Time for High Speed Rail in the U.S.A.

[Joinfortmill]

Just saying:

[Samrob]

1. Yep. And a safe, affordable electric automobile. nt

[jimfields33]

2. Haven't they been trying between LA and San Francisco for decades?

Not sure why it takes so long. But if a short distance is a problem then how can we possibly do it nationwide?

[mitch96]

7. Same in Florida. The voters approved a high speed rail TWICE and the state govt just screws around

with "feasibility" studies. When Scott was gov he pissed away over a million bucks that went no were. Follow the money, who is paying off who.. Who would loose lucrative contracts if high speed rail was a reality? Airlines? Busses? Car companies? Gas? Hummmm.
m

[In It to Win It]

66. The government in Florida has a LONNGG history of not giving a fuck about what voters want

I actually posted an article here on DU around the 2018 election (reposted it more recently) about the unresponsive government in Florida.

[mitch96]

71. Yup, it's all about the repuke donors and lobbyist.. nt

[In It to Win It]

65. I could be wrong but my understanding of the SF to LA plan was that they

kept changing the plan. Instead of starting with the two heavily and densely populated areas, it evolved from that to going from much smaller populated areas that wouldn't get much traffic. Not sure if my understanding is entirely correct though because I don't recall why the plans for the train changed from the starting concept of a link between SF and LA.

[phylny]

3. I would love it.

In 2019 we traveled from Naples to Rome. The speed wasn’t even that fast, probably around 130 miles an hour or so. Wonderful trip, very clean and quiet.

Friends of ours are visiting us at the lake in August, traveling by train from Philadelphia to Lynchburg where we will pick them up The price was great but the process of booking the tickets was a nightmare.

I have also traveled Amtrak in the last couple of years. I would use the heck out of a high-speed train.

[A HERETIC I AM]

4. If we are going to do high speed rail, we need to take the next leap forward...

And do a Maglev system.

Ideally the vacuum tube approach where you could feasibly get from New York to LA in 90 minutes.

We have given up trying to be the leader in technology that benefits the greater good, not to mention that when a major project is undertaken, it seems to take us 5 times longer to complete than anywhere else.

Witness the “Big Dig” in Boston and the new Bay Bridge in San Francisco.

I realize major infrastructure projects don’t go up overnight, but corruption and graft seems to be rampant in this country when federal dollars are in play, and we used to be able to complete major projects in a few years instead of almost a decade.

[brooklynite]

11. You don't start with the solution and then specify the problem...

...that's what we folks in the transportation planning biz learned early on.

You identify the corridor and the need and then you evaluate the options to solve it.

In any event, the problem with MAGLEV is the same problem with HSR. You can't use existing railroad tracks (the right of way isn't configured for high speed operation. You need to acquire huge amounts of privately owned land, which is time consuming and prohibitively expensive.

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. I carefully read your post....

And all I heard in my head was “Blah, Blah, Blah.”



“You don’t start with the solution and then specify the problem”


And I tend to not take seriously suggestions and opinions of people who start with the attitude that something which would create a massive public good is always too hard or too expensive to do at all. If that sort of attitude had prevailed in the early 60’s, the Interstate Highway system would still be an Eisenhower pipe dream.

I erased 3 sentences because….well….a hide isn’t worth getting into it with the likes of you.

[sl8]

5. Like so?

(pic from Reddit)

[brooklynite]

12. Nope...

The demand for most of the lines west of Chicago (outside of intra-Texas and intra-California) will never justify the investment.

[Aroundabout23]

64. MPLS to Chicago is a must

There is a LOT of travel between the two.

[gldstwmn]

38. Amazing. Would it leave a significantly smaller carbon footprint than a plane?

[sl8]

49. I don't know, sorry.

I think trains tend to be much more efficient in that regard, but I don't know any specfics about proposed high speed trains.

[allegorical oracle]

6. I'd settle for ANY decent rail service. Wanted to visit a friend in Atlanta who was dying. Driving

from N Fla to a train station involves a 120-mile trip. It's a direct route to ATL. But returning, the train goes to NC before it travels to the Fla. departure station, taking nearly two days.

[brush]

8. The airlines aren't going away for longer runs...NY to LA, NY to SF...

and so forth. High-speed rail would work best for eastern corridor from Boston thru NY thru Philly to DC...and maybe later if it's successful, on thru to Atlanta and Miami.

On the west cost SF to LA is a natural, as is LA to Vegas, Phoenix to Vegas. Portland to Seattle also.

