FY12 ridership was 31.2 million

[Anderson]

1.4 billion in federal subsidy divided by 31.2 million riders = $44.87 per ticket subsidized.

I don't know that $100 would FILL the gap. Let's make it $150. First class riders MUST pay their fair fare.

I don't have Acela First numbers, but on the sleeper front, the ridership was 671,056 in FY10. That fell by 1.1% in FY12 (to 663,947), but most of that was down to the Builder/Zephyr/etc. issues, but it was back up signifficantly in FY12, esp. on the Builder and CONO.. So, assuming a $150 bump in PPR on that front (which would be about a 60% jump), you'd raise $99.6 million if you could get that sort of jump to stick. Mind you, that's about 25-30% of the operating loss right there, but it won't come anywhere near paying for the capital stuff. You just don't have the volume at

One interesting question would be, on some of the heavier corridors, could you make a worthwhile "upsale" class beyond BC as we generally know it and pitch that? For example, assuming a "something, anything, just get me a g-d track!" link over the mountains and the likely connected spike in ridership on the San Joaquin that not having to deal with the buses would likely bring, would you have enough folks on those trains to make something like Acela First (in terms of quality and the included meal) worthwhile attempting? Could you get the PPR in such a class to be sufficient to pay for the extra space such seats take up in a car, for the cost of added services, and for some cross-subsidy of coach? I suspect I may end up asking the same question about the Coast Daylight (especially as the number of trains on that corridor is likely to remain restricted for quite some time), but I'd also look at the Carolinian and so forth as well.

Same song, different chorus would be whether on some of the longer corridor trains, expanding BC and/or hiking the accommodation charges (or even "bucketing" those charges in 2-4 tiers) would make sense. BC on some of the 2-1 trains has a habit of selling out; a second BC car (or even a full 2-1 BC car with the cafe either being left as-is or with a "normal" cafe/diner-lite being put on) might be in order.

Finally, I would wonder if there might not be a logic to, again on some of those packed corridors, trying to work in an "A Train" (i.e. one that, while making most or all stops, has upgrades and so forth) alongside the corridor at a peak time. The analogy from the past would be the Amtrak Merchants Limited in the earlier years; I consider that a general example, not an absolute in terms of amenities, but it's an example of a "better" train to go alongside the "regular" trains.

 

[Ryan]

Do nothing, **** and moan, ask for more money from Uncle Sam and then watch as LD segments are curtailed or disappear due to budget cuts.

Actually, since revenue is increasing, Amtrak is asking for less money from the government.

 

[Paulus]

Sigh. Atlantic Cities has a good overview of Amtrak's increasing ridership at

Why Amtrak Keeps Breaking Ridership Records and Will Continue To Do So

but throws in this:

The real drain on taxpayers is Amtrak's long-distance routes. Ridership may be up 4.7 percent on those services for the year, but the projected loss comes out to more than $111 per rider. If there's a substantive discussion to be had about the future of Amtrak, it's about the viability of these long-distance services, which unlike many local transit routes that lose money don't seem particularly necessary as a public service.

Amtrak is, of course, a very different animal in the NEC and the other corridors than it is in its long-distance services. But it's a shame that in an article filled with numbers, the author doesn't back up that last statement at all, even though he admits that "the missing context here is that intercity railroads universally require government contributions for capital expenses if they're going to run at all."

It's not a terribly hard statement to back up. The long distance trains don't serve a transit function that cannot be better served, for cheaper, by subsidizing bus service from said communities to airports (with or without EAS funded service). It's not like those in sleeper or even coach can't afford airfare on those long distance hops.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

Do nothing, **** and moan, ask for more money from Uncle Sam and then watch as LD segments are curtailed or disappear due to budget cuts.

Actually, since revenue is increasing, Amtrak is asking for less money from the government.

Yes, that is true, but let;s get "back" to talking about trains like everyone seems to want to do and not about the government subsidies.

Do you agree or disagree with my premise to add a CIF to sleeper fees ?

