quote:

---

Because cities continue to grow, and sprawl is not always a good thing. Besides, even if you have all this wonderful self driving cars you still have to put them somewhere and even if wrecks are reduced, you will still have congestion problems. Using existing corridors by removing and repurposing lanes is MUCH more efficient than using eminent domian. Office and work centers with mass transit going in is more efficient but you do need to create critical density. Self driving cars everywhere doesn't solve the problem of congestion.

---

Take a look at my post on the first page. My proposal isn't just self driving cars. It's self driving higher capacity public vehicles. Basically a system that reduces car density while increasing passenger density on the already-existing infrastructure using a nodal system that can get more commuters to use public transit as an alternative to private cars.

So how many other passengers will get on and be dropped off before you? That may work, to some weird degree) for places outside of transit hubs/work but not efficient enough to move mass amounts of people. The other benefit to rail is dedicated lines which means faster movement. If you still have the problem of congestion this isn't going to help much.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I do believe more people would use mass transit if the schedule was predictable. I leave on this train at this time, and exactly get there at this time. The light rail is a joke. Just put more crap with traffic. It should be elevated and independent of all vehicles. Light rails are on a schedule, and are not on the same grade as cars. Denver trains are punctual down to the minute, every time, and my experience was the same in SF. Obviously the Houston public is not informed very much on how these kinds of things work. They assume the train is sitting in 290 traffic I guess.


Its a losing battle though. The only way to impact your life is to move. I get much more time with my family now, see my kid practice, and can be almost anywhere I need to be in a very reasonable time. I am a much happier person with a shorter commute. A long commute does add to stress, but for some people, they just don't care. I calculated that if I worked 20 more years, I would be on the road 1.5 years driving straight thru 24/7, had I stayed in the burbs. No thanks. I see this argument so many times, but no one ever responds to my rebuttal: what happens when you leave that job, or get laid off, and what about your spouse? You gonna sell the house and have spouse find a new job every time this happens? Not everyone's wife is stay at home. I personally believe it's better to live where you want to live and raise kids, and attempt to work nearby if a long commute isn't desirable. My first home, I worked for 3 different employers, one at 290/tidwell, one at westheimer/BW, and one in Tomball.. I'd hate to uproot my life every time I changed employers. And I can see you staying at a job you aren't happy with or don't have advancement potential, just because you like the commute and it's close to home. Honestly, your method only works in perfect world.. wife doesn't work, and you have the same job (or one in the same area) from college until retirement. One could also argue that to achieve what you desire, then get the f out of houston, because it's too big. It was a big reason behind our move. There are a ot metros in the US where the furthest burbs are 10-20 miles from downtown.

---

---

Couple items:

1. The light rail in Houston is a joke seeing that it is mixed in with traffic. I understand Denver is independent of traffic, but Houston's idea of a light rail is terrible in the sense that cars get in the lanes to turn, etc. It's a joke - that's what I'm referring to. They would need it to be independent was my point.

2. Your rebuttal: what happens when you leave that job, or get laid off, and what about your spouse? You gonna sell the house and have spouse find a new job every time this happens?
My response to this is stack the odds in your favor. My new home is surrounded by the Energy Corridor, Galleria, and Downtown. I'm within 15 - 25 minutes of any of these. If I choose Kingwood or the Woodlands, or Katy, my options are limited to where I would select my next Employer. In your example, of 290 / Tidwell (easy commute for me), Westheimer / BW8 (easy commute for me), and Tomball would be the most challenging, but a reverse commute (which I know can be bad at times). With that said, I am zoned to good public schools but we sacrificed living in a 60 year old home to do that. My thing is buy location and the jobs are all around you.Honestly, your method only works in perfect world.. wife doesn't work, and you have the same job (or one in the same area) from college until retirement. I disagree strongly here. Buy location and the rest will follow (i.e. job flexibility of potential future employers). On top of this all, the thing that made me most upset (outside the commute) was my "investment" in a home. The homes with the better locations were appreciating much quicker than my burbs home. While I did well on the burbs home, the appreciation closer was much greater because of LOCATION (90-100% appreciation to my 35% burb appreciation). I would put my current home against any burb home from an investment perspective.

