Originally Posted by
Wilbur
Politics aside, the economic equation for high speed rail never ends in a positive number.
The population density is too thin, and the distances are too great. America is not Japan.
That is why no private company will make the effort to create a high speed train with current technology.
The federal investment for the Eisenhower interstates made good economic and political sense, as the repayment to positive value was accomplished early, and the benefits were spread across the country in a more-or-less even fashion.
The immense tax dollar transfer from Americans who will never any benefit from a high speed rail line from DC to NYC to the politicos and bankers who would benefit from such a line will never receive support from any state senator or representative outside of Connecticut, New York or Maryland.
I love riding trains, but even so I am enough of a rational economic consumer that I would never support such a project in the US based on current technology and costs. When Elon Musk's Amaz-O-Train (or some other analog) proves out to be economically viable and technologically achievable, then I will be happy to support it.
I think that's not quite right. No one is saying that high speed rail should be applied in a blanket fashion across the US. Certain corridors can work. The Northeast corridor has the population as does the Bay Area to Greater LA route. Possibly some other routes can also work.
There is wider economic benefits than the immediate cost (or profit to the contractors). Shorten travel time can generate positive externalities. The World Bank has a made a report on the postive impact high speed rail has made on China:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pre...nomic-benefits
The same could conceivably apply to portions of the US with a high speed rail.