What next? How do we build a better America?

[dmallord]

They are so far gone in certain lines of thinking (HSR and climate issues in general) that they can’t even see the hard facts and data in front of them. If California can’t even put a HSR boondoggle into practice then how do they expect 47 more individual states to follow suit?

Besides. Why build a $135 Billion HSR line, when you can take a SouthWest 737 from San Fran to LA for $104?

Silly person. It's not above moving people so much as it's above freight.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

Logically, their economies are smaller and thus have smaller amounts to contribute to their infrastructure. Still they got it done?

You answered your own question.

If Germany is the size of Illinois, and run a track from Bremerhaven to Munich of course! The ICE trains were very nice there. They are also heavily subsidized as fares usually don’t cover the running costs. So, they’re losing money…as will ANY endeavor in the U.S.

As I’ve shown, California already has cost and time overruns. That’s just ONE state…ONE line! Now try and add in 47 other states.

My point to the OP is the economic factors don’t jibe. Also there is NO political will. Only a handful of starry eyed dreamers of a utopia that will never materialize. As long as you can fly for $100, why bother?

I love to ride the Choo-choo as much as anyone. Did it all the time in Europe. The US ain’t Europe. The Jet Age is here to stay.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Wyoming and North Dakota. You haven't heard because nobody cares.

Now that's funny!

I flew a 48 star flag for years and told people I didn't recognize California or New Jersey as legitimate states!

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Now that's funny!

I flew a 48 star flag for years and told people I didn't recognize California or New Jersey as legitimate states!

I heard somewhere, years ago, that any flag that was ever a US flag is still recognized as being a US flag. Maybe one of the previous ones would be more accurate in this day and age.

 

[dmallord]

You answered your own question.

If Germany is the size of Illinois, and run a track from Bremerhaven to Munich of course! The ICE trains were very nice there. They are also heavily subsidized as fares usually don’t cover the running costs. So, they’re losing money…as will ANY endeavor in the U.S.

As I’ve shown, California already has cost and time overruns. That’s just ONE state…ONE line! Now try and add in 47 other states.

My point to the OP is the economic factors don’t jibe. Also there is NO political will. Only a handful of starry eyed dreamers of a utopia that will never materialize. As long as you can fly for $100, why bother?

I love to ride the Choo-choo as much as anyone. Did it all the time in Europe. The US ain’t Europe. The Jet Age is here to stay.

Perhaps HSR in California was not the best scenario for an experiment. As you note, it is failing in a spectacular manner due to numerous factors. This is a brief overview of what I found about it.

"California’s high-speed rail (HSR) project, originally intended to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles, has faced numerous issues that have led to its prolonged timeline and ballooning costs. Despite its initial promise, the project has encountered complex challenges. Here’s a breakdown of the main factors holding it back:

1. Funding Shortfalls and Cost Overruns​

• Initial Estimates vs. Reality: The project was initially estimated at around $33 billion, but costs have since escalated to over $100 billion due to construction delays, land acquisition costs, and inflation. Federal funds and state bonds cover only a portion, and funding has been uncertain, leading to ongoing financial struggles.
• Funding Gaps: California has received federal support, but it’s been inconsistent, especially with changes in federal administrations. The lack of continuous funding from a single source has forced the project to advance in phases instead of all at once, contributing to delays.

2. Political Hurdles and Partisan Disputes​

• Shifting Priorities: Federal and state politics have complicated funding. Under the Obama administration, California received federal grants, but funding slowed under subsequent administrations less supportive of HSR. Political support varies widely, with some policymakers pushing for cuts, while others emphasize the project’s environmental benefits.
• Local Opposition: Some communities have opposed the rail, concerned about property rights, environmental impacts, and changes to local infrastructure. This resistance has forced the rail authority to make adjustments and reassess routing, causing delays.

3. Complex Terrain and Construction Challenges​

• Engineering Challenges: California’s varied terrain, including mountains, seismic zones, and densely populated areas, requires complex engineering solutions that are both time-consuming and costly. For instance, tunneling through the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountains has been challenging and requires highly specialized infrastructure.
• Environmental Reviews and Permits: California has strict environmental protection regulations (CEQA), which mandate comprehensive assessments and approvals before construction. While these protect natural habitats and communities, they significantly slow the timeline. Even minor route changes require environmental reviews, adding more delays.

4. Land Acquisition and Right-of-Way Issues​

• Land Costs and Eminent Domain: California’s high property values make acquiring land for the rail costly and complicated. While the state can use eminent domain, this often leads to lengthy legal battles, and delays in securing land push back construction timelines. In some cases, entire route segments are left incomplete due to unresolved land acquisition issues.
• Fragmented Approach: Because the right-of-way isn’t fully secured along the entire route, the project has had to build in segments rather than completing the entire line at once. This fragmented approach is less efficient and requires complex logistics to align segments once each is completed.

5. Project Scope Changes and Revisions​

• Shifting Objectives: Initially, the rail was supposed to directly connect San Francisco to Los Angeles at speeds over 200 mph. But due to budget and logistical constraints, the project was re-scoped multiple times, including a scaled-down “Central Valley segment” between Merced and Bakersfield as a first phase.
• Lack of Clear Prioritization: The project’s scope has shifted to meet funding realities, but the ongoing adjustments have also led to inefficiencies. Constantly revisiting the plan has slowed progress and caused some people to lose confidence in its completion.

6. Inconsistent Public Support and Growing Skepticism​

• Initial Support Fading: When Californians approved a bond measure in 2008, public enthusiasm was high. But delays, budget increases, and downsized ambitions have led to skepticism about whether the rail will ever be completed as initially promised.
• Environmental and Economic Critics: While the project aims to offer environmental benefits by reducing car travel and emissions, some critics argue that it has been poorly managed and may not deliver the intended benefits on time, if at all. This has dampened public support and made securing additional funding harder.

Conclusion​

The California high-speed rail project is plagued by funding inconsistencies, political shifts, land acquisition challenges, and technical and environmental hurdles, making it far from the streamlined success stories seen in countries like Japan or France.

Addressing these issues would require sustained political and public support, perhaps in the form of more consistent federal funding, clearer project timelines, and a concerted push to simplify regulations specific to HSR construction. Without these structural changes, the project may continue to face the same setbacks, further delaying California’s vision for high-speed rail."

TBC...

 

[dmallord]

... Continued.

Yet eons ago, under the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Program, that program facilitated massive connectivity across the continent in both directions and fueled the economic engine like no other program outside of the national defense efforts during WWI and WWII. This is an outline of such a program that could be undertaken for high-speed rail following that model:

"Yes, a program similar to the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System could potentially jumpstart high-speed rail (HSR) development in the United States. The interstate program's success in the 1950s offers a useful blueprint for what a nationwide HSR initiative might require, including federal coordination, consistent funding, and a national vision for HSR as a critical part of the country's infrastructure.

"Here’s how an HSR-focused version of the Eisenhower Program might look and what it would need to be successful:

1. Federal Coordination and National Vision​

• Interstate Blueprint: The interstate system succeeded because it was a national priority with centralized federal oversight. HSR in the U.S. has often been piecemeal, with states like California and regional efforts like Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor left to advance projects largely on their own. A national HSR program could streamline development across states and establish a unified vision.
• A Cohesive Network: Rather than isolated HSR corridors, a federally coordinated approach could integrate regional networks (Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, etc.) into a cohesive, national rail grid. It could focus on connecting high-population and high-travel corridors, much like the interstate system prioritized routes with high transport demand.

2. Consistent Federal Funding​

• Interstate Funding Model: The federal government funded 90% of the interstate system’s costs, making it feasible for states to participate without shouldering the full burden. For HSR, federal funding could cover a similar portion, reducing the strain on individual states and ensuring that the project is seen as a long-term national investment.
• Dedicated HSR Trust Fund: Just as the Highway Trust Fund is funded by a federal gas tax, a HSR Trust Fund could be created, possibly supported by carbon taxes, transit fees, or other transportation-based revenue sources. This fund could be used exclusively for developing and maintaining HSR infrastructure, guaranteeing steady funding.

