David Benton wrote:
Or another angle . a multiple car family can become a one car family , or get a smaller car . That large car that might be really only be needed for the annual vacation can be disposed of , and high speed rail and a rental car used instead .
That might be feasible within most major population areas, but 60 million Americans, one-sixth of the nation's population, is classified as rural, meaning living in counties not affiliated with any metropolitan area, large or small. And that doesn't include large portions of "exurbia" counties, where the population density and infrastucture to feed a non-auto-oriented system has yet to develop.
But I'm not ruling out some of that coming to pass; the oil squeeze of 2005-2008 served notice that energy realities will act as a limiting factor on exurban expansion from here to the end of the Age of Petroleum. What I do see is further development of smaller vehicles, and those will, by their very nature, encourage consumers to seek alternatives for longer journeys.
Nor do I see any trend away form the multi-vehicle household developing outside of heavily-urbanized America. The need to juggle multiple responsibilities and the dispersal of the facilities needed for daily life in the post-industrial economy simply render centralized transit systems unworkable in those areas, and non-fossil-fueled alternatives are already under development.
But neither of those points inveigh against the expansion of rail-based systems
within the growing number of regions for which an open economy makes them increasingly suitable. It's merely that the decision must rest with the individual consumer, rather than those who think Washington knows what's best for all of us.