NAVYBLUE

 

[Anderson]

Sigh. Atlantic Cities has a good overview of Amtrak's increasing ridership at

Why Amtrak Keeps Breaking Ridership Records and Will Continue To Do So

but throws in this:

The real drain on taxpayers is Amtrak's long-distance routes. Ridership may be up 4.7 percent on those services for the year, but the projected loss comes out to more than $111 per rider. If there's a substantive discussion to be had about the future of Amtrak, it's about the viability of these long-distance services, which unlike many local transit routes that lose money don't seem particularly necessary as a public service.

Amtrak is, of course, a very different animal in the NEC and the other corridors than it is in its long-distance services. But it's a shame that in an article filled with numbers, the author doesn't back up that last statement at all, even though he admits that "the missing context here is that intercity railroads universally require government contributions for capital expenses if they're going to run at all."

It's not a terribly hard statement to back up. The long distance trains don't serve a transit function that cannot be better served, for cheaper, by subsidizing bus service from said communities to airports (with or without EAS funded service). It's not like those in sleeper or even coach can't afford airfare on those long distance hops.

The question isn't whether folks can afford the trip. The question is whether they'll take the trip if forced to an alternative.

Speaking for myself, if I have to go through that horsecrap dance at the airports and deal with over-packed planes every time I go on a long-distance trip, I just stop taking casual long-distance trips and I drive to Florida once in a while. I know I'm not alone on this front. No, I won't take a bus (unless you can convince me that it's a full-on sleeper bus for an overnight trip) instead, and multiple-days-driving trips aren't an option, either...I hate driving. I just won't go, and while I will be exceedingly annoyed by the fact, that won't change my disinclination to travel.

As to the EAS/other subsidy bit, I've raised this before, but restoring a daily train into Denver (there's an old Burlington line on the map that would come close to 3-4 cities getting EAS money...I think it's Denver-Alliance) or Kansas City (or another locale), even as a bad-hour extension of a corridor train but with a switch-out in the cafe attendant at KCY or OMA, would probably run a smaller subsidy than the EAS currently does in a few cases. Likewise, axing the EAS subsidies to the airports in WV and western VA but making the Cardinal daily would likely also be a cost-saving measure (especially if you get a de facto cross-subsidy from increased ridership on the ends of the route). "Cheap" is relative, but from what I've gathered, the core costs of a day train that covers several hundred miles tend to run somewhere around $10-16 million to run: The Blue Water ran $13.9m, the Adirondack lists $12.9m, the Pennsylvanian $16.4m, and the Illini $20.3m for a twice-daily train (or $10.5m/train). That's costs before farebox and OBS revenue come into the mix.

And, as I noted, there are plenty of folks out there who just won't take The Dog. They'll drive 60 miles to a train station or 100 miles to the nearest decent-sized airport or they just won't travel before they'll take a bus. One of the problems with just looking at whether an option is cheaper in nominal terms is that you often ignore the question of "Will anyone use this?", and in a lot of cases the answer is "Only those who absolutely have to." This is why you get those situations surrounding light rail, for example, where the costs are about the same as the local bus system but the ridership is leaps and bounds above the bus system (even though the latter might have more reach): If you build a decent option, people will take it. If you build a POS option, you'll be stuck running mostly-empty buses.

Charlie: That article was written by someone who can't do math. They used on/off figures but didn't have the sense to divide by two to account for the fact that each trip includes an on and an off. The points are solid, but when someone bungles numbers so easily, it makes me cringe.

 

[Paulus]

"Cheap" is relative, but from what I've gathered, the core costs of a day train that covers several hundred miles tend to run somewhere around $10-16 million to run: The Blue Water ran $13.9m, the Adirondack lists $12.9m, the Pennsylvanian $16.4m, and the Illini $20.3m for a twice-daily train (or $10.5m/train). That's costs before farebox and OBS revenue come into the mix.

The LD routes average out at $63.58 per train-mile to run, might be a useful number for estimates.

I'm not a fan of driving or flying myself, but at the same time, I'm not seeing the point of subsidizing these particular trains to the tune of more than a half billion dollars a year. That's a lot of money, and more importantly equipment, that would be better spent investing in shorter routes and existing corridors. Certainly some trips will not be made, but induced travel that's a money loser isn't a good idea for Amtrak. If we're doing what are basically luxury trips rather than actual essential intercity connectivity, let's price it significantly higher and recover more of the money spent on it.

