The reason people bought automobiles was a system that was rigged against convenience. GM bought up numerous transit companies and proceeded to rip the track out of the ground. Add to that the government subsidized push to the suburbs and it was all complete. Why would anyone spend tens and thousands of dollars on an automobile when there are great transit systems around to get people where they want to go for cheap fares? And here's your link http://www.ibtimes.com/how-high-spe...0-map-us-high-speed-rail-system-photo-1066334
Really? Do you even read what you post? Anyway what you posted doesn't address what you responded to. Track safety and maintenance has nothing to do with urban density.
Yeah, the car economy greatly benefited from government subsidies in highway and road construction. In the golden era of urban planning, a lot of resources went into suburban growth hand in hand with highway construction. Guys like Robert Moses were central figures in pushing a vision that private capital could not achieve on its own.
trak lenth ∝ trak mantenance cost...........not az elastik wit respek to usage as fuel ...... so long az lines cost more...even if dey r between 2 small towns.....
this is never going to happen, we have no money and it's only going to get worse with balooning retiree numbers
Yet we have plenty of money to expand highways and fight unnecessary wars though. Republicans are walking hypocrites.
How much would a ticket cost though? Gotta guess Houston to Dallas is at least $100. In Texas, I don't see myself paying for that rail, when I could just take a bus for like $15. If I wanted to get there faster and pay more, I would probably just fly. That goes for most of this railway outside California, the North East, and the Midwest around Chicago. The fact that even Texas has only had one major bus company till now, goes in itself to tell you that the demand is not there for a high speed rail.
Some people seem to ascribe to the fantasy notion of, "If you build it, they will come." It only works in the movies. Yeah it might be a novelty for a bit and sure it may find a niche traveler, but long term sustainability it will probably never attain. Some people seem to think America needs to become more like Europe.
My point was that in order for something like high speed rail to be beneficial to the deep south, our metropolitan infrastructure needs to resemble something similar to NYC...once ur at the location...i need to be able to access a local train, subway to get from x to y quickly...we cant do that in houston...its so freaking spread out...and way too many sq miles to make a real difference... As a consumer, does a 100 dollar train ticket matter if it takes me 2 hours to get from Houston to Dallas? But then once i get of at the Dallas Station, are there local trains, buses extra to get me around as conveniently as it would in NYC??? The resounding answer is no! Im fairly sure i understood what they are trying to accomplish...I think it is backwards...Houston, being the 4th largest city, and the 6th largest metroplex, is a poorly connected town...without a car, your basically...screwed...New Orleans? worse...Dallas? similar to Houston... However imagine a world where an intricate network of rail lines were created that connected North, south, east and west Houston....brought them all to a Downtown train-station, which then would have local trains that take people all over downtown houston...thats what i wanna see...done first...Obozo wants to do it backwards...so what exactly are we trying to achieve???
I posted a similar rendition here http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7615727&postcount=66 Right now its just artist renderings. No dirt has been dug, no land purchased or anything (as far as I can tell). The dates seem a bit optimistic. Agree with Deckard, shoulda started on this LONG ago, public and private money both, and it just keeps getting more pricey the longer they wait so need to start ASAP. Also not EVERYONE lives close enough to an airport. Even if its around the same price for a train instead of a plane ticket, some people might opt to go to the nearest train terminal rather than driving 1+ more hours to an airport.
And some people would enjoy the far less intrusive security checks, and arriving downtown at your destination. Honestly, those who complain about this country "becoming like Europe" must not have had much experience with their rail system. It's marvelous and a far different (and better, IMO) way to travel
Europe built their tracks (and the huge associated investment with those) before the automobile or airplane were around, and if you took the time to look at a map, you'd also notice Europe's density. The airplane is a far superior method of travel for long distances. The US already has rail in probably the only corridor that makes sense -- the Northeast.
I can't say what would be best for the US, but just to put things in perspective a little bit - Texas alone is bigger than Germany... and I fly around in Germany all the time because the train would take (much) longer. E.g., 6 hours from Munich to Berlin. Flight about 50 minutes.
At least at the airport there is already a handful of rental car agencies from which to choose. If the train lets out in downtown, they will have a hard time with putting in rental car locations nearby. Another thing, imagine the security nightmare.
