im impressed by the high quality of information on this site. there are a ton of very good sources right here. im sure i will take a look at this spot all over again soon…

Yes, local/regional rail would be good, but which comes first? Something needs to be built to encourage the other and I’d argue for getting started on high speed, then metro areas will work on their own local systems. High speed rail will be expensive but it’s decades overdue, will contribute enormously to the economy and probably pay for itself through productivity, and will take a decade or two to build. Ike’s interstate highway system took from the 50’s until the ’70’s or longer.

The Northeast route is obvious. Boston, NYC, Philly & DC all have good subway systems and commuter rail. The whole region is dense and needs new transport. There’s already some decent intercity rail and people use it. So building high speed here first is a no-brainer.

California isn’t as easy. SF & the Bay Area have BART and good transit systems and are fairly dense. But LA-San Diego are so spread out that local/regional rail won’t be a factor in the next few decades. On the other hand, So Cal has close to 5% of the national population so it needs to be connected to the Bay Area and probably Sacramento. And unless its been dropped, Californians committed a bunch of their own money to getting started.

After the Northeast and California, it becomes more problematic and long range.

Chicago has good transit and rail as I remember, but I’m not sure about the other cities it would connect with.

Portland is developing a good rail system and has decent bus service, Seattle lags on rail and I’m not sure about Vancouver. But high speed rail would add enormously to the region’s productivity connecting three creative class cities that are a little too close to fly and too far to drive.

Most of the rest seem to just connect two isolated cities so I’m not sure about them. Let the Casinos build the Las Vegas line, it really has no other purpose.

And I’d add Canada, at least Vancouver and Toronto. On the other border, I don’t think there are big enough cities in Northern Mexico to make high-speed work.

It will be like most airports in North America, you take a motor vehicle to get there, fly quickly to your destination, and get in another motor vehicle.

Trains might be more ecologically pleasing than planes, and cheaper, but adding fast train routes without having the urban metro-rail infrastructure will likely just result in the discontinuation of some short-haul air passenger services, but no real change to how we think about moving between and within cities.

Seems like that would be the cheapest and coolest way (maybe not all that speedy but who knows) to get around the broader Great Lakes region. Furthermore, the lakes are the best thing that region has going for them, and getting people on them would open their eyes to how cool they really are.

Now, once you get to Detroit or Cleveland, you’re screwed. Good luck getting to where you want to go from downtown Detroit without a car.

That’s what is really needed. Everyone looks at Europe as a better rail system and points to the ICE, EuroStar, TGV, and other high speed solutions. But what they (you) fail to realize is the regional feeders to all those systems are the foundation upon which HSR is built.

So, HSR gets the press instead of Regional Rail. You want effective and substantive policy that promotes long term economic growth? the dialogue should be about Regional Rail.

Nik