-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak. It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency. Not surprised, it's obvious that the basics of business are beyond you. You can easily find the facts on why a given airport got big, lots of people used it and there was justification to enlarge it. Just like the O'Hare example you present above (adding runways, etc). If you take this fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer why airport "B" stayed small. "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. If you had been more organized in your arguments and offered some hard numbers or evidence to back them up, I could have shown you how breath-taking my ignorance can be! As was said before, you based your argument on a single article that several users pointed out how flawed it was. For example, just to take the part you cut-and-pasted, it didn't state that the poor were especially heavy users of any other form of transportation, either.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak. It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency. Not surprised, it's obvious that the basics of business are beyond you. You can easily find the facts on why a given airport got big, lots of people used it and there was justification to enlarge it. Just like the O'Hare example you present above (adding runways, etc). If you take this fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer why airport "B" stayed small. "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. If you had been more organized in your arguments and offered some hard numbers or evidence to back them up, I could have shown you how breath-taking my ignorance can be!
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak. It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency. Not surprised, it's obvious that the basics of business are beyond you. You can easily find the facts on why a given airport got big, lots of people used it and there was justification to enlarge it. Just like the O'Hare example you present above (adding runways, etc). If you take this fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer why airport "B" stayed small. "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak. It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you,
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And by "others more knowledgable," do you mean like the ones running Delta Airlines?
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations. Surely you can't mean Amtrak's ROI in financial terms because it's hugely negative -- the reason it's so controversial in the first place. There's a difference between being propped-up, living and propped-up, zombie. IMO, aside from political issues, the government could sell-off or privatize both the interstate highway system and air traffic control system and make big bucks because both could be going enterprises. On the other hand, the government could not give Amtrak away. It would have to be totally reorganized first, with the government eating its huge liabilities. From what I've read, merely winding up the labor contracts would cost about $11 billion. In addition, any buyer would demand ongoing operating subsidies. And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this? The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated. Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me. As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it. I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either. Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in. Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them. You're the one who needs to do some rereading. Start with page 2 post 9 by you. This is the first place that the term "ROI" shows up. It's part of your post on page 2 posting 6 "Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations" the first mention of ROI anywhere in the thread. You're partly right. The first mention of investment returns is in the article you linked in the first post on this thread. The link is there to cite the source of the quotation, it's not a part of my point, as should be obvious. I document my facts. In addition, I fail to find anything in the article discussing comparative ROIs. ROI is an issue you raised, not me, in trying to support your contention of the relative efficacy of rail travel, and you've gone nowhere with it. Rather than arguing about where it first appears, I suggest you abandon this fruitless line of argument.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations. Surely you can't mean Amtrak's ROI in financial terms because it's hugely negative -- the reason it's so controversial in the first place. There's a difference between being propped-up, living and propped-up, zombie. IMO, aside from political issues, the government could sell-off or privatize both the interstate highway system and air traffic control system and make big bucks because both could be going enterprises. On the other hand, the government could not give Amtrak away. It would have to be totally reorganized first, with the government eating its huge liabilities. From what I've read, merely winding up the labor contracts would cost about $11 billion. In addition, any buyer would demand ongoing operating subsidies. And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this? The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated. Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me. As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it. I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either. Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in. Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them. You're the one who needs to do some rereading. Start with page 2 post 9 by you. This is the first place that the term "ROI" shows up. It's part of your post on page 2 posting 6 "Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations" the first mention of ROI anywhere in the thread. You're partly right. The first mention of investment returns is in the article you linked in the first post on this thread.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations. Surely you can't mean Amtrak's ROI in financial terms because it's hugely negative -- the reason it's so controversial in the first place. There's a difference between being propped-up, living and propped-up, zombie. IMO, aside from political issues, the government could sell-off or privatize both the interstate highway system and air traffic control system and make big bucks because both could be going enterprises. On the other hand, the government could not give Amtrak away. It would have to be totally reorganized first, with the government eating its huge liabilities. From what I've read, merely winding up the labor contracts would cost about $11 billion. In addition, any buyer would demand ongoing operating subsidies. And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this? The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated. Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me. As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it. I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either. Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in. Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them. You're the one who needs to do some rereading. Start with page 2 post 9 by you. This is the first place that the term "ROI" shows up. It's part of your post on page 2 posting 6 "Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations" the first mention of ROI anywhere in the thread.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations. Surely you can't mean Amtrak's ROI in financial terms because it's hugely negative -- the reason it's so controversial in the first place. There's a difference between being propped-up, living and propped-up, zombie. IMO, aside from political issues, the government could sell-off or privatize both the interstate highway system and air traffic control system and make big bucks because both could be going enterprises. On the other hand, the government could not give Amtrak away. It would have to be totally reorganized first, with the government eating its huge liabilities. From what I've read, merely winding up the labor contracts would cost about $11 billion. In addition, any buyer would demand ongoing operating subsidies. And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this? The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated. Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me. As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it. I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either. Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in. Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them. You're the one who needs to do some rereading. Start with page 2 post 9 by you. This is the first place that the term "ROI" shows up.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations. Surely you can't mean Amtrak's ROI in financial terms because it's hugely negative -- the reason it's so controversial in the first place. There's a difference between being propped-up, living and propped-up, zombie. IMO, aside from political issues, the government could sell-off or privatize both the interstate highway system and air traffic control system and make big bucks because both could be going enterprises. On the other hand, the government could not give Amtrak away. It would have to be totally reorganized first, with the government eating its huge liabilities. From what I've read, merely winding up the labor contracts would cost about $11 billion. In addition, any buyer would demand ongoing operating subsidies. And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this? The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated. Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me. As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it. I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either. Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in. Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations. Surely you can't mean Amtrak's ROI in financial terms because it's hugely negative -- the reason it's so controversial in the first place. There's a difference between being propped-up, living and propped-up, zombie. IMO, aside from political issues, the government could sell-off or privatize both the interstate highway system and air traffic control system and make big bucks because both could be going enterprises. On the other hand, the government could not give Amtrak away. It would have to be totally reorganized first, with the government eating its huge liabilities. From what I've read, merely winding up the labor contracts would cost about $11 billion. In addition, any buyer would demand ongoing operating subsidies. And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this? The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated. Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me. As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it. I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either. Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations. Surely you can't mean Amtrak's ROI in financial terms because it's hugely negative -- the reason it's so controversial in the first place. There's a difference between being propped-up, living and propped-up, zombie. IMO, aside from political issues, the government could sell-off or privatize both the interstate highway system and air traffic control system and make big bucks because both could be going enterprises. On the other hand, the government could not give Amtrak away. It would have to be totally reorganized first, with the government eating its huge liabilities. From what I've read, merely winding up the labor contracts would cost about $11 billion. In addition, any buyer would demand ongoing operating subsidies. And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this? The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated. Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me. As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it. I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations. Surely you can't mean Amtrak's ROI in financial terms because it's hugely negative -- the reason it's so controversial in the first place. There's a difference between being propped-up, living and propped-up, zombie. IMO, aside from political issues, the government could sell-off or privatize both the interstate highway system and air traffic control system and make big bucks because both could be going enterprises. On the other hand, the government could not give Amtrak away. It would have to be totally reorganized first, with the government eating its huge liabilities. From what I've read, merely winding up the labor contracts would cost about $11 billion. In addition, any buyer would demand ongoing operating subsidies. And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this? The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations. Surely you can't mean Amtrak's ROI in financial terms because it's hugely negative -- the reason it's so controversial in the first place. There's a difference between being propped-up, living and propped-up, zombie. IMO, aside from political issues, the government could sell-off or privatize both the interstate highway system and air traffic control system and make big bucks because both could be going enterprises. On the other hand, the government could not give Amtrak away. It would have to be totally reorganized first, with the government eating its huge liabilities. From what I've read, merely winding up the labor contracts would cost about $11 billion. In addition, any buyer would demand ongoing operating subsidies.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare.
