Surfliner becoming expensive

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sportbiker

Lead Service Attendant
AU Supporting Member
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
326
Location
Los Angeles
Earlier this year, a 40-mile trip from LAX to Santa Ana (to visit family) was $13. Today I looked it up and it's $16, a $3 jump. Three bucks may not sound like much, but that's an almost 25% increase for a trip that's only 30 miles. Irvine (to visit a friend) has gone from $14 to $17 for a 40-mile trip. $34 to visit a friend isn't worth it when I have a fully-depreciated motorcycle that gets almost 50 mpg. That means down and back on the bike for about $6 + maintenance.

Yeah, yeah, cost recovery, what the market will bear, supply and demand and all that: bottom line, they're losing me as a customer.
 
Good. Whiners are terrible customers anyway. It's cheaper than NJT and your trains are nicer.
 
I think the people who will still pay that extra $3 are the ones who want to take that trip without driving...

Sometimes money makes a big difference to people...sometimes not. lol Like for my trip to Tucson, AZ from Michigan in January, I can take 421 or 21 then switch to 1. The second option is $30 cheaper, however...I do not feel like waiting in the SAS station all night. So to me $30 is worth staying on the comfy train. lol
 
What are the economics of alternative modes? Are they now cheaper? One thing I'd never do is hop a commuter airline. That'd be gambling my life for a $3 price increase. I think I'd rather drive than do that. I also think this is somehow related to the feeble economy. Cost-cutting is always better than raising prices, but sometimes costs can't be cut.
 
$9 and a slightly longer trip on Metrolink, I can't really blame Amtrak for wanting to recoup some of the potential revenue they are losing on a SAN passenger to carry a SNA passenger when alternatives are available. Unlikely situation but it happens. Same pricing issue occurs on CHI-GLN, 18 miles, $9 Amtrak vs $4 on Metra.
 
OlympianHiawatha said:
Perhaps the Bucket changes (for that matter, are there Bucket prices on the Surfliners?)
Click to expand...
No buckets... fares are the same on every train, no matter when you book (unless you have a BC upgrade)... I know what he means about the rice increase 2 or 2 and a half years ago, the price from SOL (my home station) to LAX was $23... now, it is $29 every trip and higher during summer and holidays... but I don't care. I'm still a few months from driving, and I would have a much less close relationship with my family in LA if I were not able to take weekend trips... plus the ever-increasing traffic... even $29 is reasonable! also you have to consider inflation, which the OP did not mention as a factor
 
Exiled in Express said:
I can't really blame Amtrak for wanting to recoup some of the potential revenue they are losing on a SAN passenger to carry a SNA passenger when alternatives are available.
Click to expand...
I can't blame them either, but is it really a smart policy? The greater the Amtrak price differential, the more that riders will switch to Metrolink (or stop taking trains), so Amtrak raises prices to compensate, pushing more riders to Metrolink (or cars), which makes Amtrak raise prices…

On weekends, Metrolink is now even cheaper because of a $10 weekend pass for anywhere they go, system-wide, all weekend long. You could spend the entire weekend doing laps to San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and south Orange Country for a single charge of $10.

GML, I'll give you my mailing address if you PM me. You can send me the $24 difference so I can take Amtrak. I'm sure you won't whine about that money.
 
sportbiker said:
Exiled in Express said:
I can't really blame Amtrak for wanting to recoup some of the potential revenue they are losing on a SAN passenger to carry a SNA passenger when alternatives are available.
Click to expand...
I can't blame them either, but is it really a smart policy? The greater the Amtrak price differential, the more that riders will switch to Metrolink (or stop taking trains), so Amtrak raises prices to compensate, pushing more riders to Metrolink (or cars), which makes Amtrak raise prices…

On weekends, Metrolink is now even cheaper because of a $10 weekend pass for anywhere they go, system-wide, all weekend long. You could spend the entire weekend doing laps to San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and south Orange Country for a single charge of $10.

GML, I'll give you my mailing address if you PM me. You can send me the $24 difference so I can take Amtrak. I'm sure you won't whine about that money.
Click to expand...
Have you been spending time with the Occupy crowd? Why should GML not wine about spending HIS money so YOU can ride a nicer train?

