1. High speed rail is an order of magnitude more expensive than interstate highways. The cost effectiveness of the mass moving people via train vs. via highways (buses, carpool lanes included) is still an active debate.
2. The author cites that many folks use interstate highways daily. That may be true but that vast majority of those commutes are 50 miles or less. High speed rail only becomes cost and time effective over much longer distances. Which fraction of the population need to frequently travel to cities greater than 50 miles away? It's a small subset of the population (and skewed towards wealthier citizens). Roads are much more democratic -- they are available to anyone with a car.
3. While his argument about traffic is correct... where is most of the traffic on interstate highways? Answer: around major cities. The traffic is mostly local commuter traffic that high speed rail would not solve.
> High speed rail is an order of magnitude more expensive than interstate highways.
Only when being installed. When operating, the true cost per passenger mile is much lower than for interstate highways and cars. It's best to avoid misleading economic comparisons.
A bus is more expensive than a car, but the cost per passenger mile is much lower.
A commercial airliner is hugely more expensive than a car, but an airplane ride from A to B is cheaper than an equivalent car journey for most trips.
> The traffic is mostly local commuter traffic that high speed rail would not solve.
False choice. Cities have sophisticated, multi-level rail and surface mass transit systems for a reason -- they make economic sense.
> Roads are much more democratic -- they are available to anyone with a car.
I have to ask -- who are you working for? Your arguments are all paper-thin, easily torn to pieces. Roads and cars are democratic? More democratic than a seat in mass transit?
Which fraction of the population need to frequently travel to cities greater than 50 miles away?
How many people needed cellphones in the 1950s?
You can't measure how many people travel to cities greater than 50 miles away today and extrapolate that to a future with high-speed rail, because it may be that the reason they don't do it is: they don't have an affordable way to do it.
>that vast majority of those commutes are 50 miles or less. High speed rail only becomes cost and time effective over much longer distances. Which fraction of the population need to frequently travel to cities greater than 50 miles away?
Maybe the distance of those commutes are related to the times it takes? Would the average commute grow in distance if the time decreased?
So look at Japan. Japan is 152,000 ish square miles.
The United States is 3,717,000 sq miles that are already crisscrossed with Interstates, plus a great deal of air travel infrastructure, plus low-speed rail.
It may not be obvious, but rail crashed in the U.S. More
than once. There were worthless railroad stock certificates in many attics. These now have actual numismatic value. Then it crashed again after Eisenhower built the Interstate.
China is 3,704,000 sq. miles but doesn't have Interstates to the same extent that the U.S. does.
The U.S. does pretty well with low speed rail for freight and to a lesser extent, passenger service. But the infrastructure in the U.S. is based on 50 year old technology. China should be able to do much better and by doing so, the U.S. should develop a twinge of envy and possibly emulate them, if it makes sense.
The U.S. should ( IMO ) do a lot more "moon shot" things but it didn't work out. I watched this in real time after the moon landing. The shuttle was cool and all, but it was nothing compared to what could have been. We said "BTDT" and went to the disco.
When it comes down to it, the U.S. is a lot about granite countertops and not much else. I will not say why I think that is.
But the geometry of the way the U.S. is laid out means that you can spend a great deal on air transport before you get to break even with high-speed rail.
I completely agree with you but also feel like the big problem is people tend to state it as a case of "why the country, as a whole, needs high speed rail" and as you point out the vast majority of country really doesn't. Or at least doesn't think they do. We'd benefit greatly if we instead looked at it as a case of "why [state/city] should have high speed rail".
High speed rail from NYC to LA, while it may be cool and might be a nice big engineering challenge, really just doesn't appeal to most people. But if I, in central NJ, could take a train into Manhattan in under 2 hours, that would actually be incredibly useful and I'd love to be able to. Right now the time and cost of me taking a train from here to DC is prohibitively high compared to driving or taking a flight. These regional cases are where high speed (or at least higher speed) rail would really shine in my opinion.
> we have a political system in which the federal government, having devolved virtually all decision-making power to states
That's definitely not true. Just look at the ACA.
