6 ms·

No it won't. Americans are too deluded by car culture to ever let that happen. You will see highways with 55 lanes each way, but you won't see an operational h

by ashayh 3y ago

No it won't. Americans are too deluded by car culture to ever let that happen. You will see highways with 55 lanes each way, but you won't see an operational high speed train in the US. There are simply too many people opposed to any kind of real progress in this direction, and even the proponents of HSR or mass public transit have no shortage of excuses. Furthermore, HSR also requires some level of last mile connectivity by local mass public transit. There is none of that in places like Texas, and again the public imagination has not moved on from some kind of 1950s car culture utopia, thats about "freedom". In reality, cars are parked 90% of the time, and driven by tired, frustrated drivers in bumper to bumper traffic for the rest of the time. The reality is that 20% of Texans (also other cities/states) spend $1000 or more a month on car. In many areas in the US, cars are the number 2, sometimes number 1 expense. Here is a mass transit map of Berlin vs Houston: https://i.imgur.com/HwBGUcU.jpg https://i.imgur.com/HwBGUcU.jpg There is no HSR happening. Americans have dug a hole so deep with car culture and other Nimby delusions such as "what will happen to my home values", that there is no coming back from this.

sm_1024 3y ago
> There is no HSR happening. https://hsr.ca.gov/ https://hsr.ca.gov/ SF-LA high-speed rail
- ashayh 3y ago
  Why not link to the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail which states: " Since its inception in 2008, the Group has issued 18 letters and members have testified before Legislative and Congressional committees 15 times. In reviewing past letters and testimony, a consistent theme emerges: 1) project costs, schedules, and ridership estimates are uncertain and subject to significant risk of deteriorating, a typical experience for mega-projects; 2) the project is underfunded, and its financing is unstable, raising costs and making effective management difficult if not impossible; 3) more legislative oversight is needed. This letter reinforces the message, but with a sense of urgency over the ever-higher stakes.[6] " Also: "Per the 2023 Project Status Report, the authority indicated the Interim IOS will go into service before December 31, 2030, with a "risk factor" of three years (which runs until the end of 2033)." In the period between 2008-2023, several other countries (not just China) have started and completed many HSR projects.
  - sm_1024 3y ago
    Why should I link the wikipedia page? The current link perfectly rebuts OP's claim.
yarpen_z 3y ago
The last mile argument is often ignored, but it's very important in this discussion. What's the point of traveling fast by a train, unless you're going exactly to the downtown? Without a reliable public transport, it might be more efficient to travel by car since you won't have to rent one or Uber everywhere.
- darsnack 3y ago
  You are also allowed to have bike share, buses, subway/light rail, and taxis. No one is saying trains are the only mode of transportation. I’ve lived in midwestern states with miles of farmland. In the town center, a bus network and bike paths meant I almost never needed a car. Folks who lived outside of town had the option to drive in and park their car at commuter lots. Also this is what railway lines looked liked in the US when we cared to build out our train infrastructure: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/57/ee/3c57eeffb7e1a3c7869196d7c1a39cea.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/57/ee/3c57eeffb7e1a3c78691.... Just because the US is big doesn’t mean we can’t build tracks.
  - pg_1234 3y ago
    It's not about what you're allowed. The reason this won't happen is the USA just can't build major public infrastructure anymore. Europe, the East ... even parts of the developing world have surpassed them in this regard.
- stevenjgarner 3y ago
  That observation is greatly amplified by the existing "successful" northeastern Amtrak corridor (relative to the rest of the Amtrak network), interconnecting northeastern cities like New York and Washington D.C. that have amongst the best local public transport in the US. Cities outside the northeast, not so much.
- some_random 3y ago
  It's ignored because it's the Achilles heel of all anti-car arguments. Even places with famed public transit don't actually provide the level of freedom and convenience rabid anti car people suggest outside of specific circumstances like rush hour and exclusive downtown usage. This is fine actually, public transit is awesome and we should build more of it, make it more reliable, etc because it benefits a lot of people but it's not a society level car replacer.
mcpackieh 3y ago
America has very popular mass transit between cities; airplanes. The TSA/etc overhead make this suck for short-distance hops and from an environmental perspective it isn't very exciting, but it proves the point that Americans are willing to leave their car behind when traveling if the mass transit offers sufficient advantage over cars.
- afavour 3y ago
  > The TSA/etc overhead make this suck for short-distance hops It’s more than that. Downtown airports are very few and far between. It’s not uncommon to have to spend more time traveling to/from the airport than in the air on a short flight.
skepticATX 3y ago
