3 ms·

This is a terrible comparison. A better one is continental Europe as a whole, which has many rail lines spanning it. This is probably what the Swedish person

by magduf 8y ago

This is a terrible comparison. A better one is continental Europe as a whole, which has many rail lines spanning it. This is probably what the Swedish person was referring to, not simply staying in Sweden (the major cities in Sweden probably aren't far enough apart to fly between). Continental Europe is very roughly the size of the US, yet trains are used there extensively. The problem with the US isn't size, it's political will. America simply does not want to have high-quality, high-speed train service.

ineedasername 8y ago
Political will exists when the projects are on a smaller scale, a scale that would span countries in continental Europe. See the high speed plans in California as an example, even with the recent reduction in scope. Trains are extensive in Europe in part because each country was able to make (relatively) smaller investments in their own networks. As time went by over the decades, these grew and were able to connect with each other. That type of gradual growth wasn't possible in the use where small incremental changes weren't useful. Decades ago, and still today, many routes that would be useful would need to span hundred of miles where there are no intervening points of interest. Meaning a massive investment would be required for a single point to point route. It's too simplistic to point toward a single variable for something of this sort. Many variables come together to reach this point. Political will is only part of it, but even then, you have to ask why isn't there political will? It often has as much to do with economic and geographic realities, not a general unwillingness to invest in infrastructure. See our build out of the US interstate system beginning in the 50's as a counterexample to our lack of build out for trains.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > See the high speed plans in California as an example, even with the recent reduction in scope. What recent reduction in scope? Letting aside all the confusion caused by either communications incompetence in the Newsome Administration or deliberate intent to provoke controversy, all Newsome announced was: (1) that construction work and related land acquisition would be focussed on the already-designated initial construction segment, which was already the case (hence, the name “initial construction” segment.) (2) That environmental work would continue on the rest of the Phase 1 SF-LA alignment, but the state would not fund more than environmental work until outside (federal, private, or other) financing was identified. (That only the ICS was funded for construction, and that outside funds would be a precondition for other construction was already the case, too; focus on finding such additional arrangements had focussed particularly on the planned initial operations segment, which overlaps with, but does not include all of, the ICS.) (3) That the Phase 2 extensions to Sacramento and San Diego weren't getting any work (which they haven't been forever; they've been drawn in as future expansions but not covered in any of th recent business plans.) Or, in sum total, basically a reiteration of the status quo as if it were new policy.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    I thought the phase 2 was recently taken off the table? Maybe I misread something :/
- magduf 8y ago
  This isn't true at all. The size of the US isn't the problem, at all, no matter how much you want to believe it is. The best places for high-speed train routes aren't across the continent (even with HSR, it wouldn't be terribly competitive with airlines unless you're going partway, e.g. DC to Houston), it's along the coasts. The northeast corridor is the most obvious place to put HSR (no, Acela doesn't count). The other obvious place is along the west coast: SD-LA-SF-Portland-Seattle). Just a rail line between SanFran and LA would make a lot of sense, but the US simply cannot make it happen, even when it's all within a single state. And yes, it really is a general unwillingness to invest in infrastructure. You can see it in everything else going on in the US these days. No, the 50s interstate system is not a counterpoint, because that was 60-70 years ago now, and things in this country have changed a lot since then. The US was good at lots of infrastructure in those days, not just highways.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    It's not a matter of how much I believe. I went back to the 50's & interstate highway precisely because there could be no debating that it was a time where infrastructure was prioritized. And yet, even then, there was no major build out of rail. Because the geographic realities and subsequent economics don't work for it. The interstates made more sense and in terms of freight capacity still allowed for coast-to-coast service by trucks, which have dominated the continental freight since (a slight resurgence in freight rail boosted things in the 80's which was a good thing) I have further evidence on my interpretation of geographical circumstances greatly influencing this issue: Canada. Canada has roughly similar ridership as the US. US has about 1.7 rides per person, Canada has about 2.1. Might seem a fair bit higher, but compare it to a country like the UK, which has 26 rides per person, and that's not even counting the London Tube. Why? Because the US and Canada face very similar geographical circumstances. Maybe my interpretation weighs geography slightly too much, but if so, yours seems to weigh it not at all. That simply isn't supported by either the data available or the historic evolution of rail travel in the US. I really don't see what's so difficult to understand. For the most part it's a point to point network, and every link, due to the points being further apart, costs significantly more to build. The exceptions, like on the east coast where points are closer, actually do have better rail. Not great, but more comprehensive than the middle 90% of the country where geography is as I have described.

