NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Mixed feelings (Score:1)
I'd love to see Amtrak succeed on its own. But if that can't happen, I'm afraid that I would rather it be limited to its most popular routes, or have the States pick up most of the tab.
Reply to This
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:1)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:1)
No one -- literally -- wants to get into the private passenger train business. There is no viable business plan in it.
That said, yes, Amtrak management can be blamed for part of the situation they are in, but I don't think they could get buy without government help in any case, unless they significantly cut back opera
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:1)
Passenger trains have been unprofitable since passenger airlines became popular. That's why Amtrak is the only one that does it, and it has always been subsidized by the federal government.
Actually, passenger rail has *always* been unprofitable -- at least compared to freight rail. That's exactly why Nixon created Amtrak. All the freight carriers were going to stop passenger service. One reason why passenger rail service seems so much more expensive than air travel is that air travel is better subsidized
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:1)
Not to be pedantic, but the only thing I can compare "unprofitable" to is "profitable". :-) Passenger rail used to be profitable, back when it was the primary means of getting passengers across long distances of land. Freight was probably more profitable, and even back then, they combined freight and passenger cars, but still.
And passenger airlines have never been profitable either, this is true. Southwe