High-Speed Rail in the US: why the hell not

[Martinus]

For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

I don't think it would be the factor, imho. I mean, in a modern Western country most of the populace should be able to afford a car easily - just look at Poland, where I think the number of cars is probably higher than the number of people, and we are definitely poorer than Spain. I think your argument here would be in reverse - in countries with high quality public transport, people don't buy cars because they are not needed (I don't own a car because I live in Warsaw's centre, and can get everywhere I need easily by foot or by bus/metro; and for longer distances I take a train or a plane).

Definitely, buying everyone a working car would be cheaper than setting up a high tech rail service, I think.

[grumbler]

I don't think it would be the factor, imho. I mean, in a modern Western country most of the populace should be able to afford a car easily - just look at Poland, where I think the number of cars is probably higher than the number of people, and we are definitely poorer than Spain. I think your argument here would be in reverse - in countries with high quality public transport, people don't buy cars because they are not needed (I don't own a car because I live in Warsaw's centre, and can get everywhere I need easily by foot or by bus/metro; and for longer distances I take a train or a plane). 

The question I asked was not whether people in Spain could afford cars, but rather whether they had them.  You are reinforcing my argument with your own experiences, not demonstrating that levels of car ownership would not be a factor in rail success (or otherwise).  And, of course, the issue isn't how many cars per person there are in a country, but rather what percentage of people own cars.  A person with ten cars still only takes up 1/10 the road space of ten people with one car each, because a person cannot drive more than one car at a time.

[grumbler]

Definitely, buying everyone a working car would be cheaper than setting up a high tech rail service, I think.

Perhaps, but automobile transportation systems require more than just cars.  They require roads, fueling stations, testing and qualification systems capable of handling the driving population, road traffic rules enforcement, etc.  It isn't clear to me that this is cheaper than rail.

[Zanza]

Medium range niche i.e up to 1000 km (bit more than 3 hours) yes but IF the line is all high speed not like Germany where there aren't that many high speed lines and when there is it's not 300 kph cruise speed.
FYI, the ICE has its highest cruise speed in France, between Lorraine and Île-de-France whereas in the German part it only travels at  200 kph (not considered as high speed in France) between Frankfurt and Mannheim during 40 min or so.

The "problem" in Germany is that it is much more poly-centric than France. In France, building a system where all trains go to Paris and may bypass smaller cities works. In Germany, that would never work because the regional politicians want that the train stops in their town. The best example for this is the high-speed track between Cologne and Frankfurt. The train goes up to 300 kph on that, but stops at some smallish town called Montabaur at roughly half the distance. That's because that town is in Rhineland-Palatinate which happens to be a different federal state than the ones Cologne and Frankfurt are in. So the Rhineland-Palatinatian politicians wanted a stop in their state. Totally pointless if you ask me, but that's how federalism in Germany works. But that train is so fast that Lufthansa no longer flies from Frankfurt to Cologne and rather gives that train a flight number for "connecting flights" from Frankfurt to Cologne.

[MadBurgerMaker]

High speed rail would be neat and all, but I'm more interested in light rail or something similar around this goddamn city with it's fucked up roads and shitty traffic. 

Thinking about just current travel times and costs though, I can jump on a plane and be in Dallas probably in the next 2 hours or so for ~$150.  Currently, Amtrak takes eight hours to get there.  Granted, it's only $30, but hell...my car can make it in something like 5 hours (going ~the speed limit heh) on a single tank of gas, and that only runs me about $35 using midgrade.

[Warspite]

Well, if you are on a train you can read a book, play a game on your laptop, have a gin and tonic 

Btw, given the high densities of the UK and relative small size, a high-speed network would work wonders there. Yet, nothing but a link to Europe by the Tunnel. Why ? Maggie's legacy?

Probably best not to get me started on that. I would be delighted to see the construction of such a network. But, for some reason, there seems little chance of it happening 

Because most routes are not profitable without massive government subsidy.

Been like that since the 1950s, IIRC.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The problem is that a lot of US cities may have the wrong structure to benefit much from high-speed rail links, as several posters have implied. The centres of most European cities are often quite compact; thats true of some US cities of course but not to the same extent I suspect.

[The Brain]

The problem is that a lot of US cities may have the wrong structure to benefit much from high-speed rail links, as several posters have implied. The centres of most European cities are often quite compact; thats true of some US cities of course but not to the same extent I suspect.

So connect them to European cities then.

[KRonn]

The problem is that a lot of US cities may have the wrong structure to benefit much from high-speed rail links, as several posters have implied. The centres of most European cities are often quite compact; thats true of some US cities of course but not to the same extent I suspect.

So connect them to European cities then.

[garbon]

The problem is that a lot of US cities may have the wrong structure to benefit much from high-speed rail links, as several posters have implied. The centres of most European cities are often quite compact; thats true of some US cities of course but not to the same extent I suspect.

In the east we certainly have cities where it would work out (specifically the cities that have good public transit systems within the city).  But yeah it wouldn't work so well out West as you'd still want a car to get around once you reached the city.

[citizen k]

The Northeast Corridor is not subsidized, to my knowledge.  It's the parts of Amtrak elsewhere in the country that get the money.

Huh. I did not know that. Actually, I thought Amtrak basically was the Northeast Corridor.

I can go by train from Spokane to Chicago.

http://www.trainweb.com/routes/route_07/rg_7old.htm

[DGuller]

How many weeks does the trip take?

[Ed Anger]

One of the most likely to succeed high speed rail projects is actually in Florida. The state has already secured a right of way for a high speed corridor between Tampa and Orlando, and has already completed most of the necessary impact studies. The main thing holding back construction is money. Supposedly, Florida has a really good chance of securing stimulus money in order to begin within the next couple years.

My main objection? Tampa and Orlando are both highly decentralized cities with poor mass transit. The fastest train in the world won't solve that problem. The main benefit will be for tourists- they will be able to take a train from the airport to Disney.

Ohio is wanting some of that delicious Stimulus rail money too. They want to connect the 3 C's and restore the old network.

I'd ride it if it wasn't Amtrak. I don't trust those fuckers.

[Valdemar]

The distance between San Fransisco and Denver is a couple hundred miles less than the distance from London to Budapest.

And? Yes it would take more time than a plane, but less than a car, and certainly be environmentally better. There are trains from Sweden to Rome by ordinary rails, if High speed, Stockholm - Copenhagen - Berlin - Munich - Rome,  was there there would be less cross European flights.

V

[Berkut]

How many weeks does the trip take?

How many weeks does the trip take?

I don't know how many weeks it takes, but it takes 3 red, 4 black, 6 white, and 4 of any color tickets, at least, to get there.

Lots of points if you can do it though.