Sure trains are more fuel efficient, but they are also less flexible. They are useful in some contexts including for example the one you mention
"The LA/SD route recaptures 80% of its operating costs through the sale of passenger tickets because it has one of the highest occupancy rates of any train routes in the country."
Some transcontinental routes are running with only 20% occupancy. That won't happen until tracks and speeds are improved and increased respectively.
But even if you improve them to be the equivalent of the fastest trains in the US, you aren't going to get a huge push for transcontinental rail use. LA to SD, , NY to DC, NY to Boston, etc, and also commuting routes in a number of cities esp. New York. But the Dallas to Chicago route or the LA to Orlando route aren't cost effective. Closing those routes and those like them would save money for investment in routes where there really is demand, or the money could be used for other priorities.
Where in the post does it say "ridership has only increased during the last year"? Answer it doesn't.
Like with most rightie literature, it strongly implies it :
It doesn't even weakly or indirectly imply that ridership increased only last year. It doesn't hint at such an idea.
And BTW, it isn't "righty" its libertarian. I don't think I'd call someone who is anti-religious right, anti the war in Iraq, anti aggressive foreign policy in general, pro-choice, pro-legalization of drugs and prostitution, etc. - "Rightie"
and leaves out data that would counteract that impression
There are a million + pieces of data that could be thrown in to debates like these. Its hardly reasonable to expect someone with a different opinion of yours to sort through the data and select the ones that might be used to bolster your opinion. That's your job, not his.
It would be one thing if he made a big list of all the years when Amtrak traffic was down and put them together to create a false impression that the traffic had been declining. That would be deliberately creating a distorted picture, but he did nothing of the sort. He even went out of his way to be fair and state that Amtrak had record passenger levels. You would be unlikely to state such data if the facts where reversed and Amtrak traffic had been declineing for years.
And he omitted data that would strengthen his case, such as all the data here cato.org in particular the fact that Amtrak covers only .4% of passenger trips and .6% of passenger miles in the intercity passenger market.
That data is from 1996, and automobile and airline use has increased even more. I'd guess bus traffic has decreased but it was a small part to start with. |
