Ezra points out that Kevin Drum opposes the high speed rail project on the ballot in California, which would connect Los Angeles to San Francisco. One of Kevin's arguments is that the projected travel time of 2.5 hours between the cities is overly optimistic, and that it would be worthless to spend so many billions on the rail line if the trip actually took more like 3.5 hours. This is where the East Coast's experience with better Amtrak service can inform the California debate. By train, the trip between New York City and Washington, D.C. is about 3.5 hours, while the flight is about 1 hour. Yet Amtrak is the preferred mode for most business travelers between the two cities. Who doesn't want to avoid the trouble of getting to and from the airport, checking baggage, and going through security? Not to mention that training is a darn pleasant way to travel. Currently, taking Amtrak between L.A. and San Francisco is an all-day event; it's no wonder people prefer the 1.5 hour flight, no matter what the price mark-up. But if train travel time were reduced to between 2.5 and 3.5 hours, a great many passengers would come to prefer rail service. If we don't provide these alternatives, people will never change their behavior, and in the age of climate crisis, change is an imperative. We can't endlessly put off the expense and trouble of constructing high speed rail. --Dana Goldstein
