What you may be forgetting in the consideration of the passenger count on a LD passenger train is that any passenger count is kind of a "snapshot" because people are continually getting on and off along the length of the route. That 150 passengers at one isolated point may actually be 400-500 when you consider the ons and offs at 20 stops along the way.
Corridor rail vs same corridor air is a fair comparison while LD train vs air or commuter vs air are not fair comparison because of the huge differences in market and product., there is no comparison because you aren't compairing the same things. However, what does come down in all of this is that people are an expensive commodity to move short or long distances. Overlooked in arguement is that all forms of transportation are competitive against each other, supplimental to each other, and cannot be dismissed one over the other. In short, we need a comprehensive, cohesive, rational, planned, assembled, and marketed transportation system for both the live commodity as well as the dead weight of a ton of coal. The entire transportation system has to work together to work. Petty competitivness, contrived alliances, and prejediced applications will no longer work in the near future.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The constant comparison of rail to air travel is really a red herring. They are best suited to different market segments.
Aircraft travel very fast when they are enroute. However climbing, descending, maneuvering in the airspace around an airport, approaches, departures, and taxi to and from the gates add a great deal of time to the trip. It is therefor very inefficient to make multiple stops. The train, on the other hand, needs only to slow, stop and accelerate at each station. The aircraft can make better time between the end points, but the train can service all the little cities along the route.
Using the Charlotte area as an example. I can take a Train or a plane from Charlotte to DC. The aircraft is much faster. But I cannot take an aircraft from Kannapolis, NC to Burlington, NC. Service is not even available. But I can take the train. The train from Charlotte to DC stops in Kannapolis, Salisbury, High Point, Greensboro, Burlington, Durham, Cary, Raleigh, Selma, Wilson, Rocky Mount, Petersburg, Richmond, Fredericksburg, Quantico, and Alexandria. Sit down with your spread sheet and calculate the cost of providing air service to all of those cities. How many aircraft will be required?
Passenger rail and commercial aircraft are not competitors. They are different pieces of a transportation infrastructure.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
schlimm Interesting post, Paul. And although an airliner is complex and sophisticated overall, a turbofan jet engine may actually be less complicated then a Diesel, although more so than an electric.
Interesting post, Paul. And although an airliner is complex and sophisticated overall, a turbofan jet engine may actually be less complicated then a Diesel, although more so than an electric.
Yes, the turbine is simpler than a diesel, but it is made of some very exotic metals in very limited quantities under very strict oversight of the government. As a result they must be serviced more often and even the simplest parts are very expensive. I have never been involved in the maint of trains, but I have been involved in the maint of aircraft.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmannd A quick comparison. A new, Boeing 737 costs $60M and seats 150. A new LD train (2 sleepers, 3 coaches, baggage/dorm,diner,lounge, two locomotives costs about $30M and seats about 250. Airlines average 80% load factor. A good LD train, about 60%, so the typical 737 load would be 120 and 150 for the train. For a 1000 mile route, the train can make one, one way trip per day. The plane, 3 round trips per day. Assume the commercial life of the plane is 20 years (Delta's current avg age for their fleet is 15 yrs) and the train 20 years (Amtrak has stated this for the train) in 20 years, the train will carry 150 x 365 x 20 = 1.1M trips in 20 years the plane will carry 120 x 3 x 2 x 365 x 10 = 2.6M trips Double the equipment cost gets you more than double the passengers. And that's just equipment cost. Anyone dare to look at employee man-hours per trip? Imagine what it would cost for a 1000 mile trip by Conestoga wagon!
A quick comparison. A new, Boeing 737 costs $60M and seats 150. A new LD train (2 sleepers, 3 coaches, baggage/dorm,diner,lounge, two locomotives costs about $30M and seats about 250. Airlines average 80% load factor. A good LD train, about 60%, so the typical 737 load would be 120 and 150 for the train.
For a 1000 mile route, the train can make one, one way trip per day. The plane, 3 round trips per day.
Assume the commercial life of the plane is 20 years (Delta's current avg age for their fleet is 15 yrs) and the train 20 years (Amtrak has stated this for the train)
in 20 years, the train will carry 150 x 365 x 20 = 1.1M trips
in 20 years the plane will carry 120 x 3 x 2 x 365 x 10 = 2.6M trips
Double the equipment cost gets you more than double the passengers.
