TisBit
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,411
That's personal opinion, really.
You're operating under the assuming that we don't currently (hugely) subsidize every other modes of transportation, such as by car or by plane. That is not the case, as we basically fully subsidize both either through infrastructure or other support.
Also, no one is saying Orlando-Tampa is the best place to put HSR. Quite frankly, I don't know why they'd want to do that little stretch, other than it was the easiest one in the nation to get done in the fastest amount of time. I think most are ok with the fact that it won't get built.
It still does not invalidate the fact that HSR is a viable alternate mode of mass transportation that helps with pretty much every problem we face in the near and long term future in our nation.
Sure, everything is subsidized to an extent....but nothing to the extent that our rail system is. The government did not need to take over the airlines to make them work, etc. They do not operate a net loss every year and they have a profitable business margin to them....the fact that the government opts to subisdize infrastructure does not mean that it couldn't be done without that assistance. Rail is a different story.
In many respects, the route which would make the most economic sense would be the New York to Miami route.
People have become so ingrained with the often-repeated myth that passenger trains "only make sense in short and medium distance corridors where they can compete with airplanes" that to suggest otherwise takes some explaining, but there is truth behind the assertion.
I think if you really wanted to make a case for true long distance mass transit, it would need to be more like NYC to Atlanta and Spurs from those cities. Maybe even DC to Atlanta...you want a location that you can then branch off of to make interconnecting routes. The problem is that no one wants to build long distance rail lines to compete with vehicles traffic.