3 ms·

That is the worst possible argument. Australia has a fraction of our population and every one of their capitals (except for Darwin and Hobart) has a very good r

That is the worst possible argument. Australia has a fraction of our population and every one of their capitals (except for Darwin and Hobart) has a very good rail system. Sure they don't have high speed, but they could easily saturate a Sydney to Melbourne high speed route (if Melbourne didn't waste a few billion on their ticketing system). Russia has high speed rail and it's less dense than the United States. China created their high speed system in less than a decade. This argument comes up all the time and it's so poor. The United States use to have more passenger rail than Europe does now! You build light city rail and immediately, new housing and commercial stuff pops up around it. It can potentially reduce drunk driving as well. The US/density argument is really tired and just doesn't hold up when you really look at it.

andrewshadura 7y ago
Correction: Russia doesn't really have high-speed trains, except one tiny line which doesn't count if you consider the size of the country.
robbiep 7y ago
It’s quite generous to say that Australian capitals have very good rail systems. They exist, sure. Patronage (especially in sydney) has been growing at a huge level (partially due to the traffic nightmare, a side effect of the geography). But it’s a long way from good or optimal. But yes, if we built high speed rail linking Melbourne - Canberra - sydney - Brisbane we would have one hell of an east coast system
manigandham 7y ago
We do have passenger rail, it's not fast but you can travel the whole country. We also do have intra-city surface and underground lines. The issue of why we don't have more and faster rail is a multifactorial problem of city size, zoning, spread, and alternate transportation. The US only has 3 major population centers, and they're very wide. The rest of the population lives in thousands of small and midsize cities spread far apart. This is the worst combination for expensive railways and stations, and requires solid last-mile coverage. This means cars, and if you have cars then they already provide similar speeds, better coverage, more freedom, and lower costs. The only feasible plan is high-speed long-haul that doesn't stop anywhere in the middle, but demand for that is weak because people do live in the middle, and air-travel is faster and cheaper at those distances. Lower population with a few big cities like Australia is a much better fit. If the US just had 3-5 major cities all along a single coastline then we would also have a similar railway network.

andrewshadura 7y ago

Correction: Russia doesn't really have high-speed trains, except one tiny line which doesn't count if you consider the size of the country.

robbiep 7y ago

It’s quite generous to say that Australian capitals have very good rail systems. They exist, sure. Patronage (especially in sydney) has been growing at a huge level (partially due to the traffic nightmare, a side effect of the geography). But it’s a long way from good or optimal. But yes, if we built high speed rail linking Melbourne - Canberra - sydney - Brisbane we would have one hell of an east coast system

manigandham 7y ago

We do have passenger rail, it's not fast but you can travel the whole country. We also do have intra-city surface and underground lines. The issue of why we don't have more and faster rail is a multifactorial problem of city size, zoning, spread, and alternate transportation. The US only has 3 major population centers, and they're very wide. The rest of the population lives in thousands of small and midsize cities spread far apart. This is the worst combination for expensive railways and stations, and requires solid last-mile coverage. This means cars, and if you have cars then they already provide similar speeds, better coverage, more freedom, and lower costs. The only feasible plan is high-speed long-haul that doesn't stop anywhere in the middle, but demand for that is weak because people do live in the middle, and air-travel is faster and cheaper at those distances. Lower population with a few big cities like Australia is a much better fit. If the US just had 3-5 major cities all along a single coastline then we would also have a similar railway network.