Lynchburg VA NE Regional (ext. to Roanoke and Bristol)

neroden wrote:

Arlington wrote: Q2) What are the effects on the Cardinal?Has it been cannibalized or has "draining" low-$-per-mile locals off it had the effect of permitting the Cardinal to sell more long distance tickets> Are those long distance tickets more profitable per-mile than local VA trip?...

Not absolutely sure about the Cardinal, but apparently they're quite sure that it's a "win" for the Crescent.

You're right. I should have asked what the effects were on all the other trains and buses (That Amtrak participates in) in the Blue Ridge market generally. Of the Crescent & Cardinal, the Crescent is the more directly competitive and I too have read that it was positive for the Crescent.

Fron the are three little corridor-related factoids gleaned from this recent Amtrak press release (in PDF) on Thanksgiving week traffic records.

Over the Thanksgiving week, ridership changes from 2009 to 2010 on Routes serving CVS-WAS

LYH-WAS +689 +19% (from 3,587 to 4,276)
Crescent -281 -4% (from 7,605 to 7,324)
Cardinal +379 +15% (from 2,501 to 2,880)

Now, we can't quite see where they boarded/alighted but even if we attributed 100% of the Crescent's losses to LYH-WAS (i.e. we say that the Crescent's loss was 100% due to Cannibalization by LYH-WAS) we would still say that Amtrak netted +408 new passengers on the corridor they share.

The other very positive thing is that LYH-WAS grew 20% year over year (for Thanksgiving week, anyway), meaning that its second year of operation is highly unlikely to be worse, and is very likely to be almost 20% better, or more, depending on how long it takes for people to add the train to their trip choice set--and all of those extra passengers are basically pure profit. Here again, it is hard for me to imagine Amtrak cancelling this train if Virginia withdrew its sponsorship.

arlington wrote:depending on how long it takes for people to add the train to their trip choice set

My sense from watching the Illinois service is that it takes quite a while for the full effect of a service improvement to be realized. I'd posit that there are three phases, each of which also has a geographic dimension - people in the smaller cities and towns learning about the service itself (this probably happens fairly quickly - if you're in Lynchburg, you quickly know that there are more trains), people enticed to ride after hearing from friends convenient and successful trip, then a smaller set of people recognizing that the new service creates reasonable connecting service options; while a similar but much slower process is taking place in the bigger city involved - much slower since a single new Amtrak train isn't big news in DC, nor is it very physically visible - most DC area residents won't have to wait at a crossing while the Lynchburg run passes, and if they do, they won't immediately know where it's headed.

I'd be very surprised if the Lynchburg run wasn't still growing in 2012.

For some reason, I still see the Cardinal as more of a Charlottesville-Chicago train. For example, travelling eastbound the Cardinal seems to be more on the "discharge" between Charlottesville and WAS/NYP. Westbound, the Cardinal seems to be of a train that "boards" passengers between NYP/WAS and Charlottesville on its "turn" toward Chicago at Charlottesville.

It also appears that the Crescent is being "relieved" of "local" traffic between NYP and Lynchburg so it can get more of the long distance traffic residing south of Lynchburg. The Crescent definitely has a good market of passengers between WAS/NYP and Atlanta.

All in all, it appears to be a win-win situation with the new Lynchburg train, Cardinal, and Crescent. It certainly would be better if the Crescent and Lynchburg train had a little more "space" between them in the schedule, but I don't think that is really possible with certain objectives that Amtrak seems to want to corner. For example, Amtrak seems to want the Washington DC - Atlanta overnight "hotel on wheels" option for the Crescent, yet also allowing so the Lynchburg train could bring people back and forth between Washington DC (even NYC) and Lynchburg all within the same day.

afiggatt wrote:"The success of both Amtrak Virginia services is promising as the Commonwealth works to increase intercity passenger rail service to major population centers in Virginia. DRPT is working with Norfolk Southern to identify improvements necessary to extend the Richmond train to Norfolk within three years. DRPT is also working to evaluate a potential extension of the Lynchburg train to Roanoke, as well as a bus bridge to offer service between the two cities in the short term."