> California's high-speed rail progress—its proposed San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line remains the only truly fast train project in the country—is the exception that proves the rule; that state's size makes it no example for the rest of the nation.
Yeah let's just pretend that California's train to nowhere is an example other states should emulate.
We can't build high speed trains because: (1) the government is corrupt, incompetent and beholden to interest groups and (2) the public doesn't really want them.
The best example of public transportation the US has is probably NYC and it really isn't all that great. It's dirty, slow, unreliable, crowded and surprisingly expensive. (at 100$/mo owning a car in almost any other city in the US is cheaper)
>The best example of public transportation the US has is probably NYC and it really isn't all that great. It's dirty, slow, unreliable, crowded and surprisingly expensive. (at 100$/mo owning a car in almost any other city in the US is cheaper)
You obviously don't live in NYC for saying such things.
I love the subway and love the fact that I don't have to take a car to work. It's green (runs off of electricity). I don't have to worry about oil changes, tires, gas, insurance, the initial outlay of a lot of cash for a car... etc. Did I mention its faster than a cab?
I'll give you that it's dirty and crowded (depending on the time). But nothing else.
Where can you own, and presumably drive, a car for less than $100/mo?
Even if you assume parking is free on both ends of your journey and that the car was given to you for free, there is no way you are spending less than $100 a month. Gas alone probably gets you close to $100. Then you add on registration and insurance and ongoing maintenance costs. I want to live in this fantasy world where cars are "cheaper"
NYC system is not slow, nor unreliable. Yes, dirty-ish but I'd trade some hygiene for reliability, 24/7 access and speed. It's also not expensive especially if you work in the city and get a pre-tax unlimited card. It also costs way more than $100/month to own a card in NYC.
>> we have a political system in which the federal government, having devolved virtually all decision-making power to states
> That's definitely not true. Just look at the ACA.
Well, if the author studied history he would have known that our political system is that where states came together and decided to devote some decision-making power to the federal government. As time passed this federal government usurped as much power as it could but apparently for some people it's still not enough.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
>> we have a political system in which the federal government, having devolved virtually all decision-making power to states
> That's definitely not true. Just look at the ACA.
The ACA devolves most power to the states, who run their own exchanges, including the ability to not participate at all. Compare that to other countries (which have much less expensive and more effective health care systems).
> We can't build high speed trains because: (1) the government is corrupt, incompetent and beholden to interest groups and (2) the public doesn't really want them.
I disagree on #1, at least in a relative sense. The US government is relatively clean compared to most, including others that build and manage train systems such as Russia and India.
The problem, IMHO, is the demonization of government by a small group. Due to our political structure that small minority can block government from acting, bringing such gridlock that it can't even raise revenues or pay bills reliably. That reduces the general public's confidence in government's capacity to solve problems, not because something is generally wrong with government but because of the gridlock. Until we solve that problem, nothing else will happen.
> The best example of public transportation the US has is probably NYC and it really isn't all that great. It's dirty, slow, unreliable, crowded and surprisingly expensive. (at 100$/mo owning a car in almost any other city in the US is cheaper)
I'll disagree here.
If you live in Manhattan, public transit is fast and efficient. As for "dirty", well it wasn't white glove immaculate, but it isn't covered in filth or human waste.
As for $ of owning a car, I drive very little (my commute to work is a paltry 4 miles!), but just going around on weekends to meet with friends costs me an easy $40/week, making gas alone more than $100/month.
> Yeah let's just pretend that California's train to nowhere is an example other states should emulate.
Hyperloop makes more sense. Personally I'd love to see Hyperloop running down the entire west coast.
The problem European countries have with the high-speed trains is that they are not as cheap as normal (slow) trains, and by introducing the high-speed ones they retired many cheap ones - that were slower but still got you there. This reduced the number of travelers, forcing even higher prices to cover the expenses - so they are now not very far from plane tickets.
