I like trains, but even ignoring the “We don’t have $500 billion to build a rail system that will need ongoing subsidies even if we thought the government should be running passenger rail service” argument, it is solving a problem we do not have.
Claiming that the proposal will connect 80% of Americans is ridiculous, unless you can bring your car along. Sure, if you take the train to Manhattan or Chicago, you can take a frequently occuring train/bus to other points in that city. But suburban coverage is much spottier. The USA is not Europe. Our businesses and people are not organized around downtowns.
Once done with the cherry picking in the northeast corridor, the drop-off is very fast. LA to Vegas to SF might get decent ridership. Chicago to where ... Cleveland? St. Louis? New Orleans? How many trips on the schedule? How many cars can you fill?
You live in Hoffman Estates, a suburb of Chicago. You want to go to St. Louis, to see the Rams game in person. Should be a pretty ideal trip, right? Okay. Well, first you have to face Chicago traffic when you drive from Hoffman Estates to Chicago. That should be good for almost 45 minutes, assuming traffic is light on Sunday morning. Now, you get to park your car somewhere in the vicinity of Union Station. That should run you $40 or more for the day. You have to get there a bit early, as TSA hangs out at Union Station. (”Nice doggie!”) say 30 an hour. It still isn’t as bad as the airports. Of course, so far you are farther from your destination than when you started. Pay your money, hop on board, and relax. And only two hours later, you are in downtown St.Louis, and the Stadium is within easy walking distance, and you don’t thave to pay for parking on the stadium end.
That’s a pretty ideal scenario, and still you saved HOW much time? About half an hour. And the cost of your trip was certainly greater, especially if you tend to take friends with you to the football game.
What’s more, long haul trains are subject to more delays than flights, and MANY more than hopping in your car when you feel like going.
IF freight were running on the same rails, we could talk, since the rails would serve multiple functions. But freight ain’t gonna ride those rails. Freight trains are for SLOW and HEAVY. 90%+ of the time those rails are gonna go unused. Planes fly in the air. Pretty cheap infrastructure once up there. We need roads anyway for the last mile, may as well let cars use them for the whole trip by connecting them all together! Oh ... we did that already.
Oh, and Americans like/need to take their stuff with them.
Trains ... a 19th century solution for 21st century transportation needs.
WADR, I don’t like the Luddism argument against trains. Paved roads have been around since long before the Akkadian Empire, but nobody cites a “fourth-millennium BC solution for twenty-first century transportation needs” et cetera. Same applies to water transport; many canals were replaced by railroads, but still many canals remain vital for freight transportation today, never mind river transportation (see the Mississippi’s current plight).
Hoffman Estates? with its country clubs? Hmm. Guess people are a little too good there to drive a short distance to one of the stations on Metra’s Milwaukee District West line to ride the train to Union Station. (They voted Democrat last time, AFAICS.)