From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/pleasures-return-on-a-long-train-trip.html?ref=businesstravel
Thanks, Murray. At first, I thought it was an account of a trip you had taken.
It is good that Amtrak can make a good impression on a first-time traveler. I could wish that this particular traveler were familiar with the long-time terms, such as berth, but even Amtrak apparently does not know them (just as VIA mentions single, double, and triple passenger cabins and not roomettes or duplex roomettes, bedrooms or compartments and drawing rooms; course, VIA's designations are descriptive of the accomodations).
I still remember a first-time traveler on the Sunset several years ago who was adamant that she would never travel by train again because the train was delayed by a motorist who put his vehicle on the track right in front of the train; she refused to listen to reason, and seemed to blame Amtrak for the delay. We were on the Eagle, and woke up expecting to be many miles west of San Antonio--but were still in San Antonio because of the delay.
Johnny
Murray From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/pleasures-return-on-a-long-train-trip.html?ref=businesstravel
This is a good article. But it does not tell the whole story.
The same trip on January 15th would cost $420. The cost of the rail transport would be $127 and the room charge would be $293. Back out $40 for the fair market value of the meals, and the cost of the room would be $253. This is for an accommodation that is slightly larger than a broom closet. A comparable room at the Sheraton in Baltimore, as an example, would cost approximately $160. This includes all taxes. It would be more in New York or Washington, but Baltimore is probably a good comparative market for the east coast as a whole.
Also overlooked is the fact that the fare, including the room charge, did not cover Amtrak's cost of carrying the passenger over the distance of the journey waxed about. The subsidy would be $277.88, based on FY10 numbers. Due to accounting changes, Amtrak is yet to report the numbers for FY11, which ended on September 30, 2011. And this is before interest, depreciation, and miscellaneous charges, although these would be minimal for the portion of the trip south of Washington.
If the cost of the taxpayer subsidy were added to the ticket price, it would be approximately $698. Add on another 10 per cent for depreciation, interest, etc., and the ticket price, sans subsidies, would be $767. Not many Americans could or would pay the total tab if they were billed the true costs of traveling by Amtrak, especially in sleeper class. But most people don't have a clue about how much the long distance trains cost or the subsidy they receive every time they ride one of them.
And most motorists don't realize the hidden subsidies that they enjoy, especially long distance on specific interstate highways.
daveklepper And most motorists don't realize the hidden subsidies that they enjoy, especially long distance on specific interstate highways.
And you don't appear to understand federal highway financing in the United States, i.e. that of the 18.4 or 24.4 cents motorists pay in federal fuel taxes (gasoline or diesel), two cents goes to the Mass Transit Administration and four cents goes to the Treasury Department for deficit reduction. The subsidy is just the opposite of what many people think. In FY10, the amount of money transferred to the MTA and TD would nearly equal the amount of the transfer (so-called highway subsidy) from the general fund back to the Highway Trust Fund. You assert that motorists receive hidden subsidies, but you don't provide any amounts.
No matter how you slice and dice the numbers, the so-called federal rail passenger subsidy in the United States, either per passenger or per passenger mile, is nearly 20 times the federal subsidy for air, motor vehicle, etc.
One of your arguments, i.e. that highways don't pay real estate taxes, is unique. It makes little sense since government(s) own most of the nation's roadways. Having said that, one could argue that roadways take land off the property tax rolls, to the extent that it could be used for tax generating purposes, and shifts the tax burden to residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural users.
Determining the value of the land taken off the tax rolls for highway purposes would be a nightmare. In some locations, such as major metropolitan areas, one might be able to come up with a number, predicated on the assumption the land could be converted to tax generating purposes, which is not a given, and would require some unique estimates. In many parts of the country, however, the land would little or no tax value, i.e. it is too remote or unfit for any other purpose.
To the extent that land is removed from the tax rolls, the tax rates necessary to generate a required level of government revenue must be higher. Land for highways is not the only part of the equation. Land for public schools, places of worship (churches, synagogues, etc.), has also been removed from the tax rolls.
