High Speed Rail in the USA

[Zeakiwi]

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

[Rollo]

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.

[Starter]

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).

[janvanvurpa]

Follow the money:


Might help to explain 'Merikan's priorities.

There's money, lots of money..

[Starter]

Might help to explain 'Merikan's priorities.

There's money, lots of money..

Yeah, that too.

[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?

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.

Acela 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.

Virgin 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).



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.

[Rollo]

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.

[AAReagles]

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.

[marathonboats]

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

[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. 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.