4 ms·
Passenger rail is barely economical for routes that are used year-round. Like it barely works in the NY-DC corridor, and not at all for SF-LA. It seems unlikely
by tlb 7y ago
Passenger rail is barely economical for routes that are used year-round. Like it barely works in the NY-DC corridor, and not at all for SF-LA. It seems unlikely that it'd make sense for something as seasonal as a ski area.
- randomsearch 7y agoDoes public transportation have to make a profit?
- barry-cotter 7y agoDo the interstates make a profit? Municipal roads in New York? The economic reason to improve transportation is that reduced travel time leads to greater communication and commerce which increases growth. This applies as well to subsidizing rail as to subsidizing automobile use and rail is vastly safer per passenger mile.
- tlb 7y agoNeither interstates nor rail make profits. But they are funded for with some consideration of ROI. The government shouldn't (and mostly doesn't) build interstates that are used only a few weeks a year. If the government has money to spend on rail, it should put it where it'll serve the most passenger-miles/year.
- notJim 7y agoI think it just depends. A lot of ski areas are right along interstates, like I-90 in Washington, so if you were going to run a rail line along I-90 between Seattle and Yakima/Spokane, it might be economical to build a stop at Snoqualmie Pass. There are also often small towns and communities that might benefit from being connected to the bigger city by rail year round, like the Colorado mountain towns.