San Joaquins Lead Amtrak California Ridership Gains
Another month, another set of ridership gains on Amtrak California. And this time the gains are led by the “train to somewhere” route, the San Joaquins, which like the first construction segment of the high speed rail project include stops at Fresno, Hanford and Bakersfield:
San Joaquin, which runs through the Central Valley, linking Los Angeles and Bakersfield with Sacramento and the Bay Area, had a 12 percent increase in ridership from May 2010, along with a 19 percent increase in revenue, according to a statement from Caltrans.
The Pacific Surfliner line, which links San Luis Obispo with San Diego via Santa Barbara and Los Angeles, had a less dramatic increase in ridership of 4 percent, and a 9 percent rise in revenue.
But nobody will ride trains in California!
Seriously, if we’re seeing these kind of increases on a train whose connection to LA is by bus, whose top speed is just 79 mph, imagine what will happen when high speed rail is built. This isn’t a new development either; ridership on Amtrak California routes has been steadily rising for over a decade.
The anti-HSR forces would have you believe that increase never happened. They’d also have you believe that common sense no longer exists, that if you gave people a much faster train that connected the key destinations in the state, nobody would ride it, preferring instead of sacrifice half a day sitting unproductively behind the wheel of a car, or cramming yourself in on a plane where you similarly cannot be as productive.
The success of Amtrak California is a clear indication of the future success of California high speed rail.
And the San Joaquin will see another spike if a 7th daily train is added. Last I saw, it was planned for 2012/2013, although the report was written before the recession. That would allow all day service every 3 hours, with a wee-hour gap.
Caltrans has many reports on improvements to the San Joaquin, but as far as I can tell, none will happen. Improvements include building a layover yard in Fresno, so that service can be aimed at those traveling south (right now the schedule is based off san francisco). So the 6am southbound bus could be made into a train, likewise the last train of the day from LA is actually a bus that terminates in Fresno.
On an aside, two bus lines that served the Fresno-Los Angeles-Tijuana market/route went out of business last month. Why? The government poured bundles of cash into Fresno-Guadalajara air service. Large bundles of cash. The buses could no longer compete. (They werent competing with Amtrak because of price differences)
Imagine if that kind of money went to passenger rail service. But no, funding government transport? Thats socialism. Giving taxpayer money to private companies so they can run ad campaigns, on top of waiving landing fees and counter fees? Free market america baby.
Alai Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
I’d be interested in reading about the Fresno-Guadalajara air service business. Do you have a link?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
I rather doubt that the one daily flight, leaving at 11:40pm and costing $203 per coach ticket, had anything to do with the bus companies going out of business. In fact, I would be somewhat surprised if they served even the same market since Guadalajara is just shy of 1,400 miles south of Tijuana. The best choice for flying into TIJ is a two stop connection and even more expensive, so that can’t be it either.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
I take that back, there are two daily flights. AeroMexico does that one, Volaris operates a more expensive flight at 1am. Truly a killer of bus service to a thousand miles north.
JJJ Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Actually, it has 100% to do with it.
Those bus companies were taking people to the airport. LAX for those with papers, Tijuana for those without papers (illegals can return to mexico at any time through the land border). Only a few brave souls continued by bus all the way to Oaxaca, Guadalajara etc (very, VERY few valley mexicans comes from DF). And by brave souls, I mean those who didnt mind 18 hours in a bus if it meant saving $50. Of course, as the drug war has heated up, fewer and fewer chose the bus option in Mexico as its become too dangerous
Anyway, so people were taking buses to LAX because airfare from Fresno was too expensive, and always involved 1 or two transfers. But the government poured money into the foreign airlines, and now people can fly direct at a reasonable price.
So it wasnt $65 bus trip vs $200 airline to get home, it was
$50 bus trip + $150 airline to get home.
There were….5? bus lines doing this. Costa Oro, Intercaliforneas, Crucero, + 2 more that I cant recall right now. (Im not including greyhound because they serve a different market). 2 went out of business within a month of the new air service.
Also, tickets start at $50. Both airlines run sales frequently. If you see a travel agent instead of an online broker, and form a relationship, the agent will call you the second a sale starts so you can buy your annual air ticket at $50 and not pay $250.
JJJ Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Alai, here are the subsidies Im talking about
http://www.fresno.gov/CouncilDocs/agenda4.7.2011/9151b.pdf
No landing fees or rent for 2 years.
