http://railroadpassengers.blogspot.com/2008/11/something-big.html
Why not just go ahead and join the NARP?? - al
It is somewhat beyond me why the freight railroads should be singled out to subsidize long distance passenger rail. Why not the butchers, the bakers and the candlestick makers?
And this is considered a novel concept??? That’s pretty much what the railroads were doing prior to May 1, 1971.
The premise of the article is wrong. The frt RRs are not “flush with cash”. Although profitable, the industry, as a whole, is still not revenue adequate. An additional tax on RR profits will only continue to hurt the industry at a time when they could use additional capital to help with capacity expansion.
I think, new or expanded corridors can be justified, in part, by avoiding or delaying highway and airport expansion, then the capital costs could reasonably come, in part, from fuel and aviation taxes.
The premise of the article is wrong. The frt RRs are not “flush with cash”. Although profitable, the industry, as a whole, is still not revenue adequate. An additional tax on RR profits will only continue to hurt the industry at a time when they could use additional capital to help with capacity expansion.
I think, new or expanded corridors can be justified, in part, by avoiding or delaying highway and airport expansion, then the capital costs could reasonably come, in part, from fuel and aviation taxes.
The premise of the article is wrong. The frt RRs are not “flush with cash”. Although profitable, the industry, as a whole, is still not revenue adequate. An additional tax on RR profits will only continue to hurt the industry at a time when they could use additional capital to help with capacity expansion.
I think, new or expanded corridors can be justified, in part, by avoiding or delaying highway and airport expansion, then the capital costs could reasonably come, in part, from fuel and aviation taxes.
Whether passenger rail is subsidized by government, motorists, airline passengers, or freight carriers, it is a misuse of scarce economic resources. And it props up a mode of transport that cannot stand on its own.
There is an exception. Passenger rail makes sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of building additional highway and airway capability is prohibitive. Subsidizing the capital costs for these projects is probably justified.
Interestingly, some corridors cover their operating expenses. If the subsidies were removed from all modes of transport, including motoring, some corridors, if they were managed properly, could break even.
The U.S. has been there, done that!!! ALL the Railroads in the northeast went bankrupt! Lots of others in other parts of the country also went Bankrupt. The Government had to form Conrail and Amtrak to keep the trains rolling less the Bankrupt Courts would have had the rails sold for scrap to pay the debt. (as they did with the N.Y.O.& W.)
Yes, Freight Railroads make money, more money than any other U.S. transportation systems ( Air, Truck, Bus). You can run a 100 car Freight Train at 45 mph with a two man crew and make a good profit. You can NOT run a 10 car Passenger Train at 80 mph with a six man crew and make a profit.
BUT, the REAL cost is the upgrading and maintaining of the track for 80 mph service, and then running only a few trains a day at that speed. Just think of the rail size (weight) and tie replacement costs. Above 80 mph you have the Grade Crossing replacement problem. (overpass, underpass, or 4 quadrant gates)
In a Country 3,000 miles wide, rail passenger service will not work at a profit outside of a few “Corridors” of 500 miles or less.
DMU: Since there is talk of infrastructure improvement anyway by the new administration then take that money putting it into construction of an 80+ MPH ROW. This ROW would improve not only passenger speeds but freight - especially intermodal. This is giving many construction jobs and adds a permanent improvement to the US’s infrastructure not some fleeting give back to citizens. Only Railroads have not had much investment in improving its infrastructure. The only exception is some commuter lines.
TN already has a Rail Tax Fund. It is used to keep the short lines open in rural parts of the state. It is needed to provide rail access to factories that keep folks employed. Some of the money may be used to link the new VW plant to the rail network. The fund was used to keep the Nashville & Eastern part o the old TC operating. The freight RR’s pay a portion of their diesel fuel tax into this fund.
This is not a good idea. 200 years ago, when transportation meant “horse,” the horse breeeders, horse feeders, and horse poop-scoopers all worked together. People riding horses helped maintain the rights-of-way as necessary.
Today, there are many separate industries involved in transportation. Passenger rail is not profitable, so it is not a viable investment option. It would be unfair to saddle the freight railroads with the burden of supporting passenger trains. Most other nations, including some with vast intercity distances, have realized that efficient public intercity transportation is only possible with massive government investment.
To me the concept is morally reprehensible. NO taxpayer should be expected to subsidize the preferences of another person. Personal travel is exactly that, personal. When I travel it is not to contribute to the common good, it is for my personal good, whether it be to sightsee, attend a wedding or even to conduct my personal business. Even travel to and from work: I get the paycheck, I choose the location of both my home and my job. If they are not within walking distance, is that the fault of my fellow taxpayers? In other words, my travel does nothing for the common good. And isn’t this is true of most all travel?
It is reasonable to tax individuals for the common good. Things like national defense, police and fire, immediately come to mind. Streets and roads are probably a common good. Maybe schools, at least in theory. Much of everything else that people are taxed for is not for the common good but for the good of individual.
Now that I have got that off my chest—
Is there any provider of scheduled passenger transportation that makes money? Airlines haven’t; most have been in bankruptcy. Intra city bus lines have lost money for years. The same is true of subways and commuter rail. Inter city bus transportation (Greyhound) has been on the skids for years. Of course, passenger rail, before and after Amtrak, has been a money losing enterprise.