3. Streamlined Land Acquisition and Permitting​

• Eminent Domain and Federal Support: The interstate system benefited from federal support in acquiring land for the highways, using eminent domain where necessary. Similarly, a national HSR program could include federal support to acquire land for rail corridors, helping to bypass lengthy and costly state-by-state land negotiations.
• Reduced Regulatory Complexity: Federal leadership could standardize and simplify environmental reviews for HSR specifically, as opposed to the patchwork of state and federal regulations currently involved. This would allow necessary environmental protections while speeding up approvals, similar to what the interstate system achieved through federal oversight.

4. Unified Standards for HSR Development​

• Highway Engineering Standards as a Model: The interstate program established clear engineering standards for width, grade, and speed limits, ensuring the entire system was cohesive. HSR in the U.S. could benefit from similar national standards on track specifications, speed, safety, and even station accessibility, making construction and operation more consistent across states.
• Interoperability: Standards could ensure that trains can operate seamlessly across state lines, enhancing efficiency and allowing for a truly national network. In regions with existing infrastructure (like the Northeast), a national program could upgrade and expand current rail to meet HSR standards.

5. Public Support through National Messaging​

• Building a Shared Vision: The interstate highway program was popular because it was presented as essential for national defense, economic growth, and connectivity. A national HSR program could similarly emphasize environmental benefits (e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions), economic growth, and enhanced mobility.
• Potential for Private Sector Investment: Clear government backing and a structured funding model would likely attract private sector involvement, as companies see the potential for consistent returns. Public-private partnerships could make HSR financially viable without being entirely government-funded.

6. Addressing Geographic and Population Density Differences​

• Focused Corridors: While the interstate system spread across the entire country, HSR would work best in corridors with high population density and demand for intercity travel. Federal leadership could focus on key routes—such as the Northeast Corridor, California, the Midwest, and the Texas Triangle—where HSR is most viable.
• Supplemental Rail Connections: A national HSR program could also integrate with other forms of transportation, like regional rail and local transit, to provide broader access. Connecting high-density corridors with improved rail infrastructure could make HSR accessible to smaller markets, enhancing its utility.

Challenges to an Eisenhower-Style HSR Program​

• Cost and Funding Priorities: An HSR program would require significant investment, potentially more than the original interstate system when adjusted for inflation. Federal budgets would need to prioritize HSR over other infrastructure investments, which may be politically challenging.
• Political and Public Resistance: Some regions and interest groups (e.g., oil and automobile industries) may oppose a national HSR initiative, seeing it as a challenge to existing transportation and energy structures.
• Logistical Challenges: Unlike highways, which can navigate around urban centers, HSR often needs to run through densely populated areas, requiring complex planning and sometimes contentious negotiations for routing and construction."

Conclusion​

"A national high-speed rail initiative modeled on the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Program is feasible and could have a transformative effect on U.S. transportation. It would require significant political will, consistent federal funding, and a streamlined regulatory process, but with these elements in place, it could overcome many of the issues that have hindered piecemeal HSR efforts so far. As the interstate program revolutionized American mobility, a similarly structured HSR initiative could do the same, with the added benefits of environmental sustainability and reduced reliance on highways."

Yep, another call for big bother to help the step-siblings... but in a good way."

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

... Continued.

Yet eons ago, under the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Program, that program facilitated massive connectivity across the continent in both directions and fueled the economic engine like no other program outside of the national defense efforts during WWI and WWII. This is an outline of such a program that could be undertaken for high-speed rail following that model:

"Yes, a program similar to the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System could potentially jumpstart high-speed rail (HSR) development in the United States. The interstate program's success in the 1950s offers a useful blueprint for what a nationwide HSR initiative might require, including federal coordination, consistent funding, and a national vision for HSR as a critical part of the country's infrastructure.