This is somewhat true in the US as well even for not-so-high-speed trains. Acela is priced to compete with air. It's about 2x the price of the Northeast Regional Amtrak trains even though it only shaves maybe 25%-35% (1-1.5 hours for Boston to NY) off the time .
And, actually, for longer routes (e.g. Boston to Chicago), even regular trains are only competitive with planes at best--and if you want a sleeper car for a 20 hour trip you can be looking at $1,000 one way.
The US got into air transportation with much more enthusiasm than Europe and this combined with our love affair with the automobile pretty much negated a need or desire for trains. For the longest time traveling between countries in Europe could be met with restriction or such, the distances most traveled were not that great. In the US, it wasn't uncommon to travel hundreds if not a thousand miles on the big family vacation and you had three ways to get there.
High Speed rail might have some applications in some congested corridors, most likely only in the North East, but for the rest - air travel isn't that expensive.
I would argue that air travel has become very expensive. I hardly can get a ticket, even for hour-long flights, for less than $400.
Most Americans cannot afford that (take your two kids, and its $1600). Combine it with the increased price of gas, and many Americans cannot afford to travel outside their hometowns. We need better public transit.
The electric, self-driving cars we will certainly have in less time than this rail system could be built will be using existing infrastructure - the highway system - to transport us, congestion-free and at higher speeds, to absolutely any city on the map - whether they have a train station or not.
Why waste money on a rail system when the whole country is going to look like the car scenes in Minority Report in a couple decades?
Neither of these has any chance of being true. Highways near any sort of metropolitan area, or near a spur leading to a metropolitan area, or even often near a connector leading to another major highway, are already massively congested. Autonomous automobiles making even more people want to use them will only make it that much worse.
And even safe, self-driving cars operating outside of traffic can only travel at a fraction the speed of rail.
I don't really think that's the future. The most comfortable commute I ever had was the Metro North into Manhattan from Westchester. Can't beat having a bathroom on your commute. Can't beat the physics of rail having lower friction than car tires (especially at higher speeds). In a place like Manhattan, I see self driving cars as a replacement for taxis, not trains. Outside of Manhattan, well who cares about those places?
There are really only 3 or 4 viable high speed rail corridors in the US:
Northeast Corridor (Boston - Washington DC)
LA - SF
Chicago - NYC
and possibly Seattle - Portland
Beyond that, the traffic densities present are not enough to justify high speed rail - not to mention, even nonstop at 200 mph from LA/SF/Seattle to Chicago (or any eastern point) is a minimum of 10 hours in transit, versus 3ish to fly.
> Beyond that, the traffic densities present are not enough to justify high speed rail
Remember that building transit infrastructure will also create new traffic!
As an example, park and rides an hour out from Seattle are packed full of cars every day. Busses are then packed full of people every day heading into the city from as much as 40 miles out.
IMHO what would be more interesting would be Vancouver BC --> Bellingham --> Midway to Seattle --> Seattle --> Tacoma --> Portland
Of course going across the boarder makes this impractical. :(
Per an engineer in the train industry [1], an essential requirement is effective mass transit in the cities where the high-speed rail stops. Without that, passengers can't reach the inter-city trains easily enough.
[1] The kind of engineer who designs trains (and related systems), not the kind who drives them.
Speaking of the northeast corridor specifically, there is a crap ton of bureaucracy inhibiting the construction of a high speed line.
Think of all of the state/municipal level governments and unions that have to be satisfied before any deal is struck. This would essentially mix NYC, Jersey, Philly, Baltimore, and D.C. politics into one huge pile of WTF.
We couldn't even get a riverfront project going in Philadelphia because not enough (of the powers that be) palms were greased.
Only way this could be possible is if some benevolent Palpatine-esqe dictator comes along and makes shit happen.
Eh, I think the biggest problem is just right-of-way issues. It's easiest to build high-speed rail if you are starting from scratch, instead of trying to work around an active commuter rail line and an existing Amtrak service. But obtaining the necessary right-of-way to do a new build in the Northeast would be extremely expensive.
