High Speed Rail in the USA

After last weeks train derailment in Philadelphia that killed 8 people, I have been reading about Amtrack and railways in America in general.

I find it astonishing that the US only spends $1.1billion per year on its railways, compared with China that spends over $110billion. The US has less than 1000 miles of electrified railways compared with over 5000 electrified miles in the tiny UK.

Surely in the US the ideal mode of transport between cities would be high speed 200mph trains? I know that there is a high speed service between Boston and Washington DC and one proposed between L.A and San Francisco but why are they so far behind China and Europe?

Is it that the domestic flight industry is so big that it has the power to prevent investment in the railways? Or is there just no appetite from the American public for train travel?

There are a number of different reasons, but probably the largest is that the US is BIG. To have regular rail service, as in England, between even just the major cities (500K population and up) would take an absolutely incredible investment in the infrastructure. A corollary to that is that rail is a slow way to travel when going several thousand miles. For instance, from where I live near Baltimore (east coast) to say Los Angeles or San Francisco (west coast) is about three days by rail but five hours by plane. Canada for instance has much the same issue and trains are not big population movers there either..

Add in that our interstate highway system makes auto travel fairly quick and easy for short or medium distances and, even with government rail subsidies, air travel is cheaper than rail and there is little incentive for people to take the train.

The final point in all this is that not only is the US big, it is also spread out and not defined so much by city centers as in Europe. So even if you take a train, you are going to have to pay hefty taxi fees or rent a car to get to where you really want to be once you get to your destination train station. You could spend an interesting afternoon debating whether it was the chicken or the egg which came first, but the auto enabled the US to spread out from city centers and there's no going back now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

There are a number of different reasons, but probably the largest is that the US is BIG. To have regular rail service, as in England, between even just the major cities (500K population and up) would take an absolutely incredible investment in the infrastructure. A corollary to that is that rail is a slow way to travel when going several thousand miles. For instance, from where I live near Baltimore (east coast) to say Los Angeles or San Francisco (west coast) is about three days by rail but five hours by plane. Canada for instance has much the same issue and trains are not big population movers there either..

Add in that our interstate highway system makes auto travel fairly quick and easy for short or medium distances and, even with government rail subsidies, air travel is cheaper than rail and there is little incentive for people to take the train.

The final point in all this is that not only is the US big, it is also spread out and not defined so much by city centers as in Europe. So even if you take a train, you are going to have to pay hefty taxi fees or rent a car to get to where you really want to be once you get to your destination train station. You could spend an interesting afternoon debating whether it was the chicken or the egg which came first, but the auto enabled the US to spread out from city centers and there's no going back now.

---

Well China is pretty big and high speed rail has devastated the domestic airline industry there.

The argument for high speed rail is that for journeys under 500 miles it is quicker and cheaper than air travel. East coast to west coast wouldn't be suitable for rail travel, but surely it is suitable in US cities that are within 500 miles of each other? Baltimore to NYC (200 miles) on the Acela Express takes 2.5 hours. A proper high speed line would be about an hour quicker (station to station).

The Auto & oil industry has been a powerful lobby for keeping the car as a top personal transport method in the US.
My guess a high speed train in California is probaby not the best idea, anytime there is a moderate earthquake the high speed line would be shut down till the rail had been checked. High speed trains on the lines would probably have to stop and the passengers would have to get off the train and be put on a bus or the train would have to slowly complete its journey.
With planes - the runways and taxiways need to be checked after an earthquake - only 2 or so miles.
The maintenance of the high speed rail lines is a big expense.
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/...y-network.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-sp..._United_States

If Tesla Energy is successful or has more plans rather than the 'train tube' idea that was previously released, A Tesla battery/ renewable energy powered moderate speed type train could be a future idea. Train pulls into station - robot arm with a stack of battery packs on nut runners change battery packs, no need to have all the electricity overhead lines with all the maintenance costs. A train version of the tesla car, steel wheels on steel tracks has less friction than rubber on tar = efficiency.

Earthquakes? See Bullet Train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Is it that the domestic flight industry is so big that it has the power to prevent investment in the railways? Or is there just no appetite from the American public for train travel?

---

The answer is contained within the other answers :D

Follow the Money!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

You could spend an interesting afternoon debating whether it was the chicken or the egg which came first, but the auto enabled the US to spread out from city centers and there's no going back now.

---

Consider this debate over.

Charles Erwin Wilson, United States Secretary of Defense.

Who was he Secretary of Defense to? President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Why is that important because the full title of the Interstate Highway System is "
The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways"

If you have a Secretary of Defense suggest a rollout of interstate highways, then maybe he might have had an alterior motive for doing so:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeakiwi

The Auto & oil industry has been a powerful lobby for keeping the car as a top personal transport method in the US.

---

Who was Charles Erwin Wilson before he was United States Secretary of Defense?
"Engine Charlie" was none other than the former CEO for General Motors.

If you want to talk about a "powerful lobby for keeping the car as a top personal transport method in the US" then what could be more powerful than they ex-CEO of the then world's company, suggesting a series of national highways for cars to drive down?
Is there a conflict of interest?

http://www.freep.com/article/2008091...-live-misquote
"I cannot conceive of one, because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Add in that our interstate highway system makes auto travel fairly quick and easy for short or medium distances and, even with government rail subsidies, air travel is cheaper than rail and there is little incentive for people to take the train.

---

STARTER IS A SOCIALIST!

The Interstate Highway System is the world's biggest single public infrastructure project.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...erstates_x.htm
It covers 46,876 miles. In 2006 dollars, it cost approximately $425 billion.

Allowing for inflation in 2015 terms, it probably cost more than half a trillion US dollars but it has value added maybe a mutiple of forty times that to the US economy over the years.

The issue of high-speed rail in the United States is a classic Opportunity Cost demonstration. Because the US invested in road, it did not invest in rail.

Follow the Money!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Well China is pretty big and high speed rail has devastated the domestic airline industry there.

The argument for high speed rail is that for journeys under 500 miles it is quicker and cheaper than air travel. East coast to west coast wouldn't be suitable for rail travel, but surely it is suitable in US cities that are within 500 miles of each other? Baltimore to NYC (200 miles) on the Acela Express takes 2.5 hours. A proper high speed line would be about an hour quicker (station to station).

---

I just did a quick search.
Washington DC to Detroit, Michigan via AMTRAK is 13 1/4 hours and costs $183. Via Southwest Air its $165 and 4H 20M (that's a plane change, didn't quickly see a direct flight).
Washington DC to Atlanta Georgia via AMTRAK is $116 and 13 3/4 hours. Via Southwest its $124 and 1H 50M (direct flight).

You are correct that travel anywhere within the very heavily populated northeast corridor is probably better by the train, however that most definitely does not apply throughout the rest of the country. Both of the ones just above are about your 500 mile distance and here those are relatively short hops.

I would expect that it would be cargo which determines the underlying motives for investing in rail anyway.

We need high speed trains..but not gonna happen in my lifetime :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I just did a quick search.
Washington DC to Detroit, Michigan via AMTRAK is 13 1/4 hours and costs $183. Via Southwest Air its $165 and 4H 20M (that's a plane change, didn't quickly see a direct flight).
Washington DC to Atlanta Georgia via AMTRAK is $116 and 13 3/4 hours. Via Southwest its $124 and 1H 50M (direct flight).

You are correct that travel anywhere within the very heavily populated northeast corridor is probably better by the train, however that most definitely does not apply throughout the rest of the country. Both of the ones just above are about your 500 mile distance and here those are relatively short hops.

---

With journey times of half a day of course people are going to fly instead.

But the point I'm making is that why in the worlds wealthiest nation are the railways so far behind Europe, China and Japan. Journeys of that distance should only take 2-3 hours by train, which is quicker than flying when you take into account airport check-in.

Some rail routes in America are slower now than they were in the 1920s!

Trains were down for 49 days after the 2011 Earthquakes in Japan.
http://www.railway-technology.com/fe.../feature122751

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

With journey times of half a day of course people are going to fly instead.

But the point I'm making is that why in the worlds wealthiest nation are the railways so far behind Europe, China and Japan. Journeys of that distance should only take 2-3 hours by train, which is quicker than flying when you take into account airport check-in.

Some rail routes in America are slower now than they were in the 1920s!

---

Follow the money.

http://www.deutschebahn.com/file/en/...14_dbgroup.pdf
From the figures:
Revenues comparable: €19,842bn H1 2014

Logically, the whole year should be about €39,684bn a year.

If you use a multiple of 7 on Revenues (which is usually excessive and overly idiotic), then Deutsche Bahn would probably capitalise at €277,788bn
The US interstate system cost probably €438,000bn to build.

The US chose to spend it's infrastructure bills for 50 years on road rather than rail. I seriously doubt whether Amtrak which runs over existing commercial railway lines, has anywhere even near one tenth the ability to raise that sort of capital required to build a DB equivalent system; as such, there'll never be an ICE in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The US chose to spend it's infrastructure bills for 50 years on road rather than rail. I seriously doubt whether Amtrak which runs over existing commercial railway lines, has anywhere even near one tenth the ability to raise that sort of capital required to build a DB equivalent system; as such, there'll never be an ICE in the US.

---

Correct. I think your suggested price to do it is also quite low. Land (right of way) acquisition costs could easily run that much and more. A taking of private property on that scale would also cause a wholesale change in Congress for anyone who supported it. I think your construction costs are low too. Perhaps if the country was flat, but you would have three mountain ranges to cross - the Appalachians (easy, they're low) and the Rockies and Sierra Nevadas (not so low).

Follow the money:
http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/20...g?w=1024&h=573

Might help to explain 'Merikan's priorities.

There's money, lots of money..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Might help to explain 'Merikan's priorities.

There's money, lots of money..

