Quote:
Originally Posted by saxman
Here's a good read. It's a mythbuster about all the sayings going on about the 3C project, and why its not true high speed. You have to start somewhere.
http://members.cox.net/ohiohsr/3C%20mythbusters.pdf
We're having the same argument down here in Texas. Our planned Texas T-bone which would be 200 mph would cost over $20 billion and not even serve our downtowns, but airports. They highly disagree with building higher speed corridor service on existing rails, because supposedly no would ride a slower train. I say hogwash! |
I don't think neither study from either State actuallly stated no one would ride a slower train. Look deeper in the studies, I believe you'll read that faster trains should require less subsidy, possibly turning an operational profit.
Which brings up these two questions every state must answer,
(1) If starting up a new rail service, how fast a train should be built?
(2) Do we wish to put more of our money into initial capital costs, or more into yearly subsidies?
States that have existing frequent train service probably are wishing for more of the same with slight improvements in speed because they are used to budgeting subsidies every year. States that don't have existing frequent train service are more likely to choose spending more money in upfront capital.
It doesn't make either choice more correct than the other, the correct answer is what's best for that State, what's best for that Corridor.....