And if so how much do you believe it would cost ?
2007-03-19 17:19:53 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Something like the Eurorail? That would be awesome in my opinion. Take some of the congestion and pollution off of the highways, not to mention the reduction in auto accident deaths that would result. It would cost billions of course. How can anyone say it isn't worth it, especially those who have no problem with the TRILLIONS Bush is spending in the Middle East. I'd love nothing more than to get on a train system that went to Denver, and then L.A. so I could travel easily to see my relatives and friends. I wish, I wish, I wish.
2007-03-19 17:27:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's called Amtrak, and unfortunately, it's not profitable. I think people would rather fly. I can't imagine any negative perception around it, other than their timeliness. But that's only because they don't own their tracks and have to share with freight trains who have priority.
The Acela Express is a high-speed Amtrak bullet train (150 mph!) that has a route between Washington DC and Boston. Unfortunately, over the last six years, subsidies that make it break-even-at-cost have been drastically cut back. I think it's a viable alternative to flying, and would lessen the congestion of air travel around the eastern seaboard.
The best times I've ever had on Amtrak were on the California Zephyr. For about $300, you get a first-class sleeper car, your own room. Meals are included in the dining car. It's a very leisurely 2 1/2 day trip across the country from Chicago to California. You can always meet people in the lounge car, and traveling through the Rockies will really show you the beauty of America. It's not if you want to get across the country fast, but because you have extra time and want to relax. The fun will be in getting there, and I think it's awesome.
Skylor Williams
2007-03-20 00:37:52 · answer #2 · answered by skylor_williams 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
For those who said Amtrak already does that...you are wrong. You simply cannot efficiently get from one major city to another on Amtrak. For those who said planes are the way to go... you are wrong. The companies are all nearly bankrupt and flying is becoming very inefficient as well. The current trend in everybody trying to drive everywhere is ridiculous for about a million reasons. When it comes to transportation, the US is completely lame compared to many other countries. The only feasible solution to the ever growing transportation issues in the US would be to recondition and construct rail systems that are efficient.
2007-03-20 01:07:36 · answer #3 · answered by broham85 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure--we had one until after World War 2--along with light rail networks in most cities--even most medium-sized ones.
Cost would be minimal--the rail network for inter-city rail already exists (for freight)--and as in the period up to the 1950s, they could use that for passenger trains as well. Most likely enough support to get passenger lines over the humb as start ups-the real capital could be from the private markets.
But the chances of that are nil as long as the auto and oil industry control energy and transportation in the United States--which is why we don't have those things now.
2007-03-20 00:55:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree. I think every major city has a rail system, but its difficult to use for some instances. I would like to see some encouragement to increase rail or reduce airline and truck use. Rail is the most fuel efficient way to get from point a to b. What I like to see is a passenger rail from LA to Las Vegas. Just hook my car up on the train while I ride in the Cabin. I hate to drive up teher but some reason I like the convenience of a car in Vegas. Not to drive around, because most places are in walking distance, but my car is like a giant suitcase. I know a few who feel the same.
2007-03-20 00:36:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
no, what would be the point of it? Trains are really only used to transport coal, oil, salt, and other stuff that is to much of a burden for trucks or cargo planes. Even then, it would be almost pointless to go through every major city in the US.
2007-03-20 00:31:23 · answer #6 · answered by Chase 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Its called Am track. Its been around for years. the only problem with doing all major cites is the amount of tracks that it would take to span all major cities would interfere with existing roadways, as well as noise levels for those that like to sleep at night... I know I live near some tracks.
2007-03-20 00:33:01 · answer #7 · answered by Randall C 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you used the money that you use for war you could do it 3 times over
2007-03-20 00:26:30 · answer #8 · answered by Ferret 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They could do it again.... but it would take too long and cost more than flying. I think it would be convenient but as with many things here in the US.... a good idea that just wouldn't run very smoothly.
2007-03-20 00:28:39 · answer #9 · answered by Me 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Isn't that what Amtrak does?
I would love to see a more comprehensive system however. One of things I love about NY is the train system.
2007-03-20 00:26:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