Happening Now

Written Testimony of Jim Mathews to the Senate | Oct. 2020

October 21, 2020

[Click here for a PDF of Mr. Mathews' testimony]

Written Statement for the Record
of
Jim Mathews
President & Chief Executive Officer
Rail Passengers Association
Before the
United States Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Passenger and Freight Rail: The Current Status of the Rail Network and the Track Ahead
Wednesday, October 21, 2020
Rail Passengers Association
1200 G Street NW, Suite 240
Washington, DC 20005
202.408.8362

Overview

My name is Jim Mathews, and I am President and Chief Executive Officer of the Rail Passengers Association, the oldest and largest national organization giving a voice to more than 40 million people who ride trains and public transportation of all kinds in the U.S. Since 1967, our mission has been to improve and expand conventional intercity and regional passenger train services, support higher speed rail initiatives, increase connectivity among all forms of transportation and ensure safety for our country's trains and passengers.

The Rail Passengers Association would like to thank Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and all of the members of this Committee for holding this hearing to focus attention on our nation’s intercity rail network at this critical juncture. The situation for passenger rail in this country today is more dire than it has been in decades. Our Association firmly believes that what this Congress decides to do about rail and transit in just the coming weeks will have important and lasting impact for hundreds of Amtrak-served communities and millions of Americans for years to come.

To put it directly and bluntly: despite the bi-partisan support Amtrak has received from this Committee and its members, Amtrak today faces a crisis to its very existence – a crisis imposed by the continuing coronavirus pandemic and its knock-off effects on travel and the larger economy, but made worse by decisions at Amtrak itself. Moreover, the effects won’t be confined to Amtrak. As I testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Rail Subcommittee on September 9th, our Association’s economic-modeling suggests that Amtrak’s COVID-coping tactic of dropping daily service will hurt Heartland America’s economies to the tune of at least $2.3 billion while saving Amtrak less than $213 million.

Worse yet, Amtrak may find it harder to restore daily service than management expects. Furloughs will force skilled employees who run the trains to re-qualify in their crafts before service can return, and some employees may not come back. Unless rolling stock is stored with great care and continuing maintenance, coaches, sleepers and baggage cars will deteriorate while parked, demanding reconditioning before return-to-service and potentially permanently removing some assets from the fleet. Host railroads over which Amtrak operates are free to thumb their noses at Amtrak’s insistence that the service reductions are temporary, treating them as “indefinite” or even permanent reductions. This would force Amtrak into a lengthy negotiation process that could even mean a trip to the Surface Transportation Board, imposing further expense and delaying service restoration for millions of Americans who rely on that service today. We have already shared with Committee staff one such host-railroad response, and we believe more may emerge soon.

Amtrak has also reduced capacity on long-distance trains in order to avoid paying for an extra crew member for added cars. Trains magazine recently reported that Amtrak is experiencing near-capacity or sellout ridership on long-distance trains as it begins its shift to triweekly operation, but even with sell-outs extending for many weeks and travelers clamoring for socially-distanced travel options like Amtrak Sleepers, Amtrak won’t add capacity. Management is choosing instead to forego badly needed revenue. While Amtrak has cut 57% of all long-distance departures, the numbers are actually much worse for sleeper car capacity. The Lake Shore Limited, for instance, has gone from 14 sleepers (NYP/CHI) per week to three per week—a 79% sleeper inventory reduction. Retired package-tour operator Carl Fowler, a former member of the Rail Passengers Association Board, argues that with the revenue generating potential of Sleeper car fares—a sold-out sleeper in normal times can gross 2-3 times the revenue of a coach car in normal travel conditions—Amtrak’s refusal to add Sleeper cars to consists is leaving money on the table.

Added to this are persistent technical glitches plaguing Amtrak’s online reservations system, which have the effect of further discouraging riders from booking trips at a time when Amtrak can use all the revenue it can.

I must share the growing sense of alarm among rail travelers, my own members and leaders in Amtrak-served communities over Amtrak’s diminishment of their essential service. Like many other transportation providers reeling from the coronavirus crisis, Amtrak warned that without additional federal support the railroad would have to make drastic cuts, in this case dropping daily service on its long-distance National Network in favor of truncated service three times per week.