"Here’s how an HSR-focused version of the Eisenhower Program might look and what it would need to be successful:

1. Federal Coordination and National Vision​

• Interstate Blueprint: The interstate system succeeded because it was a national priority with centralized federal oversight. HSR in the U.S. has often been piecemeal, with states like California and regional efforts like Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor left to advance projects largely on their own. A national HSR program could streamline development across states and establish a unified vision.
• A Cohesive Network: Rather than isolated HSR corridors, a federally coordinated approach could integrate regional networks (Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, etc.) into a cohesive, national rail grid. It could focus on connecting high-population and high-travel corridors, much like the interstate system prioritized routes with high transport demand.

2. Consistent Federal Funding​

• Interstate Funding Model: The federal government funded 90% of the interstate system’s costs, making it feasible for states to participate without shouldering the full burden. For HSR, federal funding could cover a similar portion, reducing the strain on individual states and ensuring that the project is seen as a long-term national investment.
• Dedicated HSR Trust Fund: Just as the Highway Trust Fund is funded by a federal gas tax, a HSR Trust Fund could be created, possibly supported by carbon taxes, transit fees, or other transportation-based revenue sources. This fund could be used exclusively for developing and maintaining HSR infrastructure, guaranteeing steady funding.

3. Streamlined Land Acquisition and Permitting​

• Eminent Domain and Federal Support: The interstate system benefited from federal support in acquiring land for the highways, using eminent domain where necessary. Similarly, a national HSR program could include federal support to acquire land for rail corridors, helping to bypass lengthy and costly state-by-state land negotiations.
• Reduced Regulatory Complexity: Federal leadership could standardize and simplify environmental reviews for HSR specifically, as opposed to the patchwork of state and federal regulations currently involved. This would allow necessary environmental protections while speeding up approvals, similar to what the interstate system achieved through federal oversight.

4. Unified Standards for HSR Development​

• Highway Engineering Standards as a Model: The interstate program established clear engineering standards for width, grade, and speed limits, ensuring the entire system was cohesive. HSR in the U.S. could benefit from similar national standards on track specifications, speed, safety, and even station accessibility, making construction and operation more consistent across states.
• Interoperability: Standards could ensure that trains can operate seamlessly across state lines, enhancing efficiency and allowing for a truly national network. In regions with existing infrastructure (like the Northeast), a national program could upgrade and expand current rail to meet HSR standards.

5. Public Support through National Messaging​

• Building a Shared Vision: The interstate highway program was popular because it was presented as essential for national defense, economic growth, and connectivity. A national HSR program could similarly emphasize environmental benefits (e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions), economic growth, and enhanced mobility.
• Potential for Private Sector Investment: Clear government backing and a structured funding model would likely attract private sector involvement, as companies see the potential for consistent returns. Public-private partnerships could make HSR financially viable without being entirely government-funded.

6. Addressing Geographic and Population Density Differences​

• Focused Corridors: While the interstate system spread across the entire country, HSR would work best in corridors with high population density and demand for intercity travel. Federal leadership could focus on key routes—such as the Northeast Corridor, California, the Midwest, and the Texas Triangle—where HSR is most viable.
• Supplemental Rail Connections: A national HSR program could also integrate with other forms of transportation, like regional rail and local transit, to provide broader access. Connecting high-density corridors with improved rail infrastructure could make HSR accessible to smaller markets, enhancing its utility.

Challenges to an Eisenhower-Style HSR Program​

• Cost and Funding Priorities: An HSR program would require significant investment, potentially more than the original interstate system when adjusted for inflation. Federal budgets would need to prioritize HSR over other infrastructure investments, which may be politically challenging.
• Political and Public Resistance: Some regions and interest groups (e.g., oil and automobile industries) may oppose a national HSR initiative, seeing it as a challenge to existing transportation and energy structures.
• Logistical Challenges: Unlike highways, which can navigate around urban centers, HSR often needs to run through densely populated areas, requiring complex planning and sometimes contentious negotiations for routing and construction."

