![]() ![]() "Not to mention that only one older train is offered daily even if it were running at capacity every day, I'd be surprised if it could make a profit under present conditions" Which begs the question why then can't they charge enough not to require a taxpayer subsidy? If they can't raise the fare because they'd lose passengers then wha does that say about the real level of demand? Go, AMSINC! Įvery time I've been on the Adirondack, it's been quite full." With buffet all day, they will never go back to the street corners ever. It'd also solve the homeless problem too. There'd so much interest that people will be lining up all around the country. So many people are cruising already, and with the government running and subsidizing the new ships, people will be paying a fraction of what Carnival is charging. The public interest will be much higher than trains. I think we'll never have a recession in this country, ever. That'd create so many jobs at shipyards all around the country and just imagine how many people will work on the ships. In fact, I'll go call up some pork-loving Congressmen to have them set up AMSINC (AMerican Surface INternationl Corp) to run the ships immediately. ![]() The US government should run ships to carry people there too. We can't have all the planes grounded at Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, trapping passengers for a week again.Īnd BTW, I heard the Panama Canal is quite an adventure. Ocean going ships are a backup transportation that's as important as trains in the US, in case terrorists strike the planes again. I want the US government to run trans-Atlantic ships at a loss so that I can go to Europe by sea. Will our air quality have to go the way of Mexico City before we start investing in ways that make our air breathable? Somebody called me a radical environmentalist the other day when I made this point, but if that's the price to pay for caring about the air we breathe, I wear the label with pride!Ĭheers and love to you all! I'm enjoying this discussion tremendously!įorget about trains. One thing unmentioned is that trains are so much more ecological than everybody going everywhere by passenger car, by the simple virtue that they can hold a lot more people. In summary, I guess what frustrates me is the lack of vision. There's a reason the Montreal-Toronto train (a marginally shorter distance, but with a similar popular density in between) for example, has been able to succeed. Amazingly, despite this, passengers still come! Not to mention that only one older train is offered daily even if it were running at capacity every day, I'd be surprised if it could make a profit under present conditions. The fact that customs & immigration is not done at Central Station Montreal, combined with the older tracks and priority of freight trains lengthen the journey sadly by a good 3 hours. I believe the main reason it has not be profitable is, as Cassandra was alluding to, it has NOT BEEN GIVEN A CHANCE to be. Really that's quite an accomplishment if you consider how long the train takes between Montreal and destinations in New York State. Almost every time I've been on the Adirondack, it's been quite full. Ryan mentions that the "lightly used route" between Albany and Montreal should not be a priority. It's good to see somebody who sees things similarly to myself. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |