[Tanada]

I went back through and looked but my opinion is basically the same. Rail is great for energy efficient travel, but the number of sensible high speed rail routes in the USA is very limited. NYC-Chicago, Chicago-Saint Louis-New Orleans, Washington D.C.-Atlanta-New Orleans-Dallas, Boston-NYC-Washington D.C.

Other than those select routes a high speed system would never be able to pay for itself, and it might not even pay on those routes between major cities. Rail traveling at 60 mph or even 45 mph is fast enough to go from Los Angeles to NYC. It is about 2500 miles so 42 hours at 60 mph and 56 hours at 45 mph. Despite what people think in our iPhone instant gratification culture taking less than 3 days to go coast to coast is pretty darn quick. People in 1815 would consider such a trip miraculous and it is time we get back to the reality of just how easy our lives are today compared to the pre coal/oil powered transport era.

[Newfie]

Tanda,

True high speed rail will never be built along the NEC because the surrounding infrastructure is so developed. The amount of public domain condiment required, and the housing, building, utility relocation is absolutly prohibitive.

For true high speed rail the curves need to be straightened and the center lines widened.

[Newfie]

I don't know this source, but it sounds reasonable. Makes some interesting points. Particularly the last two paragraphs. Basically dying ispts. Ot how many mpg that matters, but total energy use. Makes sense.

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/ ... 0th-1.html

Unfortunately I can't copy it, blocked?