Conclusion​

"A national high-speed rail initiative modeled on the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Program is feasible and could have a transformative effect on U.S. transportation. It would require significant political will, consistent federal funding, and a streamlined regulatory process, but with these elements in place, it could overcome many of the issues that have hindered piecemeal HSR efforts so far. As the interstate program revolutionized American mobility, a similarly structured HSR initiative could do the same, with the added benefits of environmental sustainability and reduced reliance on highways."

Yep, another call for big bother to help the step-siblings... but in a good way."

Good points and can’t argue with a whole lot. We’ve both pointed out the why it wont happen. I have had this debate before and one thing I’d like to piggyback off you on.

If this were ever to happen. I’d suggest they use the Interstate system. Literally. Put the tracks alongside the long stretches. Ultimately it takes political will…something that is severely lacking. Especially as divided as the country is.

*Edit…wife showed up and I didn’t get to finish my thought!

The routing is a huge problem. Especially with HSR. Amtrak has speed limits in the NE due to the congestion. Out west not a problem…where it would benefit most.

 

[dmallord]

Good points and can’t argue with a whole lot. We’ve both pointed out the why it wont happen. I have had this debate before and one thing I’d like to piggyback off you on.

If this were ever to happen. I’d suggest they use the Interstate system. Literally. Put the tracks alongside the long stretches. Ultimately it takes political will…something that is severely lacking. Especially as divided as the country is.

Certainly sounds like a workable plan you got there for most places.

"In theory, high-speed rail (HSR) could be built along existing Interstate highway rights-of-way (ROW), but there are significant challenges and limitations to this approach. While running HSR adjacent to or above Interstate highways could help reduce land acquisition costs and simplify route planning, the practicalities of speed, safety, and terrain often make it more complicated. Here’s a closer look at the feasibility, benefits, and challenges of using Interstate rights-of-way for HSR:

1. Advantages of Using Interstate Rights-of-Way​

• Reduced Land Acquisition Costs: Interstate highways have extensive ROW that’s already cleared, which could allow HSR projects to avoid the often costly and time-consuming land acquisition process.
• Simplified Permitting: Since highways are already approved for transportation use, additional permitting could be easier in many areas, potentially accelerating HSR construction.
• Minimal Environmental Impact: Building along existing highways could reduce the environmental impact compared to constructing an entirely new rail corridor, as these routes are already cleared and less likely to disrupt new habitats.
• Easier Public Acceptance: Public resistance might be lower when adding rail along highways rather than through communities or farmlands. It could be seen as a logical extension of current infrastructure without significant changes to landscapes.

2. Technical and Safety Challenges​

• High-Speed Rail’s Curve and Gradient Requirements: HSR trains are sensitive to curves and elevation changes. For optimal speeds (upwards of 180-220 mph), tracks need long, gradual curves and minimal grade changes, but Interstates often have sharper turns and steeper grades, especially through mountainous or hilly areas. This makes it difficult to follow highway contours while maintaining high speeds.
• Safety Considerations: Highways frequently intersect with other roads, on-ramps, and exit ramps, which could pose safety risks for high-speed trains. High-speed rail requires fully grade-separated tracks, meaning no level crossings with other roads or driveways, which could complicate placing it next to highways.
• Sound and Vibration Concerns: The proximity of trains to vehicles on highways could present noise and vibration issues. This could affect both HSR passengers and highway drivers, especially if speeds are reduced to accommodate proximity, reducing the rail’s overall efficiency.

