posted
The sad fact of the matter is that while transporation infrastructure is a Constitutional duty (post roads), the simple fact is this is discretionary spending.
One of these days, our Chinese and OPEC bankers are going to call the notes. If you think the choices are tough now, just wait until then.
We have to get our overall fiscal house in order.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Mr. Pullman, above. 117 Billion over the next 25 yrs? Well, the SF to LA High Speed train will probably cost half of that, I'll bet. We are also spending money we don't have. I have to wonder what the $117 billion will buy, over the years, considering how fast inflation is going to set in.
I know such is pure fantasy, but I would like the HSR money go to just a few projects in major corridors. Then, with the balance, see if Amtrak can run double trains (2 in each direction.. one morning and one night) over some of the major LD routes. That would make it easier to take advantage of a USA Rail Pass with the possiblitiy of inexpensive lodging, overnight, at various points before re-boarding the train the next morning.
A St. Nick pipe dream....Merry Christmas!
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yukon11, you have it right. I would say set up a network based on totat transport demand. Then, make it two trains per route about 12 hours apart. For the higher density areas, make that four, about 6 hours apart. Add medium distance corridors with higher frequency to the mix.
Then, start building out a high speed network. Skipping dealing with the northeast, think the California HSR San Francisco and Sacramento to Los Angeles as a starting point. Then add Los Angeles to Phoenix and Tucson, LA to Las Vegas.
Think of the "Texas Triangle" as a second starting point, then go Houston to Baton Rouge and New Orleans, and Dallast to Oklahoma City and Kansas City.
Etc., etc.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe George has it right. You could still do one-a-day DEN-Reno, Minneapolis-Spokane, OKC or KC to ABQ, and San Antonio-Tucson. They would then function as both a tourist/vacation segment and a connector route between higher speed segments. I would not mind hopping from train to train to cross the country, or the LD's could run at 110mph on the same tracks as HSR.
Perhaps even run LD's with mostly sleepers on segments that duplicate HSR, then have them pick up coaches to connect HSR segments.
For those that believe the LD's are not worth maintaining due to lack of population density, consider the Empire Builder has the highest LD revenue while having the longest run of sparse population in the system.
We built a transcontinental railroad during an expensive civil war, and an auto industry during a depression. Both spurred growth and investment. It is debatable whether backing off on infrastructure improvements would be one of the better solutions for a fiscal crisis.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: I would say set up a network based on total transport demand.
There is the rub of the issue. There is lots of traffic demand studies available, but no one seems to be willing to look at them.
I recently proposed shifting 3/4 off the historic Santa Fe across Raton onto the Transcon, picking up Wichita and Amarillo in the process. People whined "Wahhh, no Raton."
As far as Mr TSR's post goes, the Empire Builder works because it's about the only significant service on that tier of States. How many air flights per day? How many Hounds? Amtrak probably could put on a second frequency and fill the train.
If we who like/want passenger railroad service are unwilling to look at where the passengers are travelling, then we deserve to be marginalized to non-existence.
In the meantime, there is still the matter of our Chinese bankers... sigh
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