Why not just wait for China to perfect this thing and copy it?

In Houston you would get stuck behind an oversized load.

Or Billy Bob with his small ***** and jacked up Dodge rollin' coal.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you know what's attractive about public transportation? Not having to drive in stop and go traffic. I could take the bus now, but it sits in the same traffic I do, so what's the point? Generally, rail runs on-time, and if one's behind, a nifty app (similar to the one CTA has) will show how behind it is and the ETA to the station.

---

Do you know what sucks about public transportation? The public. Know what else? The usual vehicles you have to ride in. You know what else? The hassle. I get in my car and drive from A to B. It's much better than riding on a crappy old bus or in a plastic seat on a rail car next to a sickly old man and some lady that smells like a combination of dirty feet, febreze, and cigarettes. In Houston, it is categorically faster to drive.

---

That's weird.. I vanpooled in Houston for almost 5 years with a random group I found through a metro search based on my to and from. It was 8-10 well dressed professionals, without any noticeable scent, in a comfortable van that I didn't have to go out of my way to get to or to be picked up at work, and seeing as they all worked in an O&G/energy heavy area and all lived in the same community as me, we had common interests and were able to have discussions about not only work, but our private lives and community as well. Oh and I saved about $100 a month compared to driving alone, and spent no more time commuting.

I guess your experience was much different. Oh wait, you've never done it, that's why you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You seem to think the bus going through acres homes is the paradigm example for public transit everywhere.

quote:

---

My new home is surrounded by the Energy Corridor, Galleria, and Downtown. I'm within 15 - 25 minutes of any of these. so you propose everyone lives where you live? In that one little part of town? you see the flaw in this logic?
Buy location and the rest will follow (i.e. job flexibility of potential future employers). same argument twice. What about spouse? My wife is a HS counselor. Those jobs are few and far between (only a few per high school). You think she can just sit around a wait for one to open up that is only right near where we are? She got lucky and ended up in CFISD, so her commute was tolerable. But she could have easily ended up in spring branch, katy, aldine, etc. which would have been a trek.. who wins that argument? your answer to the problem basically says move to a central part of town with good schools.. but guess what, every body wants to do that, so what happens? those houses are much higher, and many people are out priced, so they move further out. It's a never ending rat race, and a failed attempt at an answer for the masses.

On top of this all, the thing that made me most upset (outside the commute) was my "investment" in a home. The homes with the better locations were appreciating much quicker than my burbs home. While I did well on the burbs home, the appreciation closer was much greater because of LOCATION (90-100% appreciation to my 35% burb appreciation). I would put my current home against any burb home from an investment perspective. I live in a far out burb, and my home has increased 30% in 3 years, amounting to more than what I paid for my first house in Houston. my neighbor just sold for 50%, same 3 year time frame, well into 6 figure profit. This is all luck and timing, and areas that are increasing now have had stagnant times in the past, just as areas in the burbs have seen times of rapid increase.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

My new home is surrounded by the Energy Corridor, Galleria, and Downtown. I'm within 15 - 25 minutes of any of these. so you propose everyone lives where you live? In that one little part of town? you see the flaw in this logic? I'm not proposing everyone live where I live. Live wherever it works for you, but don't expect someone else to bail another person out that complains about their situation (i.e. commute).

Buy location and the rest will follow (i.e. job flexibility of potential future employers). same argument twice. What about spouse? My wife is a HS counselor. Those jobs are few and far between (only a few per high school). You think she can just sit around a wait for one to open up that is only right near where we are? She got lucky and ended up in CFISD, so her commute was tolerable. But she could have easily ended up in spring branch, katy, aldine, etc. which would have been a trek.. who wins that argument? your answer to the problem basically says move to a central part of town with good schools.. but guess what, every body wants to do that, so what happens? those houses are much higher, and many people are out priced, so they move further out. It's a never ending rat race, and a failed attempt at an answer for the masses. That's something we all need to work out with our significant others. My career took off quicker than my wife's and her career had certain caps, so we adjust our family's lifestyle to accommodate the greater chance of success for our family. It would be no different if the lady of the family has the opportunity to advance up the ladder and the husband stays at home or does a part time gig to accommodate the kids schedules. It's no different - we're nimble to the best chances of success, with the least amount of stress on the overall family. If your wife's career as a counselor are important to her, then sacrifices have to be made as far as limited number of jobs, maybe a longer commute for her, or possibly even a switch in career depending on job availability.