3. Engineering and Construction Constraints​

• Space Limitations: While Interstate ROWs can be wide, they vary in width and often narrow through urban areas, bridges, and tunnels. High-speed rail requires its own set of tracks, as well as space for embankments, fencing, sound barriers, and possibly overhead electrification. Not all highways have enough room to accommodate all these elements without significant widening.
• Bridges and Tunnels: Building HSR next to highways would require duplicating bridges and tunnels, which can be costly and logistically challenging. High-speed rail tracks cannot generally share road bridges or tunnels due to the load, clearance, and design requirements specific to HSR infrastructure.
• Electrification and Maintenance Needs: Most high-speed rail systems require overhead electrification, which would need to be added along highway ROW. This would add to the complexity of building HSR adjacent to highways, requiring special structures to avoid interference with the highway and maintain a safe distance from traffic.

4. Potential for Limited-Speed Rail Along Highways​

• Lower-Speed Rail as a Compromise: In some cases, moderate-speed rail (up to 125 mph) could run alongside highways more feasibly than full HSR. This compromise could offer some benefits, such as improved intercity rail service with reduced costs and construction complexity, but it wouldn’t deliver the full speed and efficiency of high-speed rail.
• Shortened Routes and Spur Lines: Limited sections of rail alongside highways might be useful as “spur lines” connecting to larger HSR routes. For instance, they could connect suburban areas to major HSR stations or airports.

5. Alternative Approaches: Elevated and Adjacent Tracks​

• Elevated Tracks: In some cases, elevated rail lines could be built above highway ROW, reducing the need for additional land and avoiding interference with highway traffic. This approach has been successfully implemented in some congested Asian cities. However, it would add significant cost due to the complex infrastructure needed for elevated HSR lines.
• Separate But Parallel Corridors: Another option is to build a dedicated HSR corridor that runs roughly parallel to major highways but maintains the alignment and design requirements needed for high-speed rail. This would allow some infrastructure to follow the general path of highways without compromising on speed or safety.

6. Examples and Lessons from Other Countries​

• In Japan, many Shinkansen lines follow or run parallel to highways, especially in urban and mountainous areas. However, these tracks are often elevated or placed on viaducts, which minimizes land use and avoids direct interference with highways.
• In Europe, high-speed rail tracks occasionally parallel highways, but they are generally built on separate, dedicated corridors designed specifically for HSR requirements.

Conclusion: Feasible But Limited Potential​

Using Interstate rights-of-way for high-speed rail in the U.S. is a possibility but with limited applicability for true high-speed trains. In some flat, straight sections, HSR could run alongside highways, but many areas would require costly adaptations (like elevation or parallel routes) to meet high-speed standards.

Ultimately, while Interstate highways could offer opportunities for certain HSR corridors, a fully effective national high-speed rail system would likely need its own dedicated tracks to meet speed, safety, and efficiency standards."

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Comprehensive gun control.
Proper taxation for corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
Prescription drug cost reform.
Legalized pot nationwide.
End tax loopholes and bank strangleholds on housing.
Congress doesn't get paid if job isn't done, and must abide by its own rules.
Term limits for SCOTUS.
End Daylight Savings Time.

I don’t think you want to be on standard time.

 

[Nicefella]

I’m trying to stay joyful today.
This brings me joy!
A conservative/trumper asking the federal government to help subsidize something! Too funny! TY!

Neither conservative nor a trumper. Still think that the airline industry ought to be subsidized.

 

[SevMax2]

"It ain't over 'til it's over." - Yogi Berra

Even so, I don't like Harris's odds right now. If Trump gets in, I'll be fine. I'm not going to be one of those suffering, not by and large. Unless the anti-smut thing actually happens, of course. It's gonna suck for those who are not white dudes like me. I'm bi, sure, but I could easily pass as straight if necessary. It's also gonna suck for the Ukrainians, but that's a given as well. It might suck for Europe, too, depending on how much he knuckles under to Putin. Oh, well, we're screwed in the long run, anyway.

 

[rgraham666]

... Continued.

Yet eons ago, under the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Program, that program facilitated massive connectivity across the continent in both directions and fueled the economic engine like no other program outside of the national defense efforts during WWI and WWII. This is an outline of such a program that could be undertaken for high-speed rail following that model:

"Yes, a program similar to the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System could potentially jumpstart high-speed rail (HSR) development in the United States. The interstate program's success in the 1950s offers a useful blueprint for what a nationwide HSR initiative might require, including federal coordination, consistent funding, and a national vision for HSR as a critical part of the country's infrastructure.

