For the No-Rail-No-Way-In-Hell Crowd, I'm curious. Would you agree that (A) the price of gasoline in real dollars has increased over the past decade, and shows no sign of decreasing, aside from an economic catastrophe, and (B) the population of the U.S. will increase significantly over the next 50 years?

If you do agree to those two assumptions, then do you think that the existing infrastructure will accommodate that change? Or should we double down on subsidizing roads and cars, even though $8/gallon gasoline makes driving to work pretty unprofitable? I am interested in hearing the alternatives to a mixed transportation infrastructure.

I support Johnny Canal's plan for an extensive series of canals criss-crossing the nation.

I think the best example of a proposed high-speed rail, which did not get mentioned in the other thread, is the Los Angeles-Las Vegas line. They should sway public opinion by making this glamorous and profitable.

I'm familiar with the 3 big promoters for the DesertXpress. One of them, Tom Stone, was president of the company I work for back in the 80's. They were bouncing around technology alternatives when I was working on the monorail in Las Vegas, which the 3 Amigos had insinuated themselves into early in contract negotiations- their role was to sit in huge offices in Howard Hughes Office Complex and cash checks for doing nothing. Monorail technology was being promoted for the DesertXpress, which was (and is) patently absurd, given the distances involved, the environmental service conditions, and the astronomical costs. Then they started touting maglev- sexy, ultra-modern, and more expensive than monorail. No idea if they ever pulled their heads out of their asses and started leaning toward anything more practical.

In the same way as the extensions being constantly proposed for the LV monorail from before the original contract was completed, I say I'll believe it will get built as soon as someone turns off of Paradise into the HH Complex parking lot leading a convoy of 500 dump trucks filled with $100 bills.

Anyone done a hot rail?

Most places in this country the rail system is in major need of improvement. And ridership has definitely seen a boon in my area over the last 20 years. I know that during that time our local commuter service NJ transit has added so many trains on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor that they ran out of trains and had to buy new ones. Then they ran out again and had to buy double-decker trains to fit more people. And then they finally added so many trains that the line is full to capacity...they can't add any more, in large part due to the fact that there's only one functioning tunnel under the Hudson River into New York. And I can tell you that during the week, by the time they get to NYC, nearly every single train is filled to the brim: every seat, every standing room space in the aisle is packed. I know a lot of friends who switched to taking the train, and every one of them blamed the rising price of gas. And that's with NJ having pretty much the LOWEST gas prices in the country!

But even improved rail systems won't mean faster trains in many places. Case in point Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. The tracks are fine, can handle speeds of up to 150 mph...but the trains hardly ever get the chance to go that fast because they're so many goddamn stations and the Federal government has regulated that you can't go faster than 80 mph through a station.

If you could decouple it from politics and the personal favors hand outs system (for example, how many "bullet trains to nowhere" will we end up with connecting Minnie>Fargo or Omaha>Wichita?), start small and build the damn thing like a business instead of an entitlement, I think it could be incredibly successful.

The Eastern Seaboard and maybe LA>Vegas and LA>San Fran would be a great place to start.

I can't believe that we can't get it together to connect richmond->DC->NYC->Boston by something realistically cheap but fast. I hate stopping at every podunk town along the way.

Sounds good....but, you have a very limited number of viable city pairs, and every single one of them has shuttle-type air service with multiple carriers. One of those carriers is usually Southwest, who has shown time and time again that they're not afraid to go the $25 fare route to crush incumbent or new competition.

Your capital needs are far greater than the airlines, unless you don't own the stations, railbeds, and right of ways. But since high speed isn't going to run on the existing freight lines, the federal and local governments will have to build it for you. Even if the traffic base is underserved by the current infrastructure, municipalities will gravitate toward airport expansion...it's cheaper, and you can attract service from more than just the cities along your rail spur.

There is a ton of venture capital out there with no where to go right now thanks to historically interest rates, yet no one has put together a syndicate to try this. I wonder why....do you think it might be because the prospects are worse than wind farms?

Problem solved....And not just a Shelbyville idea either!

Or maybe the prospects aren't as exciting as 100 Groupon clones!

I can't say how the problem will be solved but it'll get solved and it won't be government that solves it. It will be some genius developing a technology which smart investors will fund that enables drilling ever deeper increasing the supply of oil or some technology that enables cars to get 200 mpg or engines to use horse sperm or melted down rem green cds or something no one has ever thought of yet. Rail is just too real estate intensive to be a realistic solution imo.

History shows it will be a mix of government and private donchathink, Beeg? Government likely to fund the infrastructure (think the internet or highways) private industry to make a viable and profitable product.

Do you carry the same logic to the solvency of your own future Social Security payments, i.e. somebody will figure it out?

Also, rail isn't solely to be compared with planes. The bulk of our transportation policy is focused on building, maintaining and subsidizing cars. The haters always lock on to the subsidies for rail, but we haven't raised the gas tax since 1993. Proceeds from that tax don't cover the price of roads and maintenance. Roads and cars are subsidized all over the place. That ain't free market either. Add some demand/congestion pricing on the roads, price parking closer to market rate and the picture changes. Well, it changes for those willing to admit that new infrastructure will be built, and it should maximize the ability of the system to move as many people as possible as efficiently as possible.

But that's not the argument. The argument is that trains and arugula and the metric system are un-American.

So, it's a marketing problem. Instead of talking about saving on carbon emissions, and stopping unnecessary and unaffordable foreign wars that we have to create an underclass of zombie-Hessians just to fight for us, why not start talking about something fucking authentically American: getting wasted. Seriously, fuck all the other arguments, and fuck the price tag. Market this shit as a way to get wasted and not have to drive home and motheruckers will be praising Barry as an authentic genius on par with the dude who invented this hats that hold 2 beer cans and a tube for a straw.

O-Tay!

If you could get a train from ATL to New Orleans, or Austin to Dallas and drink the whole way and maybe meet a random stranger to plug in one of the bar cars, it'd be the best thing to ever happen in Amgergikag.

I've come to realize that almost every idea is only worth it's PR and marketing budget.

Living in the city i'm totally spoiled by the fact that I don't ever have to think about drinking and driving, I walk/stumble everywhere or take a cab. I fully support the more trains=more boozing initiative.