$300,000 per airline for advertising
And keep reading. Fresno paid for 5 customs agents to sit around doing nothing for a year.
Dont forget the international arrivals area built for mexicana.
Note that mexicana operated for 52 months and carried 250,000 passengers. AKA, 3 months of San Joaquin service.
datacruncher Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
I just read that link. Doesn’t it also estimate that Fresno’s airport will collect per passenger fees and other charges totalling $2.4 million over 2 years vs. the cost of the fee waivers and advertising of $1.4 million. It appears they also expect increased parking revenue.
The international arrivals area? I just looked it up, looks like it was built for $1.65 million in 2006.
http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2E5D6B21-BE25-42B8-BB52-6C179CB1DAF4/0/March142006CouncilAgenda.pdf
To compare, the restoration of the Fresno Amtrak station cost $6 million in 2005.
http://www.bcf-engr.com/projects/private-development/fresno-santa-fe-depot/
JJJ Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Sure, it estimates that money will flow like a well maintained city fountain. And we all know how well cities maintain their fountains.
Ill eat my words in 2 years if those estimates prove true. But right now, I feel theyre as relevant as the Hanford claim that rail will cause 100 million in dairy loses.
Also note how the report makes zero mention of the bus lines the subsidy eventually killed. How much economic value was lost there?
datacruncher Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Your argument can also be used by opponents to other transportation situations. For example, potential loss to businesses/job losses along highway 41 (gas stations, restaurants, etc) if Fresno starts a bus to Yosemite which will need a subsidy? Or used by someone to debate an impact on Greyhound because the state supports rail/thruway bus service (Greyhound cut 64 California cities and junction stops in 2005)? Some argue the impact building HSR will have on airlines.
Are you opposed to these other situations too?
In the Fresno airport situation, it looks to me like it gains a benefit of service that as you said lowered airfares to Mexico. It also eliminated 4 to 6 hours of just one-way bus rides/car drives for locals to board an airplane at those cheaper prices. There is also a potential economic growth benefit since Guadalajara is a major business center in Mexico, transportation connectivity has long been a problem for Fresno’s economy and businesses.
That $1.4 million startup subsidy ($700,000/yr) may more than pay back Fresno and its residents in other ways before it ends in 2 years.
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
I wonder how much the subsidies are costing the taxpayer. I bet the dollars could be used better towards adding more double track, extending sidings, etc.
Andre Peretti Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
This is not typically American. It happens in France, too.
Marseille airport offers very favorable terms to Ryanair in exchange for being the airline’s hub for southern Europe. The deal with Ryanair has created many jobs (direct and induced) and has been very positive for the airport’s finances: more parking fees, more business for the airport’s shops and restaurants, increased ridership for the airport buses. Since the airport is the region’s property, the taxpayer also wins.
A superficial observer will probably be shocked because French taxpayers’ money is being used to subsidize a foreign airline. It would be very shortsighted.
Maybe what works for Marseille also works for Fresno.
Peter Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
But Fresno isn’t a hub for anything. Yeah, Skywest Airlines uses it as a pilot domicile, but there only about 20 airlines per day (as of September 30, 2009).
wu ming Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
a hub for the southern san joaquin valley, perhaps. that’s a couple million people.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 14th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
The hub reference was to an airline hub and spoke system.
Peter Reply:
June 14th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Yes.
datacruncher Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Fresno has an incentive plan offered to airlines that start service on new routes. In Fresno’s case it appears the airport waives landing fees and reduces rent for 120 days for new domestic flights and up to 2 years for new international service.
http://www.fresno.gov/CouncilDocs/Agenda9.30.2008/1d.pdf
The 120 days appears to be short compared to others.
A quick search turned up that San Diego waives fees for new airline service on domestic routes for 1 full year (vs Fresno’s 4 months) and up to 2 years for service to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean
http://www.san.org/documents/business_opportunities/air_service/North_American_Air_Service_Incentive_Program.pdf
Santa Barbara waives the fees for new airline service for up to 1 full year for new domestic service.
http://www.thedailysound.com/011209airincentives
and I see others turning up in the search.
I don’t know the situation behind the bus lines mentioned. But at one point Aeromexico had a deal with a bus line to transport passengers from Fresno to the Tijuana Airport where they boarded Aeromexico flights. But since Aeromexico started flights at Fresno they probably cancelled that deal and passengers now avoid a long ride to the Tijuana Airport from Fresno.
First link leads back here.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Fixed.
