Report a Comment

By the way - I want to make sure you understand I am NOT anti-transit-subsidy. I am arguing that we should be choosing the right place to spend our money.

Trains are not a solution to every transit need in this country, and if you really believe they are then you are a fool. Isn't it possible that some of our existing, less-used Amtrak lines would be better served with buses? If you disagree, then do you favor building more long-distance lines until the country has a train in every podunk town?

The Chicago-San Antonio route had 251,000 riders last year. That is 680 passengers a day on average.

The New Jersey Turnpike, on the other hand, serves 200,000 cars per day between exit 11 and exit 14.

You really think that a few greyhound buses, that instead of running once a day could serve the demand of specific parts of that route better, would not be a better use of energy and resources? Those buses already exist, of course, and probably aren't full. Nor is the train, obviously.

My point is that we would do far better to spend money lowering the fares in places where there is a much higher demand for transit, providing a better disincentive against driving, than in providing heavily-subsidized, yet exquisite, transit options in little-used routes.

The same money that is spent subsidizing those 250,000 passengers a year out would probably get far more people per year into trains somewhere else.

by Jamie on Aug 6, 2010 7:56 am • link • report