I feel compelled to chime in on this because, for a change, the sentiments in this discussion are basically, "Amtrak shouldn't worry about catering to everyone", and similarly, "pay for what you want". The latter point is salient, the former, not so much. In every other modern nation, train travel is BOTH cheaper and BETTER. I just got back from Italy. I travelled for around 30 US dollars from Rome to Naples in 1 hr 10 mins. The seats were comfortable, in fact, they served a free breakfast onboard (note the above price), and the train was dramatically faster, quieter...honestly better in every single possible way, than Amtrak's NEC. I can afford Amtrak. But, why in the world should I pay so much money, for a quality of service which isn't that good? Ooooh neat big seats. Fun. To those who lambast megabus...have you ridden it? Most of the folks onboard are quite well behaved, clean, etc. It is not an odorous amalgam of humanity (greyhound...different story). As for traffic, I've actually never been on a single megabus or similar bus ride, where the bus was late arriving into the destination. They route busses around traffic jams (GPS and traffic guidance are real things), and the schedules generally account for traffic. I've been late departing before on the fault of megabus...but not due to traffic, and I regularly arrive *early*. But you know, I've also regularly been late arriving on Amtrak, for issues under their control, in good weather, due to "rail traffic congestion", or equipment issues, or track issues, signal issues...all kinds of issues. So, let's get this straight. I'm paying 3-30x the price of a bus ticket, to get to my destination a little tiny bit faster maybe? Why?
What is not being said in this discussion is what the function of rail travel is supposed to be. Yes, Amtrak is a business. But the purpose of rail transportation is to relieve congestion and stimulate economic growth. The NEC has the ability to take millions of cars off the road, saving myriad pollution and reducing traffic for those that DO drive. It reduces our reliance on short haul aviation, which is expensive, and also environmentally unfriendly. In most countries, rail travel is subsidized by the government, because it is a public service. It facilitates economic activity. In other words--the ability of individuals to initiate commerce in other cities easily, increases GDP and stimulates economic development more than the *cost* of running rail service. When we price Amtrak like an airline, we restrict the subset of people willing to take it, and reduce that benefit. If it had the speed of an airline, OK. It doesn't. Even if we account for going to the airport. Most US cities are spread out. Thus, unless you live close to the station, you don't benefit from the time savings of arriving "downtown", like you might in Europe. You'll still have a ride of some kind to get to where you actually want to go, and that ride is often nearly as expensive and time consuming as your trip from the destination airport. You are paying more money, for worse service.
Further, as some have articulated--Amtrak *already* charges premium prices. A non-sale saver fare now from PHL-NYC, is $45. The same ticket right now on megabus is between $1-$7. Unless you have money to burn, AND find the marginal time savings and bigger seat worth it to you--assuming the train isn't delayed--it doesn't make economic sense. Even if you have the money. I can spend that money elsewhere. Amtrak's current NEC is analogous to an all business class airline. Amtrak is, itself, a premium service. Thus, the expectation of benefits. I think the policy of making saver fares non refundable was sound, as was charging a fee for vouchers. I think it may be reasonable to cancel the voucher program entirely and require changes to be made to the same origin and destination city pairs for new times and days. But, their policies here come off as trying to pretend that their saver fares are a bargain deal. They aren't. If I get a luxury car on sale, it is STILL expensive. I still have to pay for it. If the benefits don't outweigh the cost, I'm still not going to buy it. They have to offer me something for my money, regardless of the fare bucket. My case is anecdotal and obviously many folks do take Amtrak, and so do I. Many will continue to take it. But, more would take it, and thereby increase profitability and reduce road congestion, if it were operated more like overseas HSR operators, or at least, highlighted their strengths and stopped removing them. As for that bigger seat by the way, have you noticed how much the 50 year old Amfleets shake during their rides? The ride quality is worse than that on the bus--which drives on a modern well maintained freeway with a new and well maintained fleet with excellent shock absorbers. Want to ride on a bumpy noisy couch or a smooth economy airline style seat for 1/30th the price? In so many ways, Amtrak misses the mark when it comes to delivering value for money. I don't mean the budget travel segment. They shouldn't be chasing the traveller that can only afford and only wants that $5 ticket. But, relative to what you pay for, on Amtrak, you don't get as much value compared to spending the same amount on other nations' rail networks.
Sure, the argument that different fare tiers on Amtrak should get different benefits makes sense. But, they shouldn't be so dramatically different in price and so comparable in benefits. If you're going to change policies at least offer more to those more expensive tickets. They're really just devaluing their current products to align them with each other, not adding new features to compensate. Example--non-refundable vs refundable fare on italo is around $5-10 US per segment. Reasonable. Amtrak? $100+. Less reasonable. Italo? Free breakfast/lunch, high-speed wifi, quieter, faster, cleaner, power ports at all seats with USB plugs. Amtrak, you can change your ticket up to 8 days in advance! I hope for both Amtrak's sake, and (not to be too out there), the sake of our environment...they make good choices that allow them to be profitable while serving as many people as possible. As for NJT @ Trenton, that's correct. I drive to Trenton if I'm taking NJT to NYC. The *fastest* routing from 30th st to NYP is slower than the bus. That would specifically be a local Septa train to TRE connecting to a super express to NYP, so a weekday rush hour. Because the commute patterns are reversed from PHL and NYP, you cannot take an express septa train to an express NJT train or vice versa. It is one or the other. In the AM, trains run from TRE to PHL and NYP express. In the PM, trains run from PHL and NYP to TRE express. Never do both operate concurrently. Due to the times and connection (it is a 2 hr ride from PHL-NYP on the bus), and it is 1 hr 10 mins by NJT super express from TRE to NYP, it is not possible to beat the bus on time via commuter rail. And, it is more expensive.
