4 ms·

Southern senators need their pork. Logically the south is not the best place to put rail because they do not have the large population centers, but politically

• wallflower 17y ago
  "Amtrak operates corridor routes (covering distances under 400 miles) and long-distance routes (over 400 miles in length)...Virtually all of Amtrak's 44 or so routes lose money but the long-distance routes lose the most... In congressional testimony the DOT IG stated that long-distance trains accounted for only 15% of total inter-city ridership.." http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/crs/amtrak.pdf http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/crs/amtrak.pdf
• skolor 17y ago
  This statement confuses me. Looking at that map, it looks like most of the rail is being put in places that could most use it. There are a few confusing places (like the Buffalo-Cleveland being left out), but for the most part it seems to be linking the major city centers for those areas together. I do wonder about that little Florida circuit, especially why it isn't being connected to the rest of the huge Houston->All of the East coast circuit. I also wonder why Kentucky/Tennessee are left out.
• tptacek 17y ago
  The other reasons being that they provide a mostly terrible service that is impractical for routine use to an uninteresting market with an ineffective pricing scheme. But yeah, pork is bad too.
• jdrock 17y ago
  Maybe the population in the South will increase as a result?
  • tptacek 17y ago
    More likely, lots of people stuck in dead-end manufacturing jobs will have access to better careers in major/minor S/E metro areas, and a lot more locations in the S/E will become viable locations for business expansion, like new call centers, data centers, modern industrial, etc.
• hughprime 17y ago
  The South does have large population centers, it's just that they're rather far apart. The northeast, maybe extending into Chicago, is the one and only part of the US where a high-speed rail network would make sense, but it's silly to expect a government to do things just because they make sense.
  • tptacek 17y ago
    SF-Sacramento-LA-SD PHX-Tucson-ABQ-Vegas DFW-Austin-Houston-San Antonio Memphis-Little Rock-Jackson-Birmingham-Louisville-Atlanta There's really only one place on the map that doesn't make sense for rail, and that's the inner northwest (bounded by but not including Wichita, Sioux Falls, Spokane, and SLC). Everywhere else on the map there are hugely valuable cliques. The fully connected graph is a red herring. Until we properly invest in monorail technology (bona-fide electrified six-car monorail!), trains will never be the right way to get from NYC to LA. But there is a whole universe of people I could hire --- people I can name right now --- if STL and MSP were wired to Chicago metro via high-speed rail. There are also clients who I could do 2-3x more work at, because we could staff on-site.
    • jamesbritt 17y ago
      It pains me that I can't grab a decent train from Phoenix to Los Angeles or San Diego. ABQ would be real perk. Being able to join up events in those areas would be a boon to all involved.
    • masklinn 17y ago
      > The fully connected graph is a red herring. Until we properly invest in monorail technology Don't you mean maglev rather than monorail? Monorails aren't especially fast. And even with expensive maglev techs, NYC to LA by train will still be long and painful. I don't expect that kind of travels to be worth doing by train (rather than plane) until we manage transcontinental vacuum-pressurized maglev tunnels.
      • tptacek 17y ago
        No, I meant monorail. Once again? Monorail! Was I sent here by the devil? No, good sir. I'm on the level!