There are more than 206 million licensed drivers in the United States. Most of them pay property taxes, either directly if they own property, which approximately 65 per cent do, or indirectly if they rent. Theoretically they are paying higher rates to compensate for the land supposedly taken off the tax rolls for streets, county roads, state highways, and federal highways. However, since there are so many of them compared to the number of people who use Amtrak, they generate sufficient revenues to pay for the nation's roadways.
If you want to use the highways don't pay real estate taxes argument to justify the subsidies for Amtrak, as well as other forms of passenger rail, you should remember that Amtrak does not pay any taxes on the land that it owns. In fact, it does not pay any taxes.
You have claimed that Amtrak makes public service contributions on its stations. Actually, most of Amtrak's stations are owned by municipalities, which don't collect taxes on them, and for which a public service contribution would make no sense. In any case, I would like to see the numbers.
Penn Station in New York and 30th Street Station in Philadelphia are owned by Amtrak subsidiaries. Several years ago I reviewed their financial statements. I did not see anywhere in the reports where they made a contribution for public services. Of course, that could have changed since then. I would be happy to have a reference to verify your assertion.
At the end of the day I have stressed two consistent themes. Passenger trains make sense in the United States for relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is prohibitive. Long distance trains make no sense. And all transport subsidies should be eliminated. I walk the talk. I ride trains in Texas (Austin to Dallas or San Antonio) and the NEC, and I write at least annually to my elected representatives to express my views, i.e. stop funding Amtrak's long distance trains and eliminate all transport subsidies.
I think what you are saying is that there is heavy cross subsidy within the highway system, that the person jammed in commuting traffic burning gas idling on one stretch of urban interstate is subsidizing a vacation traveller bopping along at 80-per on a lightly used stretch in Wyoming. And that if a person travelling those sparsely used rural highways had to pay a toll, maybe they could consider a long-distance train, perhaps an AutoTrain type service as an alternative?
Well, maybe. It seems that especially sleeping cars, or the long distance train model of the full-featured train with sleeper, diner, lounge, and baggage car service is a particularly expensive way to provide a transportation service.
If the coach seats were subsidized on LD trains in the style of Essential Air Service but if the passengers in First Class were charged a high enough fare to pay their own way, that might be an arrangement people would be happy with. But the argument has been made that the First Class passengers, even though they are paying a lot of their trip, are benefiting from their proportional share of a high rate of subsidy.
Why are the long distance trains so expensive to operate? It is something that I call the Bus on Steel Wheels argument. Owing to the enabling legislation for Amtrak, the fees paid for the trackage rights are a minor part of the balance sheet of those trains. We can argue whether this is a "taking" from the freight railroads or this is justified by the freight railroads having benefited from land grants and other concessions in the past, but let's just set this argument aside from now. Why are trains and especially long-distance trains so expensive to operate on an everything-above-the-wheel-rail-contact-patch basis? That is the question we should be asking rather than dismissing the concern over subsidies with "yes, everyone else is getting them."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
"Why are the long-distance trains so expensive to operate?"
I think we know the answer to this one: Because it takes so many resources and so much time to collect the fare you can reasonably charge and still expect to sell a ticket.
I can accept that the labor efficiencies and fast turnaround of equipment of the jet airplane blew the economics of the passenger train off the tracks. What I can't accept is that a country of the wealth of the United States can't afford the pittance it takes to subsidize operation of a skeletal remnant of a form of passenger transport that was uniquely important to development of our country.
It's not in the same category as every other small expenditure -- "a billion here and a billion there" -- that in aggregate has us wallowing in debt. It's way more important than that; it's about our national soul. Make Amtrak part of the National Park Service, if you like. As long as people ride it, as they use the national parks -- and they do ride it -- that's good enough for me.
Dakota,
If your arguement is correct, not that I think it is, then should the NPS not be running stage coaches between Independence MO and Sacramento plus steamboats on the Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, Sacramento, and Columbia Rivers? How about the misquito fleet on Puget Sound? Dont forget the Commodore's boats going everywhere out of New York City!