Indeed. Too much land in Texas is privately owned, and there is not majority support for this type of thing. It is easy to think otherwise if you generally stick to the big cities here. TxDOT is also actively making the problem worse by widening I-35 through Austin, which will result in a decade of construction. They could support alternative transit if they chose to, but it will never happen. Even in cities with majority support for this type of thing, we can't get it done. See: Austin's Project Connect failure. The problem is that most Americans have never lived in an area that is not car dependent and experienced the benefits. Their biggest exposure has likely been on a trip to Europe/Asia (and they wonder why the area they visited is so much nicer than their home city, never quite making the connection!).
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  Why is the conclusion always "Americans are just ignorant of what's good for them" instead of acknowledging different people have different preferences in life?
  - skepticATX 3y ago
    It is fine to have different preferences, but American city design has contributed to multiple negative externalities such as the obesity epidemic, lack of social connection, environmental damage, etc. Some preferences can be better, for a commonly accepted definition of better, than others. Also, American cities bar NYC, DC, and a few others do not allow for people to have preferences; you are forced to live a car-centric lifestyle whether you want to or not.
    - lokar 3y ago
      People choose with their feet (wheels?). Americans are much more likely to move around, more so for big city dwellers.
  - some_random 3y ago
    Because sometime in the mid-00s (last I checked, I wasn't paying much attention before then) anti-americanism became extremely popular among US liberals (where a sizable portion of HN culture comes from). Usually portraying Americans as fat, stupid, violent, extremely religious, etc. It's come and gone in the years since, right now it's not a huge influence on public culture probably at least partially because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but obviously it still has a lot of pull with people who strongly disagree with the prevailing US approach to transit.
pfannkuchen 3y ago
I wonder if anyone has looked at population homogeneity vs transit adoption? It seems reasonable that higher trust societies would be more positive towards modes of travel involving mingling with the general public, and high trust society -ness correlates with cultural (at least) homogeneity. I think this is probably the root of the problem in the US, including the “what will happen to my home values” type sentiments. Not saying that this is “right” morally, but blaming “car culture” as if it is some isolated delusion without deeper causes is probably not accurate.
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  Yes, in the book 'City Comforts' by David Sucher the connection between the two is established for less dense cities. But it's a forbidden conclusion now so good luck with your wrong think.
mastercheif 3y ago
Agreed. Poor intra-city transit and lack of mixed use density in our city cores is what makes HSR unfeasible. I recently traveled to Germany on business, traveled from Berlin to Munich via the ICE inter-city train. Arrived in downtown Munich, hotel was 7.3 miles driving from the station. I jumped on the u-bahn made a quick transfer at Odeonsplatz and arrived at the hotel in 30 mins–including a 10 minute walk from the train station. Door to door from Berlin to the hotel in Munich was 5 hours. If one were to drive my trip door to door, maps says 361mi/580km traveled if driving direct with a drive time of 5.5 hours. For comparisons sake, let's take a hypothetical trip from Dallas Union Station to Apple's headquarters in Austin, TX, which is located 14.7mi/24.6km from the Austin train station. According to Apple Maps, using public transit would take 9 hours. Driving direct from Dallas Union Station to Apple HQ in Austin is 187mi/300km in total with a drive time of 3 hours.
chefandy 3y ago
Maybe it'll be like a lot of ferries with most of the space being dedicated to drive-on car storage. It could be a way for Texans to spend more money on their cars which could seal the deal. They could also get more traction in some other car-obsessed places by making it coal powered.
bushbaba 3y ago
Americans are deluded with cars. America is just huge and our cities (metro + suburbs) are huge. Meaning to use a train requires driving to the train stop, parking, waiting for train, etc. and if that entire process isn’t meaningfully better experience or meaningfully faster why wouldn’t I choose to drive. It’s like Caltrain, for many driving is actually a faster commute than taking Caltrain. People took Caltrain though as the 20mins ish more the train takes makes up not sitting in standstill traffic.
- gbil 3y ago
  Couldn’t resist but China is same land size and 4+ times the population of USA yet they do have a huge high speed network and pubic transport The issue therefore is not size but attitude/will to have public transport
  - Mountain_Skies 3y ago
    China doesn't see diversity as their strength.
  - bushbaba 3y ago
    4 times the population for the same land size means greater density to justify rail transport. The car is actually an amazing transport concept. And very hard to beat
    - throwaway4220 3y ago
      Petroleum is also an amazing concept and hard to beat doesn’t mean we should not try to improve things
    - ashayh 3y ago
