First, I'd like to express my surprise at the fact that two of the other answers given so far came from PA, which is where I'm from. I don't mean anything by it, it's just interesting.
Trains are a much more efficient means of moving people and goods. The problem in the US is that we don't have the necessary population density to make a comprehensive rail system worthwhile. Also, if we tried to build a super-efficient and fast bullet train system, it would take us a century or more to get the easements necessary for the tracks. Every yahoo who lives within a quarter mile of the proposed route would use every legal ploy in the book to delay the construction.
The exception to the population density issue would be the Northeast Corridor (Basically, Wash. DC to Boston). That region of the country has half decent rail service now and it actually makes money. Where Amtrak loses it all, and more, are the lines that stretch for hundreds of miles of nothing in the West and South.
As for the comment about all those billions going to Amtrak for 30 years, compared to the highway system, it's a drop in the bucket.
Trains will be back, however. When the price of gas gets up to about $5 a gallon, or just generally becomes scarce, all of those poor exurbanites (I am one - I live about 25 miles away from where I work in Center City Philly), will be in one hell of a fix. Then they'll start using trains. It already strted to happen the last time gas screamed up last year. Ridership on mass transit rose nearly 10 percent.
And as people rush to get closer to the cities, where the bulk jobs are, the value of those big houses in the 'burbs will drop like a rock. I own one, but my plan is to move into the city before it happens.
Good Luck to you all.
Stop thinking like a broadminded Liberal for goodness sakes. Cars use much more in supplies to build and run-not too mention all the money made on roads ,gas,insurance,etc..........
Corporations matter -not well planned,thought out public transportation needs.Could trains help us solve public transportation problems?
As someone who cannot drive, but who has a free bus pass on medical grounds (epilepsy), I am not especially fond of the public transport system in Wales, more specifically Swansea. Therefore, a lot of money would have to be invested in cleaning the trains, increasing the frequency, and generally making the journey nicer, and safer before many people, myself included, would regularly use some routes.
Absolutely. There are places in this country (like my hometown in central PA) where the train station was built in the 1800's and is virtually unused except by trains carrying cargo. Hardly anyone uses trains for transportation, and while trains will not solve the transportation problems all by themselves, they would be a big step in the right direction.
We have been pumping billions into Amtrak for 30 years. The answer is NO. The heyday of passenger rail is over long distance wise. As for local systems systems like SEPTA here in Philly? It is a long established system ( 100 years). Travel %26amp; job patterns are now putting people %26amp; jobs to the ex-urbs( 25 miles +) from the City. The rise of the office park in stead of a location near a rail station makes your train idea a bad one money wise. While I use the System to commute daily, I doubt you could expand it to the point where oil dependence is not a issue. Also The trains need oil too. ( If not diesel, they need electricity. Supplied by guess what? Oil burning power plants).
NO,trains do not need gas.They use diesel or electric.
No comments:
Post a Comment