Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Amtrak

Expand Messages
  • kplcards
    simply replacing the train with a bus is a better option. The cost would be very much less, although the service quality would admittedly be less Tell me I
    Message 1 of 33 , Jan 6, 2005
      "simply replacing the train with a bus is a better option. The cost would
      be very much less, although the service quality would admittedly be less"

      Tell me I am not hearing this . When the auto industry wiped out the tram
      lines the bus was there weapon of choice & no doubt they used the same
      argument . I don't mind travel by train but if forced to travel by bus I
      would rather not make the journey at all . There may well be problems with
      Amtrak but don't we play into the hands of the auto industry if we dont
      offer positive alternatives and if we wish to close down rail lines I
      imagine the auto industry can manage that with no help from us .

      We have a public transit system In Ireland which is truly hopeless, the
      answer is not to do away with it but to do what ever is necessary to fix it
      . Dosn't anyone else find it both depressing and familiar that in an auto
      aggressive world railroads can be run down to the point where they can be
      "simply replaced" with a bus .


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Doug Salzmann
      OK, one more time -- then I m finished with this one. ... Well, that s two ;^) I have no problem with competitive rail service in the west. Indeed, I m a fan
      Message 33 of 33 , Jan 7, 2005
        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.



        Doug Salzmann
        P.O. Box 307
        Corte Madera, CA
        94976-0307 USA

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.