Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of these rail systems have to be subsidized by taxpayers.
Yup, and I'd rather subsidize infrastructure here rather than funding a proxy war in Ukraine. Or Iraq, or Syria, or Libya, or Africa, or Latin America, or Asia. You know... everywhere the US MICC has a presence which is basically the entire globe.
Yea I took the train between Paris, Amsterdam, & Brussels a few years ago. Both awesome how well integrated everything is and a little depressing how we're living on a different planet here.
I've taken HSR in Europe, Japan and China.
The difference between those places and here are plenty, but one of the biggest ones outside of politics/lobbyists is population density and culture/lifestyle. Suburbs are not sprawling there like it is here so it is less feasible here.
Not to say that it won't work here, but there is that factor to consider. I'd love for a N/S corridor on the East and West coasts and smaller E/W ones (NYC <> CHI, LA <> LV).
I did a lot of travel in Europe by train to go from place to place and its a lot more convenient in many cases than trying to drive or fly.
I disagree. I traveled in plenty of trains, and most are insufferable. The only type of train worth riding is a high speed one, which I got the pleasure to do in Japan, and which is rarely built up in Europe.
Also, the most convenient travel is an uber/taxi if we're not accounting for heavy traffic. They take you directly from the spot you are, directly to the spot you want to be. But obviously its not the most economical.
High speed rail is the future, because it allows another option of long distance travel that's not a car or plane, but America was just too dumb to implement it. Instead we think unaffordable depreciating $60,000 EVs are going to save the planet.
HSR could probably work in certain areas. It could probably be successful in the northeast, Florida, great lakes and California. The sweet spot for it is for trips under 300 miles.
I disagree. I traveled in plenty of trains, and most are insufferable. The only type of train worth riding is a high speed one, which I got the pleasure to do in Japan, and which is rarely built up in Europe.
Also, the most convenient travel is an uber/taxi if we're not accounting for heavy traffic. They take you directly from the spot you are, directly to the spot you want to be. But obviously its not the most economical.
High speed rail is the future, because it allows another option of long distance travel that's not a car or plane, but America was just too dumb to implement it. Instead we think unaffordable depreciating $60,000 EVs are going to save the planet.
What? Lol.
P.S. My last train ride in Europe - Madrid-Malaga in 2.5 hours while sipping wine. Generous seating, pretty good inexpensive food. What's not to like.
Speaking as a transportation/logistics graduate, former railroader and lifelong railroad enthusiast, for High Speed Rail to succeed, it must meet certain prerequisites, A very large central city or a number of small- and medium-sized cities in a "corridor" provide the best scenario, and present congestion can further strength en the argument for HSR.
Presently only a handful of locations meet that description, The Boston-New York-Washington "Northeast Corridor is the most obvious. Los Angeles qualifies, but mostly due to intense congestion, and linking it to the boondoggle into which the CAHSR system has devolved will be very costly, due mostly to the mountain barriers at the south end of CAHSR.
A hub-and spoke pattern centered on Chicago is also possible, but the present commuter lines will require extensive upgrading, And the population base for a Washington-Charlotte-Atlanta corridor is developing. But that's about all.
I've taken HSR in Europe, Japan and China.
The difference between those places and here are plenty, but one of the biggest ones outside of politics/lobbyists is population density and culture/lifestyle. Suburbs are not sprawling there like it is here so it is less feasible here.
Not to say that it won't work here, but there is that factor to consider. I'd love for a N/S corridor on the East and West coasts and smaller E/W ones (NYC <> CHI, LA <> LV).
Agreed, its certainly not suitable to blanket the US with HSR, but there are some strong corridors & nodes where it should be implemented. Plus at some level sprawl and low density are results of the infrastructure choices we've made up to this point. There isn't any reason HSR investment couldn't spark denser development at stations the same way highways sparked suburban sprawl along their routes.
I kinda agree with this. I don’t think building high speed rail in between Dallas and Atlanta makes sense at all. I think it could be argued for the northeast corridor, but outside of that, it is a hard sell.
I would much rather buff up the train service and reliability in high ridership corridors and focus on other forms of transportation in other areas, like planes and bus service (even dedicated bus lanes on the highway may be something to pursue in burgeoning areas that don’t quite have the numbers for heavy passenger rail).
the problem with the northeast corridor, is population and right of way. High Speed requires mostly straight lines, and curves HAVE TO BE large radius
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