Now, I'll admit that I might be personally biased since I have absolutely no reason to any of the long distance routes that end up in Los Angeles, but on the other hand, that's for the same reason that the LD routes died off in the first place and aren't terribly well patronized today: Flying or driving is sufficiently faster, more reliable, better timed, and usually cheaper that it outweighs the discomforts of those modes.

 

[PRR 60]

...

As to the EAS/other subsidy bit, I've raised this before, but restoring a daily train into Denver (there's an old Burlington line on the map that would come close to 3-4 cities getting EAS money...I think it's Denver-Alliance) or Kansas City (or another locale), even as a bad-hour extension of a corridor train but with a switch-out in the cafe attendant at KCY or OMA, would probably run a smaller subsidy than the EAS currently does in a few cases. Likewise, axing the EAS subsidies to the airports in WV and western VA but making the Cardinal daily would likely also be a cost-saving measure (especially if you get a de facto cross-subsidy from increased ridership on the ends of the route). "Cheap" is relative, but from what I've gathered, the core costs of a day train that covers several hundred miles tend to run somewhere around $10-16 million to run: The Blue Water ran $13.9m, the Adirondack lists $12.9m, the Pennsylvanian $16.4m, and the Illini $20.3m for a twice-daily train (or $10.5m/train). That's costs before farebox and OBS revenue come into the mix.

...

I think you are missing the purpose of the Essential Air Services program. The purpose of the EAS grants is not to get people from a rural town to the endpoint city. It is to get people from a rural town to a hub airport where they can seamlessly connect to the mainline air system on a common reservation, including through baggage handling. EAS also requires multiple daily frequencies to allow convenient onward connections. A short EAS flight into DEN allows passengers to simply walk to their next flight inside the terminal with boarding passes in hand. Getting passengers to Denver Union Station after a once-a day, multi-hour train ride, still leaves them miles from Denver International Airport and onward flights, maybe at the wrong time of day, and does nothing for baggage.

I cannot think of a single instance where Amtrak could perform the role of an EAS carrier. Even the single situation where Amtrak is part of a through ticketing arrangement, UA at EWR, the Amtrak segment does not provide checked baggage and Amtrak does not provide the boarding pass for UA. Passengers coming off Amtrak at EWR still have to get a UA boarding pass and check luggage there. The UA/Amtrak arrangement is a codeshare in name only.

 

[jis]

I haven't looked at the actual percentages, but it appears to me that Amtrak has been consistently raising fares a couple of times each year for the last couple of years. Maybe Amtrak is actually collecting the CIF by stealth, without calling it such. At the end of the day no matter what one calls it, it is money out of people's pocket, and AFAICT very few people get impressed because a part of the fare is given a fancy name, and thus show willingness to ignore the fact that the fare is higher. At the end of the the day the elasticity effect is the same. The trick is to figure out when you are at a point where you are milking all that you can get.

AFAICT, so far Amtrak has not explicitly asked for any money for the acquisition of the Viewliners or the ACS-64s, the latter of course being funded substantially through a RRIF loan, presumably to be paid for out of NEC revenue surpluses.

 

[Trogdor]

I find it interesting that someone who has gone out of their way to tell us that they have expertise in economics can ignore the concept of supply and demand, and actually believes that Amtrak could just increase the cost of a ticket by $50-100 (regardless of what a non-scientific dinnertime conversation survey says, and regardless of whether it's called a "fee" or built into the fare) and not have any negative impacts on ridership (and, perhaps, revenue as well).

 

[Ryan]

But he's got data that says that 70% of Amtrak travelers wouldn't mind!

Added in as a "fee" on top of the fare is a terrible idea. That's the kind of chintzy crap that makes people hate airlines.

