Is a US High-Speed Railway Economically Feasible?

An anonymous reader writes "The federal government has committed at least $8-billion (and counting) for the development of a nationwide high-speed intercity passenger railway system in almost three-dozen states. Rail advocates have long dreamed of an extensive railway grid that will provide clean, speedy, energy-efficient travel. The high-speed rail program is also expected to create thousands of desperately needed jobs, while reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil and easing gridlocked highways and congested air-space. However, this noble, ambitious, multi-year plan faces a multitude of obstacles — including costs that will no doubt escalate as the years pass by; and an American public that may be reluctant to relinquish the independence and convenience of their beloved automobiles for a train."

Comments

Re:Niggers

[Securityemo]

Willy Wonka is fit to run a chocolate factory, not a long-distance rail network in the south-western united states.

Re:Alternate solution

[Doc Ruby]

Few of us live in those sparsely populated regions (hence "sparse"), and nearly none of us work on the farms. Those farms are worked by the lowest paid people working in America, largely immigrants, who are largely illegal immigrants. If they had the power to demand more money for any reason, they already would, so clearly they don't, so can't, and won't.

Despite the best efforts of the very same people who want more trains instead of unlimited cars that are killing us, farm workers don't have the power to make our lives more expensive when there are more trains. And besides, it's the people in the densely populated coasts who pay to keep those Red States in the interior alive already.

Cities are not subsidized. Cities subsidize the rural areas, and always have, ever since we paid to invade, colonize and develop them.