wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving. A few years ago I had a holiday in Italy with a stopover
in Switzerland. Because of severe traffic problems we arrived at Ebbsfleet
station only 10 minutes before the departure of the Eurostar train to
Paris. We got through all embarkation procedure in nine minutes and were on
the platform when the train arrived. Try doing that at an airport.
High speed train coaches are much more pleasant than the cabins of
airliners. You can move around easily, there are large windows so you can
look at the scenery (or lack of scenery while you’re in the channel
tunnel).
Changing trains at Paris was a much less stressful experience than
airport transfers. And very much better than a transfer at Paris Charles de
Gaul airport, the worst airport I’ve ever been to. Arriving in Venice by
train where you the station entrance opens on to the Grand Canal is far
superior to flying to the nearby airport.