The US has been bought and manipulated by the automobile and oil industries. From early on when GM and others bought the street car networks and shut them down, to lobbying the Eisenhower interstate network in place, this country has been and continues to be built around the idea that everyone should be required to use a car to participate in all aspects of their lives.
In order for an intercity rail network to work, it needs to link dense urban cores that also have useful transit systems. A train between Omaha and Kansas City does no good if you get off the train then face a 14 mile journey through the suburbs to your destination.
2 things need to happen before a rail network makes sense:
1. Urban infill. I know Denver has a policy for this in place, I'm sure others do too. But sooo many city cores have huge tracts of land that are derelict, or unused. New development should be incentivized to make use of this land.
2. Growth boundary regulation. Portland is the best example of this. With out this you get the exurbs and sprawl (sorry to point out Kansas City again, but it is one of the worst offenders here) which demand a car to traverse.
Well, the business model is hard to get right. It's faster than plane and car on medium distances, but capital costs are enormous compared to either. As far as I know HSR can only be directly profitable with insane population density (Japan). I believe it can be a net economic win for society in general, but a certain kind of government and populace is required to consider that kind of argument.
> Well, the business model is hard to get right. It's faster than plane and car on medium distances, but capital costs are enormous compared to either.
Consider the climate impact costs. Part of the problem is that airlines and car owners externalize a significant cost, making those modes of transportation seem relatively less expensive. In reality, everyone else covers those costs.
> California's high-speed rail progress—its proposed San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line remains the only truly fast train project in the country—is the exception that proves the rule; that state's size makes it no example for the rest of the nation.
California's rail plan is a lie and a joke. It won't end up being "high speed" rail. It's a waste of taxpayer money. It's another way for politicians to line the pockets of their contributors.
The USA does not need a high-speed rail system. The interstate system and airport network is sufficient. Between high trafficked short-distance corridors? Fine.
What the USA needs is modern commuter rail supported by a network of private short-trip mini-buses. This would have the most significant impact for lowest cost.
Commuter rail is also a much smaller, cheaper target to reach for. And it would have a much greater impact on the quality of life in urban and suburban areas.
However, the barriers to commuter rail in much of the country are stupid and entrenched. In Raliegh, NC, the main barrier to commuter rail is a county commissioner who believes in some absurd conspiracy theories [1].
And rail can be maglev, monorail, hyperloop - whatever is the most economical. As long as terminals are supported by frequent ground transit to fill the gap.
Article seems kind of ludicrous. It weirdly blames Federalism, ignores the airlines, the auto industry and the rail freight business, all which would stand to lose if public transportation dollars and regulation moved to significant passenger rail investment.
tl;dr: Basically, it's because the population density is too low.
High speed rail is great for population centers that are 300 miles apart, but not so great for ones that are 1500 miles apart. The competition there is primarily the airplane, and the time difference grows with distance. So does the cost difference. (You only need an airport in each city, no matter how far apart they are, but you need a mile of railroad for each mile of distance.)
The problem, then, is that the US doesn't have enough population centers that are big enough and close enough to each other. The northeast corridor (from Boston to Washington DC) is really the only one that fits.
Off topic but the graph of trust in the government in Washington descending from 73% to 19% is striking. Now there's a system that looks like it could do with disrupting or fixing or something like that.
Not a fan of the essay style where you dismiss a bunch of possible reasons with single sentences, then spend paragraphs talking about the one part you want to talk about. It overly simplifies issues.
I think the problem is not national will, but cost. In my experience (in Korea, and Europe) is that high speed rail is heavily subsidized, but still not competitive with air travel.
Because the citizens have been indoctrinated to not believe in public works and public goods.
Hence everything has to be privatized, and if something gives little or no incentive for profit, it should not exist (like municipal fiber or proper universal health care).
With the big exception of the army and the police of course, where it's handy that the multitide of common citizens fund the resource-grabbing and property protection of the few.
"Because the citizens have been indoctrinated to not believe in public works and public goods."
Really? By whom? Where?
