Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The United States arguably has the best highway and airway system in the world.  It needs to expand, upgrade, and maintain them properly.  This is what Americans have consistently demonstrated that they want.Passenger rail may be appropriate in relatively short corridors where the cost to build addition highway and airway capacity is prohibitive.  There are numerous city pairs in the U.S. where the distance is 200 to 300 miles.  In Texas most of the largest cities, with the exception of El Paso, are approximately 250 miles apart.      The DOT has identified the areas of the country where it believes transportation congestion is a major problem or will be in the next couple of decades.  DOT's conclusions are based on sound research.The most practical passenger rail option, where it is justified, is to upgrade existing facilities, as was the case with the NEC, for rapid rail.  The U.S. does not need 200 mph trains.  The NEC, by the way, hoists approximately 1,700 mixed trains operations a day.  I suspect few people along the NEC would describe the Acela as useless.  It is a major player on the NEC, which is one of three corridors that cover its operating expenses from ticket revenues.  It does so in part by snagging approximately half the commercial passengers traveling between New York and Washington.  The U.S. can afford to upgrade its highways and airways because that is what the people are willing to pay for.  And they are willing to pay for them because it is what they want and use. Most people in my part of the country have never been on a railway train.  How much the U.S. and state governments spend on highways, airways, railways, pipelines, rivers, harbors, etc. is knowable.  But one has to dig it out, as I have done and written about.  Transportation planners in the U.S. have reasonable estimates how much it costs to implement a transport alternative or up grade an existing one, e.g. $625 million (2007) to shave 15 minutes off the New York to Washington running time for the Acela; $7 billion to upgrade the NEC to TGV standards (2007); $3 billion to make commuter rail between Austin and San Antonio feasible (2008).Highlighting U.S. financial straits is hardly bemoaning.  It is a fact.  And knowledgeable people, including the former Comptroller of the Currency and Head of the GAO, are very worried about it.  It is going to have a major impact on what Americans can afford.  Economists and budget wonks have a good idea what needs to be done to fix the problem.  The challenge is getting the people to agree.    The U.S. could fund NARP's and the Passenger Rail Working Group's vision for a passenger rail network in the U.S.  It could build high speed rail between every significant metropolitan area in the country.  But given its other priorities, along with the aforesaid financial constraints, it could only do so with a hefty increase in taxes.  And most Americans will not support going there.
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