Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (357012)	11/5/2007 2:02:33 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574262

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. If you route a Chicago train through St. Louis/Tulsa/Dallas, then its likely to be full the entire trip. The same would be true on the LA/Orlando trip if the train went Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Orlando. The problem is the track in the middle part of the country is the worst in the system and trains are forced to go at speeds less than 50 mph over long sections. To get better occupany on those trains, you need better tracks and rights of way over busy streets......that will lead to improved speeds and times. At least 30-45 travel minutes have been shaved off of the LA/SD route by improving the track.