by magduf 8y ago

ineedasername 8y ago

Political will exists when the projects are on a smaller scale, a scale that would span countries in continental Europe. See the high speed plans in California as an example, even with the recent reduction in scope. Trains are extensive in Europe in part because each country was able to make (relatively) smaller investments in their own networks. As time went by over the decades, these grew and were able to connect with each other. That type of gradual growth wasn't possible in the use where small incremental changes weren't useful. Decades ago, and still today, many routes that would be useful would need to span hundred of miles where there are no intervening points of interest. Meaning a massive investment would be required for a single point to point route. It's too simplistic to point toward a single variable for something of this sort. Many variables come together to reach this point. Political will is only part of it, but even then, you have to ask why isn't there political will? It often has as much to do with economic and geographic realities, not a general unwillingness to invest in infrastructure. See our build out of the US interstate system beginning in the 50's as a counterexample to our lack of build out for trains.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> See the high speed plans in California as an example, even with the recent reduction in scope. What recent reduction in scope? Letting aside all the confusion caused by either communications incompetence in the Newsome Administration or deliberate intent to provoke controversy, all Newsome announced was: (1) that construction work and related land acquisition would be focussed on the already-designated initial construction segment, which was already the case (hence, the name “initial construction” segment.) (2) That environmental work would continue on the rest of the Phase 1 SF-LA alignment, but the state would not fund more than environmental work until outside (federal, private, or other) financing was identified. (That only the ICS was funded for construction, and that outside funds would be a precondition for other construction was already the case, too; focus on finding such additional arrangements had focussed particularly on the planned initial operations segment, which overlaps with, but does not include all of, the ICS.) (3) That the Phase 2 extensions to Sacramento and San Diego weren't getting any work (which they haven't been forever; they've been drawn in as future expansions but not covered in any of th recent business plans.) Or, in sum total, basically a reiteration of the status quo as if it were new policy.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  I thought the phase 2 was recently taken off the table? Maybe I misread something :/
magduf 8y ago
This isn't true at all. The size of the US isn't the problem, at all, no matter how much you want to believe it is. The best places for high-speed train routes aren't across the continent (even with HSR, it wouldn't be terribly competitive with airlines unless you're going partway, e.g. DC to Houston), it's along the coasts. The northeast corridor is the most obvious place to put HSR (no, Acela doesn't count). The other obvious place is along the west coast: SD-LA-SF-Portland-Seattle). Just a rail line between SanFran and LA would make a lot of sense, but the US simply cannot make it happen, even when it's all within a single state. And yes, it really is a general unwillingness to invest in infrastructure. You can see it in everything else going on in the US these days. No, the 50s interstate system is not a counterpoint, because that was 60-70 years ago now, and things in this country have changed a lot since then. The US was good at lots of infrastructure in those days, not just highways.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  It's not a matter of how much I believe. I went back to the 50's & interstate highway precisely because there could be no debating that it was a time where infrastructure was prioritized. And yet, even then, there was no major build out of rail. Because the geographic realities and subsequent economics don't work for it. The interstates made more sense and in terms of freight capacity still allowed for coast-to-coast service by trucks, which have dominated the continental freight since (a slight resurgence in freight rail boosted things in the 80's which was a good thing) I have further evidence on my interpretation of geographical circumstances greatly influencing this issue: Canada. Canada has roughly similar ridership as the US. US has about 1.7 rides per person, Canada has about 2.1. Might seem a fair bit higher, but compare it to a country like the UK, which has 26 rides per person, and that's not even counting the London Tube. Why? Because the US and Canada face very similar geographical circumstances. Maybe my interpretation weighs geography slightly too much, but if so, yours seems to weigh it not at all. That simply isn't supported by either the data available or the historic evolution of rail travel in the US. I really don't see what's so difficult to understand. For the most part it's a point to point network, and every link, due to the points being further apart, costs significantly more to build. The exceptions, like on the east coast where points are closer, actually do have better rail. Not great, but more comprehensive than the middle 90% of the country where geography is as I have described.