The old southern route of Southern Pacific's (now Amtrak's) Sunset Limited which ran from LA with stops on the way to New Orleans and on to Miami could also work for those who have the time.

Train travel has the advantages of comfort, space, dining, scenery, leisure and sleeper berths even, but airlines are always going to be faster.

[A HERETIC I AM]

19. If we went back to the days of "Regulation"...

As opposed to “Deregulation “, and set fares for miles and weight (which is all an airplane cares about when considering fuel) and allow the airlines to go back to the days of competing in service, then prices for airline fares would rise and demand for cheaper alternatives would soar.

The key to getting affordable high speed rail in this country is to allow airlines to be profitable again, do away with the ridiculous tiered fares and charge what is needed for the service.

There is a reason we all look back in the old, “Glory Days” of flying, when the men wore suits, everyone dressed nice instead of looking like they are headed to the gym and meals were served on real plates with linens and silverware. The reason is because it was a nicer fucking experience.

Another reason is because fares were set by a regulatory body and the airlines were required to provide certain levels of service.

We lament the old days but still want to be crammed into busses with wings.

It’s nuts.

And FWIW, I’m in a terminal right now as I type this, waiting on a flight.

Bring on the high speed rail and let people have room to relax as their journey would be only a small amount of time longer than it is now.

On edit to add this; someone is bound to respond with “what do you mean airlines aren’t profitable?!?”

I mean they could go back to the days of real legroom and still make money when the airplane was only 75% full

[brush]

22. I think airlines will dominate the longer routes because of speed.

The fares are the fares. They're not going back to the old days. And nowadays where you book you own flights on airline web sites, you usually find a bargain fare enough time before you want to fly. I mean mostly business fights are booked at short notice

Train travel is more pleasurable for sure, and more practical in another area I didn't mention—rail stations are in town and don't require the long, expensive ride to the airport. I'm for high-speed rail and hope it's developed at the speeds the Europeans have achieved, 300 mph plus in some instances.

[A HERETIC I AM]

24. The only reason they will dominate...

Is because of the reluctance to do the leap forward I mentioned in my other post.

A fully electric, ultra high-speed transport system, one than can attain speeds that make modern air travel look like a horse drawn carriage is absolutely within the capabilities of current technology.

Vacuum tube, maglev transport (not really a “train” per se) is not just a fantasy, but something we could build today. We (As a nation, I’m speaking, not this particular audience) would rather spend $1.33 million PER MINUTE on “Defense” instead of making the lives of our citizens better.

[brush]

28. Maglev technology is certainly promising and where it's already up and running...

Last edited Thu Jun 23, 2022, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

in China it's a success, although you exaggerate slightly in say maglev makes air travel seem like horse and carriage. That's a nice turn of phrase but come on, the 270 mph of the existent Chinese maglev line is nowhere near the 500 mph plus of airline speed.

And even if maglev reached much over the speed of airlines there would be the problem of breaking sound barrier and all the accompanying problems that would bring. So the 270 mph of the Chinese maglev is possible but traditional high-speed rail can reach that speed too so is maglev less costly to build and maintain?

And more likely to get funded v regular high-speed rail, which is already having much resistance in getting funding.

[A HERETIC I AM]

29. 500 MPH? Try 1500

As I said in my post above in this thread, a VACUUM TUBE Maglev system could achieve speeds well in excess of the speed of sound.

A system that could produce transportation times between New York and Los Angeles on the order of 90 minutes is completely within the realm of current technology.

[brush]

31. Address the breaking of the speed of sound and sonic booms.

That doesn't just go away.

[A HERETIC I AM]

34. OK...I can see you don't get it.

It DOES go away in a vacuum, for fucks sake!

Please look up Vacuum Tube Maglev.

[brush]

35. Ok, I looked it up. There could still be vibration problems.

Probably solvable but since it's never been done who knows what the vibrations will do to deeply buried tunnels or tubes. Probably solvable but experimental ones have to be built and tried, just as high-speed aircraft have to be wind tunnel tested, build and test piloted to find out what problems develop to figure out how to fix them.

High speed rail may be an efficient way to get large numbers of people between two high-traffic destinations, but it does pose some problems. One is the recently-confirmed existence of "ground vibration booms." These are sonic booms that happen underground.
https://gizmodo.com/high-speed-trains-make-can-underground-sonic-booms-1644949515

It's probably doable but will take years and a commitment much like the interstate highway development of the '50s.

