I'd probably pick C, too -- although I live on the east coast. But I've visited the area (and that's quite enough, thank you!). The problem is there to be solved, the traffic is most assuredly there, the people are very accepting of rail transit, and -- perhaps most important -- the local political will is there.
I'd love to see A -- I travel that way a good bit -- but there just isn't the traffic volume. The Adirondack is rarely full, and I87, which is the same route interstate, is one of the loneliest roads on the east coast once you get north of Saratoga. Besides, there's US customs in the way, which makes a joke out of high speed anything.
B might be a useful option, but the political will in New York State is lacking; the project for simply upgrading the trains on this line died because of political wrangling.
I would be a choice, too, with the area of choice being Detroit/Chicago/Milwaukee/St. Louis. Traffic is there, and the politics (except right in Chicago) aren't too bad. Not sure the public attitude is really there, though.
Good question.
I would say that the most likely one to get started will be C, the California option. Choice D would probably get good ridership as there is a lot of traffic between these cities and their distances are such that highway driving gets to be too much.
Another possibilty is the routes in the Midwest going into Chicago. Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago, Chicago-St. Louis,or Chicago-Minneapolis. But here in the Midwest we're solid Americans and will stay with J.
Gregory
I personally like C, as California is doing a lot with air pollution stuff and this would help it.
But really, it would be a miracle if the American People said something besides J.
We all know that Japan and Europe are beating us in practically everything except for diabetes/obesity, carbon emissions and failing students, but something I personally cannot stand is that they're beating us in high-speed rails. So, suppose the following:
Someone has offered to lend our country $20 billion to build a high-speed railway. Something that all of you may notice is that this money is only going to heavily support one rail line. Here are the options:
A. Make the Adrionack line (New York City - Montreal) high-speed
B. Make the Empire State/Maple Leaf (New York - Buffalo - Toronto) high-speed
C. Build a high-speed line for California (San Diego - L.A. - Sacramento/San Francisco), noting that luckly, the Govenator has already approved of this plan
D. Build a high-speed line for the Texas Triangle (Houston - Austin - San Antonio - Dallas)
E. Build a high-speed line for Florida (Tampa - Miami - Orlando)
F. Make the Cascades line (Eugene - Portland - Seattle + Vancouver, BC) high-speed
G. Follow CSX's plan to make Washington D.C. - Miami "the corridor of the future"
H. Build awesome locomotives to gain our dignity and set a new speed record
I. Suggest something yourself: ____________________
J. Remain Americans, and do nothing
Please note that there are many more options. Remember that we're looking for the system that would be the most efficient, both profitable and evironmental.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.