Thread: High Speed rail - the whole world has it, ... except the US

It would not effectively compete with air travel unless we used a maglev system capable of 500+mph, which would require an entirely new infrastructure of track and vacuum tube.

Not a terrible idea, but ain't going to happen until the entitlement issue is settled.

Originally Posted by Commodore

It would not effectively compete with air travel unless we used a maglev system capable of 500+mph, which would require an entirely new infrastructure of track and vacuum tube.

Not a terrible idea, but ain't going to happen until the entitlement issue is settled.

For travel times below 3 hours high speed rail nearly eliminates air travel (getting usually over 90% of the combined rail/aviation share) along the corridor and below 4 hours travelling time it still manages to get the major share (like about 75 % of the combined rail/aviation share).

Thats the rule of thumb around the world. I can't see why it should be any different in the US.

Maglev is theoretically an option as technology already exists. I don't see how the US could invest into a barely practically established high risk technology (high risk in terms of feasibility), when it sees itself incapable to invest in many times proven and mature high speed rail technology.

Vaccuum Maglev is a pipe dream. If you want to wait for it, wait for the whole world's energy demand being supplied by Fusion power as well. It will come as fast.

By your thread placement, I assume that you think the most important dimension of this discussion is the environmental impact?

Americans are largely a country of instant gratification. High speed rail, once approved, would require years to implement. Additionally, the GOP would scream against the extra taxes required to implement the system and would argue that the system was just another way to expand the role of government.

Ultimately, high speed rail would be a government system, and it would be competing against private industry (air travel and automobile), which is something most people don't want to see. Its not the role of government to compete against private enterprise.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Ok, first of all, the title of this thread is a bit simplistic I know. Not the whole world has high speed rail. But given that even countries like Turkey, Russia and others are developing their own systems there is one big and wealthy country which seems to be in the pitiful situation of being incapable of affording such an supposedly expensive system at all (and no, the East corridor is a joke, not a high speed rail).

Not many years ago, China had about as much high speed rail as the US of A. Today it has already the largest net of all countries in the world once all tracks which are currently already U/C are completed the network will have tripled in length and being over 10 000 km in total. In the meanwhile it looks likely that the US will stagnate with faint hopes of at least some routes in the distant future.

So how does it come that the US has no high speed rail and only small not very courageous plans of developing one? I have heard many arguments over the years. Some say the US is so big and simply too large for it or that it does not feature sufficient population density. That's the easiest to debunk. High speed rail is not there to connect every point in the country with every other. Its there to connect the major corridors of bigger metropolitan areas which are not too far away from each other (everything up to 1000 km and even somewhat beyond is perfectly ok). The US has plenty of them.

Others say that sort of communist style public mass transportation is not compatible with the American way of life. I keep wondering how having an additional choice to car and plane is taking away any freedom, rather than enlarging the freedom of choice. Closely related to that argument is the car centric design of American cities. American cities seem dense enough for light rails and more conclusive PT options though which are popping up all around the country, even in Republican heartland. (and why not?)


So my final question is arguments against high speed rail aren't looking increasingly like lame excuses giving that high speed rail increasingly catches up even in countries which are traditionally counted to the developing and rising parts of the world? Is Americas old interstate infrastructure really the worlds latest answer to the question of how to serve with the best transport infrastructure or is it rather the Chinese style of highways, high speed rail, big airports and everything else which one could possibly build?

Last but not least an overview over the worlds high speed rail networks. I saved my time for the US map as the only current candidate there would be the east corridor which has only short parts that actually deserve the title high speed in first place.

I absolutely agree with you. The U.S would be the perfect place to have high speed rail all across the country, even from East to West! With as much vacant land that there is in the U.S between the two coasts, the project would be so much easier than what the European countries have accomplished, having to cross through so many cities, villages, housing.
Yes, it is a huge project, but it certainly would be worth it in the end, especially if air quality (CO2 emission) ane efficient use of energy are considered

Link: CO2 emissions: Train versus planeAir
CO2 emissions: Train versus plane - Cached - Similar

Originally Posted by Commodore

It would not effectively compete with air travel unless we used a maglev system capable of 500+mph, which would require an entirely new infrastructure of track and vacuum tube.

Not a terrible idea, but ain't going to happen until the entitlement issue is settled.

High speed rail competes favourably with air on relatively shorter runs (up to 500 or 600 kms) when you look at time city centre to city centre.

Airports take up so much land that often the only economical place is far outside the city centre and so the time from downtown to the airport can be a considerable part of the journey.

For example Calgary and Edmonton are about 250 kms apart (Calgary south of Edmonton). The Calgary airport is on the north side of the city and the Edmonton airport is on the south side of that city.

The time to drive from airport to airport is about the same as the time to check in and get on a flight.

If there was high speed rail from city to city to would easily beat air travel.

Think about it, two cities about 500 kms apart. That is about one hour in the air, plus an hour from airport to downtown both ends and another hour to check in, clear security etc. Total about 4 hours. A high speed rail link would only need to go about 150 khp to beat that time.

