According to this Amtrak came up about $280 million short last year for serving about 24 passengers.
Correct me if I am wrong but this indicates that they only need an average fare increase of $12 bucks to break even. Is that such a huge increase they will lose the market if they do it? Seems like cost is not the first item making people pick the train. And they have no competition to lose these people to...
So what's keeping them from balancing the books?
posted on February 10, 2004 05:26:01 PM new
I have resisted Amtrak as a means of transportation despite my fear/loathing of flying for two reasons:
1) It is not cost-competitive
2) Amtrak is a "guest" on rail lines owned by Southern Pacific, Union Pacific, etc. , and whenever one of those privately owned trains is on the tracks it takes precedence over any Amtrak run.
My Mom and sister made the mistake of attempting a "leisurely" trip to Santa Barbara on Amtrak last year. I dropped them off at the station in Oakland at 10 p.m. for an 11 p.m. departure. Due to "unforeseen circumstances", their train wasn't available for boarding 'til 2 a.m. The trip, which was supposed to be "realaxing" and take ten hours, wound up being a nightmare of pull-outs (onto spur tracks, so the prevailing railroad could stay on schedule) and they arrived in Santa Barbara, utterly exhausted, after twenty-three hours on Amtrak.
I'd love to see the USA construct a national high-speed railway system. We could've already begun one with the funds we've spent on this bogus war...
posted on February 10, 2004 05:38:39 PM new
Amtrak from Boston to NYC = $150 and takes 4.5 hours (for standard train - Acela, add $100.) Greyhound from Boston to NYC = $50 and takes 4.5 hours. Granted the train is more comfy and spacious than the bus, but the bus is acceptably comfortable for that trip (reclining seats, in-transit movies, and on-board bathroom.)
