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:Alternate solution

[TapeCutter]

"350ppm is an arbitrary number"

No, 350 is the best approximation of the point where major changes start to take place such as the melting of polar ice and permafrost which in turn accelerate the changes by feedback mechanisims. This is not only backed by hard science but also by detailed observations that closely match the past predictions of said science.

Our civilization and agriculture has evolved in a symbiotic relationship with a stable climate, major changes to the climate are almost certainly going to induce major changes in our civilization, by all rational accounts they will not be benificial changes.

"For some applications, like establishing an optimum CO2 level for plant growth, we would do better to double CO2 levels."

That propoganda induced urban myth was the subject of a recent climate crock episode.