3 ms·

the investment required to pull that off is staggering. Europe taxes heavily to pay for the infrastructure. The problem is, we (America) have been neglecting o

by skolor 17y ago

the investment required to pull that off is staggering. Europe taxes heavily to pay for the infrastructure. The problem is, we (America) have been neglecting our infrastructure for far too long. As a country, we've been doing little more than keeping our existing infrastructure in working condition, and only upgrading where it was absolutely necessary. We should have been incrementally upgrading our infrastructure over the past 50 years, but we haven't been. I always find it staggering how location locked much of the US population is. Finding middle aged people who have never been more than 20 miles from where they were born simply floors me. We are in desperate need of affordable mass transportation, and high-speed rail seems to be the best way to achieve that. If the current administration can at least start the upgrades to our Transportation and Communication infrastructure that we need, at least enough to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world, I will consider it a massive success.

chasingsparks 17y ago
Not to be a dick, but I am hoping you can save me time. I have heard the assertion that Americans are more land locked than other (well, European) countries, but I have never seen anything more than anecdotes. Does anyone actually know of any serious comparisons? It seems to me that a similar anecdote would be the "American's own more cars than any other group and are ridiculously mobile." I would side with the latter anecdote.
- skolor 17y ago
  "American's own more cars than any other group and are ridiculously mobile." I don't have any hard, general statistics, but back in high school we did a rather informal survey, with a relatively small sample size (~50 students). Out of them roughly 80% had never left the state (Florida), of those that had, only 8% had left the country. There were also 20% of the students had never been outside of the county we were in (the ~20 miles from home I mentioned). It certainly seems to me an inverse relationship between car ownership and mobility (on a large scale). While a car allows you massive mobility in a relatively short range, you have to be actively driving and paying attention the entire time, making it much harder to travel long distances. With mass transportation (train, place, bus, etc) you can get on and fall asleep for all that it matters to your mobility. The lack of mass/public transportation seems to be the biggest hindrance to US mobility. Your choices are largely: Fly or Drive. If you Fly, you have to put up with the usual litany of plane complaints, and then you have to rent a vehicle when you arrive at your destination, due to the lack of reasonably accessible public transportation in most areas. If you choose to drive, getting anywhere will usually take several days, and puts a massive amount of wear on your car and the driver. I'm not sure if you've ever gone on a sizable road trip, but two years ago I did 5k miles of driving for a family vacation. I have to tell you, it was rough. Long distance driving is vastly different from driving around the city, and much more difficult on the driver.
  - chasingsparks 17y ago
    But isn't the issue regarding high speed rail service about commuting? That is what I meant by mobility and where I believe the claimed benefits lie. People can live in a comparatively remote area while still being employed in a regional city -- the benefit being they might have a more suitable employer. If that is the case, I would hope to see reasonable evidence showing that high-speed commuter trains would increase the commuter mobility from the level it is at now or possibly raise productivity (e.g. the not actively driving issue).
    - skolor 17y ago
      I never thought of the High Speed Rail as a commuter exclusive option. While that may be the intent, looking at the routes that have been brought up so far I was under the impression that this was intended as a general attempt to make the US more interconnected. That said, most of the routes are not places that are terribly feasible to commute back and forth to by car. Just eyeballing the routes, most of them look to be in the 3-4 hour highway driving time. Like its been mentioned elsewhere, if they can do highway travel times, that becomes a feasible replacement for the short commuter flights. If they can run at a reasonably high speed, rather than having to slow down all the time (like the existing high speed rail in the US, which rarely reaches highway speed) it may become reasonable as a daily commute. There are several people I work with (in Tampa, not a huge metro area at all, but with no real public transportation) who have close to hour long driving commutes. If you can do that and live ~100 miles away on the high speed rail, that would greatly increase the reasonable mobility for commuting.

by skolor 17y ago

chasingsparks 17y ago

Not to be a dick, but I am hoping you can save me time. I have heard the assertion that Americans are more land locked than other (well, European) countries, but I have never seen anything more than anecdotes. Does anyone actually know of any serious comparisons? It seems to me that a similar anecdote would be the "American's own more cars than any other group and are ridiculously mobile." I would side with the latter anecdote.

skolor 17y ago
"American's own more cars than any other group and are ridiculously mobile." I don't have any hard, general statistics, but back in high school we did a rather informal survey, with a relatively small sample size (~50 students). Out of them roughly 80% had never left the state (Florida), of those that had, only 8% had left the country. There were also 20% of the students had never been outside of the county we were in (the ~20 miles from home I mentioned). It certainly seems to me an inverse relationship between car ownership and mobility (on a large scale). While a car allows you massive mobility in a relatively short range, you have to be actively driving and paying attention the entire time, making it much harder to travel long distances. With mass transportation (train, place, bus, etc) you can get on and fall asleep for all that it matters to your mobility. The lack of mass/public transportation seems to be the biggest hindrance to US mobility. Your choices are largely: Fly or Drive. If you Fly, you have to put up with the usual litany of plane complaints, and then you have to rent a vehicle when you arrive at your destination, due to the lack of reasonably accessible public transportation in most areas. If you choose to drive, getting anywhere will usually take several days, and puts a massive amount of wear on your car and the driver. I'm not sure if you've ever gone on a sizable road trip, but two years ago I did 5k miles of driving for a family vacation. I have to tell you, it was rough. Long distance driving is vastly different from driving around the city, and much more difficult on the driver.
- chasingsparks 17y ago
  But isn't the issue regarding high speed rail service about commuting? That is what I meant by mobility and where I believe the claimed benefits lie. People can live in a comparatively remote area while still being employed in a regional city -- the benefit being they might have a more suitable employer. If that is the case, I would hope to see reasonable evidence showing that high-speed commuter trains would increase the commuter mobility from the level it is at now or possibly raise productivity (e.g. the not actively driving issue).
  - skolor 17y ago
    I never thought of the High Speed Rail as a commuter exclusive option. While that may be the intent, looking at the routes that have been brought up so far I was under the impression that this was intended as a general attempt to make the US more interconnected. That said, most of the routes are not places that are terribly feasible to commute back and forth to by car. Just eyeballing the routes, most of them look to be in the 3-4 hour highway driving time. Like its been mentioned elsewhere, if they can do highway travel times, that becomes a feasible replacement for the short commuter flights. If they can run at a reasonably high speed, rather than having to slow down all the time (like the existing high speed rail in the US, which rarely reaches highway speed) it may become reasonable as a daily commute. There are several people I work with (in Tampa, not a huge metro area at all, but with no real public transportation) who have close to hour long driving commutes. If you can do that and live ~100 miles away on the high speed rail, that would greatly increase the reasonable mobility for commuting.