveled by Amtrak, intercity, and commuter rail in 2014. Table 2-1 from the same source states that 3 people died from train accidents for passenger rail in 2014, and 12 died after including in "rail, other." That same year, 44 bus passengers died while traveling.

Even on the low end, assuming none of the "rail, other" deaths were passenger deaths, there was one death per 6092 million passenger miles by rail, vs one passenger death per 7709 million passenger miles by bus. To me, that signals that bus transportation is likely just as safe, if not safer, than rail transportation.

There's plenty of reasons to oppose bus-bridging part of the SWC's route, but safety isn't one of them. Bus transportation is just as safe as rail transportation.

 

[jis]

how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?

From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart

Those numbers are the same.Like 1.9 million is very similar to 2 million.

Now YOU can't understand statistics?

Yeah they are 100,000 apart. Since you did not mention what error parameter was acceptable to you for this discussion, your accusations are neither here nor there.

The point that keelhauled made was that raw fatality numbers are useless unless they are looked at in the context of the size of the universe in which they are being measured. So his point was that unless you are talking of fatality rates it is a useless statistic, and I and at least one or two others agreed with that. So merely saying that you were not talking about fatality rates and that ridership is at an all time high (presumably in the Amtrak era?) does not address the issue raised by keelhauled.

It sounds like we have a case of alternative facts in here, with a side of attempted Gish galloping.

Indeed, not good at producing credible arguments I am afraid. But such is life.

There may be an argument to be made along the lines spelled out by jebr, but it has been botched badly I am afraid. I think we should stay clear of the "safety" argument since it really does not hold water. It is better to focus on the convenience or lack theref argument, which will lead to drastic reduction in usage, leading to a death spiral of the route. Use argument that are harder to refute.

If there is rock solid verified information that bustitution will cost more than capital upgrade and maintenance of tracks then that argument can be used too, but I am skeptical about its validity without seeing concrete numbers.

The main point is - if we who are in general pro-passenger rail can dismember an argument easily, just imagine what those that oppose will do with that argument.

Edits: added a few clarifications and final thoughts.

 

[cpotisch]

That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.

Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?

From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart

Yeah, that's some pretty odd logic. I think he meant that for the past few years, ridership has been the highest ever, but it still has no connection whatsoever that I see to fatality rates on the rails.

My post wasn't about fatality rates. Move on to the next subject.

If you weren't talking about fatality rates, how come you specifically responded to keelhauled and defended your fatality rate logic?

Let's look at the post timeline:

1. You compared the number of Amtrak-related fatalities in 2017 to the number of automobile fatalities.
2. Keelhauled explained that that was a useless metric since you didn't take into account how many more passenger miles are done in automobiles compared to Amtrak
3. You said "It isn't useless" (which makes it pretty clear that you were responding to him), and then showed that chart which supposedly indicated that 2017 had the highest ridership ever.

So you can't tell me that that post wasn't about your fatality rate argument.

 

[ohle]

There may be an argument to be made along the lines spelled out by jebr, but it has been botched badly I am afraid. I think we should stay clear of the "safety" argument since it really does not hold water. It is better to focus on the convenience or lack theref argument, which will lead to drastic reduction in usage, leading to a death spiral of the route. Use argument that are harder to refute.
If there is rock solid verified information that bustitution will cost more than capital upgrade and maintenance of tracks then that argument can be used too, but I am skeptical about its validity without seeing concrete numbers.

The main point is - if we who are in general pro-passenger rail can dismember an argument easily, just imagine what those that oppose will do with that argument.

Edits: added a few clarifications and final thoughts.

Not really.More disinformation posted on these forums.

Trains are far safer than buses, which share space with automobiles on the highly-dangerous and highly-subsidized money-losing highway systems.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/04/trains-safer-than-cars-buses-passengers-experts-say/82613144/

"....Trains remain safer for passengers than cars or buses..."

Trains safer than cars, buses for passengers, experts say Amtrak collisions and passenger deaths are rare – despite high-profile crashes in the last year, according to industry statistics and experts.

Trains remain safer for passengers than cars or buses, and nearly as safe as airliners, federal statistics show.