On top of this all, the thing that made me most upset (outside the commute) was my "investment" in a home. The homes with the better locations were appreciating much quicker than my burbs home. While I did well on the burbs home, the appreciation closer was much greater because of LOCATION (90-100% appreciation to my 35% burb appreciation). I would put my current home against any burb home from an investment perspective. I live in a far out burb, and my home has increased 30% in 3 years, amounting to more than what I paid for my first house in Houston. my neighbor just sold for 50%, same 3 year time frame, well into 6 figure profit. This is all luck and timing, and areas that are increasing now have had stagnant times in the past, just as areas in the burbs have seen times of rapid increase.

---

---

quote:

---

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

---

Rail saves time compared to just driving. This is one of those things people say who have never experienced how commuter rail and mass subways work. It saves time for some... Vast majority of trips, etc though it is slower even with awful traffic when you factor waiting for trains, walking from stop to destination, train stop to home, switching trains, delays (which happen more than you think). Front stops on commuter lines might be quicker... But the trains typically dont travel at high speeds with the amount of stops it has to make and waiting 7 stops for your stop adds up to. I'd venture to say for instance a Woodlands train from downtown would have at 8 or 9 stops prior and the ride time would look closer to a 75 minute ride than whatever you guys have in your heads.

Houston traffic is not great but it's not near as bad compared to other metros as some of yall think. And trains aren't an if you build it people will just take it situation. It has to be more convenient and much cheaper than driving... In Houston, it just won't be.

With the high speed rail coming to town, maybe some of you can work in College Station or Dallas to help improve the Houston commute.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

---

Rail saves time compared to just driving. This is one of those things people say who have never experienced how commuter rail and mass subways work. It saves time for some... Vast majority of trips, etc though it is slower even with awful traffic when you factor waiting for trains, walking from stop to destination, train stop to home, switching trains, delays (which happen more than you think). Front stops on commuter lines might be quicker... But the trains typically dont travel at high speeds with the amount of stops it has to make and waiting 7 stops for your stop adds up to. I'd venture to say for instance a Woodlands train from downtown would have at 8 or 9 stops prior and the ride time would look closer to a 75 minute ride than whatever you guys have in your heads.

Houston traffic is not great but it's not near as bad compared to other metros as some of yall think. And trains aren't an if you build it people will just take it situation. It has to be more convenient and much cheaper than driving... In Houston, it just won't be.

---

II've in DC and had to take a bus and then the subway to get to work. 60 mins to go 10 miles. However there was no other choice as parking wasn't an option on the Hill. This is why I say you have to create demand. I was about to move to a new place within walking distance to a rail stop when I left.

I currently commute in with my wife in the HOV, then I drop her off and she takes a commuter bus into downtown Houston. Morning isn't so bad but afternoon is hell. I'd just love to see the HOV be both lanes, no toll. GI've an incentive to carpool.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

---

Rail saves time compared to just driving. This is one of those things people say who have never experienced how commuter rail and mass subways work. It saves time for some... Vast majority of trips, etc though it is slower even with awful traffic when you factor waiting for trains, walking from stop to destination, train stop to home, switching trains, delays (which happen more than you think). Front stops on commuter lines might be quicker... But the trains typically dont travel at high speeds with the amount of stops it has to make and waiting 7 stops for your stop adds up to. I'd venture to say for instance a Woodlands train from downtown would have at 8 or 9 stops prior and the ride time would look closer to a 75 minute ride than whatever you guys have in your heads.

Houston traffic is not great but it's not near as bad compared to other metros as some of yall think. And trains aren't an if you build it people will just take it situation. It has to be more convenient and much cheaper than driving... In Houston, it just won't be.