[Brenda]

50. Thanks for your posts

Very informative. The lack of high speed rail in the US is just one more example of how far from "First World" status we have sunk.

Always interesting to see how hard some work to stop progress from happening.

It's not like we don't have the federal money for this sitting in the budget for the Pentagon, especially with the bonus money the Repubs just gave them.

[brush]

59. Still much developmental work to do. See post 35.

[brooklynite]

53. No, MAGLEV is NOT a success in China

They have one operating line that goes from Shanghai Airport to a station in the City's outskirts. Its been operating for close to 20 years with no plans being developed to implement routes elsewhere. Meanwhile, China continues to build ROW for high-speed conventional rail passenger service.

[brush]

58. That's kind of what I said. There's that existing 270 mph...

line which is somewhat of a sucess. It works and has been in service for several years but it's no real improvement over traditional high-speed rail at a speed that can be achieved by them also.

There's still a lot of developmental work to do solving sonic vibrations which result from the ultra high-speed msglev rail even if trains are in deep tunnels/tubes. See post 35.

[TheFarseer]

72. I remember hearing about Maglev in 6th grade

In the 80s and it blows my mind it’s still not a reality here in the USA. I can only assume the airlines, petroleum or auto lobby is working hard to scuttle it because it absolutely makes sense in many areas like LA to SF, LV to LA, Boston to NY etc.

[brush]

73. Agreed on those routes. There's still some developmental solutions...

that need to be worker out. See post 35.

[hunter]

9. The U.S.A. has lost the ability to manage any large scale projects like that.

We're having trouble maintaining what infrastructure we do have.

This is what happens when a large fraction of a nation's population and it's leaders are essentially illiterate, innumerate, incurious, and cruel.

[A HERETIC I AM]

25. THIS!

[Raine]

46. Yes exactly, die at higher speed by rail because the builders go on the cheap when building

it. Then skimp on repairs and safety measures while grifters make off with the allotted funds. No thanks.

[tenderfoot]

10. Break out the excuses not to do this! "Too Expensive!" "No one will use it!" blaa blaa blaa blaa

AmeriCAN'T!

[ripcord]

13. California's high speed rail is a costly disaster

It has gone far and away beyond the the funding and time frames that were estimated by huge amounts, add to that the irresponsibility of still trying to get around the environmental requirements every project has to go through and you have a true clusterfuck that won't meet the requirements of the ballot initiative that authorized it.

[tenderfoot]

14. Just give up then. Add Universal Health Care and everything else the rest of the west enjoys but us

eom

[ripcord]

21. The rest of the west doesn't have to pay California land prices to aquire land

This would have been a lot easier to swallow if the supporters and organizers of California's high speed rail project hadn't outright lied about the cost and time to complete. The $33b estimate has ballooned to over $105b, they aren't even discussing the original 500 mile plan from San Francisco to Los Angeles anymore the focus is now on the 172 mile segment between Bakersfield and Merced. The entire project was supposed to be completed by now but the reduced 172 mile project won't be completed until 2030. These are the requirements the voters set out in Proposition 1A that approved the high speed rail project

Minimum 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) where conditions permit
Maximum travel time between SF and LA not to exceed 2 hr 40 min
Financially self-sustaining (operation and maintenance costs fully covered by revenue)

I seriously doubt they will be able to meet any of those. The sad thing is that there have been no investigations and no one held responsible for the constant push back of finish dates and the frightening increases in the final cost.

Just because something sounds good doesn't always mean it is practical. If California voters hadn't been lied to they never would have approved the project.

[msongs]

33. california rail was hijacked from its original plan so central valley politicians would shut up.

rail was supposed to go up the west side of the valley along I-5 directly to the bay area but it was rerouted to the central valley corridor adding tons of extra miles and stops driving up cost and making it not really high speed anymore

[David__77]

16. I don't think US has ability to do that.

…

[A HERETIC I AM]

30. Sure we do.

We just don’t have the collective will.


We would rather spend $700 billion a year on shit that kills people instead of things that makes their lives better.

[dumbcat]

62. I think that was the point

It takes the will to want to accomplish something in order to do it. If we don't have the collective will (as you just admitted) then we likely won't do it. Whether it is technically possible or not is an entirely different topic, as is financial viability.

[jimfields33]

68. That God we did or Ukraine would even be worse off

See our defense doesn’t just protect the United States but the entire world.

[A HERETIC I AM]

70. Nonsense

We have the largest military force in the world but we can’t really do much to stop the slaughter caused by Putin.

The European neighbors to Ukraine can and should do more , but no one wants a nuke dropped on them by that lunatic KGB agent.

If you really think a seven hundred billion dollar military budget is truly justifiable, then we are worlds apart on this issue.

[Golden Raisin]

17. Long past time.

[BlueIdaho]

18. I'd settle for any rail where I live.

Heck, we don’t even have frequent bus service in my neck of the woods.

[Torchlight]

20. It would be great to have high speed rail

along the I-35 corridor in TX. As it stands now, it's a four hour trip between DFW and Houston and high speed would reduce that to 90 minutes.

Though a plan has been in place for some time, but the TX legislature drags their feet in regards to rational infrastructure.

[Roland99]

23. Just used local rail from Rome to the airport

10 euro each for four of us. A taxi was 50 euro

We had comfortable seats and good views and spent less money

[hunter]

26. Another high speed rail video: The Trains that Killed an Airline - Italian HSR

Not an unbiased perspective, but U.S. Americans who are only familiar with flying can see what it might be like.

[MineralMan]

37. Compare Italy to California

"Italy is approximately 301,340 sq km, while California is approximately 403,882 sq km, making California 34% larger than Italy. Meanwhile, the population of Italy is ~62.4 million people (25.1 million fewer people live in California)."

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/california-usa/italy

Think of the size difference between Italy and the entire USA.

[hunter]

39. California is entirely comparable to Italy.

California is in fact wealthier, having a greater GDP than Italy.

We can't have high speed rail linking San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and San Diego because... why?

Sadly it seems we will continue to ignore the environmental impacts of fossil fuels, especially gasoline for automobiles and jet fuel for airliners until climate change ends this civilization.

The fundamental problem, of course, is population. With a human population of 8 billion or so, this planet can't support an automobile for every adult. But it can probably support electric high speed rail, and long distance transoceanic and transcontinental travel powered by synthetic carbon neutral fuels, for all the billions of us.

It has to be for all the billions of us, otherwise economic disparities are yet another thing that will tear our 21st century world civilization apart.

[MineralMan]

40. Not my point.

[hunter]

45. If we took high speed rail seriously...

... I think we'd soon reach a point where it would be entirely possible for anyone to hop-scotch from Los Angeles to Manhattan by high speed rail rather than flying, should they choose.

The first time I traveled from Los Angeles to Manhattan was by train. I've done the trip by car and airline as well. I hate flying.

China has found the math compelling, but their math doesn't apply here in the U.S.A. where we can't just tell people to get out of the way for any common good.



We could still appeal to the common good when our own interstate highway system was built, when people still remembered The Great Depression and World War II, most especially when we were bulldozing homes in minority neighborhoods...

[MineralMan]

54. Nope. Nobody wants to use the train

to go from coast to coast on any sort of regular basis. Riding Amtrak from Chicago to San Francisco is something some people like to do, for a vacation trip. But, if you have business at either end of that journey, you're not going to go by train. You're going to hop on one of the many flights between those two cities and get there in under 4 hours, rather than three days.

There is no real demand for long-distance high speed rail transportation. Not enough demand to fill even one train a day. Meanwhile, hundreds of east-west flights from multiple cities make that trip. You fly, take care of your business, and fly back. I remember flying from Los Angeles to New York on a red-eye flight, having a morning meeting with an editor in Manhattan, and flying back to California on the same day. Didn't seem like that big a deal to me, really.

Business is the reason most people fly on a regular basis. Pleasure travel, vacation travel, and family travel is not enough to keep trains full for long distance trips. It just isn't. It's just not practical in a nation as large as the USA. No way.

Now high speed rail might make some sense in the Atlantic states. Maybe. But, in the rest of the nation, there just isn't enough demand to go from here to there on a train. Maybe LA to SF. Maybe.

[hunter]

56. The cost of global warming isn't included in the price of an airline ticket.

Those costs will be paid in the misery of future humans, most of them innocent people who did not burn huge amounts of fossil fuels flitting about on "business."

High speed rail is generally powered by electricity. There are many possible sources for low carbon electricity.

High speed rail technology exists today.

How much would an airline ticket cost if airlines weren't allowed to use fossil fuels?

