Amtrak long distance fares 2021-2023

[Ryan]

I don't accept it. Amtrak is subsidized by taxpayers and provides a public service. It should be accessible to everyone, not to 5% or less of the population. This policy is totally contrary to the Biden Administration's stated belief in 'equity'.

Accept it or not, that's the reality of the situation. The law says manage as a for-profit corporation. As Betty said, get the law changed, and get Amtrak the funding to double or quadruple the amount of rolling stock and trains so that supply can be increased sufficiently that prices can fall. As another poster is fond of saying (and I feel bad about not remembering who, and probably butchering the quote), the best cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak.

 

[Sidney]

Thanks for posting this. Whether this "public service" angle fits one's ideology or not (it fits mine), in the long run taxpayer resistance to funding Amtrak will surely grow if the vast majority of taxpayers can't afford Amtrak services.

A related problem with very high pricing: Prospective passengers trying to book a trip will see costs so out of line with what they can afford, that they'll decide Amtrak's out of reach for them, and never come back to book future travel if/when the fares drop. High pricing, even when some tickets do sell, might be pennywise and pound foolish.

Indeed. The price of a roomette on many trains is getting out of reach of the average customer.I cite the SW Chief from Chi to LA. $899 one person roomette. Yes,there are still reasonably priced roomettes going from LA at $623,but at $900 driving and flying are cheaper between those cities and people who would consider Amtrak will compare different ways of travel and balk at that high price.

I would and have paid the $623 on the Chief and Texas Eagle. No way would I pay $899. Yes of course some people would and that's why they charge such sky high prices.

 

[Qapla]

When a coach ticket for an overnight train is $121 and a single roomette for the same overnight is in excess of $500 - it doesn't matter if that is high bucket or low bucket ... anything more than $300 is not "reasonable" for a taxpayer supported service.

I realize some think that, if you're going to lower the prices like that, why not let eryonid ride free? as an argument for keeping the prices high. Well, recently Amtrak ran a "sale" where a coach ticket from MIA to NYP was $50. If they could do that for a "sale", why not make that the standard price and properly support a Gov't operated service. - Then price the sleepers accordingly with fares more inline with the $50 coach ticket.

Our local bus system is operated by the city. Most who live here drive cars and their taxes support the buses. The busses cost quite a bit to operate on a daily basis. However, an adult fare is only $1.50 and and seniors, students and children ride for 50¢ while ADA and some others ride free. The fares don't come anywhere near covering the operating costs - taxes do. The same could be done for Amtrak.

 

[jruff001]

I don't accept it. Amtrak is subsidized by taxpayers and provides a public service. It should be accessible to everyone, not to 5% or less of the population.

The "public service" is the transportation from A to B. You can go in coach to access the public service.

Or are you saying all Amtrak service should be free? That would be a good way to make sure all sleeping cars disappear pretty quickly so they won't be available at any price.

This policy is totally contrary to the Biden Administration's stated belief in 'equity'.

You are seriously misunderstanding (or intentionally mis-stating) Biden's policies advancing racial equity if you think it should mean free (or reduced price) Amtrak sleeping car service for all Americans.

 

[tricia]

The "public service" is the transportation from A to B. You can go in coach to access the public service.

Or are you saying all Amtrak service should be free? That would be a good way to make sure all sleeping cars disappear pretty quickly so they won't be available at any price.


You are seriously misunderstanding (or intentionally mis-stating) Biden's policies advancing racial equity if you think it should mean free (or reduced price) Amtrak sleeping car service for all Americans.

There is a large gap between "free" and "as high as the wealthiest customer is willing to pay."

 

[jruff001]

There is a large gap between "free" and "as high as the wealthiest customer is willing to pay."

If the goal is unlimited access for all, it would have to be pretty much "free" or at least extremely cheap so very poor, jobless, homeless, etc. people can ride, no? And why should people going from (say) Minot to Spokane get very cheap or free travel from the government when people going from (say) Louisville to Tulsa get nothing?

