 |
Re: Wow, without Amtrak in rural America, it sounds so bleak.....?
Author: i never said it has to be every where
Date: 05-10-2019 - 14:01
" they actually have most of those things in rural America ".
And they actually have Amtrak in many of these places or in near bye towns (near bye is relative in rural areas). Believe it or not but there are communities that don't have doctor offices or acceptable wi-fi.
I never said it has to exist in places like Alaska...please read. They use float planes their instead. But there are places where the cost can be kept down and it can increase the quality of life, and relatively cheaply.
"...most of Montana ain't got no service at all, and they seem to be doing just fine."
Would they prefer to have rail? yes. Would they have it if relatively affordable? yes. Not all communities (Alaska example given) are in the path of a line. Like it doesn't make sense to build the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" they can't build much passenger rail in Alaska as well. Gotta use common sense.
"But, for most of rural America, that is neither a realistic thing to expect given the costs and the benefits,"
See above, ie, need use common sense. I'm not saying run a line between every two rural towns...please. Just support the lines that exist, there cost is not out of line; add lines where there are comparable realities.
If subsidies are within reason there isn't a lot of harm in making rural living a little more palatable where at all possible.
And they actually have Amtrak in many of these places or in near bye towns (near bye is relative in rural areas). Believe it or not but there are communities that don't have doctor offices or acceptable wi-fi.
I never said it has to exist in places like Alaska...please read. They use float planes their instead. But there are places where the cost can be kept down and it can increase the quality of life, and relatively cheaply.
"...most of Montana ain't got no service at all, and they seem to be doing just fine."
Would they prefer to have rail? yes. Would they have it if relatively affordable? yes. Not all communities (Alaska example given) are in the path of a line. Like it doesn't make sense to build the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" they can't build much passenger rail in Alaska as well. Gotta use common sense.
"But, for most of rural America, that is neither a realistic thing to expect given the costs and the benefits,"
See above, ie, need use common sense. I'm not saying run a line between every two rural towns...please. Just support the lines that exist, there cost is not out of line; add lines where there are comparable realities.
If subsidies are within reason there isn't a lot of harm in making rural living a little more palatable where at all possible.
