train ridership numbers are up... are people still scared to fly? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

phredgreen · 12-04-2003, 12:50 AM

Quote:

as found here: http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...bers_for_2003/

Amtrak to post record Thanksgiving ridership numbers for 2003
12/3/2003

BOSTON -- About 600,000 passengers boarded Amtrak trains over Thanksgiving weekend, the highest holiday ridership in the company's 32-year history, an Amtrak spokesman said.

The week that began Nov. 25 and ended Monday also brought the highest ticket sales for Thanksgiving travel, totaling $30.9 million.

"The numbers are preliminary, but we are pretty confident in what this means," Amtrak spokesman Dan Stessel said, adding that the company would release official numbers next week.

The holiday weekend also set records at Boston's South Station, where many of the Thanksgiving passengers were college students, said Amtrak's New England division spokesman Richard Peters, who attributed the boom to the company's student discount program.

Stessel said Amtrak has refurbished equipment and updated its trains in recent years, and has added trains during the peak holiday travel period.

"Passengers are noticing that cars are looking better and the trains are operating more reliable and hopefully that will continue for years to come," he said.

In 2002, Amtrak recorded 545,000 passengers for the Thanksgiving travel week. In 2001 -- a big year for Amtrak due to air-travel anxieties following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- ridership was 567,000 for the week.

so the facts are plain.. people are still anxious about hopping on those jetliners. so where do you stand? do you still feel we are in any danger, or do you feel like this is an over-reaction? do you prefer trains over planes? tell us why.

SecretMethod70 · 12-04-2003, 01:00 AM

I have absolutely no more qualms about flying than I did before September 11. In fact, I never had a heightened problem with it. There were hundreds of planes in the sky that morning and only 3 were hijacked. Add into that consideration that the hijacking of planes is hardly a regular occurance and it's easy to see there's no reason for concern.

However, if Amtrack got off their butts and started to switch to super-fast trains - maybe like the one that goes 360 MPH I read about the other day

- then I'd imagine train ridership would skyrocket TREMENDOUSLY.

Baldrick · 12-04-2003, 05:25 AM

Personally I think it's a big Catch-22 - many people are still afraid to fly, but no more than over the last couple of years. Because business is so bad year round for the airlines after 9-11 however, they have had to cut back planes, flights, and even whole routes - meaning far fewer total seats available. Some smaller airlines have even gone out of business completely.

Now, when you use the single biggest travel day in the US as the benchmark, many people who aren't afraid to fly couldn't get a seat. They had to travel somehow, so train, bus or driving their own vehicles are the only alternatives. I'd be willing to bet bus business went WAY up during the US Thanksgiving holiday as well.

exile · 12-04-2003, 05:27 AM

They Said that a significant number of people did fly over the holiday weekend, but the industry is still off by over 14% from pre 9/11 numbers or something like that..

more people are flying just, not as many that were before 9/11 yet.

Holo · 12-04-2003, 05:38 AM

I would still fly but I personally love going by train. You get to see so much that you can't in the air or on a bus or in a car, winding thru woods and around farm fields. If I had the time I would take a train over flying any day, but not really because of terrorism.

cj22009 · 12-04-2003, 05:42 AM

I think its a combonation of two things some people are still scared to fly and some people don't feel like putting up with all the security bullshit they have now when you fly

opey99 · 12-04-2003, 08:06 AM

I have no problem with flying, but if you have time and want a relaxing ride the train with a sleeper seems the way to go

and trains derail too

erion · 12-04-2003, 08:10 AM

Being in the Northeast, traveling by train is very convenient.

I can drive 15 minutes from home, hop a train, and be in Grand Central in under two hours for very little money and hassle.

Cynthetiq · 12-04-2003, 08:50 AM

i'll fly most places, and get anxious but i don't take the train because of costs and not saving any time

yournamehere · 12-04-2003, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
There were hundreds of planes in the sky that morning and only 3 were hijacked.

So I guess that's pretty insignificant, right?
BTW - 4 were hijacked - ONLY three reached their target - but the passengers and crew of Flight 93 are just as dead as the others.

Averett · 12-04-2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by erion
Being in the Northeast, traveling by train is very convenient.

I can drive 15 minutes from home, hop a train, and be in Grand Central in under two hours for very little money and hassle.

Yup, quick ride to the train station, down into NYC in about 2 hours. It's nice...

I'm not scared to fly at all. I flew 2 weeks after 9/11 to California and I wasn't worried at all. Can't live your life scared that something bad will happen.

Macheath · 12-04-2003, 09:38 AM

Great, trains can be really romantic but usually aren't these days. I'd love it if rail made a comeback and started incorporating high speeds with the comfort and opulence of an old fashioned steam train. Sort of a Maglev with oak furniture, internet access, cognac and books. Imagine a dining car with a kitchen...and a bar!! Rolling along watching the scenery and sipping a martini. Hell yeah!!

Why do people no longer get the same pleasure out of the journey as they get out of the destination?

BooRadley · 12-04-2003, 09:56 AM

I rode across country in a train( southern ohio to western montana)... it was great

But it took 36-50 hours. They get delayed FAR worse than any other form of transportation due to any number of things , and are not significantly cheaper than driving in most cases on shorter trips than cross country. My cross country ticket was $180 in 98'... to fly by plane it would have been <$150 by the quotes I recieved.

And overall, it just depends on what you want to do on your trip... If you'd like to see tremendous scenary, then you can go by train and see everything, and get to stop a while in a couple of towns. If you want to spend time at your destination, you are better off flying. That should be your own deciding factor.

And even trains today don't have any of the retarded ( yes, I said retarded, noone can hold up a plane with a pocket knife ) security measures that planes do.

PredeconInferno · 12-04-2003, 10:02 AM

I flew home for thanksgiving so I think that settles that.

BentNotTwisted · 12-04-2003, 10:13 AM

So, what the article is saying is 9-11 was actually staged by Amtrak executives to increase ridership?

Sorry, I guess that belongs in Paranoia.
I've flown twice since 9-11, about the average number of times as before, and never gave a passing thought to a possible terrorist hijacking. Statistically the chances are so small, I'd be better off worrying about getting hit by lightning (which I also don't worry about).

skysooner · 12-04-2003, 10:46 AM

It is sometimes faster to take a train or to drive than to have to get to an airport an hour early, go through the security routine, board, get off, etc. If they have really upgraded the service, I could see this being feasible. The only train service we have available is to Ft. Worth. It takes 3 hrs to drive it, roughly 2.5 hours to fly (including the time in the airport/security) and 5 hrs by train (so it isn't really feasible).

SecretMethod70 · 12-04-2003, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yournamehere
So I guess that's pretty insignificant, right?
BTW - 4 were hijacked - ONLY three reached their target - but the passengers and crew of Flight 93 are just as dead as the others.

My bad - you're right - it was 4.

But, yes, in terms of the odds that I'd be on a plane that is hijacked, it IS pretty insignificant. We're not talking about whether it was a terrible thing or a tragedy or whether or not we should be upset about it or anything. We're talking about if we're afraid to fly on planes. So, statistically speaking, the fact that 4 planes were hijacked one morning, out of the hundreds of thousands of plane flights every year, is pretty insignificant. Not unimportant by any means, just insignificant if you're looking at whether or not there is a risk to yourself if you fly somewhere.

Liquor Dealer · 12-04-2003, 01:03 PM

What's a train?

In all seriousness trains serve such a small section of the country that they are irrelevant so far as transportation to or from most parts of the country are concerned. Unless you live on that thin band along the east coast - up that thin band along the west coast, and a couple of routes that connect the two together you probably don't remember the last time you saw a passenger train. Out here in the sticks, you either drive, or you fly. Oops - forgot about walkin'!

