posted
I have often heard it said that Amtrak loses $16.38 per passenger. That doesn't sound like much, but it adds up over 22.5 million passengers each year. Why can't Amtrak raise its fares by that much (on average, a bit more for longer trips, less for shorter trips) to make up the difference? Wouldn't that solve Amtrak's self-sufficiency problems? An extra $16 isn't going to discourage anyone from taking the train. Or am I missing something here?
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
Makes perfect sense to me ! I'd add a couple extra dollars to allow additional customer service training for Amtrak staff so that they may strive to become #1 in all modes of travel ! Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps raising fares slowly over the next 13 or so months would be better than dumping the whole fare on the ticket at once. This would most-likely raise Amtrak to self-sufficiency standards.
Posts: 553 | From: Flagstaff, AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember that most passengers take Amtrak for short trips. Therefore, simply adding $16.38 to fares which by themselves may be only $20 - $30 to begin with would result in people taking their cars instead. (Forcing the taxpayers to use that $16.38 - and then some - for new roads/airports.)
Posts: 72 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
I have often heard it said that Amtrak loses $16.38 per passenger. That doesn't sound like much, but it adds up over 22.5 million passengers each year. Why can't Amtrak raise its fares by that much (on average, a bit more for longer trips, less for shorter trips) to make up the difference? Wouldn't that solve Amtrak's self-sufficiency problems? An extra $16 isn't going to discourage anyone from taking the train. Or am I missing something here? 
