Gallery: Northeast Corridor Receives $450 Million in Federal Funds to U...

© Konrad Roeder. Wiki commons.

LEAVE A COMMENT

or your inhabitat account below



3 Comments

  1. usttnet August 28, 2011 at 12:50 am

    If all of us ‘live in the moment’, not giving a care to what i left when we are gone, then I can agree with both lazyreader and neko231 point of view.

    I ask though, in the interest of the future, shouldn’t we start somewhere with the future?

    I guess if we could see some new advanced air travel which requires no fuel or can also ferry people from intra city locations.

    To me, we need more than just city to city rail, we need to advance the technology of travel for the united states and focus our efforts completely using US Mfg. / Technology and work force to build this new system of the future.

    But I dont believe it should be limited to Hub to Hub. I know this sounds really ideological but I’m dead serious and you might consider me to be a “conservative” and not fully agreeing with the policies of our party in Washington.

    Interested in getting serious discussion around the best possibly tecnoloies, people involved to back this pubicly.

  2. lazyreader August 25, 2011 at 8:58 am

    This idea makes no sense at all, yet it is widely believed by public officials and transportation planners. Then there is the report that Amtrak is spending $4.5 million for every second it is saving for the Acela between Trenton and New Brunswick, NJ ($450 million to save 1 minute and 40 seconds). That is 1 minute and 40 seconds for every Acela passenger, and there are about 3 million of those per year (though not all of them ride that stretch of track). Spending nearly half a billion to boost speeds only slightly more than normal. The highest rate of transit commuting are the “big six” transit regions (NY, SF, DC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia). Once you get out of those regions, transit accounts less and less for commuting patterns. Never mind the fact that alone, Chicago’s rail system is on the verge of collapse, so the city is considering a bus-rapid transit network to accommodate those passengers. This is an excellent idea, and the city should really go further especially replacing its decrepit elevated rail lines (which will cost billions and billions just to replace let alone get new trains and pay enormous sums to transit unions) with cheaper buses. In the Northeast intercity buses are making an huge comeback and their growth is far exceeding Amtrak, as are the number of passengers that are using it. The tickets are cheaper and is barely subsidized by the government. Interesting how in nearly every example, from New York to Salt Lake City, is of a transit agency that is struggling to build or maintain an expensive rail system. If they didn’t have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on trains, they would have more than enough money to operate their clean, safe, buses and wouldn’t have to raise fares and cut service. Rail transit requires years to construct and decades to amortize (which may or may not happen). With reports stating that 20 percent of transit agencies say they have not only cut service but delayed new construction due to revenue shortfalls.

  3. neko231 August 24, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    I cant image high speed being built in america or actually. I can see mexico and canada doing it, but not the us. They are just to conservative there (opposed to change). We should just give up on the us and focus on europe and asia instead