This once-in-a-generation pandemic poses sobering challenges for America’s rail passengers, including the consequences that inaction by government pose to the cities, towns, and rural communities connected by our intercity rail network – more than 500 of them all across America’s Heartland. We understand well that Amtrak faces real and difficult choices, and that without financial aid there are far greater risks to the network than thrice-weekly (3x) service for long-distance routes—we could lose entire corridors, permanently.

We wholeheartedly endorse levels of investment like those we saw in the Moving Forward Act (HR 2) or the $10 billion in Amtrak grants in the FY 2021 transportation budget passed out of the House in July. This the right course for America’s passengers and the U.S. economy, and we continue to believe that this is the best way forward for our passenger-rail system.

We understand, however, that Amtrak can maintain existing service levels with a short-term supplemental request of $2.4 billion. We’re heartened to hear that Amtrak is working with Congress to establish a no-harm supplemental budget request. Our Association continues to believe that maintaining daily service across the National Network and preventing massive furloughs and layoffs of Amtrak workers should be the floor, not the ceiling. As Amtrak Chief Operating Officer Stephen Gardner noted in a March 22nd article in the Washington Post, “Eventually this will pass, but none of the bridges or [train] cars or any of the things we have that are old and need to be replaced will get younger as a result of this crisis.” We could not agree more, and we implore the Congress to make the investments we need so that rail service can help restore the U.S. economy.

Even with exogenous shocks to travel demand, the fact remains: Amtrak is an essential service for tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of communities. We were quite pleased with Amtrak President & CEO William Flynn’s May 25th statement to Congress that the railroad understands “how important Amtrak service is to the nation and, particularly, small communities across the nation where we play a unique role in connecting these communities to the rest of America.” However, reducing service on the 12 of the 15 long-distance routes—a vital transportation link to the 40 percent of the nation’s small and rural communities that it serves—to only three days per week speaks much louder than words. Whatever the reasons, reducing frequencies across the National Network will drop a $2.3 billion-dollar bomb on so-called “Flyover Country,” forcing our Heartland communities to bear a disproportionate share of the damage that will result.

Defining an Essential Service

It’s worth taking time to be explicit about what we mean when we say Amtrak is an “essential service” to the communities it connects. For many, it’s easier to understand why a service like the Northeast Corridor (NEC) is necessary; without the 2,200 daily trains and 260 million annual trips the NEC carries, the regions this corridor links would grind to a halt. How can a single daily train to a small town also be accurately described as “essential” to the people it serves?

To understand, you have to look at the dearth of transportation options faced by rural and small-town Americans. Over 62 million people live in so-called “Flyover Country,” a quarter of whom are veterans, another quarter are senior citizens over the age 65. Intercity rail plays an outsized role in these communities, with almost one-fifth of Amtrak’s passengers traveling to or from a rural station with no access to air service.

Think of what this implies for just a single use-case. Long-distance trains, frequently used by senior citizens and passengers with mobility impairments, provide access to healthcare facilities that would otherwise be too expensive or difficult to reach. In an August letter to the U.S. Senate advocating for daily service, the Station Host Association of California, an independent volunteer organization operated in cooperation with Amtrak, shared its frontline experiences helping passengers navigate our rail system:

“Particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, long distance trains provide accessible bedrooms ensuring privacy and cleanliness for any passengers who may need to travel within or out of state, and for whom the more public setting of an airplane creates a health risk. The private rooms on the overnight trains provide an additional level of safety to travel during a pandemic while minimizing exposure to the virus. However, if the tri-weekly service intervals do not match the passengers’ needs, then the entire benefit is moot.”

So while travel demand is down broadly, coronavirus has actually made these passenger rail services more necessary for certain segments of the population.

These are just a few of the many reasons Amtrak’s long-distance routes have proved to be the most resilient business line in the face of the pandemic. Amtrak’s own ridership numbers back this up. Since the crisis began through the end of August, NEC revenues are down 90 percent from the same period last year, compared with a 63 percent decline for the National Network. Ridership has also flatlined across the NEC, down 87 percent. By contrast, ridership on the long-distance routes is down only 67 percent during the COVID Period.