"Here’s how an HSR-focused version of the Eisenhower Program might look and what it would need to be successful:

1. Federal Coordination and National Vision​

• Interstate Blueprint: The interstate system succeeded because it was a national priority with centralized federal oversight. HSR in the U.S. has often been piecemeal, with states like California and regional efforts like Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor left to advance projects largely on their own. A national HSR program could streamline development across states and establish a unified vision.
• A Cohesive Network: Rather than isolated HSR corridors, a federally coordinated approach could integrate regional networks (Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, etc.) into a cohesive, national rail grid. It could focus on connecting high-population and high-travel corridors, much like the interstate system prioritized routes with high transport demand.

2. Consistent Federal Funding​

• Interstate Funding Model: The federal government funded 90% of the interstate system’s costs, making it feasible for states to participate without shouldering the full burden. For HSR, federal funding could cover a similar portion, reducing the strain on individual states and ensuring that the project is seen as a long-term national investment.
• Dedicated HSR Trust Fund: Just as the Highway Trust Fund is funded by a federal gas tax, a HSR Trust Fund could be created, possibly supported by carbon taxes, transit fees, or other transportation-based revenue sources. This fund could be used exclusively for developing and maintaining HSR infrastructure, guaranteeing steady funding.

3. Streamlined Land Acquisition and Permitting​

• Eminent Domain and Federal Support: The interstate system benefited from federal support in acquiring land for the highways, using eminent domain where necessary. Similarly, a national HSR program could include federal support to acquire land for rail corridors, helping to bypass lengthy and costly state-by-state land negotiations.
• Reduced Regulatory Complexity: Federal leadership could standardize and simplify environmental reviews for HSR specifically, as opposed to the patchwork of state and federal regulations currently involved. This would allow necessary environmental protections while speeding up approvals, similar to what the interstate system achieved through federal oversight.

4. Unified Standards for HSR Development​

• Highway Engineering Standards as a Model: The interstate program established clear engineering standards for width, grade, and speed limits, ensuring the entire system was cohesive. HSR in the U.S. could benefit from similar national standards on track specifications, speed, safety, and even station accessibility, making construction and operation more consistent across states.
• Interoperability: Standards could ensure that trains can operate seamlessly across state lines, enhancing efficiency and allowing for a truly national network. In regions with existing infrastructure (like the Northeast), a national program could upgrade and expand current rail to meet HSR standards.

5. Public Support through National Messaging​

• Building a Shared Vision: The interstate highway program was popular because it was presented as essential for national defense, economic growth, and connectivity. A national HSR program could similarly emphasize environmental benefits (e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions), economic growth, and enhanced mobility.
• Potential for Private Sector Investment: Clear government backing and a structured funding model would likely attract private sector involvement, as companies see the potential for consistent returns. Public-private partnerships could make HSR financially viable without being entirely government-funded.

6. Addressing Geographic and Population Density Differences​

• Focused Corridors: While the interstate system spread across the entire country, HSR would work best in corridors with high population density and demand for intercity travel. Federal leadership could focus on key routes—such as the Northeast Corridor, California, the Midwest, and the Texas Triangle—where HSR is most viable.
• Supplemental Rail Connections: A national HSR program could also integrate with other forms of transportation, like regional rail and local transit, to provide broader access. Connecting high-density corridors with improved rail infrastructure could make HSR accessible to smaller markets, enhancing its utility.

Challenges to an Eisenhower-Style HSR Program​

• Cost and Funding Priorities: An HSR program would require significant investment, potentially more than the original interstate system when adjusted for inflation. Federal budgets would need to prioritize HSR over other infrastructure investments, which may be politically challenging.
• Political and Public Resistance: Some regions and interest groups (e.g., oil and automobile industries) may oppose a national HSR initiative, seeing it as a challenge to existing transportation and energy structures.
• Logistical Challenges: Unlike highways, which can navigate around urban centers, HSR often needs to run through densely populated areas, requiring complex planning and sometimes contentious negotiations for routing and construction."

