5 ms·

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 NE

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.
- kevindong 8y ago
  You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car. That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than renting a car to travel short to medium distances when there's a corresponding route. Support for Amtrak-style rail is very low. Hell support for subway-style rail is still pretty low, but it has its uses in the truly developed areas (a la NYC). I'm ambivalent about Amtrak. I'm strongly supportive of subway-style rail, when it's appropriate (it's not appropriate aside from a small handful of cities). There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car. That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than renting a car to travel short to medium distances when there's a corresponding route. We're talking about Amtrak in rural areas here, and for a statistical definition of 100%, 100% of folks in rural places have access a car. Life is impossible without one. As to urban poor--they take the bus. A saver fare for Austin to Houston is $48. Greyhound will get you there for $9. > There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)? Every metro area in the U.S. is suburbs dominated except NYC.

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.

kevindong 8y ago
You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car. That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than renting a car to travel short to medium distances when there's a corresponding route. Support for Amtrak-style rail is very low. Hell support for subway-style rail is still pretty low, but it has its uses in the truly developed areas (a la NYC). I'm ambivalent about Amtrak. I'm strongly supportive of subway-style rail, when it's appropriate (it's not appropriate aside from a small handful of cities). There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)?
- rayiner 8y ago
  > You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car. That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than renting a car to travel short to medium distances when there's a corresponding route. We're talking about Amtrak in rural areas here, and for a statistical definition of 100%, 100% of folks in rural places have access a car. Life is impossible without one. As to urban poor--they take the bus. A saver fare for Austin to Houston is $48. Greyhound will get you there for $9. > There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)? Every metro area in the U.S. is suburbs dominated except NYC.