Quote from piezoe:
I would hope the decision of whether to invest in high-speed rail will be made on the basis of a thorough cost versus benefit analysis versus alternatives and the practical experience of more advanced countries that already operate such systems, and not on the basis of whose lobby has the most influence.
The decision to use ethanol made from corn in motor fuel serves as a fine example of how not to make these decisions.
*sigh*. The airline industry lost $9 billion last year. Again. Amtrak is always losing money and needs govt support. And an amtrak ticket often costs almost the same as a plane ticket. Only intercity busses - private or public - are cheap.
Spending hundreds of billions on a US network of high speed trains will likely follow the airline model - decades and decades of mostly losses and government support. And with more competition, the airline industry losses will skyrocket.
They will wind up putting these mass transit trains though major metro areas, where suburbanites will just drive there. Who needs an hour train ride to get to the center of Chicago to catch a high-speed train, when the airlines are NOT in the major cities?
Look at things like mass transit. Where Connecticut riders going to NYC are heavily subsidized, when in reality, they should be slashing some routes until only those at least near breakeven remain.
so generally, if it isn't heavily subsidized, it is unlikely to be anywhere near profitable. Major American cities are much further apart than the European cities. I would fly, frankly.
here is a weird idea. Have Porsche build some pasenger busses, and then set aside one interstate lane between many cities (outside of rush hours) for the busses, to move 150 mph.
