TGV? Non, TMV

I just read an interesting article from the Washington Monthly about high speed rail, and about rail alternatives. It made the point that getting high-speed -- on the order of the TGV -- operational in the United States will be very difficult, perhaps impossible. A major consideration is cost; we're a big country, and even covering one part of it will be challenging. TGV-speed rail needs to be able to build straight rail lines that extend for quite some distance, and that's difficult to find anywhere but out west, where the number of potential clients is small. Connecting, say, Denver and San Francisco, or Salt Lake City, would be good, but where else? And then, of course, there is the cost: not only literal,which would be moon-shot-level, but political: many politicians want to be seen as stern on cost, and its an easy call for them to be against paying for something that won't be of benefit for twenty years, when many of them will be retired or just getting out of jail.

But, the article said, that does not mean that high-speed rail is a lost cost in the US. It's possible to improve the short-haul infrastructure, along the lines of the BosWash corridor. If the train goes faster than what's there now, even if not at TGV speeds, and is more convenient than flying or driving (the classic 'downtown to downtown' linkage that's apparently the norm for trains between European cities), it becomes more viable for inter-city commuting. Even moderately long distances, such as New York to Chicago, become possible. Call it the TMV. Train Moyenne Vitesse. Medium Speed Train. Not as sexy a name, but perhaps more practical. It would still be expensive to create, but the payback would be quicker, and, crossing fewer political boundaries, less likely to be opposed on purely political grounds.

I just wonder if anyone's willing to spend the political capital to get something that won't directly and immediately benefit them. I can think of only one President - in recent times - who's had that kind of guts.