Oh yeah, all taxpayers already send money to Amtrak so folks can ride the train.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, you know the old thing about selling at a loss but "making it up on volume". Amtrak probably figures if it loses passengers to a competing form of transportation, they have lost just that much less. Sometimes the way out of losses is to cut back where the losses are. Same as stores do when they stop stocking items that didn't pay their way on the shelves.
 
sportbiker said:
Earlier this year, a 40-mile trip from LAX to Santa Ana (to visit family) was $13. Today I looked it up and it's $16, a $3 jump. Three bucks may not sound like much, but that's an almost 25% increase for a trip that's only 30 miles. Irvine (to visit a friend) has gone from $14 to $17 for a 40-mile trip. $34 to visit a friend isn't worth it when I have a fully-depreciated motorcycle that gets almost 50 mpg. That means down and back on the bike for about $6 + maintenance.

Yeah, yeah, cost recovery, what the market will bear, supply and demand and all that: bottom line, they're losing me as a customer.
Click to expand...
You must not have checked out prices on the NEC recently. Amtrak has been getting pretty aggressive in the prices for the Acelas and NE Regionals. So far it has not hurt ridership as it has been increasing. There are capacity limit issues on the NEC, so Amtrak might as well charge as much as they can to make both the Acela and NE Regionals turn a book profit for above the rails cost.

The ticket revenue cost recovery numbers for the 3 California trains is not very good, so the state of California is kicking in a lot to keep the prices as low as $16. And will have to kick in more in FY2013 looking at the Amtrak May monthly report.
 
RRUserious said:
Well, you know the old thing about selling at a loss but "making it up on volume". Amtrak probably figures if it loses passengers to a competing form of transportation, they have lost just that much less. Sometimes the way out of losses is to cut back where the losses are. Same as stores do when they stop stocking items that didn't pay their way on the shelves.
Click to expand...
All we have is one datum point. One person whining about the price increase. How many passengers will just accept the fact that things cost more than they used to, pay the higher fare, and keep riding?

It's not about number of riders, it's about total revenue.

100 passengers paying $16 are worth more than 110 paying $13.

Even if 15% of the riders defect (which is a pretty big number), the total revenue is still higher.

As I mentioned in the thread on Grand Central (on the commuter board), you can't deposit "riders" into a bank account. It takes dollars.
 
Exiled in Express said:
$9 and a slightly longer trip on Metrolink, I can't really blame Amtrak for wanting to recoup some of the potential revenue they are losing on a SAN passenger to carry a SNA passenger when alternatives are available.
Click to expand...
Surfliner trains are unreserved. How is Amtrak losing a SAN passenger when an SNA pax books a ticket? I mean, if Surfliner

trains were consistently operating SRO then I could see your point, as people traveling to SAN would not want to risk going without

a physical seat for the first part of their journey and thus choose an alternate method of getting to SAN. But how often does

that happen (SRO situations)? (I don't actually know..)

With unreserved seats, Amtrak is not turning any SAN passengers away due to having previously sold a ticket to a shorter-distance

destination.

That said, it's definitely a case of "what the market will bear." I'm guessing they've done their research on this one.
 
I could complain that my point runs to BOS now cost a WHOPPING $18 when they used to ONLY cost $16! But I'm not.

If $3 stop you from wanting to visit your family, so be it!
rolleyes.gif
And I also miss the $99 coast to coast flights!
rolleyes.gif
 
afigg said:
The ticket revenue cost recovery numbers for the 3 California trains is not very good, so the state of California is kicking in a lot to keep the prices as low as $16. And will have to kick in more in FY2013 looking at the Amtrak May monthly report.
Click to expand...
Can you give me the link about the ticket revenue cost recovery for CA Amtrak trains?
 
If all you're doing is LAX-SNA or LAX-IRV, take Metrolink if it fits your schedule. It's not that much slower, more likely to be on time, and is significantly cheaper. I don't mind the Surfliner price increases if it succeeds in shifting these "short hop" passengers to Metrolink or the Coaster. Frees up seats for those going a much longer distance.

I couldn't tell you how many times I've witnessed frustrated first-time riders vowing never to take the train (Surfliner) again because they weren't able to find a seat.
 
