Reply #17: But if we are going to have viable passenger rail

[enlightenment]

we have to improve performance. Yes, it will take longer and people who use rail understand that - but viability means convincing people that they have a chance of getting to their destination (job/event/etc) on time, even if they have to allow more time for the trip from the outset.

I agree with you on the joy of rail travel. I love trains and if someone has all the time in the world it is a great way to see the country . . . but it will never expand and improve if it continues to be seen as a 'luxury' rather than a necessity.

We need rail connecting major cities, both in the east and in the west (where it is absolutely dire); but it needs to work. I remember putting my kid on the train in Denver for a trip to Grand Junction (western slope of the Rockies). It is less than 300 miles by road and takes a few hours to drive. It took 11 hours for Amtrak to make the trip; the scheduled length of the trip was 8 hours. It wasn't weather or rail conditions - it was simply administrative and logistical delays.

That length of time is unacceptable to people trying to get from point A to point B, rather than taking a leisure trip. They'll drive or they'll fly - and that's more potential revenue lost to the railroad.

Again, if we want viable rail travel, we have to radically improve the performance. That will take money and infrastructure and commitment on the part of the government, the states, and the people.

I hope we have the will to do it.