QUOTE: I still fail to see how these will help you,
QUOTE: ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside For example, I travel between New York and Chicago, the most heavily travelled air corridor in the U.S., several times a year. Currently Chicago O'Hare has 2 east-west runways in addition to 5 other runways. Despite your advice of the cost effectiveness rail transport, O'Hare is adding 4 east-west runways. Whatever the traffic levels become, it's hard to believe that Amtrak could ever seriously present itself as a competitive alternative on this route. I'd bet that Amtrak carries a nearly infinitesimal proportion of the total traffic between the two cities and will continue to do so. Then how about NY to LA? No way. All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside For example, I travel between New York and Chicago, the most heavily travelled air corridor in the U.S., several times a year. Currently Chicago O'Hare has 2 east-west runways in addition to 5 other runways. Despite your advice of the cost effectiveness rail transport, O'Hare is adding 4 east-west runways. Whatever the traffic levels become, it's hard to believe that Amtrak could ever seriously present itself as a competitive alternative on this route. I'd bet that Amtrak carries a nearly infinitesimal proportion of the total traffic between the two cities and will continue to do so. Then how about NY to LA? No way. All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The cost to build up the highway system, or the air traffic system in either of these areas would be many times the cost of subsidizing Amtrak. And that also assumes the land would even be available for the new airports, or new roads and parking facilities. For example, I travel between New York and Chicago, the most heavily travelled air corridor in the U.S., several times a year. Currently Chicago O'Hare has 2 east-west runways in addition to 5 other runways. Despite your advice of the cost effectiveness rail transport, O'Hare is adding 4 east-west runways. Whatever the traffic levels become, it's hard to believe that Amtrak could ever seriously present itself as a competitive alternative on this route. I'd bet that Amtrak carries a nearly infinitesimal proportion of the total traffic between the two cities and will continue to do so. Then how about NY to LA? No way. All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. To take a more appropriate example, the three busiest stations on the Amtrak map are 1. Penn(sylvania) Station in New York City, 2. Union Station in Washington DC, and 3. 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. All three of these are in a section known as the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak carries 50% of the passenger traffic in the air/rail market between Washington DC and New York City, and 39% between Boston and New York City. If you're under the mistaken impression that there is enough land available close to any of these cities to expand the airports, or build new ones to take this much traffic, let alone the cost of building and maintaing them, you are sadly out of touch with the situation in this area. You're talking about short distance travel. I agree that trains are an appropriate answer. My example above, concerns long distance travel, however. Again, I'd challenge anyone to come with a plausible scenario where trains compete successfully with air travel on long-haul routes, as you seem to argue above. QUOTE: And the air taxi point is moot in this area for the same reason. The air corridor, as well as the airports are already near or at capacity with the current flight traffic. The buyers of those thousands of microjets would disagree. The air traffic system may be congested at some of the major metropolitan areas, but that's not their intended market. Indeed, changes in navigation technology seem to leading to direct flights between destinations, obviating the need for corridors. If you're comparing strictly on the travel time factor, then no, trains do not compete with air travel in long distance corridors. However, these trains are still carrying thousands of passengers a month, even with the minimal rail passenger system we have now for long distance. Not many people travelling the long distance trains take them from one end to the other of the trip (railfans on this form excluded). Why do you suppose that is? When it comes to long distance travel, not only does Amtrak not compete well in time, but it also doesn't compete very well in price and frequency either, a triple whammy. QUOTE: By the way you're talking, the buyers of those "thousands of microjets" won't be much help to the congestion problem. As you stated, you travel between NYC and Chicago. Airports at both ends of that trip are heavily congested, and I believe that Chicago's O'Hare Airport is the most congested in the country. It doesn't sound like they'll be much help to you on your journeys. These airports are congested because that's where people want to go or leave from. These microjets are going to be serving a niche market and won't be much help to relieving congestion. I didn't say microjets would relieve congestion between hubs such as between New York and Chicago. I mentioned them as a potential threat to Amtrak, which serves small-town America poorly, e.g. Cedar Rapids, Ia to Gulfport, Ms. Those air taxi operators expect to fly directly between small city airports most of which are small and uncongested, not the large metropolitan areas. Since I'm into the potential effect of microjets on the air traffic system, however, they will drain passengers who take the hub and spoke system airlines because they can now fly direct. This will reduce hub flight traffic, e.g. Chicago - NYC, thereby reducing congestion. Other markets will be served which haven't been served at all. Third, Amtrak is bound to lose some small-town traffic. One of the smallest manufacturers, Eclipse, already has 2300 orders for its product: http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewpr&id=924&Itemid=348 Then there's Cessna, etc.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The cost to build up the highway system, or the air traffic system in either of these areas would be many times the cost of subsidizing Amtrak. And that also assumes the land would even be available for the new airports, or new roads and parking facilities. For example, I travel between New York and Chicago, the most heavily travelled air corridor in the U.S., several times a year. Currently Chicago O'Hare has 2 east-west runways in addition to 5 other runways. Despite your advice of the cost effectiveness rail transport, O'Hare is adding 4 east-west runways. Whatever the traffic levels become, it's hard to believe that Amtrak could ever seriously present itself as a competitive alternative on this route. I'd bet that Amtrak carries a nearly infinitesimal proportion of the total traffic between the two cities and will continue to do so. Then how about NY to LA? No way. All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. To take a more appropriate example, the three busiest stations on the Amtrak map are 1. Penn(sylvania) Station in New York City, 2. Union Station in Washington DC, and 3. 