And that's just equipment cost. Anyone dare to look at employee man-hours per trip?
Imagine what it would cost for a 1000 mile trip by Conestoga wagon!
Don, I think you made a small math error. You have the train down for a 20 year lifetime, but you only have the plane down for a 10 year lifetime owing to the x10 instead of x20 factor you have in the plane calculation.
The other thing is that the train cars can be made of stainless steel and have a 40-50 year lifetime whereas the locomotives might need to be replaced every 20 years because they simply wear out in mainline service. But maybe locomotives last longer in passenger service where they are at full power only to accelerate trains but cruise at part power, where mainline freight locos spend more time at high power settings?
So it might take 4-5 30 million dollar train sets to replace one 60 million dollar airplane? But the coaches and sleepers (not locos) might last twice as long? Maybe in rough, round numbers, the train comes out even to the jet?
But where I am thinking the cost problem may be is that it may take 3 times the mainenance crew hours per passenger mile on Amtrak as it does on Southwest. Think about doing the maintenance on one 737 jet vs the work on 4-5 trainsets: about 8-10 locomotives plus 32-40 railroad passenger cars? Even if that jet is maintenance intensive, you have to maintain an awful large number of separate vehicles for the train.
But with respect to the train, we keep thinking, how can the maintenance of a jet, a very fragile and complicated piece of equipment, be much less expensive than even maintaining a small fleet of railroad cars, that are essentially hunks of steel with wheels turning underneath?
But there seems to be something expensive about maintaining railroad passenger equipment. When I usually post the rhetorical argument, "A rail passenger car is just a hunk of steel with some wheels underneath, or at least when you compare it to a jetliner", someone chimes in to correct me, "Oh no, a rail passenger car has lighting, HVAC, power operated doors, braking systems, etc. that needs all manners of careful maintenance." This correction often comes from someone who perhaps has some actual experience on how much work needs to be done to keep a passenger railroad car out on the road.
But that's exactly my point -- a passenger railroad car is a much more complex piece of machinery than you think, and the maintenance costs of passenger service on a per passenger mile basis are much higher than you think, and the economics of passenger rail is less favorable than you would think.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
schlimm oltmannd: It would be a real challenge to calculate the cost in dollars of the train man-hours per trip, b/c wage information is not readily available. But I bet it's much higher than the 737's wage costs per trip because the man-hours of the latter are so much less.
oltmannd: It would be a real challenge to calculate the cost in dollars of the train man-hours per trip, b/c wage information is not readily available. But I bet it's much higher than the 737's wage costs per trip because the man-hours of the latter are so much less.
That's exactly the point....and the problem.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
To further the "comparing apples and oranges" discussion, let us not forget that Portland/Seattle-to-Chicago is not the average trip on the Builder. Published Amtrak statistics report the average long-distance passenger trip at something over 700 miles. Which means that people going to/from those isolated stops in Montana and North Dakota (and Kansas and Nevada and Colorado and New Mexico and etc.), which have little or no other public transport available, is the primary market being served by Amtrak LD services.
And, this sort of service to the more-isolated parts of our country has long been considered worth supporting, even in the commercial aviation context (reference the DOT's Essential Air Service program, giving subsidies to comercial airlines and building out-of-the-way airports to serve them).
henry: I see your point, riding the train two nights sitting in a coach, although the fare is $267. But to compare sitting in a coach 45 hours with a plane ride of 4+ hours? As I said, the vast majority of the public, given that choice, would consider the train ride as insane.
Schlimm... the cost of transit is the same $200/$206 for the ride. Rooms and meals whether aboard the train or at the endpoints are not transit costs. So you can spend less than four hours in transit or 4 days in transit for about the same price. Where you spend your money for food and lodging is up to you.
And Sam, are you sure the airline ticket is more of the total cost? Does it take into account the local airport expenses, air traffic control, etc. or are you just taking the Federal subsidy into account?
henry6 But the transit cost...the cost of the transit ticket exclusive of accomodations...is the same in the example given. So if you add two night food and lodging in Chicago, as the example suggests, the cost is probably more than the total Amtrak costs. And not so different in cost, just in time.
