High speed rail…? Apparently, the Republicans are smelling big fat wodges of cash for their buddies if they push high-speed rail, an idea that sounds great if it’s 1930. But it’s not. Here’s the first big issue: rail is not suitably flexible to handle the changes in demographics and the commensurate travel needs of the people — why? Because the trains run on rails.
You can’t just throw up a new set of tracks whenever a new mall goes up. And maybe a high-speed rail system works between Dallas and Austin, now, but what happens if the employment landscape changes and suddenly Austin or Dallas isn’t drawing people? you’ve got a load of rail that needs to be torn up, or the train runs at a loss, or or or…
Hell, buses are a better solution. You can throw a intracity bus system together faster and cheaper than rail. Is it as fast? Maybe not, but if the line doesn’t make money, you just stop running the busses. And it doesn’t require use of eminent domain to steal land to run your rails through.
People commute in cars for a reason — it’s more convenient, faster, and they can tailor their trips for things like errand-running. For long hops, air travel is faster, more efficient, and once again, you can tailor the air routes to fit with travel demands much easier. Why? ’cause they don’t run on rails!
High-speed rail looks very modern and impressive if you’re stuck in the 1960s and are impressed with Japan’s bullet trains, but even the guys from Top Gear were able to get across France in an Aston-Martin more quickly than the TGV. It’s idiotic and backward-looking. But it’s a big fat pile of cash just waiting to fill the pockets of whatever contractors have been sucking up to the political class.
Scott Rhymer 