Cost cutting is not better than price increases in many circumstances. That theory drove many of Americas once fine companies onto the rocks.
 
gswager said:
Can you give me the link about the ticket revenue cost recovery for CA Amtrak trains?
Click to expand...
One source are the Amtrak monthly reports which along with annual financial reports, the PRIIA PIP reports, Fleet Strategy Plan, etc are on their Reports and Documents web page.

The last monthly report with full financial numbers is the May 2011 report. The last 4 monthly reports have been lacking financial numbers because Amtrak reportedly switched their accounting software. I won't go into all the details here, but page 26 of the May report has the ticket revenue and passenger counts YTD (year to date) for each train service. Page 58 has the total revenue for each train service which includes ticket, food & beverage sales, and state subsidy provided so far for the YTD. Have to look at pages 26 & 58 to figure out how much of the total revenue is ticket sales versus food & state payment. The total costs, capital charges, overhead allocated to each train is shown on page 58. We will have to wait to see the final numbers for FY11, but it is obvious that the California corridor services ticket revenues are well short of the total operating costs when it is all added on. California will have to provide additional funding in FY2013 to comply with the rules for state subsidized trains.
 
afigg said:
gswager said:
Can you give me the link about the ticket revenue cost recovery for CA Amtrak trains?
Click to expand...
One source are the Amtrak monthly reports which along with annual financial reports, the PRIIA PIP reports, Fleet Strategy Plan, etc are on their Reports and Documents web page.

The last monthly report with full financial numbers is the May 2011 report. The last 4 monthly reports have been lacking financial numbers because Amtrak reportedly switched their accounting software. I won't go into all the details here, but page 26 of the May report has the ticket revenue and passenger counts YTD (year to date) for each train service. Page 58 has the total revenue for each train service which includes ticket, food & beverage sales, and state subsidy provided so far for the YTD. Have to look at pages 26 & 58 to figure out how much of the total revenue is ticket sales versus food & state payment. The total costs, capital charges, overhead allocated to each train is shown on page 58. We will have to wait to see the final numbers for FY11, but it is obvious that the California corridor services ticket revenues are well short of the total operating costs when it is all added on. California will have to provide additional funding in FY2013 to comply with the rules for state subsidized trains.
Click to expand...
The editor of the RailPAC newsletter, in the Nov 28 edition, says California trains were hit hard by midwest flooding this summer, keeping people from making their transfers from CZ and EB (via CS).
 
Exiled in Express said:
I can't really blame Amtrak for wanting to recoup some of the potential revenue they are losing on a SAN passenger to carry a SNA passenger when alternatives are available.
Click to expand...
They lost me as a passenger and will operate an even emptier train at 10:10PM out of Los Angeles.
 
hmy1 said:
If all you're doing is LAX-SNA or LAX-IRV, take Metrolink if it fits your schedule. It's not that much slower, more likely to be on time, and is significantly cheaper. I don't mind the Surfliner price increases if it succeeds in shifting these "short hop" passengers to Metrolink or the Coaster. Frees up seats for those going a much longer distance.
Click to expand...
Good luck taking Metrolink in the middle of the day, at night, or during the reverse commute most of the time.

I couldn't tell you how many times I've witnessed frustrated first-time riders vowing never to take the train (Surfliner) again because they weren't able to find a seat.
Click to expand...
Invest in more public transportation. Add more cars. Double track the right of way. Rail is a public good. Riders pay more while more and more general funding is shifted to prop up the highway trust fund. Or end all subsidies for all modes of transportation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hmy1 said:
I don't mind the Surfliner price increases if it succeeds in shifting these "short hop" passengers to Metrolink or the Coaster. Frees up seats for those going a much longer distance.
Click to expand...
I suspect you're onto something. In February, user Ryan did a cost-per-mile analysis of the PS. Using his analysis as a base, I ran comparable calculations using the current fares. Between then and now, a Los Angeles to San Diego run went up about 4¢ per mile. LAX to Oceanside (a shorter trip) went up 5¢ per mile. LAX to Fullerton (way shorter) went up 8¢ per mile (all figures approx.). The Powers That Be seem to have made a decision to discourage short hops by making them more expensive per mile: the spread in February was 10¢ per mile; now it's 17¢ per mile. In short, they didn't just raise the price, they changed the entire price model. Interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top