The technology to power aircraft using synthetic carbon-neutral fuels is in it's infancy. ( I don't count biofuels, which are an abomination. ) Synthesizing aircraft fuels from atmospheric or oceanic carbon dioxide using nuclear power will be expensive.

One way or another, fossil fuels are going away. We can actively quit fossil fuels or we can passively watch our civilization die as earth's climate becomes less hospitable and the oceans rise.

[MineralMan]

61. Well, the energy cost of building a high speed rail system

is going to be very high. And still, most of the electrical power used by those trains is still going to be generated by burning fossil fuels. That is not my point, anyhow. My point is that such transport must be used instead of other forms of transportation. If it is not used to replace those other forms, it will not serve any function that benefits the planet.

I do not believe that high speed rail transport will find enough passengers for long distance travel to warrant its construction and operational costs. It might work between cities that are an hour or two apart on the high speed train, but one has to examine what the demand will be very closely.

I believe everyone would be better served by a system that transports goods, rather than people, in a more energy efficient way. Nobody is talking about increasing rail transport for goods. Imagine if we could take all those trucks off the highway. Now, there is a way to limit the use of fossil fuels.

You have one point of view about one transportation issue. I'm looking at a much broader picture.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

67. If we had European high speed trains,

you could do Minneapolis to Chicago in a couple hours. You're telling me people wouldn't do that instead of flying if it were much cheaper? I would. We're not talking about Amtrak speeds which is just embarrassing.

[MineralMan]

69. By car, it's around 7 hours.

That would be my choice, if I were going to Chicago, which I'm not. If I drove there, I'd have my car to get around in Chicago. I could leave when I wanted to and go where I wanted to go. It's about 400 miles. In the car I'd use for the trip, that would take about 12 gallons of gas. At $5 per gallon, that would cost me $60.

Currently, it takes over 9 hours on Amtrak for the same trip. It would, of course, take less time on a high speed train, maybe 3 hours, but there is no such train, nor are there any real plans to build such a line. And, if you know the train service from here to there, you know you can't count on anything being even close to on time. So, I'll drive and save a couple of hours each way, thanks.

Average ticket price for one traveler, one-way, between those two cities is $81. But, I'd never go alone. With my wife in the car, the Amtrak cost for the two of us, both ways, would be about $320. Then there's the cost of getting around in Chicago. Driving, it would be $120, total, and I'd have the car to get around in Chicago.

I've made that drive a few times. I don't mind the drive, actually. I haven't ridden Amtrak on that route, but I have taken Amtrak from Chicago to Bloomington/Normal, IL a couple of times. That was no fun at all. I've also driven from Chicago to that destination. I prefer the drive to the train ride, thanks.

Then there's flying. Flight time from MSP to ORD is about an hour and a half. Add to that the time from my door here to the airport, waiting time at the airport, and transportation from ORD to Chicago itself, and you're pushing five hours total for the trip. You do have to get to the airport early, you know. Transportation around Chicago is another issue. I'd drive. That way, I could leave when I wanted, go anywhere in Chicago, etc.

[ripcord]

43. California is not comparable to Italy when it comes to the cost of building

Buying the land for the right of way has been incredibly expensive because of land prices in California. The state regulations are not friendly for building and high speed rail is finding that out, the contractors and high speed rail supporters have been upset that they are being held to the same standards, including environmental reviews and regulations, as every other building project.

[brooklynite]

42. Question: how many people here would support privatized operations on Amtrak's system?

[honest.abe]

27. Construction has already begun on the CA central valley high speed rail segments.

HIGH-SPEED RAIL IS ALREADY HAPPENING in the Central Valley, with construction now spanning 119 miles across Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern counties. The Authority plans to extend this 119-mile segment into Merced and Bakersfield. The 171-mile Merced-Bakersfield line will carry more riders and deliver the most mobility, environmental and economic benefits for the lowest cost. Testing of the initial electrified high-speed rail line is planned to commence in 2025.

https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/central-valley/

The other parts like SF-LA are in limbo due to funding, environmental and legal issues.

[ripcord]

44. You consider Califonia high speed rail to be a success?

Even with the cost and time overruns? $33b to over $105b and counting is not chicken feed and the entire project was supposed to be finished by now, clusterfuck is the word I use.

[honest.abe]

48. Too early to say. Clearly there are major problems.

But it’s going to get built… at least portions of it. Too much has already been invested to turn back.

[hunter]

52. I agree with honest.abe

It's going to get built.

