• evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s quasi-public, which is weird. It is subsidized, but just barely (they have like 95% farebox recovery), so i don’t think it’s even responsible to call it subsidized like road and air travel.

    I bet if there was enforcement of train priority laws, they could even be a revenue generator. Philosophically, I dont think they should be, though.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Edit: lmao, at those rates, Amtrak is less publicly subsidized than a lot of fortune 500s

      I’d be cool with Amtrak turning profit as long as the revenue was always re-invested into better train sets, better routes, more frequent service, cheaper tickets, employee pay and benefits, etc etc, and never just routed to rich fucking assholes who already have more than they know what to do with.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        They really can’t. They inherited hundred year old falling apart infrastructure that is one of the things keeping them from providing good service. There’s no way to make enough profit to rebuild all that infrastructure enough to become profitable on most routes in the first place. They are literally slower in places than they were almost 100 years ago

      • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        If they are re-investing revenue, it’s not profit. I would want them to be able to expand, pay employees better, etc. What I wouldn’t want is for them to make money and just pay dividends to shareholders.