 |
Re: OK, I was wrong about a few things, qnd we do agree on some things, but
Author: BOB2
Date: 08-06-2017 - 09:00
Yes, we do agree on a lot of things. And, I was harsh on your for your attempt to defend the status quo, I was even harder on Mook, and even had to take Erik's A away, for being "right" on his issues with the long distance program, and wrong on the solution.
It's a tough world out there. So, if those of us who support a decent, cost effective, effective, and useful "first world" rail passenger system, one that American travelers are able to use effectively for real travel needs, or that American taxpayers are willing to fund, or subsidize, then we must be willing to admit it when things are not working, and find ways to fix them.
That much needed introspection may well mean actually looking at passenger rail systems, around the world, that work better, figuring out why, and applying those lessons learned to solve some of the problems with our current system.
Denial of the problems, your defense of the current state of affairs, and refusing to look at other solutions, even from places like "Europe" does nothing whatsoever to solve the very real problems with the costly and nearly dysfunctional Amtrak long distance program. In the long run, the current status quo won't cut it with the public you are asking to support it.
We do need more resources, yes. But, if you are a taxpayer, who will be taking 5 hours to drive from LA to San Diego later today on I-5, you are not going to be impressed, that we have an Amtrak rail passenger service, that can barely provide every other day service to Tucson and El Paso......
I am fully aware that the long distance program "buys" a lot of Senate votes, which is why the Administration's proposals to cut everything are DOA. And, unfortunately, that cost will come out of a "fixed" budget, and we will not likely see, from this set of idiots in Congress, the increased spending we really do need for the short and mid distance corridor improvements that have been the source of all new rail passenger growth, because they meet real travel needs on congested corridors like the I-5.
Bumbling along from budget resolution to budget resolution, dribbling just enough funding every year, to operate a long distance rail program that is little more than a rolling museum, is not an effective transportation "program", it has no real "plan", and it is not an effective strategy which instills public confidence, growing ridership, and/or long term political support.
It's a tough world out there. So, if those of us who support a decent, cost effective, effective, and useful "first world" rail passenger system, one that American travelers are able to use effectively for real travel needs, or that American taxpayers are willing to fund, or subsidize, then we must be willing to admit it when things are not working, and find ways to fix them.
That much needed introspection may well mean actually looking at passenger rail systems, around the world, that work better, figuring out why, and applying those lessons learned to solve some of the problems with our current system.
Denial of the problems, your defense of the current state of affairs, and refusing to look at other solutions, even from places like "Europe" does nothing whatsoever to solve the very real problems with the costly and nearly dysfunctional Amtrak long distance program. In the long run, the current status quo won't cut it with the public you are asking to support it.
We do need more resources, yes. But, if you are a taxpayer, who will be taking 5 hours to drive from LA to San Diego later today on I-5, you are not going to be impressed, that we have an Amtrak rail passenger service, that can barely provide every other day service to Tucson and El Paso......
I am fully aware that the long distance program "buys" a lot of Senate votes, which is why the Administration's proposals to cut everything are DOA. And, unfortunately, that cost will come out of a "fixed" budget, and we will not likely see, from this set of idiots in Congress, the increased spending we really do need for the short and mid distance corridor improvements that have been the source of all new rail passenger growth, because they meet real travel needs on congested corridors like the I-5.
Bumbling along from budget resolution to budget resolution, dribbling just enough funding every year, to operate a long distance rail program that is little more than a rolling museum, is not an effective transportation "program", it has no real "plan", and it is not an effective strategy which instills public confidence, growing ridership, and/or long term political support.