      |The car is actually an amazing transport concept. And very hard to beat You do know you can have the best of both? Germany (where BMWs, Mercs, Audis are made), France, Japan, Switzerland etc have no shortage of easy, high end mass public transport with luxurious options for long trips. Or you buy/rent cars if you need to drive, or insist on driving. If a Texan could get by with $500 a month on public transport, instead of $1000 on a car, they could go on a long vacation, and rent a Ferrari with the money saved in a year.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I’ve been hearing about a train from Houston to Austin or Dallas since Nolan Ryan was throwing no hitters Never going to happen
throwaway4220 3y ago
Totally agree. My only ray of hope is brightline in Florida. To Texas credit there is a luxury bus service vonlane that’s not bad
patrick451 3y ago
> No it won't. Americans are too deluded by car culture to ever let that happen. There is no delusion. Private cars a superior. If public transit were actually better, you'd see the German Chancellor preferring it over a private car. But you don't.
- ashayh 3y ago
  Is everyone in Germany a Chancellor? Are you?
- throwaway4220 3y ago
  I visited Europe for the first time and absolutely loved being able to think my thoughts without getting rage honked at, being terrified of running over old ladies or students on a jog. If it takes me 35 more minutes to go to work versus 15 I’d do a bus.
- sschueller 3y ago
  That's because German rail is an absolute disaster. They used to have +90% on time schedules which is now below 60%. Compare that to Switzerland where the "Chancellors" do travel via rail and the on time rate in 2022 was 92,5% for the entire network (Connections where made at 98.9%!). [1] German rail is no longer what it was 20 years ago. The previous admin underfunded it and basically destroyed it. It requires over 80 Billion in rapiers and the current government is only promised to spend maybe half over the next few years. Current spending on German rail is around EUR 100 per capita per year while in Switzerland it is EUR 400+. [1] https://reporting.sbb.ch/puenktlichkeit?=&years=1,4,5,6,7&scroll=1938 https://reporting.sbb.ch/puenktlichkeit?=&years=1,4,5,6,7&sc...
glimshe 3y ago
I've used intercity buses and trains extensively where I grew up. It was okay, but I would much, MUCH rather use a car instead. There was no car culture in place where I grew up, cars are simply more convenient despite the higher personal cost. It is hard to see that most people would prefer to use a train than a car to travel between cities unless they were going from a place close to a station to another place close to a station. So maybe the population might be simply democratically making choices to not invest in this because it goes against their preferences - instead of them being "deluded". A different thing is intracity public transportation, like subway and bus systems. In many cases, I'd rather take the subway than use a car. But I lived in a very high density city, and it would take decades, if not over a century, to turn Dallas and Houston into high density so intracity systems would be convenient.
- ashayh 3y ago
  | It is hard to see that most people would prefer to use a train than a car to travel between cities unless they were going from a place close to a station to another place close to a station. So maybe the population might be simply democratically making choices to not invest in this because it goes against their preferences - instead of them being "deluded". You were never given a choice. Read up on the history of how mass transit in the US was systematically underfunded, and continues to be attacked by parties who stand to benefit. The opposition to HSR or mass transit in the US is no different than the opposition to single payer and/or universal healthcare, which somehow all other developed countries have managed to implement with far superior outcomes.
  - jmye 3y ago
    > The opposition to HSR or mass transit in the US is no different than the opposition to single payer and/or universal healthcare, which somehow all other developed countries have managed to implement with far superior outcomes. The US is not Northern Europe, and it may surprise you to learn that there are severe externalities to account for as soon as you actually have to deal with significant, highly dispersed, poor rural populations. I can’t speak to them with regards to high speed rail, but the vast majority of single-payer advocates don’t understand our healthcare system, it’s issues, or, frankly, the simple fact that some Americans don’t actually live in major cities. I can only imagine HSR advocates share similar issues.
raphman 3y ago
> there is no coming back from this German here. Absolutely no chance? What would be the first step in this direction? I imagine that to make HSR happen, first one would have to create walkable cities which make people want to use public transport so that the local transit network gets expanded which in turn makes high-speed rail viable. Couldn't one start locally with closing downtown to cars? Would there be any chance for this to happen anywhere?
- ashayh 3y ago
  | Couldn't one start locally with closing downtown to cars? This happens often in many towns in the US, but its not permanent. And people never seem to make the connection that the "great time" they had walking the streets was due to no cars. The business owners do not want the car ban to be permanent, as they think cars are the only way to get regular traffic.
