So do people realize that we aren't building new train tracks when we expand the amteak network, I have multiple times seen people say that we shouldn't expand the network because it would destroy protected lands, which would be a fair criticism but Amtrak doesn't build new tracks, we use existing tracks. We are not destroying protected lands, we are using land that has already been clear for a century
Also the alternative is more highways which destroy significantly more land for less capacity than railways. So the question is do you want to keep complaining about something that isn't happening and let the environment get damaged as a result or do you want to actually learn how things work
So, wait... Were the tracks not in use at all? Or was it like *only* commercial transport on those tracks? Either way, its good that amtrak will be able to use them again, but one would be much more frustrating
Almost all rail tracks in the US are either abandoned or only used for freight rail at the moment
Jesus, we really have no excuse for having such a lackluster rail system, do we?
- Freight rail is actually important and screwing with freight rail is at minimum a choice.
2. The 405 is the equivalent of an Acela train every 90 seconds so unless Amtrak wants to run a train every 90 seconds, I'm going to pick adding a third lane onto 99.
A single lane would be a train every 5 minutes.
/OTOH, @amtrak-official if you're taking notes and actually want to do this thing, let's do it. There's 2 trains a whole entire day to Chicago and I'd love it if that even went up to 2 an hour.
//The Shinkansen goes much faster than driving, but it's basically the equivalent of 2 3-lane freeways or I-95 through New Jersey. And New Jersey is full and the local trains next to the full freeways are standing room only.
Okay, so ignoring everything up with the first part of this, please just give me a source that the bit about the 405, one of the most congested highways in the US moving as many people as the Acela every 90 seconds
