America doesn not any sort of Amtrak. What America needs are a few regional rail networks in high-traffic areas (DC to Boston, LA to San Diego, etc).

There is no possible justification for anyone taking a train accross the country, or even half of the country. If a private company wants to sell "rail cruises" as a luxury item, fine, but as a means of transportation, long-haul trains are useless and should not recieve even one penny of public money.

by urbaner on May 4, 2010 12:54 pm  

In November I had my first chance to wander around Boston since the Big Dig was finished, and that was exactly my impression of that park area: something about it still felt very disruptive. Where it forms a gap between the North End and the Quincy Market/Haymarket area is the worst - you can still almost envision where the streets and buildings would have been that were torn down for the highway in the first place.

by Eric O. on May 4, 2010 1:16 pm  

Congratulations to the forsighted members of the County Council who ignored anti-growth groups such as ACT and support economic development for the future in Montgomery County. The opening of the ICC starting late this year will connect the two science corridors in Montgomery County and result in the Biotech Triangle, the nation's premier biotechnology concentration in the new turboeconomic corridor of Montgomery County. With the National Cancer Institute, JHU, UMd, and other institutions as anchors for Science City and the future creation of Science City II in White Oak anchored by the FDA and LifeSci Village, there is clear momentum for economic development in Montgomery County that will keep the region and the nation at the forefront of science for the forseeable future.

by Cyrus on May 4, 2010 2:37 pm  

The biggest mistake of the greenway was creating it at all instead of using the space to connect North Station and South Station by rail to allow through trains and easier commuting to the North Shore communities from the Financial District near South Station.

by ah on May 4, 2010 3:11 pm  

@urbaner--

I think it's a mistake to think of the long distance trains as terminal-to-terminal routes. The Empire Builder, for example, is not just a train that goes from Chicago to Portland and Seattle--it has 999 possible city pairs! Further, I believe that a substantial fraction of travelers on the long distance trains--over half--do not travel the whole route, but typically about 600 miles. Because, in the West at least, the routes of the long distance trains came before there was much settlement, the settlement patterns followed the railroads, and so the extant long-distance rail routes do match up with existing travel demands.

From DC, the DC-Chicago and DC-Atlanta trips--which follow a leave in the afternoon, arrive the next morning pattern--can actually be "rational" travel choices even if you set aside the harder-to-quantify reasons that people choose the train (like scenery or comfort). And if you want to focus only on the easily quantifiably things like cost recovery, the long-distance trains do better than the short-distance corridor trains outside the NEC, which is a whole different service altogether.

by thm on May 4, 2010 4:22 pm  

I take Amtrak nearly every month, and go for about 20 hours to arrive at my destination. These trips are either really really great or really horrible. This winter was problematic. But I still prefer it to flying which leaves me with the worst feeling, and it's not only because I'm mildly anxious about flying. It's the whole horrible flying experience. The problem with Amtrak is that it doesn't own its rails except in the NE. The NE has good service compared to the rest of this country. That article from the Post is really old.

by Jazzy on May 4, 2010 5:33 pm  

Just to have a bit of fun with urbaner's comment:

There is no possible justification for anyone taking a car or truck accross the country, or even half of the country. If a person wants to go on a "road trip" for their own luxury, fine, but as a means of transportation, long-haul interstates are useless and should not recieve even one penny of public money.

:)

by Bossi on May 4, 2010 6:07 pm  

@ urbaner

Tell that to Amtrak's competition Greyhound.

I took Greyhound halfway across the country before and it was packed for the majority of the trip with the same people.

The problems with many parts of the country are not covered at all. Airports are spread out far apart in non urban areas, Amtrak does not run leaving Greyhound the only way besides driving.

by kk on May 4, 2010 10:31 pm  

Amtrak is by far the most rational travel choice for me and my two small children to visit my parents in Iowa. And it would be even more rational if the Chicago Flyer (Chicago to Iowa City at first, but eventually to Des Moines and Omaha) would get built, since Amtrak ended up running east-west on the BNSF line through the southern, less-populated part of the state, instead of on the Union Pacific line through the more-populated center of the state.

Besides, isn't everybody always screaming about the utter intolerableness of traveling on an airplane that has a small child on it? Just think of the favor I'm able to do for those people, thanks to Amtrak.

by Miriam on May 5, 2010 8:05 am  

Re: Boston

I love the Greenway. My favorite walk around Boston always ended in the North End, and when I was walking back to Haymarket I would sit and relax at the Greenway right there, which was always full of little kids frolicking and girls sunbathing in the summer. Maybe the season makes a difference, but I never thought that stretch was particularly desolate.

by R on May 5, 2010 8:29 am  

I tend to think of the Greenway as comparable to the National Mall... nice place to go for a tourist; not much interest for the residents and workers.

by Bossi on May 5, 2010 8:42 am  

National Mall... nice place to go for a tourist; not much interest for the residents and workers.

I didn't realize so many tourists brought their softball/kickball/ultimate teams to DC.

by ah on May 5, 2010 9:30 am  

"The biggest mistake of the greenway was creating it at all instead of using the space to connect North Station and South Station by rail to allow through trains and easier commuting to the North Shore communities from the Financial District near South Station. "

That sounds like something like having the DC Mall with surface rail.

Dave's "argument" against the greenway could have been used against the National Mall, as a psych-ops to fill people with despair -- oh how can we really have a park in a city -- for the sake of some overly influential political entity.

Perhaps that would be something akin to that selfish figure Daniel Carroll, who got George Washington to fire L'Enfant, because L'Enfant treated Carroll's obstruction with the respect that it deserved.

By firing L'Enfant, Washington established where his loyalties lay.

by Douglas Willinger on May 5, 2010 9:37 am  

Sorry White Flint, that new plan looks hideous. An 8 lane highway is an 8 lane highway, I odn't care how many parkways you put in. And I'm so tired of high rises getting a Smart Growth pass because they're "dense". How is that any different from Le Corbusier? High rises plus "nature". If you want people to move in from the suburbs then take some lessons from the suburbs - people like human-scale architecture, low amounts of traffic and a connection to nature. And sorry, this isn't the USSR, you can't force people to live in high rises in this country.

by Sarah on May 5, 2010 1:19 pm  

Sarah-

The I-93 CAT is a 10 lane highway, and it is underground.

If you really think that a road is simply a road, then those who promoted the WMATA subway were simply wasting money, and the railyards behind Union station represent the ideal urban railway configuration.

by Douglas Willinger on May 5, 2010 1:34 pm