I’d say design the whole transcontinental network, then first build the segments that currently suffer the highest air and interstate highway traffic. Give people a good HSR rail alternative for trips from 100-700 miles. Secondary hubs and the final transcontinental links can get built out if/when economics require it (i.e. when fuel expense makes transcontinental flight not so attractive anymore.
In other words, get the most bang for the buck now, and build it so it can be extended when the economics favor it more strongly. Don’t make a grand public works project and expect people just to jump on board. Transport isn’t “Field of Dreams”, they won’t come just because you build it. Build it where they already are, then you’ll have enough of a working user base to make a bigger push later.
:rolleyes: sigh Same reason private corporations don’t own and operate all our roads and streets and traffic signals, and employ traffic cops, and do all those other things without which your car would be useless: Because there would be no profit in it. So private corporations don’t do those things, government does, and nobody expects any of that to be profitable to government (gas taxes and road tolls and traffic fines are only a small drop in the bucket of public expenditures on automotive transportation infrastructure and policing); it’s one of the things government spends money on, for the public good. Some things need to be done whether there’s any way to make a profit off them or not.
Rail is more energy-efficient.
Oh Christ, the “public good” garbage again. :rolleyes: The only “public good” is the maximum freedom of the individual.
While I will concede that there are some things that the government has to provide-defense, trade regulations, treaties, etc…- and some things that it probably should provide-police and fire- there is no reason for the government to spend vast sums of our money on a redundant and completely unnecessary cross country HSR network. None. What is there to be gained?
Oh, and where did you get the idea that private roads are impossible? they’ve existed before, I see no reason why they couldn’t exist now(in theory, of course we’re not going to abandon or privatize all of the roads that government has built, we’re way, way to dedicated to this model to change now)
Oh, quit channelling Margaret Thatcher! Society does exist, you know. And the “maximum freedom of the individual” depends more on society’s collective health than on anything else. You enjoy “maximum freedom” to drive your car anywhere because you live in a high-function society where the state can levy taxes and spend them on definite purposes without too much getting lost to corruption along the way. Try to imagine how much “freedom” you would enjoy in a society with no effective state, such as Iraq or Afghanistan.
As soon as I make a post advocating anarchy, you may repost this. Until then, keep your straw men in your corn fields.
Thatcher was no anarchist by any means, but my argument would not be a “straw man” argument if directed against her policies or, more to the point, her general philosophy of government.
That is what the debate in this thread is about. I.e., whether HSR is necessary, or could be beneficial, to the U.S. as it has been to Europe and Japan. Let’s debate it on those terms. The legitimacy (as distinct from the wisdom) of spending government money on it is hardly debatable at all.
How many countries do you know of that base their automotive transportation systems mostly on private roads and make it work?
It sounds to me like you’re acknowledging and enjoying the benefits of publicly-funded infrastructure from the past, put denying any responsibility to build, and pay for, infrastructure geared toward the future.
This is OT, but there is a difference between “maximum individual freedom” and “total individual freedom”. The first balances the freedom of the individual against the requirements of society, the second is anarchy. To my mind the “public good” is best served by having that line drawn as close to the total anarchy end of the spectrum as possible, while still maintaining law and order. You, I suspect, would draw the line much closer to the “The government scrubs my back when I shower” end of the spectrum 
.
Shall we drop the hijack?
Fine. Make the case that coast to coast HSR is the “infrastructure of the future”.
None. that doesn’t mean that I don’t see how it could happen, which is exactly what i said.
It isn’t channeling Thatcher to point out that just invoking the “public good” doesn’t let you post your policy preferences unchallenged, BrainGlutton. I’m sure we disagree greatly on the public good in lots of ways.
Personally, I’d prefer government to get out of the way of operators who might like to provide alternate transportation services - motorcoach companies come instantly to mind here. And as for the rail network, I’m for it, but I’d like the trains to run where people might actually want to ride.
How many people in the Northeast take the train to JFK, Newark, or BWI Airports? Both of Chicago’s airports are served by rail. This alleviates parking and traffic issues near these airports.
There is no reason to develop these systems in light of replacing air travel - our country is too big for that. But supplementing and feeding that system wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.
Certainly. I’m just making the point that this debate is about the wisdom of certain policy choices, not about what government can or cannot legitimately do. That’s an important and interesting debate, but it’s not this one.
How do these differ from private taxi or bus services? And how is government in their way now?
What I don’t like about the private-ownership model is how to maintain accountability. If there’s a pothole in front of my house that isn’t getting fixed, I want a better option than boycott the street or move somewhere else. When profit is threatened, the first casualty is safety and maintenance (see the recent headlines on Southwest’s lax aircraft maintenance).
I am talking about private bus companies - and the barriers especially at airports can be daunting. At many airports there are surface transportation concessions that are granted to one company or a set of companies - for instance, at Dulles arriving passengers must use the Washington Flyer taxi. Also, many airports aren’t set up to handle bus traffic well - forcing buses into the regular traffic flow along with parking shuttles and private cars.
In addition, sometimes state regulations can be a barrier to entry into this market.
So there is a lot government can do, and should do, to turn airports into intermodal transportation hubs like they should be.
Why is that? (Serious question.) And would deregulation alone change it?
I don’t see the point of it.
For one, deservedly or not, trains have a shit reputation. It took me twelve goddamn hours to get from Riverside to SF a few years ago- it’d be half that driving if you avoid rush hour.
Plus, if I drive, I get to eat whatever I want whenever I want, listen to whatever music I want as loud as I can, set the temperature, etc.
If I’m willing to sacrifice those comforts, I can fly and be on the ground in two hours, tops.
Trains are the worst of both worlds- slow and uncomfortable. They’d basically have to be dirt cheap to be taken into consideration.
If anything, I think Bos-Fla and Sac-SD would be good starts, but no one’s gonna take a train from here to NY anytime soon.
That’s because of the shape American rail systems are in after decades of neglect. A European or a Japanese would report very different experiences with rail travel.
I remember being dropped off at the RR station in Japan to take a train to Okayama. I asked how I’d know what train to take as the signs were all in Japanese.
"It’s the 11:27 train: said my friend.
“But how will I know which one that is”? I asked.
“It’s the one that arrives a 11:27” he replied.
Sure enough, the train arrived at 11:27. It wasn’t the one before at 11:16 or the one after at 11:35.