The US has a huge rail system with tons of capacity. It uses it for moving cargo, which makes much of the US economy possible. If cargo is moved off of the rail system to make room for passenger service, that cargo will go on trucks on the roads. Heavy cargo on trucks driving over roads is not a good outcome.
That said, trains are a nice way of seeing the country. Because the rail system is mainly for cargo, passenger service in most places is not good for time sensitive travel. It is great for sightseeing. This route being overnight is disappointing as it takes away the sightseeing but maybe they've found some available slots during the night between cargo loads.
Anyone who has a chance to travel between Portland and Vancouver by train should take it. You get views of the coast not available by road. Just be sure to get a seat on the side of the train that faces the ocean or you're going to have to enjoy seeing lots and lots of trees.
in the USA the railroads consolidated after the Civil War, and certain companies were abusive about access and costs; several large fortunes were made but politics responded. One hundred plus years later, the automobile has center stage, with its road network. Other factors are also listed in other comments here..
Switzerland has trains too and that it is very famously very much not flat, has the same GDP per capita as California. While the population in Switzerland is nearly twice the Californian density on average, the SF-LA corridor contains two absurdly dense metropolitan areas, with a total population nearly double the entire country of Switzerland, so the average density where it matters for this route is high. In fact California is almost perfectly designed for a rail backbone, as nearly everyone lives on one line from San Diego, through LA to San Francisco and there's a 300 mile plain in the middle so it's not mountains all the way.
Yes, you need some enormous tunnels. That's more than possible, ask the Swiss or Norwegians. And yes, it's an earthquake zone, but it's still functionally a political problem.
When it comes to trains there is always people who talks about the geographical challenges of building tracks or whatever. I mean these are mostly fixed cost investments and we know exactly how to do them. Why is it such a big deal to build bridges and tunnels?
Mountain_Skies|1 year ago
That said, trains are a nice way of seeing the country. Because the rail system is mainly for cargo, passenger service in most places is not good for time sensitive travel. It is great for sightseeing. This route being overnight is disappointing as it takes away the sightseeing but maybe they've found some available slots during the night between cargo loads.
Anyone who has a chance to travel between Portland and Vancouver by train should take it. You get views of the coast not available by road. Just be sure to get a seat on the side of the train that faces the ocean or you're going to have to enjoy seeing lots and lots of trees.
mistrial9|1 year ago
r14c|1 year ago
alephnerd|1 year ago
Furthermore, planes and driving have always been an option in the US.
gravescale|1 year ago
Yes, you need some enormous tunnels. That's more than possible, ask the Swiss or Norwegians. And yes, it's an earthquake zone, but it's still functionally a political problem.
lostlogin|1 year ago
objektif|1 year ago