Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34
You're assuming travel habits are fixed and can't change. If there is a faster/more convenient service that travelers are aware of, they will likely opt to switch modes. If a train line to Cincinnati was faster than driving or more convenient than flying, it's not unreasonable that there would be ridership growth.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
Good transit, including intercity rail, is one of those things that attracts customers and people like if and ONLY if it works. Most US transit services are unreliable, the routes are inadequate and the whole scheme is inconvenient so of course people disdain it all.
But it doesn't have to be the way it is. Are people in places like Europe and the more advanced countries of Asia really that different? In Europe, trains are often the most convenient way to get from one major city to another and they are heavily used. That was true even before high speed service became as common as it is now. It used to be true because the routes were complete and the trains, however slow, kept to the published schedules pretty rigorously, something AMTRAK has never done.
This is a chicken/egg thing. Should we require heavy usage before bothering to create good service? If we keep trying that it'll never work. It's time to improve the service and watch the users come as I believe they will.
|
You’re not telling me anything I don’t know.
I’m a huge advocate of transit, TOD, density, walkable design, and commuter rail for cities that warrant it.
But this idea of some grand intercity high speed rail network is garbage. It’s impractical and has no hope of happening in America, nor should it.
I can see a few corridors, like Bos-Wash, or Hiawatha, or maybe one or two others being justified, but that’s it.
Here is a litmus test of whether something makes financial sense: would a private operator be willing to run it? If yes, then go for it. If no, then.....