SecretMethod70 · 12-04-2003, 01:20 PM

Actually trains are pretty useful in Illinois if you're going south - but the problem is they're not much faster than taking a car. Why should I pay $40 to take a train for a 2 hour ride from Chicago down to where onodrim goes to school when I could just take a car for a 2.5 hour drive?

Trains serve most larger cities from what I can tell (although I do remember noticing a few obvious places missing service last time I looked at a map of Amtrack's service), but the speed is just not worth it at all. They're way too slow considering what technology is capable of.

amonkie · 12-04-2003, 01:25 PM

I've never ridden passenger trains in the U.S., but when I was in Europe this summer, that's how EVERYBODY got around. Their network is just amazing, and the expenses are not that bad when you consider you're able to get fastpasses and pay for the day and switch around. If they had more train service in Az, I would think about using it.

TheBrit · 12-04-2003, 02:37 PM

I can tell you, the flying industry is not healthy. I have a few friends who are aeronautical engineers, who cannot get jobs anywhere. Demand is being made artificially by taking planes out of service, etc.

irseg · 12-04-2003, 03:03 PM

You've gotta be kidding me.

Some friends of mine looked into traveling from Pennsylvania to Florida. They both cost almost the exact same amount. Flying would take about 5 hours (including layover), as opposed to nearly 2 days for Amtrak--6 hours of which would be on a bus.

I really can't understand why anyone would want to combine the slowness of driving with the expense and discomfort of flying.

raeanna74 · 12-05-2003, 01:23 PM

I've flown 10 times as much since 9-11 as I did before. Just a change in my life has caused that. I haven't had any qualms about flying. I figure when my life is ready to end then that will be it. Until then I'm not putting my life on hold just because I'm afraid of what someone else MIGHT do to end my life. I may take precautions and be more aware of my surroundings but I'm not avoiding something just because someone else got killed that way. If that were the case I'd never drive a car or any number of other things where people are killed every day. I'm not short-changing my life simply because of fear.

sailor · 12-05-2003, 04:32 PM

I never understood the whole "scared to fly" syndrome that everyone seemed to be bandying about post 9/11. Flying is still much safer than driving. If anything, I have flown more--for one thing because I am older, but it is also a bit cheaper.

sadatx · 12-05-2003, 04:51 PM

Trains are neat. More so than planes.

And who says people are scared? Maybe they're just sick of dealing with the hastle that is traveling by plane in America.

Seaver · 12-05-2003, 09:24 PM

I dont know a single person who is afraid to fly post-9/11.

No terrorist would DARE pull what they did on that day. Not only do we have Air Marshalls back up (gun-weilding anti-terrorist agents who ride the airlines undercover), but the instant any terrorist tried to use a boxcutter 80 people would be all over him.

The reason I imagine that train rides are going up is because airline tickets are so damn expensive and they get treated like shit the entire time. Dont get me wronge, I LOVE to fly, I'm currently in the US Navy flight program, but I refuse to pay $400 to be treated like shit to board a plane which is garanteed to both show up, leave, and arrive late.

cliv · 12-06-2003, 08:42 AM

All the added security at the airports (a good thing) has made air travel a major headache for lots of people. Whereas all you have to do, if you are close enough, is board a train and go. For long distances (coast-to-coast) air travel is cheaper and faster, but for shorter distances, rail has many advantages.

billege · 12-06-2003, 01:16 PM

On my honeymoon this just past September we chose to take a train to Chicago from Kalamazoo, MI. We did that just becuase driving would cost as much, with gas and parking, likely more. So, we tried the train for the first time.

I love travelling by train now. I wish to god our country had a developed rail system like Europe does. The train is zero hassle. Go to station, pick up tickets purchased on line. Get on train. Set bags down. Pick seats. Sit, enjoy ride.

That's IT! No ass reaming search by a two bit asshole, no hours on the runway, no waiting to land. Screw all that mess.

