Peak ‘we could, but we won’t’ energy.

    by Significant-Sir-4343

    22 Comments

    1. No way oil billionaires would ever allow an elaborate public transportation system.

      Way more profit in everyone driving individual vehicles.

    2. The estimated total cost of the full L.A. – San Francisco high speed rail project is already over $130B on it’s own.

    3. TheCitizen616 on

      Hol’ up…Canadian here. What with the rail projects going to Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal? You guys aren’t…planning something, aren’t you?

    4. YourSchoolCounselor on

      We should lay all those rails, but use them for freight to get semis off the roads.

    5. To be fair, Seattle is spending 150B on 65 miles of light rail, so it’s pretty optimistic that even 25% of that map could be built for 200.

    6. Expensive_Peanut9213 on

      reminds me of when i tried something similar and it went sideways real fast

    7. Don’t get me wrong, there are *lots* of better ways to spend 200 billion dollars than continuing the chaos in the middle east, but this map is fucking insane.

      The US has a *series* of problems that make construction projects, particularly large civil ones a fucking nightmare and endless money pit. Today, new rail lines average $252 million per kilometer, or 406 million per mile. That means 200 billion dollars is good for *maybe* 500 million dollars, without the fuckery that comes in as soon as its a major federal project.

      In contrast, Europe averages about 24 million per kilometer. That gets you 8,333 km, or 5,177 miles. Assuming you could hand-wave away the typical US cost sinks, that could get a *lot* of rail, but nothing close to this map. You could build the regional networks around LA, Chicago, **or** Ft Worth**.** Any one of these would be a fantastic proof of concept, but demand a damn-near magical change to the US political and legal landscape.

    8. BonzoBonzoBomzo on

      Just checked, Amtrak from New England to Orlando, FL takes 24+ hours and costs about $500. It’s 2026, the U.S. badly needs high speed passenger rail. Trains > Planes.

    9. coolbaby1978 on

      There’s always money to do things to people but never enough to do things for people.

      Its a matter of priorities. We choose to spend money on ICE, the military and prisons instead of healthcare, education, infrastructure and housing.

      We choose to allow billionaires to increase the wealth gap paying little in tax as a percentage of their income compared to the rest of us.

      We have made these choices in who we choose to represent us and how we hold those people accountable.

      The US could be a utopia with its resources and wealth, but we’ve chosen to squander it and offer it up to the billionaires while we remain sick, struggling and desperate.

    10. I’m not saying it’s not a lot of money but rail projects can get out of hand.

      In the UK the latest high speed rail project is projected to cost more than $130bn. It’s about the distance between Philadelphia and Washington.

    11. 200bn wouldnt even come close to doing all of that. Not saying we shouldn’t out the 200bn into mind you. I love high speed rail when im overseas. But, you’d be lucky to get even 20% of that done on that budget.

    12. ChimericalChemical on

      For 200b a year you could also feed good hearty and healthy 3 meals a day to every school aged child in the US with substantial left over, yet spend 200b to bomb like what 168 kids?

    13. No chance we could build those rail lines. NIMBYs, decade long environmental reviews, only use union contractors paying way above market rate for laborers. Lol. No chance the progressives or conservatives let this get built anyways.

    14. The US is just trying to share some of their culture with the Middle East… just sucks it started with children dying in schools.

    Leave A Reply