Joe
We subsidize the airline industry
I don't think this is a fair assessment. Maybe the smaller towns do, just to keep themselves competitive, because without a scheduled air service, nobody is going to locate any significant business there. So it's more of an act of self preservations rather than a subsidy.
The bonds the city and county gov'ts sell to float airport expansion is not considered a subsidy?!! That's a new one on me. In the last 10 years its true that some of the more popular airports require the airlines to help foot the bill but the bulk of the expansion costs are paid by the cities.
The host cities of big airports get significant revenue from airport taxes and fees.
Yes...the top 10 to 15 airports...the remaining cities must make up the operating shortfalls from their operating budgets.
Amtrak, the only national passenger rail service this country has, is desperately trying to go off subsidies by next year as mandated by Congress. Its a disgrace....one of the richest countries in the world and we can't afford the million dollars per year subsidy of its rail service.
It says something about the management of Amtrak. They can't make it without subsidies even with the current scaled down routes, limited to only the most profitable locations.
What it says is that they are masochistic. Amtrak inherited equipment and an infrastructure that would make the most seasoned European railroad professional weep. I first started riding Amtrak in the early 90's. It was not unusual to stop at least once on one out three 1 hour trips due to equipment problems. Next to nothing worked in the cars themselves including AC, reading lamps, etc. Ridership was at an all time low. Freight trains took precedence even though their schedule had more flexibility. Traffic signals along the routes were controlled by operators sometimes thousands of miles away so that a train may be stopped by a red light for an hour due to a signal malfunction and nothing else. The system was in chaos.
Slowly over the past decade, conditions have improved. Ridership has increased slowly. New equipment has been brought online. New track has been laid. New sources of revenue like carrying mail and/or perishables i.e. fruit have been added. State gov'ts have been asked to provide subsidies as well. Consequently the operating deficits have been reduced. As of four years ago only the NYC to DC route was profitable. There were others that were close....NYC to Boston, LA to SD, Seatac to PDX. The most amazing part has been the incredible increase in ridership on certain routes, masked by the overall system's slower growth. There have been 500-600 percent ridership increases on several important routes in the last 5 years. There are full trains now for the first time in 50 years probably. Property values and development have increased significantly around important stations. There is now a whole generation of American kids completely comfortable with train travel much like their European counterparts.
Yes, it does say something about Amtrak management but it may not be what you thought.
They have no plan for controlling their high cost structure, no plan for attracting new passengers. How do you know that additional subsidies will not end up in the fat paychecks of the unions, instead of investment in faster trains?
Even if they do not get expenses to the breakeven point, the savings in resource usage and air pollution is worth the subsidy IMO. And then there is the savings in the human stress factor that it seems no one ever gets around to factoring into the equation. The diffence in stress levels between driving or flying a two hour route and taking a train is nothing short of amazing. On the train you have room to move, working is not unpleasant, the whole atmosphere is more conducive to relaxing.
ted |
