As an German expat in the Pacific Northwest this fills me with longing. We have like one train here and it's slow and expensive..
You’ll never take HSR from NYC to LAX but Chicago or Atlanta from NYC is roughly the same distance as Paris to Berlin, and there’s a bunch of cities on the way as well.
Even in a mostly suburban metropolitan area, most people are still quite a ways from the main airport, which is usually on the extreme of one side of a metropolitan area. You can have multiple train stations per city because of their much lower footprint and nuisance level, and generally speaking most of the time savings in rail vs air is access time to the station/airport. (Truly high speed services can just skip the suburban stations if there truly is demand for this, but generally speaking the time for an additional station is measured in single-digit minutes.)
Ironically car dependent cities like LA were built out as streetcar suburbs so they’re not really all that different to London’s ‘metroland’ suburbs built out around tube lines. The big difference is the job centres are far more distributed. When offices as well as homes are widely distributed public transport becomes very tricky.
Maybe in Germany, but France has barely populated areas and yet we have one the biggest high-speed rail network on the planet. In fact, the fact that France is the biggest European country after Russia is probably the main reason high speed rails was invested on back in the 70s: the bigger your country the more you need high speed rail.
High speed rail is not going to do a lot of good in South Dakota, but we can serve most Americans with some type of decent rail without contorting ourselves. And the bar is on the floor since a lot of Amtrak is not even a single round trip seven days a week.
The current Amtrak route is not frequent, fast or cheap enough to be a good alternative to driving for most people.
Hourly service between them would be a boon to the whole area, and allow for a ton of flights to not happen between the cities for connecting traffic.
https://www.portseattle.org/sea-tac/flight-status?flight_dat...
shows 23 unique aircraft flying SEA->PDX today and 32 unique aircraft flying PDX->SEA
At ~$80/seat one-way and ~80 passengers/flight, that's >$100M/yr in revenue.
Existing trains take 3.5 hr for the journey. Existing flights take 1 hr for the flight + time spent in security, so trains aren't that far off.
Furthermore, there are ~30,000 cars traveling each way each day along I-5 between Seattle and Portland (https://www.chehalisbasinstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/201...) .
Speedy train service really would make a difference.
There must be a business case in this surely, even if it’s worked out based on minimum wage as that’s a lot of commuters.
E.g. I got in an argument with someone a while back who insisted on using Montana as an example, but while Montana is sparsely populated, Southern Montana had Amtrak passenger service until 1979 (ironically the only Amtrak service currently serving Montana goes through some of the sparsest populated Northern parts of the state as part of the Empire Builder route), and has a density and distance between the main towns comparable to places in Norway with a perfectly viable regular passenger service.
It's not like you need to have good train links everywhere to improve things, but often the point is not to connect big cities far away with each other but to serve as extra life lines which makes it viable to move further out of the big cities for those in between. That means the relationship needs to be reversed from what Americans are used to: You can't look at where there is demand for transport now. You need to look at where people might want to live or want to work, or where you want to encourage growth, and where better transport might encourage that. And then you need to take a 20+ year horizon and commit to it, because only once the links are there will it start factoring into peoples decisions about where to move, and it will take many years before demand shifts. This is less obvious with cars because as long as there's a road people can forgive a lot. It doesn't help to have rails if there are no trains running on them.
And then you need to consider that it's ok to lose money on a per passenger basis on infrastructure if it promotes economic growth or positively affects other factors (e.g. reduces the amount of car congestion and environmental effects). You should still look at the economy of course, but take all the factors into account, because it often changes the calculations drastically.
Well, China has built a shit ton of high speed rail across their country. There is nothing preventing the US from doing just the same.
NYC <-> LA is like, what, 4000km? Sounds insane at a quick glance, but a 500 km/h maglev train makes that an 8 hour ride, compared to a 6h flight plus 1h "dead" time for boarding, luggage, and security theatre. Not much of a difference. A 300 km/h "classic" high speed rail like the German ICE will take 13h, but hey even that is manageable.
And unlike Europe, y'all have the advantage that your land is barely occupied by anything but a few farms.
The thing is, debt isn't bad per se - having a strong rail network can actually enable far far bigger returns. The US is the perfect example actually... railroads were what enabled "going west" from the East Coast where the European settlers landed.
If you have a strong rail network, you can move a ton of goods (or people) with barely any emissions, leagues better than airplanes, cars and trucks - only ships have a better efficiency in fuel consumption/CO2 emissions per passenger/ton kilometer. And rail infrastructure can hold up insanely long... here in Germany we're still using signalling systems and rails literally built way before Hitler, before the first German democratic government, back when we still had a Kaiser. Spread the 900 billion debt over 100 years lifetime and whoops, pretty cheap, isn't it?
