> When you say "East Coast" you must mean the Boston-NYC-DC corridor.
> For anything else, it's just as bad.
That is essentially what I meant, sorry to group you in with that bunch.
> Rail could work in this country, it just requires a massive
> infrastructure investment and an even larger change in American
> mindsets.
>
In some areas this would be the case. In the Eastern US, with adequate
infrastructure it could work as well everywhere as in the
Boston-NYC-DC corridor. Ironically the very thing that opened up the
West to serious settlement would never be feasible due to the vast
distances. Seattle to Portland wouldn't be bad, neither would Seattle
to Spokane. But to go to Idaho, Southern or Eastern Oregon, or Montana
driving beats everything else due to the small towns and long
distances. Traveling by train down to California, unless it was a
bullet train with non-stop service and tunneled below all the
mountains would never work. Another place that could be a candidate is
Southern California. Otherwise air travel and road trips are the only
way to go.
Personally I would pull the funding on Amtrak and let what segments
are sustainable survive, then cancel the rest and export the surplus
trains.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 02 2008 - 02:10:10 EST