• SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 days ago

    Serious question, why doesn’t Amtrak just build its own tracks so they don’t have to deal with the freight companies?

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      As long as certain people expect Amtrak to be profitable, and we’re not willing to invest in fixing a century of deferred maintenance, how can we possible dig out of this hole?

      My hope is in state supported routes, although they’re too limited won’t be fast or comprehensive. For example New Hampshire is not a place you’d find enough people to build profitable high speed rail. However they own control some existing track given up by freight rail. In particular I understand there’s a track to Manchester that connects to a track in use by MBTA commuter rail, and they’re considering rail service between Boston and the capital, including the airport. I don’t know if it will happen, but it would only be because of the state.

      A lot of investments from the infrastructure act were to study state supported routes and how to add them to the Amtrak network. This is a big deal, because rail is so much more useful when added to a network. We’re stuck at the beginning where each project is considered for only its own merits, and need to build to the point where they can also be considered for the overall network

    • socsa@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      There isn’t space on their “high speed” routes for proper high speed tracks. They could do it on other lines besides NE corridor but none of them are actually well traveled enough to warrant it. Other places which have good high speed rail either just seized land as needed (China) or have much more compact transportation routes between proper urban centers (Japan, France).