Budget cut: Train to Pinamar terminated

[sergio]

Adiós al tren a Pinamar: otro servicio que desaparece bajo el ajuste de Milei | Infocielo

El tren a Pinamar deja de circular por deterioro de vías y puentes. Como en los 90, el Estado abandona lo que no quiere sostener | Infocielo

infocielo.com

Went to make a booking; discovered that the train to Pinamar has been discontinued. Another budget cut. I remember when this sort of thing happened when Menem assumed power. Sad. Even the USA government subsidizes intercity passenger trains.

 

[carride]

That is disappointing.

At least they have made an agreement to keep the trains running from the Atlantic coast to Bariloche. With some details to maybe allow new third party operators. Important for freight and tourism.

Le extienden por 10 años al gobierno rionegrino la concesión del Tren Patagónico

La prórroga extiende un convenio inicial de 20 años, con posibilidad de una nueva renovación. Además, este nuevo acuerdo también contempla el ingreso de terceros operadores.

weekend-perfil-com.translate.goog

 

[Redpossum]

Adiós al tren a Pinamar: otro servicio que desaparece bajo el ajuste de Milei | Infocielo

El tren a Pinamar deja de circular por deterioro de vías y puentes. Como en los 90, el Estado abandona lo que no quiere sostener | Infocielo

infocielo.com

Went to make a booking; discovered that the train to Pinamar has been discontinued. Another budget cut. I remember when this sort of thing happened when Menem assumed power. Sad. Even the USA government subsidizes intercity passenger trains.

That is indeed very, very sad. Especially when the service was just restored in in 2021.

 

[on the brink]

It doesn't seem to make economic sense maintaining 106 kms of tracks and bridges for a train that runs twice a week.

Does anyone know how many passengers use it each week, and what is the maintenance cost?

 

[antipodean]

It doesn't seem to make economic sense maintaining 106 kms of tracks and bridges for a train that runs twice a week.

Does anyone know how many passengers use it each week, and what is the maintenance cost?

And how many of said passengers would be willing to pay full price to cover the full cost of operating that line twice a week? (or if they just expect others e.g. tax payers to foot the bill for their preference to ride a train rather than a bus).
At least Pinamar is still well connected by multiple daily buses that are likely more economical, convenient and faster.

In the real world, as cold as it may be, keeping services that cost money alive and running is not just the responsibility of government's, it is also the responsibility of the consumers who value them.

 

[Redpossum]

It doesn't seem to make economic sense maintaining 106 kms of tracks and bridges for a train that runs twice a week.

Does anyone know how many passengers use it each week, and what is the maintenance cost?

Where did you see the part about only twice a week?

If you look here, there are various and contradictory clues. First it says it runs more frequently in Summer. Then below that it says one trip per day. Below that it says only Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday.

Hard to figure out.

As far as number of passengers, it says at the top of that text that the service is used by "thousands of persons", which isn't exactly helpful.

Just as a parting note, I'd point out that rail, as a very general rule of thumb, is 16x more fuel efficient than trucks and buses.

And how many of said passengers would be willing to pay full price to cover the full cost of operating that line twice a week? (or if they just expect others e.g. tax payers to foot the bill for their preference to ride a train rather than a bus).
At least Pinamar is still well connected by multiple daily buses that are likely more economical, convenient and faster.

In the real world, as cold as it may be, keeping services that cost money alive and running is not just the responsibility of government's, it is also the responsibility of the consumers who value them.

Fares run anywhere from 17K to 28K pesos, according to the website at the link above, so it's not what I'd call heavily subsidized.

And I vehemently disagree that it's the responsibility of the passengers. Providing and maintaining public transportation is entirely the responsibility of government. Do I really need to list the many advantages?

 

[antipodean]

Fares run anywhere from 17K to 28K pesos, according to the website at the link above, so it's not what I'd call heavily subsidized.

And I vehemently disagree that it's the responsibility of the passengers. Providing and maintaining public transportation is entirely the responsibility of government. Do I really need to list the many advantages?

Ok let's do a math exercise...as keen to understand your logic that fares are not heavily subsidised:
Cost of staff to manage, operate and maintain the line (20 persons?): US$50.000 / month
Cost of maintenance parts/ energy/ equipment/ safety/ insurances/ overheads/ amortization: US$143.750 / month (at least - according to ChatGPT the average construction cost per KM of train track alone in Argentina is US$200.000 which has a useful life of 20 years... and on this line there is 345km to cover costs on)
Total cost (ballpark): US$293.750 / month +++
Total passengers per month (2022): 3.333
Total train cost per ticket = US$88 +++

Whereas a bus all the way to Buenos Aires will cost $25 per ticket with 10+ departures per day.

