|
I'm actually a fan of intercity rail, but it can work only if the population densities and intercity commerce will support it. But it would also require new rights-of-way (and yes, eminent domain) and some pretty careful planning to choose optimum locations so that the density-to-distance ratios are sensible. It would have to be installed regionally, not nationally. Off the top of my head, it seems the sensible areas would be: (1) Boston-Providence-Hartford/New Haven-NY-Phila-Balt-DC; (2) Miami-Orlando-Tampa; (3) Around Lake Erie, from Buffalo to Detroit, with spur to Chicago, possibly on up to Milwaukee, maybe to Toronto, too, from the other side; (3) triangle Houston-Dallas-San Antonio; (4) SD-LA-Central Valley-SF (this one might have a spur from, say, Bakersfield to Vegas). There are some other possibilities, such as Cincinnati to St Louis to Memphis, but the density relative to mileage starts dropping real fast past that.
Fact is, the US is just huge, and people aren't going to go from NY to LA by train other than on leisurely vacations. I live in NY and I usually prefer going to Philly, Wilmington, Baltimore or DC by train rather than plane or driving, especially if I leave from the office (I work nearer the train station but live nearer the airports); I haven't been to Boston by train yet but it's around the same distance as DC so I have to figure it's equally convenient. But I can't see myself taking a train to Chicago or Atlanta - those are a two-hour plane ride but probably 8+ hrs by train, even at high speed.
|