And as Jis said, it seems as though Amtrak is doing what they can to increase revenue without adding a fancy title and making a big deal about it.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

I haven't looked at the actual percentages, but it appears to me that Amtrak has been consistently raising fares a couple of times each year for the last couple of years. Maybe Amtrak is actually collecting the CIF by stealth, without calling it such. At the end of the day no matter what one calls it, it is money out of people's pocket, and AFAICT very few people get impressed because a part of the fare is given a fancy name, and thus show willingness to ignore the fact that the fare is higher. At the end of the the day the elasticity effect is the same. The trick is to figure out when you are at a point where you are milking all that you can get.

AFAICT, so far Amtrak has not explicitly asked for any money for the acquisition of the Viewliners or the ACS-64s, the latter of course being funded substantially through a RRIF loan, presumably to be paid for out of NEC revenue surpluses.

I am sure AMTRAK has been consistently adjusting fares over the years. As does the airlines, etc. The federal excise tax (7.5%) and TSA fees had remained steady for a long time as the "fares" went up and down at the airlines. It stares you right in the face on the ticket. People kept on flying.

The CIF would be right there on the ticket added on to the rail fare and accommodation fare.

So what is your solution to keep the "SUBSIDY elimination wolves" at bay ?

NAVYBLUE

 

[Paulus]

I find it interesting that someone who has gone out of their way to tell us that they have expertise in economics can ignore the concept of supply and demand, and actually believes that Amtrak could just increase the cost of a ticket by $50-100 (regardless of what a non-scientific dinnertime conversation survey says, and regardless of whether it's called a "fee" or built into the fare) and not have any negative impacts on ridership (and, perhaps, revenue as well).

Price conscious travelers aren't really going to be traveling Amtrak first class in the first place, I'd be willing to bet that you could hike the fares fairly substantially, though the fee nonsense should be disposed of.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

I find it interesting that someone who has gone out of their way to tell us that they have expertise in economics can ignore the concept of supply and demand, and actually believes that Amtrak could just increase the cost of a ticket by $50-100 (regardless of what a non-scientific dinnertime conversation survey says, and regardless of whether it's called a "fee" or built into the fare) and not have any negative impacts on ridership (and, perhaps, revenue as well).

Oh, I DO understand supply and demand.

So let me get this straight so I understand. People will pay a Red Cap $10-$20 for baggage transport/early boarding on a (4) segment LD train, $5 for a casino valet, $5-$10 for an airport Red Cap, a Maitre d' $20 for a good table, $25 for a checked airline bag or a $10 tip to a taxi driver that gets you to the station but in mass will quit using AMTRAK over a $50 CIF. I don't think so.

Not included with the fee, but a separate fee added on to the ticket. Don't you think AMTRAK passengers have a vested interest in insuring AMTRAK stays viable in that it is THEIR tax dollars that are going to the subsidies. Don't you think AMTRAK sleeper passengers would be willing to pay a little extra for riding in a brand new sleeper cars that actually have A/Cs, lights and toilets that actually work.

WE will never know until we try. Since the demand is INCREASING, AMTRAK can now afford to try the CIF (capital Improvement fee) fee added to the sleeper fare since they are a smaller portion of the rail service passengers. If AMTRAK has a good tracking system they can could see over a years period if the revenue received compensated for any loss in sleeper ridership.

I would only do CIFs for LD trains that end/originate in Chicago and West PLUS the CL and CARD,

OR, we could just do nothing and put AMTRAK at the mercy of the political winds.

NAVYBLUE

 

[Ryan]

The A/C, lights and toilets have worked in every sleeping car I've been in.

Then again, I've only logged about 24,000 miles on Amtrak, so what do I know?

And still, people hate fees. Maximize revenue by adjusting fares (like it appears they are doing) and using that money to reduce their need for federal subsidy as much as possible.

Go read the Fleet Strategy Plan - you're not going to see a new order for Superliner Sleepers for many, many years. Why would Amtrak charge a fee for cars that they don't intend to order?

 

[afigg]

Go read the Fleet Strategy Plan - you're not going to see a new order for Superliner Sleepers for many, many years. Why would Amtrak charge a fee for cars that they don't intend to order?

The v3.1 Fleet Strategy Plan calls for delivery of Superliner replacements to begin in FY2018. Which means the order would have to be placed by FY2016 or so. I expect the FY2018 date will slide, but I would not describe FY2018 as many, many years away.

