re: China's bullet train that could go from NY to Chicago in 4.5 hours shows how behind US is

quote:

---

two hours by plane

---

This seems like the best option. What am I missing?

quote:

---

It’s really because passenger rail doesn’t make money anywhere.

---

It probably does on pure operations in very dense places like the NE corridor of the U.S., dense urban areas like Chicago, Los Angeles, but once you get really spread out and not all that dense (think Southern cities like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston), it's cheaper in all those places to just buy all the light rail riders a Toyota Prius than to build the light rail in the first place.

America is largely a company of free people who get around in automobiles they own, not slaves who are herded onto train cars.



'Merica. frick yeah!

State of New Mexico has great train service which loses a ton of money

Why do libtards like trains so much?
7x more deadly than air travel.
Over 2x longer than air.
About 1/2 the time of a car, but more expensive and leaves you taxi, Uber, or rental car dependent at the end. Also the car is more independent where the destination, departure and arrival times are completely in the control of the traveler.

And no flexibility. Those tracks only connect Chicago and NY. The plane can fly to any city where needed, and the car can drive to places where trains and planes fear to go.

And finally the cost.

Accessmagazine.org did a study:
Conclusion
Figure 1 shows the internal, external, and user time costs for the three modes. For intercity travel with trip lengths and levels of demand similar to those in the Los Angeles-San Francisco market, air travel has the lowest full cost, while high-speed rail and highway are about the same. This suggests that high-speed rail is unlikely to become a substitute for air travel. Over shorter distances, high-speed rail has a chance to compete if other market conditions fall into place. However, like urban mass transit systems, the conditions are very specific. They require poor level-of-service on highways or high levels of point-to-point travel demand over distances shorter than those practically served by air.

Considering all relevant costs, high-speed rail would be California’s most expensive mode of intercity transportation.


So internal cost show actual out of pocket cost.
Train is vastly more expensive!

User time is distance related.
Longer distances favor air with increasing savings per mile added.
Shorter distances favor cars with increasing savings per mile subtracted.
High speed trains can only compete in a very limited sweet spot.

The external cost include noise, congestion, accidents, and pollution. Now pollution includes both real pollution and CO2. Trains were set at 0 (zero) pollutants because the electricity is generated elsewhere and varies considerably from fuel type (coal, natural gas, nuclear, water, wind, solar, etc.)

So America currently has the best transportation system!
Car rule the short with cost, convenience, and flexibility.
Air rules the long with cost, convenience, and flexibility.

Trains are the libtard delight because they are the most expensive, least convenient, and completely inflexible. But they offer the most expensive and inflexible infrastructure, and give government the most control over the individual and business!

So you're saying Americans are smarter by taking a plane.

And it costs much less when you factor in the costs of building said rail line and maintaining it.

We stopped using trains as a major reason for personal transport a long time ago. The reasons haven't changed.

quote:

---

It’s a great way to travel.

---

It's probably feasible in the extreme NE corridor of the USA. France is small, densely populated and already has the infrastructure.

in much of the US, air travel makes more sense.

quote:

---

WE F'n BUILT JAPAN
WE F'n BUILT CHINA

---

This.

When you pump billions into a communist country that takes the money rather than letting it flow into the economy/producers this is what happens.

quote:

---

But it’s still a 12 hour drive compared to 4.5 by expensive train.

And you have the chance to stop in parts of the country you have never been.

Plus tax money isn’t wasted for the extra 7.5 hours.

Who gives a shite about China’s train

---

Really construction costs and land rights are the concerns.

If you take that train ticket and back out the gas cost of driving- and factor in that I’m saving 15 hours round trip PLUS able to read a book during the transport time.... well... I get there are some nice perks.

quote:

---

's probably feasible in the extreme NE corridor of the USA. France is small, densely populated and already has the infrastructure.

in much of the US, air travel makes more sense.

---

This. People generally under estimate how big the U.S. is. Regional rail in certain parts of the country is more feasible

Traveling by train is great. I've traveled by train all over the world, and those pimping the "what idiot would take a four hour train instead of a two hour flight" line are just showing their arse. How early were you required to leave home/hotel to drive outside of the city to the airport and show up in time to make it through security before boarding into that over cramped little tube?

With that said, I've discussed probably half a dozen times on this board alone why passenger train travel doesn't make sense in the US. These "we're behind X country in high speed rail" threads are tired as frick. Sure, it would be great if it were feasible here. It would also be great if we perfected teleportation or wormhole travel.