5 ms·

> The absence of such makes us the laughingstock of Europe and Asia. Please. The geography of the US compared to these Europe & Asia projects are so radically

by drgath 15y ago

> The absence of such makes us the laughingstock of Europe and Asia. Please. The geography of the US compared to these Europe & Asia projects are so radically different, the reason high-speed rail hasn't been a priority is because it isn't as viable here. Rail fares are more expensive than flights [1], and a trip from SF<->LA would take anywhere from 2-3 times as long. No thanks. I've traveled by air and rail around Europe, and I greatly prefer flying. Cheaper, and faster. The only people laughing at us are the americans who think a rail infrastructure is something to be jealous of. [1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/11/despite-rising-price-tag-high-speed-rail-fares-are-projected-remain-steady http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/11/despite-rising-price...

ScotterC 15y ago
I would give a counter argument. Our industrial rail system is actually a stellar system. We simply made a choice a century ago to make our industrial rail a priority. Passenger railroad was the choice of Europe, but we can move freight across the country faster then anyone. This of course hampers any chance of passenger rail because they use the same infrastructure.
- stephengillie 15y ago
  Greyhound is cheaper and faster from Seattle to LA than Amtrak.
- stephengillie 15y ago
  Greyhound is cheaper and faster from Seattle to LA than Amtrak.
justincormack 15y ago
Not everyone wants to go long distance all the time. Europe has airports too. Personally in Europe I usually prefer trains up to around 8 hours journey, but it varies and I do go for longer. You can work much more effectively on trains. That is say 1000 miles on high speed train roughly - you have places closer than that I think...
vidarh 15y ago
Norway has a population density about 1:10th that of the US, and somehow making rail work in most of the country hasn't been an issue. What people forget whenever making this argument is that while your population density is low, you have large areas - larger than many countries - with quite high density. Your population density is pulled down by the vast areas with really low density. And yes, as a European: Your rail infrastructure is the subject of widespread ridicule. I'm 36. I don't have a drivers license - I've never had a compelling need for one. Only time I've ever missed having one is when visiting the US.
- sneak 15y ago
  Norway is the size of Montana.
  - vidarh 15y ago
    Which is entirely irrelevant, given that this scales. Split your country into regions, and treat them separately. Oh wait, they're already split into states, countries, cities, and in many other ways. It's a tedious argument that gets trotted out every time someone compares the US with another country in terms of public transport. But every other country also has low density areas, which often have weaker public transport. As it stands, the US has lots of low density areas, but also a large number of really high density areas. I don't think anyone would complain about lack of train coverage for your hopelessly low density areas. What is a joke is that there are US cities with populations the size of small European countries that are still served by useless rails systems, and there such cities within what would be easy reach of each other with decent rails where it is pointless to try. E.g. someone pointed out that Oslo to Bergen in Norway is still about 7 hours. But that is 7 hours between a city of 500.000 people, in a region with less than 1 million, an a city of about 120.000 people. Yet there is a viable train service covering the stretch. What's in between? Mostly a mountain range where practically nobody lives. It's a service that is mostly there to serve the endpoints. Yes, a lot of the potential riders take a plane instead. How many regions in the US do you have with 500k-1m people on one end of a what could be a 7 hour rail link with regular speed trains, with 120k-200k people on the other end, that are currently not served by rail at all? Now add in the number of much larger cities. That combined with the useless excuse for commuter rail outside of some very limited areas (mostly a handful of cities on the East coast) is what makes Europeans generally consider the state of rail in the US to be ridiculous.

by drgath 15y ago

ScotterC 15y ago

I would give a counter argument. Our industrial rail system is actually a stellar system. We simply made a choice a century ago to make our industrial rail a priority. Passenger railroad was the choice of Europe, but we can move freight across the country faster then anyone. This of course hampers any chance of passenger rail because they use the same infrastructure.

stephengillie 15y ago
Greyhound is cheaper and faster from Seattle to LA than Amtrak.
stephengillie 15y ago
Greyhound is cheaper and faster from Seattle to LA than Amtrak.

justincormack 15y ago

Not everyone wants to go long distance all the time. Europe has airports too. Personally in Europe I usually prefer trains up to around 8 hours journey, but it varies and I do go for longer. You can work much more effectively on trains. That is say 1000 miles on high speed train roughly - you have places closer than that I think...

vidarh 15y ago

Norway has a population density about 1:10th that of the US, and somehow making rail work in most of the country hasn't been an issue. What people forget whenever making this argument is that while your population density is low, you have large areas - larger than many countries - with quite high density. Your population density is pulled down by the vast areas with really low density. And yes, as a European: Your rail infrastructure is the subject of widespread ridicule. I'm 36. I don't have a drivers license - I've never had a compelling need for one. Only time I've ever missed having one is when visiting the US.

sneak 15y ago
Norway is the size of Montana.
- vidarh 15y ago
  Which is entirely irrelevant, given that this scales. Split your country into regions, and treat them separately. Oh wait, they're already split into states, countries, cities, and in many other ways. It's a tedious argument that gets trotted out every time someone compares the US with another country in terms of public transport. But every other country also has low density areas, which often have weaker public transport. As it stands, the US has lots of low density areas, but also a large number of really high density areas. I don't think anyone would complain about lack of train coverage for your hopelessly low density areas. What is a joke is that there are US cities with populations the size of small European countries that are still served by useless rails systems, and there such cities within what would be easy reach of each other with decent rails where it is pointless to try. E.g. someone pointed out that Oslo to Bergen in Norway is still about 7 hours. But that is 7 hours between a city of 500.000 people, in a region with less than 1 million, an a city of about 120.000 people. Yet there is a viable train service covering the stretch. What's in between? Mostly a mountain range where practically nobody lives. It's a service that is mostly there to serve the endpoints. Yes, a lot of the potential riders take a plane instead. How many regions in the US do you have with 500k-1m people on one end of a what could be a 7 hour rail link with regular speed trains, with 120k-200k people on the other end, that are currently not served by rail at all? Now add in the number of much larger cities. That combined with the useless excuse for commuter rail outside of some very limited areas (mostly a handful of cities on the East coast) is what makes Europeans generally consider the state of rail in the US to be ridiculous.