Opponents of high speed rail in the United States sometimes express the view that while it works in Europe and Asia, it won't in the US because there are very few cities with dense urban transit networks to act as feeders.

I have never accepted this argument.

Supposing, today, you wish to travel from your home in Kenosha, Wisconsin, to a meeting in Irving, Texas. You'll drive your own car to Chicago O'Hare airport and park it there. You'll fly to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. And you'll hire a car there to drive to Irving.

Tomorrow (or maybe the day after) you'll do much the same. You'll drive your car to the high-speed rail station - which might be in downtown Chicago or at O'Hare airport - and park it there. You'll take the high-speed train to whichever station in the Metroplex is closest to your destination. And you'll hire a car to drive to Irving.

Is there a difference? Does the absence of urban transit cause a problem? Does it make high-speed rail impossible? I think not.

This note was prompted by reading a recent issue of "Destination: Freedom", the electronic newsletter of the National Corridors Initiative (NCI). The editor had been on vacation in Europe and had noticed that some TGV stations (like Avignon and Valence TGV) were
(1) a long way from the cities they served and
(2) surrounded by very full car parks.

This shows that the system works! High speed rail works and satisfies a need despite the fact that some stations occupy a central position in the middle of nowhere.

And you might like to look at the NCI web-site for yourself - visit the National Corridors Initiative web-site.