3 ms·

The U.S. is largely built out already. So look at Japan. Japan is 152,000 ish square miles. The United States is 3,717,000 sq miles that are already crisscros

The U.S. is largely built out already. So look at Japan. Japan is 152,000 ish square miles. The United States is 3,717,000 sq miles that are already crisscrossed with Interstates, plus a great deal of air travel infrastructure, plus low-speed rail. It may not be obvious, but rail crashed in the U.S. More than once. There were worthless railroad stock certificates in many attics. These now have actual numismatic value. Then it crashed again after Eisenhower built the Interstate. China is 3,704,000 sq. miles but doesn't have Interstates to the same extent that the U.S. does. The U.S. does pretty well with low speed rail for freight and to a lesser extent, passenger service. But the infrastructure in the U.S. is based on 50 year old technology. China should be able to do much better and by doing so, the U.S. should develop a twinge of envy and possibly emulate them, if it makes sense. The U.S. should ( IMO ) do a lot more "moon shot" things but it didn't work out. I watched this in real time after the moon landing. The shuttle was cool and all, but it was nothing compared to what could have been. We said "BTDT" and went to the disco. When it comes down to it, the U.S. is a lot about granite countertops and not much else. I will not say why I think that is. But the geometry of the way the U.S. is laid out means that you can spend a great deal on air transport before you get to break even with high-speed rail.

icehawk219 12y ago
I completely agree with you but also feel like the big problem is people tend to state it as a case of "why the country, as a whole, needs high speed rail" and as you point out the vast majority of country really doesn't. Or at least doesn't think they do. We'd benefit greatly if we instead looked at it as a case of "why [state/city] should have high speed rail". High speed rail from NYC to LA, while it may be cool and might be a nice big engineering challenge, really just doesn't appeal to most people. But if I, in central NJ, could take a train into Manhattan in under 2 hours, that would actually be incredibly useful and I'd love to be able to. Right now the time and cost of me taking a train from here to DC is prohibitively high compared to driving or taking a flight. These regional cases are where high speed (or at least higher speed) rail would really shine in my opinion.
- adestefan 12y ago
  The problem is that it makes sense in the densest areas of the country, but because it's so dense it then ends up being the most expensive areas of the country to implement.
  - icehawk219 12y ago
    Agreed, and combined with NIMBY it'll be damn near impossible to build in densely populated areas. NJ Transit has been dealing with this for decades as people keep claiming they want more rail lines but don't want them in their own towns, they want them in the next town over so they don't have to hear the train. There's no reason to believe that trying to build a high speed line wouldn't face the exact same complaints.
- JackFr 12y ago
  And the reason why the rail cost from central Jersey to DC is so high, is that NY to Washington is the only route where Amtrak (with existing technology) is a serious competitor to air travel. While the time in the air between NY and DC is 35 minutes, the hassle of arriving at the airport early for check-in, actually getting to LGA, JFK or Newark and getting from Dulles, BWI or National to your location, make traveling by rail (Acela 2 hours 45 minutes) a real competitor. The argument, I suppose, is that high speed rail could increase this competitiveness to other cities outside the northeast corridor.

icehawk219 12y ago

I completely agree with you but also feel like the big problem is people tend to state it as a case of "why the country, as a whole, needs high speed rail" and as you point out the vast majority of country really doesn't. Or at least doesn't think they do. We'd benefit greatly if we instead looked at it as a case of "why [state/city] should have high speed rail". High speed rail from NYC to LA, while it may be cool and might be a nice big engineering challenge, really just doesn't appeal to most people. But if I, in central NJ, could take a train into Manhattan in under 2 hours, that would actually be incredibly useful and I'd love to be able to. Right now the time and cost of me taking a train from here to DC is prohibitively high compared to driving or taking a flight. These regional cases are where high speed (or at least higher speed) rail would really shine in my opinion.

adestefan 12y ago
The problem is that it makes sense in the densest areas of the country, but because it's so dense it then ends up being the most expensive areas of the country to implement.
- icehawk219 12y ago
  Agreed, and combined with NIMBY it'll be damn near impossible to build in densely populated areas. NJ Transit has been dealing with this for decades as people keep claiming they want more rail lines but don't want them in their own towns, they want them in the next town over so they don't have to hear the train. There's no reason to believe that trying to build a high speed line wouldn't face the exact same complaints.
JackFr 12y ago
And the reason why the rail cost from central Jersey to DC is so high, is that NY to Washington is the only route where Amtrak (with existing technology) is a serious competitor to air travel. While the time in the air between NY and DC is 35 minutes, the hassle of arriving at the airport early for check-in, actually getting to LGA, JFK or Newark and getting from Dulles, BWI or National to your location, make traveling by rail (Acela 2 hours 45 minutes) a real competitor. The argument, I suppose, is that high speed rail could increase this competitiveness to other cities outside the northeast corridor.