5 ms·

Building such a network is less economically feasible in America compared to Europe or China because of America's suburban sprawl. First, it'll cost more to bui

by dtwest 6y ago

Building such a network is less economically feasible in America compared to Europe or China because of America's suburban sprawl. First, it'll cost more to build because you'll need to clear out a route of suburban housing to get between any two cities. Second, the population density of the US is less concentrated, which makes getting to the station take longer, and improves the relative attractiveness of other transportation options such as cars/busses on shorter routes and planes on longer routes. It's really disappointing to me as a transit enthusiast that the US doesn't have great high speed rail service in the Northeast Corridor, but to do so would involve clearing way for new, less curvy track, and that would be extremely expensive. Even if we did it I'm not sure it would get the usage rates that occur in Europe. The issue here is sadly more complicated that tax policy.

yitianjian 6y ago
The Northeast has a density comparable to Europe. I do agree on the culture issue, however - Americans definitely prefer cars by default. Although in the Washington-Philadelphia-NYC-Boston corridor it may be possible, if there is ever a culture of large public works again.
- ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
  Surely having big train stations with massive car parks just outside towns will fit well with car culture. My other idea is high speed trains where you can take your car with you, like eurotunnel but faster.
  - Zach_the_Lizard 6y ago
    The US actually has this. It's called the Auto Train: https://www.amtrak.com/auto-train https://www.amtrak.com/auto-train Runs from just outside of DC to Florida. In the Northeast, Amtrak has pretty much captured the NYC <-> DC market for business travel. What's holding it back is a lack of capacity and slower speeds than you'd find in, say, Europe. Why it's slow is a complex problem with many causes. It's partly due to US regulations that cause trains to be heavier, slower and more expensive than overseas. The infrastructure is also old, dating back to the 1800s in some cases, causing bottlenecks in key areas. One 1870s-era tunnel in Baltimore brings speeds down to 30mph for what feels like an eternity. Amtrak is also not super great at running the NEC. The physical infrastructure could do more, and relatively cheap changes could have a large impact.
  - beaunative 6y ago
    Putting cars on High Speed Trains would be uneconomical, a car easily weighs dozens of people, you wouldn't want to pay that kind of fare for a car.
- vidarh 6y ago
  Europeans prefers cars when the train options are poor too. Improve the trains, and people will eventually wake up to them.
  - JAlexoid 6y ago
    I don't know why Americans think that they are so special. Yes - Europeans do prefer the optimal transport option (cost, speed, comfort, etc) Americans aren't special and many European places rely on cars or busses for transport.
Retric 6y ago
US population density is hardly the issue for two reasons, first nobody wants high speed rail in Alaska. But secondly high speed rail is between cities not every little podunk town. Linking Richmond, DC, Baltimore, NYC, Boston is a single 550 mile high speed rail line, which connects over 10% of the entire Americana population.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Sounds good. Don’t make us over in California pay for it though.
  - 4ggr0 6y ago
    Why not?
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Because we get absolutely no benefit from it. If you want to have a massive government program that primarily benefits 3-4 states, don’t force Californians to shoulder that burden. That’s what state-level taxes are for.
      - 4ggr0 6y ago
        I'm not from the US, so I guess that's why I asked. My country tends to be a tad more social and federalistic.
        kortilla 6y ago
        The US is better compared to the EU than any particular country, both in terms of size, population, and distinct governments. So this is similar to a train being proposed from Amsterdam to Copenhagen that would be paid for by all of the member countries.
- dtwest 6y ago
  I mentioned the Northeast Corridor because it is the most viable location to have passenger rail in the US. But even there presents some issues (which I may not have explained very well in my original post). I disagree with your assessment because American density is very different than European density. If you look at Google Earth, there is almost continuous suburban development along the entire Northeast route. In Europe, populations are clustered in smaller urban centers. High speed rail can only stop so many times and because of this, it is more difficult for the average American to get to a train station. This situation is obvious to people who have lived in suburban America but can be surprising to those who have not. Imagine driving up to an hour to a city center, finding a place to long term park your car near the station and then taking a mode of transportation that isn't significantly faster than your car would've been. Then needing to take an expensive taxi once you arrive because your destination city has a limited public transportation system. Comparing region densities at face value misses the issue, the way cities and regions are designed present unique transit challenges around the world.

