High speed rail system in U.S.

LunarCompSys1

Can we get one now? Baby booms gave us the highways we ride on still today...

hedonist

Given the times, it makes more sense to focus the resources required for something of that magnitude on more pressing issues. 

brianlux

Because I've supported both the National Association of Rail Passengers (NARP) and Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada (RailPAC) for several year, I've been reading their news letters and emails for some time.  Both organizations have been pushing for high speed rail for years. 

While I support the work of both organizations and believe railroading to be the most essential and economical mode of transportation there is (railroad are capable of moving more freight and people per energy unit than any other form of transportation besides walking), I honestly believe high speed rail is no longer a viable option.  I'll go out on a limb and say that window of opportunity closed several years ago- probably decades. 

The main problem today is cost and that problem is two fold.  First of all, none of the last several administrations have taken high speed rail seriously, regardless of which party has been in control.  And now with the pandemic and the need to give out stimulus checks, those funds are even more unlikely to see the light of day any time soon.  Secondly, what was once in the past an affordable option (as proven by the construction of high speed rail in both Europe and Japan a good while ago), the cost of that kind of construction has outpaced inflation and greater funding than ever would be needed to make it a reality today.   Look how long a single route in California has been proposed and moved along slowly over the last several years.  I just don't see it happening.

Others who follow rail progress and are in the know suggest that the better option would be to refurbish and improve on existing infrastructure and continue to build, as much as possible, more efficient locomotives such as the ones being developed by Siemens, and the zero emissions battery-electric locomotives for smaller jobs that are being developed  by RPS (Rail Propulsion Systems). 

You're not going to get a lot of this kind of information through the general media.  It just isn't being provided unless you look for it.  And yes, high speed rail is still mentioned in quarterlies like Steel Wheels, but I'm not seeing it make front page news much these days. 

That's my two cents anyway.

Meltdown99

it’s expensive.  Cut you war mongering budget by 75% and you can afford...

tempo_n_groove

Meltdown99 said:

it’s expensive.  Cut you war mongering budget by 75% and you can afford...

I still don't think it's viable.

The cost of doing eminent domain?  Man that would get costly.

gimmesometruth27

i would use it if we had one. a few years ago they were talking about having one go from st louis to kansas city in a very short amount of time, maybe like 75 minutes or something. i would have been all over that.

Meltdown99

tempo_n_groove said:

Meltdown99 said:

it’s expensive.  Cut you war mongering budget by 75% and you can afford...

I still don't think it's viable.

The cost of doing eminent domain?  Man that would get costly.

I think you are right.  These should have been built in the 70’s.

Meltdown99

gimmesometruth27 said:

i would use it if we had one. a few years ago they were talking about having one go from st louis to kansas city in a very short amount of time, maybe like 75 minutes or something. i would have been all over that.

I’d rather invest in rail over giving money to the airline industry.

’

tempo_n_groove

If Andrew Yang is right, there will be a driverless Super highway in the future across country so maybe we can utilize that?

LunarCompSys1

If they build a prison specifically for politicians and their assistants, it may be affordable and efficient.

tempo_n_groove

LunarCompSys1 said:

If they build a prison specifically for politicians and their assistants, it may be affordable and efficient.

My guess is you won't be around long for us to enjoy all this goodness that you have to share.

jpgoegel

its certainly an enjoyable way to travel.   i took my kids from Boston to Wash DC and it wasnt any less time consuming, and was far more relaxing.

brianlux

It's looking like high speed rail in California is an epic fail.  In 2008, Californians voters (not all!) approved $9 billion in bonds to build a high speed rail system here.  14 years later and $5 billion spent, and not a single mile of track has been laid. 
Some of us have long suggested that the way to go is to upgrade existing rail service by improving existing tracks, engines and cars and making the experience a relaxed, pleasurable way to travel.  Instead, we flushed a shit load of money down the drain. 
Way to go, California!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/29/california-high-speed-rail-bullet-train

Train to nowhere: can California’s high-speed rail project ever get back on track?

bootlegger10

What a waste of money in California.   Would be great to get a system in the US or at a minimum regionally.  

bootlegger10

Meltdown99 said:

it’s expensive.  Cut you war mongering budget by 75% and you can afford...

