Tickets for trains are on average twice as expensive as for flights
greenpeace.org
greenpeace.org
FWIW, in the USA I thought the rural Amtrak routes are money losers subsidized by the northeast regional passengers. They only continue to run because politicians want them to, so the prices don’t necessarily make business sense or translate to other countries’ systems.
I’m not arguing to privatize Amtrak, but I think any private company would try to adjust prices such that the last room sells out the day before departure. And I think that would go a long way towards making Amtrak less unprofitable.
But, fundamentally, it’s hard to see how these routes can compete with air travel when operating a train requires 4-5x more labor hours than a flight crew.
The railroad system in the US should have been bought out by the government a long time ago. We could have spent decades upgrading and expanding routes and things would have been great today. Instead, we are car/plane focused. This leads to huge amounts of pollution compared to what a modern electric train system would produce.
Well, go back to Econ 101. There’s an equilibrium point in every market where supply meets demand. My point is that prices are far, far below the equilibrium point. Amtrak should be raising prices until the quantity demanded just matches the quantity that can be supplied.
I just find it insane that Amtrak is simultaneously losing money on long distance routes and also unable to satisfy demand. Like, the solution to both these problems is trivial.
> We could have spent decades upgrading and expanding routes and things would have been great today.
Not if it was run like Amtrak is today, and there’s little reason to think that it wouldn’t be. Conrail lost money until it was privatized, too.
> This leads to huge amounts of pollution compared to what a modern electric train system would produce.
I’m very skeptical of this argument, except for routes like the Northeast corridor which are both short and heavily trafficked.
Here’s some homework (because you probably won’t believe me until you do it yourself): calculate the embedded CO2 in the steel and concrete needed to build a railroad between your favorite city pair. If you’re going with electric trains, you also need to add in the copper for the overhead lines. Then look up the CO2 emitted by a flight between the same.
Now calculate how many flights per day you need to pay back the embedded CO2, and remember that rails and OHV lines have finite lifetimes.
To get you started, each meter of rail has about 50kg of steel (and you need two rails per track).
Before you wave your hands and say “green steel”, remember that liquid bio fuels other than ethanol (and jets don’t run on ethanol) are generally carbon neutral too.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12330029/Network-Ra...
I kinda do see myself surprised.
Air travel is subsidized, airlines pay to use but do not pay for airports. Highways and gas are subsidized, drivers pay tolls, but drivers and car manufacturers don't have to directly pay for all road maintenance. Railways are subsidized, but nowhere near to the same extent.
The Federal government has subsidized Amtrak 30 Billion over the last 30 years. It's subsidized freight rail some, and Amtrak and other services can use those rails, but freight trains have priority. It's subsidized air and highway travel by 1.89 trillion, including around 1 trillion to build most of the airports you see today.
I think it is that the tracks are monopolized.
If you look at freight trains compared to trucking, trucking is less efficient, has higher fuel costs and is cheaper because of competition.