Consider the following proposal:
Is the Proposed Trans Global Highway a solution for future population concerns and global warming?

One excellent solution to future population concerns as well as alleviating many of the effects of potential global warming is the Frank Didik proposal for the construction of the “Trans Global Highway”. The Didik proposed Trans Global Highway would create a world wide network of standardized roads, railroads, water pipe lines, oil and gas pipelines, electrical and communication cables. The result of this remarkable, far sighted project will be global unity through far better distribution of resources, including heretofore difficult to obtain or unaccessible raw materials, fresh water, finished products and lower global transportation costs.

With greatly expanded global fresh water distribution, arid lands could be cultivated resulting in a huge abundance of global food supplies. The most conservative estimate is that with the construction of the Trans Global Highway, the planet will be able to feed several billion more people, using presently available modern farming technologies. With the present global population of just under 7 billion people and at the United Nations projection of population increase, the world will produce enough food surpluses to feed the expected increased population for several hundred years.

Thomas Robert Malthus’s famous dire food shortage predictions of 1798 and his subsequent books, over the next 30 years, failed to take into consideration modern advances in farming, transportation, food storage and food abundance. Further information on the proposed Trans Global Highway can be found at http://www.TransGlobalHighway.com .

HSR rail manufacturers should be leveraging this. They should make larger cars emphasizing work space, windows highlighting the scenic display. Stop bunching us like airplanes do. This is how you compete with cars and planes. It’s not just price and speed. it’s productivity and peace of mind.

The CA High Speed Rail Authority has hired Ogilvy to do PR. I wonder if there will be an intelligent shift here. Why do I doubt it?

I’m particularly interested in the impact of the Cheyenne/El-Paso HSR route on the Denver and Albuquerque regions.

Overlooking all of the factual inaccuracies, the aesthetics of the table are a nightmare. It is fragmented, the headings are redundant, and the outline is a mess.

I would have to say that it is pretty unforgivable to have so many mistakes in a single chart. It certainly takes away from the credibility of the article when the informative chart displayed is riddled with inaccuracies.

The competition is airplanes and cars. So where does rail make more sense than flying or driving? When its easier, cheaper and more convenient. Generally major cities that are more than 100 but less than 500 miles apart.

For example, currently its about as fast to drive Portland to Seattle as to fly, 3 hours either way — by the time you drive to the airport and park, get there an hour early, wait in line, fly 1/2 hour, collect luggage, then get from the airport to downtown. So most people drive, a generally unpleasant trip when you can’t do anything else. Decent train service, never mind high speed, would be competitive.

So my opinion is good service on the main routes. • Bos-Wash obviously, its a chain of centers that already has OK rail. • Cascadia (of course I’m prejudiced) it would tie the region together, including B.C. • Minneapolis-Chicago-Pittsburgh-NY. • SF-LA-San Diego is a little far and flying is an option, but it’s 10% of the nation’s population. (I would build the inland route, avoid the Coast Range and fault lines- whether it would improve the Central Valley, I don’t know.) • Probably Chi-Detroit-Montreal-Toronto, connect to Boston/Toronto.

The others I don’t know. I don’t know if Southern Ohio/Indiana/Kentucky have enough going on, and someone who knows the South better than I would have to say about them.

The stimulus isn’t going to create Japanese-French style bullet trains. But developing good rail service will lay the groundwork for them next decade.

Buzzcut, you’ve identified a problem and its solution. Built the rail routes along the Interstate right-of-ways. You’d have to widen them a bit, but the adjacent properties are already devalued.

But just one point, about Spain. While is true that Spanish high-speed rail reduced commuting times between the big cities (BCN-Madrid, but also Madrid-Sevilla, and Madrid-Valencia is coming), and helped economic relations between them, is not so clear how is it affecting to medium-sized cities where it stops. As you know, a significant increase in accessibility to a location also means a significant increase in ease of leaving (for living, consuming, cultural life, whatever).

It mostly depends on the ability of medium cities to become more attractive, and its previous economic and social context. At this point, there’s no substantial proof of high-speed rail “helped revitalize several declining locations along the line” Madrid-BCN, maybe because is too early, although City Hall Administrations of this medium and small cities are trying to make the most of the situation. For example, medium and small locations on Madrid-Sevilla line, the first high-speed train in Spain (1992), haven’t been able to take advantage of it: in the best case, they didn’t get worse than before. In the worst case, Madrid had too much attraction power.

Sean – Nice catch. I should have caught that myself. My wife and I drive it in less than four hours regularly. The US-centric google our team used calculated Windsor Vermont! It’s corrected now.