This post talks about how high-speed rail might make the midwest more economicaly viable.
This guy asks why do we care if the midwest is economicaly viable.
I find myself agreeing with both of them mostly because I would like to see Denver, where I live, connected by high-speed rail to San Diego, where I would love to go surfing. But from a practical standpoint wouldn’t it be better to let the non-viable cities in the center of the country cease to exist instead of trying to prop them up with subsidies.
Update:
As Rob AKA “this guy” points out he was not saying that the mid-west is not worth saving he was saying that high-speed rail might not be the answer to the economic problems in the mid-west. At least I hope that is what he was saying. That leaves me as the guy arguing that we should not subsidize cities as it just prolongs the agaony. With that said it seems like cities that are able to support high speed rail service would also probably be economicaly viable. This might be one of those chicken or the egg problems.
John,
In fairness, I (“this guy”) didn’t express an opinion on the economic viability of the Midwest; I just wondered whether high-speed rail would actually bring back Rust Belt cities.
Hey Rob:
Looks like I misinterpreted your post. I guess I would be the guy who thinks some cities in the midwest need to go away.