Andrew is still "stuck in the 60's", trying to prop up a long distance network, that while well used on some multi-city corridors, is slow, antiquated and serves few markets well. Richard wants to improve services in the many potential mid and short distance corridors, to emulate the success CA has shown, but has neither a realistic plan, nor the resources, it's a reasonable premise, with no reality behind it.

CA did a remarkable job over the last 40 years to build a "real" rail passenger transport system. During most of my career this was largely accomplished in spite of Amtrak's utter indifference and near complete lack of interest. A few other places like Illinois, Michigan, and Connecticut have made significant investments in short and mid distance corridors, and there have been performance improvements, and some ridership growth.

Let's face reality though. Even in an obvious "short distance" congested corridor like Milwaukee-Chicago, it has been impossible to expand to a full "all day" LOSSAN type schedule, or extend the train to Madison or Minneapolis, due to political infighting, lack of leadership, lack of investment, and now Nimby insanity (another symptom of a lack of effective leadership).

This is I want to go back to the "good old days", versus I want to meet future challenges, that makes some sense "in-theory". But, both of these competing "visions" suffer the same fatal flaws, they are both proposals without any real plans and/or resources to carry out either vision, and no identifiable political leadership that will be necessary to make either competing "vison" happen....