I’m a proponent of high speed rail, but I have to question some of the routes on the proposed map released by the White House. How could a line from Tulsa to Dallas, or Little Rock to Texarkana, or down the southern Coast, or across southern Ohio lead to a sustainable business model?
High speed rail along the Northeast Corridor makes sense, but are the economies in the Rust Belt and South viable enough to support it? I doubt it. I know the argument is that “if you build it, they will come” and I’m all for environmentally-friendly transportation solutions, but someone needs to explain how this rail network will sustain itself. If Amtrak can barely stay afloat, how will this system? And if an Acela ticket from DC to New York cost as much as a new set of tires, how are passengers traveling from Jacksonville to Savannah going to afford a ticket?
Until I see some answers, I think this system has about as much promise as Springfield’s monorail.
SDM
21 April 2009 at 9:48 AM
Do the highways turn a profit? If you think about this less as a business like a taxicab or an airline, and more as a public good like the interstate system, it may be easier to make the case. Pricing should be based on maximizing access, because it’s an investment in the economies of these areas rather than an attempt to capitalize on the economies of these areas.
Patrick Ottenhoff
21 April 2009 at 1:40 PM
OK, good point, but I don’t think the government is planning on subsidizing rail service. Someone is going to have to run the trains.