Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I have read carefully the material on the NARP web site.  I have downloaded most of the studies that NARP has posted on its web site, e.g. sleeping and dining car analysis, effects of rail on the environment, rail expenditures vs. those for highways and airlines, etc. for analysis.  Like most advocacy groups, NARP puts its spin on the studies, frequently leaves out important information, and ignores the other side of the argument. I have also outlined my views on passenger rail service to NARP and asked for clarification of their positions, e.g. funding of Amtrak, funding of their comprehensive passenger rail proposal, changes they would support, etc.  I have gotten an ambiguous answer or no response.   Long distance passenger trains are an out of date transport mode.  Only a tiny percentage of the traveling public uses them.  Moreover, not a single long distance Amtrak train covers its variable costs, which should be a basic requirement.  They drain resources that could be better spent on developing rapid rail corridors (110 mph), e.g. Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Little Rock, etc.  NARP's position on long distance trains sounds like an argument for the status quo.  They object to discontinuing the Sunset Limited, the Texas Eagle, etc.  Moreover, they want to reinstate the Sunset from New Orleans to Orlando.  Mercifully, Amtrak management has ignored them.  NARP argues that the money required to support long distance trains is a blip - my words - in the scheme of things.  It is about $400 million a year before interest and depreciation.  Over ten years it adds up to four billion dollars.  According to Amtrak, it costs approximately 22.5 million dollars a mile, excluding real estate acquisition, to build high speed rail, e.g. the French TGV.  However, rapid rail corridors, such as those in the Texas Triangle, as well as other parts of the country, could be built for considerably less, since for the most part they could use existing rights-of-way.  The biggest cost would be in upgrading the existing facilities, e.g. double tracking in places, better signal systems, improved stations, etc.  One study estimates that the open country cost in Texas to upgrade existing infrastructure would be roughly seven to ten million dollars a mile, excluding real estate acquisition.  Four billion dollars divided by the middle of the estimate gets you about 470 miles of rapid rail.  It would even get you about 175 miles of TGV rail.NARP has argued for better funding for corridor trains.  And I give them credit for doing so.  But they seem to cling to the long distance train in spite of the over whelming evidence that most people walked away from it more than 50 years ago.I joined NARP and TXARP because they can be advocates for better passenger rail service where it makes sense, which is in high density corridors.  To the extent that NARP and TXARP support the enhancement of existing corridors and the development of new ones, we are on the same page.  To the extent that they continue to beat the drum for the long distance passenger train, we are in disagreement.
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