by dtwest 6y ago

yitianjian 6y ago

The Northeast has a density comparable to Europe. I do agree on the culture issue, however - Americans definitely prefer cars by default. Although in the Washington-Philadelphia-NYC-Boston corridor it may be possible, if there is ever a culture of large public works again.

ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
Surely having big train stations with massive car parks just outside towns will fit well with car culture. My other idea is high speed trains where you can take your car with you, like eurotunnel but faster.
- Zach_the_Lizard 6y ago
  The US actually has this. It's called the Auto Train: https://www.amtrak.com/auto-train https://www.amtrak.com/auto-train Runs from just outside of DC to Florida. In the Northeast, Amtrak has pretty much captured the NYC <-> DC market for business travel. What's holding it back is a lack of capacity and slower speeds than you'd find in, say, Europe. Why it's slow is a complex problem with many causes. It's partly due to US regulations that cause trains to be heavier, slower and more expensive than overseas. The infrastructure is also old, dating back to the 1800s in some cases, causing bottlenecks in key areas. One 1870s-era tunnel in Baltimore brings speeds down to 30mph for what feels like an eternity. Amtrak is also not super great at running the NEC. The physical infrastructure could do more, and relatively cheap changes could have a large impact.
- beaunative 6y ago
  Putting cars on High Speed Trains would be uneconomical, a car easily weighs dozens of people, you wouldn't want to pay that kind of fare for a car.
vidarh 6y ago
Europeans prefers cars when the train options are poor too. Improve the trains, and people will eventually wake up to them.
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  I don't know why Americans think that they are so special. Yes - Europeans do prefer the optimal transport option (cost, speed, comfort, etc) Americans aren't special and many European places rely on cars or busses for transport.

Retric 6y ago

US population density is hardly the issue for two reasons, first nobody wants high speed rail in Alaska. But secondly high speed rail is between cities not every little podunk town. Linking Richmond, DC, Baltimore, NYC, Boston is a single 550 mile high speed rail line, which connects over 10% of the entire Americana population.

kortilla 6y ago
Sounds good. Don’t make us over in California pay for it though.
- 4ggr0 6y ago
  Why not?
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Because we get absolutely no benefit from it. If you want to have a massive government program that primarily benefits 3-4 states, don’t force Californians to shoulder that burden. That’s what state-level taxes are for.
    - 4ggr0 6y ago
      I'm not from the US, so I guess that's why I asked. My country tends to be a tad more social and federalistic.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        The US is better compared to the EU than any particular country, both in terms of size, population, and distinct governments. So this is similar to a train being proposed from Amsterdam to Copenhagen that would be paid for by all of the member countries.
dtwest 6y ago
I mentioned the Northeast Corridor because it is the most viable location to have passenger rail in the US. But even there presents some issues (which I may not have explained very well in my original post). I disagree with your assessment because American density is very different than European density. If you look at Google Earth, there is almost continuous suburban development along the entire Northeast route. In Europe, populations are clustered in smaller urban centers. High speed rail can only stop so many times and because of this, it is more difficult for the average American to get to a train station. This situation is obvious to people who have lived in suburban America but can be surprising to those who have not. Imagine driving up to an hour to a city center, finding a place to long term park your car near the station and then taking a mode of transportation that isn't significantly faster than your car would've been. Then needing to take an expensive taxi once you arrive because your destination city has a limited public transportation system. Comparing region densities at face value misses the issue, the way cities and regions are designed present unique transit challenges around the world.