As water becomes too expensive to support "conservative" farmers, California's Central Valley from Bakersfield to Redding is likely to become one of the major urban corridors of the world, comparable to similar places in China but with an astonishingly diverse population and far less autocratic government. High speed rail will serve those people well.

Global warming has consequences.

[Zeitghost]

57. If and when farming dries up in Central California

It will become less populated. It's a desert, one that's unhealthy to live in due to the way it traps air and it's 100+ and rising all summer. There is no reason to live in the Valley without farming.

[hunter]

76. Climate compared to what?

There's a lot of big cities in the U.S.A. with worse climates.

Compare, for example, the climate of Madera California to Tulsa Oklahoma. (No offense, Tulsa.) Madera has a milder climate, summer and winter.

The reality of the Central Valley is that a lot of people are already moving to the Central Valley for reasons unrelated to agriculture.

[Zeitghost]

77. The Valley

Simply does not have the population density to support HSR. Not many places in the US do. Bos-Wash and maybe LA-LV are the only routs that makes sense and it will stay that way for a long, long time.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

32. I feel like our population density is such that it would only be feasible in a few areas.

All the places that have it now are much denser in terms of population that the US.

The northeast DC to Boston line, and maybe SF to LA, and within Texas. But I can't really see a dedicated HSR line across the mountain west.

[MineralMan]

36. Well, it works very well in Japan.

The United States isn't Japan, though. It's way, way bigger. People travel from anywhere to anywhere in this country, even across the width of the continent, in under 5 hours by air.

How long will high speed rail take to get from NYC to LA? How many 4-5 hour flights are there between those two cities each day?

There is your answer. It's not a trip from Tokyo to Osaka.

High speed trains work great in Japan. From the Internet:

California is approximately 403,882 sq km, while Japan is approximately 377,915 sq km, making Japan 93.57% the size of California. Meanwhile, the population of California is ~37.3 million people (88.3 million more people live in Japan). We have positioned the outline of California near the middle of Japan.

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/japan/california-usa#:~:text=California%20is%20approximately%20403%2C882%20sq,near%20the%20middle%20of%20Japan

[brooklynite]

41. NYC to Chicago is the longest "same day" trip people would be willing to make by train.

[MineralMan]

51. Yes.

[DFW]

47. Compare our problem to driving the fastest Ferrari on a dirt road full of gravel

Most of our rails date from 50 (or more!) years ago. Here in Europe, they are being constantly renewed.

The fastest train in the world is useless if the tracks upon which it runs will only safely support traffic at 75 mph. What used go be an 8 hour train trip from Madrid to Barcelona can now be made in two and a half hours on a nonstop high speed train that runs every hour on special tracks. Building the tracks took a loooong time and was horribly expensive. Same with Paris-Brussels (was 3 hours nonstop, is now 80 minutes nonstop). Düsseldorf-Frankfurt was 2:45, is now 1:25. Düsseldorf-Berlin was 7:30, now it’s 4:00 or less. I haven’t flown the route in 20 years or more, and I’m in Berlin a couple of times a year.

You need the land, the will, the time, the resources and the money. Leave out even one of those factors, and your high speed rail route remains a fantasy.

[Mr. Sparkle]

55. I think there has to be innovation to bring the cost of high speed rail down

Right now the cost makes it very unattractive to lawmakers, who only look ahead to the next 12 months.

[milestogo]

60. Republicans don't want to create or provide union jobs.

When it was shut down in Wisconsin, that was the reason.

[yellowcanine]

63. I agree but it has to be done correctly with the proper environmental impacts considered etc.

Not every route is feasible nor necessary. We don't need high speed trains to nowhere.

[Zeitghost]

74. Prior to leaving my last employer

I attended CA-HSR meetings for property owners. At that time, in 2017, they were touting SF-LA fares at 75% of the airlines (and that was at double the travel time). It didn't sound like a winner then and given their history of being far too optimistic on every aspect of this project, if and when trains ever start rolling I think it will be an even worse prospect. Those funds could have gone a long way to improving other public transportation and rail projects that were viable and much quicker to implement.

Outside of the Bos-Wash corridor, I don't see a financially sustainable use for HSR.

[Model35mech]

75. Or maybe not. It's great to blow down the tracks between great cities

but what the hell does that do for the rest of us?

You can't even afford to stop these trains at regular distances to exchange rural passengers because the cost can't be justified.

Talk to Elon Musk, if he has the bucks to pay, I'd ok the right-of-ways for use by the privileged.