I think the east coast, southern California, possibly texas, and possibly Chicago+surrounding areas are the only areas with the population density to support economic feasibility of high-speed rail. There was a push to put a rail line between Minneapolis and Chicago (and the areas in-between) a few years ago, but I think the plans were eventually cancelled.

Never going to happen...

Population density and the automobile...

Plus even where it might work... the northeast corridor... there is no room to put in new track right-of-way w/o substantially changing the urban landscape. (to get the speeds you are quoting new track... without grade crossings and with different curve ratios, would be required)

Then you add in all our regulation (imagine the required Environmental Impact Statement for 300 miles of new track)

Then there is this:

High-speed rail doesn't make sense in China, either | Michael Barone | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

As fossil fuel is depleted, high speed rail will have a large role in transportation of people and goods. It is the future, like it or not.

If one could get half of the 18 wheelers off the hiways the savings in fuel would be huge. High speed rail addresses the energy problem in the future.

Some of my most pleasant traveling was done years ago on rail. I would love to see it come back to a large degree.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Never going to happen...

Population density and the automobile...

Plus even where it might work... the northeast corridor... there is no room to put in new track right-of-way w/o substantially changing the urban landscape. (to get the speeds you are quoting new track... without grade crossings and with different curve ratios, would be required)

Then you add in all our regulation (imagine the required Environmental Impact Statement for 300 miles of new track)

Then there is this:

High-speed rail doesn't make sense in China, either | Michael Barone | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

All the issues you present as "difficulties" to move to high speed trains are trivial, compared to the many advantages.

Tiny countries like Belgium, with a super high population density have managed to do it! And, yes, the new tracks need to be laid as straight as possible from one city to the next. . .that means going through anything that comes in its way, including hills, rivers, and housing districts where some houses and businesses need to be expropriated and demolished. . .so what? The owners are VERY WELL compensated, and the whole area thrives with all the new business it brings in AND the new infrastructure that is developped around the construction sites.

Are we the only developped country who find those trivial obstacles too steep to overcome?
Or maybe we need to have Chinese workers to lay the tracks as we did in the past?

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Tiny countries like Belgium, with a super high population density have managed to do it! ?

Uhm, yes, and it's not profitable, breaks down all the time (A Eurostar train broke down less than a mile from Brussels-Midi just a few days ago and the people in it were left there for three hours *) and worst of all, the massive financial needs for it have all but destroyed the regular local slow-speed service.

It's a sponsored luxury for business people. It's not mass transportation.

Edit : Passenger talks about *:
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuw...atnog/1.961368

The reason we can't do this is because we have a government in service to corporate profits rather than the public interest. It's that simple. High-speed rail would be hugely convenient for travelers and would benefit small businesses and the economy generally, but it would hurt the airlines and (especially) the fossil-fuel industry, and so those lobby against it, just as they do against any effective efforts to fight global warming or wean us from our oil dependency. A big public project like high speed rail can't get passed over those objections. That's the reason, it's the only reason, and any others advanced are just excuses and spin.

The big issue of this era of crisis in the U.S. is exactly that corporate control of the government. We will have to resolve this and gain a reasonable measure of public accountability before we can actually have a government that behaves responsibility in this or other areas. We'll get there eventually, but it will likely take a few election cycles, by which time we'll have fallen so far behind the rest of the world in the important techs and social development that our days as a superpower will be over.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

The reason we can't do this is because we have a government in service to corporate profits rather than the public interest. It's that simple. High-speed rail would be hugely convenient for travelers and would benefit small businesses and the economy generally, but it would hurt the airlines and (especially) the fossil-fuel industry, and so those lobby against it, just as they do against any effective efforts to fight global warming or wean us from our oil dependency. A big public project like high speed rail can't get passed over those objections. That's the reason, it's the only reason, and any others advanced are just excuses and spin.

The big issue of this era of crisis in the U.S. is exactly that corporate control of the government. We will have to resolve this and gain a reasonable measure of public accountability before we can actually have a government that behaves responsibility in this or other areas. We'll get there eventually, but it will likely take a few election cycles, by which time we'll have fallen so far behind the rest of the world in the important techs and social development that our days as a superpower will be over.

Once again, the voice of reason! Thanks.

I am very biased in favor of rail travel because it is so very convenient and pleasant. . .
I remember even 30 years ago travelling from Northern France to the Spanish frontier for a vacation. Instead of driving on crowded highways with two kids, we put our car on the train, checked in our "cabin" in the evening, had a comfortable dinner in the train's restaurant, put the kids to bed in our cabin, went to the bar, had an after dinner drink and danced to some music,
went to bed in our cabin, and when we woke up, we were at the Spanish border, where we had a leisurely breakfast while our car was being unloaded from the train. . .then we continued our journey by road.

Today. . .we could go all the way to Southern Spain if we wanted to in about the same amount of time: a comfortable night in a private cabin with 4 bunk beds!