“The success of Amtrak California is a clear indication of the future success of California high speed rail.”
If by success you mean that it’s a miracle that anyone would choose Amtrak over the myriad of better options, not the least of which is hitching a ride with a sex offender previously convicted of chopping up supple young railfans, then yes, Amtrak California is a smashing success. But when I think of what could be with a rail system that doesn’t take roughly half a sitcom for trains to accelerate to full speed before slowing down on a siding in order to wait for a freight train full of Barbie torsos to slink on by, I realize that Amtrak California is nothing to be proud of.
Recently, it was revealed that Metrolink’s Angel baseball fan trains were also a success with about 150 riders per train. And then I looked up what the average attendance for an Angels home game actually is. If this is where we set the bar for success then we might as well declare our state to be a rail utopia because a few hundred baseball fans took a heavily subsidized trip to the ballpark.
Even if the San Joaquins showed a 50% gain in ridership, it would not justify stopping the practice of shoving cactus leaves up our assholes as punishment for not building a proper rail system 20 years ago.
JJJ Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
“If by success you mean that it’s a miracle that anyone would choose Amtrak over the myriad of better options”
What options?
Greyhound? $400 plane tickets? The Mexican bus lines discussed above?
There are no options.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Which would somewhat make his point. Amtrak only has success there by being the only other option. It is not, in itself, an indicator of good passenger rail service.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 7:39 am
And that is, of course, the argument of the post. If even Amtrak speed trains perform like this, when you trade off the ability to sit down and get work done for a slower trip than driving, imagine how proper trains would preform.
Spokker Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
No, my point is that Amtrak California is not a success. The saving grace is that the numbers are going in the right direction, but nobody should feel justified enough to pat themselves on the back when we are increasing nothing by 19%. If salary were based on merit, employees at the Department of Rail and Amtrak should be unpaid interns.
And yes, Greyhound would be a better option for many destinations and types of people. My partner’s mother will not take Amtrak from the Central Valley to Southern California. The Greyhound is much easier for her.
If high speed rail existed she would likely be priced out under the competitive profitable system we all seem to be gung-ho for. If fares were kept low so disabled women could afford to use the train, then it would serve the public good and not private interests.
Risenmessiah Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Hold on though….
Amtrak California’s story is about return on investment (ROI) not the dividend. Consider how much money the state has invested in the San Joaquins, Capitol Corridor, or Surfliner above what it was investing a decade ago. Then look at ridership gains. What you see is as in many monopolistic/monopsonic situation is that because it’s incremental costs are so low, it allows decision makers to avoid thinking that the system is at a breaking point. At some point, you can’t expand San Joaquins any more (or Surfliner etc.) and then what do you do?
Joey Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
At some point, you can’t expand San Joaquins any more (or Surfliner etc.) and then what do you do?
Build a real rail system?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
To be fair regarding Metrolink Angel games, the Metrolink fare is only a dollar less than parking at Angel Stadium. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Metrolink advertise to anyone other than those already riding it either. That said, that’s certainly not what I’d consider to be a success either.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
“Which would somewhat make his point. Amtrak only has success there by being the only other option. It is not, in itself, an indicator of good passenger rail service.”–Paulus Magnus
This is also Robert’s point; if this service, despite all its shortcomings, does as well as it does, and the “perceived” advantages of driving or flying supposedly being as great as they are claimed to be, what could we do with a really good service?
Alternately, what would it take to provide the high-quality air service that would be the competition for the train? How commercially successful would it be? Would the bus service even be in the same league?
I must strongly disagree with Spokker on one point. This shouldn’t have been done 20 years ago. It should have been done at least 30 years ago, after the second oil embargo! Of course, it might also have been limited to the original TGV line’s 186 mph due to track center spacing. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 12th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Poor service in Ohio (special for Bruce McF):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp88oumRQvs
Jim Henson variant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEilPR1PXko
I don’t know if I would call this good service or not, but the sound is great:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1rWyyYfQaw&feature=related
BruceMcF Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 7:45 am
Wow, a train to anywhere at 8:35am ~ for Cincinnati or Cleveland that would be a brilliant schedule.
Up by 12% of what?
Baseball fan trains that are a success—Caltrain—San Francisco Giants.
During the 7 playoff and World Series games played in San Francisco last year Caltrain had 60.000 extra riders, which means that at least 1 fan in 10 rode the train, An additional 30,000 took the train to or from the victory parade.
During the regular season over 400,000 tickets were sold to Giants fans which would work out to around 5,000 tickets per game or 2,500 fans assuming the round trip would equal 2 tickets.
These numbers are obviously helped by the fact that Caltrain gives front door service to AT&T Park. I am not familiar with Anaheim but isn’t Angel Stadium also within walking distance of the Metrolink Station?
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 12:10 am
It is, through the parking lot though.
thatbruce Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Both have fans walk about the same distance. Metrolink also runs extra services for games there. A similar physical and service arrangement also exists for events held at the California Speedway.
This is the link to the Amtrak California press release:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/11pr47.htm
In Nov-Feb 2009-2010, the San Joaquin trains averaged about 80,000 riders per month, so we should be over 90,000, or perhaps close to 100,000 per month.
It’s not a huge amount, but consider that only 1.2 million people a year fly to and from Fresno’s airport. So the trains are about as busy as the airport, despite not reaching San Francisco, San Jose or Los Angeles directly, and only averaging speeds of about 50 mph (e.g. it takes 4 hours to go the 200 miles from Oakland to Fresno).
Actually, according to this graph, ridership was almost 100,000 per month in April: http://transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=amtrakca&action=display&thread=1076
The link from Amtrak with May 2011 National Ridership Numbers:
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249227805921&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_ATK-11-085_19_Months_Ridership.pdf
A few things:
1. (3) of the top (6) lines in terms of ridership are in California. The other 3 are the Acela, Northeast Regional, and Keystone (Pittsburgh) Lines.
2. The Northeast Corridor cumulative is at 997,000 riders and the California cumulative (Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, Capitol Corridor) is 501,000 riders
Definitely agree with people that its good California is doing well, but I think pretty evident that in can be doing a whole heck of a lot better. Amtrak’s goal should be for the California trains be moving 75% to 100% of what we see in the Northeast rather than 50%
AlanF Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Small correction: the Keystone service goes from NYC to Philly to Harrisburg, PA, the end of the electrified Amtrak owned line, not Pittsburgh. The daily Pennsylvanian is the only train left that goes from NYC to Philly to Pittsburgh and it’s ridership is counted separately.
The San Joaquin ridership growth has edged it just barely ahead (678,348) of the NYC to Albany Empire corridor (677,578) for the first 8 months of the FY. The numbers for the 3 CA corridors are impressive, given the they are not all that fast. If CA can land a few hundred million more for track improvements in the next several years combined with the delivery of the bi-levels funded by the recent grant awards, the ridership numbers should see pretty significant growth while the CA HSR system is being built.
francis Reply:
June 15th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Given the population of the Northeast (50M) vs. the population of California (37M), our numbers are really good.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 15th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Eh. The Northeast has higher ridership per capita, and longer rides as well (average fare per CA traveller is only about twenty dollars; Amtrak is essentially express commuter trains out here). In large part, however, that can be attributed to the higher speeds (making them car competitive), more cities connected, and more frequent train service (LA-SD has 11 trains per day; DC-NYC has 35 between Acela and NERegional).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 15th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
longer rides as well
Amtrak actively discourages short trips on the NEC. An extreme example it Newark NJ to Penn Station in NY. NJTransit fare is $5.00. Lowest Amtrak fare for travel tomorrow is 27. Highest Acela fare is 57.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 15th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
You know, with the single-file queuing, I’d say Amtrak actively discourages all trips, long and short.
O/T: Richard White elaborates on his reasons for opposing CAHSR while promoting his new book on railroads. Comment is about 20 minutes into the discussion: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-13/richard-white-railroaded
here in the uk high speed rail critics are also questioning ridership levels for the planned hs2 from london to the north of england, yet in the first 3 months of this year on the existing overcrowded railway uk wide, ridership is up 4.8% or nearly 20% annually. last year was about 6% for the whole year.
http://www.newsonnews.net/travel/8660-atoc-rise-in-petrol-prices-helps-railways-to-4-8-percent-growth-in-first-three-months-of-2011.html
critics also say that hs1 from london to the channel tunnel has been a failure. however eurostar carried nearly 10 million and the new for last year domestic service carried nearly 7 million. and the overall economic benefits of hs1 were nearly 1.7 times the cost.
