Where would we be without the Rail Passenger Service Act?

[PNWRMNM]

Schlimm,

You are correct there are some cases where the market does not work.  As a general proposition the Federal Government, with a limited role, was created to deal with the most important of these, National Defense.

The problem is that the politicians seem to be incapable of resisting the temptation to spend the people's money to benefit some identifiable subgroup.  As a result we have government run amok and interfearing in all mannner of markets that would work perfectly well except for government interfearance.  Transportation is one of a multitude of areas where that is true.  The problem is people think the way it is, after 150 years of meddling, is the was it has to be, or the only way it can be.

I see no reasons for the politicians to change their behavior short of "we the people" yelling loudly and continuously STOP, STOP, GET BACK TO THE THINGS ONLY YOU CAN DO.  Fortunately I see some reason to hope on this front due to the multiple Govt. budget crises, but I will not hold my breath waiting for a retreat to things that only the Government can realistically do.

Mac

[henry6]

It is all about national public attitude as shaped by the oil and highway lobby post WWII especially.  Other countries use passenger trains because the trains and the service is provided.  Large urban areas in the US use commuter trains because the service is provided.  Corridors use train in the US because service is provided.  Where there is no service there is no train, no riders, no support.  While its not a "field of dreams" propsoition, it is a field of dreams proposition when service, not running trains, when service is provided.  Until we learn that the oil, gas, and highway lobby is not all there is, that they choke us every which way we can be choked, we will never have real passenger rail service, service that is and not just running trains. 

[schlimm]

henry6

Large urban areas in the US use commuter trains because the service is provided.  Corridors use train in the US because service is provided.  Where there is no service there is no train, no riders, no support.

Perhaps the answer lies in those three sentences.  Perhaps the problem is continuing to try to have a national system paid for by the federal government, when a national long distance system is impractical and not competitive.  Cities, metro areas, states and regions are where passenger rail transport is thriving and growing.  That is where the creative ideas are - North Carolina, Virginia, Maine, Illinois - to name a few on the state level.  And that is where the money probably needs to come from.

[henry6]

I have disagreed entirely with everything the Halburton administration said and did except the concept of regional rail. There are regions where intercity travel is a must but because of various commuter agencies not working with each other, it doesn't happen and Amtrak is not empowered to address the situation in earnerst.  After that there are regions which have close relations with neighboring regions so that there is an opportunity for interconnections between and among regions.  I am in favor in long distance trains travel...but it should'nt neccessarily be between Chicago and San Franciso or Seattle but rather a train linking services of different regions.  And my favorite mantra: provide a service not just run a train or trains.  Amtrak suffers from too much government fed parochialisms by Congress and not by service planniing by transportation specialists.  Oh, the specialist are there: they are the frustrated ones.