The proof is in the profits that result from a favorable and otherwise illogical set of choices. Who even cares about the details? The oil and related industries are notoriously corrupt, introducing lead into gas knowing the toxic effects among other policy choices aimed at reducing alternatives to cars such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
Where's the logical argument against high speed rail that is based on physical limitations of reality and not simply uh its infeasible because policy?
The logical argument is even if you include my time in the airport on both ends it'll still be faster for me to fly from DFW to NYC or LAX than even the fastest trains of Europe, and probably still cost a comparable amount.
If there was HSR between Houston and Dallas, sure I'd take that. Same for Dallas to Kansas City or something similar to that I'd love that. But that's about the distance where even the extra wait and commute time for the airport balances out the fact the plane is going to be flying straighter and faster. In the end I'm not going to take HSR to go to Orlando or Montreal from Dallas, I'm going to fly.
"High-speed rail isn't meant for DFW to NYC distances. "
Why not? Include comfortable, silenced sleeper cabins and I rather take spend a night in a bed and wake up the next morning rested and fresh, than going through the stress of flying.
For long distances like that, planes are faster and cheaper so the market is smaller. Yes, there will be people who prefer the sleeper train, but more people will prefer a shorter, cheaper flight. For distances under 500 miles, trains usually work out faster once you factor in security, travel to and from the airport etc.
So the top destinations out of Dallas are Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Austin, Phoenix, Houston, Orlando, Chicago, and New York.
So HSR would potentially be competitive with maybe two of the top 10 destinations when comparing to air travel for DFW. I'm a proponent for the Texas HSR projects, but I don't think it's going to really radically change how most North Texans travel.
Partially because of the above (only 2 of the top 10 flights), but also because while it'll be nice to just take a train instead of driving to Houston, I'm probably going to have to rent a car or do a lot of ride hailing once I get there. Outside of a small section of a lot of these cities downtown areas you practically need a car to get around or be willing to make a lot of sacrifices.
So I'd love to take HSR to visit family in Clear Lake. I could take DART from my home, HSR to Houston, take METRO to the Bay Area Park and Ride, and then...walk several miles with my family's luggage a few miles on maybe paved sidewalks with a few kids under 3. Ride hailing is pretty much out of the question with little kids, good luck on them having adequate child seats available.
But I'll still champion and argue for the Texas HSR projects, even though I might personally not use it a lot. Maybe transit will improve where I want to go. I hope so. And even then I'll still probably take it to watch a Silver Boot series sometime. But there will be others who will be able to leverage it, and that means fewer cars on the road for me for these trips I'm somewhat forced to choose the car.
But I don't like people acting like there's no logical reason for HSR to be the dominant way for people to travel in the US. As we both agree, trips like DFW-NYC don't make much sense taking a train for most travellers.
Right. HSR isn't meant to replace all long distance travel. European cities still have very busy airports, and just look at the Ryanair route map: https://www.ryanair.com/en/cheap-flight-destinations. HSR would be ideal for DFW, Austin and Houston, where a triangular route would be very competitive, and I'd imagine would have very high passenger numbers and would replace a lot of plane and car journeys.
The traffic from Love Field would be a better target/comparison, as it's a regional airport. European style HSR doesn't replace international hub airports in europe, either.
You think asking someone else to do the research to prove a conspiracy for you is intellectually honest? Do we really need to get caught up in the details of how health insurance is a conspiracy to know that it is a conspiracy? Do conspiracies need to be coordinated to be successful or can they be informal, unspoken, and implied culturally so as to conceal their existence? Isn't worrying about those specific details actually a distraction? There is already proof that there are better systems by their existence world wide. Why don't you do the research to explain why the richest country in the world doesn't have a high speed train system and write a paper on it? Publish it on Arxiv, include physical reasons that it is not possible.
which part of this was intended to convince me of your initial theory further or lead me to think you are more credible than those you are arguing with?
Where's the logical argument against high speed rail that is based on physical limitations of reality and not simply uh its infeasible because policy?