re: Would a high-speed rail system work in the US?

quote:

---

2) It would be run more poorly than European counterparts
3) Our version would probably end up as cumbersome as air travel once lawmakers finished with it

---

These are the two main reasons I have very little faith in this.

We have seen how incompetent the U.S. federal government is over the past couple of months. You think they'd keep their hands off of implementing rail travel throughout the country? Forget about it.

This country is vastly different than any country in Europe. The most populous European country aside from Russia has far less than 1/3 of the U.S. population. The U.S. has over 300 million people spread out over 4 million square miles. It's absolutely enormous, and with that enormity comes inefficiencies at the federal level. Implementing systems like this would be a fricking nightmare to coordinate in Seattle vs Miami.

That's not even mentioning the aversion people have to public transit. People don't use public transit in the United States, even if doing so ends up being cheaper than owning and maintaining a vehicle. Riding the bus is something that "poor people" do, and it carries a negative connotation. If you fund something like light rail, and you make it significantly cheaper than airlines, it's going to be destroyed in a heartbeat by people who don't appreciate it for what it is. You could make SF to NY by train accessible in 2.5 hours, but if you make that ticket $50, I would be willing to bet a lot of people would avoid it due to that price point alone.

This isn't Europe. Which is no knock on European countries. There are weaker days where I see what they are doing for their citizens, and I'd LOVE to live there. Federally, I think our government is light years behind some of the governments over there, both in terms of safety, as well as how they prioritize their spending. Likewise, there are many advantages over here that don't apply to European countries.

High speed rail across the nation just wouldn't work here. I'd love if I was wrong, but I don't see it.

quote:

---

In the Boston-NYC-DC corridor? Possibly, but probably not because of what you listed after this.

---

Anyone who ever sat on Amtrak's MetroLiner sometime in the 90's early 00's on that route knows that highspeed is a joke.

As for those talking about the commutes in Europe being shorter, or more efficient, etc seem to overlook that many over there travel the same distances one would here to commute. Seventy mile commutes on British rail systems were/are absolutely not uncommon. The difference however is that so many locations here would have no way of getting the commuters to their final work destinations with public transportation. A rail system without the cities having a very well established bus/tram/monorail/whatever is useless. What are the folks supposed to do once they get off the train(s) at the station?

One of the few reasons rail works reasonably well in say England for London is that there are different rail stations depending on which direction you're traveling from and then the Tube system was designed around creating a method within London of not only handling more local commuters but also to get those long distance commuters to their destinations.

quote:

---

We have seen how incompetent the U.S. federal government is over the past couple of months. You think they'd keep their hands off of implementing rail travel throughout the country? Forget about it.

---

I'd like to see a public/private partnership if possible.

High speed rail from Birmingham to Atlanta would be used a lot. Many companies have their home office in ATL and remotes here. When I was at BellSouth, the corporate jet made daily flights back and forth.

The size of this country is a legitimate hurdle, but I think a bigger one is just the culture here. We love our cars and interstate system, and have gotten used to air travel. I think it'd be hard for rail travel to penetrate that enough to make it efficient or highly used.

quote:

---

You need to have a significantly long trip (out of country at least) for a flight to be quicker than a train.

---

Dude, what?

Flying from Atlanta to Dallas - including commuting time to and from the airport - takes me about 3.5 hours.

Even going 200 mph non-stop, a direct train ride would take 4 hours.

That's the grey area where people may prefer to take a train over a plane. But any longer makes flying more appealing, and any shorter makes driving more appealing.

quote:

---

I think it could work. I get that it would cost trillions of dollars

---

the amount of bureaucratic over spending, corruption, backstabbing, political manoeuvring involved would be ridiculous.

California HS Rail is one example.
the government can't run shite.
Amtrak? healthcare?
Taxes. Taxes. Taxes.

now look at the cost to run the Federal Government. IRS? please!!

quote:

---

The size of this country is a legitimate hurdle, but I think a bigger one is just the culture here. We love our cars and interstate system,

---

I would politely say the major issue is our car culture, we expect to get in a car to go everywhere, park right next door to our destination, and then drive home and park in our private driveways. We even expect this in our dense urban areas.

A lot of this is actually driven by government policy, especially the post WWII creation/expansion of the interstate system and suburban sprawl development.

quote:

---

California HS Rail is one example.
the government can't run shite.
Amtrak? healthcare?
Taxes. Taxes. Taxes.

now look at the cost to run the Federal Government. IRS? please!!

---

My main gripe.

If this were to, by some unholy maneuvering, become an added expense on my tax bill, I'll say no thanks if it involves the federal government.

Tell me that the U.S. will be bringing over some Spaniards as consultants and they will be directly overseeing the project, with our government doing nothing but financing the project. Sure. I could get behind that.

The faith I have lost in the United States' government since the beginning of this year is really quite astounding. I don't trust them to wipe their own arse.

quote:

---

Dude, what?

Flying from Atlanta to Dallas - including commuting time to and from the airport - takes me about 3.5 hours.

Even going 200 mph non-stop, a direct train ride would take 4 hours.

That's the grey area where people may prefer to take a train over a plane. But any longer makes flying more appealing, and any shorter makes driving more appealing.

---

Fair.

I'd probably take a 4.5 hour train ride in Europe over a 3.5 hour plane ride here. It's just more pleasant, it requires less hassle, fewer things to plan and think about etc.

That's the comparison most make, but of course it's unfair/inaccurate. Our version of train travel would likely compare to domestic our travel, which would mean you'd opt for the quicker option because there is little upside to the train.

Well trains did quite well here.

Not sure cost is worth what it offers though