Pennsylvanian may end

[Anderson]

Frankly, neither PA nor any other state ought to be expected to pick up 100% of the operating and capital cost of their passenger trains. There needed to be more uniformity among the states' agreements and conditions (i.e. NY state's free ride on the Empire Service needed to end), but the two things are not one and the same. Likewise, Amtrak should have been given at least some discretion on starting new routes or adding frequencies on existing routes. PRIIA attacked a problem, but that doesn't mean I agree with the solution they came up with.

 

[DivMiler]

Its better that I, as a PA taxpayer, be forced to chip in $45/$66 for each of their tickets?
Unlike with the Feds, PA has to have a balanced budget. So, every penny spent, has to come from the taxpayers. Is there $45/$66 of "value" to the PA taxpayer for each passenger on the Pennsylvanian traveling west of Harrisburg? The answer to that, is the answer to if PennDOT should pick up the cost.

Charlie,

If we and our representatives think that it is important to have travel by railroad between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, then we should subsidize it, for the common good. You are not asked to pay $45 or $66 more -- you (and I, too, as a Pennsylvania taxpayer) would be asking our elected representatives in the legislature to make decisions as to how to use the taxes we pay to the state -- the, uh, Commonwealth.

There is a balanced budget, and the $5.7 million we would pay to keep the service going is $5.7 million out of somewhere else. And $5.7 million is 0.02% of the $28.4 billion budget Governor Corbett proposed February 5, 2013. In other words, a pittance.

(And by the way, I don't think simple division tells the true story of the cost and/or benefit).

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

PennDOT is busy upgrading US Route 22 paralelling the Pennsy. Greyhound also has service on that route, and they're improving their buses. This could become a second major highway along the Turnpike. The only town where the Pennsy is extremly important is Huntingdon.

With better roads and better buses, Amtrak needs to add the through cars fast to prevent ridership loss. Not only with that qualify it for "full federal" funding, it will also get higher ridership from east of PGH since Pitsburgh is losing population.

 

[afigg]

Some of the comments I see here and elsewhere about the Pennsylvanian have the impression that it has flat or falling ridership. That is not the case over the last 8 years. It has not grown as quickly in ridership as other corridors, but ridership grew 5.5% from FY08 to FY12. I don't have Amtrak monthly reports prior to 2009, but I have a NARP fact sheet from several years ago that provides what appears to be calender year ridership for the train back to 2004. There was a bump in ridership in 2008 which matches Amtrak ridership increase systemwide due to the first round of $4/gallon gas.

NARP Pennsylvanian history ridership

2004: 168.1K

2005: 184.5K

2006: 180.3K

2007: 176.9K

Amtrak monthly reports by fiscal year with ticket revenues

FY08 200,999; $7.914 million
FY09 199,484; $7.819 million (FY09 was a down year for Amtrak systemwide due to the recession)
FY10 203.392; $8.453 million
FY11 207,422; $8.856 million
FY12 212,006; $9.281 million

 

[PaulM]

It seems like adding Sleeping Cars which would likely also mean adding.a dining car would make the.cost of the operation more expensive. I don't see that happening in 2013. PA. needs to fund a.subsidy for double daily service to Pittsburgh similar to what IL does. Thrre certainly enough population for that.

I think Anderson took care of the diner question.

But I agree with you about the IL vs. PA comment. If Quincy, population 40,000 and steady for the last 30 years, has two well patronized trains per day, Pittsburgh should be able to manage one.

Also, a one year drop or increase in anything is a poor excuse for a long term decision.

 

[AlanB]

I don't have Amtrak monthly reports prior to 2009,

Here's the numbers from the Amtrak monthlies from 2003 to present, year end totals:

Year   Pax      Revenue
2003  124,372   $4,374,263
2004  171,483   $5,903,816
2005  189,345   $7,756,672
2006  184,049   $7,036,861
2007  180,140   $6,620,783
2008  200,999   $7,914,009
2009  199,484   $7,819,404
2010  203,392   $8,453,934
2011  207,422   $8,856,539
2012  212,006   $9,281,813

 

[Ryan]

$5.6 million dollar shortfall.

12.76 million PA residents.

44 cents a head isn't too much to ask. Part of living in society is paying for some things you don't use. On the flip side of that, I'm sure you use some things that the rest of us are helping to chip in for, so it's probably a wash.

 

[Tracktwentynine]

$5.6 million dollar shortfall.
12.76 million PA residents.

44 cents a head isn't too much to ask. Part of living in society is paying for some things you don't use. On the flip side of that, I'm sure you use some things that the rest of us are helping to chip in for, so it's probably a wash.

I'm not even a Pennsylvania resident, and I would be willing to chip in twice, ah hell, three times the necessary subsidy. Go ahead, up my taxes by $1.32. I'll just cut out one tall Starbucks latte a year.

