First, there is this map (hat tip: Matthew Yglesias)
Texas does indeed seem to have large metropolitan areas that could conceivably benefit from a good rail system.
Second, there is this article that seems to intelligently disagree completely with Glaeser.
Posts
1 comment:
I was going to comment earlier on your last post and give you a link to the image that you posted.
While I won't pretend to be able to argue "intelligently" about rail, I did want to mention that your (it was yours, right?) comparison of the US to Japan was a misguided one--in my opinion, it's like comparing all social healthcare plans to that of Canada: something that everyone does, but has nearly no relevancy.
High speed trains in the US have the ability to have small footprints and create a lot of demand. We're sprawled, as you mentioned, and the only way to combat that with public transport is to provide incredibly fast and comfortable transportation with few stops. While Japan's high-speed trains might only go 20-30 miles before hitting a stop, we're trying to get people to go at least 50-60. If they don't have access to high-speed public transport (read: not a bus), they won't use it. Even in Europe, the argument that the rail network works because cities are built so close together doesn't apply. High speed trains in Europe don't make frequent stops and regularly go the same long distances we need them to cover in the US. Later, hopefully we can build a system of regional trains to complement the high-speed system, but we're not there yet (and contrary to UTAs belief here in Utah, it's a lot better to serve the masses and then focus on the smaller markets after the main infrastructure is built.)
Sorry to ramble.
Post a Comment