Feasibility studies have been going on for various extensions to this route for years; nothing typically comes from them. But the fact that the states are involved rather than the Federal government is hopeful since the current administration prefers transport systems be under private ownership. Never mind that private, unsubsidized ownership of national transportation systems makes no sense, and never mind that the same administration has no problem nationalizing the bulk of the mortgage and investment baking industries. It's all about personal perceptions of what's needed. The American people prefer rail travel in lots of situations, especially now with gas prices as high as they are. But those in power live outside and above the circumstances that constitute most people's lives. One candidate for president hosts a $28-thousand a plate fundraiser in Hollywood, and another has to consult his staff to see how many homes he owns. We can not reasonably expect these kinds of people to identify with the needs of most Americans who worry about what it costs to drive or fly anywhere.
Were I in charge, I would outlaw most air flights less than 2 hours and push all that air traffic onto heavily subsidized, fast, frequent, modern inter-city rails - pretty much like the rest of the industrialized world does. I would further link these inter-city spans, one with another, so that if we suffer another air transport catastrophe such as followed the 9-11 attacks, we would not be paralyzed again. Extending the Heartland Flyer north to Kansas City through Wichita would certainly qualify as a vast improvement in the direction of diversity in transportation.
I love ya, man, but that's about the most irresponsible post I've seen in a very very long time.
First, when the states fund a rail project, it's still by definition subsidized and no where close to being private.
How did the government "nationalize" mortage and investing industries? By offering a loan? That hopefully will provide a return on investment back to the coffers filled by taxpayers?
People also prefer driving their own cars over taking rail, and for the most part any time there is more than one person (sometimes two) travelling together, it's way cheaper to drive than to take the rail.
Ban flights less than 2 hours? That means no more CHI - ATL, NYC - ATL, CHI-DFW. Hmmm, lets look at the alternatives -
New York City to Atlanta. Flight time = 1:49. Driving = 14:40.
Current rail system = 17:58. High Speed rail on existing right of way using Acela average NYP - WAS speed = 10:26. Time by exclusive high speed ROW averaging 150 MPH = 5:42.
Even if you add two hours to get to/from the airport and security screening, you can't legislate out people's freedom to get from point A to point B in the most efficient manner possible.
Your theory could work in the NEC if we had a robust infrastructure, with 16-car trains running at 150 MPH average along the route. It's certainly clear out the skies. But that theory goes in the dumps as soon as you leave the corridor - even in the well travelled CHI - WAS area.
Now, could a good high speed rail system cripple the 49 minute Southwest Airlines flight from Dallas to Houston? Sure. But it's gonna be tough to convince a lot of people to challenge the most profitable airline out there that there needs to be an improvement.
