I like rail service and wish we had better. But right now there’s this political albatross in the US that rail is a slow, inefficient, money pit. That argument has some weight when you look at those super long distance lines. But when you exclude them and focus on the northeast corridor where Amtrak has good quality of service, the argument falls apart.
To me, the long game for the US to have better rail service means focusing on delivering excellent service quality in the places where they can to get some wins. Then expand service as they can while maintaining quality.
Sprinkling “a little rail” broadly across the country costs a lot more money and delivers far lower quality service. We only do it because of the need to get the senators from rural states to support our federal rail program.
I'm actually surprised that those long distance ridership numbers are as high as they are relative to something like the Northeast Corridor. I assume that must include some moderately popular but much shorter segments.
I like rail service and wish we had better. But right now there’s this political albatross in the US that rail is a slow, inefficient, money pit. That argument has some weight when you look at those super long distance lines. But when you exclude them and focus on the northeast corridor where Amtrak has good quality of service, the argument falls apart.
To me, the long game for the US to have better rail service means focusing on delivering excellent service quality in the places where they can to get some wins. Then expand service as they can while maintaining quality.
Sprinkling “a little rail” broadly across the country costs a lot more money and delivers far lower quality service. We only do it because of the need to get the senators from rural states to support our federal rail program.