Perhaps one of the more significant statistics is that during the COVID Period, Amtrak’s National Network of long-distance intercity passenger routes has contributed 46 percent of Amtrak's revenues, compared with 22 percent a year ago. Moreover, the so-called "money-losing long-distance routes" have contributed the largest single share of revenues in every month since March.

Make no mistake: these trains are essential to the communities they serve. Congress didn’t let the Federal Highway Administration close highways four days out of seven when gas tax revenues flatlined, and it shouldn’t stand by and allow Amtrak to introduce 3x service to hundreds of communities across the U.S.

Airlines Eliminating Service to Amtrak-Served Cities

These cuts will fall especially hard on a subset of Amtrak communities that saw a simultaneous reduction in rail service and air service on October 1st. Several major airlines announced in August that they would drop service to dozens of cities upon the expiration of the CARES Act. Rail Passengers looked at service reduction announcements released by 11 air carriers and found that of 67 cities seeing air services cut, 31 would also see cuts to passenger rail service (see: Appendix B).

Airlines have been walking away from mid-sized markets for decades, and it is clear that this trend will only accelerate in the wake of COVID-19 as passengers shy away from a mode of travel they fear is unsafe. An August survey of consumer sentiment conducted by Boston Consulting Group found that 60 percent of U.S. consumers worry about being infected from flying, and 70 percent of respondents expect travel spending will not return to normal for more than a year. This will further erode the business model for midsized airports, leaving more and more Americans disconnected from job opportunities, educational institutions, and critical health services.

Rail Passengers firmly believes that running daily trains could put Amtrak in a position to expand its market share in this environment. Amtrak offers a unique product: a socially distant way to move around the country. Our government should be increasing access to rail service, not diminishing it.

Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Daily Service

Too often the public conversation about Amtrak falls into the framing that Amtrak is supposed to behave like a private company, seeking profit. Amtrak is not required to make a profit, not in law nor in fact. The pursuit of profit leads to inevitable, and misguided, conversations about eliminating “unprofitable long-distance routes.”

It is abundantly clear that Amtrak trains make money. The question is not about if trains make money, it’s about who trains make money for. Rail corridors generate value by acting as economic engines in the communities they serve—through jobs, retail, mobility, tourism and real-estate development. The “profit” does not go to Amtrak, but to the communities served, often to the tune of billions of dollars. Taken as a whole, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, state-supported services and long-distance National Network together create, our Association estimates, between $7 billion and $8 billion in value for the U.S. economy without even counting the $2 billion of direct spending in which Amtrak engages.

We decided it’s not enough to say it, we’ve got to put our money where our mouth is. That’s why I invested our association’s resources in 2018 to co-develop a rigorous economic model with the University of Southern Mississippi’s Trent Lott Center. We’ve used that model to quantify the economic return on passenger rail corridors in a way that hasn’t been done previously.

Our Association modeled a preliminary, high-level analysis of the economic consequences of Amtrak’s decision to cut its daily intercity passenger services back to only three runs per week. Unfortunately, even the most conservative assessment is dire: to save $213 million, Amtrak's nine months of daily service cuts could drop at least a $2.3 billion bomb on Flyover Country, a figure that could rise above $3 billion if the cuts remain in place for the full year.

This is tied directly to passenger-rail’s role as an economic engine in the communities it serves. The existence of Amtrak buoys the economies of hundreds of towns and cities all across America. Degrading that service means withdrawing those benefits from millions of Americans, even those who don’t necessarily ride the trains themselves, because in many cases lives and livelihoods depend on the routes’ operation.

We examined six National Network services -- the City of New Orleans, the Empire Builder, the combined Silver services, the Southwest Chief, the Texas Eagle and the Crescent. Together, these six intercity passenger rail routes serve 30 states plus the District of Columbia, and Rail Passengers estimates that they produce $2.4 billion every year in economic benefit. In fact, Amtrak’s existing group of daily long-distance trains (excluding the Auto Train) collectively produce nearly $5 billion in economic benefits which are widely distributed throughout America’s heartland.

