The problem isn’t how they’re constructed, it’s how they’re run, and this article is basically just complaining about SNCF without realising it. They run bad timetables and aim for high occupancy rather than transporting more people. Jon Worth has better writing on the topic IMO.

Should it not be double foldable? It has two folds

exactly, either way you need to take the opposing lane to be completely free.

If there isn’t space to overtake two cyclists side by side, there isn’t space to overtake one cyclist. If there’s another car coming towards you while you overtake, you’d be endangering the one cyclist.

They are The News Quiz host Andy Zaltzman, I’m a Celebrity and Celebrity Gogglebox star Babatunde Aléshé, Starstruck and Ghosts actress Emma Sidi, stand-up comic Jack Dee (Lead Balloon) and comedian Rosie Jones (Out of Order, Trip Hazard: My Great British Adventure).

For anyone else that doesn’t know who they are (source)

I’d guess with inflation you’d be right, but if we’re sticking with the current value, what on Phase 2 justifies it costing the same as Phase 1?

• Merced to Bakersfield is the initial operation segment, that is estimated to cost $28–35 billion, as per your link. This is the cheapest phase that you are referring to.

• Phase 1 adds the segments to SF and Anaheim. This is projected to cost $130 billion.

• Phase 2 adds segments to San Diego and Sacramento. These are a long way off and I haven’t seen any cost estimates for it, but as you can see it doesn’t triple the length of the system.

• There is no Phase 3 in the official design.

So where does the $500 billion come from?

full phase 1 != the IOS. The IOS is predicted to be $28–35 billion. The full phase 1, which is SF and Merced to Anaheim, and also most of the entire network, is predicted to be $128bn (as per your quote).

The IOS is projected to commence revenue service as a self-contained high-speed rail system between 2030-2033, at a cost of $28–35 billion, and will replace current San Joaquins service south of Merced.

From the top of the page you linked. I see no reference to $130b.

The federal government can also fund infrastructure projects in states.

Source on the $500 billion?

And governments don’t need to find money to fund capital projects. The US government can print money. They can effectively borrow money against the future economic growth that the project will provide, which is an easy bet with projects like this.

There’s a facebook group for that line, perhaps they could help you: https://www.facebook.com/groups/upbelvideresub/

The 20mph has had a measurable impact in Wales, and it does lower average speeds even if more people are now driving over the limit. It really should come along with infrastructure changes to reflect the lower limits, but that would take decades and this is something that can be done quickly.

Not really surprising from the bbc

Traffic flows best at 20mph. Here’s a scientific study that proves it (pdf warning)

Lower speeds have a huge impact on the pedestrian you hit. There’s a big difference between the fatality rates at 30mph Vs 20mph

Insurance companies have also seen a drop in claims with the 20mph speed limits

New roads don’t reduce traffic, they create more. It’s called induced demand. We should be building viable alternatives to driving.

You can get a permit to carry a gun in Switzerland if you actually have a good reason for it, like being a security guard. Otherwise you can transport it to your shooting range as long as it isn’t loaded. So I wouldn’t really say she could carry that in this context.

Please don’t listen to the other guy. London is huge and incredibly diverse and there’s plenty of great people.