4 ms·
There is no good economic rationale for long distance trains. The only part of Amtrak that is actually profitable is the NEC, the rest of it generally loses mon
by Aloha 8y ago
There is no good economic rationale for long distance trains. The only part of Amtrak that is actually profitable is the NEC, the rest of it generally loses money.
- ken 8y agoIn other words, it doesn't enjoy the level of government subsidies that other forms of travel currently do?
- Aloha 8y agoYes, exactly. The question I'd ask is, other than preserving the way of operating that amtrak has, is it worth the subsidy - I'd say yes, preserving the knowledge of how to operate LD trains is important, so is offering the rural communities it serves transportation, I'd like to expand rail service even.
- landryraccoon 8y agoThe federal highway system must be even worse then. It brings in zero revenue and costs way, way more than the trains.
- takk309 8y agoDon't forget the usage tax we all pay for the highways via the Federal fuel tax. But I suppose that is not directly considered revenue.
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoUnfortunately that usage tax doesn't even begin to pay for maintenance and is subsidized from the general budget. Transportation funding is pretty bad in the US.
- seppin 8y agoExactly, how much does the EPA cost enforcing clean air and water standards?