by n2cbo
Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:56 am Unfortunately the conclusion I think we're all aware of is that passenger rail cannot be profitable in a traditional sense when air and autos are so heavily subsidized, directly or indirectly. Ergo a different metric is called for. I'm no fan of governments pouring money into services "just becuase", so there has to be some sort of metric, but traditional profitability goals have seen 40 years of a dysfunctional system chasing its tail. If we keep chasing this metric, we'll keep seeing a marginal long-distance network politically propping up the NEC with some half-decent state corridors thrown in. The same input will result in the same output.I wholly agree that the airlines are only profitable because of the subsidies that are given. If the airlines had to build their own airports and provide their own air traffic control (Kind of like what the railroads had to do), I believe they would be in much worse shape financially than Amtrak. Actually I believe (and this is only a "top of the head" calculation) If the railroads had been given the same kind of subsidies that were put into air traffic and roads back in the 1940s through now, we would still have had the traditional railroads providing PROFITABLE passenger AND freight service without the need for an Amtrak.
Shifting to some metric such as passenger-miles and discrete rides or even carbon mitigation units could go a long way to selling the concept to both parties. It could illustrate the way passenger trains help job growth and reduce paving expe1940'snditures as well as the green/sustainability improvements in a jurisdiction.
Now, I'm not saying that we should be subsidizing EVERY industry, just that we compare Apples with Apples and hold those that we subsidize to the same standards.
Dr. Mark Emanuele Ph.D. (Stands for Pile it Higher and Deeper 8^)...)
Consulting Engineer
Watergap Media Group
Consulting Engineer
Watergap Media Group