These benefits take many forms, which our model attempts to capture. Whether traveling for vacation, personal reasons or business, visitors spend money at their destinations, paying for hotels or other lodging, patronizing restaurants, shopping or buying local items. By doing this they support the hotel workers, the restaurant waiters and cooks, retail and entertainment outlets, and they generate sales tax revenues for the communities they visit. The local workers also contribute to the local tax base, further spreading the economic benefit. Meanwhile, because those visitors have left their cars behind, they're not imposing wear and tear on highways and roads, and they're avoiding the risk and cost of injuries or even death from car crashes.

Cutting service reduces these benefits. Rail Passengers’ model estimates that Amtrak’s plans would slash the $2.4 billion produced by the six services we examined down to just a little more than $800 million – a more than $1 billion hit on just those routes alone during the proposed nine-month period of reduced service, or $1.5 billion on an annualized basis. Systemwide on an annualized basis, Heartland communities served by long-distance trains could absorb a $3.1 billion body-blow. This after already reeling from the effects of a deep economic recession.

Some of the poorer states will be among those hit hardest. In the case of the Silver services, Amtrak decided to degrade service months ahead of the October 1st plan outlined for the rest of the system, leaving some of the South's poorest communities to absorb an even harsher punishment than the rest of the country. Combining the Silver Star and Silver Meteor into a single route and then cutting back daily service means many Star-served stations have already seen a 50% reduction in service – communities like Southern Pines and Hamlet, N.C., or Camden, Columbia and Denmark in South Carolina. Those stations account for 13% of the Star's ridership. The Census Bureau reports that more than two-thirds of Southern Pines' population is non-white, and some 14% of the town's residents are estimated to live below the poverty line. So, too, Denmark, SC, is majority non-white, and 15% of residents are below the poverty line.

But make no mistake. The damage is not confined to a handful of towns or just one region of the country. Amtrak’s National Network touches nearly every corner of our country, and the economic pain will be felt in 30 states and the District of Columbia. Communities in eight states served by the popular Empire Builder route from Illinois to Washington State (with a portion of the train split to Oregon) will absorb a $391 million annualized economic loss. The seven states traversed by the Texas Eagle will lose $318 million, and states from New York to Florida and in-between will feel the hit twice, from losses of service on the Crescent ($153 million) and the Silver services ($251 million).

The annual losses for states will be steep. Mississippi, for example, can expect to suffer a $24.2 million economic blow driven by the loss of nearly 81,000 riders. Washington state’s losses could top $100 million. Louisiana could see $27.7 million in losses, Colorado nearly $73 million. Illinois, the hub of Amtrak’s long-distance operation, could see losses of more than $403 million. We have included a state-by-state breakdown of the estimated impacts in Appendix C of this statement.

The problem will be exacerbated by missed connections. The devilishly tricky math of ensuring that one set of trains that only runs three days a week can connect reasonably to another set of trains also running three days a week guarantees that many thousands of journeys simply won’t be taken. This is because a passenger planning on a connection would have to work backwards from her planned arrival date while taking into account not only that her original train is running only three out of seven days, but that so, too, is her connecting train. And in many instances, those trains will not mesh.

Some $39 million of connecting revenue flows through Amtrak’s Chicago Union Station alone, and the 3x schedule disrupts all of these connection patterns.

The California Zephyr and the Texas Eagle are particularly hurt. For example, travelers taking the Eagle to Chicago hoping to connect for a further eastbound trip on the Capitol Limited or the Lake Shore Limited can only make a same-day connection on Mondays and Saturdays. Going westbound it’s even worse – with the exception of a single connection from the Cardinal on Tuesdays, not a single Amtrak long-distance train will offer a same-day connection in Chicago to the westbound Eagle. All passengers will have to assume a hotel stay in Chicago, perhaps even a multi-day stay. That will be enough to lead most passengers to forego the trip. Eagle connections from other routes accounted for nearly 12% of connecting travel through Chicago in Fiscal 2019, and this plan would largely eliminate those connections. On Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays, westbound passengers hoping to connect to the California Zephyr would be out of luck. The Cardinal will only have a same-day Zephyr connection on one day each week, Saturdays, and passengers from the Capitol, Lake Shore and City of New Orleans will only get a same-day connection on Saturdays and Mondays.

