6 ms·

The article asks "why can't we have one?" Well, when you can get political, social, and financial factors in the US to give input to <xyz> rail system that suc

The article asks "why can't we have one?" Well, when you can get political, social, and financial factors in the US to give input to <xyz> rail system that such a kind of train service is desired and worth the cost/benefit valued by those parties, then we'll have it. Otherwise, we're stuck with Amtrak for the moment.

sfifs 6y ago
Looking from outside, the ability to act together as a society to achieve a socially desirable outcome seems to slipping in the West. There's a point where the balance in society between duties and entitlements seems to have flipped.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  The issue seems to be scale. Governments aren't willing to take on large scale projects, because they're hard and long. They want to do (new) things that are easy with a short term return on investment. Thinking about it, it feels a bit like a modern company. Instead of managers wanting to show that they did something good to get a raise, instead we have politicians that try to show that they did something good to get reelected.
- haram_masala 6y ago
  This is an unfortunate consequence of an increasingly diverse and multicultural society. Multiculturalism decreases trust in a community and as such corrodes social capital.
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    Plenty of places in Europe are just as diverse as the US and still manage to come together and collectively fund important civil and social priorities. Maybe you're just trolling; I can't really tell.
    - rubber_duck 6y ago
      >Plenty of places in Europe are just as diverse as the US and still manage to come together and collectively fund important civil and social priorities. Mind naming some ? Europe is relatively homogeneous ethnically and racially compared to the US. The exception could be largest metropolitan areas, but even there I'd say US is more heterogeneous. Not saying anything in support of arguments related to this just saying I don't know what plenty of places you'd compare to US.
      - mikepurvis 6y ago
        This seems like a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et... Spain is the obvious one that stands out.
        rubber_duck 6y ago
        Spain is a pretty terrible example of "great public cooperation between different groups" - do you know anything about it's history or the situation with Basque ? Also it's not really a good example of efficient public projects or a well functioning state compared more developed EU countries or the US.
supportlocal4h 6y ago
I recently did a little research on traveling from the US southwest to the US midwest. I wanted to avoid the hostility of US commercial air travel and was looking at alternatives to driving a car. Driving a car was going to be a two day ordeal with a hotel stop somewhere. Turns out driving a car across the US is faster than Amtrak, even with an overnight stop at a hotel. AZ -> IL: 26 hours by car + 8 hour hotel stay 35 hour train ride. $120-150 gas + $100 hotel $600 train ticket Of course a plane ticket is < $200 and just a handful of hours. I wouldn't expect Amtrak to compete with those. But if you can't compete with a Ford Fusion over an 1800 mile journey...
- labster 6y ago
  Or, for 4 passengers, $120-170 gas + $100-200 hotel, which is still cheaper than a single seat on Amtrak.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  It's only cheaper because you're ignoring wear and tear (aka maintenance), depreciation and insurance in your calculation. Not to mention it's incredibly unsafe to do a 26h ride in two days instead of three - you don't want to do a 13h ride, so realistically you're looking at two days of some motel to stay over night. For what it's worth a proper high speed train could do a 10 hour run at 300-350 km/h. Not exactly the ~900 km/h of your typical airplane, but at least you 'll have a decent seat over the travel time.
  - shiftpgdn 6y ago
    Phoenix to Chicago is about 1700 miles. At 70mph moving average it's a 25 hour drive. Trucking regulations allow a 14 hour drive, ten hours rest followed by I believe a 12 hour drive. It might be strenous but it's not dangerous. Also keep in mind 1700 miles at the IRS standard deduction of 55 cents a mile is $935. Assuming your car seats four (and all four seats are in use) that breaks down to just under $200/person.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
ekianjo 6y ago
> The article asks "why can't we have one?" Because the geography of the US is quite different from Japan. In Japan you follow the coasts to reach each city: it's a straight line to simplify things. In the US you would need a lot more tracks to cover the territory, and tracks are super expensive to build and maintain.
- akg_67 6y ago
  You lack knowledge of Japan.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    I live in Japan. Wrong assumption.
    - mlindner 6y ago
      Then you don't know the geography of the country you live in. The Shinkansen goes through numerous tunnels in it's normal route.
    - akg_67 6y ago
      Then you are clueless about shinkansen and geography. I also live in Japan.
- qchris 6y ago
  I'm sorry, I think reducing the lack of modern rail in the United States to "because the geography is different" almost completely misses the mark. We don't have anything close to this, anywhere. There are plenty of places in the US with equally simple geography and fewer earthquake considerations, and it's still not implemented. That is almost entirely due to issues with politics and public policy. The actual physical construction of the rails would easily be the most simple part of the process. As you pointed out, maintenance would have costs, but it's not like existing rails don't include similar costs as well. Certainly there are many parts of the US where those costs would be lower than the equivalent in Japan anyway, since their climate is generally more temperamental than say, almost anywhere along the US West Coast.

sfifs 6y ago

Looking from outside, the ability to act together as a society to achieve a socially desirable outcome seems to slipping in the West. There's a point where the balance in society between duties and entitlements seems to have flipped.

