Belkira wrote:
It seems to be cheaper than driving or flying in Europe....
Only because in Europe they massively tax cars and gasoline and massively subsidize their train systems. So while the ticket cost right in front of you to go from point A to point B is less expensive, it's artificially made so. This is actually one of the more infuriating aspects of mass transit because the levels of deception involved with regard to cost is pretty ridiculous (and in some cases is so entrenched that people don't even realize they're participating in such deception).
Here's a
great example of this On the surface, this article is about suggesting ways to reduce costs, right? But the proposal doesn't actually do that:
Quote:
So what can be done? The Brookings report argues that Congress should arrange a deal with the states for these 15 longer money-losing Amtrak routes. If a route is losing money, then the states along its path should negotiate how best to provide financial support and fill the hole. (Under the Brookings plan, they'd be allowed to use federal transportation funds.) If the states can't or won't chip in, then the routes get pared back.
So they aren't changing the actual cost at all, just hiding it in a different budget line item. So instead of it being part of the Amtrak budget, it'll be spread out across a bunch of state transportation budgets. Um... But those can come out of federal transportation funds, so they're really just shuffling money around.
It's even worse though because the article starts off with the whole "short routes are making money, but long routes aren't" fact. But then in the next paragraph we're treated to this:
Quote:
As it happens, this sort of arrangement is already in place for Amtrak's 26 short-haul routes — Congress set it up back in 2008. States have already been supporting these shorter routes, and this fall, they'll have to increase their share. That's expected to reduce Amtrak's operating losses by a further $180 million. The Brookings report essentially argues that Congress should set up a similar deal for longer routes — a complicated but doable task.
So wait! The short routes aren't actually profitable either. They've just already had a big chunk of their costs shifted to the states (and maybe back to the fed via transportation funds as well?). So the solution proposed is to lie about the costs on long routes just like we're already lying about the costs for short routes. But at the end of the day, the same dollars end out being spent. We're just obfuscating it.
Fans of public transportation (and especially rail) use this form of deception all the time. And yeah, it's incredibly annoying. When you get into a car, the majority of the costs of your trip are the direct costs you pay to own and operate that car. Very little tax dollars are used. When you get on a train, only a percentage of the total cost of your trip is reflected in the ticket price. The rest is subsidized with taxes at multiple levels of our government, all quite obviously designed to intentionally conceal the true cost of that trip from you.
And even with all that, it's still often not cheaper than driving or flying. So go figure!
Edited, Nov 14th 2013 2:06pm by gbaji