@AnnieBuddy@mstdn.ca @ggDionne@mstdn.ca Fair points — land use and cost control matter.
But a 3/4 km corridor isn’t accurate; HSR rights-of-way are typically *tens* of metres, not hundreds, and routes can (and should) avoid sensitive areas, just as highways and transmission lines already do.
On costs: discipline is essential. But “never cost-effective” assumes static ridership and ignores avoided highway expansion, airport upgrades, fuel imports, and long-term emissions. Infrastructure is properly judged / evaluated over decades.
As for China’s HSR debt: yes, that’s risky and not ideal per se. But they still built the world’s largest HSR network in 15 years and shifted massive volumes of travel from planes and highways to electric rail. Debt for consumption is a liability; debt for productive, nation-building infrastructure that boosts mobility and cuts emissions can generate lasting returns over time.
High-frequency rail is good. True HSR is transformational — if planned well.