Join the discussion on the following article:
Amtrak adds cars for first run of Norfolk train
A small grammatical matter; the past tense of “lead” is “led.” As in “Demand for tickets…has led Amtrak…” Don’t feel bad, no one gets that right any more.
Of course the train is full. The taxpayer is paying for it, not the users. If the users paid the actual cost of the train, never mind the freight railroad it runs on, nobody would ride it as the market would not bear the true cost.
Hey Jeff G,if you had to pay the real cost of building an Interstate hwy, or build a runway or air terminal or canal or river dreadging operation, you’d be riding a horse. Get real.
Here’s hoping they end up at least doubling the frequency of this service as soon as humanly possible.
Just like the taxcpayer pays for the roads you drive on, the airport that you fly from, and the cruise terminal that you depart from.
Just as taxpayers are paying for roads, airports, football stadiums, parks, etc. What’s the beef?
Jeffery, “no one” pays the full cost of driving on our highways or flying on planes, either. The highway system is in debt, needs more money to be fixed, and the airports are paid for by taxpayers. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Oh, let’s just tell all those eager riders the service is cancelled and make them drive to Washington, Baltimore, New York and other points - over taxpayer funded highways. Highways that are becoming increasing crowded and inefficient.
Mr. Guse, I’ve been reading your comments on subjects in this column for the past few weeks. The common thread among them is that they appear opinionated, without much basic understanding of how the rail industry works, and with a common theme that if any taxpayer money is used for any endeavor in an other than a pay as you go proposition its bad. I don’t know if you’re anti rail, or just anti taxpayer money going for anything you deem inappropriate. When it comes to transportation in this country, all forms receive some type of government subsidy. If you had to pay the true cost of an airline ticket that took into consideration all the federal spending that props up the airline industry running the gamet from airport infrastructure to the tax subsidies given plane manufacturers, a ticket from Chicago to New York would be astronomical compared to what one pays now. How much flying would you do if the least expensive ticket from Chicago to New York was $3,000? Same with the roads, both local and the Interstates. How would you like to pay a toll of $3.00 a mile for every local mile, and $5.00 a mile for every Interstate mile? These figures may not be accurate, but you get the point, don’t you? From a cost standpoint, the most economical way to transport people in this country, other than walking, is by rail. Our federal, state, and local governments would be doing the country a huge economic favor if they cut the subsidies to air and highway transportation, and directed it toward rail for both short distance commuter, and for mid and long distance interstate transportation. I believe if you let your God given common sense have a shot over your political ideologies you’d come to the same conclusion.
Re Mr. Guse’s comment. Yes, the taxpayers are paying for it. Yes, the taxpayers are the users. Yes, the taxpayers also pay for our highways, airports, air traffic control systems, and ports. Using your logic we would never leave our homes as the cost to do so would be prohibitive.
Of course the highways around Chicago and every other major metro area are full. The taxpayers are paying for them (well, actually homeowners and businesses pay a lot of the assessments on city streets, etc.) and still they can keep up. Maybe we should offer more rail transit so that people and goods can actually move instead of sitting in jams burning gas and supporting our Middle Eastern Oil allies.
Yes Jeffy and if you paid the cost for Howrah and air vs the taxpayer subsidized price no one would use it either!
“The taxpayer is paying for it, not the users.” Does that mean that taxpayers in the U.S. don’t pay for state and federal highways? Bridges, airports, air traffic control, traffic police, dredging commercial waterways, and airline company bailouts every time there is a crisis, etc? Gosh, that is truly amazing.
And how much do drivers pay extra to use these services when they are on the road or travelling by air? Nothing perhaps?
If on the other hand the taxpayer’s support for some of the cost of train travel makes highways, airways and airports less congested then that would seem a nice trade off for the taxpayers using such serives.
I guess us Europeans are so unsophisticated about the use of our taxes that we don’t mind benefiting from a superior system of integrated public transport.
Mr. Guise, do you pay full price for the roads you drive you car on, or or those subsidized by the government:? Right.
Of course the taxpayers also pay for the roads the cars, buses and trucks use along with the airports and air traffic control that airlines use.
Wonderful news. For all those years I spent on the Greyhound going from the Navy base to NYC’s Port Authority, I can only envy the sailors and marines who can now commute by train, same seat, no less. And my trips were back when we had to take the ferry across the bay, before the causeway/tunnel was built. There were lots of sailors and marines on the bus, I can testify to that, so I can easily that today’s service members would take the train today. Thanks again for a great online presence.
Everyone throws around alot of guesses here. Where are the facts? We all know that every form of transportation is funded by the taxpayers to some extent. I want to know how much the government pays out on a per person basis taking into account user taxes and fees such as ticket taxes, user fees and tolls. What source do I use to find out the true amount of subsidy by mode of transportation? Until I can see that, all of you are just guessing that rail is the most economical way to move passengers.
Reminds me of the time I took the Downeaster from Portland, ME to Boston. Conductor announced that the train used about 250 gallons of diesel to move about 245 people to Boston so that it used just over a gallon of fuel per person to go 110 miles. But what about the time I left Portland on a train with only 12 people on it and arrived with about 35-40? Not such an economical use of 250 gallons of fuel in this case.