TGV

Chalo said:

Carl Fogel said:

Are there large passenger lines between cities that do not require
huge government subsidies?

New York to Washington for sure, and a few other East and West Coast
routes too, I'm guessing. But no rail system anywhere sucks up the
kind of stupendous subsidies commanded by the US highway and airline
systems.

Chalo

Dear Chalo,

Any link to NYC x Washington? Or to any figures? I'm curious if things
have changed over the years.

My curiosity is piqued, since the absurd AmTrak cross-country line
runs south-east of Pueblo. Railway enthusiasts from Denver, Colorado
Springs, and Pueblo will drive up to 150 miles south-east to the
station, park their cars, and enjoy a well-subsidized ride from
nowhere to LA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Junta,_Colorado#Transportation

Ten years ago, the average subsidy for an AmTrak ticket was $100, with
a fantastic $1,000 subsidy for a ticket from NYC to LA. As for profit,
in 1997 the "Metro-liner, which serves the Northeast Corridor, already
covers 90 percent of its fully allocated costs already and could be
profitable in the absence of federal regulation and ownership."

http://www.cato.org/dailys/5-22-97.html

Possibly things have changed and inter-city passenger trains have
become profitable, but as far as I know, 80-ton passenger cars are a
very inefficient and unprofitable method of transporting passengers,
unless you can cram them full every day for very short rides.

But maybe someone knows of a link to a profitable long-distance
passenger train in the U.S.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:16:00 -0500, Gary Young <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Are there any highway systems that do not require huge government
subsidies?

Blame FDR for this whole highway funding thing. Or was it Eisenhower?
I know for sure _someone_ is responsible for this!

carlfogel said:

Chalo said:

Carl Fogel said:

Are there large passenger lines between cities that do not require
huge government subsidies?

New York to Washington for sure, and a few other East and West Coast
routes too, I'm guessing. But no rail system anywhere sucks up the
kind of stupendous subsidies commanded by the US highway and airline
systems.

Chalo

Dear Chalo,

Any link to NYC x Washington? Or to any figures? I'm curious if things
have changed over the years.

My curiosity is piqued, since the absurd AmTrak cross-country line
runs south-east of Pueblo. Railway enthusiasts from Denver, Colorado
Springs, and Pueblo will drive up to 150 miles south-east to the
station, park their cars, and enjoy a well-subsidized ride from
nowhere to LA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Junta,_Colorado#Transportation

Ten years ago, the average subsidy for an AmTrak ticket was $100, with
a fantastic $1,000 subsidy for a ticket from NYC to LA. As for profit,
in 1997 the "Metro-liner, which serves the Northeast Corridor, already
covers 90 percent of its fully allocated costs already and could be
profitable in the absence of federal regulation and ownership."

http://www.cato.org/dailys/5-22-97.html

Possibly things have changed and inter-city passenger trains have
become profitable, but as far as I know, 80-ton passenger cars are a
very inefficient and unprofitable method of transporting passengers,
unless you can cram them full every day for very short rides.

But maybe someone knows of a link to a profitable long-distance
passenger train in the U.S.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Is there anyone here disputing the fact that most railroad lines in this
country aren't making a profit? What I object to are the conclusions that
you seem to draw from that fact -- that railroads are uniquely dependent
on government largesse. Given the huge collective action problems involved
in any widespread transportation system, I doubt that any system could
possibly be made profitable without coercive force by the government, the
Cato Institute to the contrary notwithstanding. To their credit, the Cato
Institute doesn't dispute that the highway system receives huge subsidies
(though they sometimes understand that fact by treating "user fees" like
gasoline taxes as if they were the equivalent of market prices and thus not
reliant on the government's coercive authority). I think they're wrong if
they think any purely market-based system is possible. That's why I think
it's pertinent to revise your question and ask whether you're aware of any
highway system that doesn't rely on government subsidies.

Gary Young said:

carlfogel said:

Chalo said:

Carl Fogel wrote:
>
> Are there large passenger lines between cities that do not require
> huge government subsidies?

New York to Washington for sure, and a few other East and West Coast
routes too, I'm guessing. But no rail system anywhere sucks up the
kind of stupendous subsidies commanded by the US highway and airline
systems.

Chalo

Dear Chalo,

Any link to NYC x Washington? Or to any figures? I'm curious if things
have changed over the years.

My curiosity is piqued, since the absurd AmTrak cross-country line
runs south-east of Pueblo. Railway enthusiasts from Denver, Colorado
Springs, and Pueblo will drive up to 150 miles south-east to the
station, park their cars, and enjoy a well-subsidized ride from
nowhere to LA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Junta,_Colorado#Transportation

Ten years ago, the average subsidy for an AmTrak ticket was $100, with
a fantastic $1,000 subsidy for a ticket from NYC to LA. As for profit,
in 1997 the "Metro-liner, which serves the Northeast Corridor, already
covers 90 percent of its fully allocated costs already and could be
profitable in the absence of federal regulation and ownership."

http://www.cato.org/dailys/5-22-97.html

Possibly things have changed and inter-city passenger trains have
become profitable, but as far as I know, 80-ton passenger cars are a
very inefficient and unprofitable method of transporting passengers,
unless you can cram them full every day for very short rides.

But maybe someone knows of a link to a profitable long-distance
passenger train in the U.S.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Is there anyone here disputing the fact that most railroad lines in this
country aren't making a profit? What I object to are the conclusions that
you seem to draw from that fact -- that railroads are uniquely dependent
on government largesse. Given the huge collective action problems involved
in any widespread transportation system, I doubt that any system could
possibly be made profitable without coercive force by the government, the
Cato Institute to the contrary notwithstanding. To their credit, the Cato
Institute doesn't dispute that the highway system receives huge subsidies
(though they sometimes understand that fact by treating "user fees" like
gasoline taxes as if they were the equivalent of market prices and thus not
reliant on the government's coercive authority).

Correction: The Cato Institute "understates" that fact, not "understands."

Quoted message said:

I think they're wrong
if they think any purely market-based system is possible. That's why I
think it's pertinent to revise your question and ask whether you're
aware of any highway system that doesn't rely on government subsidies.

Quoted message said:

Gary Young said:

Are there any highway systems that do not require huge government
subsidies?

still me said:

Blame FDR for this whole highway funding thing. Or was it Eisenhower?
I know for sure _someone_ is responsible for this!

On the whole it's been a good thing. Not perfect but good.

Ike was in a cross country military convoy in the teens, when interurban
roads were dismal, and the memory died hard.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In article <[email hidden]>,

Road Man said:

I think a Japenese Shinkansen is a pretty darn good lesson, as well!

Ken

"mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt

I've always said that every American should ride a TGV at least once
to see how rail travel can (and should) be done.

mark

As wonderful as these systems are, they thrive in countries with
considerably more population density (and in the case of Japan, much
shorter distances) than the US has.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

As wonderful as these systems are, they thrive in countries with
considerably more population density (and in the case of Japan, much
shorter distances) than the US has.

These systems also exist in countries where the taxes imposed on
motorists more realistically reflect the cost to society of letting
people drive around in private motor vehicles. The cost of fuel and
autoroute tolls for an interurban journey in France is almost always
higher than the cost of a TGV ticket for the same journey, to say
nothing of the fact that not many cars can cruise at a sustained 300
km/hr (186 mph). As a result, a common pattern for solo travelers is to
take the train to whatever city they have business in, rent a car at the
train station for the duration of their stay, and take the train home.

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Road Man said:

I think a Japenese Shinkansen is a pretty darn good lesson, as well!

Ken

"mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
>

>
> Jobst Brandt
>
I've always said that every American should ride a TGV at least once
to see how rail travel can (and should) be done.

mark

As wonderful as these systems are, they thrive in countries with
considerably more population density (and in the case of Japan, much
shorter distances) than the US has.

Trains also thrive in Australia, low speed ones at that, so much so that
people put their cars on them rather than drive to Alice from the south.
And Australia is considerably less dense than the US.

Greg

--
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

In article <[email hidden]>,

mark said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

As wonderful as these systems are, they thrive in countries with
considerably more population density (and in the case of Japan, much
shorter distances) than the US has.

These systems also exist in countries where the taxes imposed on
motorists more realistically reflect the cost to society of letting
people drive around in private motor vehicles. The cost of fuel and
autoroute tolls for an interurban journey in France is almost always
higher than the cost of a TGV ticket for the same journey, to say
nothing of the fact that not many cars can cruise at a sustained 300
km/hr (186 mph). As a result, a common pattern for solo travelers is to
take the train to whatever city they have business in, rent a car at the
train station for the duration of their stay, and take the train home.

So in such a circumstance, one would expect that cheap-flight companies
a la Southwest would not get off the ground, right?

http://easyjet.com
http://ryanair.com

Hm...

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

G.T. said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Road Man said:

I think a Japenese Shinkansen is a pretty darn good lesson, as well!

Ken

"mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> [email hidden] wrote:
>>

>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>>
> I've always said that every American should ride a TGV at least once
> to see how rail travel can (and should) be done.
>
> mark

As wonderful as these systems are, they thrive in countries with
considerably more population density (and in the case of Japan, much
shorter distances) than the US has.

Trains also thrive in Australia, low speed ones at that, so much so that
people put their cars on them rather than drive to Alice from the south.
And Australia is considerably less dense than the US.

Greg

What routes? As I understand it, there's three or four population
centres in Oz that account for virtually all the people.

The rest is virtually people-free empty space.

Much like Canada in that respect, only smaller.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

mark said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

As wonderful as these systems are, they thrive in countries with
considerably more population density (and in the case of Japan, much
shorter distances) than the US has.

