Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The on-time arrival percentage for the nation's commercial airlines for 2007 was approximately 74 per cent.  It was a relatively bad year, primarily because of weather delays in the New York area and high summer bookings.  Historically, the airlines have a better than 80 per cent on time record.  During the last quarter of 2007 they were on time nearly 79 per cent of the time.  This is considerably better than Amtrak's record, oustide of the NEC, especially the long distance trains.  Two weeks ago I flew from Austin to LAX.  I took the train - San Joaquin - to San Francisco.  Then I flew home to Austin. No delays! A month ago I flew to El Paso.  No delays!  I have flown on a commercial airliner approximately six times a year for the last 41 years.  Many of those flights were into and out of the New York Terminal area, including three last year.  Also, between 1999 and 2004 I made 18 trips between Australia and the U.S.  I lived there.  I have had just three delays (two due to weather and one due to mechanical problems) in 41 years.  None of them was more than two hours.  Equally impressive, my luggage was delayed only once.    Who says the air traffic control system is maxed out?  Not the FAA!  There are problems in New York terminal area that tend to cascade throughout the system, but they are fixable.  One of the short term fixes is to limit the number of departures and arrivals at Kennedy, which are being put into place, and Newark.  They are limited at LaGuardia.  Over the next decade the FAA will introduce a vastly improved air traffic control system.  It will be able to handle many more air craft movements than the current system.  Also, New York is enhancing the White Plains Airport in West Chester Country.  It will help reduce air traffic congestion in the New York terminal area, which in turn will have a beneficial impact on air traffic throughout the country.What is to prevent the governments that are responsible for the highways along the eastern seaboard from improving the capacity of I-95 or building new roadways?  Americans have shown consistently that they prefer their personal vehicles for relatively short trips or for family vacation trips.  It is the economics.  No form of public transport can compete with the automobile when it comes to hauling a family of four from Washington, D.C. to Florida or any other vacation spot in the U.S.  Moreover, when they get there they have the family buggy to get around as opposed to renting a vehicle, which must be factored into the transport bill.As I have said in previous postings, commercial airlines, bus companies, trucking lines, etc. tote their share of the note.  They make money for their shareholders.  Why should passenger rail service be any different?  To say that we should have passenger rail and not have the users pay for it because it is does not cover its costs anywhere else is an awful indictment.  It is akin to saying that we should sign on with the losers so that we can go down the financial tubes with them.  This nation was founded in large part because the founders did not want to emulate their European forefathers.  Long distance trains are not likely to ever pay for themselves.  But with a bit of tweaking, rapid rail in relative short, high density corridors could cover its operating costs and contribute to the fixed costs.  If the government stopped subsidizing other forms of transport, which is much lower on a passenger mile basis than the subsidies enjoyed by Amtrak, rapid rail could cover all of its costs.    High speed rail is very expensive.  Alex Kummant told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that its cost ranges from $20 to $25 million per mile in open country, and this estimate excludes real estate acquisition costs.  But rapid rail, i.e. average speeds of 80 to 100 mph, could be built for considerably less money.  It could be a better option for many of the nation's high density population corridors.  I have never heard a high speed rail enthusiast suggest realistically how it will be funded.  The U.S. federal debt is more than $9 trillion.  This is an average of $75,000 per household.  In addition, Americans are weighed down by high levels of personal credit, consumer credit, mortgage debt, state and local debt, and unfunded liabilities (Medicare, Social Security, military retirement liabilities, etc.).   According to the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, the total U.S. debt (current as well as implicit exposures) was approximately $440,000 per household in 2006.  Implicit exposures represent the present value of the unfunded liabilities.  So where is the money for high speed rail going to come from?
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