Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]They do have a clue that what money is available for speed should be spent on corridor type service to get the most benefit.[/quote]But, in order for this kind of rail system to be truly nationwide, these corridors must be somehow connected, and the existing Amtrak network should be a foundation for future corridor developments across the country.[quote]They also have created a situation where social services/SS/healthcare + defense + debt service have just about turfed out any spending on anything else. They can't even spend enough to maintain what's been built.[/quote]This is really a silly statements.  The silliest part of it is the implication that America cannot afford what other, less wealthy countries do afford.  The very fact that some politicians (and even some members of general public such as you are) think this way is shameful to America.  As for defense, passenger rail should be a critical element when it comes to defense.  Just remember how critical role the trains played in the Soviet Union during the Second World War, especially in evacuating the population from the western parts of the country.  Of course, the geographical location of the U.S. makes such a scenario unlikely.  But, hypothetically speaking, if, G-d forbid, coast guard fails to do its job, and a foreign army invades the United States from the east, and millions of people need to be evacuated westward as fast as possible.  How do you imagine evacuation of millions of people from large Northeastern cities?  Gridlocking the highways and airports?  That's where trains come into play.  In fact, in a scenario like this, not only Amtrak, but freight rail could prove helpful as well by letting people ride freight trains to safety.  Of course, such a scenario is unlikely.  But that's what defense truly means.  Holding the U.S. troops in Iraq, establishing a democracy there, and rebuilding Iraqi railroads is not an excuse for cutting transportation spendings in our country.  $1.3 (or even a desired $1.8) billion Amtrak receives per years is not even noticeable, comparing to [i]several billions a day[/i] spent on Iraq.  Therefore, no sane legislator in his/her right mind would even think about taking Bush's (or, potentially, McCain's) ambitions seriously.  [quote]They can't even spend enough to maintain what's been built.[/quote]What is it that's been built?  You mean, highways and airports?  Or the existing rail infrastructure?
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