4 ms·

I really don't understand the argument for high speed rail in the US (outside of the NE corridor). There's nothing magical that's going to make it cheaper (see,

by pwned1 5y ago

I really don't understand the argument for high speed rail in the US (outside of the NE corridor). There's nothing magical that's going to make it cheaper (see, e.g., California). The US is huge. High speed rail is absurdly expensive compared to planes, and capacity is nearly nothing compared to planes. So why is it such a focus of obsession? Because it looks cool seems to be the argument that is most prevalent. But the devil is in the details.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
The US may be huge. But regions within the US are not huge. There are at least a half-dozen regions in which high speed trains would make as much, if not more sense than they do in Europe if judged by population density and distances.
- etrabroline 5y ago
  Why build a train line that only takes you where a bus could, when you could build an airport that connects you to the entire globe?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Because you want to get somewhere faster than the bus or plane could deliver you. Because the environmental impact of trains is, while controversial, unquestionably less than that of flying. Because trains should be moving at an average of 140mph or so, which is more than twice that of a bus. Because most airports don't connect you to the entire globe in a single hop, so you may as well take the train to the existing one that does.
wahern 5y ago
It's chosen because airport and highway expansions also cost many billions, and at least on paper HSR often pencils out. California studies showed that alternatives centered on airport and/or highway expansions without HSR would have also cost tens of billions, and altogether ultimately more than a master plan including HSR. AFAIU the same analysis is true for the NE. CAHSR costs ballooned, but so do highway and airport expansions. The U.S. and many other countries have cost management problems with all large infrastructure projects.
johnwalkr 5y ago
How do you figure capacity is nothing compared to planes? The Tokaido Shinkansen carries 500,000 people per day, and it has a much higher capacity. Trains (not all of them express) leave about every 5 minutes at peak times and each one seats more than 1,000 people. People pay for the convenience even though flying is half the price and takes about the same amount of time when you factor in transit to/from airports. I don’t get the country size argument either. Europe and China are also huge with trains stopping in small cities. At least, each coast should have a north-south line plus some truck lines to heavily populated areas.

by pwned1 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

The US may be huge. But regions within the US are not huge. There are at least a half-dozen regions in which high speed trains would make as much, if not more sense than they do in Europe if judged by population density and distances.

etrabroline 5y ago
Why build a train line that only takes you where a bus could, when you could build an airport that connects you to the entire globe?
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Because you want to get somewhere faster than the bus or plane could deliver you. Because the environmental impact of trains is, while controversial, unquestionably less than that of flying. Because trains should be moving at an average of 140mph or so, which is more than twice that of a bus. Because most airports don't connect you to the entire globe in a single hop, so you may as well take the train to the existing one that does.

wahern 5y ago

It's chosen because airport and highway expansions also cost many billions, and at least on paper HSR often pencils out. California studies showed that alternatives centered on airport and/or highway expansions without HSR would have also cost tens of billions, and altogether ultimately more than a master plan including HSR. AFAIU the same analysis is true for the NE. CAHSR costs ballooned, but so do highway and airport expansions. The U.S. and many other countries have cost management problems with all large infrastructure projects.

johnwalkr 5y ago

How do you figure capacity is nothing compared to planes? The Tokaido Shinkansen carries 500,000 people per day, and it has a much higher capacity. Trains (not all of them express) leave about every 5 minutes at peak times and each one seats more than 1,000 people. People pay for the convenience even though flying is half the price and takes about the same amount of time when you factor in transit to/from airports. I don’t get the country size argument either. Europe and China are also huge with trains stopping in small cities. At least, each coast should have a north-south line plus some truck lines to heavily populated areas.