The train was roomy, and the seats were comfortable. We could get and move around. The dining car was no more overpriced than expected, and the lounge in there was a comfortable place to sit and have a cup of coffee.

On trains you can even bring your own food and alchohol. The only rule to that is that you must eat what you brought at your seat, no taking it to the dining car.

The train ride arrived, departed, etc. when it was scheduled to. On the return trip, we arrived 15 minutes early! That was after waiting twice for freight trains to move out of our way.

I'll be taking the train again.

irseg · 12-11-2003, 10:26 AM

First time I ever flew was about a month after 9/11, and about 6 times since then. I don't know what the big deal about security is. Longest it ever took me to get through was 15 minutes, and the most extra scrutiny my luggage ever got was when the screener pulled an alarm clock out of my carry-on bag and looked it over. I don't know what security was like before, but I certainly don't think it's a tremendous hassle now. Then again, I typically fly out of smaller airports that are more laid back and not as crowded.

12-04-2003, 01:00 AM	#2 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I have absolutely no more qualms about flying than I did before September 11. In fact, I never had a heightened problem with it. There were hundreds of planes in the sky that morning and only 3 were hijacked. Add into that consideration that the hijacking of planes is hardly a regular occurance and it's easy to see there's no reason for concern. However, if Amtrack got off their butts and started to switch to super-fast trains - maybe like the one that goes 360 MPH I read about the other day - then I'd imagine train ridership would skyrocket TREMENDOUSLY. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

12-04-2003, 05:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
Baldrick We are everywhere... Location: Barrie, Ontario	Personally I think it's a big Catch-22 - many people are still afraid to fly, but no more than over the last couple of years. Because business is so bad year round for the airlines after 9-11 however, they have had to cut back planes, flights, and even whole routes - meaning far fewer total seats available. Some smaller airlines have even gone out of business completely. Now, when you use the single biggest travel day in the US as the benchmark, many people who aren't afraid to fly couldn't get a seat. They had to travel somehow, so train, bus or driving their own vehicles are the only alternatives. I'd be willing to bet bus business went WAY up during the US Thanksgiving holiday as well. __________________ You can be young only once, but you can be immature for the rest of your life...

12-04-2003, 05:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
Holo A Real American	I would still fly but I personally love going by train. You get to see so much that you can't in the air or on a bus or in a car, winding thru woods and around farm fields. If I had the time I would take a train over flying any day, but not really because of terrorism. __________________ I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince

12-04-2003, 08:06 AM	#7 (permalink)
opey99 Junkie	I have no problem with flying, but if you have time and want a relaxing ride the train with a sleeper seems the way to go and trains derail too __________________ name's Bramage, Dain Bramage

12-04-2003, 08:50 AM	#9 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	i'll fly most places, and get anxious but i don't take the train because of costs and not saving any time __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

12-04-2003, 05:27 AM	#4 (permalink)
exile Crazy	They Said that a significant number of people did fly over the holiday weekend, but the industry is still off by over 14% from pre 9/11 numbers or something like that.. more people are flying just, not as many that were before 9/11 yet.

12-04-2003, 05:42 AM	#6 (permalink)
cj22009 On the edge of control Location: Ga	I think its a combonation of two things some people are still scared to fly and some people don't feel like putting up with all the security bullshit they have now when you fly

12-04-2003, 08:10 AM	#8 (permalink)
erion Psycho	Being in the Northeast, traveling by train is very convenient. I can drive 15 minutes from home, hop a train, and be in Grand Central in under two hours for very little money and hassle.

12-04-2003, 09:38 AM	#12 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	Great, trains can be really romantic but usually aren't these days. I'd love it if rail made a comeback and started incorporating high speeds with the comfort and opulence of an old fashioned steam train. Sort of a Maglev with oak furniture, internet access, cognac and books. Imagine a dining car with a kitchen...and a bar!! Rolling along watching the scenery and sipping a martini. Hell yeah!! Why do people no longer get the same pleasure out of the journey as they get out of the destination?

