Hacker News Reader

CityNerd identifies 56 train segments that should be built, using data and reasonable, precedented criteria:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4

His video description: "Nothing that exists in North America fits the definition of true high-speed rail. If we actually ever started building a network, where would we start? And how would we know when we were done? This video details a methodology for answering all those questions, then counts up 56 city pairs we really should've had high-speed rail service between long, long ago."

> using data and reasonable, precedented criteria

That analysis makes several idealistic assumptions, e.g. frictionless international borders. It’s a good starting point, but his other videos analysing specific corridors seem more grounded.

I’ve gone on a train between Seattle and Vancouver and back before and it’s relatively easy, you pretty much do all your immigration in Canada and you can just walk off the train in the US

> The US is a huge country with a lot of empty space.

China has the same problem... they simply made it a priority to build the infrastructure.

There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing.

> China has the same problem

China has almost four times the population density of America’s (146 per square kilometre to 37).

It gets even better when 94% of China's population lives in 43% of the country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heihe%E2%80%93Tengchong_Line

The USA is a bit better, 25% live in the western half (mostly on the west coast though).

This is a pretty simple consequence of the facts that it has four times the population and is exactly the same size.

I genuinely wonder whether such a thing is possible without a single centralized political party and severely limited avenues to disagree with the plan.

> There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing

Well what's stopping us is:

1. prioritization of private property ownership over every other possible measure of societal health, people can drag out these projects fighting over the land in court for decades

2. government cronyism isn't even organized enough to stomp out the issues with #1 using eminent domain, because all the small fractious governments of states and local municipalities are working against each other to each win the cronyism battle. at least in more centralized governments, the cronysim is organized enough to get the project done while skimming 75% of the money off the top.

> There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing.

However achieving property rights for the land needed for the project is a much bigger issue in the US than in China, where I doubt they receive much dissidence from people affected due to their infrastructure improvements.

> China has the same problem... they simply made it a priority to build the infrastructure.

If you look at China's HSR map, they have exactly one line that goes into the western half of the country (from Lanzhou to Urumuqi). It only takes 9 hours, only a few stops in between.

Large amount of US popular is clustered around key areas (East Coast corridor, West Coast Corridor, Midwestern cities etc.

No reason these couldn't be linked up and are more populous than many equivalent regions with HSR. It's like power grids, noone is arguing that one big one from SF to NY is the right solution.

China is even more densely packed behind the Heihe–Tengchong Line. Oh, don't misunderstand, China has it even harder than we do, if you look at eastern China...where people live, a lot of it is not flat and they are tunneling through lots of mountains to make these HSR lines work. Actually, that might make it easier for them, since their population is much more focused (no room for huge suburbs), and their only real challenge is building tunnels and viaducts.

Other than economics, I think. The state railway in China is like $1tn in debt and it's reported that some routes are hardly used.

> That said, having successful train systems in the US is hard. The US is a huge country with a lot of empty space.

The problem is that it’s not, at least from the standpoint of property rights covering that land. For example, the path from San Francisco to LA is relatively densely populated. And on top of that, the US has an intractable legal system for building infrastructure.

> the cost of the tickets plus the additional travel time will not be worth it to most who are making this trip

If they get the beds and service right, it would be because it’s convenient and comfortable. Like, have a Michelin-class meal, good wine, reliable service that knows the regulars and comfortable beds and good shock absorbers and you’re trumping planes as the first-class option.

It doesn’t have to beat flying in all cases to be successful. Price always seemed like a weird niche for passenger rail to aim for—planes don’t have to maintain track!

It might be difficult to steal First Class flyers, their opportunity cost is mileage rewards which can be used anywhere in the world the alliance accepts them. The train company might have to join that alliance and offer those rewards too, but would likely be opposed by the airlines it competes with.

> their opportunity cost is mileage rewards which can be used anywhere in the world the alliance accepts them

The rewards on a Bay Area-Los Angeles flight are de minimis if you’re a frequent flier. I am one, and I was planning on taking the Coastal Starlight up next month until I learned—in this thread—that it’s kaput for the time being.

> planes don’t have to maintain track!

Well, they have to maintain airports, but there's a lot of federal funding that goes into that too. It's always interesting to see where the costs of infrastructure are borne. Rail seems to be one of the few where the carriers (and consumers) are almost entirely directly responsible for the infrastructure. (Admittedly, citation needed.)

They also have to maintain air traffic control, parts of the national weather service, parts of the NTSB, the FAA… lots of externalities in the aviation world. (Even before you start thinking about the fact the people who make airliners are the same people who build out Air Force.

In the article it states that they will use already existing tracks that are owned by Union Pacific, so there won't need to be any new infrastructure.

I've honestly given up on the USA building this sort of infrastructure, accepting that I'll have to move to a country that doesn't get bogged down in the USA being some unique place that can't do the things so many other countries have already done.

I feel like even if we were to do it, folks would sabotage it for politics here. It's tiring.

Except the Amtrak is both expensive and slow.

I use Amtrak on the west coast all the time and for my uses it is cheaper than driving while being roughly the same amount of time. I go between the Bay Area, Portland, and Seattle frequently and Amtrak is my first choice when planning my travel.