---

II've in DC and had to take a bus and then the subway to get to work. 60 mins to go 10 miles. However there was no other choice as parking wasn't an option on the Hill. This is why I say you have to create demand. I was about to move to a new place within walking distance to a rail stop when I left.

I currently commute in with my wife in the HOV, then I drop her off and she takes a commuter bus into downtown Houston. Morning isn't so bad but afternoon is hell. I'd just love to see the HOV be both lanes, no toll. GI've an incentive to carpool.

---

Read my first post. Agree you have to create demand somehow in Houston artificially. I was laughing at the idea (amongst many others on this thread about rail) that rail is quicker than driving but re-reading I see that you wrote grid lock which is closer to the situation in DC or NYC at rush hour vs what you have in Houston which is just some congestion.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

---

Rail saves time compared to just driving. This is one of those things people say who have never experienced how commuter rail and mass subways work. It saves time for some... Vast majority of trips, etc though it is slower even with awful traffic when you factor waiting for trains, walking from stop to destination, train stop to home, switching trains, delays (which happen more than you think). Front stops on commuter lines might be quicker... But the trains typically dont travel at high speeds with the amount of stops it has to make and waiting 7 stops for your stop adds up to. I'd venture to say for instance a Woodlands train from downtown would have at 8 or 9 stops prior and the ride time would look closer to a 75 minute ride than whatever you guys have in your heads.

Houston traffic is not great but it's not near as bad compared to other metros as some of yall think. And trains aren't an if you build it people will just take it situation. It has to be more convenient and much cheaper than driving... In Houston, it just won't be.

---

II've in DC and had to take a bus and then the subway to get to work. 60 mins to go 10 miles. However there was no other choice as parking wasn't an option on the Hill. This is why I say you have to create demand. I was about to move to a new place within walking distance to a rail stop when I left.

I currently commute in with my wife in the HOV, then I drop her off and she takes a commuter bus into downtown Houston. Morning isn't so bad but afternoon is hell. I'd just love to see the HOV be both lanes, no toll. GI've an incentive to carpool.

---

Read my first post. Agree you have to create demand somehow in Houston artificially. I was laughing at the idea (amongst many others on this thread about rail) that rail is quicker than driving but re-reading I see that you wrote grid lock which is closer to the situation in DC or NYC at rush hour vs what you have in Houston which is just some congestion.

---

I never once said anything about speed. Public transit isn't faster than driving a car anywhere. But there are other factors to take I to consideration. 1 is that Houston is still growing and the suburbs spread further and further out. Which is having an impact when it floods. The only way to decrease that is with increasing density. It won't be for everyone, but if you made downtown more dense and eliminated most cars (at least going into the city) then you free up real estate for more high rise residential and office. The bonus being as rail is built out those that don't work downtown will have other options to getting to work. Taking cars off the road is the 1st goal, reduce pollution and sprawl is next. Other options such as self driving buses/uber model for feeding stations would work. No solution is 100% perfect and any solution will incorporate a mix of ideas.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have to create demand, the city can do that with an ordinance to change how things are built. Or do baby steps, make all the toll roads HOV only durine peak traffic. I realize that is easier said than done but finding ways to make it more attractive is key. And rail will save time as compared to grid lock, but it won't be as fast as a car in normal traffic due to stopping and die to the vast distances people live away from everything.

---

Rail saves time compared to just driving. This is one of those things people say who have never experienced how commuter rail and mass subways work. It saves time for some... Vast majority of trips, etc though it is slower even with awful traffic when you factor waiting for trains, walking from stop to destination, train stop to home, switching trains, delays (which happen more than you think). Front stops on commuter lines might be quicker... But the trains typically dont travel at high speeds with the amount of stops it has to make and waiting 7 stops for your stop adds up to. I'd venture to say for instance a Woodlands train from downtown would have at 8 or 9 stops prior and the ride time would look closer to a 75 minute ride than whatever you guys have in your heads.

Houston traffic is not great but it's not near as bad compared to other metros as some of yall think. And trains aren't an if you build it people will just take it situation. It has to be more convenient and much cheaper than driving... In Houston, it just won't be.