http://www.colinbuchanan.com/uploads/cms/files/147e7dfc-2a53-4267-83d7-72bdde92062e.pdf
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
HS2 doesn’t necessarily make all that much sense, however. 32 billion pounds, about US$52 billion, with the benefit being a maximum of a one hour reduction in travel time, and less with other city pairs? Seems quite reasonable to doubt the worth of that expenditure.
nick Reply:
June 14th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
sorry but with overcrowded railways and roads and with a benefit to cost ratio of greater then 2 to 1 it makes a great deal of sense. as i pointed out hs1 has created billions in the economy
Alon Levy Reply:
June 14th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
The issue is less the benefit-cost ratio than the very high cost of HS2 relative to the length of the line. London-Birmingham as proposed is 17 billion pounds for 196 km, i.e. $140 million per kilometer. It’s about the same as the cost per kilometer of the Gotthard Base Tunnel, despite the fact that this segment is only going to have about 20 km of tunnel.
Jon Reply:
June 14th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
The other issue is that the route simply isn’t long enough. Rail already competes well for travel between London and the mid/north or England, as the distance is usually too short to be worth flying. Travel between Scotland and London is still long enough by rail (4-5 hrs from Glasgow or Edinburgh) that a 2hr30 or 3hr journey time would be very competitive with flying.
This is what the original HS2 plan would have achieved, but the new government wants to limit the scope to England, with high speed trains using conventional track to get to Scotland. Of course, the fact that the Conservatives got 1 out of 59 MPs elected in Scotland at the last general election has nothing whatsoever to do with this change of approach.
nick Reply:
June 14th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
yes rail does compete well but is hamstrung by a lack of overall capacity. i dont see why a london to birmingham then onto manchester/leeds line which totals 200 miles is too short. i should think it would reach 2/3 of the uk population. it will provide loads of extra capacity, and save nearly an hours journey time. if you need more capacity it is less disruptive and cheaper then trying to upgrade existing lines. and if you are building a new line it may as well be high speed and it is the high speed that will encourage people out of their cars. the uk is apparently the most congested country in europe.
as far as the cost is concerned road and other projects in the uk are inflated also. and the figure includes an optimism bias (gobbledeygook for inflation adjustment!) of at least 20%
and you have to start somewhere and there is nothing to say that it cant be extended further.
bearing all this in mind there are some similarities with california hsr !
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I think the EU might fund part of it in order to achieve the goal of reducing the amount of domestic flights. It would open up many more slots at LHR for wide-body international flights. You cannot add more capacity to the WCML so I see HSR in this case, a necessary reliever just like with JR’s Tokaido line back in 1960.
OT but related:
“Rail Stations Drive Demand”, an article by DANA RUBINSTEIN in the Wall Street Journal gives favorable information about the economic impact of Rail Stations.
The article states in part:
Businesses have been leasing space in areas served by train stations at a higher rate than those only accessible by car, according to real-estate firms. The trend reflects demographic shifts and higher gasoline prices as well as changes in worker priorities.
For example, businesses are beginning to recognize that many employees care less about living in sprawling estates and more about living in diverse areas with restaurants and entertainment within walking distance, notes Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. “All these things are starting to add up and companies are very attuned to it,” he says.
You may be able to read the entire article at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303848104576381873749553788.html
Jerry Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Rail Hubs help bring in business, but incentives help.
Panasonic Corporation of North America recently announced that it will relocate its North American headquarters to Newark, NJ in 2013 as part of its plans to reduce the size of its carbon emissions footprint. Joe Taylor, CEO of Panasonic of North America said, “We couldn’t possibly demonstrate our commitment and our credibility to being a green company, and ask 1,000 people to drive to work every day.”
Panasonic will locate within a block of Newark Penn Station, with connections to Amtrak and several commuter rail lines. (The city of Newark is served by seven rail lines.) It also helped that Panasonic reaped more than a hundred-million-dollar Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit. If a big company locates near a transit line, it gets a bundle of goodies from the state of New Jersey..
The breakdown of the “goodies” Panasonic received can be found at:
http://www.njeda.com/web/pdf/eda/February162011BoardAgenda.pdf
O.T.- Amtrak touts international “peer review” of its HSR plans, a rebuff to Repub claims that it’s a “Soviet-style” operation?:
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/166131-amtrak-touts-international-peer-review-of-high-speed-rail-plans
Alon Levy Reply:
June 13th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Okay, so Amtrak is saying that the projections of costs for an overbuilt system are appropriate. Notice how it’s not saying the international peer review cleared Market East, Charles Center, or the tunnels through Westchester.