5 ms·

Different modes of transport serve different purposes. I would however like to point out there's a very strong distinction between long distance trains and rapi

Different modes of transport serve different purposes. I would however like to point out there's a very strong distinction between long distance trains and rapid transit trains (i.e. Amtrak vs. subways a la DC or NYC): long distance is for travel between cities outside of the origin's metro area. Rapid transit is for travel within a city. Amtrak's only meaningful source of profit is their Northeast Corridor route [0]. That route effectively subsidizes all of the other routes. It is my understanding that the other routes are operated to provide access to rural communities that are otherwise unserved by transit. Buses are generally better than subways until the surface level roads physically cannot contain the buses necessary to ensure there's enough space for passengers. Once that point is reached, subways are essentially the only option to prevent excessive amounts of sprawl. I interned just outside of DC last summer and I agree the Metro was remarkably free of people who appeared to be working class. However, my personal belief is that it's a consequence of the Metro's distance-based pricing. In NYC, it's a flat $2.75 per trip if you're paying on a per ride basis regardless of how far you travel. On the NYC subways, everyone takes the subway. There, there is a mix of poor and wealthy on the subway. NYC is so densely built that the number of buses needed to accommodate every journey physically would not be able to fit on the (typically very narrow) streets. [0]: See last page of https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/monthlyperformancereports/2018/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-March-2018.pdf https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...

rayiner 8y ago
Amtrak isn't profitable anywhere--it runs an operating profit in the northeast corridor, but that doesn't account for the fact that the federal government pays for capital expenditures. So even the NEC is subsidized--which is unjustifiable considering that NEC riders are primarily quite well off, often business travelers. As to the rest of Amtrak--what is the purpose of connecting rural areas to transit just for the sake of it? Amtrak serves an infinitesimally small fraction of trips in these places, at subsidies an order of magnitude higher than for road travel. What is the logic of spending such disproportionate resources on that tiny handful of people?
- frosted-flakes 8y ago
  Because once it's gone, you're never getting it back.
- kevindong 8y ago
  As far as I can tell from some brief research you're correct that if capital expenses were accounted for, the NEC would run a fairly minor loss. I agree that NEC-fares should probably be raised so that it's profitable without government aid. > What is the logic of spending such disproportionate resources on that tiny handful of people? Government enterprises don't exist to make a profit. They exist to make the people better off; sometimes resources are focused on the most needy. If you view Amtrak in that light, then it's substantially more justifiable. I'm not saying that Amtrak is the best form of making people better off via providing easy transportation, but it's something.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > Government enterprises don't exist to make a profit. They exist to make the people better off; sometimes resources are focused on the most needy. If you view Amtrak in that light, then it's substantially more justifiable. But that’s precisely the problem. Amtrak users even in rural places aren’t “the most needy.” Amtrak is more expensive than driving, especially if you’re traveling with a family, and everybody in rural America has a car (you can’t get to an Amtrak station without one). Portland to Eugene is $28 per person, for a trip that’s about $15 worth of gas. Over $100 for a family of four, and then you still have to get where you’re going at both ends. You can’t even take the train to less economically advantaged places along the Oregon coast. But everybody has a car. That’s what’s so morally pernicious about rail. It’s rich yuppies’ idea of what poor people use and need. Poor people don’t take the train. They don’t work in a downtown office building near transit. They work in the suburbs or exurbs or in the country. On Christmas they pack their kids in a cheap car and go from their house, which is nowhere near a city center, to grandma’s house, which is nowhere near a city center. What helps needy people (and frankly, the 90% of America that lives outside major cities)—lets them get to work, go visit family, etc., is roads, cheap gas, and in more developed areas, reliable bus service.

rayiner 8y ago

Amtrak isn't profitable anywhere--it runs an operating profit in the northeast corridor, but that doesn't account for the fact that the federal government pays for capital expenditures. So even the NEC is subsidized--which is unjustifiable considering that NEC riders are primarily quite well off, often business travelers. As to the rest of Amtrak--what is the purpose of connecting rural areas to transit just for the sake of it? Amtrak serves an infinitesimally small fraction of trips in these places, at subsidies an order of magnitude higher than for road travel. What is the logic of spending such disproportionate resources on that tiny handful of people?

frosted-flakes 8y ago
Because once it's gone, you're never getting it back.
kevindong 8y ago
As far as I can tell from some brief research you're correct that if capital expenses were accounted for, the NEC would run a fairly minor loss. I agree that NEC-fares should probably be raised so that it's profitable without government aid. > What is the logic of spending such disproportionate resources on that tiny handful of people? Government enterprises don't exist to make a profit. They exist to make the people better off; sometimes resources are focused on the most needy. If you view Amtrak in that light, then it's substantially more justifiable. I'm not saying that Amtrak is the best form of making people better off via providing easy transportation, but it's something.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > Government enterprises don't exist to make a profit. They exist to make the people better off; sometimes resources are focused on the most needy. If you view Amtrak in that light, then it's substantially more justifiable. But that’s precisely the problem. Amtrak users even in rural places aren’t “the most needy.” Amtrak is more expensive than driving, especially if you’re traveling with a family, and everybody in rural America has a car (you can’t get to an Amtrak station without one). Portland to Eugene is $28 per person, for a trip that’s about $15 worth of gas. Over $100 for a family of four, and then you still have to get where you’re going at both ends. You can’t even take the train to less economically advantaged places along the Oregon coast. But everybody has a car. That’s what’s so morally pernicious about rail. It’s rich yuppies’ idea of what poor people use and need. Poor people don’t take the train. They don’t work in a downtown office building near transit. They work in the suburbs or exurbs or in the country. On Christmas they pack their kids in a cheap car and go from their house, which is nowhere near a city center, to grandma’s house, which is nowhere near a city center. What helps needy people (and frankly, the 90% of America that lives outside major cities)—lets them get to work, go visit family, etc., is roads, cheap gas, and in more developed areas, reliable bus service.