I guess that would not be in the filthy lucre category, like any other government exenditure, but in sainted public service of the NPS.
Mac
I ahve discussed the hidden subsidies for highway transportation at great length on this website already and do not need to repeat. They are enormous, beleive me.
daveklepper I ahve discussed the hidden subsidies for highway transportation at great length on this website already and do not need to repeat. They are enormous, beleive me.
In my opinion, this is a big sticking point for advancing the cause of passenger trains. The roads are being subsidized so we don't want to hear any talk about train subsidies. We have been saying that repeatedly since 1971, and apart from the NEC and the California trains, it has barely allowed us to hang on to the trains we have.
Does the rate of subsidy, the bang-for-the-buck, the amount of service received for a given level of subsidy matter to anyone? Or do trains have such inherent goodness that whatever subsidy money it takes it shall be?
Even things funded by the government, while not subject to the harsh discipline of the marketplace of many privately funded ventures, even government spending is subject to cost-benefit tradeoffs at some point. Take the F-22 Raptor fighter jet. Please! Even the proponents of high levels of Defense spending are grudgingly accepting that the high price tag has moved that project into the Boondoggle category.
As to highway transportation receiving enormous hidden subsidy, no, I do not believe it. Why? Simple. Amtrak is subsidized at about 20 cents/passenger mile. For the approximately 4-5 trillion passenger miles in autos per year, that works out to about a trillion dollars per year in subsidy, hidden or otherwise, to automobile transportation. I simply do not see where one comes up with a trillion dollars in hidden subsidy to cars, unless one puts the entire defense budget into the auto ledger because of the war-for-oil justification. If Amtrak is the standard for "enormous subsidy", I do not see where equally enormous subsidy is going into cars.
PNWRMNM Dakota, If your arguement is correct, not that I think it is, then should the NPS not be running stage coaches between Independence MO and Sacramento plus steamboats on the Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, Sacramento, and Columbia Rivers? How about the misquito fleet on Puget Sound? Dont forget the Commodore's boats going everywhere out of New York City! I guess that would not be in the filthy lucre category, like any other government exenditure, but in sainted public service of the NPS. Mac
The NPS does this already! It's what the Steamtown excursions are about - at least on the rail side of things. It's about preserving and experiencing history. It's not about transportation.
I think it's perfectly okay to run trains everywhere with nobody on them as long as a majority of the public a) wants it, and b) know what it's costing them.
I think we might have condition "a", but no way do we have condition "b". Most people don't know or don't care to know or both.
The best quote I saw about Amtrak's LD trains was by Jim McClellan. It's was in a talk he gave to the "Sandhouse Gang" a couple of years ago. It was the LD train are irrelevant. They will remain in the future, but will remain irrelevant.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul Milenkovic Why are trains and especially long-distance trains so expensive to operate on an everything-above-the-wheel-rail-contact-patch basis? That is the question we should be asking rather than dismissing the concern over subsidies with "yes, everyone else is getting them."
Why are trains and especially long-distance trains so expensive to operate on an everything-above-the-wheel-rail-contact-patch basis? That is the question we should be asking rather than dismissing the concern over subsidies with "yes, everyone else is getting them."
It is a great question when you examine the high expenses of Amtrak (I think we would find that maintenance is very high) aside from direct operating expenses. Labor (Salaries, wages, and benefits) represented $1.79 bil.of Amtrak's total expenses of $3.72 bil. in FY 2010, 48%. Fuel was $299.7 mil. By comparison, on the UP, labor was $4.31 bil. out of a total of $11.98 bil., 36%. Fuel was $2.49 bil. So while on Amtrak, the ration of labor to fuel was almost 6:1, on the UP it was only 1.7:1.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
As usual, any discussion of passenger trains evolves into a discussion of subsidies, and as much as I like trains, I'll agree that it's hard to justify the high level of subsidy for passenger trains, but Paul Milenkovic hit on an idea that makes sense. Subsidise the coach seat so that basic transportation is available at a reasonable rate, but let the luxury services pay most of their own way. Sleeping accommodations take up considerably more space per passenger along with the extra services of attendants, etc.