Mirioron 6y ago
The issue seems to be scale. Governments aren't willing to take on large scale projects, because they're hard and long. They want to do (new) things that are easy with a short term return on investment. Thinking about it, it feels a bit like a modern company. Instead of managers wanting to show that they did something good to get a raise, instead we have politicians that try to show that they did something good to get reelected.
haram_masala 6y ago
This is an unfortunate consequence of an increasingly diverse and multicultural society. Multiculturalism decreases trust in a community and as such corrodes social capital.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  Plenty of places in Europe are just as diverse as the US and still manage to come together and collectively fund important civil and social priorities. Maybe you're just trolling; I can't really tell.
  - rubber_duck 6y ago
    >Plenty of places in Europe are just as diverse as the US and still manage to come together and collectively fund important civil and social priorities. Mind naming some ? Europe is relatively homogeneous ethnically and racially compared to the US. The exception could be largest metropolitan areas, but even there I'd say US is more heterogeneous. Not saying anything in support of arguments related to this just saying I don't know what plenty of places you'd compare to US.
    - mikepurvis 6y ago
      This seems like a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et... Spain is the obvious one that stands out.
      - rubber_duck 6y ago
        Spain is a pretty terrible example of "great public cooperation between different groups" - do you know anything about it's history or the situation with Basque ? Also it's not really a good example of efficient public projects or a well functioning state compared more developed EU countries or the US.

supportlocal4h 6y ago

I recently did a little research on traveling from the US southwest to the US midwest. I wanted to avoid the hostility of US commercial air travel and was looking at alternatives to driving a car. Driving a car was going to be a two day ordeal with a hotel stop somewhere. Turns out driving a car across the US is faster than Amtrak, even with an overnight stop at a hotel. AZ -> IL: 26 hours by car + 8 hour hotel stay 35 hour train ride. $120-150 gas + $100 hotel $600 train ticket Of course a plane ticket is < $200 and just a handful of hours. I wouldn't expect Amtrak to compete with those. But if you can't compete with a Ford Fusion over an 1800 mile journey...

labster 6y ago
Or, for 4 passengers, $120-170 gas + $100-200 hotel, which is still cheaper than a single seat on Amtrak.
mschuster91 6y ago
It's only cheaper because you're ignoring wear and tear (aka maintenance), depreciation and insurance in your calculation. Not to mention it's incredibly unsafe to do a 26h ride in two days instead of three - you don't want to do a 13h ride, so realistically you're looking at two days of some motel to stay over night. For what it's worth a proper high speed train could do a 10 hour run at 300-350 km/h. Not exactly the ~900 km/h of your typical airplane, but at least you 'll have a decent seat over the travel time.
- shiftpgdn 6y ago
  Phoenix to Chicago is about 1700 miles. At 70mph moving average it's a 25 hour drive. Trucking regulations allow a 14 hour drive, ten hours rest followed by I believe a 12 hour drive. It might be strenous but it's not dangerous. Also keep in mind 1700 miles at the IRS standard deduction of 55 cents a mile is $935. Assuming your car seats four (and all four seats are in use) that breaks down to just under $200/person.
  - mschuster91 6y ago

ekianjo 6y ago

> The article asks "why can't we have one?" Because the geography of the US is quite different from Japan. In Japan you follow the coasts to reach each city: it's a straight line to simplify things. In the US you would need a lot more tracks to cover the territory, and tracks are super expensive to build and maintain.

akg_67 6y ago
You lack knowledge of Japan.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  I live in Japan. Wrong assumption.
  - mlindner 6y ago
    Then you don't know the geography of the country you live in. The Shinkansen goes through numerous tunnels in it's normal route.
  - akg_67 6y ago
    Then you are clueless about shinkansen and geography. I also live in Japan.
qchris 6y ago
I'm sorry, I think reducing the lack of modern rail in the United States to "because the geography is different" almost completely misses the mark. We don't have anything close to this, anywhere. There are plenty of places in the US with equally simple geography and fewer earthquake considerations, and it's still not implemented. That is almost entirely due to issues with politics and public policy. The actual physical construction of the rails would easily be the most simple part of the process. As you pointed out, maintenance would have costs, but it's not like existing rails don't include similar costs as well. Certainly there are many parts of the US where those costs would be lower than the equivalent in Japan anyway, since their climate is generally more temperamental than say, almost anywhere along the US West Coast.