This animated map shows how radically a high-speed train system would improve travel

We go through the mountains more likely. Geez, how do you think the large Amtrak diesel trains go from Chicago to LA? or Seattle?

 

That is not a subsidy for air travel. It is used to guarantee air service to small market locations in the US which are not profitable for the airlines to serve.

 

How many mountains due bullet trains need to go through??

 

Are you sure?

You seem to be referencing market forces, but the market only works this way when the risk is restricted to individual entrepreneurs. Three different public subsidized transportation systems means the public bears the risk associated with the failure of the 2 inferior transit systems.

This inflates the cost for everyone, including the people that choose the superior mode of travel.

Not to mention the opportunity cost of the resources used to maintain the inferior systems.

For example, some local power grids are already struggling to maintain stable supplies. If that's the current state of things what will things look like as we continue to push for more things to plug into the nations energy grid?

What does it look like if you factor in the contemporaneous push to reduce the production of energy?

 

Because high-speed rail is not going to stop in every town or city. It will originate in Chicago, stop in Butte Montana, then stop in Bosie, Idaho, then stop in one other place, before its final destination in Seattle, for instance. High-speed rail will work primarily in the vast westward bound trains from Chicago, Dallas, KC, St. Louis, etc to its ultimate destinations of LA, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland. It may work in the Eastern corridor as well. But that's the point of high-speed rail.

Texas in one example of the project, it is a triangle of San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston. It will stop in Austin and Waco along the IH 35 route from San Antonio to Dallas, at least from the plans that I have seen. But there is a plethora of other towns such as New Braunfels, San Marcos, Georgetown, Hillsboro, and Waxahachie that won't have the stop if the project goes through.

 

One is zero duty tax on the airline fuels that airlines have to pay. And this website gives the amount, but not the specifics, of each subsidy per passenger in various US cities. Basically, the airports are subsidized with extremely generous property tax subsidies, fuel tax subsidies, the TSA providing security services now instead of each airline through their ticket fares, etc. Basically, the article states that everything in the air travel industry is subsidized in one form or another.

And then you have this website: https://liveandletsfly.com/10-ways-taxpayers-subsidize-u-s-airlines/

 

All agreed.

I will say that airlines have done an amazing job of maximizing income with reservation software that packs airplanes and pricing strategies that keep those planes packed.

If every seat got an extra foot of leg room, simply calculate how many rows of seats would be lost. That's a loss of a lot of fares that would have to be charged to the remaining passengers.

On the space issue, we are willing sardines, because it is cheaper. Think of how many seats would be lost by giving everyone an extra foot of leg room and/or wider seats. Fares would have to make up for that, as the plane would hold a lot fewer passengers.

There IS an option that does exactly that - fewer rows and more shoulder room for a higher price to make up for the loss of seats.

It's called business class.

 

Yes but those business class seat prices have skyrocketed unless you are a frequent flyer rewards member and have enough miles to upgrade for a small nominal fee.

then again, there is Econony plus class, and this is usually on international flights with certain airlines.

 

That’s a whole lot of make believe subsidies probably written by written by someone who is guilty of confirmation bias. TSA for example is a federal requirement. Airlines pay billions in income and property taxes each year.

 

Your explanation destroys any economic justification for high speed rail.

 

Economic justification is there for the purpose of high-speed rail. What you are trying to do is think a destroyer is like a battleship or vice versa.

High-speed rail is to get you over long distances as quickly as possible with as few stops as possible. If or when that happens, then the next step will be whether or not TSA should get involved, Rental cars companies and other businesses around the high-speed rail to service the passengers debarking and embarking on the train, etc.

 

Show us the true cost - benefit analysis. You can’t. They gave all these services at the airports. What is the economic justification for duplication?

 

I totally HATE the frequent flyer crap.

I'd point out that airlines age out the mileage you may collect, and the benefits mostly favor those who really do fly a LOT - which usually means flying for business reasons.

So, the exclusive waiting areas with food and drinks and other stuff they tout is rarely going to be obtained by those who fly every once in a while.

It's 90% hype.

 

LMAO..... Airport locations get 100's of millions from the government by the who are NOT PROFITABLE. lol
That's a subsidy alright. It's a communistic handout. Get over it.

And while we all pay around 20% tax on our gas to drive around, the airplanes get a free pass.

 

And they pay billions in taxes.

 

I consider it that I proved my case that they are subsidized.
No taxes on their core business: using fuel to transport people and goods
And when an airport isn't making a profit: no worries. The commies will help you out.

 

LOL, a cost-benefit analysis has already been done for California high-speed rail. There has been one for Texas as well showing the potential of millions of travelers for that mode of transportation in Texas. Whether you accept those costs are not is on you alone and no one else. Second, Whether it is trains, autos, or planes, there is no duplication here. They offer different services and different perspectives. What is happening is we live in a world where most people want instant gratification and instant results on pretty much everything. It takes more time, but you may have less stress than flying by air or car.

Taking IH 35 from DFW to San Antonio is about a 6-hour drive. ON IH 35, you have tons of idiot drivers, multiple accidents if it is rainy, and everyone pretty much wants to think they are the next NASCAR or Formula One, driver. With airfare, you have rude people around you, sick people around you, the occasional passenger not getting his way, and the stress of practically stripping in order to go through the TSA security checkpoints hoping you don't have a bottle or some other item that is on the forbidden list, all the while getting there anywhere from one to two hours before the flight is scheduled to depart.

The questions you need to ask yourself is what stress level you want and how quickly you want to get there for a reasonable price. For me, my perspective is that it is capitalism with another option for passengers. Let them choose which mode instead of being stuck with the "lesser of two evils" here.

 

The taxes collected far exceed any government spending. That would not be the case for bullet trains which would be a taxpayer money pit.

 

Those were inaccurate and generated dishonestly by politicians who would benefit from project approval. The irony is that it did just the opposite.

 

Everything, in the beginning, is a "money pit." When Michael Dell started his business out of his dorm room at the University of Texas, he never made any money for the first few years. He spent more than he made. And lucky for him, his parents supported him as well as obtained some of those academic benefits called student loans, which allowed him to do what he did in the beginning. .

 

Not really, but as I said, this is on you and no one else. Cost-benefit analysis is mostly apolitical no matter who does it.

But no matter what the cost-benefit analysis says, it is simply a lack of political willpower as the main reason why we don't have high-speed rail. Nothing else.

 

Tax collected on what? The plane ticket is subsidized because the fuel is taxfree. Sure, there are people working there. Sure there are people buying stuff in the stores at airports. That also works out on people who travel by trains. While a train is a far more efficiënt way transport people.

 

I dig the train system in Europe, but in the USA, not enough people would use it to justify the cost. In Florida, they built a high speed train system for the metropolitan areas and barely anybody uses it.

 

• Delta Air Lines annual income taxes for 2019 were $1.431B, a 17.68% increase from 2018.

 

It’s political suicide to advocate for the ridiculously expensive bullet trains in the US.