California governor Jerry Brown's plan for a High-Speed rail link from Victorville to Las Vegas has now escalated to $77 Billion. Many Californians feel that this money should be spent on rebuilding the state's crumbling Roadways, sagging Bridges and corroding Water Mains. Brown's baby is being referred to as a 120 mph "High Speed" corridor to Las Vegas from the High Desert city of Victorville. High Speed? Look at the World's top 10 high speed railways: Japan: 361 mph France: 357 mph China: 302 mph Germany: 270 mph Spain: 251 mph Italy: 225 mph UK: 208 mph S. Korea: 190 mph Taiwan: 186 mph Russia: 175 mph Even our Amtrak doesn't even make the TopTen at 135 mph! So much for America's leading transportation technology. Hal
I'm a fan of high-speed rail but I think that we should look at a logical plan for the entire country to be phased in over several years and not base it on the technology of the past. I'm thinking we should consider something similar to the Hyperloop.
Our track system was built for freight and, with few exceptions, it has been maintained for freight traffic. I don't see high-speed rail becoming big here. Instead, we're closing railroads and track lines down. The track that goes by my house once saw four or five trains a day, and now it's down to maybe one a year, probably hauling scrap out of the mill yard. I have no interest in rail for transportation services. For vacations, a train trip is one of the best ways to travel but it probably wouldn't be so enjoyable at 350 mph.
I really enjoy riding the train but I agree with @Ken Anderson that the US train system is geared toward carrying freight more than passengers and although I wish they would reopen the tracks to Pensacola, etc. so I could take the train to see my sisters somehow I just don't see Amtrak caring as much about this as I do. It seems planes are the way to go here. Everybody is in such a hurry to get where they are going that I don't see this changing. When people aren't in a hurry they seem to travel in autos, RV's, or go on Cruises. I'd really like to see them improve the whole train passenger set up...but I don't see that happening either.
The U.S. has too many lawyers and environmental hurdles to make high-speed rail travel in much of the country practical, but it would be possible on the east and west coasts. The regulations are the reason that. That is the reason a California rail would be so expensive. The lawsuits would probably delay construction so much that the system would be obsolete by the time it was completed. Although I travel a lot by air, air travel is one of the world's biggest polluters and contributors of atmospheric carbon (and it is released at altitude). If we were really worried about "global warming", we would reduce air travel to "essential only", but the elite of the world's nations, and many environmental activists fly in private (the worst) or commercial aircraft as the preferred method of transportation. It is hypocrisy carried to the extreme. I have traveled by train at over 200 mph in Japan, and the scenery was just great! The rails were welded and ground, so there was almost no rail noise either.