NASA vs Amtrak?

[neroden]

When I said that passenger trains had never run at a profit in another forum, a very smart man dragged out profit-and-loss reports from prior to 1920, and yes, back then, many did make a profit. Not coincidentally, this was before the widespread adoption of motorcars, and when the majority of roads were still dirt -- big government road funding started around 1910 and ramped up from there.

(Some people try to say that there are profitable examples of passenger rail now in Japan or Hong Kong, but those are mostly not operating profits, but rather land development profits; this does work. And in the case of the urban Tokyo lines, there's really no road alternatives.)

It's possible that passenger trains could run at a profit if roads were not funded, or got much less money. But, roads are funded in the US, to the tune of $40 billion a year federally and far more at the state and local levels. You're not going to make a profit when your main competitor is massively subsidized.

For those who care about cost-effectiveness, it's worth noting that rail can compete with roads even with *much smaller subsidies* than roads. Rail is simply more cost-effective for moving large numbers of people.

(The cost-effectiveness advantages in freight service are even more ludicrously high, to the point where freight trains can make a profit *even though* their main competitor, the roads, are massively subsidized. It still is unsound policy to subsidize roads massively and not subsidize rail.)

 

[Paulus]

The Japanese profits are all from haulage, not from land development, and even a number of commuter lines are profitable.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

Roads aren't subsidized. That's something that always drives me crazy. They're the government's property. That's...not a subsidy, that's building and maintaining a common good. By that definition, police, the armed forces, and every other government operation are subsidized.

 

[FormerOBS]

If it serves as am alternative to rail transportation, then it's a competitor to rail transportation. If government money is used to keep it running, then it's subsidized. That's true no matter what "it" is. By your definition, Amtrak is also the government's property. So maybe the government ought to support the operation of this railroad that it owns.

Tom