- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why more efficent service is needed. Cutting budgets to the bone once again is going to make good service less of a reality.
I guess you never heard of a express train. They are set-up for minimal transfers.
Right now if you live in the 'burbs the train is NOT a viable alternative I never argued that point.
But it IS the problem I have with the issue.
A train is only viable between cities with a viable subway system. Any other time a train is completly usless. And subways are only used in high desity cities. Ever where else people want to go in different directions. Very few people like mass tranist. Maybe we should bring back boats, you can take a few weeks to get to europe. I mean they used to use boats so they most be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The train died when the car and plane where invented get over it.
A car has nothing on a 250mph express train.
Same deal with timeframe you cannot just drive where you want whenever you want you will get stuck in rush hours and sit that car on the pavement idling.
With GPS and electric technologies cars and with a bit more speed even planes are obsolete.
That would require extensive (like a complete rebuild) upgrades to the rails that would cost a lot of money which neither the public nor anyone else will want to do. I agree our priorities are screwed up though.
The current rail network in america is a shambles! (and it is not owned by amtrak anyhow)
I say tear it down and build safer guage track. Electric and more modern saftey standards.
From what I understand running trains above 100 iles an hour leads to chewed up track and accidents with the way they are currently built. (rather were built)
