I agree with you. I wasn't trying to say that they are the same. I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. It's true that more competition is usually better for consumers. But in this case, it would not be. If airlines lose the revenue of business travelers to high-speed rail, they will close down. This leaves Americans with even fewer alternatives for travel (in fact, the rail would have a monopoly). Airplanes may be faster, but, again, if airlines lose business travellers who choose a lower-priced train ticket, they will close down. You know as well as I that the iPhone is not just a cell phone and it ushered the world into a new era of technology. ...And my point was that innovation can drive demand.
It can in some instances, but I doubt High Speed Rail is as innovative and important as some think. It's no iPhone.
There is a good documentary called Taken for A Ride. Check it out, you can even find it on YouTube. I don't think the government just helped the auto industry, but land investors that had land in suburbs, lands that would be purchased for use of interstate highways, etc. It was a gargantuan middle finger to cities, but well orchestrated.
1. The very first point i made on this thread was that High speed rail would be a really cool idea, but just not the right thing to do first. The premise behind my argument was to say that our goals should to to first improve local/metro areas and then focus on connecting major metro areas with hi speed rail...Why would i want to get to Dallas any faster than i could via a plane and still be faced with the same difficulties such as quick transit once im at a given destination...I never argued against the concept of Hi speed rail...Ive argued that putting the cart before the horse is not prudent... 2. You keep saying we can do both, but i disagree...Imagine NYC without its subways. I would cry, b/c it just would be so hard to get from uptown to dowtown and would be impossible to get from one borough to the next... but you used the Path analogy, so i shall do the same. The Path connects Newark Penn Station to the WTC/Hoboken/and 33rd. The Path is great, but all it does is connect two points, but without the NYC subways and NJ Transit why would i take the path, pay for a cab to take me into brooklyn???...Might as well drive into the city with my car...SO my point is connecting two metropolitan cities should be only done once local transport has been optimized... 3. I voted for Obama the first time, and chose not to this prior election. But he is my president and I will stand by his decisions. I just think its backwards on this matter. Thats why for me he is Obozo. (Obviously, i do disagree with several of his domestic policies and his current vision of America, but thats for the D/D forum and not here..)
Not to help the auto industry specifically but the auto industry certainly pushed it. Most people presume that suburbs are a natural outgrowth of market forces when they are anything but. Suburbs are highly dependent upon government planning and financing. The amount of infrastructure over those distances is very demanding and without government incentives and planning from FHA mortgages to the Interstate highway system suburbia might not have happened. A host of interests including the auto industry and the oil industry all played a role. Many street car lines in the 1940 and 50's were bought out by companies that were owned or invested in by car and car related businesses only be closed or converted bus lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Railway [rquoter] The system was sold in 1945 by Huntington's estate to National City Lines, a company that was purchasing transit systems across the country.[1] National City Lines, along with its investors that included Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California (now Chevron Corporation) and General Motors, were later convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transit companies controlled by National City Lines and other companies[n 1] in what became known as the General Motors streetcar conspiracy. National City Lines purchased Key System, which operated streetcars systems in Northern California, the following year. The company was renamed as Los Angeles Transit Lines.[2] The new company introduced 40 new ACF-Brill trolley buses which had originally been intended for the Key System trolley bus system in Oakland which was being converted by National City Lines to buses in late 1948. Many lines were converted to buses in the late 1940s and early 1950s.[2][/rquoter] As noted above the demise of the street car and the rise of suburbia was due at least partly to deliberate actions by GM and other companies.
Some airlines may close down or greatly cut flights in the face of high speed rail but I don't think it will be the death knell of domestic flights. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue have done well pushing into a market dominated by legacy carriers. Low cost short haul carriers will likely figure out other ways to compete. Anyway as noted earlier domestic flight capacity is either at or near peak and to keep a mobile society other options will be needed.
Dude, your totally missing my point on that. The point is that innovation sometimes can drive demand, but high speed rail is no iPhone(not as innovative).
None of that though affects hi speed rail. You are arguing as though local transit and long distance transit are tied together when they are not. We can do either we can also do both. One isn't putting the cart before the horse because they address very different things. It isn't that long of a drive from Hoboken to Manhattan it is a long drive from Houston to Dallas. YOu have multiple options to get from Hoboken to Manhattan that take about relatively the same time but to get from Houston to Dallas without driving all day the only option is to fly. High speed rail offers another option. Your last line makes no sense. I mean do you not fly to cities if they don't have good local transit? So just because in your mind you are have created some sort of connection between inter city transit with inner city transit you are going to call Obama "Obozo".
1. President Obama and VP Joe Biden argue that the high speed rail is the answer in eliminating highway congestion, increasing competition with airlines, etc. etc. Now let me ask you a very simple question...on a ride up I-45 to Dallas, I can average about 65-75 mph on the interstate..but drastically slow down once i get to the area metroplex...why is that the case??? Sure i can traverse large vast area of land at a rapid pace, but congestion is never between the road to Houston and Dallas...it always is congested in Houston and Dallas!!! So the primary goal of transport is to optimize local travel...more buses, light rail, express buses, park and rides, etc etc etc... since we havent done A, we shouldnt start B...thats how people go bankrupt, and thats why things like Federal backed project Solyndra failed...High Speed Rail is a cool idea, but it does not address the concept of congestion first. Traffic Congestion isnt an intercity problem, but an intra-city one...I feel im arguing against a brick wall. 2. I understand that you are arguing that intercity travel opens up competition with the airline industry to help drive costs down, and opens up another mode of inexpensive travel...To that i say...you dont understand that rails are going to be quite expensive themselves...if buying the ticket a week before, a round trip flight from houston to dallas may cost about a 140 dollars. The high speed train may cost about $115 round trip...How is that any more inexpensive??? The fact that you have two options doesnt magically drop the price point of the other(maybe for a very short period of time). You just have two options that still cost about the same...And if your just building something to have another option, you are not using money wisely...your just spending just to spend! 3. I dont know about you, but i love the convenience of getting to an airport and looking for public transit that will quickly get me to downtown. That is not the case here in Houston. Having easy access to transit is what makes NYC so appealing...As soon as i get off JFK/Newark/ Laguardia, I can quickly jump on an express rail to get to downtown NYC...that matters to me. That kinda stuff is really important for business travelers. Having good local transit should be the very first priority of the nation...invest in that first... 4. Obama is a leader that has a great vision and looks at the end point for a given problem. While admirable, he fails to look at the steps that are needed to get to that end point. High Speed Rail is fascinating and extremely appealing. But is that what we need? Does that solve problems with transport in the USA? All it does is creates another venue of travel, but nothing to address the problem that transit has still not answered. You have to have goal directed action. Having a vision is great, but its the action to achieving that vision that is memorable. I hate having to be redundant...so here ends my rant...no more long posts.
