These things always go way over budget and never finish on time but once you commit you are stuck with finishing it or a worthless waste of cash. First off the dome thing will never happen and is orders of magnitude less $$$ so lets chill with any comparisons. Reduce costs for citizens? High speed rail tickets are not much cheaper than jet travel and Southwest has scorching low rates regionally. I doubt the costs will be reduced even if you DON'T consider the 100 billion buy in price.
I would worry if it could even be self sustaining in this market. Meanwhile tollways have paid for themselves many times over here.
Let's not. It's important to keep in perspective that just because something doesn't generate revenue doesn't mean it's "wasteful". Someone else mentioned profit... I say profit schmofit. It's a public service. Subsidize the f*** out of it (not like we haven't already done that with roads and airways already). Getting people from point A to point B quickly and without an anal probe is good for everyone. Tax burden notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure introducing a fast, convenient way to travel around the State of Texas would drive down costs for consumers. Competition is good for consumers, unless you're United Airlines at a City Hall meeting lately. Then competition is bad news bears. P.S. Do you have a source for your cost metric vs. airlines? If so please post, very curious.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/201...-speed-rail-fares-are-projected-remain-steady It is slower than jets, requires massive initial capital investment, and in no way improves mobility. From what I have seen traveling China the economy class tickets are within 10% of airlines and those ticket prices are subsidized. Each market is different though and Southwest offers extremely low prices here regionally already. If the rail cannot make a profit and pay for itself and high maintenance costs, that is a massive sign we don't need it. I remember last time this came up people were talking about living in Houston and working onsite in Dallas, attending sporting events, etc. That is all a fantasy.
Megabus just announced Dallas-->Houston service today. This will be nice. Rail is a luxury -- if the Japanese want to pay for it, do it, but I'm not interested in spending tax money on it. http://www.chron.com/communityblogs...Texas-routes-will-include-Houston-3598798.php
Obviously, but when you factor in how long it actually takes you from entering airport A to exiting airport B, the time difference probably isn't all that great. Especially for in-state travel. Well, yeah, big projects tend to do that. Not really sure how you can say that with a straight face. Giving people more options by which to travel, especially safe, fast, efficient ones that are subsidized to the point of accessibility can do nothing *but* improve mobility. Lowering the threshold for travel is the name of the game. I'd prefer some kind of numbers to anecdotes, and unfortunately that article didn't really provide much in the way of them, either. You keep talking about Southwest, but that's not really a case against rail. Great, they have a decent setup in this market, good for them, doesn't mean it couldn't be better. If it was a private project, sure. But that's not what we're talking about here. Governments aren't meant to function as profit centers. Would like to see figures on maintenance costs though. FTFY. Last time I checked, the population wasn't shrinking, nor was technology getting less effective or efficient. By the time we're dead, they'll probably have Futurama-style tubes we can travel the globe in before sundown. Point is, things like HSR are the direction we're heading towards, not away from. These technologies are improving, and our needs are increasing, and eventually those two points will converge. In the meantime, buses are indeed a good alternative for places not quite able to sustain rail projects. Texas is growing pretty damned fast, though.
If the fares cannot even cover the cost of operation without subsidy, I don't see how you keep justifying it. Time difference is great and gets even worse the more stops you add. I guess you approve annually subsidizing the operation and I am really not sure why. I took one a few weeks ago and the fare was within 10% of the airlines. What purpose does that serve the public and why is it worth tens of billions in capitol? I think the case for no increased mobility is all of the routes mentioned are served by airlines that get you there faster. The cost floor on the margin will not open travel up for a new class of consumer.
Our lone high speed rail line, the Acela Express, requires no operational subsidy. In fact, most HSR systems don't. It's capital cost that requires subsidy.
Population density is irrelevant if there are no stops between Houston and Dallas for example. Do some research please.
you are lost. Population density matters, because.....wait for it....there are more potential RIDERS! wow you need to understand the basics before you just fall in love with rail and wish it upon us at any cost
Even if the trains are going directly to DAL-HOU, the problem is, the population density of Houston/Dallas does not match that of the NEC. Boston - 7th New York - 1st New Jersey - 3rd Philly - 13th Baltimore - 30th DC - 20th Houston - 132nd Dallas - 120th I'm fairly certain Austin and San Antonio fair no better, either. Population density does matter when it comes to estimating ridership. Although I realize HSR wouldn't be used as much in TX as the NE, I also recognize the public utility and benefits that come with it, so I would happily subsidize it. I don't care if it isn't making money, because I'm not concerned with profitting off of a public service (transportation, healthcare, defense, etc). It's just a fundamental difference in values/principles that some people have, which creates a policy impasse. My only fear about building HSR in TX is that by the time the population was dense/large enough to have the program supporting itself, a new technology would come along that would make it obsolete.
No, lol. The Houston area has roughly 6 million people. Dallas? even more. That's plenty of potential riders. HSR has NOTHING to do with density, it is NOT a public transportation system, stupid. It's intercity transit, a HSR station is like an airport. Quit trolling.
Density of cities DOESN'T MATTER with HSR. Like I said earlier, HSR is NOT a public transportation system, there is ONE main station for a city. Much like there is ONE airport for a city in most cases. To get to Dallas on a plane, people drive to the airport and get on a plane. To get to Dallas on the train, people drive to the station and get on the train. How hard of a concept is this to grasp!? It's NOT public transportation people. Jesus, there are so many idiots in this country. bigtexxx: Please, do some research before you respond to me saying I'm "lost." I'm not gonna respond to idiots anymore.
Yes, it does. It's not the end-all-be-all, but it does affect ridership. I think the metro population is big enough to make it worthwhile, though, density be damned. So easy on the insults and flying off the handle. And I don't know what definition you're using, but a government subsidized/run train system would qualify as "public transportation". The definition of public transit has nothing to do with whether it is centralized or not.
I was not insulting you I was referring to bigtexxx when I said negative things, he fired the first shots, I fired back. Density helps when you have many stations along a line. For example, if there were many cities between Houston and Dallas, then making a stop at all of those cities would help ridership. But we are talking minimal stops here, so density is irrelevant. HSR between Houston and Dallas can and will make money. The definition I'm using is what most people refer to as "public transportation," meaning city buses, light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, ferries, etc. Public transportation in the sense I'm referring to it as does not take you from city to city, but rather transports people within a certain city. There's a difference. By your definition, highways and airports are public transportation. But no one refers to them as that.