Trust in government hasn't collapsed due to a sudden lack of people advocating government solutions for everything in the past 50 years. In a nutshell, it's collapsed due to government not being able to deliver on a great deal of what it promises. It's simply irrational for the public to pretend that the government has some sort of spotless track record over the past 50 years.
Given how many of those failed promises have been infrastructure projects themselves, it would bode poorly for trying to fix this distrust with yet another one.
And remember, if you're inclined to start making excuses for why the public may not trust the government, you simply end up explaining why the public doesn't trust the government, it doesn't make the mistrust go away. Consider that a list of problems to be attacked before the government has the moral capital to spend again on such infrastructure projects. (One rather potent way of looking at the government's trust problems is its repeated willingness by government officials to spend that trust without putting a lot of effort into depositing into that account.)
How can you believe in the public works if as a result you get a 6.5 billion bridge that has to be fixed less than a year after being built and is highly likely to fall apart after the next major earthquake? And what was the cost of that healthcare.gov website?
It could be that the US's high-risk/high-reward/failure-positive ethic means that elastic transportation routings are more economically valuable than fixed-segment trains.
A train is 10% better than a jet from SF to LA. A train is much worse than a jet for SF to NY. All other pairings -- or so one might argue -- are so much lesser in density that the elasticity of roads is vastly preferable.
> A train is 10% better than a jet from SF to LA. A train is much worse than a jet for SF to NY. All other pairings -- or so one might argue -- are so much lesser in density that the elasticity of roads is vastly preferable.
I think there are many other possibilities, and also many people live in cities of hundreds of thousands, all over America, and they'd like to travel too.
* The NE corridor, from DC to Boston, of course. Maybe south to NC
* Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati - Columbus - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Detroit (- Toronto) (That would include a spur or two, of course.) And what about people in Green Bay and Grand Rapids?
* The Florida cities, maybe up to Atlanta or West to New Orleans
[+] [-] holograham|11 years ago|reply
1. High speed rail is an order of magnitude more expensive than interstate highways. The cost effectiveness of the mass moving people via train vs. via highways (buses, carpool lanes included) is still an active debate.
2. The author cites that many folks use interstate highways daily. That may be true but that vast majority of those commutes are 50 miles or less. High speed rail only becomes cost and time effective over much longer distances. Which fraction of the population need to frequently travel to cities greater than 50 miles away? It's a small subset of the population (and skewed towards wealthier citizens). Roads are much more democratic -- they are available to anyone with a car.
3. While his argument about traffic is correct... where is most of the traffic on interstate highways? Answer: around major cities. The traffic is mostly local commuter traffic that high speed rail would not solve.
[+] [-] lutusp|11 years ago|reply
Only when being installed. When operating, the true cost per passenger mile is much lower than for interstate highways and cars. It's best to avoid misleading economic comparisons.
A bus is more expensive than a car, but the cost per passenger mile is much lower.
A commercial airliner is hugely more expensive than a car, but an airplane ride from A to B is cheaper than an equivalent car journey for most trips.
> The traffic is mostly local commuter traffic that high speed rail would not solve.
False choice. Cities have sophisticated, multi-level rail and surface mass transit systems for a reason -- they make economic sense.
> Roads are much more democratic -- they are available to anyone with a car.
I have to ask -- who are you working for? Your arguments are all paper-thin, easily torn to pieces. Roads and cars are democratic? More democratic than a seat in mass transit?
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
How many people needed cellphones in the 1950s?
You can't measure how many people travel to cities greater than 50 miles away today and extrapolate that to a future with high-speed rail, because it may be that the reason they don't do it is: they don't have an affordable way to do it.
[+] [-] enjo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dethstar|11 years ago|reply
Maybe the distance of those commutes are related to the times it takes? Would the average commute grow in distance if the time decreased?
[+] [-] ArkyBeagle|11 years ago|reply
So look at Japan. Japan is 152,000 ish square miles.
The United States is 3,717,000 sq miles that are already crisscrossed with Interstates, plus a great deal of air travel infrastructure, plus low-speed rail.