On the idea of higher pricing and fees for sleeper passengers, what do people proposing this think Amtrak has been doing the past several years? Amtrak is already using an aggressive pricing to maximize LD revenue because of the high demand and limited capacity.

 

[Eric S]

Maximize revenue by adjusting fares (like it appears they are doing) and using that money to reduce their need for federal subsidy as much as possible.

This.

 

[AlanB]

No. If I wanted to tax distribute the cost to everyone, then it would be about $44 per ticket. But those who travel in sleeper and first can certainly afford to pay $100 more to subsidize those travelling in coach, right?

As a NARP analysis from several years ago, prior the large spike in sleeper prices 3 or 4 years ago and the new revenue management going on, sleeping car passengers already do help subsidize coach passengers. Without sleeper revenues, coach passengers are subsidized at a rate of $0.01888 per passenger mile. Throw sleeper passengers & their revenue into the mix and the combined subsidy for both is $0.01870 per passenger mile.

Note, this is the subsidy for the coach/rail fare portion of the trip. The same study showed that sleeper pax cover all their above the rails costs for both the sleepers & their portion of the use of the dining cars.

Full NARP Report

 

[Ryan]

Go read the Fleet Strategy Plan - you're not going to see a new order for Superliner Sleepers for many, many years. Why would Amtrak charge a fee for cars that they don't intend to order?

The v3.1 Fleet Strategy Plan calls for delivery of Superliner replacements to begin in FY2018. Which means the order would have to be placed by FY2016 or so. I expect the FY2018 date will slide, but I would not describe FY2018 as many, many years away.

That's really semantics. It's far enough into the future that it isn't going to happen on the watch of the next President we elect, and we're going to elect 2 Congresses before that point. There's a lot that can change in ~5 years.

 

[Trogdor]

So let me get this straight so I understand. People will pay a Red Cap $10-$20 for baggage transport/early boarding on a (4) segment LD train,

Some people will. Most folks who use red caps actually need them because of mobility limitations. Still, it comes nowhere close to the total number of passengers who ride LD trains in sleepers. Take a look at the Chicago Metropolitan Lounge when they announce the boarding of a sleeper train. Those who wish for Red Cap assistance meet at the front, those who can walk out on their own head to the back to go directly to the train. By far, more people are at the back of the lounge than the front.

$5 for a casino valet

What do Casinos have to do with anything?

$5-$10 for an airport Red Cap,

I'd wager that far fewer airline passengers use red caps (or the airport equivalent, whatever they're called these days) than Amtrak LD sleeper passengers.

a Maitre d' $20 for a good table,

Don't know what that has to do with Amtrak.

$25 for a checked airline bag

Some do, many folks either 1) don't check bags and (try to) carry everything on, 2) have status with the airline that waives bag fees, or 3) just say screw it and fly Southwest, which doesn't charge for bags.

or a $10 tip to a taxi driver that gets you to the station

Maybe. I've never tipped a cab driver that much. I have bought Amtrak sleeper tickets.

but in mass will quit using AMTRAK over a $50 CIF. I don't think so.

It's a fare increase. If Amtrak felt they could increase fares by $50 (and, in some cases, they have, or by a lot more) and not suffer a net drop in revenue as a result, then presumably they'd do so. What Amtrak should be doing is charging the revenue-maximizing price (which, you being an expert on economics, I won't explain because you already know what that is). It just so happens that, for most Amtrak services, the revenue-maximizing price still does not yield enough total revenue to cover the total cost of operation.

Not included with the fee, but a separate fee added on to the ticket. Don't you think AMTRAK passengers have a vested interest in insuring AMTRAK stays viable in that it is THEIR tax dollars that are going to the subsidies.

They certainly do. But if the service could pay for itself, then, presumably, it already would. Yes it is "their" tax dollars (along with the tax dollars of millions of others, whether or not those others ride), but if the service could take in more revenue than it cost to provide, it wouldn't need tax dollars in the first place.

Hell, maybe we should just tack on a "subsidy fee" to every ticket and eliminate the subsidy. Such genius!

