Re:There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did ...
by Aloha on Thursday March 21, 2019 @04:15PM
(#19456782)
There is no good economic rationale for long distance trains. The only part of Amtrak that is actually profitable is the NEC, the rest of it generally loses money.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did ...
by landryraccoon on Thursday March 21, 2019 @04:59PM
(#19457255)
The federal highway system must be even worse then. It brings in zero revenue and costs way, way more than the trains.
Re:There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did ...
by takk309 on Thursday March 21, 2019 @05:32PM
(#19457561)
Don't forget the usage tax we all pay for the highways via the Federal fuel tax. But I suppose that is not directly considered revenue.
Re:There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did ...
by amanaplanacanal on Thursday March 21, 2019 @06:59PM
(#19458209)
Unfortunately that usage tax doesn't even begin to pay for maintenance and is subsidized from the general budget. Transportation funding is pretty bad in the US.
Re:There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did ...
by seppin on Thursday March 21, 2019 @10:17PM
(#19459130)
Exactly, how much does the EPA cost enforcing clean air and water standards?
Re:There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did ...
by ken on Thursday March 21, 2019 @04:31PM
(#19456969)
In other words, it doesn't enjoy the level of government subsidies that other forms of travel currently do?
Re:There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did ...
by Aloha on Thursday March 21, 2019 @05:33PM
(#19457576)
Yes, exactly.
The question I'd ask is, other than preserving the way of operating that amtrak has, is it worth the subsidy - I'd say yes, preserving the knowledge of how to operate LD trains is important, so is offering the rural communities it serves transportation, I'd like to expand rail service even.