4 ms·
> Yet France’s trains cost much less. Decades of expertise might be a reason here, France has the longest amount of (high speed rail miles / country area), and
by vmarsy 9y ago
> Yet France’s trains cost much less.
Decades of expertise might be a reason here, France has the longest amount of (high speed rail miles / country area), and the non high-speed network is also huge. It's also possible that the monopoly of having only one, state-owned, railroad company (SNCF) let that company negotiate/choose better prices much more aggressively than if there was many companies. I don't think it was stupid at the time to have such a state-owned monopoly for building this key infrastructure.
Also I'd think that with that big of a network, some things start to become less costly because of economies of scale. Last April SNCF bought 30 trains to Alstom for 250m€, with the current US infrastructure I doubt the US needs that many trains. If one day like France they have 450 high speed trains, maybe it'll cost them less to have more built.
Japan and France are dense countries, the area of France is roughly equal to the area of Texas, it's hard to imagine 450 high speed trains there, where they're struggling to even get one high speed rail line between Houston and Dallas.
- superfx 9y agoFunny thing is that the population of Texas is a little less than half that of France's (27 mil vs 66 mil), so the density differential isn't _that_ large, yet your point about the implausibility of 450 trains in Texas stands.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bluGill 9y agoThe US non high speed rail network is also huge. However it handles freight not people so few people realize just how great the rail system is here. (our passenger rail is terrible)
- kodablah 9y agoYet Dallas is still home to the longest light rail system in the world. The trains are not an issue, it's how decentralized the people are. The value is simply not there to justify the project in most people's eyes (and won't benefit most people).
- serhei 9y agoLongest? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DART_Light_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DART_Light_Rail -> System Length 93 mi (150 km) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Melbourne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Melbourne -> System Length 160 miles (250 kilometres) However, your point that the decentralization plays a difference is very valid. The Melbourne network is a dense grid which serves a much more compact area whereas the Dallas system consists of a small number of lines that stretch very far out into the low-density suburbs. Hence, far fewer people are near a DART station.
- kodablah 9y agoTramways such as Melbourne's are a bit different in definition [0]. 0 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail vs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram
- chrisabrams 9y agoHaving played Mini Metro for over 100 hours, I can attest that a light rail and a tram are not the same ;)
- serhei 9y agoFair enough. But you've made me very curious to see a widely-agreed-upon list of which systems qualify as light rail according to a definition that excludes trams. (Wikipedia does not attempt to make any distinction -- e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tram_and_light_rail_...) Edit: another example of Wikipedia not being able to agree with itself on a distinction -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail_in_North_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail_in_North_America lists the Toronto streetcar system as "the busiest LRT system in North America" even though it's definitely a traditional tram system with mostly street-running. Below it calls it a light rail ('in the case of Toronto, actually streetcar').