Quote:
Originally Posted by edale
No one is seriously talking about high speed rail across the entire US. It's talked about in corridors highly populated corridors and states, similar to how it has been implemented in countries across the globe. The most obvious candidate for HSR is the Northeast Corridor from Boston to DC, but there are several others that make sense. California from SD to SF. LA to Vegas. Rail connecting the big cities in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. Chicago to any number of cities in the Midwest.
What I meant by the second half of my post is that rail is painted as a boogeyman by the American right for no reason whatsoever. We fund freeways like crazy, with seldom a peep from the taxpayer watchdog groups. But any time a rail project is proposed, it is met with HUGE irrational opposition. Ohio worked like crazy to get its 3C rail funded, only to have it sabotaged by small town Republicans who thought rail was a gateway to socialism. Seriously. With this faction receiving undue influence at the state and national levels, it makes it very hard to undertake big projects like high speed (or hell, even conventional speed) rail.
|
I get you. Yeah, in the case of like California, it actually was politics and not practicality that got in the way after all. But I think even liberal Californians thought the price was too much for what they were getting.
I am not agreeing with the Right and their opposition to rail but I try to understand the rationale of their opposition. A rural resident will never use the train. They probably never use a plane either than maybe a few times in their lives. Thier entire world revolves around their cars and trucks, so its hard for them to even imagine people wanting other options. Its like AOC and people from big cities proposing plans to eliminate gas engines without a viable option in its place. Tell that to a farmer who has upwards of a million dollars worth of machinary that relies on gas or diesel. And again, why would someone from Oklahoma want billions spent on a rail line on the NE that mostly only wealthy and upper-middle class people will use?
There are plenty of liberal states that could build rail. NY, CT,NJ,MA,RI,CA,OR,WA all could build rail based on their liberal leanings and populations(or where they are located). California had all the ingredients lined up; tons of money, liberal voters, and actual construction. And even they are pretty much giving up on it because of the stupidy of politicians and how to route the dang thing and because people realized it wasn't a good deal. Why should Californians spend something like 60 billion dollars to make a slightly better alternative to flying? It doesn't make sense. For optics, it looks cool and progressive. But 60 billion dollars isn't a joke, you have to prove its worth it.