toddmorey 3y ago
I think you need a bit more info about this project before being so pessimistic. It's far from a done deal, but I've followed this project for a while and it has unique characteristics that can make it successful: - They are targeting business airline travel. The volume of business air commuters across this corridor was specifically why they decided to start with these two cities. - This is privately funded (although certainly with government help like airlines). - Dallas & Houston are 239 miles apart. It's really the sweet spot for HSR to be very competitive with air travel, especially when you factor in the airport experience. All that said, there are SO many hurdles yet to overcome and the project has stopped and restarted a few times already. But I think this project is very well informed by the challenges and failures of California's HSR efforts and probably has the best shot of actually happening across all the national initiatives I know about. EDIT: There was already an Amtrak partnership in place but it was really just allowing passengers to purchase tickets for the Texas Bullet Train via Amtrak. This seems like conversation to broaden the partnership, though details are sketchy. More partnership from Amtrak almost seems to add risk, though I understand it may be a necessary evil.
tzs 3y ago
> Furthermore, HSR also requires some level of last mile connectivity by local mass public transit. There is none of that in places like Texas, and again the public imagination has not moved on from some kind of 1950s car culture utopia, thats about "freedom". Yet somehow millions of people a year manage to fly to Texas without then becoming stranded at the airport due to not having been able to bring their car. This proves that either you don't need to connect the end points of long distance transportation systems to local mass transit, or Texas in fact does know how and has done so for airports. If the latter, then why could they not do the same for HSR?
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  People can fly to Texas because they rent a car or use taxis/rideshare once they arrive. Houston in particularly has absolutely atrocious walkability or transit lmao
  - tzs 3y ago
    People who arrive by HST should also be able to rent a car or use taxis/rideshare. Assuming ticket prices are similar to Amtrak Acela prices or current non-HST Amtrak Texas prices it will be a little faster than flying for about 1/3 the cost. It will be almost 3x as fast as driving for a bit more than the fuel cost for the drive. If there are enough people who want to travel between those two cities to do the kind of things that people fly to those cities for, then it should be viable and successful.
NikkiA 3y ago
Brightline would probably disagree, even if it's not the longest route.
sschueller 3y ago
What people also forget is the maintenance required which no one seems to want to pay for and get cut after a while. We just a major derailment accident (cargo train) in the Gotthard-Basistunnel forcing it closed for at least a week. [1] This even though it is one of the most maintained parts of the infrastructure and cost around 30 million a year in maintenance. A 57 km tunnel of non-high speed rail. I can only imagine the costs to maintain a high-speed rail line and make sure it is safe. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/15o3y1l/train_derailment_blocks_gotthard_base_tunnel_for/jvq22js/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/15o3y1l/train_...
pwpw 3y ago
> No it won't. Americans are too deluded by car culture to ever let that happen. How has no one mentioned the actual reason it won’t happen? Texas citizens are not so enamored with cars that they prevent this from happening. Texans that frequently travel between Houston and Dallas fly Southwest Airlines because Southwest has spent an inordinate amount of money lobbying to prevent rail[0]. > Furthermore, HSR also requires some level of last mile connectivity by local mass public transit. What do you think all the current business travelers are doing with their cars when they fly? [0] https://www.texastribune.org/2014/03/07/firm-planning-texas-bullet-train-avoiding-past-pit/ https://www.texastribune.org/2014/03/07/firm-planning-texas-...
- ashayh 3y ago
  You can blame Southwest or corporations all you want. But even in the 90s, people did not support HSR overwhelmingly as per your article. And in today's socio-political climate, a politician has to simply call HSR "socialism" or some trigger word and even so called liberals will rally against HSR.
  - pwpw 3y ago
    What are you talking about? I feel like you’re pushing agenda talking points rather than discussing the reality in Texas. Business travel via airplane between Houston and Dallas is a major source of travel and has the exact same issue of not having a car on the other end that you mentioned, and yet it continues to be a popular form of travel. The lack of HSR has absolutely nothing to do with consumers’ obsessions with cars and everything to do with business lobbying, difficulty in acquiring private land, and lack of government interest. It does not stem from the Texas citizens. Further, DFW has (far more than) last mile transit from the airport with DART. How can you ignore that even if it’s not perfect? It can take you from Dallas to Fort Worth!
agensaequivocum 3y ago
I will never give up the freedom and convenience to go where I want, when I want, and with whom I want that a car provides and public transportation can never.

