The U.S. High Speed Rail Network wants to have 17,000 miles of high-speed rail in place by 2030, which would connect 80% of the country at a cost of a half trillion dollars.
Right now, the U.S. has one lonely 457-mile high-speed corridor that connects Washington D.C. with Boston (with stops in between), despite 10 such corridors having been identified as early as 1991.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $8 billion for high-speed rail--well below the more than the $50 billion that has been requested by states.
Meanwhile, other countries are getting busy. Switzerland just completed what is now the world's longest tunnel at over 35.5 miles long, and by 2017 will be hosting high-speed rail and cutting in half the commute time from Lugano to Zurich. With a $12 billion price tag, it cost more than the total high-speed rail allocation in the Recovery Act and the 13 million cubic meters of rock it displaced is enough to fill the Great Pyramid at Giza five times.
Are the facts that rail is 23 times safer than traveling by car and clean enough to save the state of California alone 12 billion pounds of greenhouse gases every year worth its price tag? What do you think?
--Brandon
Photo taken from this photostream and used with permission of a Creative Commons license.
Hi this one I don't know.
It would be good to have, but with the Economy like it is, where would the money come from???????? Us ofcourse !!!!!!!!!!
It is ok if they take it from the rich government workers only, Ye Right!!!!!!!!! Hugs Rosalyn
Post new comment