Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
It is NARP's position (and mine) that Amtrak would be better off financially with a larger network than a smaller one, hence their (and my) opposition to cutting routes. We talked about economies of scale earlier. You don't get that by selling less of your product while fixed costs stay fixed. But that's how Congresscritters and government bureaucrats think. They see trains as costs to be avoided, not as sources of revenue. Under that theory cutting routes leads to fewer losses. Thus under years of such political pressure Amtrak has tried to cut its way to profitability, only to find the company losing more money than before the cuts. The reason why these cuts don't work is because fewer and fewer trains have to support the same fixed plant. So I see the problem being more political than economic. Maybe its time to reverse the process. Add a few carefully selected routes and see what happens. It has the merit of being the only thing that has not yet been tried.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag