Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by klahm A few thoughts: I ride Amtrak often for biz trips in the NE corridor, it being so much more efficient and productive than flying or (shudder) driving. But these are 60-to-200 minute ventures. It would be just as useful elsewhere if (a) the time frame were the same and (b) it were readily possible to reach my street destination from the station, either by rental car or public transport. I used European railways similarly when on biz there during the '90s. I doubt that I'm alone at this. Rail makes a lot of sense when the density of major metro areas is high and the connecting infrastructure extensive. Otherwise, it's not very practical (even in Europe, with the possible exception of TGV). The "car culture" has ensured this. During the great blackout in '03, I rode Amtrak CHI-ALB, revisiting the stations on the Water Level Route that I passed on the Empire State Express during my youth. Seeing the weed-overrun and dilapidated was a real eye-opener. Though the Empire Corridor seemingly has the metro density, it appears to lack the connective infrastructure that it had in the days of the Great Steel Fleet. Hence, JetBlue thrives. I frequently commute to downtown Chicago on Metrarail, passing Amtrak's service facilities. Most of that rolling stock goes to smaller, faraway places that I would never travel to by rail. Places I need to go, e.g., Cleveland, it doesn't, at least not at any biz-friendly hour, nor at any useful speed. The political necessity of serving "everywhere" collides with the economic reality of limited demand for long-distance services through comparatively lightly-populated regions. Congress has denied this paradox for 34 years. That's why Amtrak is in its current state. If the Shrub's budget proposal can get Congress to think "outside the box" (doubtful), perhaps some good will come of it. Many consider it heresy (especially politically so), but careful devolution of Amtrak from federal control to consortiums of states, with transitional block-grant funding, might well create a larger variety of useful short-haul routes that would provide better service at lower cost. California and Washington/Oregon have shown potential within an adaptation of the current Amtrak structure. Perhaps such changes won't save much money. But I would wager that the money spent would move more people. [/quote] While these are some good thoughts, such plans would have to way way long term, since most states don't have any extra money to provide additional train service. Like Oregon, Missouri and other states, they're having a hard time funding what little rail service they already have. Even if they wanted to expand service outside of Amtrak, the fed's won't cooperate. They feds provide 80-20 matching on road and aviation projects, but become skinflits when it comes to rail. That's why there aren't as many thriviing corridors that we should have. This group, the Midwest High-Speed Rail, which wants to modernize short-distance trains throughout ILL, WI, MO, MINN, IND, etc., says the Bush plan of killing Amtrak is shortsighted and will only hurt not help corridor development. http://www.midwesthsr.org/promote_National.htm They argue for an interconnected sytsem, which makes more sense than Bush's all-or-nothing "plan." To get to the point the writer proposes, the feds should significantly increase its investment in short-distance and LD trains. The short-distance ones are the trains requiring the biggest subsidies, in the billions, for infrastructure, equipment, etc. THe problem with the BUsh plan is it goes after the least-expensive part of Amtrak - its national trains. Bush's people blame those trains for all the problems when clearly the majority of subsidy goest to the corridors. The LD trains are comparatively cheap - only requiring $70-$300 million to run the nation's 18 LD trains. Like the highway system, a good and strong passenger rail system would consist of shorter runs, longer runs and higher speed runs. LD trains have a future in this as well as most of them have seen increases in patronage.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag