4 ms·

> 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 mar

> 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.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable. You can't just build a rail station and expect anything to happen; you also have to build the railroad. And this is currently not a profitable investment in the United States. > But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too. We do subsidize rail. That's what Amtrak is. We've been subsidizing it for 50 years now. > > 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 If you don't even know what Acela is, you literally don't know the first thing about passenger rail in the United States. Thanks for conceding my entire argument.

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.

philwelch 4y ago
> But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable. You can't just build a rail station and expect anything to happen; you also have to build the railroad. And this is currently not a profitable investment in the United States. > But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too. We do subsidize rail. That's what Amtrak is. We've been subsidizing it for 50 years now. > > 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 If you don't even know what Acela is, you literally don't know the first thing about passenger rail in the United States. Thanks for conceding my entire argument.