Should airlines charge a "new airplane fee" to cover the cost of equipment purchases? Again, if Amtrak can increase the ticket price by $50, and not have any negative impacts from doing so, they should. But at some point, you price yourself out of a market.

A baggage fee is only assessed on those who check bags. Those who travel in sleepers already have a fee assessed on them. It's called the accommodation charge.

Don't you think AMTRAK sleeper passengers would be willing to pay a little extra for riding in a brand new sleeper cars that actually have A/Cs, lights and toilets that actually work.

A few points:

1) The mechanical condition of the equipment isn't only dependent on its age.

2) "Paying a little extra" only works if you have something extra to give them. The numbers that you cited were for system-wide sleeper ridership. How would you justify charging a fee for someone "for riding in brand new sleeper cars" and then have them board one of the Superliner IIs that hasn't been touched since it was delivered (I won't use an unrefurbished Superliner I as an example, because the last of those cars, if not already done, is due to go to Beech Grove very soon)? It wouldn't make sense to charge such a fee on the Sunset Limited so that passengers on the Lake Shore can ride in new equipment. If anything, it would be a greater source of contention and complaint that passengers are given a line-item fee specifically for better equipment if they don't see any of that equipment.

3) You could limit the fees just to those routes that get the better equipment. Only, you're several years too late with that idea. Amtrak has already done that. One of the justifications for not switching the Empire Builder to SDS was that they could get higher total ticket revenue from offering the better service (and refurbished equipment) and charging more for it. Except, they didn't call it a CIF or any nonsense like that. They called it the ticket price.

WE will never know until we try. Since the demand is INCREASING, AMTRAK can now afford to try the CIF (capital Improvement fee) fee added to the sleeper fare since they are a smaller portion of the rail service passengers. If AMTRAK has a good tracking system they can could see over a years period if the revenue received compensated for any loss in sleeper ridership.

Since demand has been increasing, Amtrak has been increasing fares. So, they're already doing what you're suggesting, but without the smoke and mirrors fee nonsense.

I would only do CIFs for LD trains that end/originate in Chicago and West PLUS the CL and CARD,

Why randomly only do fees for those trains?

OR, we could just do nothing and put AMTRAK at the mercy of the political winds.

I didn't realize the only two choices (presented as a dichotomy) are a CIF or do nothing.

Amtrak has always been and will always be at the mercy of the political winds. Why? Because it receives subsidies. Why? Because the cost of providing the service exceeds the revenue gained from those paying for it. If that wasn't the case, Amtrak wouldn't need to exist.

Yet you believe that somehow the magical fee fairy is going to come down and wave her magic wand and turn all of Amtrak's losses around just by charging passengers more, not by raising fares, but by calling it a "fee."

 

[Trogdor]

I find it interesting that someone who has gone out of their way to tell us that they have expertise in economics can ignore the concept of supply and demand, and actually believes that Amtrak could just increase the cost of a ticket by $50-100 (regardless of what a non-scientific dinnertime conversation survey says, and regardless of whether it's called a "fee" or built into the fare) and not have any negative impacts on ridership (and, perhaps, revenue as well).

Price conscious travelers aren't really going to be traveling Amtrak first class in the first place, I'd be willing to bet that you could hike the fares fairly substantially, though the fee nonsense should be disposed of.

Everybody is "price conscious" to some extent or another. It's just a matter of what their limit is.

There are folks (including many on this very forum) who will book a sleeper if it's selling for low bucket, but choose not to travel (or go coach) if it's selling in a higher bucket.

If sleeper passengers weren't price conscious, then Amtrak would never have any reason to sell anything other than the S bucket rate.

 

[Eric S]

As others have noted, Amtrak seems to be regularly adjusting (generally increasing) fares, at least for the last few years, presumably in an attempt to reach the fare levels where revenues are maximized. In light of the focus on Amtrak's annual federal support, continuing to increase fares to the extent Amtrak can while still increasing revenues would seem like a prudent course of action. However, imposing a blanket $50-100 fee would seem particularly unwise. Perhaps some fares could be increased $50-100 without hurting ridership enough that revenues actually fall, but in other cases that most certainly would not be the case.

