Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I have answered your (Klepper) points regarding long distance passenger trains.  You are correct in one respect. My views have been consistant. In the 50s and 60s commercial airplanes were much more susceptible to grounding for a day or two than is true today.  Today groundings are rare thanks to advanced navigation capabilities, as well as weather forecasting, etc.  Last year the nation's airlines were on time 82% of the time. Most of the delays were caused by air traffic control issues, some of which were weather related or missed connections, thereby requiring a hold on some of the connecting flights.  Maintaining a secondary system, i.e. passenger trains, for a low probability failure rate is cost prohibitive. It would be akin to having a fail proof electrical system. Only the very rich could afford the service. Supporting the long distance trains because a rural states Congressman would not otherwise support federal funding of corridor passenger train services is a theory.  No one knows whether they would pull their votes. Moreover, politics is a horse trading exercise.  Those in favor of having the federal government support corridors could offer rural representatives a sweetener.  It is done all the time. The Essential Air Services program is a sweetener for rural representatives.   If one of the justifications for the long distance trains is to provide commercial transport for potentially handicapped persons, i.e. mobility, medical, etc., is valid, then the government should, as I have stated, provide train service to every community in the United States with a population above a defined threshold. The cost would be enormous just in Texas. Approximately three to five per cent of the U.S. population uses passenger trains for intercity travel of more than 50 miles.  It is hard to imagine that the percentage of overseas visitors using them exceeds this figure. The exceptions NEC, California, and Illinois corridors may be exceptions. As noted in previous posts, I ride the long distance trains an average of five to seven times per year.  I have been doing it for more than 60 years.  Over the last 20 years, I have met just two overseas couples on one of Amtrak's long distance trains. The first was a British Columbia couple that I met on the Sunset Limited. The other was a French couple on the Texas Eagle. That gave me an opportunity to practice my French. If there is a market for overseas visitors desiring to see the country, let private operators respond to it with an appropriately priced tourist trains. The long distance trains lose on the order of $750 million per year or approximately 75 per cent of Amtrak's operating loss.  On a fully allocated basis, when taking into consideration the capital costs associated with the NEC, the cost per passenger mile for the long distance trains is only a penny or two higher than the cost per passenger mile for the NEC, as per a previous post. However, if Amtrak could shed the long distance trains, along with the implementation of a modest fare increase in the corridors, as well as modern management and labor practices, it might be able to cover its operating costs.  As noted in another post, had the money lost on the long distance trains been invested at the average U.S. Treasury 10 year note rate since Amtrak's inception, it would have amounted to more than $115 billion thanks to compounding. Your correct.  Railroad passenger service, at least in the United States, is not operated on a level playing field.  It requires a federal subsidy per passenger mile or vehicle mile traveled that is 20 times greater than the federal subsidies for highways and airways.   Your notions regarding highways and airways are unique. I don't find them to be plausible arguments. Moreover, you miss all of the subsidies that have been paid by the federal, state, and local governments to the railroads since 1830. Included in these costs are the costs to the government and taxpayers of bankruptcy proceedings.  Every major railroad in the United States has gone through bankruptcy, as has been true for all the legacy airlines. My guess is that the NPV of these subsidies, because of the time value of money, is worth more than all the federal subsidies that have been embedded in the nation's highways, waterways, airways, etc.  No matter how I answer your points, you will not be satisfied.  That's fine.  It is your choice. But I am likely to continue my central theme:  Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors, where expansion of the airways and highways is cost prohibitive. Today that appears to be the NEC, California, and Illinois corridors.  As the population of the country grows, there are Texas corridors that may become viable, but it won't happen for 25 to 50 years.  By then I will be long gone. Here is another consistent point:  Whatever the country has or has not done with respect to federal subsidies for railways, highways, airways, waterways, etc. is irrelevant.  The key question is where are we, and what is the best way forward.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag