 |
PoliPseudoScientific American not a good source. Says 132 miles of 160 mph in NEC (2035) isn't high speed. Must spend hundreds of billions
Author: Marxist talking points
Date: 09-12-2023 - 14:16
Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC.
There are some general good points in the screed, like the scarcity of American rail manufacturers. But the author's thesis is that we need an annual fund for HSR similar to the interstate highway system. But leaves out that the system he wants would be more expensive than the interstate system was in today's dollars. And leaves out that it would serve a fraction of the users that the interstate system does. Not to mention the massive freight utility and economic impact of the interstate that an HSR can't assist. At his definition of high speed, freight isn't shared with passengers in Europe, 200 mph lines are passenger only.
He cites the Baltimore tunnels as a problem but fails to mention that it is being replaced and a major section of funding has been approved. Was he unaware (quite the expert) or was that an intentional omission to mislead?
Of course no mention of the actual per year price tag of his annual funding. Nor how to pay for it. But the usual excuse of we have to do it for climate change. We're lucky he didn't jam in the other Dem excuse, systemic racism. Those 2 are the hammers to eliminate any disagreement with far left proposals and every slightest bit of nonconformity of thought is a nail.
PoliPseudoScientific American long ago became a joke of a publication. Just Marxist talking points now. From a former writer of theirs (18 years) fired for not being extreme leftist enough:
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/scientific-american-goes-woke
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/what-is-woke-anyway
There are some general good points in the screed, like the scarcity of American rail manufacturers. But the author's thesis is that we need an annual fund for HSR similar to the interstate highway system. But leaves out that the system he wants would be more expensive than the interstate system was in today's dollars. And leaves out that it would serve a fraction of the users that the interstate system does. Not to mention the massive freight utility and economic impact of the interstate that an HSR can't assist. At his definition of high speed, freight isn't shared with passengers in Europe, 200 mph lines are passenger only.
He cites the Baltimore tunnels as a problem but fails to mention that it is being replaced and a major section of funding has been approved. Was he unaware (quite the expert) or was that an intentional omission to mislead?
Of course no mention of the actual per year price tag of his annual funding. Nor how to pay for it. But the usual excuse of we have to do it for climate change. We're lucky he didn't jam in the other Dem excuse, systemic racism. Those 2 are the hammers to eliminate any disagreement with far left proposals and every slightest bit of nonconformity of thought is a nail.
PoliPseudoScientific American long ago became a joke of a publication. Just Marxist talking points now. From a former writer of theirs (18 years) fired for not being extreme leftist enough:
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/scientific-american-goes-woke
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/what-is-woke-anyway
| Subject | Written By | Date/Time (PST) |
|---|---|---|
 SciAm on HSR - especially the NE Corridor
|
FUD | 09-11-2023 - 18:47 |
|
PoliPseudoScientific American not a good source. Says 132 miles of 160 mph in NEC (2035) isn't high speed. Must spend hundreds of billions |
Marxist talking points | 09-12-2023 - 14:16 |
|
Additional note
|
MTP again | 09-12-2023 - 14:21 |