why doesn't America embrace high speed trains?

Make America irate again wrote:

It's estimated that a train will take me 4 hours from Seattle to Portland. But driving will take me 3 hours. This should be the other way around.

Merica, why no European style high speed train network?

America is too large.

Who is going pay?

Europe doesn't have that much high speed rail. Basically France and that's it and they are bankrupt.

Because nobody freaking needs them. Very stupid question.

High speed travel is a luxury nearly everyone can do without. Until the pigs who run this country decide it's something more people should get to enjoy, they will just keep flying around on their private jets and ignoring trains.

Only a robust "middle class" can demand that such a thing be built, and that ship has sailed. The US is in end-stage capitalism now.

Bad Wigins wrote:

1) Because nobody freaking needs them.

2) Very stupid question.

3) High speed travel is a luxury nearly everyone can do without.

4) Until the pigs who run this country.

5) The US is in end-stage capitalism now.

1) that is the point I was making.

2) No it was an extremely logical question for the OP. Taxes will have to climb on the middle and upper classes or a sales tax (GST) will have to be applied across the board, hurting lower income earners or sharp welfare cuts would be needed to pay for such extravagant public works. Perhaps debt-money printing as a very temporary means.

3) it is completely unnecessary.

4) true.

5) No such thing. America is a Fabian Socialist state, it has been that way since 1933 (perhaps even earlier if you count Wilson).

Blah Blah. wrote:

California is one of worst places for high speed rail. You have basically two major cities with nothing much in between. If high speed rail was built it would still be cheaper and faster to take a plane between San Francisco and Los Angeles than to take a train.

W a population of 40 million people, there must be a WHOLE LOT of minor cities.

Seriously mate? wrote:

LA, SF, SD and...........?

Whaaat? wrote:

Firstly Cali has more than just two major cities. In fact it has more major cities than any other state.

Secondly explain how hi speed rail would be slower than driving.

The population of San Jose is about 25% larger than that of SF. So, San Jose.

Sacramento, Fresno and Long Beach are all at about half a million, which is quite a bit larger than, say, St. Louis, MO, and would qualify as a major city pretty much anywhere except NY or TX. So, there's 7 "major" cities.

Oakland and Bakersfield are both over 400k. Riverside, Anaheim, Stockton and Santa Ana are all well over 300k.

UCLA invented the Internet so you don't need to drive to work or shop as often, you can use the web instead.

get in your car and drive wrote:

Most of the US lacks the population density and the local public transportation systems at either end of a high speed train system for it to be efficient.

^This... plus the enormous cost of building a high speed rail system.

The egalitarians are too busy destroying people to pay attention to things like transportation.

Murder Dubs wrote:

Seriously mate? wrote:

LA, SF, SD and...........?

The population of San Jose is about 25% larger than that of SF. So, San Jose.

Sacramento, Fresno and Long Beach are all at about half a million, which is quite a bit larger than, say, St. Louis, MO, and would qualify as a major city pretty much anywhere except NY or TX. So, there's 7 "major" cities.

Oakland and Bakersfield are both over 400k. Riverside, Anaheim, Stockton and Santa Ana are all well over 300k.

Does digging tunnels around the San Andreas fault not sound like a bad idea to anyone else?

Very easy to explain. In order to have a good train network you need a lot of population density. For the most part train speeds are overrated. At the end what counts is the travel distance from door to door. France has a couple of real high speed trains but most trains in other countries can't get that fast because they have to stop more often.

In the US with huge vast metro areas, trains will never work in a way they work in Europe or Japan. It's all about density.

Only in Los Angeles wrote:

UCLA invented the Internet so you don't need to drive to work or shop as often, you can use the web instead.

WRONG. Al Gore invented the Internet.

Blah Blah. wrote:

Whaaat? wrote:

Firstly Cali has more than just two major cities. In fact it has more major cities than any other state.

Secondly explain how hi speed rail would be slower than driving.

People are driving because they need a car at the other end. If they don't need a car or they are in a hurry they will fly.

Not entirely true

People also hate flying because:

1. They can't afford air tickets for the entire family or for themselves

2. They have the hustle of airports where sometimes it takes 2 hrs just to check in and 30 minutes just to get off the plane.

3. Planes are becoming increasingly uncomfortable because airlines keep trying to squeeze more passengers in, leaving people with no leg room.

4. Airlines are hitting people with all kinds of fees. We are literally being gouged.

5. Airlines never reduce the price of tickets when fuel prices go down. This is collusion

6. If you have toddlers or babies, flying can be a nightmare

7. Waiting in line to use the restroom

8. Poor air quality

Most of these issues can be solved with Hi speed trains.

Whaaat? wrote:

6. If you have toddlers or babies, flying can be a nightmare

Or worse if you have to sit next to someone with a toddler or baby.

Because the USA is all about individuality, a free market, and privatization of programs and services that are usually run by the government in other developed nations. The auto lobby would probably fight high speed rail, since it would mean people would buy fewer cars.

Markus wrote:

Very easy to explain. In order to have a good train network you need a lot of population density. For the most part train speeds are overrated. At the end what counts is the travel distance from door to door. France has a couple of real high speed trains but most trains in other countries can't get that fast because they have to stop more often.

In the US with huge vast metro areas, trains will never work in a way they work in Europe or Japan. It's all about density.

No one is saying we need a network that covers the entire country. But There are several parts of the country where population density and commutes make hi speed trains a good idea.

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Because the USA is all about individuality, a free market, and privatization of programs and services that are usually run by the government in other developed nations. The auto lobby would probably fight high speed rail, since it would mean people would buy fewer cars.

The cost outweighs the benefits. Cost of land acquisition, labor, build, upkeep (maintenance). It's not a profitable model for anyone and becomes yet another drain on taxpayers.

Sayer of LOL wrote:

Costas fan wrote:

the best political system that's likely ever existed.

LOL

Wow I knew education was bad in the U.S but this bad yeah I agree with that lol xD big caps LOL

Costas fan wrote:

Also, the "'Murica" thing has run its course. We get it. Millennials liked Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert who made fun of America and patriotism. It made millennials feel sophisticated to criticize the best political system that's likely ever existed. That was probably two years ago. Move on to Harambe or some other "humorous" meme of more recent vintage. Nothing longer than five seconds, though, or you'll lose the millennials.

Found the butthurt boomer, guys.

haile kifer dibaba wrote:

No one is saying we need a network that covers the entire country. But There are several parts of the country where population density and commutes make hi speed trains a good idea.

For high density areas like LA, SF or the east coast there is no need for high speed trains (which in my definition is beyond 120 miles/hour).

They would have to stop way too often. You need at least 50 miles between stations to get the train up to high speed at least of a little bit of the time.

A good train system won't happen in the near future in the US, that's for sure.