NYC to LA in 45 minutes

[Siro]

Just curious though in regards to cost. Didn't Pres. Obama announce a $1-2 trillion dollar high speed nationwide rail system back in 2009? The report of this tube system says it would cost 1/10 or maybe 1/4 of that (sorry I can't remember which number). Wouldn't this be a better alternative?

I don't see the costs being discussed in the article, but I only took a quick look and I may have missed it. Regardless of what they SAY, it is a tunnel across the continent! The current undergoing expansion of the NYC subway system costs 10s of billions, and it's what? 1/10000th of the length of the tunnel in this proposal? Not to mention that it's somehow airless and perfectly sealed from the outside. The cost of implementing this beautiful fantasy would probably be the most expensive project in a very long time. And it connects only 2 cities.

And I'm sure Obama talked about a national high-speed rail, just as he keeps talking about giving every school considerable wireless broadband capabilities. But talk is cheap. And if they do end up creating that national transit system, it'll serve a plethora of cities, and the construction costs will be spread over a couple of decades.

 

[scootsy]

I don't see the costs being discussed in the article, but I only took a quick look and I may have missed it. Regardless of what they SAY, it is a tunnel across the continent! The current undergoing expansion of the NYC subway system costs 10s of billions, and it's what? 1/10000th of the length of the tunnel in this proposal? Not to mention that it's somehow airless and perfectly sealed from the outside. The cost of implementing this beautiful fantasy would probably be the most expensive project in a very long time. And it connects only 2 cities.

And I'm sure Obama talked about a national high-speed rail, just as he keeps talking about giving every school considerable wireless broadband capabilities. But talk is cheap. And if they do end up creating that national transit system, it'll serve a plethora of cities, and the construction costs will be spread over a couple of decades.

That's certainly true about servicing more people and spreading out the costs. But I think I also read that the tubes could be built alongside interstate highways, not necessarily underground. And also that the would work even better underwater, meaning maybe something like LA to China or Hawaii could have some benefit. Donno. You're smarter than me, so I'll just trust you.

 

[Siro]

That's certainly true about servicing more people and spreading out the costs. But I think I also read that the tubes could be built alongside interstate highways, not necessarily underground. And also that the would work even better underwater, meaning maybe something like LA to China or Hawaii could have some benefit. Donno. You're smarter than me, so I'll just trust you.

I think it would be amazing! And I'm about the biggest techno-optimist you'll find. But I also try to be an objective realist, and I honestly don't see how a neutered government that has to justify every last penny will manage to raise the GDP chunk required to undertake so ambitious a project. If not the government, then who? Private sector? Nobody can afford that! And even if they did, what private company accepts a project that will take years, maybe decades, to pay off construction costs.

So from your mouth to god's ears (is that the expression?). My heart says YES. But my brain won't let me have any fun.