RE: [carfree_cities] Amtrak
- The same can be said about Via Rail here in Canada.
http://viarail.ca/trains/en_trai_tous.html It's a under funded and skeletal
system as well. As for the long distance trains they're links in a chain.
Also it's been 15 years this month since "The Canadian" stoped runing
between Montreal and Vancouver.
Till later, Andrew Dawson
>From: "John Bredin" <jbbredin@...>
>Subject: [carfree_cities] Amtrak
>Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:03:47 -0000
>I was surprised and disappointed at the anti-Amtrak stance expressed
>in Issues 36 and 37 of Carfree Times.
>First, I am puzzled that an advocate of completely-subsidized ransit
>describes Amtrak as "heavily-subsidized." The Federal subsidy to
>Amtrak is a mere $1.2 billion annually. That's one-point-two
>billion. By contrast:
>(a) the highway system receives over $30 billion each year from the
>(b) most European passenger rail systems receive a multiple of this
>amount of tax funding to serve nations only a fraction of the size
>of the US. For example, the UK government plans to invest the Euro
>equivalent of $74 billion over 10 years in the national railways
>(admittedly, freight as well as passenger). That's $7.4 billion a
>year, compared with $1.2 billion here.
>Of particular importance in light of your advocacy of fareless
>transit is the fact that Amtrak's farebox recovery is much higher
>than most (if not all) North American transit agencies. To state
>that in layman's terms for other readers, a greater percentage of
>Amtrak's budget comes from passengers in the form of fares, and a
>smaller percentage from taxpayers, than almost any American urban or
>commuter transit system.
- OK, one more time -- then I'm finished with this one.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, emccaughrin wrote:
> > Yes, but we were talking about rail service in vast, unpopulated
> > rural places.
> Um, no. The discussion is about rail service to cities in the west,
> not to some cattle ranch way out in the plains somewhere. There are
> large metropolitan areas in the west -- Denver, Salt Lake City, to
> name a few -- with populations large enough to justify rail service,
> and not so far apart that rail cannot be competitive.
Well, that's two ;^)
I have no problem with competitive rail service in the west. Indeed, I'm a fan and have ridden many of the long-haul trains in the region. I'd simply rather spend the subsidy money in more productive ways (I have a list).
Of course, if passenger service between those city pairs really is competitive, the railroads will be eager to provide it.
> Norway has 300k km^2 and a population of 4.5 million. If one were to
> go by a naive interpretation of its 15 persons/km^2 density, Norway
> has no business running passenger rail because at it isn't "dense"
> enough -- and yet it runs comprehensive, 140mph rail service that is
> far better than anything you will find in even the most heavily
> populated US metropolitan area.
Come on, now. Norway's rail system is heavily concentrated in the more-populated southern part of the country. To the extent that it does serve the northern portions (does it extend beyond Bodo?), let's remember that we're talking about a long, very narrow corridor.
To put things in perspective (again), the Norwegian national rail network totals about 2,500 miles of track -- just a little more than the route of our oft-cited, lonely American long-haul, the Empire Builder.
Not to let this end without further (perhaps naive) reference to population density, the state of Montana, alone, is larger than Norway and, at 2.39 persons per square kilometer, is about *one-sixth* as densely populated.
I just don't think the arguments for subsidizing rural passenger rail service in the US are persuasive, definitely not in a resource-constrained world. Certainly, there are many other subsidies on which I'd merrily pull the plug, also (autos, airlines, ranchers and loggers, warmongers and arms merchants...), but, if given the chance to divert the handout from Amtrak to a really useful urban project, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I suppose I should close by confessing that it would be fine with me if *all* long-distance travel was relatively difficult and (at least) moderately expensive. In a world of six-plus billion humans with an emerging permanent energy crunch, it is dangerous folly to encourage casual gallivanting around the globe.
P.O. Box 307
Corte Madera, CA