 

[Anderson]

Ok, let's talk about PPR changes on the LD. The Texas Eagle notwithstanding (primarily due to a massive jump in ridership within IL), all LD trains have seen a substantial rise in PPR. Between FY10 and FY12, PPR rose by:

11.94% on the Empire Builder

11.52% on the Crescent

9.93% on the Auto Train

9.21% on the California Zephyr

9.13% on the City of New Orleans

8.79% on the Silver Star

8.75% on the Cardinal

7.86% on the Palmetto

7.52% on the Lake Shore Limited

6.69% on the Coast Starlight

6.38% on the Capitol Limited

5.89% on the Silver Meteor

5.33% on the Sunset Limited

2.34% on the Southwest Chief

The Eagle's PPR slipped by 1.66%, but again...the intrastate ridership within IL played a major role here.

One other point: A $50 or $100 or whatever hike in fares would play hell with shorter-distance trips or trips on emptier routes where Amtrak is occasionally trying to fill rooms/seats. In practical terms, such a jump would likely instead play out as a percentage jump...so, for example, you'd get a $30 jump on a roomette RVR-NYP (which is basically gravy for Amtrak since they've already sold that room elsewhere along the line) but a $200 jump on one ORL-NYP and an even bigger one on the Builder.

I'm not sure what this would do to ridership, but I would point out that when you look at the LD ridership under Warrington, the following happened:

-PPR rose sharply year over year

-Ridership slid year over year

-Revenue was flat, only rising and falling minimally in spite of the revenue increases.

 

[Ryan]

I'm not sure what this would do to ridership, but I would point out that when you look at the LD ridership under Warrington, the following happened:

-PPR rose sharply year over year

-Ridership slid year over year

-Revenue was flat, only rising and falling minimally in spite of the revenue increases.

Excellent point.

Contrast that with this year, where Ridership and PPR are both increasing. Amtrak is increasing fares in a well thought out way in order to maximize revenue. Something that a flat fee or surcharge on every reservation is incapable of doing.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

The A/C, lights and toilets have worked in every sleeping car I've been in.

Then again, I've only logged about 24,000 miles on Amtrak, so what do I know?

And still, people hate fees. Maximize revenue by adjusting fares (like it appears they are doing) and using that money to reduce their need for federal subsidy as much as possible.

Go read the Fleet Strategy Plan - you're not going to see a new order for Superliner Sleepers for many, many years. Why would Amtrak charge a fee for cars that they don't intend to order?

http://www.examiner....e-new-cars-2012 "Amtrak to receive new cars in 2012"

OK, unless this article is wrong, AMTRAK will start to receive new cars in 2012. I don't know AMTRAK's financial plan, but the CIF could help pay for the new cars OR put the money back into the fund it comes from. The rail fares I believe are being used as operating funds to pay the daily bills. The CIF would be used to supplement/reimburse the capital funds used for new purchases to replace older cars.

I went from LAX-WAS-LAX and they worked so well when I wrote AMTRAK about what didn't work properly on every train segment they sent me a $500 voucher. Was it horrible and unbearable ? No. Was it less than I expected for $2,000 round trip. Yes. I do not have the rose colored glasses of a "rail fan". I am a rail enthusiast. I expect the facilities to operate as well as an airplane. I understand the cars are older than airplanes being used. That is not my problem, but I believe my plan could help the situation. Notice my CIF is for sleepers only which I feel are more able to pay the fee. Or we could just do nothing and take our chances with the political winds however they blow.

Therefore I am willing to pay a CIF to have better cars for EVERYONE. I talk the talk and walk the walk. Increased fares will never cover the subsidy.

NAVYBLUE

 

[Trogdor]

This is seriously going in circles. But, as has been said numerous times:

A CIF is equivalent to a fare increase. Amtrak has been raising fares quite a bit in recent years. Further, as the presence of fare buckets shows, passengers are more price-sensitive to changes of $50-$100 than folks on here seem to want to believe.

And once again you give us the dichotomy of CIF or "do nothing," ignoring the obvious third option, which is what Amtrak has been doing, which is to manage revenues through fare changes and bucket allocation to maximize total revenue given the nature of the market.