Some common arguments against government funding of high speed rail are either it's too costly, or that the free market should be allowed to decide what mode of transportation is best. The argument that high speed rail is too costly is built upon recent estimates from proposals covering the northeast and California, two of the most densely populated areas in the entire continental United States. The rest of the country varies in population density, meaning that there are plenty of areas where the cost of construction would be lower. The argument about leaving high speed rail to the free market completely ignores the fact that the federal government already subsidizes air transport and road transport in the form of the interstate highway system, so saying the free market should decide is not a valid argument when the government is already influencing the market as it is.
Look at China and Japan. They have high speed rails that can go over 200 km/hour. Why can't America do it? If we make this rail, we will be the best around, nothing's ever gonna take us down. SO what if we spend a few million? This will make travel so much easier. Let's say you need to got to a meeting in Oregon while you live in southern California? You can either drive for 12 hours and when you get there you won't be able to get up since your legs are asleep, either take a plane and realize that all flights going there are full. Or take this high speed rail and get there is less than 5 hours.
There in a few hours
If you really put some thought into this, It would be economically beneficial. It would not only create jobs FOR working on the railroads, But for conductors. So not only are people providing for people who cannot afford a car, But they are instead giving back to the community. Most millennial cannot afford a car because baby boomers destroyed our economy so much. Lets take this tax cut. Also road wear down, But trains last a lot longer and are WAY more durable. It stops (limits) the pollution that we get if all 100 people would be driving cars. Lets think about the future first.
The United States government is in no position to be loaning MORE money -- thus getting deeper into debt -- and using it to build a high speed rail network. We have cars, and airplanes and sometimes trains to get us where we need to be, without plummeting further into debt. The government should be worried about more important needs, like building better education systems, and how to better protect citizens. It should not worry about how we can get places faster, what new thing we can have. The population nowadays will do nothing, unless it involves instant gratification, this entices them. This is why people want high speed rail networks, instant gratification. Government should not use their time and money to encourage the need we have for new and better things. We can be happy with what we have.
A national high speed system is an incredibly stupid idea. First, Gov. should not be competing against the populas in the economy.
2, If there is a need for such a system the free-market will be the best means to provide it.
3, If the Gov. was to enter into competition with the populas, you can be guaranteed that the cost will be INCREDIBLY high and far beyond what it would have been had it been a child of free-markets.
4, it would become nothing more than a slush-fund and crony-capitism would once again take resources out of the economy and the politically connected would line their pockets with our money.
5, if the system was a complete financial failure, we the people would be forced to sustain it. And we would be paying for until forever.
6, It would be nothing more than a Union-jobs program, and the quality of service would be like going to the DMV.