4 ms·

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

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.

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.