by ashayh 3y ago

sm_1024 3y ago

> There is no HSR happening. https://hsr.ca.gov/ https://hsr.ca.gov/ SF-LA high-speed rail

ashayh 3y ago
Why not link to the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail which states: " Since its inception in 2008, the Group has issued 18 letters and members have testified before Legislative and Congressional committees 15 times. In reviewing past letters and testimony, a consistent theme emerges: 1) project costs, schedules, and ridership estimates are uncertain and subject to significant risk of deteriorating, a typical experience for mega-projects; 2) the project is underfunded, and its financing is unstable, raising costs and making effective management difficult if not impossible; 3) more legislative oversight is needed. This letter reinforces the message, but with a sense of urgency over the ever-higher stakes.[6] " Also: "Per the 2023 Project Status Report, the authority indicated the Interim IOS will go into service before December 31, 2030, with a "risk factor" of three years (which runs until the end of 2033)." In the period between 2008-2023, several other countries (not just China) have started and completed many HSR projects.
- sm_1024 3y ago
  Why should I link the wikipedia page? The current link perfectly rebuts OP's claim.

yarpen_z 3y ago

The last mile argument is often ignored, but it's very important in this discussion. What's the point of traveling fast by a train, unless you're going exactly to the downtown? Without a reliable public transport, it might be more efficient to travel by car since you won't have to rent one or Uber everywhere.

darsnack 3y ago
You are also allowed to have bike share, buses, subway/light rail, and taxis. No one is saying trains are the only mode of transportation. I’ve lived in midwestern states with miles of farmland. In the town center, a bus network and bike paths meant I almost never needed a car. Folks who lived outside of town had the option to drive in and park their car at commuter lots. Also this is what railway lines looked liked in the US when we cared to build out our train infrastructure: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/57/ee/3c57eeffb7e1a3c7869196d7c1a39cea.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/57/ee/3c57eeffb7e1a3c78691.... Just because the US is big doesn’t mean we can’t build tracks.
- pg_1234 3y ago
  It's not about what you're allowed. The reason this won't happen is the USA just can't build major public infrastructure anymore. Europe, the East ... even parts of the developing world have surpassed them in this regard.
stevenjgarner 3y ago
That observation is greatly amplified by the existing "successful" northeastern Amtrak corridor (relative to the rest of the Amtrak network), interconnecting northeastern cities like New York and Washington D.C. that have amongst the best local public transport in the US. Cities outside the northeast, not so much.
some_random 3y ago
It's ignored because it's the Achilles heel of all anti-car arguments. Even places with famed public transit don't actually provide the level of freedom and convenience rabid anti car people suggest outside of specific circumstances like rush hour and exclusive downtown usage. This is fine actually, public transit is awesome and we should build more of it, make it more reliable, etc because it benefits a lot of people but it's not a society level car replacer.

mcpackieh 3y ago

America has very popular mass transit between cities; airplanes. The TSA/etc overhead make this suck for short-distance hops and from an environmental perspective it isn't very exciting, but it proves the point that Americans are willing to leave their car behind when traveling if the mass transit offers sufficient advantage over cars.

afavour 3y ago
> The TSA/etc overhead make this suck for short-distance hops It’s more than that. Downtown airports are very few and far between. It’s not uncommon to have to spend more time traveling to/from the airport than in the air on a short flight.

skepticATX 3y ago

Indeed. Too much land in Texas is privately owned, and there is not majority support for this type of thing. It is easy to think otherwise if you generally stick to the big cities here. TxDOT is also actively making the problem worse by widening I-35 through Austin, which will result in a decade of construction. They could support alternative transit if they chose to, but it will never happen. Even in cities with majority support for this type of thing, we can't get it done. See: Austin's Project Connect failure. The problem is that most Americans have never lived in an area that is not car dependent and experienced the benefits. Their biggest exposure has likely been on a trip to Europe/Asia (and they wonder why the area they visited is so much nicer than their home city, never quite making the connection!).