But the transit cost...the cost of the transit ticket exclusive of accomodations...is the same in the example given. So if you add two night food and lodging in Chicago, as the example suggests, the cost is probably more than the total Amtrak costs. And not so different in cost, just in time.
As in the example, the transit costs differ by $450-700. Not the same at all by any calculation. I understand how the train might be nice for those few people who are in no rush (not business travel), enjoy the train ride and scenery, mediocre free food, etc. But most travelers choose the airplane, even with some hassles and discomfort on the way, or else choose to drive (to see the same scenery, etc.) and probably sleep much better 2-3 nights.
Clearly airplanes and trains offer a different kind of service. And they appeal to a different market. There is another key difference.
Commercial air travel is supported for the most part by the paying passengers, i.e. the market. Long distance trains, irrespective of whether they are seen as essential intercity transport or land cruises, are not supported by the market. They require a massive subsidy.
Whether Amtrak is a bargain depends on how many people are traveling, how much they spend in the dinning and lounge cars, whether they book coach or sleeper accommodations, etc. Moreover, when the subsidy is factored into the equation, Amtrak's long distance trains are not a bargain for the body politic. They are a wasteful drain on the public purse.
I recently priced a roomette from Austin to Chicago. Amtrak wanted $339 for it. I can get a pretty swanky hotel room in Chicago for that kind of money. It is a stretch to argue that traveling sleeper class on Amtrak is a bargain. Interestingly, according to the Inspector General's report, it requires a greater subsidy than coach travel.
Cruise ships don't get a massive government subsidy. They have to cut it in the market place or go out of business. This is the model that should be used for long distance train cruises. If there is a market for it, it should be required to stand on its own. The public does not have a vested interest in long distance train cruises any more than it has a public interest in ship borne cruises.
My point is that the difference between taking the train from Portland, OR to Chicago, IL and flying between the two cities is that we are talking two different things...something these pages too often don't understand. An airplane trip is done in several hours with no meals or rooms needed, and say it does consumer maybe 6-8 hours center city to center city if that makes a difference. A train trip takes almost two days if the schedule is met...and it includes maybe two nights in some kind of sleeping quarters plus meals. Two totally different products for two totally different markets and needs. But the transit cost...the cost of the transit ticket exclusive of accomodations...is the same in the example given. So if you add two night food and lodging in Chicago, as the example suggests, the cost is probably more than the total Amtrak costs. If you are buying a scenic trip across country, Amtrak is a bargain; if you need two days in Chicago to do business, air is a bargain. Two entirely different services for two entirely different market needs. And not so different in cost, just in time.
"They are doing this with the backing of some highly rich people. "
Who want to get even richer at the expense of all of all the middle class folk, what there is left of us!
While the Empire Builder is not the best example I could think of, there is, I believe, another consideration.
Namely, A Portland to Chicago plane trip will take up most of the day, counting downtown to downtown. And, not too much of that day is going to be very comfortable or productive. On the train, nearly all of the time is comfortable, and can be productive (computer use, etc.), especially if the EB has wi-fi and/or cellphone capabilities (and I don't know if it does or not), and you have a private room.
Thus, over the 44-hour period, you have more productive time, and certainly a more comfortable trip, than the day wasted at the airports and in the air, preceded or followed by a day on the ground (if you can spare the 2 days!).
henry6 dmikee: The only reason for these outlandish charges are the shortages of rail passenger equipment. Thus no new cars are available, the trains only run in two directions (two trainsets) and shorter segments are just almost impossible. It would be fun to do it in three day trips with overnight accomodations enroute. At $120 a night for a decent motel, that would still be much cheaper than Amtrak's high compartment and bedroom charges. But successful privatization in scattered segments under a wide variety of ownerships will never happen. I am not sure what you are tryhing to say here dimkee, but that travel is expensive. $206 ticket for 44 hour ride plus $694 room or $900 buys tranportation plus at least two night accomodations (I am not sure if meals are included in that price or not) which would be comperable to the airplane ride sans accomodations! Two different modes of transportation, two different services, two entirely different experiences and services. But the cost of transit is still the same!
dmikee: The only reason for these outlandish charges are the shortages of rail passenger equipment. Thus no new cars are available, the trains only run in two directions (two trainsets) and shorter segments are just almost impossible. It would be fun to do it in three day trips with overnight accomodations enroute. At $120 a night for a decent motel, that would still be much cheaper than Amtrak's high compartment and bedroom charges. But successful privatization in scattered segments under a wide variety of ownerships will never happen.
