Why do you need no-goods getting to the welfare office faster? Because that’s what you’re subsidizing...People with real jobs don’t need this (at least SHOULDN’T need this)...
I see you! ;)
(From comments)
Willie Green
Robert Samuelson should be well aware that the true “high speed rail” technology that he’s writing about (up to 250 mph) is primarily electrically powered. And since the vast majority of electricity generated for the grd does not come from petroleum based resources, would represent a major reduction in petroleum consumed for transportation.
Since it would be ludicrous to assume that Robert Samuelson is ignorant of these facts, one can only conclude that this column is written as political disinformation on behalf of Oil Interests.
It’s time for the American People to stop accepting such corrupt “journalism” from our major media outlets.
Today, 11:24:48 AM
The Great Robert Samuelson !!!
I love this guy- smart and honest.
Unfortunately, cousin to that idiot Larry “Summers”
Wow! Newsweak gets one right.
High speed rail makes sense under some situations.
To start with, the US transportation system needs a redesign, and rural high speed rail makes much more sense as part of this.
Rail is a very efficient form of transport for cargo. It is second only to ships for getting goods moved at least cost and energy used. The further the distance, the more efficient rail gets.
Right now, America’s airport system has two major problems. The first is that it is located in population centers, and the second is that it transports both passengers and cargo.
To get around this, ideally we need a second set of airports built *away* from population centers, in rural areas, and surrounded by very large buffers to prevent development around them. These would be exclusively to move cargo, and by doing so, they would reduce traffic at passenger airports significantly, to everyone’s advantage.
But since it is desirable to have these cargo airports out in the boonies, you need to then transfer their cargoes to another form of transport, to move it to urban areas.
Since cargo hubs would be far fewer, each hub would probably service several States, and *here* is where high speed rail would come into its own. If a population center was not too far away, trucks would be best. But if it is in the hundreds of miles, high speed rail would be a quick way to move cargo from the air hub to a closer truck hub.
And because high speed rail would connect from the air cargo hub to several cities, it would also be a convenient way to connect cargo transfer directly between cities.
So all together, it forms a comprehensive system with optimum efficiency for the each distance the cargo must travel.
It reduces the number of planes flying over metro areas, by limiting them to passenger transport.
It uses high speed rail in rural areas, so it does not have to slow down because of people in the area. And it uses trucks for short haul in and out of populated areas.
Where’s your response? Come on, Man Up and take care of your responsibilities!
Boondoggle
They could probably do it for $9.5 billion then, since the two cities are only 400 miles apart. :)