I think you are either misunderstanding my point, or are comparing apples to oranges.
The NEC has the population density, the money, and the political pull to support high train frequency. I am not suggesting 3x a day service between Tombstone and Yuma. What I am suggesting is a train network that would not require a person making a 1,000 mile trip make an additional 800 mile detour. The fact that people actually do this supports my position.
If the Sunset Limited is losing $192 per passenger, it is not because people are not using it. The last time I rode this train it was at about 85% occupancy. If a train can run near-full and still lose money, it is not the public's fault.
I believe AMTRAK was set up to fail, as a political sop to retain votes. The system would operate a year or two, no one would use it (except for the NEC, which is a sort of sacred cow). Then lack of ridership would be the reason to do away with the whole thing. The pols could say "Look, we tried". The fact that the public actually used it, such as it was, must have come as a shock.
AMTRAK was supposed to be a national system. It does not end at Boston and DC. Does anyone think the NEC would be abandoned if AMTRAK had failed? The fix was in to exempt that part from the start. We have a national system with one central hub. If long distance trains are losers, why not make a nationwide network of medium distance trains connecting a collection of smaller hubs?
Les
The NEC has the population density, the money, and the political pull to support high train frequency. I am not suggesting 3x a day service between Tombstone and Yuma. What I am suggesting is a train network that would not require a person making a 1,000 mile trip make an additional 800 mile detour. The fact that people actually do this supports my position.
If the Sunset Limited is losing $192 per passenger, it is not because people are not using it. The last time I rode this train it was at about 85% occupancy. If a train can run near-full and still lose money, it is not the public's fault.
I believe AMTRAK was set up to fail, as a political sop to retain votes. The system would operate a year or two, no one would use it (except for the NEC, which is a sort of sacred cow). Then lack of ridership would be the reason to do away with the whole thing. The pols could say "Look, we tried". The fact that the public actually used it, such as it was, must have come as a shock.
AMTRAK was supposed to be a national system. It does not end at Boston and DC. Does anyone think the NEC would be abandoned if AMTRAK had failed? The fix was in to exempt that part from the start. We have a national system with one central hub. If long distance trains are losers, why not make a nationwide network of medium distance trains connecting a collection of smaller hubs?
Les