Here in California, the favored alternative for high speed rail will destroy a relatively pristine natural area (Pacheco Pass).  This alternative has been pushed by the Chamber of Commerce and other business pigs from the San Jose area, who insist that the route from San Francisco-Los Angeles run through their city instead of it being the end of the line on a spur route.  The other alternative would build the line through Altamont Pass, which is already denuded by Interstate 580 and a major wind farm.

Sometimes it seems that people can't do anything right for the Earth.  Even projects like high speed rail that should be no-brainers end up being needlessly environmentally destructive.

   Us realists know that trucking, and airlines are goners, but the people in those industries are going to fight tooth and nails against that eventuality. I would expect they would see funding of alternatives as a direct threat to their business. I would expect intense lobbying, as well as campaigning against the champions of such a policy.

If it makes sense, it has no chance of being enacted in the United States. Universal health care makes sense. DOA. Doing something about global warming makes sense. LOL. Leaving Iraq and not getting into another such fiasco. ROFLOL.

My wife dreams of being able to get on a light rail in Cleveland, and being in Dayton in a few hours to see her sisters.

Not going to happen. Not in our life times.

Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH

Randy Cunningham

Don't worry! Oil's going up up up! And foreigners are still willing to loan us money -- the British financed our first wave of railroads, maybe they'll help with this one.

I think that what you're all describing is the manifestaion of what the economist Mancur Olson called "the sclerotic society", in his book about the rise and fall of nations.  Now, I usually don't like economists' theories, but he had some good points.  The idea, basically, is that as a society ages, it builds up interest groups, like plaque building up in your arteries.  Sometimes, an area like Europe gets "lucky", as in WWII, and these interest groups get wiped away.  But the US has had several hundred years to build them up.

So, we have the "highway" lobby, the oil/gas/coal lobbies, the health insurance/pharma lobbies, the military-industrial complex, the utilities, etc. etc., and the effect is that nothing fundamental changes...unless the laws of econmics and ecology override the sclerosis.

This usually leads to collapse, although Thomas Homer-Dixon wrote about the "upside of down".  So let's hope there is an upside of the coming downs-- if there is any hope of forces being dislodged, I think it is now.

...and don't tell anyone Obama has the same slogan as Bob!

The passenger and air freight business could go to really fast, aircraft-like electric trains in tubes placed in the freeway median.  200 mph plus to compete with air travel.

Freight ought to go on upgraded already existing track.  That would avoid passenger accidents on crowded, antiquated feight rail systems.

A stump was dumped on a track today and caused a major rail accident.  High speed commuter rail needs the safety of tubes, easily electrified, weather proof, and allowing much higher speeds than trains on exposed tracks.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I think something like this is essential to progress.  It's ludicrous that the nation that built the trans-continental railroad has such an anemic rail system.  I think the market is there, but somebody has to grow a pair and fund the infrastructure.  High speed, trans-continental rail combined with effective, well-funded local mass transit systems can take cars off the road and planes out of the sky, while increasing competition in all transport sectors, thereby reducing the cost of all modes of transportation and ensuring higher-quality service.  Personally, I really cannot see the downside.  I bet even the initial cost could be largely taken up by private investors.

There seems to need to be some kind of grassroots push here.  The big enviro groups are not stressing rail; Amtrak is too small, even if they were all brilliant politicians there, which I assume their not; even the contractors that would benefit are not large and organized enough, and the trains would have to come from European and Japanese companies.  The politicians aren't paying much attention at the moment, even on the Democratic side.  The history of private efforts for high-speed rail in Florida aren't good, partially because people like Jeb Bush were fighting it -- airlines feel threatened.  But maybe with airlines imploding, a critical mass could develop.

Instead of Chicago-Detroit and Chicago-Toldedo, it would be much better to have Chicago-Detroit-Toldedo. Simirlay, link Louisville to Cincinnati, not Indianapolis.
Looking at the DoE map, why isn't Jacksonville linked to Orlando? Or Houston to any other Texas city? Why the gaps between the NE network and the Chicago hub?
The map should only be used as starting point. Remember trains don't go point-point like planes, they serve a group of places along a line.

Who knows how they came up with the lines that they did.  These are the ones that are Federally designated, which I think means that states spent some money researching it.  Ideally, there would be several transcontinental links, the Chicago Hub would be linked to Texas, etc (you can actually construct your own plan using Google Maps)

Would someone ride from Chicago to Seattle if all they saw was the inside of a concrete tube the whole way?  In that case, the rail cars may not even need windows.  It would be like being on a submarine, a very very small submarine.

I think part of selling the concept of rail, in addition to safety and speed, should be the quality of the ride and the beautiful landscapes.

But tubes really would be more efficient, for sure.  I'd ride anyway, but I'm not sure everyone else would.

Shu pas a vende.