oh good grief you know what I meant -- the number of people living in the NE is huge. you're trying to make a point that it doesn't matter that few people live BETWEEN Dallas and Houston? oh wow, thanks, that's really helpful
Understandable. I get what you're saying, but density (i.e. accessibility) does help or hurt ridership. What we lack in density, we make up for in volume, though. If you condensed Houston's population, I can guarantee you any centralized transportation station would see more ridership than the same amount of people spread out over a much larger space. Is the density issue enough of a problem to stop us from pursuing a rail project? Hell no. On a side note, putting in a major rail hub would influence people to actually live closer to it to begin with, thus influencing more population density wherever you put it (unlike airports), in addition to economic improvement. Then you're using the incorrect word. Refer to it as "intracity" transportation, whereas HSR would be "intercity". Highways and airports don't physically transport people, so no. But, ones that are government run or subsidized would be considered part of a public transportation "system". Although they themselves are not transport.
Well you have to understand that as a result, there are hundreds of trains a day in the NE. This HSR line wouldn't have as many trains a day, there would probably be between 20-30 or something. Also remember that the Acela Express carries a small portion of rail traffic between those cities and is still profitable. So the population of the NE is pretty irrelevant considering that there are so many more trains up there.
Well said, I can agree with that. What you're saying is all subjective though. The majority of people consider the term "public transportation" to mean intracity transport, as opposed to intercity transport. You are the first person I have heard to consider HSR as public transportation. To me, and most people, intercity transportation and public transportation are two different things. I guess technically HSR is public transportation, but usually when people causally refer to public transportation, they are not referring to intercity transportation like HSR.
Oh, and BTW, most HSR around the world are privately owned, so they wouldn't be considered public transportation. And defining public transportation is difficult, because there are some public transportation systems that actually generate revenue; their farebox recovery is something like 150%. So while the government does not subsidize them, the agencies still operate what most consider public transportation.
I'm aware of that, but for purposes of this conversation, we're talking about a publicly owned and operated system. Which, in all likelihood, is what it's going to take to launch a project like this. Private industries aren't usually interested in launching risky (I say that meaning it isn't guaranteed to be uber profitable immediately), large-scale projects with the pure goal of helping the common good. Although I'm sure once the kinks are ironed out and the way has been paved for expansion, private industry will jump in balls deep. It's not really difficult. Is the government running it? Then it's public. If not, then it's private. Simple. Public vs. private is not defined whether something is profitable or not, it's about who owns/runs it.
Well that's it right there, I assumed that since a Japanese private company was going to provide the money, then they were going to operate it. Which is why I referenced that HSR is not public transportation in the sense that it is not intracity transit.
Wait, how did I miss the part where Japan said they'd buy us a sweet new choo-choo? I need to get my eyes checked. Edit: Well f*** me. I'd still gladly subsidize the hell out of any transportation system improvements (as opposed to say, moar warz), but this'll do just fine.
The cost of flying to a Caribbean destination for mad cheap is hella intriguing...it would cost about 600-1000 to fly there...if the prices came down...more folks would go...
