4 ms·

LA to SF - 382 miles (along I-5) Rome to Milan - 357 miles Not that much difference. Either way would take a couple hours at the 170mph figure they are citing

LA to SF - 382 miles (along I-5) Rome to Milan - 357 miles Not that much difference. Either way would take a couple hours at the 170mph figure they are citing, and you are right to point out that anything under about 4 hours is going to beat planes, where you waste a couple hours in pre/post flight. Los Angeles to Las Vegas seems like a prime route, at 278 miles. I have had to drive that a few times, and the traffic on I-15 is often so heavy as to be nearly at a standstill. Las Vegas would probably see an obvious boost in weekenders as well. I think there are other targets outside Cali and the NE too. The KC -> St Louis stretch of I-70 is very heavily trafficked, and is 250 miles, which is long enough that trains beat cars but short enough that they can also beat airlines.

olefoo 18y ago
I would be all for a train that went from Vancouver BC to San Diego, or even further south. Half the population of the US that lives west of the rockies, lives within 15 miles of I-5. Imagine getting on the train in Seattle in the morning, switching trains in Sacramento and arriving in San Francisco in mid-afternoon. With wifi and cell phone coverage fully available for the whole trip.
- anamax 18y ago
  > I would be all for a train that went from Vancouver BC to San Diego, or even further south. We HAD such trains. Why will they make money now when they lost money before? However, don't let me discourage you from building such a train, as long as you pay for it. If you're right, you get rich. If you're wrong....
  - olefoo 18y ago
    I'm hesitant to respond to what seems to be such an obvious troll; but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Railroads, in fact all major transportation infrastructure projects, have always been dependent on government participation. It is just not possible to build a project that requires rights-of-way stretching over vast distances and needing planning horizons extending decades into the future without the government being involved, if only to settle the inevitable disputes. I do find it amusing that Atlas Shrugged idolized the railroad barons and the industrialists who fed off them since in reality their businesses were completely dependent on government subsidies; and would not have been nearly as successful had the United States not been GIVING vast tracts of land to railroad companies to fund their expansion. But leaving all of that sordid history and ideological self-delusion aside. I would be happy to invest my money in railroad bonds that were devoted to expanding the I-5 transportation corridor with a high-speed rail link. And as a side note for the Keynesians in the audience, a major construction effort on that scale would be expected to add approximately 40-70,000 jobs for the duration of construction, and provide a measurable gdp multiplier for the region it serves once it comes into operation.
    - anamax 18y ago
      > It is just not possible to build a project that requires rights-of-way stretching over vast distances and needing planning horizons extending decades into the future without the government being involved, if only to settle the inevitable disputes. My point is that it doesn't stop with arranging for right-of-way and settling contract disputes - it starts there. > I would be happy to invest my money in railroad bonds that were devoted to expanding the I-5 transportation corridor with a high-speed rail link. And I'd be happy to let you if the bonds are backed by the project and not any entity with taxation powers.

olefoo 18y ago

I would be all for a train that went from Vancouver BC to San Diego, or even further south. Half the population of the US that lives west of the rockies, lives within 15 miles of I-5. Imagine getting on the train in Seattle in the morning, switching trains in Sacramento and arriving in San Francisco in mid-afternoon. With wifi and cell phone coverage fully available for the whole trip.

anamax 18y ago
> I would be all for a train that went from Vancouver BC to San Diego, or even further south. We HAD such trains. Why will they make money now when they lost money before? However, don't let me discourage you from building such a train, as long as you pay for it. If you're right, you get rich. If you're wrong....
- olefoo 18y ago
  I'm hesitant to respond to what seems to be such an obvious troll; but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Railroads, in fact all major transportation infrastructure projects, have always been dependent on government participation. It is just not possible to build a project that requires rights-of-way stretching over vast distances and needing planning horizons extending decades into the future without the government being involved, if only to settle the inevitable disputes. I do find it amusing that Atlas Shrugged idolized the railroad barons and the industrialists who fed off them since in reality their businesses were completely dependent on government subsidies; and would not have been nearly as successful had the United States not been GIVING vast tracts of land to railroad companies to fund their expansion. But leaving all of that sordid history and ideological self-delusion aside. I would be happy to invest my money in railroad bonds that were devoted to expanding the I-5 transportation corridor with a high-speed rail link. And as a side note for the Keynesians in the audience, a major construction effort on that scale would be expected to add approximately 40-70,000 jobs for the duration of construction, and provide a measurable gdp multiplier for the region it serves once it comes into operation.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > It is just not possible to build a project that requires rights-of-way stretching over vast distances and needing planning horizons extending decades into the future without the government being involved, if only to settle the inevitable disputes. My point is that it doesn't stop with arranging for right-of-way and settling contract disputes - it starts there. > I would be happy to invest my money in railroad bonds that were devoted to expanding the I-5 transportation corridor with a high-speed rail link. And I'd be happy to let you if the bonds are backed by the project and not any entity with taxation powers.