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Why is the conclusion always "Americans are just ignorant of what's good for them" instead of acknowledging different people have different preferences in life?
- skepticATX 3y ago
  It is fine to have different preferences, but American city design has contributed to multiple negative externalities such as the obesity epidemic, lack of social connection, environmental damage, etc. Some preferences can be better, for a commonly accepted definition of better, than others. Also, American cities bar NYC, DC, and a few others do not allow for people to have preferences; you are forced to live a car-centric lifestyle whether you want to or not.
  - lokar 3y ago
    People choose with their feet (wheels?). Americans are much more likely to move around, more so for big city dwellers.
- some_random 3y ago
  Because sometime in the mid-00s (last I checked, I wasn't paying much attention before then) anti-americanism became extremely popular among US liberals (where a sizable portion of HN culture comes from). Usually portraying Americans as fat, stupid, violent, extremely religious, etc. It's come and gone in the years since, right now it's not a huge influence on public culture probably at least partially because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but obviously it still has a lot of pull with people who strongly disagree with the prevailing US approach to transit.

pfannkuchen 3y ago

I wonder if anyone has looked at population homogeneity vs transit adoption? It seems reasonable that higher trust societies would be more positive towards modes of travel involving mingling with the general public, and high trust society -ness correlates with cultural (at least) homogeneity. I think this is probably the root of the problem in the US, including the “what will happen to my home values” type sentiments. Not saying that this is “right” morally, but blaming “car culture” as if it is some isolated delusion without deeper causes is probably not accurate.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Yes, in the book 'City Comforts' by David Sucher the connection between the two is established for less dense cities. But it's a forbidden conclusion now so good luck with your wrong think.

mastercheif 3y ago

Agreed. Poor intra-city transit and lack of mixed use density in our city cores is what makes HSR unfeasible. I recently traveled to Germany on business, traveled from Berlin to Munich via the ICE inter-city train. Arrived in downtown Munich, hotel was 7.3 miles driving from the station. I jumped on the u-bahn made a quick transfer at Odeonsplatz and arrived at the hotel in 30 mins–including a 10 minute walk from the train station. Door to door from Berlin to the hotel in Munich was 5 hours. If one were to drive my trip door to door, maps says 361mi/580km traveled if driving direct with a drive time of 5.5 hours. For comparisons sake, let's take a hypothetical trip from Dallas Union Station to Apple's headquarters in Austin, TX, which is located 14.7mi/24.6km from the Austin train station. According to Apple Maps, using public transit would take 9 hours. Driving direct from Dallas Union Station to Apple HQ in Austin is 187mi/300km in total with a drive time of 3 hours.

chefandy 3y ago

Maybe it'll be like a lot of ferries with most of the space being dedicated to drive-on car storage. It could be a way for Texans to spend more money on their cars which could seal the deal. They could also get more traction in some other car-obsessed places by making it coal powered.

bushbaba 3y ago

Americans are deluded with cars. America is just huge and our cities (metro + suburbs) are huge. Meaning to use a train requires driving to the train stop, parking, waiting for train, etc. and if that entire process isn’t meaningfully better experience or meaningfully faster why wouldn’t I choose to drive. It’s like Caltrain, for many driving is actually a faster commute than taking Caltrain. People took Caltrain though as the 20mins ish more the train takes makes up not sitting in standstill traffic.

gbil 3y ago
Couldn’t resist but China is same land size and 4+ times the population of USA yet they do have a huge high speed network and pubic transport The issue therefore is not size but attitude/will to have public transport
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  China doesn't see diversity as their strength.
- bushbaba 3y ago
  4 times the population for the same land size means greater density to justify rail transport. The car is actually an amazing transport concept. And very hard to beat
  - throwaway4220 3y ago
    Petroleum is also an amazing concept and hard to beat doesn’t mean we should not try to improve things
  - ashayh 3y ago
    |The car is actually an amazing transport concept. And very hard to beat You do know you can have the best of both? Germany (where BMWs, Mercs, Audis are made), France, Japan, Switzerland etc have no shortage of easy, high end mass public transport with luxurious options for long trips. Or you buy/rent cars if you need to drive, or insist on driving. If a Texan could get by with $500 a month on public transport, instead of $1000 on a car, they could go on a long vacation, and rent a Ferrari with the money saved in a year.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

