The US doesn't subsidize rail enough.....
They should, it would make a helluva lot of sense especially in the Northeast. It lowers traffic and is a lot more comfortable and convenient than taking a flight.
Air travel only wins For long distance travel. Anything in the NE corridor is pretty short to mid range. If the tickets were cheaper more people would take these trains(which is why Amtrak would need higher subsidies and funding).
Its environmentally much friendlier and personally I find it much more comfortable. The benefits outweigh the costs. Lower traffic + Lower pollution + Lower airport congestion is worth the extra funding.
I do agree that it doesn't make sense for spread out cities but thats a function of the automobile culture. I prefer European cities that are more accessible by public transportation rather than vast spread out cities with huge tracts of suburbs. I'm sure most players on this forum agree since the logistics are simpler and cheaper in the first case.
They should, it would make a helluva lot of sense especially in the Northeast. It lowers traffic and is a lot more comfortable and convenient than taking a flight.
Air travel only wins For long distance travel. Anything in the NE corridor is pretty short to mid range. If the tickets were cheaper more people would take these trains(which is why Amtrak would need higher subsidies and funding).
Its environmentally much friendlier and personally I find it much more comfortable. The benefits outweigh the costs. Lower traffic + Lower pollution + Lower airport congestion is worth the extra funding.
I do agree that it doesn't make sense for spread out cities but thats a function of the automobile culture. I prefer European cities that are more accessible by public transportation rather than vast spread out cities with huge tracts of suburbs. I'm sure most players on this forum agree since the logistics are simpler and cheaper in the first case.