It seems that the only passenger transportation that make money are the unscheduled (charter?) operators. For example: cruise ships, dinner trains, museum trains, charter bus lines and taxicabs.
Are people really willing to pay what scheduled carrier cost? Directly by fare box or indirectly through form 1040?
For the year ended December 31, 2007, U.S. airlines reported operating profits of $7.4 billion and net income of $4.6 billion. Of the 24 reporting airlines five had a net operating loss and seven had a net income loss. The 2008 figures are not complete, but the picture is likely to be a bit bleak this year.
Greyhound is owned by First Group PLC., which is headquartered in the U.K. It reported in 2007 that all of its North American (NA) divisions, including Greyhound, had net operating profits and net incomes. It did not break out the NA earning by division, in part I suspect because it had acquired Greyhound during the year and was trying to sort out the accounting. The U.S. and U.K. use a different accounting model.
Greyhound had an operating profit of $81 million during the first half of 2008. Revenues increased by more than five per cent while operating costs were nearly flat. Interestingly, Greyhound carries about the same number of passengers as Amtrak. But it serves more than 3,100 stations vs. approximately 500 for Amtrak. It also has an 80+ per cent on time record, which beats Amtrak’s on-time performance, although Amtrak’s NEC on time record is better than 80 per cent. The long distance trains wreck Amtrak’s on time record.
During 2007 co
For the year ended December 31, 2007, U.S. airlines reported operating profits of $7.4 billion and net income of $4.6 billion. Of the 24 reporting airlines five had a net operating loss and seven had a net income loss. The 2008 figures are not complete, but the picture is likely to be a bit bleak this year.
Greyhound is owned by First Group PLC., which is headquartered in the U.K. It reported in 2007 that all of its North American (NA) divisions, including Greyhound, had net operating profits and net incomes. It did not break out the NA earning by division, in part I suspect because it had acquired Greyhound during the year and was trying to sort out the accounting. The U.S. and U.K. use a different accounting model.
Greyhound had an operating profit of $81 million during the first half of 2008. Revenues increased by more than five per cent while operating costs were nearly flat. Interestingly, Greyhound carries about the same number of passengers as Amtrak. But it serves more than 3,100 stations vs. approximately 500 for Amtrak. It also has an 80+ per cent on time record, which beats Amtrak’s on-time performance, although Amtrak’s NEC on time record is better than 80 per cent. The long distance trains wreck Amtrak’s on time record.
During 2007 co
Sam:
Airlines make a profit only because they only serve the most profitable routes, which is probably how it should be. But that serves the transportation needs of only those in the big cities.
I can take an airline flight from Charlotte to DC, or NYC, or Dallas, etc. I cannot take an airline flight from Charlotte to Rocky Mount, NC, or Danville, Va. but I can go there by train.
Flight times look great when you can fly direct, but if you fly from one small city to another small city it is going to be an all day trip. Plan a trip from Petersburg, Va to Salisbury, NC via air and via train. Compare the time and cost, DOOR TO DOOR. Don’t forget to add the hour to deal with the paranoid security at the airport, and the 30 minutes waiting for them to properly age your luggage. Don’t forget to add the checked bag fees. The round trip fare on Amtrak is $64 the round trip far from Charlotte to Richmond on USAirways is $138 then you still have to get transportation to and from Petersburg and Salisbury.
It is feasable for a train to make frequent stops, it is not for an airplane.
No one in here is advocating replacing any form of transportation, each has it’s advantages and disadvantages. However, high speed, and short haul rail should both be part of the integrated transportation system.
I was addressing the assertion in a previous post that airlines and intercity bus companies don’t make money. The assertion is incorrect. Neither is the view that airlines only service the most profitable routes. In some instances, they fly feeder routes that lose money, but they operate them to get passengers to a hub, where they can connect to a long distance flight that contrib
Two and a half hours from an airport is not my definition of convenient.
The scheduled carriers of all sizes serve fewer than 750 airports in the US. That’s an average of 15 per state, though obviously size and population will make it vary from state to state. If you eleiminate the small contract carriers who just feed the hubs, it is considerably fewer. Small cities are constantly haggling with the airlines to keep their service because it’s not profitable.
As far as TSA is concerned, Making you take off your shoes and put them through the x-ray machine is paranoid. Prohibiting big bottles of shampoo is paranoid. Patting women’s breasts because their underwire registers on the metal detector is paranoid. Dumping my 58 year old wife’s purse out on the belt because they couldn’t tell what the horse head key fob on her key chain was is paranoid. Pretty much everything TSA does is paranoid, and if you are afraid to fly if they quit doing it then you are paranoid.
No one is trying to replace air travel with rail. The argument is that there is a place for both. Regional trains that go to an airline hub city should stop at the airport or the locality should run service that connects the train station and the airport. It would probably cost that person from Rocky Mount less to take the train to Charlotte than it would to park for a week at the Charlotte airport while they are on vacation.
The worse case scenario is 2.5 hours, which would be found in most instances in far west Texas. For most Texans the drive to an airport with commercial airline service is one to 1.25 hours.
Paranoid is in the eyes of the beholder. My experience does not support your experience, and I fly at least once a month. Moreover, surveys