Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
NARP's plan for expanded passenger rail service in the United States is an attempt to reinvent the 1950s.  From this Texan's point of view it is unrealistic.Passenger trains can be a good option for high density corridors if they are quick, economical, dependable, and frequent.  Only a tiny percentage of the population use the long distance trains, although NARP does not seem to get it.  It spends a lot of time arguing for a national system.    The future for rail passenger service is in the country's high density corridors.  The Texas Triangle, which includes Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston and San Antonio, as well as intermediate cities, is a good candidate for rapid passenger rail.  But it will not happen until the cost of driving or flying - time and money - makes both prohibitive and rail passenger service is competitive - cost, convenience, amenities, etc.  The highways and airways between the Texas Triangle's major cities and cities in west Texas or south Texas, as an example, are no where near a saturation point.  People will fly or drive between these cities for decades if not centuries to come.  Hoping for passenger rail service between them is unrealistic.When they are traveling for business, Texans want to jump on Southwest Airlines or one of the other carriers.  It is all about time, and time is money.  They are more than willing to put up with utilitarian accommodations.  When they are off for a vacation, most Texans load up the SUV or pick-up truck and drive.  If Amtrak discontinued the trains that serve Texas, most Texans would not even know that they were gone.  If NARP wants to see an increase in passenger rail service in the U.S., it should stop lobbying for a continuance of Amtrak as it stands.  Instead, it should lobby for a fuel pricing structure that reflects the true cost of gasoline and aviation fuel.  Americans don't tote the note for these fuels.  Oh, they pay the exploration, production, transportation, refinery, and marketing costs, as well as a return for the oil companies.  But they don't pay for the naval presence in the Middle East, or the damage to the environment from burning fossil fuels, or the incremental medical costs that are driven by foul air, or at least they don't pay for these at the pump.  If these factors were factored into the cost of fuel, gasoline would probably soar north of $5.00 a gallon.  Higher fuel costs would cause people to opt for more fuel efficient cars, better public transit, and rapid rail corridors.  Trains would shine where they are most advantageous, which is in high density corridors.Unfortunately, NARP seems locked in a time warp.  Instead of seeing the world through realistic lenses, they keep lobbying Amtrak and the Congress to reinstate the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Florida, which makes no sense whatsoever.
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