Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Herold
I had to make the experience though that the Northwest here is not able to do provide anything similar at all. Seattle has buses and (pretty soon) a light rail but cargo has the attention on the tracks. Passenger trains are seldom and to funny times. I know back East its different. But in order to achieve a switch from flights to trains, America would have to spend billions and billions of dollars! I don't know how one would finance such a massive project!
|
Currently, the Northeast Corridor is the only part of Amtrak's operations that is profitable. Especially on the four-track stretch between New Haven, CT and New York City, you'll see various trains every fifteen minutes, whether they are Amtrak Regional service, Amtrak Acela, or Metro North Commuter Rail. As it stands, this stretch of track carries nearly as many people every day as I-95, which parallels the route.
The reason why the Northeast Corridor is profitable is because we have a lot of people using the service, and since these [electrified] tracks are mostly for passenger only, they are in really good shape. This is in complete contrast to almost everything else that Amtrak operates.
Almost everywhere else, Amtrak was given horribly-maintained freight railroad tracks in the 1970s, and an annual budget that can barely cover operating costs. Without any additional funds, they can never hope to repair the 100+ year old infrastructure that sometimes it seems is held together with duct tape and prayers.
The only way out of this is to start investigating the best possibilities for profitable service (basically any trips between 50 and 500 miles), and then proactively start upgrading those routes, including track, signals, bridges, stations, etc., as well as concentrating on maximizing transfer hubs between existing modes of transit (airports, ferries, light rail, subway, etc).
Increasing grade separation is also a must; with a drastically reduced number of level crossings, higher speed can be attained, thus making it a more attractive choice.
As of right now, most of the states are all working on their own plans to bring new light rail and commuter rail service into their metropolis' areas, and this is a very good start. However, very little attention is being spent towards creating a national vision or goal. We need another Eisenhowen-type plan, with the focus on rebuilding America's once great passenger rail network as opposed to more highways.
And before someone starts complaining that this sounds like big government socialism, it kind of is. But the intent of government should never be to compete with business; as such any improvements should be made with the hope that one day the system would be profitable enough to denationalize/deregulate and let industry take over operations. It worked with
ConRail for freight rail, and it worked with British Rail in Britain, there's no reason if done right it won't work here, either.
(That is actually how I would propose a funding source for the projects; direct some ($3-5b) of the $33b spent annually on the Interstate Highway system into rail travel. The Interstate Highway System, as envisioned by Eisenhower as a dual purpose military/public transportation network is now done.
We should only be spending money on maintaining the system, as every highway widening project I've seen has only cost the taxpayers much over original estimates, snarled traffic for years during construction, and yet we still end up with traffic jams as bad as before. How many years are we going to continue this inane cycle before we realize that we aren't ever getting the results we want?
That, and I'm pretty sure that most cities now regret building Interstate Highways right through the downtown areas. They lost a lot of taxable (and very expensive) real estate in the process. Roads, highways, and parking lots now often account for 40% of urban areas. I'm sure city planners, as well as the local economy would prefer to see some of that land returned as more residential/commercial real estate.)