On: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

[ams6110]

The reality is not quite that simple, you need to consider the energy required by and environmental impact of building out and maintaining a high speed rail infrastructure. Rail efficiency is also highly sensitive to occupancy, a train carrying a small number of passengers could well be less efficient than transporting that number of people by auto. And cars are getting more fuel efficient as well

And if the government is involved, forget about it. It will be a massive mess of cost overruns and other financial shenanigans. And Amtrak proves that the government can't even run a railroad, let alone build one.

[dyno12345 → ams6110]

All these criticisms seem to apply equally to roads and bridges

[snogglethorpe → dyno12345]

Yup, and rail is much more durable, much less resource-intensive, and has much less of a negative effect on the environment than roads (in typical usage, a single dual-track rail line carries the same number of people as 10-20 lanes of highway)...