I’ve been hearing about a train from Houston to Austin or Dallas since Nolan Ryan was throwing no hitters Never going to happen

throwaway4220 3y ago

Totally agree. My only ray of hope is brightline in Florida. To Texas credit there is a luxury bus service vonlane that’s not bad

patrick451 3y ago

> No it won't. Americans are too deluded by car culture to ever let that happen. There is no delusion. Private cars a superior. If public transit were actually better, you'd see the German Chancellor preferring it over a private car. But you don't.

ashayh 3y ago
Is everyone in Germany a Chancellor? Are you?
throwaway4220 3y ago
I visited Europe for the first time and absolutely loved being able to think my thoughts without getting rage honked at, being terrified of running over old ladies or students on a jog. If it takes me 35 more minutes to go to work versus 15 I’d do a bus.
sschueller 3y ago
That's because German rail is an absolute disaster. They used to have +90% on time schedules which is now below 60%. Compare that to Switzerland where the "Chancellors" do travel via rail and the on time rate in 2022 was 92,5% for the entire network (Connections where made at 98.9%!). [1] German rail is no longer what it was 20 years ago. The previous admin underfunded it and basically destroyed it. It requires over 80 Billion in rapiers and the current government is only promised to spend maybe half over the next few years. Current spending on German rail is around EUR 100 per capita per year while in Switzerland it is EUR 400+. [1] https://reporting.sbb.ch/puenktlichkeit?=&years=1,4,5,6,7&scroll=1938 https://reporting.sbb.ch/puenktlichkeit?=&years=1,4,5,6,7&sc...

glimshe 3y ago

I've used intercity buses and trains extensively where I grew up. It was okay, but I would much, MUCH rather use a car instead. There was no car culture in place where I grew up, cars are simply more convenient despite the higher personal cost. It is hard to see that most people would prefer to use a train than a car to travel between cities unless they were going from a place close to a station to another place close to a station. So maybe the population might be simply democratically making choices to not invest in this because it goes against their preferences - instead of them being "deluded". A different thing is intracity public transportation, like subway and bus systems. In many cases, I'd rather take the subway than use a car. But I lived in a very high density city, and it would take decades, if not over a century, to turn Dallas and Houston into high density so intracity systems would be convenient.

ashayh 3y ago
| It is hard to see that most people would prefer to use a train than a car to travel between cities unless they were going from a place close to a station to another place close to a station. So maybe the population might be simply democratically making choices to not invest in this because it goes against their preferences - instead of them being "deluded". You were never given a choice. Read up on the history of how mass transit in the US was systematically underfunded, and continues to be attacked by parties who stand to benefit. The opposition to HSR or mass transit in the US is no different than the opposition to single payer and/or universal healthcare, which somehow all other developed countries have managed to implement with far superior outcomes.
- jmye 3y ago
  > The opposition to HSR or mass transit in the US is no different than the opposition to single payer and/or universal healthcare, which somehow all other developed countries have managed to implement with far superior outcomes. The US is not Northern Europe, and it may surprise you to learn that there are severe externalities to account for as soon as you actually have to deal with significant, highly dispersed, poor rural populations. I can’t speak to them with regards to high speed rail, but the vast majority of single-payer advocates don’t understand our healthcare system, it’s issues, or, frankly, the simple fact that some Americans don’t actually live in major cities. I can only imagine HSR advocates share similar issues.

raphman 3y ago

> there is no coming back from this German here. Absolutely no chance? What would be the first step in this direction? I imagine that to make HSR happen, first one would have to create walkable cities which make people want to use public transport so that the local transit network gets expanded which in turn makes high-speed rail viable. Couldn't one start locally with closing downtown to cars? Would there be any chance for this to happen anywhere?

ashayh 3y ago
| Couldn't one start locally with closing downtown to cars? This happens often in many towns in the US, but its not permanent. And people never seem to make the connection that the "great time" they had walking the streets was due to no cars. The business owners do not want the car ban to be permanent, as they think cars are the only way to get regular traffic.

