why doesn't America embrace high speed trains?

The problem is that the US leaves too much planning to local governments. Cities can allow for development of houses in the 1000s without a good transportation system, just building more roads and not much coordination with the larger region.

In France, the government wanted a national rail system, so it made it happen. Kind of like when the US decided that it would build the freeway system. These days in the US, local people are given a chance to vote for or against a project because elected officials don't have the guts to make decisions. If it were France, there would be no vote. The government would decide that a project like a light rail extension is a good thing to do and it would make it happen.

Oh? wrote:

Ummmyup183848 wrote:

The GOP is why. They think investing in non-stop baloney political investigations, tax cuts for wealthy folks, attacking gays/LGBT community, and pandering to big oil are better investments than modernizing our rail system and boosting our infrastructure.

I'm sure you know that even with either party in control of congress, the last couple of decades have been the worst in terms of spending on infrastructure compared to the US Real GDP, right?

Infrastructure spending hasn't neared 0.80% of Real GDP since 1995, and hasn't neared 1.00% of Real GDP since 1986. It hasn't neared 1.30% since 1980, and hasn't neared 1.50% since 1965.

This isn't a case where "X party is to blame, because they don't care about us!" - it is a long-term, bi partisan issue that has been inadequate for decades during which both parties have had control of congress and the presidency.

oops, some bad info above: 2001-2003 were close to 0.80% (0.76%, 0.79% and 0.73%). FWIW, those were years where the GOP controlled both the House of Congress, had 50-50 split in the Senate and had Bush as president. Of course, while maintaining the majority they also spent an average of 0.63% during the next 3 years, and a 0.55% when the Democrats retook control in the House of Congress in 2007 and 2008.

In a few years, I'll be able to hop in a model 3 at midnight on Friday in Los Angeles, recline, and wake up in Vegas in time to run before the sun comes up. I'll push a button to turn my car into a self-driving Tesla Taxi until I need to drive home on Sunday -- helping to offset the cost of owning a car.

With my sweet car where I can have all of the comforts of home and not have to worry about getting to a station/airport and waiting -- the appeal of a little extra speed is greatly diminished.

I'll also be able to travel for work in luxury without wasting hours getting reservations -- and I'll get reimbursed for mileage.

1. I just did a comparison. : Ny to Phily. Amtrak costs $55. The cheapest flight I could find was $248. Thats a big deal for a family

2. Train stations are more numerous and more accessible than airports by a long shot. Its not even close

3. Trains would need to compete with flights. So they would strive to make to keep it comfortable

4. Amtrak loses money and they still don't hit people with fees. What makes you think they will start?

5. Airlines collude to avoid reducing prices. Thats why they need competition from trains. Competition is good for the consumer. And No airlines are not low margin. They only lose money of poorly managed.

6. I have had babies and toddlers. Trust me. Traveling by train with toddlers is much much easier.

7. Trains have more restrooms

8. Plane cabins have poor air quality

It's all politics.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-12/california-governor-pulls-plug-statewide-high-speed-rail-project

High speed rail has numerous long term economics benefits. In U.S., there is more oil than there is in Europe. It's not overly costly for individuals to drive every where in U.S.

Due to Crony Capitalism, rail travel was killed during Eisenhower Administration. It was a favor to auto industry and oil & gas industry. When Eisenhower took office, cities still had trolleys. We used to have numerous private interstate rail companies. Interstate highway system started under Eisenhower and regular airline travel post WW2 killed rail service in U.S.

Many Republicans see rail system as government. Why don't Republicans see interstate highway as government? Germany, the nation that invented cars have both great cars and high speed rail.

a matter of convenience... wrote:

Will the high speed train stop in front of my house?

You could always jog or hike the 12 miles to the high speed train station!!

The easy answer is that US cities are too big.

US cities got developed for the car. European cities where developed while trains got invented.

For a good train system you need density and the US does not have that.

