Your idealism is touching. The American Dream is whatever the biggest bloc of money says it is. We’re too well organized an economy to allow people real choices.
Libertarians know that when people are suburbanized, they see themselves as consumers first and citizens second. That they regard as a healthy force against Big Government, which is what results when people bond in communities and start thinking about the common good and social (pshaw!) responsibility.
Yes, there is. Housing starts are a leading economic indicator and thus a good in themselves, because they raise the stock market regardless of whether the homes will ever sell. There’s no talk of paying the piper or junky mortgage paper or collapsing investment banks. There’s only the current fiscal quarter. That is as close as you’ll come to the American Dream.
You know that’s an utterly inadequate answer. HIgh-fives from HSR boosters is no support. You’ve been called on similar not-actually-useful-cites before.
Actually, extending it to Tallahassee means it will benefit state legislators. Assuming the system isn’t going to be profitable, which it probably isn’t, it can’t hurt to have a few dozen fans in the state house.
I was asking about that FL extension specifically, but fine.
I live in country with a broad HSR network and like HSR. I want the US to have HSR. I’m an easy sell… but that proposed national HSR network has to be one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard put forth seriously. Seattle to Boise HSR? Denver to Kansas City HSR? I don’t demand that HSR be profitable (although it can be), but it shouldn’t be a money pit either.
Well, that’s just a system as “proposed” by an advocacy group.
Here’s the vision in the strategic plan formulated by the Federal Railroad Administration in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You’ll see that from Orlando to Jacksonville, and Jacksonville to Pensacola, is “Other Passenger Rail Routes,” i.e., non-HSR. I just figure, eventually that will be upgraded to HSR. There are always a lot of drivers on I-10 along that route, and it’s the way to Mobile and New Orleans.
There are a lot of routes where high-speed rail would be quicker than flying. Sure, the train itself isn’t as fast as a plane, but I’ve been on plenty of flights where we spent more time taxiing and waiting for a takeoff time than in the air. Plus, of course, rail stations will tend to be more conveniently located than airports. And in the “personal benefit” column, coach on any train I’ve been on has been more comfortable than coach on any plane I’ve been on.
Boise is only a major city in that it’s the biggest city in Idaho, a state not noted for being urban. But it’d only just barely make it onto a list of the top 100 cities in the country. Now, Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-Los Angeles, that’d make a lot more sense.
I chose them because they’re very long routes with more or less nothing along the way. In the case of Denver-Kansas City, the route would be the longest HSR route in the world, the longest by far between stations. HSR is slower than flying but usually makes up for that fact because it’s not that much slower when all the other time sinks involved in flying are taken into account. With a route as long as Denver-Kansas City that would no longer be true, which would almost certainly cut down on ridership and increase the fare. Also the maintenance for such a long route would be immense.
I just skimmed this proposal (PDF) which includes what I think are much more reasonable suggestions for HSR links in the US based on economic analysis. It proposes Boston-DC, Los Angeles-San Francisco, and Chicago-Minneapolis-Detroit-St. Louis as “phase 1” links for HSR.
Well, that’s a very long-term, last-stage addition. Every plan puts first priority on the densest urban corridors. Point being, HSR to Boise is always an afterthought.
Man, have you ever been on Amtrak?
It’s not just that the train is slow- it’s that the train stops for fifteen minutes in Minot, North Dakota, and every other tiny burg on the line. Any hypothetical Seattle-Salt Lake run can’t stop everywhere, or else you’ll lose the benefits of the high-speed rail. If two trains a day make the run from Seattle to Salt Lake, sure as shooting one of them will be an express, and they might both be. Seattle-Boise service might happen every other day, or twice a week; most long distance train routes will be non-stop, or nearly so.
And if you wanted to connect Salt Lake City to the high-speed network, it looks to me like it’d make more sense to go along I-80 through Reno to San Francisco, rather than along I-84 to Seattle. Or maybe I-15 to Las Vegas, thence to Los Angeles.
Looking at that map, though, it looks like the addition of the SLC-Boise-Seattle link is to make SLC a rail hub. Otherwise, somebody who wants to go east from Seattle-Vancouver will have to first go south to Sacramento and then east from there. In other words, the rail going to Boise isn’t because anybody wants to go to Boise, it’s because people want to go to Seattle.
“Excited” was a poor choice of words on my part, but I think my point still stands. If the people who develop something like this think their job is to cut carbon emissions and stimulate the manufacturing sector, they’ll forget to build something that actually works.
Maybe there’s no choice in how they sell it to the public, though. This is up for a vote, and they have to promote as many benefits as they can to as many people as they can. I’d still like to see some emphasis on actually using it; promise people something better than driving their cars.
I’ve been hearing that for years, and it strikes me as a platitude with no real meaning. I can understand “flexibility” as a motivation for driving (change, plans, stop when you want, stretch your legs), but that’s a far cry from “freedom”.
Besides which, how about freedom from pumping gas, paying for repairs and maintenance, getting stranded by a flat tire, and finding a place to park. Along with the flexibility, there are burdens involved with driving.