Originally Posted by
KraneXL
It would be an improvement, but not near as efficient as rail. It still has to use the roadway and therefore, is pron to delays/accidents/etc. as regular traffic
If we play the game out who will be paying for all of the HSR projects? A politician that raises taxes to support something people aren’t willing to pay for will be in office for one term. Isn’t the plan to power the HSR with electricity?
We we have been told in California that the electric grid is stressed and are to to expect brown out every summer. Renewable energy isn’t up to the task yet and it may be years before it is , if ever. More nuclear is a possible solution but you run into the same NIMBY resistance to that. So electricity is generated by petrochemical power plants. Would we then be expected to build more of these plants?
Would we we need to increase taxes for both the HSR projects and build more power plants?
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
At least with EVs the customer buys the rolling stock. The customer can decide on an econobox or a luxury car. If the customer still has the option on flying would that not cut into HSR profits?
At at least in the case of the California project we saw interest die off before it could be built. Even if they finish the section between Merced and Bakersfield it will be another 20 to 26 billion dollars. Will people be willing to dig into their savings accounts to fund a train they may never ride?
I have my doubts. I wouldn’t vote for it. That may be just me.