Posted December 28, 2009
It works in Europe because of high population density and a smaller distances between major destinations. Outside of the Northeast Corridor (DC-Boston), rail will not work unless taxpayers become complete masochists. Translation: The cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure would not justify any perceived benefits.
I think you raise a good point. I agree it would be impractical to connect everything to rail. That said, the US is becoming increasingly commuter driven. For example, what about the West Coast or the Gulf or Great Lakes? Local commuter rail already exists there. I would agree there are areas where sparse population would make development impractical. However, the majority of population reside in Metro areas and people even in areas that are less dense than the east coast still commute from Metro area to Metro area.
I agree that we shouldn't simply throw down rail just for the heck of it, and any rail system should generate enough revenue to keep itself a float and pay back development costs. That said, even in my state in the mid-west, they've concluded a regional rail system would be profitable as there are a lot of people who commute 60+mi between cities. They aren't looking at the same integration as the Northeast where even my rural home town had NJ Trasnit, but instead are proposing something more akin to Highspeed connections linking the metro areas across the state.
I'm sure if there are other states looking at their own regional rail (it sounds like cali is? Any one else?), everyone of their proposals will vary heavily according to need. I can only hope the plans are well thought out and don't end up being a waste of tax-payers $$.
Post edited December 28, 2009 by denyasis
