Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The point of the fare comparison was to show the difference between Acela and NEC regional fares.  And raise a question by implication. Given the slight difference in scheduled times from New York to Baltimore, should the United States invest in high speed rail (220 mph) or moderate speed rail (125 to 160 mph). The NEC covers its operating costs. However, because of the large infrastructure costs required to support higher speeds, it loses more than $400 million per year after factoring in depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. After depreciation, etc., the NEC loses nearly as much money per passenger mile as the long distance trains. If the investment in high speed rail could be funded by private interests, as opposed to the taxpayers, then its promoters would have a good case for it.  Unfortunately, as per the California High Speed Rail Project, no private investors without hooks in the project have step forth with any money for high speed rail anywhere. So the financial burden falls onto the taxpayers. Megabus, which is owned by a British company, makes money.  One can argue that it does not pay its fair share of the infrastructure that it uses, but that argument is not supported by every expert. In any case, it gets no direct cash subsidies from the federal and/or state governments.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Amtrak.
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