 

[afigg]

I don't have Amtrak monthly reports prior to 2009,

Here's the numbers from the Amtrak monthlies from 2003 to present, year end totals:

Thanks for filling in the earlier FY numbers. Shows that the ridership trend, with the exception of a small dip in FY09 has been up since FY2007. This is not a train with declining or tiny ridership. 212K works out to an overall average of 290 passengers per daily train each way.

BTW, to anyone who might have more recent info, what is going on with the Western Keystone H®SR study?

 

[TML]

Given the current political climate, I wonder if the Pennsylvanian will fare any better than the Hoosier State...

 

[Big Green Chauvanist]

I used to take the Pennsylvanian on my cross-country trips, but westbound, I get terribly bored waiting--sometimes hours if the Capitol Limited is late--at the Pittsburgh Amshak, "glorified" as it might be as Amshacks go. I also can't get up at what, 5:30 AM to transfer from the CL to the Pennsylvanian eastbound. So now I take the NE corridor-CL or the LSL even though not quite as convenient. So I was excited at the prospect of a through sleeper attached to the Pennsylvanian to and from NYC. Looks less likely that it will happen now.

 

[Anderson]

Also, a point on the 2003/4 numbers: The Three Rivers was still running at the time, therefore diverting at least some ridership from the Pennsylvanian...but ridership probably also took a hit from the Warrington fare hikes as well. Ridership and revenue were largely stagnant from 2005-09 (there were drops in four of five years in terms of ridership, and revenue was flat in nominal terms and down in real terms over that time). That's what I walked into when I started doing those charts.

Since then, performance hasn't been too bad: Ridership is up about 6% while revenue is up about 18%. Moreover, the Pennsylvanian is the once-daily non-LD train with the second-highest ridership (far behind the Carolinian, but ahead of the Blue Water and Lynchburger). I suspect part of the train's issues may well be a matter of only being able to flog so much ridership out of a single train, especially if there's trouble with ridership getting frozen out due to NYP-PHL (and similar locations) traffic freezing out long(er)-distance riders. And of course, I don't think the Pennsylvanian gets traffic solely on that end credited to it (though I've got no clue about allocations PHL-HAR).

Random aside: Why does the train only stop at Exton one way? This is about the only case of a one-way stop on a train that I can think of in the system (not that there's no history for something like this), so I'm a bit surprised by it.

 

[cirdan]

Pittsburgh population is dropping. I wouldn't read anything more into it than that.

Lots of places in the Rust Belt are losing population, but not all are using that as an excuse to cut services. On the contrary, good connections help retain and attract business, tourism etc.

 

[cirdan]

$5.6 million dollar shortfall.
12.76 million PA residents.

44 cents a head isn't too much to ask. Part of living in society is paying for some things you don't use. On the flip side of that, I'm sure you use some things that the rest of us are helping to chip in for, so it's probably a wash.

I'm not even a Pennsylvania resident, and I would be willing to chip in twice, ah hell, three times the necessary subsidy. Go ahead, up my taxes by $1.32. I'll just cut out one tall Starbucks latte a year.

+1

 

[AlanB]

Also, a point on the 2003/4 numbers: The Three Rivers was still running at the time, therefore diverting at least some ridership from the Pennsylvanian...but ridership probably also took a hit from the Warrington fare hikes as well. Ridership and revenue were largely stagnant from 2005-09 (there were drops in four of five years in terms of ridership, and revenue was flat in nominal terms and down in real terms over that time). That's what I walked into when I started doing those charts.

Correct. In fact, if one looks at the 2005 report, Amtrak actually added in the 3R's numbers to the Penny's totals. For that reason I didn't provide those numbers, but instead provided the numbers listed in the 2006 report under the 2005 column, since Amtrak had backed out the 3R numbers to provide a more valid comparison between the two years. The combined numbers for 2005 as shown in that report were 213,413 and $8,737,087. The combined 2004 numbers were 324,325 and $15,015,145.

Note the huge drop in revenue & ridership as the 3R's came to an end. Also part of the factors here and affecting the numbers too, is the fact that through 2005 the Pennsy picked up extra ridership because it ran all the way to Chicago.

 

[Anderson]

I had forgotten that it ran to CHI that late; for some reason, I thought it had been cut back before 2005. That is infuriating in some ways, since if the train still ran to Chicago we likely wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

 

[Trogdor]

Also, a point on the 2003/4 numbers: The Three Rivers was still running at the time, therefore diverting at least some ridership from the Pennsylvanian...but ridership probably also took a hit from the Warrington fare hikes as well. Ridership and revenue were largely stagnant from 2005-09 (there were drops in four of five years in terms of ridership, and revenue was flat in nominal terms and down in real terms over that time). That's what I walked into when I started doing those charts.

