More than 500 attend 'high speed boondoggle' rally

I have two questions I would like to submit.

1) What is the relative cost of a National High-speed Rail system to our GDP and how does it compare to the relative cost of the Interstate Highway system built by Eisenhower that is now such a vital part of our country's economy?

2) How does a technically advanced and densely populated country, such as Germany, handle entry into its population centers, particularly the older previously developed cities?

Thanks for any fact-based info on these topics.

maybe yes/maybe no has a point. If the Almanac writers were not so t overwhelming in their negativity on HSR maybe they could do a little research and answer your question or maybe their editor will not let them.

Maybe YES/Maybe NO asks "What is the relative cost of a National High-speed Rail system to our GDP and how does it compare to the relative cost of the Interstate Highway system built by Eisenhower that is now such a vital part of our country's economy?"

I don't have that "fact-based" answer you requested but I do have another point or two that may be relevant.

If I recall my 8th grade history lessons accurately, when Ike ordered the construction of the interstate highway system, it had two principal purposes. The first purpose, was to provide quick egress from major US cities as part of our civil defense network. The Cold War was starting to percolate (sorry...) and the existing roads in and out of cities was simply insufficient to allow people to evacuate. I also recall that the interstate highway had to have enough "straight highway" segments to allow airplanes to land on it in case of emergency. Seems kind of silly now!

The second reason was the increasing popularity of the automobile and the need for more efficient roadways. The interstate system had limited access (ramps), smooth surfaces and no traffic lights. It obviously ended up being one of America's best ideas.

I don't believe the need to construct high speed rail is nearly as compelling. I have previously pointed out that anyone can currently fly from any of about 4 or 5 Northern California airports to any of about 8 or 9 Southern California airports in just about one hour at almost anytime of day or night for as little as $39. Being able to fly non-stop from Oakland to Ontario can be far more convenient than being required to take a single train from downtown San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles. That train trip will take at least 2.5 hours (probably longer), the current projected cost is about $200 one-way and they will, at full operational capacity, run only a few times a day.

So you have an extremely efficient, competitive system that is cheap, fast and convenient. Why in the world should taxpayers spend $100 billion (that we don't have!) for a new system that offers so much less?

The transportation systems that President Lincoln and President Eisenhower supported serves the entire country while high speed rail does not.

[Post removed; incivility toward other posters violates terms of use.]

How about the fact that adding transportation capacity equivalent of adding more airports and highways is several times more expensive and would require razing entire towns in the bay area. Plus I think a California wide system is ambitious enough. California, which by the way currently has a larger population than America did when Lincoln was around.