[Amtrak]

[wispfox]

Additional information in the comments for the second link I posted relating to Amtrak.

kightp pointed out that the study was done by a group which is known to be a right-wing think tank with a vested interest in proving that government is always bad and privatization is always good. She also pointed out that it's using data from 1990, before the (private) US airlines went to hell and (private) Greyhound launched its program of eliminating bus routes serving most of the rural US.

edit: and, apparently it's a libertarian think tank, not right-wing. (courtesy of crazypills in the comment linked to above)

Comments

[volta]

The analysis itself is nearly 9 years old, judging by the December 19, 1996 publication date. The 1990 data was probably the latest available when they were doing their analysis, so it does not make much sense to fault them for that. Of course, the situation may be a bit different now, so their conclusions may not be relevant today.

Personally, I think it would be a bad idea for the government to continue subsidizing a business that has been losing money for 35 years, but that is just me. If rail transit costs more to provide than the alternatives, the user cost should reflect that.

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

Rail transit also costs more because it isn't available in many areas, thus people are accustomed to cars, buses, taxis. And the routes get cut more, etc. Vicious cycle.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

The problem is that ALL transit options in the United States are subsidized. Often in fairly invisible, but significant, ways. So it's truly difficult to even say how much the alternatives cost to provide.

My suspicion is that rail travel is relatively cheap compared to automobile or airline travel. But, while it's probably possible to figure out just how much subsidy air travel gets, it's virtually impossible to figure out what the automobile subsidy is, so my suspicion remains no better than a suspicion.