Re: 5 vs. 4, again, it's aspirational. How do you know what's possible by 2040?
Re: highways, thank you for pointing that out. I've fixed the article by s/interstate highway system/public works program/ with link to the details. Btw, FDR spent over $4B on highways, roads, and streets, a considerable sum in those days.
Re: You can't aspire using the impossible." Naysayers like you are why we may hever have this.
How do you know it's not going to be 2 hours? Or 1 hour?
The evidence you presented requires a straight connection between the two cities. That's not going to happen, for reasons I presented and for which you yourself agreed.
If it happens it will be via regional hubs, say via Chicago and Denver. Even non-stop (with no additional acceleration and deceleration) that non-GC route will add more time. Plus there's the 10 minutes or so for acceleration/deceleration to 600mpn.
If you pigeonhole me as a naysayer then may I pigeonhole you as one of those Project Plowshare advocates who wanted to use nukes to make harbors and canals, and fracture the ground for oil production? Or as a modern Lyle Lanley?
I'm asking you to use realistic numbers which make you seem well-informed, not numbers that are easily dismissed as overly optimistic, if not ridiculous.
Just like in Marge vs. the Monorail, US infrastructure is horribly under-maintained. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ for example. That sort of Federal involvement in local projects is more in line with FDR's Great Depression actions than Eisenhower's interstate system.
Do you want to convince people of your vision? Because that seems like your goal.
I'm trying to point out that if you follow your current path - including the name calling - then you won't get very far, and I've pointed out some of how people will perceive you if your pieces continue in this vein.
Say "Oops, yes, I somewhat underestimated the time and was thinking of a different New Deal project. Thanks for pointing it out!"
I am dead serious that I believe the poor infrastructure of our existing water, power, and mass transit systems, and horridly unequal internet service, are far more important than shaving a few hours off a transcontinental passenger service.
I am also annoyed with using the huge number of small public works projects of the WPA (the largest being the TVA, which is quite large but much smaller than the Eisenhower interstate system), which was explicitly made to hire unemployed people, to justify a single large public work; and one which excludes the WPA support for artists, musicians, libraries, education programs and many others who are not construction workers or support staff.
Would it really affect your views or your ability to persuade were you to posit a 5 hour estimate instead of 4?
Airplane travel times have decreased over the decades because it's more fuel efficient and therefore cheaper. You can't simply predict that the future is going to faster than current estimates.
You can't aspire using the impossible. You'll drive off those who are wary of scammers and grifters, leaving only the gullible.
The WPA didn't find the interstate highway system.