I find it fascinating that in the April 25, 2018 blog at railpassengers.org, the writer says "We support growing service along densely-populated corridors, but insist it must happen in addition to National Network service, not at the expense of rural and small town passengers."
The thrust of this argument is that rural and small-town America needs today's LD trains. That might be true, at least for the relatively small number of rural areas and small towns that today's LD network actually serves (not counting 1 am to 5 am). But it raises two questions for me. One, I don't recall NARP/RPA ever taking such a rural-centric perspective on LD trains. The implication is that NARP/RPA confesses today's LD network is not relevant to large cities... incontrovertible, really, in terms of the LD network's microscopic market share. The other is whether the pro-rural argument will work. On the one hand, EAS lingers on despite constant criticism that it's ineffective and expensive. On the other hand, rural and small-town America has less political clout every year as population concentrates in the major metro areas.
Will it fly (pardon the pun) to argue that the LD network should be preserved as-is because it reaches the hinterlands?
Edited by xyzzy, 17 May 2018 - 02:14 PM.