toddmorey 3y ago

I think you need a bit more info about this project before being so pessimistic. It's far from a done deal, but I've followed this project for a while and it has unique characteristics that can make it successful: - They are targeting business airline travel. The volume of business air commuters across this corridor was specifically why they decided to start with these two cities. - This is privately funded (although certainly with government help like airlines). - Dallas & Houston are 239 miles apart. It's really the sweet spot for HSR to be very competitive with air travel, especially when you factor in the airport experience. All that said, there are SO many hurdles yet to overcome and the project has stopped and restarted a few times already. But I think this project is very well informed by the challenges and failures of California's HSR efforts and probably has the best shot of actually happening across all the national initiatives I know about. EDIT: There was already an Amtrak partnership in place but it was really just allowing passengers to purchase tickets for the Texas Bullet Train via Amtrak. This seems like conversation to broaden the partnership, though details are sketchy. More partnership from Amtrak almost seems to add risk, though I understand it may be a necessary evil.

tzs 3y ago

> Furthermore, HSR also requires some level of last mile connectivity by local mass public transit. There is none of that in places like Texas, and again the public imagination has not moved on from some kind of 1950s car culture utopia, thats about "freedom". Yet somehow millions of people a year manage to fly to Texas without then becoming stranded at the airport due to not having been able to bring their car. This proves that either you don't need to connect the end points of long distance transportation systems to local mass transit, or Texas in fact does know how and has done so for airports. If the latter, then why could they not do the same for HSR?

Shawnj2 3y ago
People can fly to Texas because they rent a car or use taxis/rideshare once they arrive. Houston in particularly has absolutely atrocious walkability or transit lmao
- tzs 3y ago
  People who arrive by HST should also be able to rent a car or use taxis/rideshare. Assuming ticket prices are similar to Amtrak Acela prices or current non-HST Amtrak Texas prices it will be a little faster than flying for about 1/3 the cost. It will be almost 3x as fast as driving for a bit more than the fuel cost for the drive. If there are enough people who want to travel between those two cities to do the kind of things that people fly to those cities for, then it should be viable and successful.

NikkiA 3y ago

Brightline would probably disagree, even if it's not the longest route.

sschueller 3y ago

What people also forget is the maintenance required which no one seems to want to pay for and get cut after a while. We just a major derailment accident (cargo train) in the Gotthard-Basistunnel forcing it closed for at least a week. [1] This even though it is one of the most maintained parts of the infrastructure and cost around 30 million a year in maintenance. A 57 km tunnel of non-high speed rail. I can only imagine the costs to maintain a high-speed rail line and make sure it is safe. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/15o3y1l/train_derailment_blocks_gotthard_base_tunnel_for/jvq22js/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/15o3y1l/train_...

pwpw 3y ago

> No it won't. Americans are too deluded by car culture to ever let that happen. How has no one mentioned the actual reason it won’t happen? Texas citizens are not so enamored with cars that they prevent this from happening. Texans that frequently travel between Houston and Dallas fly Southwest Airlines because Southwest has spent an inordinate amount of money lobbying to prevent rail[0]. > Furthermore, HSR also requires some level of last mile connectivity by local mass public transit. What do you think all the current business travelers are doing with their cars when they fly? [0] https://www.texastribune.org/2014/03/07/firm-planning-texas-bullet-train-avoiding-past-pit/ https://www.texastribune.org/2014/03/07/firm-planning-texas-...

ashayh 3y ago
You can blame Southwest or corporations all you want. But even in the 90s, people did not support HSR overwhelmingly as per your article. And in today's socio-political climate, a politician has to simply call HSR "socialism" or some trigger word and even so called liberals will rally against HSR.
- pwpw 3y ago
  What are you talking about? I feel like you’re pushing agenda talking points rather than discussing the reality in Texas. Business travel via airplane between Houston and Dallas is a major source of travel and has the exact same issue of not having a car on the other end that you mentioned, and yet it continues to be a popular form of travel. The lack of HSR has absolutely nothing to do with consumers’ obsessions with cars and everything to do with business lobbying, difficulty in acquiring private land, and lack of government interest. It does not stem from the Texas citizens. Further, DFW has (far more than) last mile transit from the airport with DART. How can you ignore that even if it’s not perfect? It can take you from Dallas to Fort Worth!

agensaequivocum 3y ago

I will never give up the freedom and convenience to go where I want, when I want, and with whom I want that a car provides and public transportation can never.