It might make sense for high speed rails to connect airports and not downtowns. To get from the airport to downtown, many options already exist (taxis, shuttles, buses, car rentals). Cities could provide light rail, if they wanted. The current paucity of car rental agencies in downtown area also could be easily remedied. Hertz et al would fill the need. I do not see finding reasonable locations much of an issue, at least in Houston. Short shuttle rides from Houston downtown proper could reach economically viable properties.
(1) The articles that have been posted are only concepts. No decision has been made by our government to pursue high-speed rail. (2) There are two mindsets for innovation: (a) provide an innovative supply to create a market and drive demand (aka "If you build it, they will come"). This DOES happen all the time. The iPhone is a perfect example. (b) provide a supply for already-existing demand. Let's talk for a minute about the point sugrlndkid was saying - "America's vision should be to improve transport within each metro city". In some ways this makes sense, but in others it doesn't. In truth, it's more of a narrow, Houstonian perspective. Many of the large cities have rail systems (Dallas has the DART... Atlanta has MARTA... Houston has squat). And many of the cities on that map (like Jackson, MI, Tulsa OK, Louisville, KY) have less than a million people in population and it may not make sense (yet) for them to spend money on improving inner-city transport. Such cities would build up their urban transit AFTER such a rail system is built because they would receive revenue from the increased traffic that the rail system brings in. This revenue could then be used to improve urban transit. AND, after the rail system would exist, they would have proven, quantifiable, and measurable demand for urban transit improvement (not just projection and hypothesis). HOWEVER... (3) The high speed rail system would pretty much destroy the domestic airline industry in America (an industry that already struggles). And with the destruction of this industry, American citizens would be stuck without the ability to get high-speed transport (air or rail) to smaller cities across the nation. Also it would greatly drive up prices on international flights, as this would become the primary (or sole) source of revenue for American airline companies. I can't see the government doing that. (4) Although I very much like the idea of a more-affordable, fast transport system to other metro areas in the USA, I don't like the idea of forcing Americans to pay for it to be built. I feel that most Americans currently aren't happy with the value (or lack thereof) that they're getting from their tax dollars. Given the great negative impact it would have on the airline industry, the value of this rail system just isn't great enough to warrant the cost (in my opinion). (5) I'd like to repeat my first point. This is all a pipedream anyway.
No Worries, there is a Hertz in downtown. I rented a car from them recently. It's on Louisiana st What I want to know is why people are so fascinated by rail. It's just not a good option for most of the US
yeah I know I was embarrassed to rent from there, but I didn't want to take my luxury vehicle on a work trip
If executed correctly, I don't see how this could possibly be a bad thing. Personally, I'd rather it be tax payer funded - Partially at least, and regulated. Air travel is becoming more and more expensive, and new fees seem to be appearing out of thin air every few years or so. It's anecdotal, I know, but I bet that those people on that ship that just laded in Mobile wish they could've hoped on a train and made back to Houston in 3-5 hours. Then hoped on a regional line and made it to Galveston in 30 minutes. Just saying.
do you want to use your grandparents' social security checks to pay for it? Where do you suppose the money will come from?
Actually taking high speed rail might be faster than flying. When you fly the time is more than just the actual flight time. It is the time it takes to get to the departing airport and out of of the arriving airport. With a high speed train because it can be located in or near downtowns and also has much greater capacity per train than per plane more time can be saved on the overall trip. Hi speed rail though isn't a bus. It is far different in terms of convenience and comfort than a bus.
You are still thinking of it like a commuter train. The fact that there isn't good transit options doesn't stop people from going to the airport to fly to Dallas. Hi speed rail works more like Southwest Airlines than it does the PATH train in NYC as a point to point system connecting cities. Once again though you can do both. You can build better local transit and have hi speed rail just like you can build airports and have better local transit. Anyway I get the feeling you aren't really interested in discussing hi speed rail but more about criticizing Obama
1. In Europe there are plenty of discount air carriers along with high speed rail. 2. There are even certain large carriers like Turkish Airlines that have absurdly low fares 3. China is making a high speed rail system and it is a rather large country
We're talking about an alternative to air travel...or an alternative to putting these miles on your car. The mobility WITHIN these cities is a separate issue.. if you fly to Houston or any of these other cities, that variable is still in place regardless. This isn't an attempt to take away from or limit mobility within cities...that's a separate and distinct issues solved by the cities/regions themselves with the assistance of federal funding.
As I said to sugrlndkid high speed rail can't be thought of like inner city transportation. It is a very different model with it impractical to run high speed trains under distances of 200 miles. So addressing inner city transit isn't the same thing as addressing transit between cities. It would be like saying that we shouldn't build more airports until there are better transit options within cities. The US airline industry is already in trouble with much of those problems self-inflicted. High speed rail will certainly be a threat to domestic flights but it might actually help the consumers but providing more competition. Domestic air travel will also never go away because no train will be able to compete on time for travel over 500 miles so that market will always remain. What will be harmed is short haul flights by things like United Express between major metropolitan areas. Those type of flights though will still be needed to fourth tier metro areas like Fargo and Billings which will not be serviced by high speed rail. No matter though what happens with high speed rail air travel in the US is either reaching or past it's peak regarding capacity. The cost of building new or expanding existing airports is already very high and the only available land is getting farther and farther out from metro centers. Alternatives are needed to air travel. My one biggest concern about hi speed rail is how it is going to be funded and there I will admit to not having great ideas. It will have to be considered like building new airport infrastructure and won't be cheap.
I am really surprised this hasn't made it to the D&D yet. I am glad it hasn't. Then all sensible debate would no longer exist.
Are you implying the govt pushed suburbanization to help the auto industry? I guess my feeling is that if there was significant demand for light rail then it probably would have survived. It has had ample opportunity to do so. Rail was a massive massive bubble before Rockefeller killed it with his innovation of oil pipelines. That said industrial rail has survived and flourished since then. Rail was also a big mover of people before other modes of transport marginalized it. It has not been able to survive in many parts of America. The rise of cheap automobiles and the airplane have proven to be more nimble forms of transport. I think your point about the suburbanization of America is the main reason why passenger rail got killed and not a GM conspiracy. I would still love to read more about anything you have to present. This is a good conversation.