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. All three of these are in a section known as the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak carries 50% of the passenger traffic in the air/rail market between Washington DC and New York City, and 39% between Boston and New York City. If you're under the mistaken impression that there is enough land available close to any of these cities to expand the airports, or build new ones to take this much traffic, let alone the cost of building and maintaing them, you are sadly out of touch with the situation in this area. You're talking about short distance travel. I agree that trains are an appropriate answer. My example above, concerns long distance travel, however. Again, I'd challenge anyone to come with a plausible scenario where trains compete successfully with air travel on long-haul routes, as you seem to argue above. QUOTE: And the air taxi point is moot in this area for the same reason. The air corridor, as well as the airports are already near or at capacity with the current flight traffic. The buyers of those thousands of microjets would disagree. The air traffic system may be congested at some of the major metropolitan areas, but that's not their intended market. Indeed, changes in navigation technology seem to leading to direct flights between destinations, obviating the need for corridors. If you're comparing strictly on the travel time factor, then no, trains do not compete with air travel in long distance corridors. However, these trains are still carrying thousands of passengers a month, even with the minimal rail passenger system we have now for long distance. Not many people travelling the long distance trains take them from one end to the other of the trip (railfans on this form excluded). Why do you suppose that is?
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The cost to build up the highway system, or the air traffic system in either of these areas would be many times the cost of subsidizing Amtrak. And that also assumes the land would even be available for the new airports, or new roads and parking facilities. For example, I travel between New York and Chicago, the most heavily travelled air corridor in the U.S., several times a year. Currently Chicago O'Hare has 2 east-west runways in addition to 5 other runways. Despite your advice of the cost effectiveness rail transport, O'Hare is adding 4 east-west runways. Whatever the traffic levels become, it's hard to believe that Amtrak could ever seriously present itself as a competitive alternative on this route. I'd bet that Amtrak carries a nearly infinitesimal proportion of the total traffic between the two cities and will continue to do so. Then how about NY to LA? No way. All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. To take a more appropriate example, the three busiest stations on the Amtrak map are 1. Penn(sylvania) Station in New York City, 2. Union Station in Washington DC, and 3. 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. All three of these are in a section known as the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak carries 50% of the passenger traffic in the air/rail market between Washington DC and New York City, and 39% between Boston and New York City. If you're under the mistaken impression that there is enough land available close to any of these cities to expand the airports, or build new ones to take this much traffic, let alone the cost of building and maintaing them, you are sadly out of touch with the situation in this area. You're talking about short distance travel. I agree that trains are an appropriate answer. My example above, concerns long distance travel, however. Again, I'd challenge anyone to come with a plausible scenario where trains compete successfully with air travel on long-haul routes, as you seem to argue above. QUOTE: And the air taxi point is moot in this area for the same reason. The air corridor, as well as the airports are already near or at capacity with the current flight traffic. The buyers of those thousands of microjets would disagree. The air traffic system may be congested at some of the major metropolitan areas, but that's not their intended market. Indeed, changes in navigation technology seem to leading to direct flights between destinations, obviating the need for corridors.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The cost to build up the highway system, or the air traffic system in either of these areas would be many times the cost of subsidizing Amtrak. And that also assumes the land would even be available for the new airports, or new roads and parking facilities. For example, I travel between New York and Chicago, the most heavily travelled air corridor in the U.S., several times a year. Currently Chicago O'Hare has 2 east-west runways in addition to 5 other runways. Despite your advice of the cost effectiveness rail transport, O'Hare is adding 4 east-west runways. Whatever the traffic levels become, it's hard to believe that Amtrak could ever seriously present itself as a competitive alternative on this route. I'd bet that Amtrak carries a nearly infinitesimal proportion of the total traffic between the two cities and will continue to do so. Then how about NY to LA? No way. All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. To take a more appropriate example, the three busiest stations on the Amtrak map are 1. Penn(sylvania) Station in New York City, 2. Union Station in Washington DC, and 3. 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. All three of these are in a section known as the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak carries 50% of the passenger traffic in the air/rail market between Washington DC and New York City, and 39% between Boston and New York City. If you're under the mistaken impression that there is enough land available close to any of these cities to expand the airports, or build new ones to take this much traffic, let alone the cost of building and maintaing them, you are sadly out of touch with the situation in this area.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The cost to build up the highway system, or the air traffic system in either of these areas would be many times the cost of subsidizing Amtrak. And that also assumes the land would even be available for the new airports, or new roads and parking facilities. For example, I travel between New York and Chicago, the most heavily travelled air corridor in the U.S., several times a year. Currently Chicago O'Hare has 2 east-west runways in addition to 5 other runways. Despite your advice of the cost effectiveness rail transport, O'Hare is adding 4 east-west runways. Whatever the traffic levels become, it's hard to believe that Amtrak could ever seriously present itself as a competitive alternative on this route. I'd bet that Amtrak carries a nearly infinitesimal proportion of the total traffic between the two cities and will continue to do so. Then how about NY to LA? No way. All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The cost to build up the highway system, or the air traffic system in either of these areas would be many times the cost of subsidizing Amtrak. And that also assumes the land would even be available for the new airports, or new roads and parking facilities.
QUOTE: And the air taxi point is moot in this area for the same reason. The air corridor, as well as the airports are already near or at capacity with the current flight traffic.
QUOTE: By the way you're talking, the buyers of those "thousands of microjets" won't be much help to the congestion problem. As you stated, you travel between NYC and Chicago. Airports at both ends of that trip are heavily congested, and I believe that Chicago's O'Hare Airport is the most congested in the country. It doesn't sound like they'll be much help to you on your journeys. These airports are congested because that's where people want to go or leave from. These microjets are going to be serving a niche market and won't be much help to relieving congestion.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl That may be true, but the government financially supports all forms of transportation. Just because the government supports some forms of transportation, doesn't mean it should support all, let alone any. There's nothing in the Constitution that dictates that it must support transportation modes, and certainly nothing to what extent they must be supported. AFAIK, defence and the judicial system are the only core responsibilities mentioned. Maybe you should read the Preamble. The one that's being used to justify the government's spending on the transportaion infrastructure is "promote the general welfare." In fact, the line "provide for the common defense" was oft quoted as the justification for the Interstate Highway system. I have and "general welfare" doesn't explicitly mean including railroad travel. What comes under "general welfare" is a part of the political process. Justice and defence are core responsibilities, what comes under "general welfare" are not. I also take general to include the lower-classes and poor. By your own words, Amtrak doesn't serve them, it serves the middle and upper-middle-classes. Something no one here has yet refuted. That was what the original post was about.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl That may be true, but the government financially supports all forms of transportation. Just because the government supports some forms of transportation, doesn't mean it should support all, let alone any. There's nothing in the Constitution that dictates that it must support transportation modes, and certainly nothing to what extent they must be supported. AFAIK, defence and the judicial system are the only core responsibilities mentioned. Maybe you should read the Preamble. The one that's being used to justify the government's spending on the transportaion infrastructure is "promote the general welfare." In fact, the line "provide for the common defense" was oft quoted as the justification for the Interstate Highway system.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl That may be true, but the government financially supports all forms of transportation. Just because the government supports some forms of transportation, doesn't mean it should support all, let alone any. There's nothing in the Constitution that dictates that it must support transportation modes, and certainly nothing to what extent they must be supported. AFAIK, defence and the judicial system are the only core responsibilities mentioned.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl That may be true, but the government financially supports all forms of transportation.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And again you ignore the fact that if these people weren't riding Amtrak, they'd be driving, or flying. Along the Northeast Corridor, for example, there isn't even enough land available, especially near the major metro areas, to expand roads and parking, or expand or build new airports. The rail infrastructure is already there. So the choice is between: 1. Pay to subsidize Amtrak 2. Pay to build and maintain new roads between and parking facilities in major metro areas 3. Pay to expand or build and maintain airports and ground transportation support for them. If you had read the article, the author is criticising Amtrak, not rail travel, an important distinction you don't make. He would have said instead 1. Pay to subsidize rail service.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And again you ignore the fact that if these people weren't riding Amtrak, they'd be driving, or flying. Along the Northeast Corridor, for example, there isn't even enough land available, especially near the major metro areas, to expand roads and parking, or expand or build new airports. The rail infrastructure is already there. So the choice is between: 1. Pay to subsidize Amtrak 2. Pay to build and maintain new roads between and parking facilities in major metro areas 3. Pay to expand or build and maintain airports and ground transportation support for them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.