Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
I am with you on this. You've made some very good points in this entire discussion. For the record, I am not a rah-rah pro-rail guy. I am for it if the benefits at least can somewhat justify the cost -- I recognize that anytime you throw the word government in there, you add a ton of extra cost to pay for a project that will be conducted very poorly and inefficiently. And I recognize that any HSR supporter can easily budget the ROI numbers.
I find the idea intriguing not for my own use, but because I believe it enables business. Big time. And I believe in ideas that invest in business. Most importantly, I resent the common idea that the only things that matters is revenue and cost. I don't think the ideas in this thread are convoluted. Think they are pretty simple. HSR will dramatically help businesses travel cheaper, more productively, and will enable employees to travel even more often.
Just to be clear, my post was not in ANY WAY meant as a response or attack on you or your points. Sorry if it appeared that way. It was just an attack on agenda driven government spending that disregards the market... which I haven't seen any evidence of you promoting that idea at all.
I agree that it could be a huge boon to business but it's something that is going to need to gain a foothold first and there are only a few routes that will be profitable enough to make that happen. My hope is that we get a few profitable routes going and then the market takes off and it expands from there.
I am 100% behind you on the benefits to business. On medium distance routes train travel is leaps and bounds more efficient, cost effective and business friendly.