Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="schlimm"] Apparently you decided to ignore point #1 and continue with the comparisons you have been speaking of for a long time.  It seems fairly clear that the whole point is to get services established and that will require higher start up costs and expenses for probably more than five years if the goal is to give it a chance to succeed.  If not, why even bother?   #2 is a point we generally agree on, namely, that routes longer than the short corridors are not viable as transportation services.  If some land cruise operator wants to run them or the equivalent of a Megabus operator, let them do so, no bid needed. [/quote] I am not ignoring any points.  Financial resources are always limited.  The key point is that if there is a viable demand for passenger rail service, the market will make the financial resources available.  If passenger rail is not a viable market proposition, the market will not support it. Most people posting to these forums apparently believe that if there is no self-sustaining market for passenger rail, the government should continue to offer it, which is the most likely outcome. I made no comparison with the subsidies for other modes of transport, other than to say if they continue to be subsidized, then passenger rail should be subsidized to the same but no greater extent.  Unfortunately, subsidies are not likely to go away. The most likely outcome is that Amtrak will continue to muddle along until the U.S. hits a financial wall. The NEC, as well as several other corridors, will be expanded.  And the long distance trains, with hopefully some improvements, will continue to run.
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