Just a handful of rail passengers die most years, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

But 96% of railway deaths were suicides or people who weren’t authorized to be on the tracks, such as trespassers or vehicles at grade-level crossings, according to the Federal Railroad Administration.

“Trains are significantly safer than automobiles,” said Allan Zarembski, a research professor and director of the Railroad Engineering and Safety Program at the University of Delaware. “The problem that you have with train crashes is that they tend to be very high profile, just like an airline crash.”

....

“The number of people who are killed on trains every year is minute," Zarembski said.

 

[west point]

We would like to see ridership and passenger miles for Amtrak listed from year 2000 - 2017. That takes Amtrak from a higher employment year thru the low at 2008. Then to 2017. Why the question ? 2009 was the start of PRIIA and rebuilding of 50+ AM-1s. How that additional capacity is another effect on ridership that is unknow to these posters ? Then how many additional cars out of service for whatever reason ? We again have the argument that if 100 V-1 sleepers had been delivered then sleeper riders might have increased dramatically or not ? We need the breakdown of revenue passenger miles in our opinion of 5 categories. Acela, other NEC, short distance, long distance and LD sleeper. Then we also need the OTP listed for each year. As well in each category the number of trains with one or more sold out segments.

Till those numbers are cited we tend to ignore all the arguments here. .

 

[ohle]

We would like to see ridership and passenger miles for Amtrak listed from year 200 - 2017. That takes Amtrak from a higher year thru the low at 2008. Then to 2017. Why the question ? 2009 was the start of PRIIA and rebuilding of AM-1s. How that additional capacity is another effect on ridership. is unknow to these posters ? We again have the argument that if 100 V-1 sleepers had been delivered then sleeper riders might have increased dramatically or not ? We need the breakdown of revenue passenger miles in our opinion of 4 categories. Acela, other NEC, short distance, long distance. Then we also need the OTP listed for each year. As well in each category the number of trains with one or more sold out segments.

Till those numbers are cited we tend to ignore all the arguments here. .

Amtrak ridership in 2017 was at a record. The highest ever. (I know some here will call it "Fake news...," but tough).

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Amtrak-broke-ridership-financial-records-in-FY2017--53302

Amtrak broke ridership, financial records in FY2017 Amtrak posted record ridership, revenue and earnings in fiscal-year 2017, which ended Sept. 30, railroad officials announced yesterday.

In FY2017, Amtrak's ridership increased 1.5 percent to 31.7 million passenger trips and total revenue rose 1.1 percent to $3.2 billion compared with figures in FY2016, according to an Amtrak press release.

The railroad's unaudited, adjusted operating loss of $194 million was 15.7 percent less than its operating loss in FY2016. Amtrak recovered 94.7 percent of its operating costs — a new record — with ticket sales and other revenue, railroad officials said.

Also in FY2017, Amtrak posted year-over-year ridership gains for all of its service lines. Ridership grew 1 percent to a record 12 million passengers on the Northeast Corridor; rose 2.1 percent to 15 million on state-supported services; and climbed 0.9 percent to 4.6 million riders on long-distance routes.

 

[jebr]

There may be an argument to be made along the lines spelled out by jebr, but it has been botched badly I am afraid. I think we should stay clear of the "safety" argument since it really does not hold water. It is better to focus on the convenience or lack theref argument, which will lead to drastic reduction in usage, leading to a death spiral of the route. Use argument that are harder to refute.
If there is rock solid verified information that bustitution will cost more than capital upgrade and maintenance of tracks then that argument can be used too, but I am skeptical about its validity without seeing concrete numbers.

The main point is - if we who are in general pro-passenger rail can dismember an argument easily, just imagine what those that oppose will do with that argument.

Edits: added a few clarifications and final thoughts.

Not really.More disinformation posted on these forums.

Trains are far safer than buses, which share space with automobiles on the highly-dangerous and highly-subsidized money-losing highway systems.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/04/trains-safer-than-cars-buses-passengers-experts-say/82613144/

"....Trains remain safer for passengers than cars or buses..."

Trains safer than cars, buses for passengers, experts say Amtrak collisions and passenger deaths are rare – despite high-profile crashes in the last year, according to industry statistics and experts.

Trains remain safer for passengers than cars or buses, and nearly as safe as airliners, federal statistics show.

Just a handful of rail passengers die most years, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

But 96% of railway deaths were suicides or people who weren’t authorized to be on the tracks, such as trespassers or vehicles at grade-level crossings, according to the Federal Railroad Administration.

“Trains are significantly safer than automobiles,” said Allan Zarembski, a research professor and director of the Railroad Engineering and Safety Program at the University of Delaware. “The problem that you have with train crashes is that they tend to be very high profile, just like an airline crash.”

....

“The number of people who are killed on trains every year is minute," Zarembski said.

I'm glad that your rebuttal to statistics from the Bureau of Transporation Statistics is an article that claims that buses are safer than trains "according to experts," yet never actually shows a quote where an expert mentions buses at all, and the only statistics are from the European Railway Agency, and the article don't state whether the statistics given are for Europe, for the world as a whole, for the US (doubtful, since it's "per billion kilometers,") or some other measurement.

No one here is arguing that taking the train is unsafe. But to try and rail against a bus bridge because it's unsafe is somewhere between questionable to downright misinformation. Arguing that bus travel is unsafe may also influence people to drive instead of take a bus, when driving is multiple times more deadly than taking a bus or train. Let's advocate for the SWC on better terms (such as "yes, the route will be safe even if PTC isn't completely installed" or "forcing transfers will plummet ridership, likely leading more people to drive") and not falsely tarnish a mode of transport that, used effectively, can be safer for transportation in general and increase connectivity in a true, multi-modal, transportation system.

 

[cpotisch]

We would like to see ridership and passenger miles for Amtrak listed from year 200 - 2017. That takes Amtrak from a higher year thru the low at 2008. Then to 2017. Why the question ? 2009 was the start of PRIIA and rebuilding of AM-1s. How that additional capacity is another effect on ridership. is unknow to these posters ? We again have the argument that if 100 V-1 sleepers had been delivered then sleeper riders might have increased dramatically or not ? We need the breakdown of revenue passenger miles in our opinion of 4 categories. Acela, other NEC, short distance, long distance. Then we also need the OTP listed for each year. As well in each category the number of trains with one or more sold out segments.

Till those numbers are cited we tend to ignore all the arguments here. .

Amtrak ridership in 2017 was at a record. The highest ever. (I know some here will call it "Fake news...," but tough).

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Amtrak-broke-ridership-financial-records-in-FY2017--53302

Amtrak broke ridership, financial records in FY2017 Amtrak posted record ridership, revenue and earnings in fiscal-year 2017, which ended Sept. 30, railroad officials announced yesterday.

In FY2017, Amtrak's ridership increased 1.5 percent to 31.7 million passenger trips and total revenue rose 1.1 percent to $3.2 billion compared with figures in FY2016, according to an Amtrak press release.

The railroad's unaudited, adjusted operating loss of $194 million was 15.7 percent less than its operating loss in FY2016. Amtrak recovered 94.7 percent of its operating costs — a new record — with ticket sales and other revenue, railroad officials said.

Also in FY2017, Amtrak posted year-over-year ridership gains for all of its service lines. Ridership grew 1 percent to a record 12 million passengers on the Northeast Corridor; rose 2.1 percent to 15 million on state-supported services; and climbed 0.9 percent to 4.6 million riders on long-distance routes.

That's great. But it doesn't at all change the fact that the graph you posted earlier clearly showed that this was not the case. Now you could be wrong or that your graph could be wrong, but either way, your claim that 2017 had peak ridership is directly contrary to what it actually showed.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

We would like to see ridership and passenger miles for Amtrak listed from year 200 - 2017. That takes Amtrak from a higher year thru the low at 2008. Then to 2017. Why the question ? 2009 was the start of PRIIA and rebuilding of AM-1s. How that additional capacity is another effect on ridership. is unknow to these posters ? We again have the argument that if 100 V-1 sleepers had been delivered then sleeper riders might have increased dramatically or not ? We need the breakdown of revenue passenger miles in our opinion of 4 categories. Acela, other NEC, short distance, long distance. Then we also need the OTP listed for each year. As well in each category the number of trains with one or more sold out segments.

Till those numbers are cited we tend to ignore all the arguments here. .

Amtrak ridership in 2017 was at a record. The highest ever. (I know some here will call it "Fake news...," but tough).

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Amtrak-broke-ridership-financial-records-in-FY2017--53302

Amtrak broke ridership, financial records in FY2017 Amtrak posted record ridership, revenue and earnings in fiscal-year 2017, which ended Sept. 30, railroad officials announced yesterday.

In FY2017, Amtrak's ridership increased 1.5 percent to 31.7 million passenger trips and total revenue rose 1.1 percent to $3.2 billion compared with figures in FY2016, according to an Amtrak press release.

The railroad's unaudited, adjusted operating loss of $194 million was 15.7 percent less than its operating loss in FY2016. Amtrak recovered 94.7 percent of its operating costs — a new record — with ticket sales and other revenue, railroad officials said.

Also in FY2017, Amtrak posted year-over-year ridership gains for all of its service lines. Ridership grew 1 percent to a record 12 million passengers on the Northeast Corridor; rose 2.1 percent to 15 million on state-supported services; and climbed 0.9 percent to 4.6 million riders on long-distance routes.

That's great. But it doesn't at all change the fact that the graph you posted earlier clearly showed that this was not the case. Now you could be wrong or that your graph could be wrong, but either way, your claim that 2017 had peak ridership is directly contrary to what it actually showed.

Graph showed long distance ridership. Here he claims that total ridership in is a record high. The way he said that was slightly misleading IMO.

 

[ohle]

We would like to see ridership and passenger miles for Amtrak listed from year 200 - 2017. That takes Amtrak from a higher year thru the low at 2008. Then to 2017. Why the question ? 2009 was the start of PRIIA and rebuilding of AM-1s. How that additional capacity is another effect on ridership. is unknow to these posters ? We again have the argument that if 100 V-1 sleepers had been delivered then sleeper riders might have increased dramatically or not ? We need the breakdown of revenue passenger miles in our opinion of 4 categories. Acela, other NEC, short distance, long distance. Then we also need the OTP listed for each year. As well in each category the number of trains with one or more sold out segments.

Till those numbers are cited we tend to ignore all the arguments here. .

Amtrak ridership in 2017 was at a record. The highest ever. (I know some here will call it "Fake news...," but tough).

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Amtrak-broke-ridership-financial-records-in-FY2017--53302

Amtrak broke ridership, financial records in FY2017 Amtrak posted record ridership, revenue and earnings in fiscal-year 2017, which ended Sept. 30, railroad officials announced yesterday.

In FY2017, Amtrak's ridership increased 1.5 percent to 31.7 million passenger trips and total revenue rose 1.1 percent to $3.2 billion compared with figures in FY2016, according to an Amtrak press release.

The railroad's unaudited, adjusted operating loss of $194 million was 15.7 percent less than its operating loss in FY2016. Amtrak recovered 94.7 percent of its operating costs — a new record — with ticket sales and other revenue, railroad officials said.

Also in FY2017, Amtrak posted year-over-year ridership gains for all of its service lines. Ridership grew 1 percent to a record 12 million passengers on the Northeast Corridor; rose 2.1 percent to 15 million on state-supported services; and climbed 0.9 percent to 4.6 million riders on long-distance routes.

That's great. But it doesn't at all change the fact that the graph you posted earlier clearly showed that this was not the case. Now you could be wrong or that your graph could be wrong, but either way, your claim that 2017 had peak ridership is directly contrary to what it actually showed.

Graph showed long distance ridership. Here he claims that total ridership in is a record high. The way he said that was slightly misleading IMO.

Oh, the nit-picking society is alive and well.
You do realize the graf (about the long-distance ridership) is different from Amtrak's overall ridership?

Two separate things.

It's called a division, like business have separate divisions. Ala, a grocery store would have canned goods, meat, produce, deli, pharmacy, etc.

Ridership is up on all of Amtrak's divisions, including the important and successful long distance trains.

 

[cpotisch]

Ridership is up on all of Amtrak's divisions, including the important and successful long distance trains.

You do realize you just went back to your argument about record long distance ridership, and as we saw earlier, that's not the case.