These systems also exist in countries where the taxes imposed on
motorists more realistically reflect the cost to society of letting
people drive around in private motor vehicles. The cost of fuel and
autoroute tolls for an interurban journey in France is almost always
higher than the cost of a TGV ticket for the same journey, to say
nothing of the fact that not many cars can cruise at a sustained 300
km/hr (186 mph). As a result, a common pattern for solo travelers is to
take the train to whatever city they have business in, rent a car at the
train station for the duration of their stay, and take the train home.

So in such a circumstance, one would expect that cheap-flight companies
a la Southwest would not get off the ground, right?

http://easyjet.com
http://ryanair.com

Hm...

Looking at Easyjet's route map, I see lots of international flights, but
not many flights within a particular country. Cheap flight companies in
Europe benefit from the fact that aviation fuel is not taxed as heavily
as auto fuel, so that's definitely a boost for the discount airlines. I
wonder how profitable Easyjet and Ryanair would be if they had to pay
value-added tax on all their aviation fuel. I also would be curious to
see how profitable Easyjet and Ryanair really are, and how many
passengers they carry compared to the various rail lines. AIUI, a big
chunk of Ryanair's and Easyjet's business is from one island with
sub-standard rail service (the UK) to various parts of the European
continent. I wonder what would happen to Ryanair and Easyjet if the UK's
rail system were as efficient as the French rail system.

mark

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:09:33 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

G.T. said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Road Man" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> I think a Japenese Shinkansen is a pretty darn good lesson, as well!
>
> Ken
>
> "mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>>

>>>
>>> Jobst Brandt
>>>
>> I've always said that every American should ride a TGV at least once
>> to see how rail travel can (and should) be done.
>>
>> mark

As wonderful as these systems are, they thrive in countries with
considerably more population density (and in the case of Japan, much
shorter distances) than the US has.

Trains also thrive in Australia, low speed ones at that, so much so that
people put their cars on them rather than drive to Alice from the south.
And Australia is considerably less dense than the US.

Greg

What routes? As I understand it, there's three or four population
centres in Oz that account for virtually all the people.

The rest is virtually people-free empty space.

Much like Canada in that respect, only smaller.

Dear Ryan,

Well, Australia requires slightly fewer railroad bridges than Canada
to cross its lakes and rivers.

🙂

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:09:33 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Trains also thrive in Australia, low speed ones at that, so much so that
people put their cars on them rather than drive to Alice from the south.
And Australia is considerably less dense than the US.

Greg

What routes? As I understand it, there's three or four population
centres in Oz that account for virtually all the people.

The rest is virtually people-free empty space.

Much like Canada in that respect, only smaller.

Dear Ryan,

Well, Australia requires slightly fewer railroad bridges than Canada
to cross its lakes and rivers.

🙂

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Heh. Now you're just funning. Well...I guess there's a few rivers that
needed crossing on the Prairies, but the big obstacle was of course the
Rockies.

I live in a bit of a rail town myself, and am within walking distance of
the original terminus of the transcontinental CPR line.

My hometown's moment in the sun goes like this:

November 1885: transcontinental main line completed. Port Moody is the
Pacific terminus.
May 1887: main line extended to Vancouver. Port Moody is relegated to
historical footnote.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Nor have I been detained yet.

You must not look middle-eastern. Friend of mine is batting a thousand on
being the one getting randomly searched extra carefully. As in bring out
the white gloves, carefully.

Jasper

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I for one have essentially stopped flying, from a former rate of a few
trips a year to a current rate of one trip every few years. I hope
and trust that I am part of a larger trend that will drive the corrupt
airline industry into bankruptcy while stimulating the market for more
humane, efficient long distance travel.

Quoted message said:

Nicely phrased! I can _drive_ to most points in USA for not much more time
and WAY less frustration - with no searches, inquiries, detention,
insults. . .

My several trips/year to Madison from Northern California would eat up an
awful lot more time if I had to drive. I've often thought it would be nice
to take the train, but unfortunately, I just don't have the time to spare.

One of the best things about China is that a lot of the places I would
want to fly to have overnight trains where I can get on board sometime
after dinner and get off sometime before lunch well rested with a
bunch of interesting new contacts and stories.

What's the point in flying from Beijing to Xi'An or Haikou to Hong
Kong? It costs more, you have the airport delays eating almost as
much time as you save, isn't as comfortable as a bed in soft sleeper
(or even hard sleeper in many cases) and you have to find a hotel room
when you are disoriented. No thank you.

Quoted message said:

It would also be tough to avoid flying to France. Oh sure, I know all about
the "Google Option." (Go towww.googlemaps.com, chose directions, input New
York, New York as the starting point, select Paris France for the end, and
note line #23). But that, too, would take a long time. A VERY long time.

I had that as line 24 actually.

If you don't mind my asking, what inspired you to do that particular
directions search?

Quoted message said:

Nor have I been detained yet. For that matter, the only airport where I've
ever been severely inconvenienced due to security/check-in is Las Vegas.
What a mess!

I have a piece of metal in my right leg and am in the habit of
carrying large amounts of luggage on one way international flights. I
_ALWAYS_ get searched.

-M