Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Amtrak reform council should be liquidated

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Okay, let me try this for you. As far as speed and slots go, it's irrelevent. The idea that, first, coal and unit trains must share the same track as high speed passenger is flawed. How many routes are there, say, between Chicago and LA? Let's say 4 to be conservative. Must each have a high speed passenger route on it? No. If there is a need for four trains they'll all be on the same route, while slow traffic could use alternate routes. But this also ignores something else: RRs currently do what you say cannot be done. BNSF just ran it's UPS test train at a near record time of about 59 hours. Yet, is there no slow traffic on the BNSF main? No locals, no drag freights? That's what we have sidings for! And anyway, I don't know what others have proposed, but you are right in this- dispatchin and operations would have to be centralized to make it work. Just like air traffic control, really. And also, airline don't operate all at the same speed either. Nor cars, nor trucks. So I disagree. Railroads CAN BE OPERATED as toll roads. There is no logical reason that they cannot. But if you have another, please give it to me. As far as the competitive factors that killed rail passenger travel, yes, they are one of the leading causes. And I find it hard to beleive the Empire Builder will ever be a major competition for Seattle-Chicago traffic again. But regulation, too, was a cheif factor in it and other train's demise. The problem is too much politics and too litle business sense. Now, as far as costs go, and as far as your analogy to the house with no mortgage, I understand your position but am unsure whether I can agree with it. If we were talking about a 'regular' business, like a factory, I'd say, yes, a subsidy would be unfair. (Unfortunately it happens all the time- reduced property taxes as incentives to build, but that's another story.) But as far as transportation goes, every other mode has it's infrastructure costs subsidized by government money. Operations? No, not usually. But infrastructure capital costs? Freeways, bridges, train stations, ariports, docks, etc.... all public, all government, with few exceptions. I guess what I'm saying is why should rail be treated the same way as all other modes? I'm not asking that rail receive an 'unfair subsidy' for political or social reasons. But if rail cannot be allowed to have government money for it's infrastructure, then to be intellectually honest, neither should airports, neither should roads. So I'm suggesting that if ALL MODES ARE TRETED EQUALLY, then Passenger Rail is competitive enough to sruvive and thrive, even in long corridors, but never again as the lead mode. Finally, I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong and that is an end to it. If you can logically prove your case, I will concede it. And thank you for your arguments- it's refreshing to talk to someone about this who deals in facts and not rhetoric. Too bad Congress can't do the same.
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