The only reason for these outlandish charges are the shortages of rail passenger equipment. Thus no new cars are available, the trains only run in two directions (two trainsets) and shorter segments are just almost impossible. It would be fun to do it in three day trips with overnight accomodations enroute. At $120 a night for a decent motel, that would still be much cheaper than Amtrak's high compartment and bedroom charges.
But successful privatization in scattered segments under a wide variety of ownerships will never happen.
I am not sure what you are tryhing to say here dimkee, but that travel is expensive. $206 ticket for 44 hour ride plus $694 room or $900 buys tranportation plus at least two night accomodations (I am not sure if meals are included in that price or not) which would be comperable to the airplane ride sans accomodations! Two different modes of transportation, two different services, two entirely different experiences and services. But the cost of transit is still the same!
I have not seen much discussion as to the rationale for the space charges (other than the increase in prices as demand increases), but I do not think that scarcity of equipment is the basis. Incidentally, it takes at least five trainsets to provide the daily service between Chicago and Seattle/Portland and between Chicago and Los Angeles; it takes at least six trainsets to provide the daily service between Chicago and Emeryville.
Johnny
I'm not sure what you are saying, henry. Travel Portland to Chicago by train, if you want the experience on the way, but the price isn't close to air. Dimkee said $900 for the train and $200 for air. I see more like $160 to 450. Even worst case and adding 2 nights in a decent hotel in Chicago, $300-400, you are somewhat cheaper and more time to spend where you want to go. The cost is not the same.
I also fail to see how more sleeper cars would make the cost less. Much of the problem on LD sleepers is the high labor costs per passenger.
dmikee Such shallow thinking pervades these reponses. Just checked out the cost to ride from Portland OR to Chicago. $206. But for a compartment, add $694! Total (one-way): $900. Can't even remotely compete with an air flight at about $200 each way. 4 hours flying vs 44 hours by train. Still, I would like to see the country by train but no way could I do 44 hours in coach. (A bedroom for two adults would $1250!) The only reason for these outlandish charges are the shortages of rail passenger equipment. Thus no new cars are available, the trains only run in two directions (two trainsets) and shorter segments are just almost impossible. It would be fun to do it in three day trips with overnight accomodations enroute. At $120 a night for a decent motel, that would still be much cheaper than Amtrak's high compartment and bedroom charges. But successful privatization in scattered segments under a wide variety of ownerships will never happen.
Such shallow thinking pervades these reponses. Just checked out the cost to ride from Portland OR to Chicago. $206. But for a compartment, add $694! Total (one-way): $900. Can't even remotely compete with an air flight at about $200 each way. 4 hours flying vs 44 hours by train. Still, I would like to see the country by train but no way could I do 44 hours in coach. (A bedroom for two adults would $1250!)
The yesa\nswer and its logical reasons have been noted on Forums ehre many times in the past. Should theses be repeated?
henry6 Unfortunately Sam, there are many who are, or think they are, proponants of "unfettered capitalism". This is because they don't know and understand history, they don't know and understand what actually is how the US...and most of the world...actually operates, and they are just plain don't understand what they are talking about but are espousing views the picked up from talk radio. I am presently rereading (for at least the fourth time) William Helmer's RIP VAN WINKLE RAIROADS about the railraods proposed and built to conquor the Catskill Mountains of NY in the 19th and 20th Century. Capitalism was the catylist and promotor while government provided the surveys (US Army), the bonding, the authority, the loans, the permissions, the abilities so that private enterprise could have this privilige and real estate. If there hadn't been local, state, and federal activiies in these areas capitalism could never have accomplished the feat. Likewise if capitalism wasn't the catylist and promotor, the question could be would any progress have been made,would railroads have been built? After all this, the monopolistic hold railroads had led to organizations like the Grange to take thier plight to the government to create controls lke the ICC to reign in the powers of capitalism. Its all in our history, just read it.
