[noirbot]

Isn't some of this also network effects though? Having a Swiss train system has a lot more value because it connects to the German and French and Austrian train systems. You build a train line from LA to SF and it serves those cities, but if you want to go to Phoenix or Monterrey Mexico, you're in for a bad time.

[gravescale]

Then connect it (actually it's already connected, it's just slow, the trains only go every few days and you change in Flagstaff and a bus is half the time and 1/3 the cost). Again, these are all fundamentally problems of "we just don't really want to" or "we really don't want to".

I'm not saying it's in any way practical reality because there's always a million reasons why It Just Can't Be Done. But that those million reasons are human choices, not physical laws of nature (other than the mountains, but it's 2024, not 1824, that can be done). It's just a chronic lack of intestinal fortitude.

[alephnerd]

> that can be done

It can be done, but it is very expensive. A 8 mi mountain railway tunnel like Wienerwald cost around $400m to build. That same amount could literally be spent to expand the Altamount Corridor Express railway (ACE) into downtown San Jose, thus having an impact in a closely integrated metropolitan area of 10m residents.

Why spend that (and much more) money integrating two cities that aren't even that closely tied from a commuting standpoiint.

Only 2.2 million people travel between Greater LA and the Bay Area annually, but 5.5 million travel between San Jose and San Francisco annually.

Clearly there is some demand for LA-SF connectivity, but it's hard to justify.

[noirbot]

Defining it as "a human choice" is both clearly accurate and misses the point. Yes. It's obviously not physically impossible. But just ascribing it to "a chronic lack of intestinal fortitude" as if everyone involved is just too much of a sissy to blow a hole in a mountain like people used to is absurdly reductionist. It ignores the vast history of how much past US grand projects like the interstate and the railroads were built on the back of destroying the environment and often genocidally taking land from native Americans.

Yes, some of it is for dumb reasons, but there's also plenty of reasons that aren't just "we used to be a real country". It is, in fact, not 1824 any more. We can't just offer thousands of Chinese immigrants $2 a week and have half of them die while putting a hole in the Rocky Mountains. Yes, that's "a human choice", but the physical dimensions of the problem define the very real tradeoffs that have to be made. The "physical laws of nature" don't stop us from doing all sorts of things we'd probably regret, many of which we do regret now.

To go back to my original point, those reasons are a lot more compelling when you're spending some billions of dollars that connect to another country's billions of dollars of trains, and you get some regular amount of cross-traffic. Sure, we could build more, but we're not going to build a Deutsche Bahn amount of rail within Arizona. They're about the same geographic size, and Germany has 10x the population. Likely same with Nevada and Oregon. So what do you propose we connect to that has anywhere near the same network effect of cross-travel?