Conclusion​

"A national high-speed rail initiative modeled on the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Program is feasible and could have a transformative effect on U.S. transportation. It would require significant political will, consistent federal funding, and a streamlined regulatory process, but with these elements in place, it could overcome many of the issues that have hindered piecemeal HSR efforts so far. As the interstate program revolutionized American mobility, a similarly structured HSR initiative could do the same, with the added benefits of environmental sustainability and reduced reliance on highways."

Yep, another call for big bother to help the step-siblings... but in a good way."

The basic problem is that in present day America things are done for the following reasons.

One: It makes a rich person richer, and Two: it blows something up or creates something that blows something up. Preferably both.

HSR fits in neither of those criteria so any effort towards it it going to be disliked at best and strongly opposed most likely.

 

[AceDesSpades]

1.2: it makes a poor man believe he can get richer, and then he does, or he whines, blames and votes (D)...

Should have voted (JD) if you are for the poor man.

Walz was just a poor man.

 

[Justplainjeff]

First things first in “making America great again” on January 20th…

Impeach SCOTUS Justices: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh (for a start)—for perjury and ethics violations.

Codify Roe. Repeal Citizens United. Restore the Chevron Doctrine. Restore the Fairness Doctrine.

Restore the Rule of Law in the eyes of the country and put Trump and his criminal minions on the road to prison—where he should have been by now.

Start to overhaul the ACA and put in what should have been there from day one: single payer. Restore the ACA’s mandate based on income—those making under a certain amount would be exempt from paying into the system, but would still be covered by it.

Overhaul the tax code. Remove taxes for senior citizens (over say age 75) and bring the tax rate to pre-Reagan rates starting with 30% for anyone with an income of over $1M with a rising scale up to 70% for income (including investment revenues) over $1B. Reduce the middle class tax rates accordingly. Corporate taxes would be set at 30-40%—with tax rate discounts based on how much of the corporation does its business in the US only. Any corporation that produces goods would be given a sizable tax break if their products were produced 100% in the US.

Tie military spending to the federal deficit. No increases to the military budget while there is a deficit—any increases will only be approved in a time of war or with a 95% vote of both houses of Congress.

I could probably come up with more, but this’ll do for now.

Wow! A true Socialist country. Just like Venezuela, and look what a shit hole it's become.

 

[Politruk]

We destroy the two-party system, that's the first step to build a better America. We replace it with a multiparty system.

 

[RandyRebecca]

Wow! A true Socialist country. Just like Venezuela, and look what a shit hole it's become.

Venezuela has never gotten rid of capitalism, not even at the height of Hugo Chavez's power. It's too much capitalism that has damaged the Bolivarian Revolution, not too much socialism. Billionaire owned media has always been permitted to cause unrest there, which a socialist system would stop by taking power out of their hands, period.

 

[RandyRebecca]

We destroy the two-party system, that's the first step to build a better America. We replace it with a multiparty system.

What the US needs is a party like Eugene Debs' Socialist Party of America from 100+ years ago. Debs spent a lot of energy on telling people that the Democrats and Republicans both represented capital, not labor. Unfortunately, Franklin D. Roosevelt winning 4 presidential elections as a Democratic candidate undid nearly all of Debs' work in this regard.

 

[Politruk]

What the US needs is a party like Eugene Debs' Socialist Party of America from 100+ years ago.

It broke up in 1972 over whether to support or oppose the Vietnam War. Successor organizations include the Socialist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America.

 

[Politruk]

The Jet Age is here to stay.

Jet fuel is not here to stay. It's a petroleum derivative.

 

[Lance_Castro]

Assuming that Donald Trump is prevented from seizing power….

Lol

Havent you fucked off with BoringRory yet?