I am all for High Speed Rail, as soon as someone figures out how to make it pay for itself, without public money.

Where does the money come from to all those new jobs? Back in the 19th Century when railways were being built, the rail companies formed corporations and raised capital in order to build the ail lines. Is that what you think would happen with this? If not why not? The same for all the "terminals" that are going to supply all those jobs and businesses?

I worked on installing signaling for speed rail in the UK back when the future was all about 125MPH trains. Since then I have followed the ideas and debates on the whole idea of the future of HST - from the French TGV and the Japanese Shinkansen and the Chinese system.

There are logistical things here that loom over this, and loom very large.

1. Right of way.
2. Population density
3. What is going to for all this?
4. 4. how are they to be powered?

Rail looms large in France Britain and Japan for one big reason - their population density makes rail make sense. But despite that all run at a loss. Yes there are sections that are profitable much like the one part of the US system that actually does have some justification to exist - DC, NY to Boston. Commuter lines within cities can be profitable because people wish to live in the suburbs but the main upscale work tends to be in the cities.

Trains are intensive sinks for capital - track laying and track maintenance are expensive - as in rolling stock.

Now into some speculation - if you plan to have a speed rail network, the actual rail needs to be above or below the intersections with other modes of travel. Otherwise you have the continuing need to check whether someone is stuck in the crossing... this makes the system incredibly vulnerable. How do you protect the lines? If you have a train rolling at 360 mph it is covering 6 miles per minute if there are crossings you are going to need an enormous distance for safety - you cannot stop a 360 MPH train in a very sudden manner - you will injure or kill the occupants.

The easiest way would be to a) put it underground or b) elevate it c) enclose it.

Which brings us to the subject of security. How do you stop terrorists from attacking the system? It is very vulnerable.

The technology for fast trains exists - it has existed for quite a while. There are many people who would like to become rich on investments and yet NONE of them have expressed any meaningful interest in doing so. That should be a clue to us that maybe there is something in this idea that just does not add up.

I am geeky enough to enjoy the idea but this idea is something that just screams boondoggle.

High Speed Rail is an interesting idea ...
The problem is, over relatively short periods of time, ALL "Rail Systems" have failed to produce enough income to support themselves.
After figuring Property Rights, Passage Rights, and all the costs there is simply too much disincentive to build something of this nature.

GND is a pulse of political energy, not a budgeted public works plan. It may give rise to actual policies, and those will be subject to vagaries of implementation. I’ll react to whatever those concrete things are once they’re actionable. Seasoned legislators happen to be saying the same thing, but that’s not the reason for my preference not to get ruffled by anything yet.

In terms of high speed rail vs planes or freeways, I think it’s not really the kind of thing where blanket policies always make sense. Where I live, there are thick corridors of freeways, and high speed rail along them instead of cars makes a ton of sense.

Rail lines would need big upgrades though, and I’m not sure the cost of borrowing makes it possible for private companies to do it. Plus there’d be a bunch of land expropriation and impact assessment work to do. I just don’t see market players being able to do this solo.

If Amtrak is the model, count me out

I like the idea of it. But can it be done by privately owned corporations, with a return on investment, or are we talking government subsidized? Can a high speed rail system compete in an open market with air travel? Part of the plus side of using rail, is less restrictions on baggage. The other factor, is air travel currently has a very good safety record, with only one death amongst the passenger airline services over the last decade.

You raise a good point there.