High Speed Rail in the USA

[Brown, Jon Brow]

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?

[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.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

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).

[Zeakiwi]

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.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Earthquakes? See Bullet Train.

[Rollo]

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

Follow the Money!

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:

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."

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!

[Starter]

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.

[Rollo]

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

[Storm]

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

[Brown, Jon Brow]

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!