As I wrote this it occurred to me that I really don't know the level of subsidy the sleeping accommodations receive relative to basic coach. Is there a breakdown of costs and subsidies of the different services?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington As usual, any discussion of passenger trains evolves into a discussion of subsidies, and as much as I like trains, I'll agree that it's hard to justify the high level of subsidy for passenger trains, but Paul Milenkovic hit on an idea that makes sense. Subsidise the coach seat so that basic transportation is available at a reasonable rate, but let the luxury services pay most of their own way. Sleeping accommodations take up considerably more space per passenger along with the extra services of attendants, etc. As I wrote this it occurred to me that I really don't know the level of subsidy the sleeping accommodations receive relative to basic coach. Is there a breakdown of costs and subsidies of the different services?
oltmannd Paul of Covington: As usual, any discussion of passenger trains evolves into a discussion of subsidies, and as much as I like trains, I'll agree that it's hard to justify the high level of subsidy for passenger trains, but Paul Milenkovic hit on an idea that makes sense. Subsidise the coach seat so that basic transportation is available at a reasonable rate, but let the luxury services pay most of their own way. Sleeping accommodations take up considerably more space per passenger along with the extra services of attendants, etc. As I wrote this it occurred to me that I really don't know the level of subsidy the sleeping accommodations receive relative to basic coach. Is there a breakdown of costs and subsidies of the different services? There is a GAO report from a few years ago with some of this information in it. I'll see if I can find it.
Paul of Covington: As usual, any discussion of passenger trains evolves into a discussion of subsidies, and as much as I like trains, I'll agree that it's hard to justify the high level of subsidy for passenger trains, but Paul Milenkovic hit on an idea that makes sense. Subsidise the coach seat so that basic transportation is available at a reasonable rate, but let the luxury services pay most of their own way. Sleeping accommodations take up considerably more space per passenger along with the extra services of attendants, etc. As I wrote this it occurred to me that I really don't know the level of subsidy the sleeping accommodations receive relative to basic coach. Is there a breakdown of costs and subsidies of the different services?
There is a GAO report from a few years ago with some of this information in it. I'll see if I can find it.
I have a report that you referred me to several years ago. It is DOT report Number CR-2005-068, dated July 22, 2005, issued by the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation. The reference is JA-50. This may be the report that you have in mind.
The greatest part of the subsidy for intercity highway transportation is land use.
daveklepper The greatest part of the subsidy for intercity highway transportation is land use.
You are just making an off the wall claim with no supporting data.
You could start with this bit from the ARTBA (a highway lobby): "There are currently 8,443,338 lane miles of road in the lower 48 states. The average width of a highway lane is 11 feet. This means roads cover 17,590 square miles of land. If shoulders, driveways and parking lots were added, the total would still be less than one percent of the nation's land area." One could get a very rough estimate the amount of tax not collected on this land by using some average tax per sq. ft. paid by the railroads on their track.
schlimm daveklepper: The greatest part of the subsidy for intercity highway transportation is land use. You could start with this bit from the ARTBA (a highway lobby): "There are currently 8,443,338 lane miles of road in the lower 48 states. The average width of a highway lane is 11 feet. This means roads cover 17,590 square miles of land. If shoulders, driveways and parking lots were added, the total would still be less than one percent of the nation's land area." One could get a very rough estimate the amount of tax not collected on this land by using some average tax per sq. ft. paid by the railroads on their track.
daveklepper: The greatest part of the subsidy for intercity highway transportation is land use.
Getting a realistic appraisal value of the land for the nation's streets, county roads, state highways, and federal highways probably is out of the question. I have never heard of anyone even trying it.
As I pointed out in a previous post, to the extent that roadways have been taken off the tax rolls, the taxes of the in-service property have been adjusted to reflect the so-called loss of the land for revenue purposes, which means that most motorists, because they pay property taxes directly or indirectly, pay the higher rates.
As I pointed out, which Mr. Klepper has conveniently overlooked, the same notion would apply to railroads, airports, waterways, etc. The freight railroads pay property taxes, except they don't. The taxes are paid by the people who buy the goods and services shipped on the railroads. Moreover, whether the taxes paid by the railroads reflect the alternate value of the property is questionable. Moreover, Amtrak does not pay any taxes. It does not even reimburse its hoist carriers for any pass through taxes because the federal legislation prohibits it.
There are approximately 205 million licensed motorists in the United States. Most of them pay taxes. By contrast, the number of people traveling on Amtrak is unknown. Or at least the information is not available through public documents. What is know is the number of passengers, which was roughly 30 million in FY11. But one person on Amtrak, or the airlines or buses for that matter, can be one person traveling once a year, which would be analogous to a licensed motorist, or it could be one person traveling 52 times a year or it could be me with eight trips on Amtrak in FY11. I rang the Amtrak passenger bell eight times during the year, but I am just one taxpayer.
The users of the nation's roadways and airways pay for the system primarily through fuel taxes, vehicle fees, tickets taxes, etc., or they pay for them indirectly through general funds and transfers. Because there are so many of them compared to the relatively few people who ride Amtrak, they pay for the system, although the indirect payments are difficult but not impossible to trace. I do it frequently, at least for the big bucks, which I have described in previous posts. They result in some cost shifting, i.e. wealthier users pay more in taxes while lower income motorists pay disproportionately lower taxes or in some instances none at all. Also, most of Amtrak's passengers pay taxes. But there are not enough of them to off-set the large subsidies required by passenger rail.
At the end of the day the discussion about subsidies is dysfunctional. It does not matter whether the highways or airways or whatever have been given preferences or whether the railroads have compounded preferences that exceed anything given to the highways and airways. The key question is this: Where does passenger rail make sense for the United States, how much of it can we afford, and how will we pay for it?
Found it. An OIG of the DOT report: http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdf
Pretty much supports what you and others have long been saying: At a minimum, scrap sleepers on LD services, convert to coaches and run them on the shorter corridors where possible. Prune the LD routes to essential services, i.e., where there is no alternative.
And deprive the elderly and handicapped access to the country and the ability to visit distant relatives, and throw much of the tourist business away, and eliminate backup possibilities in case long distance aircraft are grounded, and reduce capabilities of handling emergencies like Katrina, and make the individual corredors compete with each other for upgrading and subidization rather than being part of one system.
Amtrak has a point. The average commuter and rail transit system gets funded on operating costs 50% from the farebox, some better, some much worse. Amtrak's is 85%. Possibliy with enough investment, including providing some really delux equpment on certqin of its long distance trains for really well-heeled toursits willing to spend big bucks to ride in style, and possibly at the same time finding ways to get college students off of Bolt Bus and onto equipment that would otherwise be idle (like providing more overnight Boston - NY service, bare bones coach at low fare using equipment normally idle), that 15% might be reduced.
I understand that in Zurich, Switzerland, public transportation is now free. Anyone can ride anytime they want anywhere within the city. They say it is cost effective for reducing the greater expenses otherwise associated with private autos inside the city.
Two issues:
1) is it the role of government to provide transportation services to all segments of the population?
2) is rail the most efficient way to provide mass transit (both short and long distance)?
I think we have decide the answer to #1 is yes as we spend massive dollars on bus, auto, rail and air transportation. Transportation is important to commerce, education and general well being of the population so we must allow people to move around.
Now #2 is true in densely populated places like Europe and the Northeast. Can we expanc that model to the large distances out west? The only way this willl work is to upgrade all of the infrastructure (like the Sunset Route double tracking.) If we pull out of LD Amtrak, there will be little political pressure to do this. Amtrak is expensive, but it also is part of the push to upgrade all lines.
Any other ideas on how these questions might be answered in "fly-over" land?
From my observation there are no staff on freight trains providing food nor turning down the beds nor assisting handicapped passengers with meal service in their rooms nor access on or off of the trains.
Staff costs on LD trains are high ... Pullman Service was also expensive at the time it was offered ...
High ridership commuter trains offer the minimum of staff costs to the railroad and the liability costs of any passenger operation must also be taken into effect.
Very few car loads of wheat have come to me to complain about an hours delay while waiting for clearance signals to proceed ... but, many passengers have asked, "Why are we stopped here?" after a very brief delay.
I'm looking forward to my first LD train experience in over 15 years. I ride a lot between Bloomington and Chicago, but in about a month I'm going from Chicago to Lamy, NM on #3 and back a week later on #4. I have been all the way to the West Coast and back twice on Amtrak, so I'm interesting in comparing the upcoming trip with my memories.
Some time ago I posted that it costs every citizen $1.25 a year to subsidize Amtrak. A later post raised that to $4.20, but I believe that is the cost to every taxpayer, not every citizen. The quote:
"I regard Amtrak like my church. I may never go inside but I'll fight to keep it open." had typicfied the feelings of most Americans at the time of Amtrak's start, and I think it still does today.
Most Americans do want this bit of nostagia transportation to continue. Unlike the horse and buggy or stagecoach. Now why aren't most railfans happy with that fact instead just looking the money angle?
I think depriving one war-injured vet who uses the handicapped Superliner room from Alberquerque to Chicaog and the Chicago to Dallas and returns the same way once a year to see his extended family is one of many reasons.
How does your local library do as far as breaking even?
Interesting you mention horse and buggy. I have actually competed as a "footman" or "navigator" in Carriage Driving Events. I don't own a horse or a competition carriage or know much about the gear to hitch a horse to the carriage or how to drive. But I have signed the liability waivers to assist as a crew member and put to use my private airplane pilot training -- mainly memorizing the routes through the obstacle portions of the course as a backup to the driver making a mistake and not being freaked by high-G maneuvering. I am really skittish about horses and they may feel the same way about me, but I have even lifted the tail on the horse for the vet-check, which I was told was one of my duties.
Carriage Driving Events have a lot to recommend them, and for those of you who cannot afford a horse and its upkeep, there are plenty of opportunities for volunteers, But I don't see horse and carriage as being a mainstream transportation option anymore or receiving high levels of subsidy. It is a rich-person's sport and hobby along with that rich person who exhibited a Russian MiG-21 fighter jet at Oshkosh some years back.
As to "How does your local library do as far as breaking even?", dunno, that approach to passenger train advocacy is starting to sound snarky to me. The public financing of the local library and the public financing of trains is a complete apples-and-oranges comparison that I am not so sure advances the cause.
Yes, the local library is partly about entertainment for those who enjoy reading. But reading is so essential to so many things that we do in our lives and especially our livelihoods. The idea is that you make books available to the masses and especially children to encourage reading as a supplement to the public school system. The idea is that there is a high correlation between illiteracy and poverty and even a life of crime. Whether the library is effective in preventing crime and social misery I suppose is a matter of faith just as the intrinsic social goodness of railroad passenger trains seen through the eyes of the faithful. But to put funding for trains, and especially funding for sleeping cars on long-distance trains on the same level as the public library hurts both causes.
As to the role of Amtrak in serving the disabled, to personalize the argument and say "I am a disabled person benefiting from Amtrak and the airlines are unable to accomodate me", I guess that puts an end to any discussion. Who doesn't want persons with whatever manner of disability, impairment, or difficulty from enjoying a comfortable travel experience?
On the other hand, if the billion plus spent on Amtrak is fundamentally about persons with disability, maybe a government subsidy of some kind of Jet Shares thing, where persons get shared rides on small jets with the kind of cabin arrangement to allow a disabled person to travel without the suffering of commercial air travel might be the thing? Maybe a subsidy to have the disabled ride in first class seats might be the way to go? Yes there is that equalization of cabin pressure issue, but mountain railroading (or the Japan Bullet train, which is also mountain railroading) has some of the same thing. What I am asking is whether trains are the only solution to our transportation problems or if they are a solution that we like that is in search for a rationale?
