gawlikfj wrote:No matter where they put a passenger station it won't do any good.
People will not leave their cars and the railroads won't make money on passengers.
Freight is the answer and the money maker.
Your statement may not be true. People will leave their cars when there is a vaiable alternative...commuting agencies across the country prove that everyday as does certain corridor and long distance trains.
As far as making money on passengers, it is a mixed bag. There are in this country several routes that do pay expenses and then some. But the truth is that handling people in travel situations has a poor return on investment: look at the airline bankruptcies as well as the number of "routes" Grayhound has pulled out of. And railroads do make money on freight because they are not in the passenger business (a two edged answer).
But because of environmental concerns (air pollution, land use with its return on investment), traffic congestion (too many autos, trucks, buses and not enough highway space nor space to build more), travel time, parking, etc., rail passenger service in commuter and short corridor situations must be considered for the public good. We don't ask an interstate highway to "make money" yet we pour billions of dollars into them each year (and the bus companies, like Grayhound are eliminating routes). Nor do we ask the air traffic control system and municipally operated airports to make money and still many billions more dollars go into them each year (and how many airlines have turned services over to smaller airlines or abandoned routes altogether; how many airlines are going in or are in bankruptcy?). If these services can be provided at taxpayer expense without profit motive, then why can't rail service be rationalized in the same manner?
