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?
Sure we do! The US government hate both rail and you personally
@amtrak-official possibly weird question here, but I'm curious about how this will work with rural crossings on previously disused or rarely used tracks. For example, my parents live off a rural farm loop in Texas that's only accessible via two railroad crossings less than a mile apart from one another. No one really maintains them (i think the county is supposed to but good luck getting that to happen) and neither have lights, guard rails, or any other kind of warning/safety features. This hasn't been a problem because the line is only ever used for boxcar storage and it's really, really obvious when those are moving, plus they do it slowly and only during the day.
But if trains are suddenly using this track, or any track similar to it (I'd wager there's dozens of tracks like this and at least hundreds of these kinds of crossings) that situation is going to get very dangerous, very quickly.
To add to this, i remember a similar issues from about 20 odd years back where a more heavily used track had to rip out several highly used crossings because neither the train company nor the city would agree to maintain them at a higher safety level than they'd previously had, irrevocably fucking over the local traffic.
Are these concerns someone has addressed, and if so could you point me to information about it?
When new train routes are established before the train begins running things like grade separation and safety infrastructure are installed by amtrak to prepare for the new route and stop collisions