If I wanted to travel on Amtrak from Austin --> Houston this Friday, the earliest train leaves Saturday 6pm arriving San Antonio 11pm. Then I'd leave at 7am Sunday and arrive Houston 10am. How much would it cost? $47 Presumably the high speed train is more frequent and is at least as quick as driving. I wouldn't mind paying the $50. If it isn't, then this project will also go the way of Amtrak. Sad thing is that the Amtrak station in Austin is in a decent location - right outside downtown. If the frequency, journey lengths were anything close to reasonable then Amtrak would be successful, especially in Austin with a good bus system.
low-cost, high-speed transit that runs across America IS a public service, notice I said low-cost. You do realize that you have to pay to get on the public buses too right? I'm not saying that there could be better ways to spend money than building this network, but the argument that something shouldn't be built or undertaken just because it loses money is a terrible argument.
You mentioned education not Public buses. It costs nothing to send children to school. I'm sure it will cost money to take the train and much more then Amtrak too. Look at Metro, it doesn't matter what area it is. If you build an unsustainable model it will fail unless holdup by taxpayer backs. Why not just create a system that works right and can sustain itself long term but remove the financial strain from the individual so that person has more opportunities to spend it in other ways that benefit the person personally.
I'm generally for stuff like this. However the county of Harris built a! cruise terminal for fifty million dollars that got no use for three years because there is one in Galveston. If it is built make sure there is demand
that's not how much it costs, that's how much you paid the difference is made up for by we the taxpayer
The vast majority of roads hemmorage money too. Do you believe we shouldn't be building them either? All transportation mediums are subsidized in one way or another - roads, bikes, walking paths, trains, air, sea. It's an accepted part of the role of government to provide infrastructure for its people.
It's pretty remarkable that GM has managed to brainwash into society into thinking we don't need public transport and we need cars. A century go it was the total opposite.
Where is the demand for train usage? There was a demand for car usage, so the infrastructure was built. If there is enough demand someone will supply it.
I think most economists would say that highway infrastructure is easily a net positive on the economy, as would high speed rail. It allows more business to be conducted, more efficiently. I don't know if the rail would have quite the impact that the interstate system has, but I still think it would be a positive economically even if the investment itself doesn't turn a profit.
