Something that is never debated when we talk about high speed train in the us: would it bring development the same way the iron horse brought development in the 19th century?
I mean, yes the US is sparsely populated (in the middle), but isn't it also because it doesn't have fast and easy transport system?
Wouldn't a high speed line between San Fran and Portland develop the very rural regions of Northern California?
High speed train also means high speed cargo transport, isn't that driving some economical development?
These are not rhetorical questions, i seriously have no idea of the answers, but it would be nice to see what experts think about that.
I mean, yes the US is sparsely populated (in the middle), but isn't it also because it doesn't have fast and easy transport system?
Wouldn't a high speed line between San Fran and Portland develop the very rural regions of Northern California?
High speed train also means high speed cargo transport, isn't that driving some economical development?
These are not rhetorical questions, i seriously have no idea of the answers, but it would be nice to see what experts think about that.