Whenever the discussion turns to "forgotten pleasures" or "a train being the only civilized way to travel", we are talking about more than a way to get from Point A to Point B. And if the train is something like the National Parks, that especially the Long Distance train is a national heritage experience, maybe we should be like Canada, where they have a skeleton long-distance network to serve that need and otherwise concentrate on their fast trains in the Montreal-Windsor corridor, achieve some economy of scale by running very long consists, achieve economy of capital of using the equipment that Amtrak cast off and managing to maintain it, and maintain what I have heard is a very first-class high level of service and also charge fares in line with what is being offered.
Paul Milenkovic As to the role of Amtrak in serving the disabled, to personalize the argument and say "I am a disabled person benefiting from Amtrak and the airlines are unable to accomodate me", I guess that puts an end to any discussion. Who doesn't want persons with whatever manner of disability, impairment, or difficulty from enjoying a comfortable travel experience? On the other hand, if the billion plus spent on Amtrak is fundamentally about persons with disability, maybe a government subsidy of some kind of Jet Shares thing, where persons get shared rides on small jets with the kind of cabin arrangement to allow a disabled person to travel without the suffering of commercial air travel might be the thing? Maybe a subsidy to have the disabled ride in first class seats might be the way to go? Yes there is that equalization of cabin pressure issue, but mountain railroading (or the Japan Bullet train, which is also mountain railroading) has some of the same thing. What I am asking is whether trains are the only solution to our transportation problems or if they are a solution that we like that is in search for a rationale?
On my recent flight from BWI to Austin, Southwest Airlines boarded eight wheel chair passengers. One of them was on supplemental oxygen support. Most disabled people can be accommodated by the nation's airlines.
For those who severally disabled and cannot be carried on a normal flight, they have several choices. They can try to catch a ride on a corporate jet. Yep, its true. Many corporations will take an ambulatory passenger on one of its airplanes if there is room, and its going where the person needs to go. And more often times than not there is room. We frequently did it on our corporate jets. Persons needing this emergency transport can contact a national coordinator for help.
American Airlines will fly sick children to world class medical centers with the help of its frequent flyers. Those frequent flyer program participants who want to help contribute their points to the program. American matches the points, and flys the children to the locations where they need to go to get their special medical services. The children usually ride on one of American's scheduled flights, but the airline has gone to extraordinary steps to accommodate the sickest of children. How's that for a greedy capitalist organization? I have contributed hundreds of thousands of points to the program. Now is your chance, if you are an American Airlines Frequent Flyer program participant, meaning all of those who participate in these forums, to contribute and help a child get critical medical care.
If transporting ambulatory passengers from A to B is a national imperative, the government could subsidize the use of general aviation operators with the equipment needed to carry ambulatory passengers. It would be a lot cheaper, in all probability, than the cost of Amtrak's long distance passenger trains.
If the argument that the country needs the long distance trains to carry disabled people who cannot be carried in any other conveyance is valid, then the long distance train network should be extended to every community in the United States with a population of more than 10,000. Lets see, in Texas that would mean passenger trains for Midland, Odessa, Brownsville, Mercedes, McAllen, Pharr, Paris, Amarillo, Lubbock, etc. Get the point? The argument does not wash.
I think the comparison with the local library is useful and informative . A transcontinental train trip for those who have not done it already is quite an education in the geography, economy, and even the population of the United States. an education that can also be had with far greater discomfort by a transcontinental bus trip. or possibly as a passenger, but not a driver, on a transcontinental auto trip. And, continuing the comparison, only a minority of the people in a given location use the public library, actually a very small minority. (Geting to know the population is helped by friendly conversations with new friends in the dining and lounge cars.) Further, is the public library really necessary with Google and the Internet and Wikepedia? I think it is. And most people in a neighborhood would agree:
I may never use it but I would fight to keep it open.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.