It’s lengly (7 pages) but a rather interesting read from a different perspective. Seems fairly well-written.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14Train-t.html?_r=1
Great article despite starting out with a touch of niavete` about trains and railroading. The gist of it is that the US fell behind railroad/train technology by not getting involved with in when places like Japan and Europe but instead heaped our efforts into the Eisenhower Federal Highway plan (by the way, it was supposed to be supported by a Highway Trust Fund that apparently doesn’t exist anymore). So the concluding point is the questions include: are we too far behind to catch up? do we really have to or want to have a high speed rail system? what are the alternatives? what are the impacts on economies and environment? what is the cost effectiveness versus other forms of transportation?
Through his 7 pages I sense a certain amount of admiration and awe of what has been accomplished coupled with a wondering of why we didn’t get aboard early on and a hope that we will. The article shows me, for one, the usefullness, the public acceptance, and the positive economic and environmental impacts such a rail system can bring to our country.
Very interesting. His comments at the beginning concerning routes between LA and Sacramento made me think of how I would have to go from Salt Lake City to LA if I ordered my ticket on Amtrak’s website: I cannot go all the way by rail, but must change at Sacramento, take a bus to Stockton, a train to Bakersfield, and a bus to LA. If I wanted to travel by bus, I could take a bus directly to LA.
Johnny