If this seems complicated in written testimony, think of how complicated it will be for the average passenger trying to work out the best departure day to take a journey connecting to another train. The utility of a schedule like this to the traveling public quickly approaches zero for all but the most leisurely of trips. And as we know, despite a popular narrative, pure leisure trips are not the majority of trips on Amtrak.

The drastically reduced utility of a nationwide network of trains operating only three days a week on schedules that make connections difficult or impossible helps to explain why ridership will plummet even more than many observers would expect, driving catastrophic economic losses to the communities served. The estimated loss of as much as $3.1 billion to the U.S. economy dwarfs the $150 million in savings from 3x service Amtrak has identified.

(Rail Passengers would like to acknowledge our volunteer members and our partners at Transportation 4 America, who participated in the preliminary research we needed for this rapid-response study and helped to gather and collate the state-level tourism data we needed for our modeling exercise.)

A Better Route Forward

Even if we are to analyze 3x service proposal narrowly, we still can’t support it as an operating plan based on its merits. The U.S. has been down this path before, and it didn’t work.

In the mid-1990s, Mercer Consulting advised Amtrak leaders to eliminate several long-distance routes, shorten others, and take 11 routes down from daily to three and four times per week. In Fiscal Year 1995, the first year of diminished operations, Amtrak’s network saw a decrease of 13 percent in total route miles and saved $54 million. However, the General Accounting Office (the government watchdog now known as the Government Accountability Office) reported to Congress that the very next year Amtrak lost 1.1 million riders—a 5 percent drop in ridership—and never saw the savings they had projected for the 11 routes with less-than-daily service. A functioning passenger transportation service requires reliable and frequent connections. And there is nothing to suggest that the buying and traveling habits of today’s riders are much different from those in 1994.

One of our members, former BNSF Railroad train dispatcher Mark Meyers, performed an analysis of 3x on the present-day network. He found that three-times weekly service—a 57 percent cut in overall service—only cuts the number of on-board crew starts by 38 percent and engineer-crew starts by 36 percent, while producing large compensable layovers for some of the affected crews. Equipment use is only cut 40 percent. Staffing at stations would be cut only minimally because even 3x weekly trains arrive over the course of more than five days, which would require a second station staff position to continue to be filled. Lost revenue and missed connections will drive lower ridership and revenue while crew layovers will grow.

Amtrak has acknowledged this fact in the construction of its 3x schedule, with railroad management explaining that the decision to run the Star/Meteor on successive days “was made to allow for more efficient use of operating crews while assuring availability of crew resources for all journey segments… While from a marketing standpoint alternating days may have had some utility for some customers, our overall demand patterns by day of week do not differ materially and do not justify the operational risk."

We’ve already seen the negative effect this has on ridership. Before the 3x change, the Silvers were holding their own in the Age of COVID, both in revenue and ridership. In fact, when ranked by the degree to which monthly ridership fell compared with prior years, the Silvers were in the top half of the table. As ridership began to recover from the April troughs, some routes recovered more than others, and their declines versus the same month in 2019 were smaller.

Using that yardstick, for the month of June, out of 14 National Network services the Star was in third place, behind only the Auto Train and the Texas Eagle. The Star actually edged out the very popular Empire Builder, and the Meteor wasn’t far behind in sixth place. In other words, when compared with the same period a year earlier, the Silvers’ ridership declines were better than those experienced on the Lake Shore, the Sunset, the Coast Starlight, the Crescent, the Zephyr, the Palmetto, the Chief, the City of New Orleans and the Cardinal.