---

Yeah, that too.

I wonder if a little bit of investment on one high speed corridor to show off the potential of high-speed rail would kick start a trend of other states following to get their own high speed line?

The case of the Acela Express from Washington--New York--Boston has already reduced demand for air travel within that region. But even though AMTRAK classes the service as 'High Speed' the 454 mile journey takes 7 hours! That's only an average speed of 65mph.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...summer2011.jpgAcela Express

Like the American line, the Virgin Pendolino service from Glasgow to London has to share the conventional line with freight trains but still manages to complete the 401 mile route in just over 4 hours, averaging just under 100mph despite a lower maximum speed of 125mph compare with the 150mph top speed of the Acela.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2457/4...86e2ee4e_z.jpgVirgin Pendolino

For comparison with a dedicated high-speed service, the Eurostar from London to Paris completes the 307 mile journey in just over 2 hours with an average speed of 136mph (186mph max).
http://www.airflights.to/Airlines/Eu...star-train.jpg


Amtrak wouldn't have to spend a fortune building specialised high speed rail. Surely moderate investment on the current lines would be able to increase speeds on many inter city routes by 50+mph, making them competitive with short haul airlines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Amtrak wouldn't have to spend a fortune building specialised high speed rail. Surely moderate investment on the current lines would be able to increase speeds on many inter city routes by 50+mph, making them competitive with short haul airlines.

---

As far as I understand it, apart from about a thousand miles in the northeast, Amtrak doesn't own the rails. It runs trains over other companies tracks, who surrendered passenger services to the DOT in the Nixon era. Investment in current lines would have to be done by the private firms who own them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I wonder if a little bit of investment on one high speed corridor to show off the potential of high-speed rail would kick start a trend of other states following to get their own high speed line?

---

If other states do follow suit of incorporating HSR in their areas, they sure as hell don't want to duplicate California's example: a dog-leg route w/stops at impoverished cities like Bakersfield & Fresno, instead of a straight shot, along the I-5 corredor, from LA to SF. Even the Japanese and French engineers/assessors said it was nuts, since it would save on huge costs.

But hey, we're California - we don't need money ..... or water resources. Or jobs..etc...etc.

I agree with A taking of private property on that scale would also cause a wholesale change in Congress for anyone who supported it.

I live in the USA, so let me chip in. First of all, to have high speed rail, you need to have a few big cities that are close enough to each other in order to make a case for the high speed rail transport. But much of the middle America is either rural/agricultural states, or states many mountains or deserts with relatively low population density. So right of the bat, it's very difficult to justify having expensive high speed rail crossing the whole country from east to west. However, in the coastal states, where most of population really lives, and a few places like parts of Midwest around Chicago or Central Texas a good case could be made for the high speed rail.

The second problem with the high speed rail in USA is because of the political lobbying by the special interests, such as the airlines. For example, the triangle of four big metropolitan areas in Texas (Dallas-Ft Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Houston) is a nearly perfect setting for the high speed rail. However, in the 1990s, when the private sector and the government were getting serious about it, the project was shut down by the airlines
(see history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-s...d_States#Texas)

And finally, America has much cheaper gasoline than much of the rest of the world, and lots of good highways. Americans for some reason tolerate longish drives. Americans don't mind driving 300 miles or more to attend some kind of party or visit a friend/family. There is a lot of appeal to driving your car. A lot of American cities basically by design consist of an endless suburban sprawl with mediocre public transport. So if you arrive some place like Dallas on a train, you _still_ need to have a car in Dallas to get around, or call a cab. If you drive your car from Austin to Dallas, the problem is solved. No need to rent anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

I live in the USA, so let me chip in. First of all, to have high speed rail, you need to have a few big cities that are close
enough to each other in order to make a case for the high speed rail transport

---

I know about the Acela already but would a proper HSR between Atlanta-Charlotte-Raleigh-Washington D.C-Philadelphia-NYC-Boston work?
That is some 40+ million poeple living along that route in those cities/Metro areas.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Atla...42.3600825!3e0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleAivano

I know about the Acela already but would a proper HSR between Atlanta-Charlotte-Raleigh-Washington D.C-Philadelphia-NYC-Boston work?
That is some 40+ million poeple living along that route in those cities/Metro areas.

---

The distance from Atlanta to the rest is quite large - 10 to 12 hours by car to Wash DC. Charlotte too is about 6 hours from Wash DC by car. There is already the Acela service between Wash, Baltimore, Phili, New York and Boston.

What are the average maximum vehicle driving time limits for an American traveller within the USA to decide to go on a plane rather than drive in their own vehicle?
I appreciate there would be a difference between a business traveller and someone on vacation.
How much freight goes on trains compared to trucks? An idea would be to have more freight on trains with fewer trucks on the road, (freight trains do not need to be highspeed trains) speeds on freeways and interstates might be increased with 'smarter' cars, to go along at 100mph/ 160 km/h on the interstate when conditions allow with a Tesla, bolt on Autopilot. etc