Quote:
And who is going to run this new high speed rail? Will it be government subsidized as yet ANOTHER money losing venture?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30410.html
Quote:
Vranich first substantiates his case that Amtrak has failed to produce a meaningful return on the $20 billion (!) in taxpayers' money it has absorbed since its creation in 1971. His catalog of horrors includes Amtrak's dismally low speeds; after $20 billion in "investment," shouldn't riders expect trip times faster than those of the Third World today or the United States in 1952? And how many passengers know that the FDA some years ago imposed a permanent injunction on Amtrak after repeated food safety problems involving Amtrak diners --a penalty never once levied on any airline? Did you know that, just as large fractions of public school teachers send their own kids to private schools, most Amtrak employees go by plane when they go on vacation--even though they get free rail passes?
More important than these colorful facts is Vranich's assembly of solid public policy findings and conclusions. He correctly cites the Congressional Budget Office analysis finding that the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is more than 100 times that of other modes of intercity travel--contrary to what pro-Amtrak propaganda typically claims.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6146
Quote:
The average taxpayer subsidy per Amtrak rider is $100, or 40 percent of the total per-passenger cost. Even this figure doesn't adequately express how hugely inefficient some long-distance routes are today. For example, the average subsidy to a New York-Los Angeles rider exceeds $1,000. The estimated round trip subsidy per passenger for a Denver-Chicago trip is $650. It would be cheaper for taxpayers to shut down routes like these and purchase discount round-trip airfare for all Amtrak riders.
Both are from 1997.
And who is going to run this new high speed rail? Will it be government subsidized as yet ANOTHER money losing venture?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30410.html
Quote:
Vranich first substantiates his case that Amtrak has failed to produce a meaningful return on the $20 billion (!) in taxpayers' money it has absorbed since its creation in 1971. His catalog of horrors includes Amtrak's dismally low speeds; after $20 billion in "investment," shouldn't riders expect trip times faster than those of the Third World today or the United States in 1952? And how many passengers know that the FDA some years ago imposed a permanent injunction on Amtrak after repeated food safety problems involving Amtrak diners --a penalty never once levied on any airline? Did you know that, just as large fractions of public school teachers send their own kids to private schools, most Amtrak employees go by plane when they go on vacation--even though they get free rail passes?
More important than these colorful facts is Vranich's assembly of solid public policy findings and conclusions. He correctly cites the Congressional Budget Office analysis finding that the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is more than 100 times that of other modes of intercity travel--contrary to what pro-Amtrak propaganda typically claims.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6146
Quote:
The average taxpayer subsidy per Amtrak rider is $100, or 40 percent of the total per-passenger cost. Even this figure doesn't adequately express how hugely inefficient some long-distance routes are today. For example, the average subsidy to a New York-Los Angeles rider exceeds $1,000. The estimated round trip subsidy per passenger for a Denver-Chicago trip is $650. It would be cheaper for taxpayers to shut down routes like these and purchase discount round-trip airfare for all Amtrak riders.
Both are from 1997.