It may not be obvious, but rail crashed in the U.S. More than once. There were worthless railroad stock certificates in many attics. These now have actual numismatic value. Then it crashed again after Eisenhower built the Interstate.
China is 3,704,000 sq. miles but doesn't have Interstates to the same extent that the U.S. does.
The U.S. does pretty well with low speed rail for freight and to a lesser extent, passenger service. But the infrastructure in the U.S. is based on 50 year old technology. China should be able to do much better and by doing so, the U.S. should develop a twinge of envy and possibly emulate them, if it makes sense.
The U.S. should ( IMO ) do a lot more "moon shot" things but it didn't work out. I watched this in real time after the moon landing. The shuttle was cool and all, but it was nothing compared to what could have been. We said "BTDT" and went to the disco.
When it comes down to it, the U.S. is a lot about granite countertops and not much else. I will not say why I think that is.
But the geometry of the way the U.S. is laid out means that you can spend a great deal on air transport before you get to break even with high-speed rail.
[+] [-] icehawk219|11 years ago|reply
High speed rail from NYC to LA, while it may be cool and might be a nice big engineering challenge, really just doesn't appeal to most people. But if I, in central NJ, could take a train into Manhattan in under 2 hours, that would actually be incredibly useful and I'd love to be able to. Right now the time and cost of me taking a train from here to DC is prohibitively high compared to driving or taking a flight. These regional cases are where high speed (or at least higher speed) rail would really shine in my opinion.
[+] [-] cdoxsey|11 years ago|reply
That's definitely not true. Just look at the ACA.
> California's high-speed rail progress—its proposed San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line remains the only truly fast train project in the country—is the exception that proves the rule; that state's size makes it no example for the rest of the nation.
Yeah let's just pretend that California's train to nowhere is an example other states should emulate.
We can't build high speed trains because: (1) the government is corrupt, incompetent and beholden to interest groups and (2) the public doesn't really want them.
The best example of public transportation the US has is probably NYC and it really isn't all that great. It's dirty, slow, unreliable, crowded and surprisingly expensive. (at 100$/mo owning a car in almost any other city in the US is cheaper)
[+] [-] jchrome|11 years ago|reply
You obviously don't live in NYC for saying such things.
I love the subway and love the fact that I don't have to take a car to work. It's green (runs off of electricity). I don't have to worry about oil changes, tires, gas, insurance, the initial outlay of a lot of cash for a car... etc. Did I mention its faster than a cab?
I'll give you that it's dirty and crowded (depending on the time). But nothing else.
[+] [-] brewdad|11 years ago|reply
Even if you assume parking is free on both ends of your journey and that the car was given to you for free, there is no way you are spending less than $100 a month. Gas alone probably gets you close to $100. Then you add on registration and insurance and ongoing maintenance costs. I want to live in this fantasy world where cars are "cheaper"
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
Where do you live where gas is free and so is maintenance and car insurance and parking?
[+] [-] nayefc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedmeyers|11 years ago|reply
> That's definitely not true. Just look at the ACA.
Well, if the author studied history he would have known that our political system is that where states came together and decided to devote some decision-making power to the federal government. As time passed this federal government usurped as much power as it could but apparently for some people it's still not enough.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
[+] [-] hackuser|11 years ago|reply
> That's definitely not true. Just look at the ACA.
The ACA devolves most power to the states, who run their own exchanges, including the ability to not participate at all. Compare that to other countries (which have much less expensive and more effective health care systems).
> We can't build high speed trains because: (1) the government is corrupt, incompetent and beholden to interest groups and (2) the public doesn't really want them.
I disagree on #1, at least in a relative sense. The US government is relatively clean compared to most, including others that build and manage train systems such as Russia and India.
The problem, IMHO, is the demonization of government by a small group. Due to our political structure that small minority can block government from acting, bringing such gridlock that it can't even raise revenues or pay bills reliably. That reduces the general public's confidence in government's capacity to solve problems, not because something is generally wrong with government but because of the gridlock. Until we solve that problem, nothing else will happen.
