Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
NC Piedmont vs truck load of bricks
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<P mce_keep="true">I prefer taking a train to a bus. I prefer taking a rapid train, e.g. the Acela, to an airplane over distances of approximately 200 to 250 miles, i.e. New York to Washington. </P> <P>I also prefer using a transport system that people are willing to pay for and is not heavily dependent on government subsidies. This is why I believe that passenger rail should be required to cover at least its operating costs. </P> <P mce_keep="true">I support the implementation of incremental rapid rail where the cost of constructing additional highway and airway space is prohibitive. Most of the monies should come from the states that are served by the system, since none of the rapid rail segments or proposed high speed rail projects serve the nation as a whole. If Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc. want to build a rapid or high speed rail system, they should go for it. </P> <P mce_keep="true">I have serious reservations about true high speed rail. I don't think the results justify the costs. And I think that the nation has other priorities that need to be addressed before we begin tacking down a high speed rail system that will be used by relatively few people. </P> <P mce_keep="true">It is important to keep in mind that whilst Amtrak has more than 50 per cent of the commercial transport travelers between Washington and New York, the majority of people drive, usually because they are going from one suburb to another suburb, and taking the train is neither economical nor realistic.</P> <P>Interest in high speed rail is being rekindled in Texas. What the proponents are reluctant to talk about, however, is the true cost. Some of the proponents point to the recent California high speed funding plan as a desirable model. </P> <P>California voters authorized the issuance of $10 billion of state backed bonds for high speed rail. What the proponents did not tell the voters is that the cost to service the bonds will come to $34.9 billion before they are paid off. This works out to $1,165 for every man, woman, and child in the state. And this is just California's initial payment on the system. It does not include federal and private financing. </P>
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy