Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Amtrak may have to choose frequency over national service
National links: Amtrak may have to choose frequency over national service
LINKS By Jeff Wood (Contributor) July 28, 2023
Image by Rob Pegoraro licensed under Creative Commons.
Amtrak’s ridership versus coverage problem. Lyft wants out of bikeshare. Predictable city branding.
Amtrak’s ridership versus coverage problem: As Amtrak prepares to receive more federal funding than it has in decades, Jarrett Walker writes that Amtrak’s policy rhetoric is the perfect example of coverage versus ridership decisions that need to be made. To cover the contiguous 48 states, Amtrak would have to spread itself thin to serve each state, whereas focusing on ridership would require concentrating service. The two can’t exist at the same time even when Congress wants service for everyone and Amtrak to be profitable. (Jarrett Walker | Human Transit)
{snip}
LINKS By Jeff Wood (Contributor) July 28, 2023
Image by Rob Pegoraro licensed under Creative Commons.
Amtrak’s ridership versus coverage problem. Lyft wants out of bikeshare. Predictable city branding.
Amtrak’s ridership versus coverage problem: As Amtrak prepares to receive more federal funding than it has in decades, Jarrett Walker writes that Amtrak’s policy rhetoric is the perfect example of coverage versus ridership decisions that need to be made. To cover the contiguous 48 states, Amtrak would have to spread itself thin to serve each state, whereas focusing on ridership would require concentrating service. The two can’t exist at the same time even when Congress wants service for everyone and Amtrak to be profitable. (Jarrett Walker | Human Transit)
{snip}
Amtrak’s Endless Ridership-vs-Coverage Problem
Posted on July 23, 2023 in General, Language
Amtrak is about to see more Federal funding than it’s had in decades, and is finally in the position to talk about major growth. But their “Amtrak Connects US” vision document is worth reading to notice two things: They continue to face a conflict between ridership goals and coverage goals, and they don’t feel that it’s safe to talk about that openly.
To review:
Ever since I did the first scholarly paper on this in 2008, I’ve been helping transit agencies face this problem honestly and make clear decisions about it. Pretending that you are doing both just produces confusion and unhappiness, because these goals are mathematically opposite. They tell network designers to do opposite things. Rhetoric can paper over the problem but won’t resolve it.
For years, Congress has berated Amtrak for not being profitable (which would require ridership) while demanding that it run service to every corner of the country (coverage). The high-ridership thing for Amtrak to do, as the report makes clear, is to focus on improved frequency and travel time for trips of under 500 miles, a distance where rail service between city centers can effectively compete with flying between airports, and this in fact is what the plan recommends. But that means the improvements won’t be everywhere.
Yet when it comes to highest-level summary, the report seems pressured to de-emphasize its own recommendations. Here are the seven bullet points that form “Amtrak’s 15 Year Vision” (p9). I’ve labeled each with whether it refers to ridership or coverage.
{snip}
Posted on July 23, 2023 in General, Language
Amtrak is about to see more Federal funding than it’s had in decades, and is finally in the position to talk about major growth. But their “Amtrak Connects US” vision document is worth reading to notice two things: They continue to face a conflict between ridership goals and coverage goals, and they don’t feel that it’s safe to talk about that openly.
To review:
• Ridership goals are served by concentrating good service where there are lots of people to benefit from it.
• Coverage goals are served by spreading service out so that you can say everyone got some, regardless of whether people ride.
Ever since I did the first scholarly paper on this in 2008, I’ve been helping transit agencies face this problem honestly and make clear decisions about it. Pretending that you are doing both just produces confusion and unhappiness, because these goals are mathematically opposite. They tell network designers to do opposite things. Rhetoric can paper over the problem but won’t resolve it.
For years, Congress has berated Amtrak for not being profitable (which would require ridership) while demanding that it run service to every corner of the country (coverage). The high-ridership thing for Amtrak to do, as the report makes clear, is to focus on improved frequency and travel time for trips of under 500 miles, a distance where rail service between city centers can effectively compete with flying between airports, and this in fact is what the plan recommends. But that means the improvements won’t be everywhere.
Yet when it comes to highest-level summary, the report seems pressured to de-emphasize its own recommendations. Here are the seven bullet points that form “Amtrak’s 15 Year Vision” (p9). I’ve labeled each with whether it refers to ridership or coverage.
{snip}