By the end of August, when the Silvers had spent two months operating on an inconvenient 3x schedule, the Star and the Meteor quickly fell to dead last, losing a greater percentage of year over year ridership than any other National Network route

We understand that Amtrak leadership sincerely believes that this is the only choice available to the railroad. But the facts we’ve just outlined demonstrate that this choice is bad public policy for the country. Amtrak will throw away a little more than half the daily frequencies but will lose two-thirds of the ridership and save only 38 percent of the crew costs, squeezing out at most $213 million of savings while hurting the taxpayers in 30 states to the tune of as much as $3 billion.

The decision will also hobble the railroad’s ability to restore service even if it believes the time is right to do so. Requalifying crews, restoring deteriorated rolling stock and – most challenging – getting back the operating slots Amtrak walked away from on October 1 all could extend the economic damage from lost service by many billions of dollars.

Rail Passengers instead proposed an alternative: run daily long-distance trains with shorter equipment consists for the duration of the pandemic. This has been the compromise in place since the crisis began in March, and until this month it had served Amtrak well. As we’ve noted above, operating every day with shorter consists the 12 daily intercity passenger trains Amtrak plans to cut back have contributed the largest single share of Amtrak’s revenues in every month this year since the pandemic began. Slashing daily frequencies to three times per week would only ensure that the long-distance trains would sink to levels similar to those being seen in Amtrak’s other business lines. By contrast, running shorter consists but maintaining daily frequencies would preserve connections and jobs and allow Amtrak’s National Network ridership to return to previous levels organically, all while still lowering some operating costs.

Conclusion

Amtrak is a taxpayer-supported public service. Its object is not profit, but to serve the Nation. It cannot fulfill its mandate by cutting service for half the country during one of the most severe economic crises our nation has experienced and during a pandemic that has made air travel a perilous gamble for millions of Americans. Our Association, our 28,000 members and the millions of American passengers call upon Congress to provide Amtrak with the necessary financial relief to operate a full network in this pandemic, and to include safeguards for all Amtrak-served communities and Amtrak’s workers facing cutbacks and furloughs.

Appendix A – Economic Analysis of Long-Distance Route Service Cuts

Appendix B – Announced Airline Service Cuts to Cities

Cities highlighted in yellow are projected to see cuts to both air service and Amtrak service (long-distance and/or State-supported trains) on October 1st following the expiration of CARES Act service protections.

American Airlines

American Airlines will be dropping service to the following 15 cities:

  • Sioux City, IA
  • New Haven, CT
  • Springfield, IL
  • Del Rio, TX
  • Dubuque, IA
  • Florence, SC
  • Greenville, NC
  • Huntington, WV
  • Joplin, MO
  • Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, MI
  • Lake Charles, LA
  • New Windsor, NY
  • Roswell, NM
  • Stillwater, OK
  • Williamsport, PA

Alaska Airlines

Alaska Airlines will be dropping service to the following five cities:

  • Charleston, SC
  • Columbus, OH
  • El Paso, TX
  • New Orleans, LA
  • San Antonio, TX

Allegiant Air

Allegiant Air will be dropping service to the following six cities:

  • New Orleans, LA
  • Ogdensburg, NY
  • Palm Springs, CA
  • San Antonio, TX
  • Springfield, IL
  • Tucson, AZ

Cape Air

Cape Air will be dropping service to the following city:

  • Portland, ME

Delta Air Lines

Delta Air Lines will be dropping service to the following 11 cities:

  • Aspen, CO
  • Bangor, ME
  • Erie, PA
  • Flint, MI
  • Fort Smith, AR
  • Lincoln, NE
  • New Bern/Morehead/Beaufort, NC
  • Peoria, IL
  • Santa Barbara, CA
  • Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA
  • Williston, ND

Frontier Airlines

Frontier Airlines will be dropping service to the following five cities:

  • Greenville/Spartanburg, SC
  • Mobile, AL
  • Palm Springs, CA
  • Portland, ME
  • Tyler, TX

JetBlue Airways

JetBlue Airways will be dropping service to the following five cities:

  • Albuquerque, NM
  • Palm Springs, CA
  • Sacramento, CA
  • Sarasota/Bradenton, FL
  • Worcester, MA