---

II've in DC and had to take a bus and then the subway to get to work. 60 mins to go 10 miles. However there was no other choice as parking wasn't an option on the Hill. This is why I say you have to create demand. I was about to move to a new place within walking distance to a rail stop when I left.

I currently commute in with my wife in the HOV, then I drop her off and she takes a commuter bus into downtown Houston. Morning isn't so bad but afternoon is hell. I'd just love to see the HOV be both lanes, no toll. GI've an incentive to carpool.

---

Ever been on I-10 inbound around 5pm? It takes me 35-40 minutes on average (25 on a good day) to go from 610 to 59, which is about 8 miles. 95% of that is getting to 45, and can be worse if traffic is backed up outside of 610. That's 35 minutes of constant stop and go an looking out for the idiots that attempt to fit their SUV's into a space that couldn't fit a Prius, as well as the ones who can't read signs and come to a complete stop in order to get into the lane for their exit. I'd add 15-20 minutes to my commute if I could sit back and surf TexAgs or something during that time.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

My new home is surrounded by the Energy Corridor, Galleria, and Downtown. I'm within 15 - 25 minutes of any of these. so you propose everyone lives where you live? In that one little part of town? you see the flaw in this logic? I'm not proposing everyone live where I live. Live wherever it works for you, but don't expect someone else to bail another person out that complains about their situation (i.e. commute).




My pointy is, the locations you are identified as close to you for potential employment are the same areas for a buttload of the professional jobs in Houston. So your area is perfect for tons of people, but only so many can live there. If you were priced out, you'd be forced to move further and be on the other side of this argument. Since you're not priced out, you fail to see the other side of the argument.

That's something we all need to work out with our significant others. My career took off quicker than my wife's and her career had certain caps, so we adjust our family's lifestyle to accommodate the greater chance of success for our family. It would be no different if the lady of the family has the opportunity to advance up the ladder and the husband stays at home or does a part time gig to accommodate the kids schedules. It's no different - we're nimble to the best chances of success, with the least amount of stress on the overall family. If your wife's career as a counselor are important to her, then sacrifices have to be made as far as limited number of jobs, maybe a longer commute for her, or possibly even a switch in career depending on job availability.
You act like the typical marriage is to identify who is moving up quicker and then the other spouse decides to quit and be stay at home. Single income is becoming more and more atypical. Both spouses are continuing to work, so your solution of live near work makes less and less sense. What makes more sense is to buy a home where you are comfortable living and raising your kids and not worry so much about the shortest possible commute times since employment comes and goes, sometimes out of your hands, especially this day and age with the average tenure time much shorter than decades ago, and since there are two commutes to content with.

All this was a major factor in getting out of Houston. Too big. I wouldn't want to live close to EC or Galleria, because I like the open space and wide roads the suburbs provide. Instead of continual *****ing, we moved to a smaller city. Now I live way out of town, but it's only ~20 miles. Houston will go through a major change at some point.. you can't keep building further and further out. Either a new major downtown will pop up (dallas/fw) or there will be rapid transit from 60 miles out. Something's gotta give.

---

---

---

Forcing people to subsidize rail is nothing more than social engineering by people that think the government knows better than the individual on how to run their life. They would prefer to control you and despise freedom.

Want a simpler plan? Say it takes $50billion in tax monies to build and maintain this fairy tale train system over the next 20 years. Take that same money and start a "Gentrification Settlement Program" of paying 50,000 suburbanites $1million to relocate closer to their jobs. Proof of change of residence to within a 10 minute commute gets you $50k/year for 20 years.

quote:

---

Proof of change of residence to within a 10 minute commute gets you $50k/year for 20 years.

---

HAH so everybody that works downtown moves withing 10 minutes of downtown... aaaaand now it takes 35 minutes to go 4 miles.

Genius plan.

quote:

---

Forcing people to subsidize rail is nothing more than social engineering by people that think the government knows better than the individual on how to run their life. They would prefer to control you and despise freedom.

---

Bull***** Don't take a job in a major city? You are fully free to work wherever you want. But for the people who do work downtown, and as the city grows, dealing with congestion is a real issue. Your solution is more social engineering than building a light rail.

