Post your thoughts/remarks below.
A somewhat cautious pro-rail attempt with a couple of good points. Could do better.
Geoff M.
[This message has been edited by Boyce (edited 03-07-2004).]
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.
"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.