12-04-2003, 09:56 AM	#13 (permalink)
BooRadley Insane Location: Kentucky	I rode across country in a train( southern ohio to western montana)... it was great But it took 36-50 hours. They get delayed FAR worse than any other form of transportation due to any number of things , and are not significantly cheaper than driving in most cases on shorter trips than cross country. My cross country ticket was $180 in 98'... to fly by plane it would have been <$150 by the quotes I recieved. And overall, it just depends on what you want to do on your trip... If you'd like to see tremendous scenary, then you can go by train and see everything, and get to stop a while in a couple of towns. If you want to spend time at your destination, you are better off flying. That should be your own deciding factor. And even trains today don't have any of the retarded ( yes, I said retarded, noone can hold up a plane with a pocket knife ) security measures that planes do.

12-04-2003, 10:02 AM	#14 (permalink)
PredeconInferno Reclusiarch Location: Unfortunately Houston, TX	I flew home for thanksgiving so I think that settles that. __________________ Samurai in Training Knowledge is power. Guard it well.

12-04-2003, 10:13 AM	#15 (permalink)
BentNotTwisted Optimistic Skeptic Location: Midway between a Beehive and Centennial	So, what the article is saying is 9-11 was actually staged by Amtrak executives to increase ridership? Sorry, I guess that belongs in Paranoia. I've flown twice since 9-11, about the average number of times as before, and never gave a passing thought to a possible terrorist hijacking. Statistically the chances are so small, I'd be better off worrying about getting hit by lightning (which I also don't worry about).

12-04-2003, 10:46 AM	#16 (permalink)
skysooner Registered User Location: Oklahoma	It is sometimes faster to take a train or to drive than to have to get to an airport an hour early, go through the security routine, board, get off, etc. If they have really upgraded the service, I could see this being feasible. The only train service we have available is to Ft. Worth. It takes 3 hrs to drive it, roughly 2.5 hours to fly (including the time in the airport/security) and 5 hrs by train (so it isn't really feasible).

12-04-2003, 01:03 PM	#18 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	What's a train? In all seriousness trains serve such a small section of the country that they are irrelevant so far as transportation to or from most parts of the country are concerned. Unless you live on that thin band along the east coast - up that thin band along the west coast, and a couple of routes that connect the two together you probably don't remember the last time you saw a passenger train. Out here in the sticks, you either drive, or you fly. Oops - forgot about walkin'! __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

12-04-2003, 01:20 PM	#19 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Actually trains are pretty useful in Illinois if you're going south - but the problem is they're not much faster than taking a car. Why should I pay $40 to take a train for a 2 hour ride from Chicago down to where onodrim goes to school when I could just take a car for a 2.5 hour drive? Trains serve most larger cities from what I can tell (although I do remember noticing a few obvious places missing service last time I looked at a map of Amtrack's service), but the speed is just not worth it at all. They're way too slow considering what technology is capable of. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

12-04-2003, 01:25 PM	#20 (permalink)
amonkie Drifting Administrator Location: Windy City	I've never ridden passenger trains in the U.S., but when I was in Europe this summer, that's how EVERYBODY got around. Their network is just amazing, and the expenses are not that bad when you consider you're able to get fastpasses and pay for the day and switch around. If they had more train service in Az, I would think about using it. __________________ Calling from deep in the heart, from where the eyes can't see and the ears can't hear, from where the mountain trails end and only love can go... ~~~ Three Rivers Hare Krishna

12-04-2003, 02:37 PM	#21 (permalink)
TheBrit Psycho	I can tell you, the flying industry is not healthy. I have a few friends who are aeronautical engineers, who cannot get jobs anywhere. Demand is being made artificially by taking planes out of service, etc.

