i hope not, most are to expensive to build,and run, and the taxpayers have to subsidized them forever, at a very high cost, its never ending
2007-05-22 15:41:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bighorn 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes, and it is happening right now. The federal government has a program to help with the capital costs of these projects too. In response to a previous post, the people planning these systems aren't idiots. They know that many American cities are very sprawled out, but systems can still thrive in these cities, it just requires a bit more work. Look at Chicago, probably the biggest city in the US that resembles a classic American city with a central business district, and a sprawling suburbia. Yet, there train service provided 80 million passenger trips in 2006, could you imagine Chicago without rail...it wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is now. Rail is coming back because cities like Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Denver are realizing that rail is not only a good alternative to the car, but it is necessary to keep traffic moving because these cities are running out of room to expand the lanes on their current freeway systems, so they need to use the space they have very carefully.
2007-05-23 23:03:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by cthomp99 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The only reason it flourished in the first place is that all the work was in one place (the city) and all the people lived in suburbs and there were mom&pop stores within walking distance of your house for supplies. Now that jobs have moved to the suburbs, and not everyone lives in the same suburb as their job, a centralized rail system won't work as well. Also, since now big box stores in few locations have replaced small stores everywhere, you really need your own car to shop for anything (if you have to wait for a train to take you home from the store, your ice cream would melt and your steaks would spoil). Until fuel prices force everyone to move to central locations where everything you need is near a train station, light rail will be of limited use, and building light rail that goes EVERYWHERE is way too expensive.
2007-05-23 12:22:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Electro-Fogey 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Phoenix (I think) all invested in a simple light rail system. As for Amtrak, the politics of their contracts with the freight lines and lack of government funding will prevent them from expanding, outside of corridors in the miodwest, northeat, or the west coast. If a democrat is elected to the White House in '08 there is a likelyhood rail travel will be a heavy investment. To those of you who say that rail is heavily subsidized, highways are subsidized at $50 billion from the federal government and 11-12 billion for aviation per year. Rail receives a mere 1 billion and change.
2007-05-23 11:24:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Your #1 fan 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't know; but Phoenix AZ has a light rail in the works. They are tearing up a main street to put in tracks now. It's been in the works before the gas crunch, however.
2007-05-22 22:39:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Tina Goody-Two-Shoes 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
They just put the rail runner in New Mexico. It is great and a lot cheaper than driving and it is quicker.
2007-05-22 23:07:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Timothy Y 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There has been ... NJ did lots in recent years. Las Vegas build a monorail not successful. But if you look at the regions you will see developemtns and advancements.
2007-05-23 01:32:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Michael M 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
i hope i love trains and it would be cheaper than driving
2007-05-22 22:41:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by cameron greene 5
·
1⤊
0⤋