I didn't say politicians, nor did I mean politicians if you read carefully. I suppose I could dig through the myriad articles, posts, and videos that I review on a daily basis to try to find the individuals who didn't support the infrastructure bill because it had too much for Amtrak (conventional rail) and none for HSR, but I don't really think I need to in order to support my broader arguement.
So many articles, posts, and videos from which to choose yet you cannot provide the name of a single person, group, or agency of relevance. When you embrace a narrative without evidence is it more properly termed an agenda
Except when you are called "Saudi Arabia" I suppose
Does any country meet this nebulous prerequisite of fantastic greatness? The world's first
HSR was started in the wake of military defeat at a time when highways and aircraft were seen as the future and many believed private vehicles and aircraft would replace most passenger trains. The world's fastest
HSR was started in the aftermath of occupation under falling passenger numbers amongst expansive growth in personal vehicles and commercial airlines. The world's largest
HSR replaced a lumbering mishmash of unsafe trains. The entire premise seems to be based on a myth perpetuated by an aversion to accept contradictory information. By his reasoning each of these programs was started at the worst possible time and if any of these countries had agreed we would presumably have no HSR today or possibly ever.