The bus bridge study is now complete and shows a predicted ridership of 3600 passengers per year paying $3 each.

A daily bus service that would bring riders from Roanoke to the Lynchburg train station for connections to Washington and the Northeast is feasible, according to state Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2011/j ... ar-750864/

That equates to 5 passengers per bus. According to Amtrak state fact sheets, last year the Lynchburg station had an average of 160 boardings/alightings per day which can be divided into approxmiately 80 passengers passengers boarding. Lynchburg boardings on the Crescent were down last year as 70 to 75 percent of passengers opted to take the cheaper and more reliable new Northeast Regional train. That is about 58 passengers boarding per day. The proposed bus service would meet only the new Northeast Regional train (not the Crescent); and the study estimates that the bus would increase the number of passengers boarding that train at Lynchburg by about 10%.

I still hope to see the train extended to Roanoke, but I guess a bus connection is better than nothing.

Matt, Virginia is taking a low risk, incremental approach. The forecast of 5 passengers per bus trip should be easily exceeded. Then, they can tout the success as a reason to extend the train.

jstolberg wrote:That equates to 5 passengers per bus. According to Amtrak state fact sheets, last year the Lynchburg station had an average of 160 boardings/alightings per day which can be divided into approxmiately 80 passengers passengers boarding... and the study estimates that the bus would increase the number of passengers boarding that train at Lynchburg by about 10%.

Can you close the final bit of analysis? 10% of 80 is 8 new passengers expected on the train due to the bus. Are you saying that although the train's forecasts expect 8 from the bus, the bus forecast only needs/shows 5 bus riders at $3 each (only $15 in fares on each bus?) to be a success?

Arlington wrote:Can you close the final bit of analysis? 10% of 80 is 8 new passengers expected on the train due to the bus. Are you saying that although the train's forecasts expect 8 from the bus, the bus forecast only needs/shows 5 bus riders at $3 each (only $15 in fares on each bus?) to be a success?

80 passengers get on each day at Lynchburg, but approximately 22 are getting on the Crescent (either northbound or southbound). That leaves 58 (give or take) getting on the northbound Northeast Regional. If 10% of those (and round down) ride the bus, that is 5 passengers meeting the new train.

I'm not saying that is how the number was arrived at. It's just one way to look at it.

The prediction is about $10,000 in annual bus fares, and a subsidy of $150,000/year.

It's hard to see how that's good for the train or for Virginia. If you can't do better than a 6% farebox recovery ration, then there is really no demand for the service. I think I'd prefer to channel that subsidy into track work to prep the line for an extension of the train itself, and forget about the bus.

ryanch wrote:The prediction is about $10,000 in annual bus fares, and a subsidy of $150,000/year.

It's hard to see how that's good for the train or for Virginia. If you can't do better than a 6% farebox recovery ration, then there is really no demand for the service. I think I'd prefer to channel that subsidy into track work to prep the line for an extension of the train itself, and forget about the bus.

The actual study is at http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities ... 0Study.pdf
The bus is designed as a loss leader. The study anticipates that after spending just $3 on bus fare, the new passengers will then spend over $50 on their train ticket. Total revenue is forecast at $199,000/year which is a 132% farebox recovery ratio.

Presumably, the additional 5 passengers per train could be carried with no increase in operating expenses on the rail portion of the trip.

Well, that does seem to make more sense than the way it was explained in the article. I hope they put something on the website and promotional materials for the bus to explain it the way you have, or a lot of people will have the impression I did.

The Roanoke-Lynchburg Ambus is another step closer to reality: http://www.wset.com/Global/story.asp?S=14166403

The Senate and House Conference Committees agreed in their budget to provide one year of funding for an Amtrak bus from Lynchburg to Roanoke. The funds total $150,000.

It now goes onto the Governor McDonnell for final approval before money is appropriated.

I guess a bus is better than nothing, but I hope if such a service is implemented, it doesn't become an excuse not to extend rail service to Roanoke. It seems silly though to terminate the train in Lynchburg and then have a connecting bus drive along a route parallel to the well maintained Norfolk Southern mainline!