posted
Interesting. It is worth noting that he means that long distance trains are not suited to business travel, not they are not suited to all travel, which was the impression I got the first time reading it. (Apologies for the long-winded sentence and double negative!)
A somewhat cautious pro-rail attempt with a couple of good points. Could do better.
Geoff M.
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the plus side, the writer clearly supports trains, and makes good arguments in their favor. As an advisory column, he wisely cautions potential travelers not to expect miracles.
But on the negative side, he awkwardly jumps around from Amtrak to local transit systems as if they are similar beasts. And he fails to argue a case supporting actual improvement of Amtrak. Rather, he leaves Amtrak to the politcal winds.
posted
Not bad, considering some of the blundering idiocy concerning rail, both freight and passenger, we get from the media. He also made the very good point in the following:
"Trains are better outside the United States. Note to those of you traveling on business outside this country: The train is often the best option for getting around. Look into it. Europe's heavily subsidized train systems are faster — and cheaper — than renting a car, for example."
Hint to the politicians: "heavily subsidized" If you want good rail service you have to pay for it.
I know, it is no more a subsidy than a lot of the road spending, air traffic control, airports, rivers and harbors, etc., etc. But if that is the way the politicians want to think of it, then promote it as a good idea. After all, no one could call such things as the National Endowment for the Arts as anything but a subsidy, but it keeps going anyway because it has a small group of vociferous supporters, no matter that there is no apparent real benefit to anyone but the "artist" receiving the cash.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
