It's certainly true that much of the USA (even in urban areas) is too low density to make passenger rail economic (i.e. total net positive benefit). A lot of that is I guess because of the timing of so much growth in the USA, and the particularly strong belief there for the second half of last century that the motor car was the only kind of transport that anyone needed. So many cities and suburbs have been built without any regard for alternative means of transport - even sidewalks on suburban streets are rare in some cities (parts of Adelaide aren't much better). So the USA has a bigger mountain to climb in terms of sustainable transport options, which is a worry for all of us if the worlds largest (or is it 2nd now) economy is totally reliant on an imported fuel that is becoming incerasingly expensive to exploit, and prone to ever greatter price shocks.
I'd love to see a link to an American left wing newspaper - I really didn't know they exisited. I've spoken to Americans who believe that the BBC is so far left it's communist, so I'm wondering if this is in the same category. I wonder if your reading of 'far-left' is one that non-Americans would recognise. Everyone likes to think that they are thinking for themselves; the most insidious propaganda is that which tells us what to believe, whilst commending us for our free-thinking attitude... There's plenty of that on all sides of politics.
To address your other point - yes it's vital for any rail service to have an idea of what it's market is. Point to point without stops will work when the ends are close enough for rail to be fastest. Additional places to serve in-between can be good generators of revenue, especially if they are far enough to make driving a pain, but just a little too small for a really well served airport. There are plenty of examples of this in Europe, where some high speed trains stop, but most do not (e.g Ashford in England). Bakersfield CA would be a good example of this if the Californian project gets under way.
Paul
Paul,
You seem to have the level head around here with the topics that are being discussed.
I'll keep the politics aside being like minded with you as well. I'm probably a rare American because I don't see communists around every social program we have here. We need to provide benefits to everyone, and not just the privileged. The way people are thinking today, we may as well as go back to the late 19th century with the very rich robber barrons and the poor factory workers making 3-cents a day. This is what they want considering the top 2% of the wealthiest citizens seem to have the most pull these days.
Anyway... regarding HSR. It is sadly needed as you say in the rail corridors where the cities are close together.
Recently, although this isn't highspeed rail, the Downeaster service was started between Boston and Portland, ME. This 120 mile run takes about 2-1/2 hours with some stops in between. Initially the nay sayers said the trains would be empty and the service would operate at a complete loss. Well the opposite has been true even during the economic downturn. The trains are sold out both ways, requiring reservations, between Portland and Boston, and the trains have actually shown a small profit.
The side benefit, which no one seems to consider, is the additional businesses that build up around the railroad stations. These are restaurants, bookshops, and other small businesses that cater to the train travelers, whether they are locals or visitors. People waiting for the trains need services, and many a town now has a Dunkin Donuts where there were none before. This brings in additional revenue to the local community and hires people to operate the businesses.
As most of us know, America is spread out with some cities as far apart as 500 miles between them. The service would not benefit these so much as it would in the more densely populated corridors, such as the Northeast Corridor, between Boston and Washington, and now Portland, this is where the HSR does serve the public.
People seem to forget that even our interstate highway system is subsidized in some way. Every year the US government contributes billions of dollars to maintain the roads with some of the revenue gleaned from gasoline taxes and tolls. Without this funding, the roads would go unmaintained and become useless.
So funding a HSR system is no different than funding the Interstate. People say that the HSR will only benefit a few, but this is not the case. With the HSR service, this takes airplanes out of the congested skies and extra cars off the road. As one poster said, the 6 hour drive to New York from Washington DC is pure hell.
Well it's not much different from Boston to New York between the traffic and the tolls, you arrive at your destination exhausted and stressed. Flying isn't much better either. A flight from Boston is probably an hour at the most in the air, but you have to arrive an hour or more before the flight, end up landing out in the suburbs, and then having to pay extra cab fare to go downtown.
With the Acela, you leave from South Station Boston, and end up right in downtown Manhattan. All the while traveling without restriction, meaning you can get up from your seat when you want, turn on your laptop when you want, and even have free wireless internet service all the way.
So what's wrong with that? If this service could be emulated through out the country, more people would see the benefit and be less apt to be against it.
John
