New Rail Study

[MountainMan]

Russ, i can't argue with or accept the $3000/seat cost, but anyone who travels other than main terminal cities knows the air fare to somewhere has no relation to the distance traveled, but with how many seats are filled (or not) on the plane, and a bunch of other seemingly nonsensical criteria. Fill a Wide-Body, and you can afford to fly cheaply per seat - even better if it's 3, 4, or more flights on the same route (and returns to another "popular" destination) - crew and equipment costs, a larger divisor on fuel costs, some freight $$$ to those busy terminals, etc. Try flying to somewhere off the business/vacation/ airline's hub list - WOW, it can run you OVER $1.00 per air mile (close to the cost you quoted). Trains can't gain by skipping stops, they don't have an established clientele to judge how many seats they need on what trip at what time (large variances), and you have to take your seats most of the route, full or not for the whole trip, costing fuel crew and equipment. Rail is different, and the last time it "worked", it had little competition (I won't even mention trolleys/interurbans - which might be part of the solution we're looking for), let alone government subsidized modes. The "high-Speed Rail" thing is "sexy" - but only possible, let alone realistic and viable in a few areas/situations. The "BUZZ" will get the $$$ for some folks by generating "studies" for consultants at outrageous costs, and they'll just tell the subscriber what he wants to hear. The size of the US and Canada, our suburban sprawl and vast rural and wilderness areas to cross between service centers, the competitive environment, the conditional desires of potential users, makes a near-term cost effective, un-subsidized passenger rail solution elusive, at best, and "High-Speed" rail, at distances where it can be more than a proof-of-concept or civic competitive pride showpiece, little more than expensive smoke and mirrors. And remember, the other modes aren't standing still, and those rubber tires are squealing already! Bob C.

The point I was making is that it is very popular for politicians, particularly for conservative politicians to make much of the Amtrak subsidy as being a drag on our economy and an example of government waste. In fact virtually every form of transportation in this country is subsidized by the government in one way or another, and Amtrak's is probably the smallest subsidy of the bunch. Folks may argue about the size of Amtrak's subsidy or not, but to somehow decry it as "socialism" is to miss the point that our entire transportation infrastructure is an example of pure socialism in action. Eliminate socialism and we go back to the 1700's or whenever the time before the Erie Canal and Cumberline Gap Road were first built.

I would have to disagree. We are, in fact, one of the only nations with multiple, competing airlines instead of the standard national airline. That isn't socialism by a long shot. AMTRAK is, in fact, grossly over-subsidized in order to maintain a service for a relatively small percentage of the commuting public, primarily the Eastern Corridor. I say let AMTRAK either meet it's own operating expenses or go under, just as thousands of other businesses and hundreds of old railroads have done. But if tax dollars are used, then I want full AMTRAK service in my town, and in the towns of every single other taxpayer as well.