Why The US Has No High-Speed Rail

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Or a 1 hour plane ride for the same price (at best)

Yes absolutely, how are you marketing trains? "As expensive but slower than a plane!" "Ten times the price of a bus ticket but shorter!" or "three times the cost to drive personally and without the freedom of your own car"

But a 1-hour flight is really at least 2.5-3 hours (get there an hour early, at least an extra half an hour in most cases getting to/from airport compared to train station, plus taxiing / waiting for takeoff) and it sucks.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Or a 1 hour plane ride for the same price (at best)

Yes absolutely, how are you marketing trains? "As expensive but slower than a plane!" "Ten times the price of a bus ticket but shorter!" or "three times the cost to drive personally and without the freedom of your own car"

Try this for a slogan: From L.A. to Vegas in the time it takes you to clear security at LAX.

[edale]

Why do so many Americans act like things that the rest of the world have figured out are impossible to implement here? Western Europe has airports too, you know? In fact, air travel throughout Europe is often cheaper than domestic air travel in the States. Yet for some reason, they have figured out how to build modern rail systems. We aren't that special. Our issues are political rather than practical. This is what happens when you have a small minority of the population who'd like to turn the clock back 100 years having out-sized influence on federal policy.

[theraofnothingless]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The reason there is no high speed rail in the USA is because there is no need for high speed rail.

Oil is relatively cheap, as are cars, we have very good road infrastructure, our densities outside of a few cities is low so even public transit is hard as public transit lines dont service nearly as many people as it would in denser Asian and European cities.

Relative to its size the USA has a small and weak federal government that can at best subsidize local transport efforts.

A large top down program to link a bunch of cities with super fast trains at this time is a total waste of money as planes are cheaper and in many cases faster over long distances.

You want high speed trains? Wait like 90 years. Certain regions are getting denser and will build public transit to fit those needs, those transit networks will eventually expand and connect creating a need for high speed trains between them.

I dont know why people seem to think High Speed Rail is something you build before the need is around, that isnt how it works, high speed rail is built once the need exists.

And before you point out that some autocratic states lik China and Morocco are building trans-national HSR that isnt an argument for effective transit, thats just wishing you could be a god and demand an unnecessary train be built.

and guess who's gonna ride HSR, yes the 1%

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Obadno

There is no way HSR from Phoenix to Las Vegas or San Diego would be better than flying.

Locally can HSR work between LA and San Diego? NYC and Boston or Philly? Yes but those are some of the few places. and California elected to try to start its HSR between two moderately sized farming cities in the Central Valley

HSR works over much longer distances than you're claiming. Here in China, people prefer to take the train over flying over much greater distances. For example, the Shanghai-Beijing HSR (1300km, 4.5 hours for the fastest trains) basically is time competitive with flyiing when you consider the hassles of airports, is always on time, and is price competitive with flying too (1 way ticket in second class is about US$90). The train is also much more comfortable than an airplane, even in second class, and with the delays that are common in China's domestic air travel network, I prefer to take the high speed train for trips up to 10-11 hours rather than flying in less than half the time.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

The train is also much more comfortable than an airplane, even in second class, and with the delays that are common in China's domestic air travel network, I prefer to take the high speed train for trips up to 10-11 hours rather than flying in less than half the time.

My guess is that would be an extremely rare opinion in the USA

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by edale

Why do so many Americans act like things that the rest of the world have figured out are impossible to implement here? Western Europe has airports too, you know? In fact, air travel throughout Europe is often cheaper than domestic air travel in the States. Yet for some reason, they have figured out how to build modern rail systems. We aren't that special. Our issues are political rather than practical. This is what happens when you have a small minority of the population who'd like to turn the clock back 100 years having out-sized influence on federal policy.

I am so lost by this entire post. Western Europe is incredibly dense compared to the United States. They aren't comparable. Are you talking about specifically the NEC and maybe California or the entire US? That matters a lot.

No its not political. Its all practical.

Who is this "small minority" who have an out-sized influence on federal policy? I am sure you mean country bumpkin republicans from Oklahoma. Well, they have a right to be represented and it makes no sense for small-rural states to WANT their taxes spent on rail systems that will never benefit them. Before you go on about the BLUE STATES PAY MORE INTO... just remember that they are dumb for this. If they believed in Federalism, California would have billions more a year in taxes to spend on their own people. Liberals want a large federal government, well the federal government is also run by conservatives, too bad. If you want to enact liberal ideas, do it in the states, like California tried with its rail.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by edale

Why do so many Americans act like things that the rest of the world have figured out are impossible to implement here? Western Europe has airports too, you know? In fact, air travel throughout Europe is often cheaper than domestic air travel in the States. Yet for some reason, they have figured out how to build modern rail systems. We aren't that special. Our issues are political rather than practical. This is what happens when you have a small minority of the population who'd like to turn the clock back 100 years having out-sized influence on federal policy.