Mass Transit is great for other people

quote:

---

If the COH is going to drop billions in capital then why not eschew the super expensive and likely ineffective "plop some rail lines down and add some busses" model completely?

Here's the alternative: start with the uber model and maximize the infrastructure (roads) you already have. Develop self driving busses that work more like uber and price more like uber. So if I log onto the metro network and request a bus stop (suppose at the end of my street) and a drop off at or near work, I'll get a notification that a bus will arrive in a certain amount of time and I will reach my destination (without having to change busses) in a pre specified amount of time. My fare will also be pre determined based on system optimization.

The bus vehicles would probably need to be smaller to better optimize usage. Monthly rider passes could be priced on an optimization metric (subject to a monthly maximum) so that a rider that travels shorter distances on higher density routes pays less than a rider that frequents long distance low density routes

A big reality of car commuting is that for a lot of people (me included) is that using the current system/model changes a 10 minute drive to work into a 35 - 40 minute ride with a stop and transfer. If you can change the concept of the bus from a necessary hassle for people who can't afford cars to a legitimate competitior to driving yourself to work, you'll see a real increase in ridership.

---

Ever been on an airport shuttle that more or less does this exactly? A 10 minute drive is going to take WAY longer than 35-40 minutes in your Uber bus scenario.

If the government is going to mandate something, it should be a mandatory percentage of telecommuting. I know this is not always feasible if you work in retail, manufacturing etc... but there is no reason everyone needs to drive to an office every day. With technology where it is I should rarely have to attend a meeting in person, yet multiple times a week I am driving across town or someone is coming to my office to discuss something we could have done over a video conference. Half the people I work with get that and will set up a gotomeeting before they would think about getting into a car, but there are certain people that don't embrace the technology and want to sit face to face. Hell with goto you can record the meeting and have documentation forever about what was said instead of bringing your secretary to take notes. Spend time and money on this technology before you start messing with my car.

quote:

---

Ever been on an airport shuttle that more or less does this exactly? A 10 minute drive is going to take WAY longer than 35-40 minutes in your Uber bus scenario.

---

I'm preaching more of a concept than a direct adaptation of things that currently exist. My idea is still in the "pipe dream" phase of conception, not reality. My whole argument that the standard "solution" of "build rails and add buses" does not fit the unique problem that is Houston and that the solution is much more creative and bespoke. Square peg, round hole.

Your post is a good example of a different instance of mass transit as a necessary inconvenience instead of a viable alternative to driving. The problem with Houston is that most of the now-existing and suggested solutions are either (1) punitive against drivers, (2) necessary inconveniences, or (3) a good measure of both.

The real solution to Houston's mass transit puzzle is more complicated than throwing light rail at the problem and hoping that it works.

quote:

---

I ride the bus to work every day. It's chill. The bus is more convenient to me than driving and I enjoy putting my headphones in and not worrying about anything during my 10 minute commute from work to home. I value the convenience gained from being able to take public transit to work. Also, $2.50 a day RT is significantly nicer than parking costs downtown.

---

If you have a car, I hope you told your insurance agent you don't use it for your daily commute. That can save you a bit of money.

quote:

---

Forcing people to subsidize rail is nothing more than social engineering by people that think the government knows better than the individual on how to run their life. They would prefer to control you and despise freedom.

---

Tell me more about those private roads you drive on. Government pays for roads which really isn't different from "subsidizing" rail. Infrastructure is one of the legitimate roles of government, so the argument against rail from a "freedom" perspective is silly.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Forcing people to subsidize rail is nothing more than social engineering by people that think the government knows better than the individual on how to run their life. They would prefer to control you and despise freedom.

---

Tell me more about those private roads you drive on. Government pays for roads which really isn't different from "subsidizing" rail. Infrastructure is one of the legitimate roles of government, so the argument against rail from a "freedom" perspective is silly.

---

There is demand for roads. There is no demand for the passenger rail that's being suggested here. Rail advocates are trying to modify societal behavior...hence the reason there are federal funds for this to begin with. If you don't think taking billions of dollars from taxpayers is an afront to freedom, then enjoy your serfdom. And rail inherently affords less freedom to the individual than driving.