Priligy online now, save money

OCT 10

Recent Comment

"Passenger trains face a couple of cialis available in india big problems. Freight trains get pr..."

View all Comments

Record Ridership Spurs Congress to Double Amtrak Funding

Joe Biden will soon be riding a safer, better train home to Wilmington.

Congress passed a $13 billion bill last week to generic levitra prices increase Amtrak’s funding. The legislation follows a record year of 28 million riders, a double-digit percentage increase over the previous year. The bill nearly doubles Amtrak’s yearly funding to $2.5 billion. It creates a program to encourage states to expand and www.adime.es repair their rail systems and requires the installation of positive train control technology, which automatically stops trains that run a stop signal.

It seems that, at least in this case, Congress is rx levitra paying attention to the www.investordaily.com.au growing demand for safe, reliable public transportation across the country.

via Wall Street Journal

Hits: 15058
Comments (13)Add Comment
0
...
written by Ken, October 10, 2008
So if ridership is up, why can't Amtrak cover its own expenses? Ridiculous. But I guess I can't complain, when the government is spending trillions on bailouts... this is just a drop in the bucket.
0
...
written by Ivan, October 11, 2008
it can't pay fast enough for a big expansion because it's still in it's infancy...
I mean, compare the amtrak to the JR system...
oh, and yes, infrastructure DOESN'T usually pay for itself anyway...
why don't the interstate highways pay for new highways?
0
...
written by EV, October 11, 2008
why don't the interstate highways pay for new highways?

You mean like, through the fuel taxes that would be levied against gasoline and diesel?
0
...
written by Eric, October 11, 2008
The JR system is a marvel of modern public transportation. That said, few countries in the world have the kind of expansive ground to best price for levitra cover that we do. Those that do certainly don't have reliable/complete public transport networks.
0
...
written by Bryan, October 11, 2008
I for one support funding large scale public transportation. I frequently travel between Portland and Seattle. 2 years ago, you could show up on viagra soft tabs travel day and buy a ticket. Now you have to book a week in advance. Plus it is a lot more enjoyable then driving.

Realistic fuel prices are ultimately what will drive the obtain cialis without prescription expansion of mass transit in America.
0
...
written by Dan, October 11, 2008
Actually, having traveled across China, a country roughly the same size as the US, they do have a significant cross-country transport network, with high quality track and good conventional trains across the entire country going to every major city, a high-speed (JR style) network connecting the major cities on the east coast, and a good long-haul bus system to serve smaller cities and towns. Sad to say, but even China has us beat, so we've got no excuse other than the lack of will.
0
Kalite Rehberi
written by iso 17025, October 11, 2008
So expensive..
0
...
written by P Duncan, October 12, 2008
Ken,

There has historically been far more government support for a car based transportation system. Amtrak has suffered from underfunding and online pharmacy cialis neglect. Our dysfunctional two party system has crippled, but not killed Amtrak.

In the long run, especially in the face of tramadol overnight saturday peak oil, public transportation is more cost effective than cars. It will, however, require capital expenditures in the short run. Though it could be wasted money if we spend one year, cut funding the next and never commit to a real strategy.

When it comes to something like transportation or energy, we need to http://supportmichaelocc.ca/levitra-for-women develop a strategy that will get us where we need to be 10 to 20 years from now... our political system is terrible at doing that.
0
...
written by Ken Roberts, October 12, 2008
To Duncan,

My last post didn't upload, so I'm going to try to keep this one short. Amtrak is next day viagra not more cost efficient than automobiles, due to it crossing many unpopulated areas. If it were more cost efficient, then the get propecia online pharmacy market would build the trains itself. Highway funds, as you know, come directly from drivers in the form of a gasoline tax.

The United States doesn't have anywhere near the population density of most developed countries, a fact that is neglected by many train advocates. A high population density is absolutely critical for a profitable train system.
0
Coast Starlight
written by TheGeek, October 12, 2008
If this gets the Coast Starlight running on time I'm all for it. Last time I took the train it was 3 hours late picking us up and almost 5 hours late in getting to seattle.
0
...
written by P Duncan, October 14, 2008
Ken,

I fully agree that universal train service in the U.S. would not be a wise use of resources, but we do have many regional areas that have densities quite compatible with trains.

When comparing economic value of different modes of transportation, don't forget to factor in the economic value of the time that becomes available for other uses when one does not have to drive.

Granted some people may actually attach a positive value to the pleasure of driving, but I think that would be 1 in 1000 people traveling on the 405 parking lot.
0
...
written by Ken Roberts, October 14, 2008
Duncan,

I support using trains in high-density areas, but only if the price of canadian levitra scam that service is paid by the buy cialis without prescription users. The ideal government role would be limited to streamlining the process of land acquisition and other details that are difficult for a free market to my canadian pharmacy online handle on its own. It should not be directly involved in picking winners and losers, for that will ultimately result in a misallocation of resources.

The goal of the environmental movement should always be on mechanisms to correct environmental problems, not specific programs picked by politicians. A good mechanism for handling pollution in general would be to either tax pollution directly, or to have a kyoto-style cap and trade. That would necessarily raise the cost of driving and lower the relative cost of many train systems.
0
...
written by nicster, October 14, 2008
Passenger trains face a couple of big problems. Freight trains get priority and viagra more drug uses tracks are often not sufficient for high-speed travel.

Imagine what would happen if we had never built the interstate system and, on the primarily 2-lane roadways we'd have as a result, gave trucks priority over passenger cars.

Building a decent high-speed passenger system (with passenger priority) in high-population corridors would put passenger trains on par with cars and result in vast improvements in efficiency and environmental impacts.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?




The Most Popular Articles