Its not impossible it isn't practical.

Even if you build effective HSR from Major downtown to Major downtown our cities mostly lack comprehensive public transport once you arrive there because they are far less dense than even your average Canadian city.

Weather you are happy with that state of affairs or not thats how it is. Now I believe the current trend to density is going to continue and at some point down the line in some areas and between some Metros an HSR will be a good idea. We are not currently at that point.

I say this as somebody that likes trains I wish they existed in the USA on a purely personal taste level but they dont make sense in the USA in 2019 in general.

Maybe when I am a very old man in 2075 some parts of a much more populated and urbanized America will see train networks.

Hell maybe you'll even see some cross country HSR that connects say the Eastern seaboard to greater Chicago-land or Socal to the Texas triangle. But a Comprehensive nationwide high speed rail network built and operated bye he federal government (effectively no less)

Yeah...no, not happening until well after we are all long dead.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Before you go on about the BLUE STATES PAY MORE INTO...

Not to mention that stat is a very glib summation of a much more complex situation. Rural and western states have far more Federally owned and managed land compared to East Coast "blue states" incomes and populations in Costal states are higher as is the populations thus they tend to provide more income taxes. Furthermore there are usually high levels of poverty both in white and minority neighborhoods in Red states (specifically the rural south) that draw more federal money etc.

Basically its a statement of money in vs money out which is not a reasonable analysis of whats actually going on and why that tends to be the case.

[mhays]

My region has two medium-sized cities, Seattle and Portland. We have I think five trains per day between the two. They're often 100% full. We don't have phenomenal transit, just decent transit. That's despite the train only being fast during rush hour, and roughly equal to flying all things considered, if you're starting in one of the downtowns.

I've ridden myself, and with others, including with my department going as a group of a few people. It's way cheaper than driving, all things considered. You can get up and go to the bathroom or grab a beer. You don't have to deal with a car once you get there.

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps when maglevs become a lot cheaper, and they won't get clogged up with freight trains getting in the way, that's the best part.

[tablemtn]

I suspect that California may have killed the prospects for HSR in the rest of the country because of the insanely slow and wasteful process involved in building its own HSR line. Even supporters of that project tend to agree that it hasn't gone well and has cost an extravagant amount of money in relation to actual results, after 11 years and counting of planning and construction.

[edale]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I am so lost by this entire post. Western Europe is incredibly dense compared to the United States. They aren't comparable. Are you talking about specifically the NEC and maybe California or the entire US? That matters a lot.

No its not political. Its all practical.

No one is seriously talking about high speed rail across the entire US. It's talked about in corridors highly populated corridors and states, similar to how it has been implemented in countries across the globe. The most obvious candidate for HSR is the Northeast Corridor from Boston to DC, but there are several others that make sense. California from SD to SF. LA to Vegas. Rail connecting the big cities in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. Chicago to any number of cities in the Midwest.

What I meant by the second half of my post is that rail is painted as a boogeyman by the American right for no reason whatsoever. We fund freeways like crazy, with seldom a peep from the taxpayer watchdog groups. But any time a rail project is proposed, it is met with HUGE irrational opposition. Ohio worked like crazy to get its 3C rail funded, only to have it sabotaged by small town Republicans who thought rail was a gateway to socialism. Seriously. With this faction receiving undue influence at the state and national levels, it makes it very hard to undertake big projects like high speed (or hell, even conventional speed) rail.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by edale

Ohio worked like crazy to get its 3C rail funded, only to have it sabotaged by small town Republicans who thought rail was a gateway to socialism. Seriously. With this faction receiving undue influence at the state and national levels, it makes it very hard to undertake big projects like high speed (or hell, even conventional speed) rail.

They didn't want it because it would be absurdly expensive and people living anywhere outside of 4 or 5 city centers in Ohio would get little to no use out of it.

It has nothing to do with "gateway to socialism" People dont like paying for things they dont use.

California from SD to SF. LA to Vegas

Even these arent really accurate. SOCAL in general could use a comprehensive rail netowrk with maybe some HSR as could the Bay area + Sacramento but between the two is a whole lot of mountainous nothing. Meaning very expensive tunneling and land clearance.

