Why don't we build high-speed transport for commuting, as opposed to long distance travel which, in the U.S., doesn't sell or even often fit well? In Chicago,

Why don't we build high-speed transport for commuting, as opposed to long distance travel which, in the U.S., doesn't sell or even often fit well? In Chicago, electric train service used to run a lot faster. Not just within the city, but also within the greater Chicagoland area. Way back when, the service that's been supplanted by the Metra diesel trains used to be able to punch well above 60 MPH. And with smaller trains, it could get to that more rapidly and provide more frequent service. And the Green Line used to move. Lack of maintenance had it down to a fast crawl, in places, I understand, although some much-belated renovation may have improved that somewhat -- I'm not up-to-date. Bay Area housing prices are simply ridiculous. If the region is going to keep growing (so far, no stopping it), then put housing further out while providing fast access to the core(s). That would move a lot more people, and solve a lot more problems, than an LA - Frisco Hyperloop. But, we don't have real urban, metropolitan planning, here. And, "taxes are bad". So, we sit in our cars, and pay half our earnings to the ponzi scheme and rentiers. P.S. Once a robot can do everything currently requiring physical presence, your tele-presence, where still needed, is going to become a fungible commodity; no job security, there. P.P.S. Another major approach is a denser core. But NIMBY. A NYMBY I'm not entirely unsympathetic towards. If you don't solve noise and pollution, among other things, forgetaboutit. In my case, I would have been happy closer in in an apartment/condo, but the prospect of dealing with ever-noisier neighbors ruled that out. And wiping black "dust" (vehicle emissions soot, mostly) from my window sills. After years of allergies and whatnot, that stuff will kill you; more articles on this, every year.