Trey is right on.
Trains of the past stopped being used because they were slow. It wasn't faster. It wasn't easier. It wasn't cheaper.
In 40 years, we'll be able to quickly summon a car (likely driver-less) to wherever we are, jump in, and have it take us to whereever we want to go. Some view this is as a crazy pipedream but I view it as as a near-certainty because:
(A) It will be cheaper
(B) It was be easier
(C) It will be faster
(D) It will be more efficient
(E) It will be safer
If you make something cheaper, faster, safer, and easier the marketplace will always gravitate that direction.
Many people are still likely to own cars but it's far more likely that the average family will have a single car than have multiple cars that sit, unused, 20 hours out of a 24 hour day.
Consider this:
By 2060-
DFW will be twice the size and be bigger than the entire LA region with over 14 million people.
Austin-San Marcos-San Antonio will be bigger than DFW.
Waco will be 600K people (or more)
Killeen-Belton-Temple will be 750K people (or more)
There will literally be more people living in the I-35 corridor between San Antonio and DFW than live in entire state of Texas (combined) today.
As cities grow larger geographically and grow denser, alternative modes of transportation have to be considered. Adding a few lanes to 35 each direction isn't the solution.
High speed rail will be substantially faster than getting in car or plane and it will be less hassle. As people have fewer cars, it's possible that it will be cheaper as well. (The idea that it's more expensive to take a train or plane vs drive is based on the assumption that all families will have multiple vehicles already and that it's a sunk cost but that simply won't be the case in 40 years.)
In short, I believe we need a multi-prong approach here. We can't shove 20 million more people on Texas highways - expanded or not - and expect that to be an efficient form of moving people around, logistically or financially.
The hard part of any large project like this is that you have to be able to look at least one generation into the future - and maybe even further - to really see the peak benefit. And it's hard to get people to spend today's dollars on something that won't benefit them for that long in the future. They'd rather spend $15 million dollars a mile upgrading I-35 two lanes at a time than focus on long term solutions.
For clarity - I'm not saying this should be forced down Texans throats. It needs to be decided by Texans for the benefit of Texans. But I do think a very real discussion on what this state will look like in 40 years need to be thought about because now is the time to plant these seeds so we can reap the reward in the future when it will be most needed.
Trains of the past stopped being used because they were slow. It wasn't faster. It wasn't easier. It wasn't cheaper.
In 40 years, we'll be able to quickly summon a car (likely driver-less) to wherever we are, jump in, and have it take us to whereever we want to go. Some view this is as a crazy pipedream but I view it as as a near-certainty because:
(A) It will be cheaper
(B) It was be easier
(C) It will be faster
(D) It will be more efficient
(E) It will be safer
If you make something cheaper, faster, safer, and easier the marketplace will always gravitate that direction.
Many people are still likely to own cars but it's far more likely that the average family will have a single car than have multiple cars that sit, unused, 20 hours out of a 24 hour day.
Consider this:
By 2060-
DFW will be twice the size and be bigger than the entire LA region with over 14 million people.
Austin-San Marcos-San Antonio will be bigger than DFW.
Waco will be 600K people (or more)
Killeen-Belton-Temple will be 750K people (or more)
There will literally be more people living in the I-35 corridor between San Antonio and DFW than live in entire state of Texas (combined) today.
As cities grow larger geographically and grow denser, alternative modes of transportation have to be considered. Adding a few lanes to 35 each direction isn't the solution.
High speed rail will be substantially faster than getting in car or plane and it will be less hassle. As people have fewer cars, it's possible that it will be cheaper as well. (The idea that it's more expensive to take a train or plane vs drive is based on the assumption that all families will have multiple vehicles already and that it's a sunk cost but that simply won't be the case in 40 years.)
In short, I believe we need a multi-prong approach here. We can't shove 20 million more people on Texas highways - expanded or not - and expect that to be an efficient form of moving people around, logistically or financially.
The hard part of any large project like this is that you have to be able to look at least one generation into the future - and maybe even further - to really see the peak benefit. And it's hard to get people to spend today's dollars on something that won't benefit them for that long in the future. They'd rather spend $15 million dollars a mile upgrading I-35 two lanes at a time than focus on long term solutions.
For clarity - I'm not saying this should be forced down Texans throats. It needs to be decided by Texans for the benefit of Texans. But I do think a very real discussion on what this state will look like in 40 years need to be thought about because now is the time to plant these seeds so we can reap the reward in the future when it will be most needed.