Also, pricing based on demand is a very basic concept. Commuter railroads often charge more for trips during rush hours, for example. Should they be required to only charge off-peak fares 24/7, which then would make them require more taxpayer $?

Anyway I think Amtrak has an obligation to maximize its revenues. Certainly it would be good to actually have a profitable system that can use money to expand? Or at least one that isn't as dependent on the whims of Congress?

 

[Sidney]

For example,the cheapest one.person roomette is $691 from Chicago to Albuquerque on the Southwest Chief. One overnight,three meals. A little excessive? As a 30 year plus Amtrak rider I have never seen prices this steep. Sadly,people would pay this price so Amtrak will charge it.

Knock off $300 and we'll talk

 

[tricia]

If the goal is unlimited access for all, it would have to be pretty much "free" or at least extremely cheap so very poor, jobless, homeless, etc. people can ride, no? And why should people going from (say) Minot to Spokane get very cheap or free travel from the government when people going from (say) Louisville to Tulsa get nothing?

Also, pricing based on demand is a very basic concept. Commuter railroads often charge more for trips during rush hours, for example. Should they be required to only charge off-peak fares 24/7, which then would make them require more taxpayer $?

Anyway I think Amtrak has an obligation to maximize its revenues. Certainly it would be good to actually have a profitable system that can use money to expand? Or at least one that isn't as dependent on the whims of Congress?

Do we expect the military to make a profit? Public schools? Local fire departments?

Amtrak has an obligation, as a taxpayer-supported service, to provide a reasonable bang for the buck--but to account for that solely in terms of ticket revenue is to be blind to the benefits such infrastructure brings to the economy as a whole.

 

[PaTrainFan]

Do we expect the military to make a profit? Public schools? Local fire departments?

Amtrak has an obligation, as a taxpayer-supported service, to provide a reasonable bang for the buck--but to account for that solely in terms of ticket revenue is to be blind to the benefits such infrastructure brings to the economy as a whole.

Add to your list: parks, highways and roads. Tolls are used on a small fraction of highways, tunnels and bridges. User fees are rare in parks.

 

[jruff001]

Amtrak has an obligation, as a taxpayer-supported service, to provide a reasonable bang for the buck[.]

That is what coach is for.

And I am not familiar with this obligation you are speaking of. Can you point to something in Amtrak's legislation that requires it to keep its fares low? That's a serious question; maybe it is there but I just don't know about it. My understanding is that Congress expects Amtrak to try to get as close as it can to breaking even, but I could be wrong.

And who decides what is "reasonable"? Someone above mentioned something about $300. Seems kind of arbitrary. Reasonable for whom? Decided by whom? Compared to what? When or by what benchmarks should they be changed, and changed to what?

 

[Ferroequinologist]

I repeat, why should the government be running a service that is so expensive that it serves only a small fraction of the population?

 

[OBS]

I repeat, why should the government be running a service that is so expensive that it serves only a small fraction of the population?

I worry that this logic will lead to the solution being "we will eliminate sleeper service". Then the service is equal and accessible to all

 

[rrdude]

I believe so

HE IS NOT

 

[rrdude]

I'm in a bit of a dilemma. Booked the Chief from LAX to CHI on July 4th, "WHEW.... just made the new cut-off for Flex Dining..." But am wondering what the chances of another push-back from Flex to Traditional might be ???

However, I got what appears to be a half-way decent fare, (but WAY more than I wanted) but doubt that I could get another fare like this?

To ride or not to ride?

 

[jruff001]

I worry that this logic will lead to the solution being "we will eliminate sleeper service". Then the service is equal and accessible to all

Yep, I already made this point. If Amtrak is forced to have even BIGGER losses by cutting sleeping car fares, it would make sense for them to just get rid of sleeping car service completely.

 

[jruff001]

I repeat, why should the government be running a service that is so expensive that it serves only a small fraction of the population?

Amtrak's long distance network only serves a small fraction of the population, period, when you look at their share of intercity traffic compared to other transportation modes. So does that mean the government shouldn't be running the service at all?

And perhaps you could address my above point about what in the Amtrak legislation (or some other similar source) obligates it to keep fares - especially SLEEPING CAR fares - low?

 

[Ryan]

And I am not familiar with this obligation you are speaking of. Can you point to something in Amtrak's legislation that requires it to keep its fares low? That's a serious question; maybe it is there but I just don't know about it. My understanding is that Congress expects Amtrak to try to get as close as it can to breaking even, but I could be wrong.

Quite the opposite:

§ 700.2 Organization and functioning of Amtrak.
The creation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) was authorized by the Rail Passenger Service Act, as amended, 84 Stat. 1327, 45 U.S.C. 541 et seq. (“the Act”). The Act requires that Amtrak be operated and managed as a for-profit corporation, that it be incorporated under the District of Columbia Business Corporation Act, and subject to the provisions of that statute to the extent not inconsistent with the Act, and that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by Congress to compete for the transportation business of the intercity traveller, to the end that the travelling public will have a choice of travel modes.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/700.2

 

[Sidney]

That is what coach is for.

And I am not familiar with this obligation you are speaking of. Can you point to something in Amtrak's legislation that requires it to keep its fares low? That's a serious question; maybe it is there but I just don't know about it. My understanding is that Congress expects Amtrak to try to get as close as it can to breaking even, but I could be wrong.

And who decides what is "reasonable"? Someone above mentioned something about $300. Seems kind of arbitrary. Reasonable for whom? Decided by whom? Compared to what? When or by what benchmarks should they be changed, and changed to what?

Of course it's arbitrary. Paying $391 instead of $691 on a one night trip from Chi to Abq in a roomette is a lot more reasonable,and in line with alternate ways of getting from Chicago to New Mexico. My only point was that $691 fare seemed very high. I may be in the minority but no way I would ever pay that gouged fair...Amtrak is raising sleeper fares to the point that the average person can't afford them,but as I said if someone is willing to pay close to $700 on a one night trip with few amenities,more power to them.

 

[Qapla]

Pricing the sleeper at $300 is no more arbitrary than pricing it at $600 or $900 ... so, if we are going to criticize the low arbitrary price - what's wrong with criticizing the high arbitrary prices??

 

[jruff001]

Quite the opposite:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/700.2

Thanks, that is consistent with my understanding.

 

[Ryan]

if someone is willing to pay close to $700 on a one night trip with few amenities,more power to them.

Given that you can't buy a roomette on the next two departures of the SWC (and you can't buy a bedroom on the one after that), it's a safe bet that there are people willing to pay that.

 

[jruff001]

Pricing the sleeper at $300 is no more arbitrary than pricing it at $600 or $900 ... so, if we are going to criticize the low arbitrary price - what's wrong with criticizing the high arbitrary prices??

That's not arbitrary though. I am sure Amtrak has a whole revenue management department trying to find the highest price points that will still attract customers based on the historical data they have plus certain other assumptions and algorithms. If fares are selling faster than expected, they will be raised; if slower than expected, they will be lowered (or as lower buckets sell out, only higher ones will be available, etc.).

I realize that is a huge over-simplification of the process for the sake of a big-picture discussion, but it certainly is not what I would call arbitrary. Edited to add: What WOULD be arbitrary is picking a price for a fare way below what the data suggest the seat or room should sell for at a certain point in time, based on nothing other than someone's feeling that things should be "more affordable," however that person is defining it.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Do we expect the military to make a profit? Public schools? Local fire departments?

Amtrak has an obligation, as a taxpayer-supported service, to provide a reasonable bang for the buck--but to account for that solely in terms of ticket revenue is to be blind to the benefits such infrastructure brings to the economy as a whole.

Then tell CONGRESS that. They made up the "for profit" rule.

 

[Cal]

HE IS NOT

Which is why I said I believe so, not he is.

He is an advisor of some-sort however, right?

 

[jis]

Which is why I said I believe so, not he is.

He is an advisor of some-sort however, right?

I don't think he has anything to do with Amtrak anymore. It has been quite a while. While he may be masochistic, I don;t think he is that masochistic