3 ms·

Prove it. Start with California’s attempt to build high speed rail. That’s a case where we explicitly didn’t “choose not to.” We went all in and spent money th

Prove it. Start with California’s attempt to build high speed rail. That’s a case where we explicitly didn’t “choose not to.” We went all in and spent money that could have gone to poor children, the homeless and healthcare and gave it to business men who said what you say, “we can afford this and should.” Boondoggles hurt the poor and needy and redistribute money to well paid consultants, lawyers and developers. And the environmental impact of “green” rail projects is actually worse than not taking them on in the first place.

ehnto 7y ago
> And the environmental impact of “green” rail projects is actually worse than not taking them on in the first place. While that's true, these propositions should be getting brought up to solve a particular commuting problem. In this case it's the highway between the three cities being clogged and slow. If not rail, then how do you solve the existing problem of car commuting not working in these areas? I understand you see California's attempt resulting in low ridership as a failure of the rail system, but rail is a long term commitment to solve the commuting problem. Car commutes won't go away, and eventually they'll get so bad people will need, not want, a replacement service. If trains can be that service instead of planes, then that's a long term win environmentally (and I would argue as a community, getting out of cars is a net benefit for all kinds of metrics). Perhaps the idea of commuting long distance for work in the first place is the real issue. But our communities have forgotten how to be local centric I think, especially in the more sprawling suburbias and car clogged metros.