I don't know.  Eventually resources will dry up on the planet and it will be an all out world war.  

brianlux

bootlegger10 said:

What a waste of money in California.   Would be great to get a system in the US or at a minimum regionally.  

We really blew it waiting this long.  Between the high cost, lack a resources, and (I'm guessing) not enough workers, it probably will never happen.  We should have started a long time ago like these countries did (dates are for beginning of high speed rail service in each country):

Japan: 1964
Canada: 1976
England: 1976
France: 1981
Italy: 1988
Germany: 1991
Australia: 1998
Spain: 2007
China: 2007
Austrian: 2008
Russia: 2009

Cropduster-80

If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

brianlux

Cropduster-80 said:

If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!

Cropduster-80

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!

Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

 Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 

tbergs

High speed rail would be so awesome in this country. It would change how I travel in the US.

brianlux

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!

Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

 Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 

I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.

Cropduster-80

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!

Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

 Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 

I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.

All I’m saying is federal spending per 1 person is way, way higher in rural America than it is in LA.

that’s great they grow food. That’s subsidised too. both on a state and federal level their chosen location to reside isn’t sustainable so the money flows from cities to the country like their their airports, roads, schools etc.  

it gets frustrating to help fund it and still be their enemy. TBH rural America is much angrier at city people than the reverse.  A thank you would be nice 😂

the main point though is you’ll get more pushback for high speed rail from small town America than you will from city dwellers 

brianlux

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!

Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

 Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 

I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.

All I’m saying is federal spending per 1 person is way, way higher in rural America than it is in LA.

that’s great they grow food. That’s subsidised too. both on a state and federal level their chosen location to reside isn’t sustainable so the money flows from cities to the country like their their airports, roads, schools etc.  

it gets frustrating to help fund it and still be their enemy. TBH rural America is much angrier at city people than the reverse.  A thank you would be nice 😂

the main point though is you’ll get more pushback for high speed rail from small town America than you will from city dwellers 

Fair enough.

My push back from high speed rail has nothing to do with rural or urban thinking since I have both in my life experiences.  I love the idea of high speed rail, but the time for doing it has passed.  The article I posted her yesterday illustrates that very well.   I don like sounding pessimistic about this, but it's not going to happen.  I've been following this through both Rail Passenger Association of CA and NV (RailPac) and Rail Passengers Association (formerly NARP) for about 20 years.  It's too late.  We blew it.

PJ_Soul

Looks like we actually are going to get a high speed rail line between Vancouver, BC-Seattle, WA-Portland, OR, and I am STOKED! 1 hour travel time from Vancouver to Seattle, that is so awesome!

Cropduster-80

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!

Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

 Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 

I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.

All I’m saying is federal spending per 1 person is way, way higher in rural America than it is in LA.

that’s great they grow food. That’s subsidised too. both on a state and federal level their chosen location to reside isn’t sustainable so the money flows from cities to the country like their their airports, roads, schools etc.  

it gets frustrating to help fund it and still be their enemy. TBH rural America is much angrier at city people than the reverse.  A thank you would be nice 😂

the main point though is you’ll get more pushback for high speed rail from small town America than you will from city dwellers 

Fair enough.

My push back from high speed rail has nothing to do with rural or urban thinking since I have both in my life experiences.  I love the idea of high speed rail, but the time for doing it has passed.  The article I posted her yesterday illustrates that very well.   I don like sounding pessimistic about this, but it's not going to happen.  I've been following this through both Rail Passenger Association of CA and NV (RailPac) and Rail Passengers Association (formerly NARP) for about 20 years.  It's too late.  We blew it.

The other thing to consider is high speed rail is great, however it’s less attractive because public transportation within the cities you are connecting is also lacking.  So you arrive and still need to rent a car, so people would just drive city to city. 

I wish #1 my city had functional, reliable, and fast public transportation (light rails or whatever)
2 that cities could be connected via high speed rail 

even a liberal oasis in the middle of Texas, their idea of public transportation is letting the city bus take the HOV lane. Every time a freeway is expanded it seems like  they consider a light rail in that space adjacent to the road for about two seconds, then build another lane 

static111

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!

Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

 Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 

I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.

All I’m saying is federal spending per 1 person is way, way higher in rural America than it is in LA.

that’s great they grow food. That’s subsidised too. both on a state and federal level their chosen location to reside isn’t sustainable so the money flows from cities to the country like their their airports, roads, schools etc.  

it gets frustrating to help fund it and still be their enemy. TBH rural America is much angrier at city people than the reverse.  A thank you would be nice 😂

the main point though is you’ll get more pushback for high speed rail from small town America than you will from city dwellers 

Fair enough.

My push back from high speed rail has nothing to do with rural or urban thinking since I have both in my life experiences.  I love the idea of high speed rail, but the time for doing it has passed.  The article I posted her yesterday illustrates that very well.   I don like sounding pessimistic about this, but it's not going to happen.  I've been following this through both Rail Passenger Association of CA and NV (RailPac) and Rail Passengers Association (formerly NARP) for about 20 years.  It's too late.  We blew it.

The other thing to consider is high speed rail is great, however it’s less attractive because public transportation within the cities you are connecting is also lacking.  So you arrive and still need to rent a car, so people would just drive city to city. 

I wish #1 my city had functional, reliable, and fast public transportation (light rails or whatever)
2 that cities could be connected via high speed rail 

even a liberal oasis in the middle of Texas, their idea of public transportation is letting the city bus take the HOV lane. Every time a freeway is expanded it seems like  they consider a light rail in that space adjacent to the road for about two seconds, then build another lane 

I think we are planning to build a tunnel train in Austin and it will probably take over ten years, cost millions and then be obsolete or incomplete.  It was all approved by voters but will likely be held up by bureaucrats and when it fails and costs zillions everyone will say see we told you the liberals don't know how to be fiscally responsible.I'm sure the Boring company will make a quick buck

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

Looks like we actually are going to get a high speed rail line between Vancouver, BC-Seattle, WA-Portland, OR, and I am STOKED! 1 hour travel time from Vancouver to Seattle, that is so awesome!

I hope it goes well!  You all up north must manage money better than us down here!

static111 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!

Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

 Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 

I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.

All I’m saying is federal spending per 1 person is way, way higher in rural America than it is in LA.

that’s great they grow food. That’s subsidised too. both on a state and federal level their chosen location to reside isn’t sustainable so the money flows from cities to the country like their their airports, roads, schools etc.  

it gets frustrating to help fund it and still be their enemy. TBH rural America is much angrier at city people than the reverse.  A thank you would be nice 😂

the main point though is you’ll get more pushback for high speed rail from small town America than you will from city dwellers 

Fair enough.

My push back from high speed rail has nothing to do with rural or urban thinking since I have both in my life experiences.  I love the idea of high speed rail, but the time for doing it has passed.  The article I posted her yesterday illustrates that very well.   I don like sounding pessimistic about this, but it's not going to happen.  I've been following this through both Rail Passenger Association of CA and NV (RailPac) and Rail Passengers Association (formerly NARP) for about 20 years.  It's too late.  We blew it.

The other thing to consider is high speed rail is great, however it’s less attractive because public transportation within the cities you are connecting is also lacking.  So you arrive and still need to rent a car, so people would just drive city to city. 

I wish #1 my city had functional, reliable, and fast public transportation (light rails or whatever)
2 that cities could be connected via high speed rail 

even a liberal oasis in the middle of Texas, their idea of public transportation is letting the city bus take the HOV lane. Every time a freeway is expanded it seems like  they consider a light rail in that space adjacent to the road for about two seconds, then build another lane 

I think we are planning to build a tunnel trailer in Austin and it will probably take over ten years, cost millions and then be obsolete or incomplete.  It was all approved by voters but will likely be held up by bureaucrats and when it fails and costs zillions everyone will say see we told you the liberals don't know how to be fiscally responsible.I'm sure the Boring company will make a quick buck

Nor a lot of conservative, of course.   It's almost as though fiscal responsibility is a foreign concept in this country.  And no surprise- look at how poorly the average person handles their personal finances.  Look how "economy" is divorced from environment and natural resources in this country.  We are so young and have so much to learn.  Hope we make it long enough to do so.