How will it make sense when you add even MORE costs, and cut ridership by a factor of 10?
Simply keep increasing the ticket price to cover whatever other costs you want to add in.
Ridership isn't going to drop one bit as long as the fare is still cheaper than the airlines.
So let's see...
You're "deployment" costs are $26.67???
And that Amtrak ticket of yours was $134???
That must mean you need to come up with another $107.33 in costs before we have to start worrying about losing money. LOL!
Willie,
So to cover the deployment costs - assuming we have 50% MORE RIDERS than all of Europe (a smaller, more interconnected, and much more populous continent), we still lose money.
Add $26.67 to each of the fares currently paid. That $709 train from LA to NO becomes a $736 ticket. Triple what I can do on the plane.
You never want to talk costs or expenditures because you cannot make your case. It falls apart. Trains are too expensive and too slow for long distance runs. Shorter distance and they lose to cars and buses.
They just don’t work.
Argue the numbers, Willie. Put together a financing package that will work. And tell me how many riders you figure will use the train. Put the numbers out there; I bet you won’t because you either cannot prove your case or you use numbers that are so unbelievable you blow your case.
What’s the cost Willie? How many will ride?