Unfortunately Sam, there are many who are, or think they are, proponants of "unfettered capitalism". This is because they don't know and understand history, they don't know and understand what actually is how the US...and most of the world...actually operates, and they are just plain don't understand what they are talking about but are espousing views the picked up from talk radio. I am presently rereading (for at least the fourth time) William Helmer's RIP VAN WINKLE RAIROADS about the railraods proposed and built to conquor the Catskill Mountains of NY in the 19th and 20th Century. Capitalism was the catylist and promotor while government provided the surveys (US Army), the bonding, the authority, the loans, the permissions, the abilities so that private enterprise could have this privilige and real estate. If there hadn't been local, state, and federal activiies in these areas capitalism could never have accomplished the feat. Likewise if capitalism wasn't the catylist and promotor, the question could be would any progress have been made,would railroads have been built? After all this, the monopolistic hold railroads had led to organizations like the Grange to take thier plight to the government to create controls lke the ICC to reign in the powers of capitalism. Its all in our history, just read it.
I graduated from Penn State with a degree in history and economics. I was an honor student and a member of Phi Alpha Theta, which is the history honor society. I have maintained my interest in history and have read an average of 25 to 30 serious history works every year since graduation.
I don't listen to talk radio. I don't have a television. I am reasonably familiar with the economic development of the United States.
At the end of the day, however, it does not matter. The question is where does it make sense to support passenger rail? And what role, if any, should the government play?
And then there are "crony capitalism" and "pay to play" situations, where government is closely allied with favored corporate interests, through subsidies, tax breaks, sweetheart government contracts, some examples of privatization, elimination of competition, kickbacks, etc.
schlimm Sam1: At the end of the day, the competitive, smartly regulated markets [emphasis added] are a better way to allocate limited economic resources. I think I may go into anaphylactic shock!!
Sam1: At the end of the day, the competitive, smartly regulated markets [emphasis added] are a better way to allocate limited economic resources.
At the end of the day, the competitive, smartly regulated markets [emphasis added] are a better way to allocate limited economic resources.
I think I may go into anaphylactic shock!!
I have never, to the best of my memory, supported unfettered capitalism. I don't know anyone who has.
I support properly regulated, robust, competitive markets. The role for the government, in a nutshell, is to ensure a level playing field, promote competition, and call balls and strikes. It should not pick winners and losers. And it should not be in the business of running an intercity passenger railroad that will not be paid for by the users.
Several years ago I did an analysis of where Amtrak, competing as a private entity, could be successful. That is to say cover all of its costs but not turn a profit for its owners. In other words, break even. I concluded that it could compete in the New York to Washington market, as well as LA to San Diego, by raising its fares an average of 15 per cent whilst reducing its labor costs by 30 to 40 per cent. Both would be doable, especially if motorists were made aware of the true cost of driving at the pump.
Don't worry. The politicians will never let it happen. That is to say, they won't privatize Amtrak, and they won't stop subsidizing or hiding the true cost of alternative modes of transportation.
On another note, my company (Fortune 250) outsourced as much as 80 per cent of our construction and maintenance work. The key to successful outsourcing is effective contractor management. In many of the instances where outsourcing has not worked well, it is because the entity doing the outsourcing did not have an effective contractor management team in place to keep tabs on the contractor. This is one of the reasons the Austin red line got into so much trouble.
I agree....it is all politics and beyond the scope of this forum. We paid half a million for a painting of a fish on the tail of a plane....but Amtrak does not serve a purpose???
6000 miles on Amtrak in words and pictures www.currtail.com
Sam1 At the end of the day, the competitive, smartly regulated markets [emphasis added] are a better way to allocate limited economic resources.
Sam, thank you for supporting my contention that most Americans really don't know much about our government and its operations, income and "dispursments" if you will. Likewise, thank you for also showing me the way toward reevaluating, reinventing, revamping, whatever you want to call it, transportation system by starting at scratch, from a point that all we know is that there is a powered vehicle that goes along the roads, another that goes on parallel steel rails, another that goes through the air, and another that floats on water. Then from there we design transportation system that utilizes and integrates the best of the three systems to economic and environmental advantage. Think like nothing exists now and build from that...no politics, no lobbyists, no pork barrels.
