[skyguy79]

Originally Posted by BlueHeronFan

The difference between the USA and other countries is that we have the interstate system. Very few would actually use the rail. It's a white elephant, just like AMTRAK.

With all due respect, I and many would hardly call Amtrak a white elephant. Speaking of my personal experience only and I don't travel as miuch by train as many do, but I currently do have over 42,400 rail miles with another 4,000+ scheduled for this year alone, And as I previously stated, I would not be able to travel cross country to visit my son if it were not for Amtrak.

If Amtrak were privitized I doubt that it would be any better, without subsidization and the passenger cost would rise from the already substantial to a level that could make it unsubstainable and drive a large portion of the ridership to air travel, which would quite possibly raise passenger cost up their as well as the already current crowding in airports becoming even more over crowded.

My wife and I have traveled from ALB to CHI then on every train that goes from CHI to and from the pacific coast as well as Texas. I've rarely seen a station waiting room that wasn't fairly crowded and trains that were not full. There are many that cannot even get train reservations because of demand, and many more passengers could be handled if they had the capacity, which they don't because of a lack of adequate federal support, much like the level that air travel gets.

Now someone mentioned that they don't like that NY is getting their (meaning FL) money. Again, with all due respect, it's not FL's or NY's money. It's the tax payers money. I agree that Orlando<>Tampa could use rail service, but with regular rail service as mentioned in the Times Union article and not necessary as HSR any more that it's really needed from NYC to upstate NY.

One final thought, if we one day get HSR everywhere its wanted, what's next? Demands for the development of matter transporters like were in sci-fi movies like in "Star Trek" or "The Fly"?