3 ms·

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 hav

by 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.

johnwalkr 6y ago
I totally agree with this assessment. Road building and maintenance has huge costs too, but those come from general revenue in the US so people don’t notice it. It was a choice in the US to build the free-to-use interstate system just as it was a choice in Japan to build the shinkansen. The highway system in Japan is not free; it is tolled and it costs roughly the same in tolls for a single person to drive vs use the shinkansen. Local trains in most cities are good too. With these policies, applied over decades, trains became the default mode of transportation. Also, Japan is very mountainous making it probably one of the most expensive countries To build rail in. But it’s a moot point because they managed to build up a national highway system as well as a it national train system, I think proving that it’s a matter of policy and not geography. The other common argument is difference in population density, but this also misses the mark for 2 reasons. First of all, the US had a pretty impressive network of rail before it has an impressive highway system, it’s just mostly used for freight now and policy for public transportation shifted to roads. Second, at least the 2 coasts have high population density more or less covered by a straight line which ought to be well served by fast trains.
- unishark 6y ago
  Everyone has roads at all stages in their development. It's not an either-or. But based on a few historical samples, it seems like developing nations (US a century ago included) build national rail lines to support rapid development. Then build interstates (or some equivalent, assuming they are big enough to need them) to upgrade their highway system after being fully developed.

by qchris 6y ago

johnwalkr 6y ago

I totally agree with this assessment. Road building and maintenance has huge costs too, but those come from general revenue in the US so people don’t notice it. It was a choice in the US to build the free-to-use interstate system just as it was a choice in Japan to build the shinkansen. The highway system in Japan is not free; it is tolled and it costs roughly the same in tolls for a single person to drive vs use the shinkansen. Local trains in most cities are good too. With these policies, applied over decades, trains became the default mode of transportation. Also, Japan is very mountainous making it probably one of the most expensive countries To build rail in. But it’s a moot point because they managed to build up a national highway system as well as a it national train system, I think proving that it’s a matter of policy and not geography. The other common argument is difference in population density, but this also misses the mark for 2 reasons. First of all, the US had a pretty impressive network of rail before it has an impressive highway system, it’s just mostly used for freight now and policy for public transportation shifted to roads. Second, at least the 2 coasts have high population density more or less covered by a straight line which ought to be well served by fast trains.

unishark 6y ago
Everyone has roads at all stages in their development. It's not an either-or. But based on a few historical samples, it seems like developing nations (US a century ago included) build national rail lines to support rapid development. Then build interstates (or some equivalent, assuming they are big enough to need them) to upgrade their highway system after being fully developed.