4 ms·

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 route

by 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.
- magduf 8y ago
  Again, you're making up a strawman. The economics DO work for rail, no matter how much you disagree, when you constrain things to the coasts. Yet we don't have decent rail connecting the coastal cities. Canadian cities are generally farther apart than US cities, except for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. All the Canadian cities are just on the other side of the border, which is the longest undefended international border in the world. >The exceptions, like on the east coast where points are closer, actually do have better rail. Not great Not great is a severe understatement. >I really don't see what's so difficult to understand. I don't either. San Diego, LA, and SanFran are not that far apart, and would be well served by a high speed rail like they have in Japan and China and Europe. Yet we don't have it. Same goes for the northeast corridor. These cities are no farther apart than the cities served by HSR in these other countries.

by magduf 8y ago

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.

magduf 8y ago
Again, you're making up a strawman. The economics DO work for rail, no matter how much you disagree, when you constrain things to the coasts. Yet we don't have decent rail connecting the coastal cities. Canadian cities are generally farther apart than US cities, except for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. All the Canadian cities are just on the other side of the border, which is the longest undefended international border in the world. >The exceptions, like on the east coast where points are closer, actually do have better rail. Not great Not great is a severe understatement. >I really don't see what's so difficult to understand. I don't either. San Diego, LA, and SanFran are not that far apart, and would be well served by a high speed rail like they have in Japan and China and Europe. Yet we don't have it. Same goes for the northeast corridor. These cities are no farther apart than the cities served by HSR in these other countries.