Silver Airways

Silver Airways will be dropping service to the following five cities:

  • Charlotte Amalie, VI
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Key West, FL
  • Tallahassee, FL
  • Tampa, FL

Spirit Airlines

Spirit Airlines will be dropping service to the following five cities:

  • Asheville, NC
  • Charlotte Amalie, VI
  • Christiansted, VI
  • Greensboro/High Point, NC
  • Plattsburgh, NY

Sun Country Airlines

Sun Country Airlines will be dropping service to the following five cities:

  • Madison, WI
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Portland, OR
  • Sacramento, CA
  • St. Louis, MO

United Airlines

United Airlines will be dropping service to the following 11 cities, tied for the most of any airline:

  • Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton, PA
  • Charlotte Amalie, VI
  • Chattanooga, TN
  • Fairbanks, AK
  • Hilton Head, SC
  • Ithaca/Cortland, NY
  • Kalamazoo, MI
  • Key West, FL
  • Lansing, MI
  • Myrtle Beach, SC
  • Rochester, MN

Source: One Mile At a Time, https://onemileatatime.com/us-airlines-will-stop-flying-to-dozens-of-cities/

Appendix C: State-by-State Economic Impacts from Three-Times Weekly Service Cuts

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

ALABAMA

Direct Losses

$ 2,418,904

Indirect Effects*

$ 3,555,789

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 5,974,693

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

ALABAMA

FY2019 Ridership

51,195

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

17,553

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

33,642

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

ARIZONA

Direct Losses

$ 6,660,220

Indirect Effects*

$ 9,790,524

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 16,450,744

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

ARIZONA

FY2019 Ridership

99,600

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

34,149

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

65,451

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

CALIFORNIA

Direct Losses

$ 210,445,669

Indirect Effects*

$ 309,355,134

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 519,800,803

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

CALIFORNIA

FY2019 Ridership

824,473

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

282,676

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

541,797

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

COLORADO

Direct Losses

$ 29,410,573

Indirect Effects*

$ 43,233,542

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 72,644,114

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

COLORADO

FY2019 Ridership

270,242

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

92,654

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

177,588

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

DELAWARE

Direct Losses

$ 672,794

Indirect Effects*

$ 989,007

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 1,661,800

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

DELAWARE

FY2019 Ridership

42,332

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

14,514

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

27,818

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

FLORIDA

Direct Losses

$ 112,730,248

Indirect Effects*

$ 165,713,465

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 278,443,713

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

FLORIDA

FY2019 Ridership

905,356

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

310,408

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

594,948

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

GEORGIA

Direct Losses

$ 13,889,443

Indirect Effects*

$ 20,417,481

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 34,306,923

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

GEORGIA

FY2019 Ridership

141,722

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

48,590

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

93,132

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

IDAHO

Direct Losses

$ 155,165

Indirect Effects*

$ 228,093

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 383,258

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

IDAHO

FY2019 Ridership

6,726

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

2,306

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

4,420

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

ILLINOIS

Direct Losses

$ 163,431,910

Indirect Effects*

$ 240,244,907

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 403,676,817

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

IOWA

Direct Losses

$ 2,880,721

Indirect Effects*

$ 4,234,659

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 7,115,380

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

IOWA

FY2019 Ridership

51,499

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

17,657

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

33,842

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

ILLINOIS

FY2019 Ridership

1,292,361

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

443,095

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

849,266

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

INDIANA

Direct Losses

$ 7,155,578

Indirect Effects*

$ 10,518,699

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 17,674,277

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

INDIANA

FY2019 Ridership

88,307

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

30,277

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

58,030

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

KANSAS

Direct Losses

$ 3,303,087

Indirect Effects*

$ 4,855,539

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 8,158,626

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

KANSAS

FY2019 Ridership

46,483

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

15,937

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

30,546

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

LOUISIANA

Direct Losses

$ 11,242,324

Indirect Effects*

$ 16,526,217

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 27,768,541

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

LOUISIANA

FY2019 Ridership

176,514

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

60,519

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

115,995

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

MARYLAND

Direct Losses

$ 6,298,489

Indirect Effects*

$ 9,258,779

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 15,557,269

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

MARYLAND

FY2019 Ridership

119,875

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

41,100

