Interest Grows in High Speed Rail for America

High speed rail can cover its operating costs, but not its capital costs. This is used as an argument against it. But the highway system was built at public expense, and does it cover its capital or operating costs? No, they are paid through taxes. The payoff is down the road as improved trasportation improves the economy and society. We need a comprehensive passenger rail system, including high speed rail.

The Atlantic: Trains for America

Many of the nation's important metropolitan corridors manage to have unbearably congested highways and airports. In the few places where intercity rail has the capacity and speed to be competitive with alternatives, Amtrak has no problem filling its trains.

Rail construction obviously has high upfront capital costs, but they're likely to prove worth it in the long run, particularly given that trains can run on electric power, which will grow steadily greener and become increasingly attractive in a world of rising oil prices (check).

And of course, airline service has not only become miserable and unreliable as the system has become overburdened and unprofitable, but it's also pretty dirty, in terms of carbon emissions. The standard approximation has planes emitting as much per mile as cars, but of course planes travel much longer distances and at higher altitudes, where emissions have a more significant effect.

Word is, the president really wants to leave office with a high-speed rail network as part of his legacy. Sounds good to me.