There's a ton of flights each day - the FAA says something around 45.000 flights [1], of which sadly there are no statistics if they are domestic or not. But even assuming just 25% are domestic, that's about 11.000 flights that could be done on a decent HSR network, saving local populations in the inflight zone of airports from a ton of noise and a lot of fuel/CO2 emissions.
No matter what, CO2 emissions will make air travel unsustainable very fast very soon, and the US is barely prepared for this new reality.
> Can you imagine if US built out an expensive high speed rail from New York to Detroit? or Seattle to Portland?
Well, that is how the US grew so fast from East to West back in the day [2]. IIRC, a lot of the existing lines are the same routes that were built back then.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers
[2] https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-histor...
As a result, the civil servants in China are seeing 25-50% paycut.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...
I suspect it would take something spectacular (like how the interstate system was created) to actually make meaningful progress. And the irony is once it's in place no one could imagine life without it.
And of course a lot of rail work now is inter-European, so you get different country governments and the EU as well.
It’s been discussed many times. China simply does not have to deal with with unions, labour laws, land ownership and such. I don’t think we want to live in such system.
> A 300 km/h "classic" high speed rail like the German ICE will take 13h, but hey even that is manageable.
No, it won’t. There will be scheduled stops, weather, slow sections, accidents.
I used to take Cologne to Utrecht for 3 months once a week return travel. Only once I arrived in both directions on time.
Japan is a democracy that has all three, and yet they managed to build a HSR system. France has a very good HSR system as well.
> No, it won’t. There will be scheduled stops, weather, slow sections, accidents.
The entire point of the US being suited for HSR is that it is so sparsely settled in the center of the country that you don't need frequent stops, or you can get away with just having every 2nd/3rd train stop at a specific city - with 30min of spacing between the trains, that's still 1h/1.5h interval for "flyover states". And a single train carries up to 1.000 passengers, replacing 4-5 planes.
> I used to take Cologne to Utrecht for 3 months once a week return travel. Only once I arrived in both directions on time.
Please don't assume that the shit our politicians did with the DB network is valid for HSR in general.
Yeah, both started in 1960s.
> The entire point of the US being suited for HSR is that it is so sparsely settled in the center of the country that you don't need frequent stops, or you can get away with just having every 2nd/3rd train stop at a specific city - with 30min of spacing between the trains, that's still 1h/1.5h interval for "flyover states". And a single train carries up to 1.000 passengers, replacing 4-5 planes.
And now you have 4000km of high speed rail tracks to keep in top notch condition. With a mountain range between the two coasts. And trains passing rather frequently.
> Please don't assume that the shit our politicians did with the DB network is valid for HSR in general.
Oh. Nothing to do with that. Weather, accidents, no staff were the most common causes.
Actually, all three can be blamed on Deutsche Bahn. The Swiss for example have a ridiculously strong tree management program [1], which means they can keep operating even in storms because there is no danger of trees falling onto tracks which is a fairly common occurrence in Germany.
Accidents as well... a lot of tracks, everything up to 160km/h, has level crossings with roads. Only above 160 km/h you need dedicated, crossing free infrastructure. We could get rid of a lot of these level crossings if we wanted to.
And no staff? DB pays shit, that's the reason why no one wants to work for them, and the "private competitors" pay even less. And if the railroad workers go to strike, the entire fucking country shits on them for daring to fight for their rights.
[1] https://www.waldwissen.net/de/technik-und-planung/naturgefah...
Without even pausing I assumed this was some business speak MBA crap. I cackled when I realised.
Maintaining hundreds of planes is also hard and planes are terrible for the environment and terrible to travel in. Surely we can aim higher?
How practical it is will depend on the place. Yes lots of America has been built as suburban sprawl but there are lots of slightly more urban places too where modern regional rail would be a huge improvement over sitting in traffic.
The frustrating thing about living in the bay area is that they ripped up a lot of rail in the 60s and replaced them with roads. Now those roads are clogged and journeys by car take longer than journeys by rail did back then.
The main problem is that the train infrastructure where exists is old and very slow, and typically passenger trains have lower priority than freight. The end result are slow, often grubby, expensive (e.g. more than flights), trains with inconvenient sparse schedules and poor services. Not exactly compelling.
Same here, all of it, German expat, PNW, longing, one slow expensive train :)
Yeah, Alaska and Canada is another whole level