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

78,775

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

MINNESOTA

Direct Losses

$ 9,231,198

Indirect Effects*

$ 13,569,861

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 22,801,058

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

MINNESOTA

FY2019 Ridership

131,973

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

45,248

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

86,725

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

MISSISSIPPI

Direct Losses

$ 9,794,959

Indirect Effects*

$ 14,398,590

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 24,193,548

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

MISSISSIPPI

FY2019 Ridership

123,046

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

42,187

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

80,859

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

MISSOURI

Direct Losses

$ 12,562,440

Indirect Effects*

$ 18,466,787

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 31,029,227

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

MISSOURI

FY2019 Ridership

183,300

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

62,846

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

120,454

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

MONTANA

Direct Losses

$ 15,448,709

Indirect Effects*

$ 22,709,603

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 38,158,312

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

MONTANA

FY2019 Ridership

121,352

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

41,606

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

79,746

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

NEBRASKA

Direct Losses

$ 3,569,653

Indirect Effects*

$ 5,247,390

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 8,817,043

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

NEBRASKA

FY2019 Ridership

49,679

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

17,033

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

32,646

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

NEW MEXICO

Direct Losses

$ 9,183,181

Indirect Effects*

$ 13,499,276

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 22,682,457

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

NEW MEXICO

FY2019 Ridership

116,788

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

40,042

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

76,746

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

N. CAROLINA

Direct Losses

$ 31,576,014

Indirect Effects*

$ 46,416,741

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 77,992,755

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

N. CAROLINA

FY2019 Ridership

243,896

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

83,621

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

160,275

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

NORTH DAKOTA

Direct Losses

$ 7,600,964

Indirect Effects*

$ 11,173,417

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 18,774,381

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

NORTH DAKOTA

FY2019 Ridership

101,100

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

34,663

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

66,437

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

OREGON

Direct Losses

$ 17,583,526

Indirect Effects*

$ 25,847,783

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 43,431,309

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

OREGON

FY2019 Ridership

276,900

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

94,937

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

181,963

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

PENNSYLVANIA

Direct Losses

$ 19,803,256

Indirect Effects*

$ 29,110,786

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 48,914,041

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

PENNSYLVANIA

FY2019 Ridership

262,110

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

89,866

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

172,244

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

SOUTH CAROLINA

Direct Losses

$ 22,291,096

Indirect Effects*

$ 32,767,911

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 55,059,008

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

SOUTH CAROLINA

FY2019 Ridership

179,083

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

61,400

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

117,683

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

TENNESSEE

Direct Losses

$ 1,556,827

Indirect Effects*

$ 2,288,536

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 3,845,363

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

TENNESSEE

FY2019 Ridership

64,851

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

22,235

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

42,616

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

TEXAS

Direct Losses

$ 103,819,655

Indirect Effects*

$ 152,614,893

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 256,434,548

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

TEXAS

FY2019 Ridership

298,692

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

102,409

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

196,283

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

WASHINGTON

Direct Losses

$ 43,249,461

Indirect Effects*

$ 63,576,708

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 106,826,168

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

WASHINGTON

FY2019 Ridership

361,747

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

124,028

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

237,719

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

WISCONSIN

Direct Losses

$ 11,542,696

Indirect Effects*

$ 16,967,763

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 28,510,460

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

WISCONSIN

FY2019 Ridership

95,410

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

32,712

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

62,698

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC LOSSES BY STATE

VIRGINIA

Direct Losses

$ 57,561,743

Indirect Effects*

$ 84,615,762

TOTAL STATE IMPACT

$ 142,177,506

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

*Indirect effects include community-level effects such as sales taxes, real-estate, local employment and other similar factors

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP DECLINES (annualized)

VIRGINIA

FY2019 Ridership

496,646

RPA-Modeled 3x Ridership

170,279

ANNUALIZED RIDERSHIP LOSS

326,367

Source: Rail Passengers Association modeling estimate

Comments