As I said, most of the California high-speed rail route is rural where the environmental benefits of electrification are moot.

Diesel-powered rail is more fuel efficient than driving, flying or Greyhound. Rail station areas offer a lot of development potential that need environmental remediation. Reno Nevada made an investment in the main RR line through town that will spur billions in development on abused and neglected lots that are now worth many times what they were before the rail upgrades.

B Lambert. It is not enough to dismiss opinion bluntly. This is a matter for discussion. To make of yourself an indisputable authority is a mockery of democratic process.

It is difficult to believe the California high-speed rail project has much in common with the French TGV lines other than technological similarity. The more important consideration is the land-use and development pattern similarity between Californian and French routes, which are likely few.

I am not an opponent of the California project. Electrification amounts to 25% – 35% of the project cost. Track upgrades are the costly portion and will occur first. Non-electrified track does not rule out eventual electrification. Delaying said electrification can make the project affordable for its initial service operation with non-electric locomotives that achieve a top speed of 150mph.

If B Lambert would care to discuss the absolute need for electrification, I am willing to consider a more thorough argument.

Bend over and kiss your a _ _ goodbye.

Los Angeles desparately needs light rail expansion where the electricity would do the most good. San Diego should expand their light rail. Many small cities should electrify transit through high-density central districts. These considerations apply all across the country. Do we lavish funds on super-high speed electrified rail or direct electricity to densely populated areas? Shouldn’t we just improve cross country rail lines that benefit freight as well? Think about it.

There is no opposition between urban rail transit and intercity high-speed rail. The United States, which was once (1930s) the world leader in both categories, has a huge need and a vast unserved latent demand for both. We need to advance on both fronts.

Likewise, when speeds of 200mph are mandated in legislation, as is the case in California, high-speed rail lines pass by all cities but the largest. High-speed trains may reach 200mph, but their average speed is around 150mph, the top speed of some standard locomotives. If high-speed trains need only reach 150mph, their tracks can also handle some freight train service making the investment doubly productive.

I’d like to see the Amtrak Pioneer route between Portland Oregon and Salt Lake City start up again, maybe go as far as Denver. I’d like to see the Los Angeles to Las Vegas high-speed line reopen, maybe also reaching Salt Lake City. Amtrak should increase the service on cross-country routes from one-a-day to two. This is basic track upgrading that benefits freight rail as well. Let’s get practical. Electrication should be for inner-city light rail. The rural, cross-country routes can remain standard locomotives.

The irony is that during the Republican years, the FTA was pretty insistent about not funding the construction of systems that the locals couldn’t afford to operate. It will be interesting to see analyses of whether the newly created construction jobs outweigh the laid-off drivers and transit employees — and how any of them will get to work.