An HSR line between LA and San Jose would be like Paris to Amsterdam and its almost completely mountainous the entire way. The reason California tried to build its high speed rail in the central valley wasn't because it was going to get the most use, its because it would be the Easiest (thus cheapest) to build.

[chris08876]

Possibly autonomous vehicles will help increase the speed of travel via the roads/highways. As we know, a lot of conjestion is really driver error. Folks not accelerating or deceleration in a constant, uniformed fashion. We all know those scenario where somebody takes 2 minutes to get to 60/65 mph, slowing down the line. Or things like merging from a feeder onto a highway, causing delays. Or just a plain old accident that bogs traffic for miles.

So possibly autonomous vehicles will ensure the U.S. continues to have the car as the main source of transportation (assuming one day the vehicles can talk to one another to reduce errors and increase efficiency), and HSR takes a dump in the wind.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by mhays

My region has two medium-sized cities, Seattle and Portland. We have I think five trains per day between the two. They're often 100% full. We don't have phenomenal transit, just decent transit. That's despite the train only being fast during rush hour, and roughly equal to flying all things considered, if you're starting in one of the downtowns.

I've ridden myself, and with others, including with my department going as a group of a few people. It's way cheaper than driving, all things considered. You can get up and go to the bathroom or grab a beer. You don't have to deal with a car once you get there.

Yeah, I think that corridor could warrant a possible HSR network, probably the least populated area which can say that due to both cities have good(by American standards) transit system and a population used to using transit.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by edale

No one is seriously talking about high speed rail across the entire US. It's talked about in corridors highly populated corridors and states, similar to how it has been implemented in countries across the globe. The most obvious candidate for HSR is the Northeast Corridor from Boston to DC, but there are several others that make sense. California from SD to SF. LA to Vegas. Rail connecting the big cities in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. Chicago to any number of cities in the Midwest.

What I meant by the second half of my post is that rail is painted as a boogeyman by the American right for no reason whatsoever. We fund freeways like crazy, with seldom a peep from the taxpayer watchdog groups. But any time a rail project is proposed, it is met with HUGE irrational opposition. Ohio worked like crazy to get its 3C rail funded, only to have it sabotaged by small town Republicans who thought rail was a gateway to socialism. Seriously. With this faction receiving undue influence at the state and national levels, it makes it very hard to undertake big projects like high speed (or hell, even conventional speed) rail.

I get you. Yeah, in the case of like California, it actually was politics and not practicality that got in the way after all. But I think even liberal Californians thought the price was too much for what they were getting.

I am not agreeing with the Right and their opposition to rail but I try to understand the rationale of their opposition. A rural resident will never use the train. They probably never use a plane either than maybe a few times in their lives. Thier entire world revolves around their cars and trucks, so its hard for them to even imagine people wanting other options. Its like AOC and people from big cities proposing plans to eliminate gas engines without a viable option in its place. Tell that to a farmer who has upwards of a million dollars worth of machinary that relies on gas or diesel. And again, why would someone from Oklahoma want billions spent on a rail line on the NE that mostly only wealthy and upper-middle class people will use?

There are plenty of liberal states that could build rail. NY, CT,NJ,MA,RI,CA,OR,WA all could build rail based on their liberal leanings and populations(or where they are located). California had all the ingredients lined up; tons of money, liberal voters, and actual construction. And even they are pretty much giving up on it because of the stupidy of politicians and how to route the dang thing and because people realized it wasn't a good deal. Why should Californians spend something like 60 billion dollars to make a slightly better alternative to flying? It doesn't make sense. For optics, it looks cool and progressive. But 60 billion dollars isn't a joke, you have to prove its worth it.

[SIGSEGV]

The interstate system can't support significantly higher speeds in most places. Otherwise we could take a lane and turn it into HSR.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Obadno

They didn't want it because it would be absurdly expensive and people living anywhere outside of 4 or 5 city centers in Ohio would get little to no use out of it.

It has nothing to do with "gateway to socialism" People dont like paying for things they dont use.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.new...-68597%3famp=1

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Obadno

My guess is that would be an extremely rare opinion in the USA

IMO, trains are much more comfortable than planes. We're talking about HSR trains of course, not crowded subway cars. Most HSR that I've ridden overseas are very roomy and comfortable. It's 2 seats per aisle, rather than 3, like most passenger planes, and the legroom is much more generous. There's also much more headroom, so you don't feel like you're in as enclosed of a space. The ride is silky smooth (no turbulence), bathrooms are much more accessible, and the boarding/offboarding process is much faster.