So as a taxpayer, why should I contribute up to $63+ more to you, just so that you can enjoy a train instead of a bus... what advantage does your train thrill ride bring to my life exactly versus you just taking the bus? If people (like more than a handful of train fans) actually wanted to take the train, then I suspect their overwhelming demand of them putting their money where their mouth is would lead to more than 2 train departures per week instead of 10 daily bus departures, especially if fares were extremely competitive there should have been "no excuse" if the train really was that beneficial, sentimental and/ or convenient to them to begin with.

The public transport link and all the advantages of connectivity is still there, even if it is not as "fun" as some passengers may prefer.

 

[Redpossum]

Ok let's do a math exercise...as keen to understand your logic that fares are not heavily subsidised:
Cost of staff to manage, operate and maintain the line (20 persons?): US$50.000 / month
Cost of maintenance parts/ energy/ equipment/ safety/ insurances/ overheads/ amortization: US$143.750 / month (at least - according to ChatGPT the average construction cost per KM of train track alone in Argentina is US$200.000 which has a useful life of 20 years... and on this line there is 345km to cover costs on)
Total cost (ballpark): US$293.750 / month +++
Total passengers per month (2022): 3.333
Total train cost per ticket = US$88 +++

Whereas a bus all the way to Buenos Aires will cost $25 per ticket with 10+ departures per day.

So as a taxpayer, why should I contribute up to $63+ more to you, just so that you can enjoy a train instead of a bus... what advantage does your train thrill ride bring to my life exactly versus you just taking the bus? If people (like more than a handful of train fans) actually wanted to take the train, then I suspect their overwhelming demand of them putting their money where their mouth is would lead to more than 2 train departures per week instead of 10 daily bus departures, especially if fares were extremely competitive there should have been "no excuse" if the train really was that beneficial, sentimental and/ or convenient to them to begin with.

The public transport link and all the advantages of connectivity is still there, even if it is not as "fun" as some passengers may prefer.

1) Greater fuel efficiency means less pollution.
2) Less congestion on the roads improves safety, and traffic flow, and reduces wear and tear (thus maintenance costs on the roads and bridges).
3) The track itself already existed, so construction costs are irrelevant.
4) The train provides connections to towns that are not on the highway.
5) The simple fact of maintaining a healthy rail system is always an advantage to any nation.
6) The rail link provides an alternative route of travel if something goes wrong on the highway, or the bus service suddenly goes belly up, or any one of a dozen other wildly unpredictable things happens, which is always a possibility in Argentina.

And beyond that I will repeat, a government has a responsibility to provide and maintain public transportation

 

[sergio]

It doesn't seem to make economic sense maintaining 106 kms of tracks and bridges for a train that runs twice a week.

Does anyone know how many passengers use it each week, and what is the maintenance cost?

Before Milei it ran daily. I have ridden it many times and it was always sold out.

 

[sergio]

Ok let's do a math exercise...as keen to understand your logic that fares are not heavily subsidised:
Cost of staff to manage, operate and maintain the line (20 persons?): US$50.000 / month
Cost of maintenance parts/ energy/ equipment/ safety/ insurances/ overheads/ amortization: US$143.750 / month (at least - according to ChatGPT the average construction cost per KM of train track alone in Argentina is US$200.000 which has a useful life of 20 years... and on this line there is 345km to cover costs on)
Total cost (ballpark): US$293.750 / month +++
Total passengers per month (2022): 3.333
Total train cost per ticket = US$88 +++

Whereas a bus all the way to Buenos Aires will cost $25 per ticket with 10+ departures per day.

So as a taxpayer, why should I contribute up to $63+ more to you, just so that you can enjoy a train instead of a bus... what advantage does your train thrill ride bring to my life exactly versus you just taking the bus? If people (like more than a handful of train fans) actually wanted to take the train, then I suspect their overwhelming demand of them putting their money where their mouth is would lead to more than 2 train departures per week instead of 10 daily bus departures, especially if fares were extremely competitive there should have been "no excuse" if the train really was that beneficial, sentimental and/ or convenient to them to begin with.

The public transport link and all the advantages of connectivity is still there, even if it is not as "fun" as some passengers may prefer.

Milei cut the service from daily to three times a week, then he eliminated it 100%. As for supporting a train that you don't use, do you propose eliminating state primary and secondary schools for people who don't have children?