Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
No, I'm not an idiot. Is it really necessary for you to call everyone an idiot that disagrees with you? Sure, subsidy per passenger isn't a "fixed" cost, I thought I was being generous using the $5 per passenger average subsidy vs the $35 per passenger average subsidy. I didn't invent the numbers, and did provide a link to where I found them. Those subsidy numbers I provided were real.
Additionally, in my earlier argument I used the phrase, "Assuming the same subsidy will be required in the future for corridor services nationally," which is common to do with what if logic exercises. Can you comprehend what is written?
I could argue that as long as Amtrak maintains the policy to set fares so low that the trains lose money, that some subsidy is "fixed" by that policy. As long as Amtrak's fare setting policy is to fill seats instead of turning a profit, you'll find some subsidies will be needed. And I might add, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
|
I'm not going to use insults but I'm sorry, you are still using these numbers incorrectly. The gov't doesn't subsidize fares or on a per passenger basis, but overall operating and capital expenses. Just looking at operating subsidy on a single line for example, amtrak could technically
lower fares and increase ridership. If the marginal increase in ridership made up for the marginal drop in revenue per passenger it could actually
increase its overall revenue and reduce necessary operating subsidizes (controlling for other costs) and decrease its subsidy per passenger (squared, smaller subsidy, higher ridership). That's a generic example and not necessarily true of any particular line but point being, subsidy per passenger is a non-linear relationship which you attempt to use linearly (increased ridership * subsidy/passenger = increased total subsidy or increased fares * fare/passenger = increased revenue). It's not that simple.