[+] [-] com2kid|11 years ago|reply
I'll disagree here.
If you live in Manhattan, public transit is fast and efficient. As for "dirty", well it wasn't white glove immaculate, but it isn't covered in filth or human waste.
As for $ of owning a car, I drive very little (my commute to work is a paltry 4 miles!), but just going around on weekends to meet with friends costs me an easy $40/week, making gas alone more than $100/month.
> Yeah let's just pretend that California's train to nowhere is an example other states should emulate.
Hyperloop makes more sense. Personally I'd love to see Hyperloop running down the entire west coast.
[+] [-] genwin|11 years ago|reply
Which in turn is because of the 2-party oligopoly. Instant run-off voting, to give 3rd parties a viable chance of winning, is part of the solution.
[+] [-] wclax04|11 years ago|reply
Are other cities public transportation better? I haven't found any that are close to as convenient as NYC.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] miahi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ojbyrne|11 years ago|reply
I did a quick search and it looks like FRA to AMS return is about $400 by train, $164 by plane.
[+] [-] ghaff|11 years ago|reply
And, actually, for longer routes (e.g. Boston to Chicago), even regular trains are only competitive with planes at best--and if you want a sleeper car for a 20 hour trip you can be looking at $1,000 one way.
[+] [-] Shivetya|11 years ago|reply
High Speed rail might have some applications in some congested corridors, most likely only in the North East, but for the rest - air travel isn't that expensive.
[+] [-] hackuser|11 years ago|reply
I would argue that air travel has become very expensive. I hardly can get a ticket, even for hour-long flights, for less than $400.
Most Americans cannot afford that (take your two kids, and its $1600). Combine it with the increased price of gas, and many Americans cannot afford to travel outside their hometowns. We need better public transit.
[+] [-] brandonmenc|11 years ago|reply
Why waste money on a rail system when the whole country is going to look like the car scenes in Minority Report in a couple decades?
[+] [-] bydo|11 years ago|reply
Neither of these has any chance of being true. Highways near any sort of metropolitan area, or near a spur leading to a metropolitan area, or even often near a connector leading to another major highway, are already massively congested. Autonomous automobiles making even more people want to use them will only make it that much worse.
And even safe, self-driving cars operating outside of traffic can only travel at a fraction the speed of rail.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aloha|11 years ago|reply
Northeast Corridor (Boston - Washington DC)
LA - SF
Chicago - NYC
and possibly Seattle - Portland
Beyond that, the traffic densities present are not enough to justify high speed rail - not to mention, even nonstop at 200 mph from LA/SF/Seattle to Chicago (or any eastern point) is a minimum of 10 hours in transit, versus 3ish to fly.
[+] [-] com2kid|11 years ago|reply
Remember that building transit infrastructure will also create new traffic!
As an example, park and rides an hour out from Seattle are packed full of cars every day. Busses are then packed full of people every day heading into the city from as much as 40 miles out.
IMHO what would be more interesting would be Vancouver BC --> Bellingham --> Midway to Seattle --> Seattle --> Tacoma --> Portland
Of course going across the boarder makes this impractical. :(
[+] [-] smackfu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackuser|11 years ago|reply
[1] The kind of engineer who designs trains (and related systems), not the kind who drives them.
[+] [-] jaxytee|11 years ago|reply
Think of all of the state/municipal level governments and unions that have to be satisfied before any deal is struck. This would essentially mix NYC, Jersey, Philly, Baltimore, and D.C. politics into one huge pile of WTF.
We couldn't even get a riverfront project going in Philadelphia because not enough (of the powers that be) palms were greased.
Only way this could be possible is if some benevolent Palpatine-esqe dictator comes along and makes shit happen.
[+] [-] smackfu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fowkswe|11 years ago|reply
In order for an intercity rail network to work, it needs to link dense urban cores that also have useful transit systems. A train between Omaha and Kansas City does no good if you get off the train then face a 14 mile journey through the suburbs to your destination.
