4 ms·

I'm actually very skeptical about Hyperloop, but it seemed a good way of getting my point across. USA doesn't build stuff not because of technological viability

by serhei 9y ago

I'm actually very skeptical about Hyperloop, but it seemed a good way of getting my point across. USA doesn't build stuff not because of technological viability but purely for political reasons.

hyperbovine 9y ago
"purely" is pretty strong. I give you the population density of Earth per ㎢: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File:World_population_density_1994_-_with_equator.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File... (Or if you prefer something more recent, have a look at: http://www.newgeography.com/content/002808-world-urban-areas-population-and-density-a-2012-update http://www.newgeography.com/content/002808-world-urban-areas...) Pretty obvious which areas are ripe for HSR. Except for the mid-Atlantic corridor and arguably coastal California, nothing in the US really is. It's the same thing when people go abroad then come back and complain how backwards cell phone service is here. People really don't appreciate how underpopulated the U.S. is relative to the rest of the world. (Conversely, it's also why we could accommodate practically an unlimited # of refugees compared to Europe, if we really cared to.)
- taurath 9y ago
  I'm sorry but the density argument doesn't cut it. It's 30-100x as expensive to build rail through dense areas as it would be through farmland like I5. Most of the in between places are crazily cheaper.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    It's not about cost. Long rails aren't that expensive. The problem is that a train running through Texas is useless unless you want to get to a specific city that the tracks actually pass through. Anywhere else could be hours of driving from the station and there isn't any infrastructure for that. A 4 hour cab/Uber ride is way too expensive. Even a train that drops you off in the middle of Los Angeles could leave you many hours from the actual place in Los Angeles you want to be.
    - jlarocco 9y ago
      So basically the reason we don't bother with more HSR is because all of our large cities are unplanned sprawling messes and the rest of our transportation infrastructure is almost just as bad as our HSR.
    - mixmastamyk 9y ago
      LA is not such a great example anymore because metro/metrolink/flyaway + uber can take you anywhere you want to go from Union Station these days cheaply, sometimes quickly.
      - jjeaff 9y ago
        I wouldn't say cheaply or even that easily. If I have to get off a train (whatever that cost), catch a fly-away bus ($8 both ways), then get an uber ($50+ just to Burbank 12m away), it's going to be very expensive and very slow assuming the stars don't align perfectly.
    - akg_67 9y ago
      > The problem is that a train running through Texas is useless unless you want to get to a specific city that the tracks actually pass through. This argument ignores the new and existing population clusters that form and grow along a transportation link. You only have to look at interstate highway system and how new population clusters formed and existing clusters grew along the links once interstate hwy were built. Just reviewing the I-35, I-10 in Texas will show you that. Same can be seen with local subways and light rails systems. The clusters near stations grow faster than rest of the city.
  - hedora 9y ago
    We already have an antique low speed rail network that covers most of the US population centers. That makes it even cheaper to upgrade to high speed rail, since most of the land has been bought. Also, when people in the US say "high speed rail", they usually seem to mean 180mph. That does not qualify as high speed rail overseas. Upgrading the current low speed system to medium speed 180mph rail would mean that taking the train would actually be faster than driving (and for short air routes, faster than airport+flying). My guess is that many existing routes would then become financially viable.
    - akg_67 9y ago
      Unfortunately majority of existing rail lines and nearby lands are owned by freight rail companies. So repurposing them for HSR or passenger transport is an uphill battle. The areas where freight rail lines are shared with passenger traffic, freight gets priority making passenger trains unreliable, excessive delays and unattractive.
    - serhei 9y ago
      Many of the existing freight rail corridors are twisty and not designed in a way that works for high-speed rail at all (unless you buy land anyways to straighten out the more extreme curves) [1]. They might work for conventional passenger rail if you could get the freight railroads to play nice and do better maintenance on the tracks. [1]: typical example -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_Curve_(Pennsylvania) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_Curve_(Pennsylvania) [2]: For a detailed example of what's possible & what isn't with existing corridors, you can look at this independent engineer's study of how to upgrade a rail route through Northern California: http://zierke.com/shasta_route/ http://zierke.com/shasta_route/
  - stouset 9y ago
    Expense is only half of the problem. The other half is utility. There is virtually zero utility for building high-speed rail through the central US.
    - akg_67 9y ago
      If US wants to revitalize mid-America, it has to build HSR through mid-America. The history of interstate highway system is good primer on it. Otherwise mid-America will empty out with time.
      - TylerE 9y ago
        Shouldn't it? Why would anyone who isn't a farmer actually want to live there?
        akg_67 9y ago
        I disagree with you. Keeping mid-America populated is in long term interest of US. Mid-America is one of the most fertile landmass in the world. To farm this land, you need farmers and farm-hands. The farmers/farmhands need a support structure/community that is currently degrading as people move towards costs. Farmers are at the bottom of the totem pole in spouse selection and family formation. Nobody wants to move where farmers are and geographic area beyond reasonable driving distance inaccessible to farming communities. This leads to incest and inbreeding and all other ills that isolated communities experience. One solution, beyond farming automation, is to widen the geographical area accessible to farmers and their support structure. HSR can easily double or triple the distance covered currently by roads. HSR will bring distant communities in mid-America together.
        TylerE 9y ago
        People aren't moving out of the midwest because there aren't trains. They're moving out because there is no culture, limited natural recreation, etc. Trains aren't going to keep them there, and the low population density means the idea makes even less sense.
- pmontra 9y ago
  Still, the areas of the USA as dense as Europe should have the same HSR networks that Europe has. Nobody is traveling from Paris to Rome by high speed train, flying is cheaper and faster. But Paris to Lyon, Lyon to Milan and Milan to Rome, train wins. Why not in the USA?
  - jmknoll 9y ago
    This is exactly the point that keeps getting overlooked. Traveling from DC to Philly, or Philly to NYC, should take 45 minutes or an hour, the same way traveling from Beijing to Tianjin or Shanghai to Hangzhou takes 45 minutes or an hour. HSR isn't for connecting regions to one another. Air already does that well. HSR is for drawing cities within a region closer to one another.
  - jandrewrogers 9y ago
    The distance between major cities (the US has more than 50 cities with at least a million people alone) in many parts of the US is the distance between Paris and Rome, and they are pretty evenly distributed across the continent so you need mesh connectivity. In dense corridors that are closer together, they do use trains. The western half of the US is also extremely mountainous, which makes it a little more challenging to install a HSR mesh with many links approaching a thousand kilometers even though that is where some of the country's biggest cities are. Most of those links will never be economically justifiable given the amount of traffic that goes over them. Because of the distances involved, air travel is much more economical in much of the US. Almost all of my trips to random cities in the US are at least a thousand kilometers; I think there is only one major city within a thousand kilometers, and that is connected by rail which people use.
- jlarocco 9y ago
  I don't think that argument holds water when it comes to rail. High density population centers separated by low density farmland and open space should be nearly ideal for high speed rail. There are huge swaths of land where there's nothing to tear down, there are fewer property owners to deal with, and there are usually fewer obstacles to route around.

by serhei 9y ago

I'm actually very skeptical about Hyperloop, but it seemed a good way of getting my point across. USA doesn't build stuff not because of technological viability but purely for political reasons.

hyperbovine 9y ago

"purely" is pretty strong. I give you the population density of Earth per ㎢: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File:World_population_density_1994_-_with_equator.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File... (Or if you prefer something more recent, have a look at: http://www.newgeography.com/content/002808-world-urban-areas-population-and-density-a-2012-update http://www.newgeography.com/content/002808-world-urban-areas...) Pretty obvious which areas are ripe for HSR. Except for the mid-Atlantic corridor and arguably coastal California, nothing in the US really is. It's the same thing when people go abroad then come back and complain how backwards cell phone service is here. People really don't appreciate how underpopulated the U.S. is relative to the rest of the world. (Conversely, it's also why we could accommodate practically an unlimited # of refugees compared to Europe, if we really cared to.)

taurath 9y ago
I'm sorry but the density argument doesn't cut it. It's 30-100x as expensive to build rail through dense areas as it would be through farmland like I5. Most of the in between places are crazily cheaper.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  It's not about cost. Long rails aren't that expensive. The problem is that a train running through Texas is useless unless you want to get to a specific city that the tracks actually pass through. Anywhere else could be hours of driving from the station and there isn't any infrastructure for that. A 4 hour cab/Uber ride is way too expensive. Even a train that drops you off in the middle of Los Angeles could leave you many hours from the actual place in Los Angeles you want to be.
  - jlarocco 9y ago
    So basically the reason we don't bother with more HSR is because all of our large cities are unplanned sprawling messes and the rest of our transportation infrastructure is almost just as bad as our HSR.
  - mixmastamyk 9y ago
    LA is not such a great example anymore because metro/metrolink/flyaway + uber can take you anywhere you want to go from Union Station these days cheaply, sometimes quickly.
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      I wouldn't say cheaply or even that easily. If I have to get off a train (whatever that cost), catch a fly-away bus ($8 both ways), then get an uber ($50+ just to Burbank 12m away), it's going to be very expensive and very slow assuming the stars don't align perfectly.
  - akg_67 9y ago
    > The problem is that a train running through Texas is useless unless you want to get to a specific city that the tracks actually pass through. This argument ignores the new and existing population clusters that form and grow along a transportation link. You only have to look at interstate highway system and how new population clusters formed and existing clusters grew along the links once interstate hwy were built. Just reviewing the I-35, I-10 in Texas will show you that. Same can be seen with local subways and light rails systems. The clusters near stations grow faster than rest of the city.
- hedora 9y ago
  We already have an antique low speed rail network that covers most of the US population centers. That makes it even cheaper to upgrade to high speed rail, since most of the land has been bought. Also, when people in the US say "high speed rail", they usually seem to mean 180mph. That does not qualify as high speed rail overseas. Upgrading the current low speed system to medium speed 180mph rail would mean that taking the train would actually be faster than driving (and for short air routes, faster than airport+flying). My guess is that many existing routes would then become financially viable.
  - akg_67 9y ago
    Unfortunately majority of existing rail lines and nearby lands are owned by freight rail companies. So repurposing them for HSR or passenger transport is an uphill battle. The areas where freight rail lines are shared with passenger traffic, freight gets priority making passenger trains unreliable, excessive delays and unattractive.
  - serhei 9y ago
    Many of the existing freight rail corridors are twisty and not designed in a way that works for high-speed rail at all (unless you buy land anyways to straighten out the more extreme curves) [1]. They might work for conventional passenger rail if you could get the freight railroads to play nice and do better maintenance on the tracks. [1]: typical example -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_Curve_(Pennsylvania) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_Curve_(Pennsylvania) [2]: For a detailed example of what's possible & what isn't with existing corridors, you can look at this independent engineer's study of how to upgrade a rail route through Northern California: http://zierke.com/shasta_route/ http://zierke.com/shasta_route/
- stouset 9y ago
  Expense is only half of the problem. The other half is utility. There is virtually zero utility for building high-speed rail through the central US.
  - akg_67 9y ago
    If US wants to revitalize mid-America, it has to build HSR through mid-America. The history of interstate highway system is good primer on it. Otherwise mid-America will empty out with time.
    - TylerE 9y ago
      Shouldn't it? Why would anyone who isn't a farmer actually want to live there?
      - akg_67 9y ago
        I disagree with you. Keeping mid-America populated is in long term interest of US. Mid-America is one of the most fertile landmass in the world. To farm this land, you need farmers and farm-hands. The farmers/farmhands need a support structure/community that is currently degrading as people move towards costs. Farmers are at the bottom of the totem pole in spouse selection and family formation. Nobody wants to move where farmers are and geographic area beyond reasonable driving distance inaccessible to farming communities. This leads to incest and inbreeding and all other ills that isolated communities experience. One solution, beyond farming automation, is to widen the geographical area accessible to farmers and their support structure. HSR can easily double or triple the distance covered currently by roads. HSR will bring distant communities in mid-America together.
        TylerE 9y ago
        People aren't moving out of the midwest because there aren't trains. They're moving out because there is no culture, limited natural recreation, etc. Trains aren't going to keep them there, and the low population density means the idea makes even less sense.
pmontra 9y ago
Still, the areas of the USA as dense as Europe should have the same HSR networks that Europe has. Nobody is traveling from Paris to Rome by high speed train, flying is cheaper and faster. But Paris to Lyon, Lyon to Milan and Milan to Rome, train wins. Why not in the USA?
- jmknoll 9y ago
  This is exactly the point that keeps getting overlooked. Traveling from DC to Philly, or Philly to NYC, should take 45 minutes or an hour, the same way traveling from Beijing to Tianjin or Shanghai to Hangzhou takes 45 minutes or an hour. HSR isn't for connecting regions to one another. Air already does that well. HSR is for drawing cities within a region closer to one another.
- jandrewrogers 9y ago
  The distance between major cities (the US has more than 50 cities with at least a million people alone) in many parts of the US is the distance between Paris and Rome, and they are pretty evenly distributed across the continent so you need mesh connectivity. In dense corridors that are closer together, they do use trains. The western half of the US is also extremely mountainous, which makes it a little more challenging to install a HSR mesh with many links approaching a thousand kilometers even though that is where some of the country's biggest cities are. Most of those links will never be economically justifiable given the amount of traffic that goes over them. Because of the distances involved, air travel is much more economical in much of the US. Almost all of my trips to random cities in the US are at least a thousand kilometers; I think there is only one major city within a thousand kilometers, and that is connected by rail which people use.
jlarocco 9y ago
I don't think that argument holds water when it comes to rail. High density population centers separated by low density farmland and open space should be nearly ideal for high speed rail. There are huge swaths of land where there's nothing to tear down, there are fewer property owners to deal with, and there are usually fewer obstacles to route around.