It's not important how fast the train from A to B is. Is more important how fast you get from your home to A and then to B and then to your destination. In Europe you do that with a bus or taxi ride to the train station and the same at the destination city. This ads maybe 0.5-1.5h to your trip. Try that in the US with Amtrack.

Because of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

whaat wrote:

1. I just did a comparison. : Ny to Phily. Amtrak costs $55. The cheapest flight I could find was $248. Thats a big deal for a family.

That might be the stupidest family in America that decided to buy 3 or 4 plane tickets NYC to Philly when they could drive it in less than 2 hours. They deserve to be fleeced.

As an emergency doctor, I’ve seen what happens to people who try to embrace trains. Given how bad a subway train can mess you up, I definitely wouldn’t recommend embracing a high speed train.

How will people know I have a big pickup truck if I take the train?

There is no ‘feeder’ system of local trains, metro rails, or subways, to connect neighborhoods to a hi-speed station, sans a few major cities.

jjjjjj said: California is the most urbanized state in the country and has 7 of the top 10 most densely populated cities. Many of them are between SF and LA, the biggest of which is San Jose.

the post you are replying to said, "major cities," which you have interpreted to mean "has high population density." but the two are not the same, or, as some dude said once, "never the twain shall meet." just because San Jose has its folks jammed in together like crickets in a swamp does not, in and of itself, make San Jose a major city.

try again.

cheers.

fly baby! wrote:

jjjjjj wrote:

This is completely false. Check out this article. California is the most urbanized state in the country and has 7 of the top 10 most densely populated cities. Many of them are between SF and LA, the biggest of which is San Jose.

But it is cheaper and faster to fly from San Jose to LA than it would be to take high speed rail. In addition, except for SF, these cities have terrible public transportation which means people would most likely have to drive to the train station.

Local public transportation needs to be first in line. In sacramento, there isn't even any public transportation to the airport.

Do you live in the Sacramento area? If a potential passenger lives to the west or east, and assuming the station is downtown, driving directly to the airport would take about 5 minute longer than to drive downtown. And from. the from the north the airport is only 15 minutes away.

A big problem would be finding a site to accomodate the station and parking.

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.

Two major cities? There’s more to California than SD and LA, and you have people living all along that corridor.

What about San Jose and SF (both top 15 or so in US), Sacramento? And all the other cities on the way up along the coast?

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?

Because Americans are obsessed with the automobile. I recently spent three weeks in Switzerland without a car, I took the trains everywhere, it was easy and the trains were great and on time.

The US could adapt some high speed train lines between certain cities to relieve the congestion on the roadways.

Something like this for example:

Seattle-Portland-San Francisco

San Francisco-Los Angeles

San Francisco-Denver

San Antonio-Austin-Dallas

Boston- NY- Philadelphia

NY-DC

Chicago-Atlanta

Just some examples.

kartelite wrote:

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.

Two major cities? There’s more to California than SD and LA, and you have people living all along that corridor.

What about San Jose and SF (both top 15 or so in US), Sacramento? And all the other cities on the way up along the coast?

outside of the Acela express, I believe California has currently the BEST light rail system right in the bay area, with Caltrain + BART serving something like 8m customers

Name a better served region in the country via light rail than the Bay Area. I'll wait

broken arrow wrote:

Because Americans are obsessed with the automobile. I recently spent three weeks in Switzerland without a car, I took the trains everywhere, it was easy and the trains were great and on time.

The US could adapt some high speed train lines between certain cities to relieve the congestion on the roadways.

Something like this for example:

Seattle-Portland-San Francisco

San Francisco-Los Angeles

San Francisco-Denver

San Antonio-Austin-Dallas

Boston- NY- Philadelphia

NY-DC

Chicago-Atlanta

Just some examples.

I wish it was that easy. Switzerland is twice the size of New Jersey.

Just some high speed trains from A to B won't cut it. You need density to get enough paying customers and even than it has to be heavily subsidized. There is probably no train system in the world which pays for itself.

The US just don't have the density in the big cities to make a train system feasibly. You will always need a car to get to your final destination from the railroad station.