2 things need to happen before a rail network makes sense:
1. Urban infill. I know Denver has a policy for this in place, I'm sure others do too. But sooo many city cores have huge tracts of land that are derelict, or unused. New development should be incentivized to make use of this land.
2. Growth boundary regulation. Portland is the best example of this. With out this you get the exurbs and sprawl (sorry to point out Kansas City again, but it is one of the worst offenders here) which demand a car to traverse.
[+] [-] tormeh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackuser|11 years ago|reply
Consider the climate impact costs. Part of the problem is that airlines and car owners externalize a significant cost, making those modes of transportation seem relatively less expensive. In reality, everyone else covers those costs.
[+] [-] buckbova|11 years ago|reply
California's rail plan is a lie and a joke. It won't end up being "high speed" rail. It's a waste of taxpayer money. It's another way for politicians to line the pockets of their contributors.
Rail line won't meet target travel time.
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/27/local/la-me-bullet-t...
It will cost more than proposed to the voters.
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/cost-high-speed-rail-...
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22929875/california-high-speed...
[+] [-] cpursley|11 years ago|reply
The USA does not need a high-speed rail system. The interstate system and airport network is sufficient. Between high trafficked short-distance corridors? Fine.
What the USA needs is modern commuter rail supported by a network of private short-trip mini-buses. This would have the most significant impact for lowest cost.
[+] [-] gerbal|11 years ago|reply
However, the barriers to commuter rail in much of the country are stupid and entrenched. In Raliegh, NC, the main barrier to commuter rail is a county commissioner who believes in some absurd conspiracy theories [1].
[1] http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive....
[+] [-] cpursley|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JackFr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|11 years ago|reply
High speed rail is great for population centers that are 300 miles apart, but not so great for ones that are 1500 miles apart. The competition there is primarily the airplane, and the time difference grows with distance. So does the cost difference. (You only need an airport in each city, no matter how far apart they are, but you need a mile of railroad for each mile of distance.)
The problem, then, is that the US doesn't have enough population centers that are big enough and close enough to each other. The northeast corridor (from Boston to Washington DC) is really the only one that fits.
[+] [-] tim333|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackfu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ojbyrne|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|11 years ago|reply
Hence everything has to be privatized, and if something gives little or no incentive for profit, it should not exist (like municipal fiber or proper universal health care).
With the big exception of the army and the police of course, where it's handy that the multitide of common citizens fund the resource-grabbing and property protection of the few.
[+] [-] jerf|11 years ago|reply
Really? By whom? Where?
Trust in government hasn't collapsed due to a sudden lack of people advocating government solutions for everything in the past 50 years. In a nutshell, it's collapsed due to government not being able to deliver on a great deal of what it promises. It's simply irrational for the public to pretend that the government has some sort of spotless track record over the past 50 years.
Given how many of those failed promises have been infrastructure projects themselves, it would bode poorly for trying to fix this distrust with yet another one.
And remember, if you're inclined to start making excuses for why the public may not trust the government, you simply end up explaining why the public doesn't trust the government, it doesn't make the mistrust go away. Consider that a list of problems to be attacked before the government has the moral capital to spend again on such infrastructure projects. (One rather potent way of looking at the government's trust problems is its repeated willingness by government officials to spend that trust without putting a lot of effort into depositing into that account.)
[+] [-] bydo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedmeyers|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malchow|11 years ago|reply
A train is 10% better than a jet from SF to LA. A train is much worse than a jet for SF to NY. All other pairings -- or so one might argue -- are so much lesser in density that the elasticity of roads is vastly preferable.
[+] [-] hackuser|11 years ago|reply
I think there are many other possibilities, and also many people live in cities of hundreds of thousands, all over America, and they'd like to travel too.
* The NE corridor, from DC to Boston, of course. Maybe south to NC
* Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati - Columbus - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Detroit (- Toronto) (That would include a spur or two, of course.) And what about people in Green Bay and Grand Rapids?
* The Florida cities, maybe up to Atlanta or West to New Orleans
* Texas cities