Could you imagine what we could do with $250 billion?

pdxstreetcar wrote:i think this is pretty much what we want.

I disagree completely. Never mind how limited in scope those routes on the FRA map are, and based on consultant gobledegook that has no basis in reality, but those are not and have never been actual high-speed corridors; rather, they are traditional rail corridors "upgraded" to 110 mph (the certified top speed of a P42DC).

i really dont think the answer is to parallel the interstates with high speed passenger rail particularly in the interior west where there is low density and few large cities in close range to each other

Not the population density canard again. That applies only to commuter rail. Intercity rail does exactly what the label says, i.e. connect cities with each other, just as "high-speed rail" does what it says on the label, that being connect cities by trains traveling at high speed.

If you want to play the population density game, though, then Arizona's average population density is a tiny bit lower than Sweden's, and Sweden has had the X2000 operating for a long time to several destinations around the country. (But if you look at Phoenix, the population density there is 2,782 people per square mile.) Low population density doesn't prevent the building of interstate highways, though, does it?

another important piece, however small is the link between the north station and south staion in boston. with ithis through service to montreal, quebec and portland are feasible. this would take up one of the billions but it would allow this service. another thing should be transcontinental HSR service which could provide a true alternative to flying. also, a link through central america to brazil and points south would eventually open up trade and tourism that would exist whithout a direct train line.

the transcontinental line could go through the midwest, or to the south, through teas and arizona. both would be preferable because there needs to be service to denver as well as a connection to the texas corridor and pheonix and tuscon.

It can be hard to find estimates of the expense of high-speed-rail-line construction, so I'll use a figure of $10 million/mile from some European HSR lines.

That's nevertheless 25,000 miles of HSR lines.

In any case, I suggest a phased system:

Phase 1: Lines already far along in planning.
Washington - Richmond - Raleigh - Charlotte
The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (Chicago - several cities)
The Ohio Hub (3C's, etc.)
Windsor - Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal - Quebec City
California (LA - SF - Sacramento)
Pacific Northwest (Vancouver - Seattle - Portland - Eugene)

Phase 2: Lines lower on the list, simple extensions of planned lines, and other relatively easy routes.
New England, upstate New York, Florida, Texas, Atlanta - Florida, Atlanta - Texas, Sacramento - Redding, Cheyenne - Denver - Pueblo, Phoenix - Tucson, Edmonton - Calgary.

Nearly every sizable city east of a Minnesota - Texas line would have HSR connections.

Phase 3: Lines that are long or difficult or both.

This would include western-Plains lines like from Kansas City or Omaha to Denver, from Austin or San Antonio to El Paso, etc.

And it would also include lines over mountainous territory, which may require a lot of viaducts and/or tunneling. Places in the Appalachian Mountains like Nashville, and tunnels through the mountains just north of Los Angeles (Glendale - Palmdale) and northeast of San Francisco Bay (Richmond - Martinez). HSR lines to Las Vegas and Tucson may also qualify, though they may more properly belong in Phase 2.

But the most difficult of all would be crossing the Rocky Mountains -- lines from Salt Lake City to Denver, LA, SF, Portland, and Seattle.

I'm not familiar with Mexico, so I don't know what would initially be worth building there.