12-04-2003, 03:03 PM	#22 (permalink)
irseg Junkie Location: Florida	You've gotta be kidding me. Some friends of mine looked into traveling from Pennsylvania to Florida. They both cost almost the exact same amount. Flying would take about 5 hours (including layover), as opposed to nearly 2 days for Amtrak--6 hours of which would be on a bus. I really can't understand why anyone would want to combine the slowness of driving with the expense and discomfort of flying.

12-05-2003, 01:23 PM	#23 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	I've flown 10 times as much since 9-11 as I did before. Just a change in my life has caused that. I haven't had any qualms about flying. I figure when my life is ready to end then that will be it. Until then I'm not putting my life on hold just because I'm afraid of what someone else MIGHT do to end my life. I may take precautions and be more aware of my surroundings but I'm not avoiding something just because someone else got killed that way. If that were the case I'd never drive a car or any number of other things where people are killed every day. I'm not short-changing my life simply because of fear. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

12-05-2003, 04:32 PM	#24 (permalink)
sailor beauty in the breakdown Location: Chapel Hill, NC	I never understood the whole "scared to fly" syndrome that everyone seemed to be bandying about post 9/11. Flying is still much safer than driving. If anything, I have flown more--for one thing because I am older, but it is also a bit cheaper. __________________ "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." --Plato

12-05-2003, 04:51 PM	#25 (permalink)
sadatx Psycho	Trains are neat. More so than planes. And who says people are scared? Maybe they're just sick of dealing with the hastle that is traveling by plane in America.

12-05-2003, 09:24 PM	#26 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I dont know a single person who is afraid to fly post-9/11. No terrorist would DARE pull what they did on that day. Not only do we have Air Marshalls back up (gun-weilding anti-terrorist agents who ride the airlines undercover), but the instant any terrorist tried to use a boxcutter 80 people would be all over him. The reason I imagine that train rides are going up is because airline tickets are so damn expensive and they get treated like shit the entire time. Dont get me wronge, I LOVE to fly, I'm currently in the US Navy flight program, but I refuse to pay $400 to be treated like shit to board a plane which is garanteed to both show up, leave, and arrive late.

12-06-2003, 08:42 AM	#27 (permalink)
cliv Insane Location: New Jersey, USA	All the added security at the airports (a good thing) has made air travel a major headache for lots of people. Whereas all you have to do, if you are close enough, is board a train and go. For long distances (coast-to-coast) air travel is cheaper and faster, but for shorter distances, rail has many advantages.

12-06-2003, 01:16 PM	#28 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	On my honeymoon this just past September we chose to take a train to Chicago from Kalamazoo, MI. We did that just becuase driving would cost as much, with gas and parking, likely more. So, we tried the train for the first time. I love travelling by train now. I wish to god our country had a developed rail system like Europe does. The train is zero hassle. Go to station, pick up tickets purchased on line. Get on train. Set bags down. Pick seats. Sit, enjoy ride. That's IT! No ass reaming search by a two bit asshole, no hours on the runway, no waiting to land. Screw all that mess. The train was roomy, and the seats were comfortable. We could get and move around. The dining car was no more overpriced than expected, and the lounge in there was a comfortable place to sit and have a cup of coffee. On trains you can even bring your own food and alchohol. The only rule to that is that you must eat what you brought at your seat, no taking it to the dining car. The train ride arrived, departed, etc. when it was scheduled to. On the return trip, we arrived 15 minutes early! That was after waiting twice for freight trains to move out of our way. I'll be taking the train again. __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

12-11-2003, 10:26 AM	#29 (permalink)
irseg Junkie Location: Florida	First time I ever flew was about a month after 9/11, and about 6 times since then. I don't know what the big deal about security is. Longest it ever took me to get through was 15 minutes, and the most extra scrutiny my luggage ever got was when the screener pulled an alarm clock out of my carry-on bag and looked it over. I don't know what security was like before, but I certainly don't think it's a tremendous hassle now. Then again, I typically fly out of smaller airports that are more laid back and not as crowded.