Classing 150mph as 'High Speed' is a bit misleading when you look at how fast Chinese trains are running right now. Granted, it's way fast for Americans but slow when compared to other countries more advanced rail systems.
We should be doing this all over the country... but without foreign investors. We should keep ownership of American infrastructure American. We need to quit starving governments for funds. This is one project people should be happy to pay taxes to support. The revenues it will generate could be fed back into the governments that paid for it... allowing lower taxes in the future.
Bruce H. Anderson
Taking this train may avoid the TSA theater (for now) but there will still be some of the inherent time spent at each end (arrving early, tickets, parking, rental cars, baggage). But if it gets into LA itself it might make sense. Can we assume that the "average" speed includes stops? And since AMTRAK isn't involved, construction might be on time and under budget.
I'm not sure it makes as much economic sense in America as it does in high density small geographic countries. You need to fill most trains and have a large quantity of trains on the rails. You wouldn't build a freeway just for one bus every hour. It also has to make sense without subsidies, or you may as well subsidize airlines to bring the ticket prices down.
They haven't learned from the Bay Bridge fiasco.
What happens when there is an earthquake??? Even a mild tremor could derail something running at those speeds.
Sorry, but in terms of infrastructure we are far behind the rest of the world.
I can only hope that this gets built but if history is any indicator, profits will continue to be reaped from the diminishing returns of cars-on-roads and projects like these will be inevitably squashed by vested interests/NIMBYs or the like.
If the ineffective airport security wasn't violating everybody's rights foolish projects like this would never get off the ground.
@Chevypower While a coast to coast railway or anything like wouldn't make much sense there certainly are areas where railway could make a lot of sense. If you look at the true high speed railways in Europe and Asia they mostly run between the big cities. While the distances aren't like in the US I can certainly see the more densely populated areas where more rail will make sense. Also when done right and the infrastructure around the high speed lines are present then not only is there an environmental benefit since trains are load more efficient than flying, but there is a time saving as well since trains can connect city centers. Plus when flying one spends a lot of non-productive time either going to or from the airport or at the airports, with the train you will be sitting comfortably in a train for much of that time being able to read/work/sleep.
Support for high speed rail in this country seems to follow political lines. Funny how, along the lines of climate change denial, right wing conservatives seem to be opposed to this type of development in the face of the clear need to proceed. This would be consistent with their general opposition to public transportation.