Is a US High-Speed Railway Economically Feasible?

An anonymous reader writes "The federal government has committed at least $8-billion (and counting) for the development of a nationwide high-speed intercity passenger railway system in almost three-dozen states. Rail advocates have long dreamed of an extensive railway grid that will provide clean, speedy, energy-efficient travel. The high-speed rail program is also expected to create thousands of desperately needed jobs, while reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil and easing gridlocked highways and congested air-space. However, this noble, ambitious, multi-year plan faces a multitude of obstacles — including costs that will no doubt escalate as the years pass by; and an American public that may be reluctant to relinquish the independence and convenience of their beloved automobiles for a train."

Forget High Speed Rail . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a monorail.

Monorail. Monorail. MONORAIL.

Re:I can smoke in my car

[johnhp]

That doesn't seem like a great reason to decide against using trains, but I think you have a point. If a government funded national system were developed it would only be fair to include some kind of smoking car or other reasonable accommodation.

Re:Rail System Needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but all that comes at the cost of living among people who think buying soiled panties out of a vending machine is normal.

Re:Ya think so, do ya?

[Grishnakh]

I'm sure it's the same group of doctors that called for a ban on sharp-tipped knives.