Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Dakguy201"] [quote user="dakotafred"] This often-made point is one Amtrak supporters discount at their peril, in my opinion. For myself, I am neither an altruist nor a lover of passenger trains in the abstract. I like passenger trains that I -- and not just other people -- can ride. And if I can't hook up to the system (albeit after a 100-mile drive), I don't really care if anybody else rides, either. I certainly wouldn't support their riding on my nickel; let them (and their states) bear the cost themselves. I think my two U.S. senators -- the same number that the rest of you folks have got -- feel the same way. [/quote] I think Fred presents the best argument for the continuation of the long distance trains -- the Great Compromise of 1787 otherwise known as the US Senate. While I appreciate the position of Sam and others that Amtrak ought to be trimmed to the shorter high density corridors, such a move robs Amtrak of a majority of the Senate's constituents receiving any Amtrak service.  In that case, the states that are still receiving service had better be prepared to step up to the plate to carry the full financial load, including capital expenditures.  Some states have accepted a good portion of that challenge, but many have not. Even the dreamers at the NARP understand this reality.  When they issued the Vision map, a 60 mile detour from the logical Kansas City/Twin Cities route was included so that my state would have some (token) service. [/quote] Whether the federal government would stop supporting Amtrak if it was reduced to serving high density corridors is not known.  It is one possible scenario.  Another scenario is that the states losing Amtrak service would agree to support Amtrak in exchange for compensating goodies. Actually, except for a national reservation system, I vote for regionalizing passenger rail inasmuch as it is really not a national system in the sense that the Interstate Highway System and the federal airways are national systems.  This would mean that the NEC states would pick-up whatever subsidies are required to hoist the NEC.   If I had my way, the NEC, as well as the other viable corridors, would stand on their own within five years or go the way of the stagecoach.  By the same token I would eliminate all transport subsidies, thereby requiring each mode to stand on it own and allowing the most efficient and effective mode to emerge.  This is not to say that I would not have the federal government use its resources to promote the development of transport infrastructure.  But only in those cases where there is a reasonable probability that the users will pay for it.
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