Mr. Railman henry6: Let's see....what else doesn't make money in Washington....about the only thing I think does make money is the printing presses! The Defense Department doesn't, Nor the Highway Adminsitration nor the FAA or FCC...I don't think there is a government agency or department that does except the Treasury Department! So why pick on Amtrak? It is too much socialism for the Tea Party to bear? I think Amtrak loses the MOST money out of all of them, and that's why privatization is put on the table as ideas. That's how it was before 1972, but the RPOs went out of business in the sixties with the creation of the zip code, and train lines lost much of their revenue from it.
henry6: Let's see....what else doesn't make money in Washington....about the only thing I think does make money is the printing presses! The Defense Department doesn't, Nor the Highway Adminsitration nor the FAA or FCC...I don't think there is a government agency or department that does except the Treasury Department! So why pick on Amtrak? It is too much socialism for the Tea Party to bear?
Let's see....what else doesn't make money in Washington....about the only thing I think does make money is the printing presses! The Defense Department doesn't, Nor the Highway Adminsitration nor the FAA or FCC...I don't think there is a government agency or department that does except the Treasury Department! So why pick on Amtrak? It is too much socialism for the Tea Party to bear?
I think Amtrak loses the MOST money out of all of them, and that's why privatization is put on the table as ideas. That's how it was before 1972, but the RPOs went out of business in the sixties with the creation of the zip code, and train lines lost much of their revenue from it.
It depends on what is meant by loses money.
Amtrak is a federally sponsored commercial enterprise. It is in the business of transporting people from one point to another. Its operations are accounted for in an enterprise fund, which emulates the accounting for a private business. It generates an income statement (operations statement), statement of cash flows, balance sheet, and statement of retained earnings.
The federal government sponsors several commercial like enterprises, i.e. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), etc. These organizations are expected to cover their costs from fees, rates, etc., and therefore be run like a competitive business, although in most instances they don't have any direct competition.
In FY10, as examples, the FDIC earned $13.5 billion as compared to a loss of $38.1 billion in 2009, due largely to an increase in bank closures sparked by the recession; the PBGC had a loss of $1.084 billion, and the TVA earned $972 million. By comparison Amtrak had a net operating loss of $1.3 billion in FY10 and FY09. The loss in FY09 was slightly larger, but after rounding they both come in at $1.3 billion.
The FDIC generates most of its revenues from deposit fees, which are imposed by the nation's banks on their depositors. If you have a bank account, you are paying the fee, although you may not know it. The PBGC is an insurance company. It levies a fee on the employers that offer a legacy retirement program to their employees. It is designed to cover retirement benefits if the employer's plan fails, i.e. the employer goes out of business. The TVA charges electric and water rates to its customers just like any utility.
Some folks appear to confuse these enterprise funds with trust funds, i.e. the Highway Trust Fund, Aviation Trust Fund, etc. They are not the same animal. The trust funds were set up to collect monies to support the activity usually embodied in their name. They are not expected to earn a profit, whereas some of the federal enterprise funds are expected to earn a profit, e.g. the TVA.
Amtrak has lost money from day one. The amount of the loss, however, which has averaged $643 million per year since the beginning, is peanuts compared to the federal budget. However, if one looks at the loss per passenger mile, which is covered by federal and state supplemental payments (subsidies), Amtrak receives a higher subsidy per passenger and seat mile than other forms of transport, i.e. commercial airlines, bus companies, personal vehicles, etc.
In FY10 Amtrak's average loss or subsidy per passenger mile was 21.13 cents compared to .0099 cents per mile for the airlines and .0049 cents for highway users. The subsidies are in the numbers. For example, whilst Amtrak racked up 6.3 billion passenger miles in FY10, airline passengers chalked up 509.2 billion passenger miles and motorists came in with approximately 3 trillion vehicle miles traveled.
All transport subsidies should be eliminated. And the full cost of driving should be reflected at the pump, i.e. county and city road costs should be baked into the price of gasoline as opposed to being embedded in property taxes, as an example, and the subsidies for the airlines, buses, etc. should be eliminated. If this happened, there could be a viable market for intercity rail, at least in relatively short, high density corridors. The train could stand on its own. And Amtrak could be privatized or other operators could be enticed to enter the market. At the end of the day, the competitive, smartly regulated markets are a better way to allocate limited economic resources.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.