3 ms·

> But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation This is also true for trains. > and saying tha

> But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation This is also true for trains. > and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies. Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century. Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them. > For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too. In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete. > But also who cares if it’s profitable? American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism.

ericmay 4y ago
> American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism. We subsidize all sorts of whimsical nostalgia. I don’t find that to be a compelling argument. > This is also true for trains. Not really because passenger rail in the US is so small as to be negligible. Of course I’d it were to expand to something like the capacity of airlines then yes we would have to evaluate. Hard to see how it’s not cheaper though especially when accounting for other infrastructure changes that are required (fewer cars and less government waste from needless highway construction, appropriate density). > Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century. > Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them. The problem here is you are comparing apples to oranges. The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized. The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built. > In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete. The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more. You are right that trains became obsolete in some ways, but those advantages that airline infrastructure once had are and continuing to erode. Trains and pedestrian traffic can judo move airline and car-only infrastructure because they’re able to play a different game. For example today many people say airlines are great because they get you from A-B in 2 hours. But priorities and preferences change, and speed to destination and the hassle involved such as TSA, pre-check, expensive airport lounges, soon to be increasingly high fees and taxes and more expensive fuel, baggage hassle, required rental cars, etc. are all things that will be avoided by rail revival. You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred. I don’t think transportation improvements will work in the current political climate in the US (don’t move my cheese!!) which saddens me because it sets us up for abrupt shocks to fragile and dependent infrastructure.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized. You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out. > The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built. Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor. > The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more. Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them. > You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred. Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out. But that’s what I’m trying to tell you, I’m not comparing them because the comparison doesn’t make sense when both receive subsidies but passenger rail in the US receives little support. > Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor. But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable. > Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them. Less so than the airline industries though. But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too. Otherwise how do we have competition? > Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though. I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t, but it’s a chicken-egg problem. You’re describing current state and I’m interested in a better state.

ericmay 4y ago

> American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism. We subsidize all sorts of whimsical nostalgia. I don’t find that to be a compelling argument. > This is also true for trains. Not really because passenger rail in the US is so small as to be negligible. Of course I’d it were to expand to something like the capacity of airlines then yes we would have to evaluate. Hard to see how it’s not cheaper though especially when accounting for other infrastructure changes that are required (fewer cars and less government waste from needless highway construction, appropriate density). > Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century. > Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them. The problem here is you are comparing apples to oranges. The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized. The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built. > In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete. The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more. You are right that trains became obsolete in some ways, but those advantages that airline infrastructure once had are and continuing to erode. Trains and pedestrian traffic can judo move airline and car-only infrastructure because they’re able to play a different game. For example today many people say airlines are great because they get you from A-B in 2 hours. But priorities and preferences change, and speed to destination and the hassle involved such as TSA, pre-check, expensive airport lounges, soon to be increasingly high fees and taxes and more expensive fuel, baggage hassle, required rental cars, etc. are all things that will be avoided by rail revival. You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred. I don’t think transportation improvements will work in the current political climate in the US (don’t move my cheese!!) which saddens me because it sets us up for abrupt shocks to fragile and dependent infrastructure.

philwelch 4y ago
> The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized. You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out. > The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built. Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor. > The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more. Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them. > You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred. Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out. But that’s what I’m trying to tell you, I’m not comparing them because the comparison doesn’t make sense when both receive subsidies but passenger rail in the US receives little support. > Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor. But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable. > Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them. Less so than the airline industries though. But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too. Otherwise how do we have competition? > Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though. I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t, but it’s a chicken-egg problem. You’re describing current state and I’m interested in a better state.