Bay Area & Sacramento lead soaring Amtrak ridership gains in California (Los Angeles: 2013, buy)

[18Montclair]

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Res...es%20tomer.pdf

Percentage Change in Amtrak Ridership, 2007-2011
Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Roseville +197.2%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara +140.2%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont +113.2%
Fresno +84.0%
Modesto +74.7%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario +74.2%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana +71.5%
Stockton +67.4%
Bakersfield +65.4%
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura +52.0%
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos +26.5%

[jade408]

I love Amtrak. I wish it was a little cheaper. But it is super convenient. The time is pretty much the same as driving. My parents live near Lodi. I take the train to avoid the Altamont traffic, and I get to catchup on my magazine and book reading.

When they lived in Sac, I took the train as well, instead of dealing with the traffic on 80.

Hopefully, it can get a little better connected with the other transit (I find it necessary to drive to the station, bus options are kinda crappy). Other than that, a job well done!

[bmw335xi]

I also like Amtrak, but it is so over-priced, so I only rode it once.

[Ruth4Truth]

OP, is this a pitch for the high speed rail? If Amtrak ridership is way up, it means there is a demand for rail service.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

OP, is this a pitch for the high speed rail? If Amtrak ridership is way up, it means there is a demand for rail service.

The OP and I both abhor so called HSR.

It is a tragedy of the commons. Money is best spent on existing intra and inter city systems. Not the train to nowhere.

[Ruth4Truth]

Um, well...LA and SF technically aren't quite "nowhere", but your point is taken.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Um, well...LA and SF technically aren't quite "nowhere", but your point is taken.

The problem is the route the chose to go between LA ans SF is effectively nowhere.

For example, considering the ridiculous traffic through the Altamont (and the need to connect Sacramento), did they choose to align this in the sparsely populated areas east of Monterey?

They could have hit two birds with one stone with better planning. Instead, the route will bypass Oakalnd and the East Bay and northeast Central Valley -- when there is plenty of evidence that "slow" trains are already doing extremely well in the area and there is demand.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by jade408

The problem is the route the chose to go between LA ans SF is effectively nowhere.

I know. I didn't want to mention that, because we have a vocal poster who lives in one of those "nowhere" places, lol!

But yeah, more rational (and less political) planning would have really helped that train. Plus, they have it making so many stops in the SD and LA areas, that it won't be high speed, it'll just be more of a local train. It's as if they want it to do two jobs at once: be local in certain areas, but also be high speed. It just goes to show how far behind the US is with investment in rail travel in general.

[bentobox34]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Res...es%20tomer.pdf

Percentage Change in Amtrak Ridership, 2007-2011
Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Roseville +197.2%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara +140.2%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont +113.2%
Fresno +84.0%
Modesto +74.7%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario +74.2%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana +71.5%
Stockton +67.4%
Bakersfield +65.4%
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura +52.0%
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos +26.5%

No surprise from this former Sacramentan, current Bay Arean and Silicon Valley employee who has ridden within and between all three metros for the past 6 years. The increase has been immediately apparent to any of us on the train.

I agree that the prices are too high - it is only affordable if you buy a monthly pass and actually use it almost every work day. The 10-ride pass is nice but it expires too quickly (6 weeks) and isn't enough of a bargain. The 1-3 day/week train commuter could be a very good market for Amtrak to reach out to with better 10-ride discounts.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I know. I didn't want to mention that, because we have a vocal poster who lives in one of those "nowhere" places, lol!

But yeah, more rational (and less political) planning would have really helped that train. Plus, they have it making so many stops in the SD and LA areas, that it won't be high speed, it'll just be more of a local train. It's as if they want it to do two jobs at once: be local in certain areas, but also be high speed. It just goes to show how far behind the US is with investment in rail travel in general.

The problem with HSR in today's political climate is as follows (at least in my opinion):

Take a very Democratic state such as California that supports HSR. However, Democratic states give environmentalists massive power. This is the main reason why the proposed HSR is in the middle of nowhere and why it's estimated cost has exploded and continues to explode. There is a good chance it will never happen because of the costs fighting these environmentalists and the many required revisions. Many Californians that once supported HSR, no longer do anymore.

Now take a very Republican state such as Texas that doesn't support HSR. However, if they did, they would be much more likely to keep costs down and actually build routes that make sense because environmentalists have little power.

California has the will, but due to the power environmentalists have in this state, the HSR will look like a rotten piece of cabbage with a record holding price tag that very few will like.