Time to Take Rail Plans National

"Here are some of the hard truths about the future of rail service in the United States:"

"The basic idea has merit: Trains use less energy per passenger mile than jet airplanes, especially on shorter trips. Even a major switch wouldn't make a huge dent in national oil use or cut total energy consumption. But an improved rail system could cut use of oil substantially: Electrically driven trains can run on no-oil coal and nuclear power."

"Sadly, most of Amtrak's current system doesn't help cut either energy or oil use much. Amtrak was conceived, in a political process, as a 'nationwide passenger railroad network.' As implemented, that resulted in a series of daily or less-than-daily long-haul trains, traveling at less-than-highway (or less than 1948 rail) speeds, each carrying, at best, the equivalent of maybe two 737s full of people."

"Where Amtrak does do well is in the Northeast corridor. Its frequent and (relatively) high-speed trains between New York and Washington command a significant and growing share of the market."

"What these facts tell me is that a rational national rail policy should concentrate on high-speed service in corridors linking major cities fewer than 400 miles apart."