Correct. In fact, if one looks at the 2005 report, Amtrak actually added in the 3R's numbers to the Penny's totals. For that reason I didn't provide those numbers, but instead provided the numbers listed in the 2006 report under the 2005 column, since Amtrak had backed out the 3R numbers to provide a more valid comparison between the two years. The combined numbers for 2005 as shown in that report were 213,413 and $8,737,087. The combined 2004 numbers were 324,325 and $15,015,145.

Note the huge drop in revenue & ridership as the 3R's came to an end. Also part of the factors here and affecting the numbers too, is the fact that through 2005 the Pennsy picked up extra ridership because it ran all the way to Chicago.

Was the extra ridership to Chicago more than the ridership it picked up by running to/from New York?

That said, the Pennsylvanian did not run to Chicago through 2005. 2005 is when the Three Rivers was discontinued.

According to Wikipedia (because I don't feel like looking up other info), the train was cut back to NYP-PGH in January 2003 (this seems to coincide with my memory of some change happening in January or February of some year before the 3R went away). The Three Rivers continued to operate as it was. If memory serves me, the Pennsylvanian was briefly discontinued in late 2004 when Amtrak made the 180-day notice to discontinue PGH-CHI service along the Three Rivers route. During that period, there was only one train operating, which was the Three Rivers NYP-CHI. When the Three Rivers ended, the Pennsylvanian was restored on its NYP-PGH schedule.

 

[VentureForth]

$5.6 million dollar shortfall.
12.76 million PA residents.

44 cents a head isn't too much to ask. Part of living in society is paying for some things you don't use. On the flip side of that, I'm sure you use some things that the rest of us are helping to chip in for, so it's probably a wash.

I'm not even a Pennsylvania resident, and I would be willing to chip in twice, ah hell, three times the necessary subsidy. Go ahead, up my taxes by $1.32. I'll just cut out one tall Starbucks latte a year.

I think that this train should be run like the Carolinian or the Piedmonts. Too lazy to make accurate comparisons, but that's my thought. And tell me where I can get a Starbucks Latte for $1.32 - or are you talking about the difference between the cost of a Tall and a Short??

 

[Trogdor]

I think that this train should be run like the Carolinian or the Piedmonts.

In what way is the current operation of the Pennsylvanian different from that of the Carolinian?

 

[Ryan]

Forwards for the entire trip?

h34r:

 

[Alexandria Nick]

The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.

I took the Pennsylvanian once, the morning after the Phillies were in Pittsburgh. Train was packed with Phillies fans heading back to Philly. I took this as a sign of Philadelphia, being on the NEC, having SEPTA, and all that, knew it was a viable travel option. But when I go home to Pittsburgh on the CL and someone asks me when I drove up and I reply "took the train," the response is some form of "you can do that?"

 

[cirdan]

I think that this train should be run like the Carolinian or the Piedmonts.

In what way is the current operation of the Pennsylvanian different from that of the Carolinian?

The Carolinian is enthusiastically (in comparison) supported by the state, and in terms of its future, they're talking about adding freqeuncies, making it faster and doing other pleasant things to it.

In the case of the Pennsylavnian, the prospects look very much to be heading in the opposite direction.

 

[benjibear]

I think this is one of those lines that if they increased frequency, so you can take a round trip during a one day period, this route would proper. I honestly would like to see this route expanded to the same frequency as the Keystone. That may be a little much, but I think 2 or 3 a day would be nice.

Anyone know of any other similar lines that propered after being down to one train a day? The reason I ask, is I am going to write letters to my represenative and it would be nice to have a comparable example.

 

[Barciur]

It's a 7,5 hrs trip.. not sure if anybody would really want to do that as a 'one day period' trip, unless maybe it would be coming back as a night train?

Which would actually be very awesome if it, say, departed at 10pm from New York. It would be of good value for just Keystone service users. Last train from Philadelphia to Harrisburg leaves at 11PM. I often go to shows etc. in Philadelphia, so covenient to take the train in, but I have to sleep over as the last keystone leaves early. And it's usually pretty filled with people. If the Pennsylvanian that would be coming to PGH overnight would depart PHL between 12 and 1 it'd be of good value I think.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.
I took the Pennsylvanian once, the morning after the Phillies were in Pittsburgh. Train was packed with Phillies fans heading back to Philly. I took this as a sign of Philadelphia, being on the NEC, having SEPTA, and all that, knew it was a viable travel option. But when I go home to Pittsburgh on the CL and someone asks me when I drove up and I reply "took the train," the response is some form of "you can do that?"

That's definately a big problem no matter what. People won't vote for the governer that wants trains.

I think that this train should be run like the Carolinian or the Piedmonts.

In what way is the current operation of the Pennsylvanian different from that of the Carolinian?

The Carolinian is enthusiastically (in comparison) supported by the state, and in terms of its future, they're talking about adding freqeuncies, making it faster and doing other pleasant things to it.

In the case of the Pennsylavnian, the prospects look very much to be heading in the opposite direction.

North Carolina is also building light rail It seems like they just support large vehicles overall.