Reply to 4th DC Area Airport

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "4th DC Area Airport"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][b]I really wish we could take the train to more places.[/b] For instance, my family would like to go to NYC, Boston, Philly, or south to places like Charleston, New Orleans. Driving is a problem because parking is problematic in big cities. For my family though,[b] trains are usually 2-3x the price of plane tickets [/b]and take a lot longer.

We like IAD a lot. Direct flights to nearly everywhere we want to go! But IAD also doesn't have any low cost flights like DCA and BWI have. Every time I price out flights, DCA and BWI are cheaper.[/quote]

I was hoping to take the train recently and it was MORE expensive than flying. 
[/quote]
Trains are both more expansive and heavily subsidized. Perhaps it’s more expensive because it’s subsidized. No thanks. [/quote]
AIRPORTS ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

If airlines had to pay for the airport, the air traffic controllers and the security, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT.[/quote]
Let’s see, which entity can go bankrupt? (A) airline or (B) Amtrak?
[/quote]

Which entity can go bankrupt?  If airlines had to build the airports, pay for the air traffic controllers and the security they would all be bankrupt cause NONE of them would make a profit.
Trust me, if the airlines could make a profit with paying for any of them, congress would not foot the bill on any of items I mentioned.

And yes Amtrak is subsidized.

What really should happen is Airlines should embraced trains and the government should give them contracts to operate the trains.   Let the government pay for the infrastructure.  Let the airlines pay for the actual train and train maintenance and let them operate the day to day ticketing, etc. of trains.
Airlines should think of themselves as passenger transportation companies rather than just airlines.   BTW I'm surprised none of them ever considered buying a "greyhound" type company.

[/quote]
You seem to be having a meltdown over Amtrak which is really bizarre and fun at the same time.

It’s hilarious though how you have no clue about how airports operate. Here’s a tip: WMAA is not subsidized. WMAA OPEX is supported through landing fees and other operating revenues like commercial rents. WMAA CAPEX is funded by bonds that are repaid through passenger surcharges on tickets.

Amtrak on the other hand received $2 billion per year in Federal operating subsidies. That doesn’t even include capital projects which can be funded through direct appropriations. The average Amtrak fare receives a Federal subsidy of $124. [/quote]

We need a national rail service. It is the most sustainable way of traveling. Imagine how much worse the highways would be if there were no Amtrak on the east coast. Amtrak, like the Postal Service and the US Military, are government services. They don't need to turn a profit because we as taxpayers understand their societal cvalue, even if they lose money.[/quote]
The UK privatized their passenger rail service. SNCF breaks even and can even make a modest profit some years. The idea that *what we need* is plow more good money after bad at Amtrak in the form of subsidies is ridiculously naive and contrary to the European model that you so desperately crave.

BTW, loss of Amtrak service along the eastern corridor would only have a negligible impact on I-95 traffic because people that have decided to take the train already made the decision not to drive. As a result, the mode share would shift to either flights or the multitudes of bus options.

Your train fetish is childish and boring.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics