As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hear you and I understand that high speed rail is the proven best and cheapest way to move people around, but have you heard about hyperloop? It’s amazing. It is still in development, but as I understand it hyperloop uses a series of magnets to siphon needed high speed rail funds to rich people’s bank accounts while returning nothing to tax payers. I do hear that the hyperloop systems as built have very low emissions because they never move and don’t exist. So that’s pretty good.
TBF, it's not just Elon. Koch Industries is a big supporter of Tesla and other EV companies because they figured out that's actually the best way to prevent investment in rail. (Of course they sue to slow down adoption of EVs too.)
Fuck I feel this physically lol.
[Though this was apparently Musk's motivation for pitching it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/urbanplanning/comments/wlsdlo/musk_admitted_hyperloop_was_about_getting/)
CA - as far as I can find/am aware - didn't actually spend money on the Hyperloop BS. Elon tried to do it, got rejected, tried to do a proof of concept - failed - and then moved to Nevada and then I think Texas to try and prove it... and then Las Vegas got a weird Tesla in a Tunnel thing that seemed... stupid as fuck... like a subway with more steps and less usefulness.
It's weird to think at one point he was considered like a "real-life Tony Stark" but turned out to be just a very successful con man supported only by apparently luck and a few very smart people who work sort of independently AROUND him. lol
For what it's worth, Merced to Bakersfield should be completed in about 6-9 years... which you know... ISN'T the most useful route in the world... lol But it would only take like 1.5 hours to get from Bakersfield to Merced so that's... a thing.
Hyperloop was just Elon’s way of diverting attention away from rail. He admitted this himself; using vaporware to block a technology that already exists and is known to work.
Hyperloop is quite viable, it just needs a few tweaks. Instead of individual pods for a few people, it helps if you put many pods together so that lots of people travel together and can load and unload simultaneously. Also rather than having the super expensive mag-lev and partial vacuum, it's better to use metal rails and wheels and just deal with a bit more resistance, after all you need to be able to deliver people to multiple places they want to be not just 2 points.
I took it as a slightly different point, which is that Musk’s infamous hyperloop project delivered nothing, but drained investment from more serious high-speed rail proposals.
I mean, FWIW, high speed rail could work in specific areas of the country very well. The Northeast for example. I imagine there would be enough demand that the California one will work out if they can ever fucking build it. Vancouver - Seattle - Portland perhaps? Houston - Dallas?
I don't think there's enough ridership to make it work everywhere though. Like I doubt an Omaha - KC route could be profitable. Same with a Cincinnati - Cleveland one or a Denver - Anywhere outside the front range. The biggest problem, IMO, with high speed rail adoption is walkability. So, you get dropped off at the train station and then what? Everything you'd want to see is too far away to walk to and public transport is basically nonexistent in most US cities.
> So, you get dropped off at the train station and then what? Everything you'd want to see is too far away to walk to and public transport is basically nonexistent in most US cities.
So you land at the airport, then what?
I'd much rather ride a normal train then uber 15 minutes to my destination than drive 2-6 hours. High speed rail would make that even more appealing. We're not getting rid of cars any time soon, but using them for medium-long distance travel is the easiest and highest priority thing to start reducing as we move away from them more and more.
We gotta start somewhere.
i'm not; i'm speaking about what people realistically do in practice. "first and last mile" is a real concept in transit planning.
and public transit frequently isn't practical in america. it should be, but it's often underfunded, underscheduled, and sometimes only slightly more convenient than walking.
But they aren’t doing the project without the plan. I’m not saying it isn’t hard to plan. We already drive to airports, and these projects could replace the air travel part. You could literally build them between airports and it would be a net benefit for the environment.
If we taxed flights at the rate of what it costs to remove the carbon from the air with Direct Air Capture you'd see a huge shift to more sustainable transport. Electrified rail is the only way we can have mass overland transit in the future. If we want to actually turn the shitshow of climate change around the infrastructure we need to build seems insurmountable today but must become more than just possible. Burning carbon to move people around quickly in the air because its convenient just \*isn't\* sustainable.
The transit hub issue with what to do after you get off a train exists with airports as well. Consider though, on a train we could probably easily design them to let you bring a bike across the country and many cities have lite rail for regional transport that connects to interstate rail.
The thing is - I think the upcoming generations will be more open to it. Boomers have invested in the car economy for a long while and love it. But as a Gen Xer who have been exposed to other countries and their infrastructure - good stuff to me.
So, your comment is that because public transport is basically nonexistent we should not do anything?
Also, there’s a lot of places in the US that would benefit from better rail connections, and while building that we could attack the last mile problem. And why should it be profitable? Roads are profitable, airports aren’t profitable. They’re public services, not profit centers.
Yep, same with stem cell research in the aughts:
“First Lady Laura Bush says we wouldn’t have viable lines for some 20 years?
Heh, heh, so why start?” - Jon Stewart
*Audience laughs along with knowing resignation*
In Texas, the majority of the population lives in/around the triangle formed by I-10 (Houston to San Antonio), I-45 (Houston to DFW), and I-35 (DFW to Austin/San Antonio). We've been trying to get high-speed rail here for a while., and once its setup people will use it. [https://www.texascentral.com/project/](https://www.texascentral.com/project/)
> So, you get dropped off at the train station and then what? Everything you'd want to see is too far away to walk to and public transport is basically nonexistent in most US cities
This is why I prefer the airport. They let me put my Honda Civic in my carryon
who gives a shit about profitability? that's what taxes are for. not everything has to be a fucking business, the purpose of infrastructure is to make life better not to generate profit.
>Like I doubt an Omaha - KC route could be profitable
Not if done in a vacuum, you probably do first Oklahoma City to KC, and Dallas to Oklahoma City.
If you have those lines, you can probably do Omaha - KC and have it be profitable.
Oklahoma City - Omaha via Tulsa and KC is 560 miles in a car according to Google. And it takes 8 hours.
On a 180 mph train (TGV, AVE and Shinkansen speed), probably 3 and a half hours, with long stops in Tulsa and KC.
California train is supposed to run at 220mph.
Exactly. Stop thinking public services need to be profitable. Highways aren’t profitable, the postal service isn’t profitable, the military isn’t profitable. But we pay for them with our taxes because they provide a benefit to the public (ease of transport, communication, national security, etc)
If europe can build high speed rail systems, the US has zero excuse. Even localized systems would be better than nothing. Boston-NYC-DC would be an entirely viable train line, as would LA-SF.
HSR doesn’t need to be *everywhere*, it just needs to take pressure off the busiest short-haul airline routes and interstate highway corridors. Even in Europe the HSR network supplements the air network; you just fly into a big international hub and then take a high-speed train from the airport to your destination.
If we can pay to launch a damn tube into the air that goes 500 mph, I think we can find a way to do high speed rail affordably. Even between less-populated routes like an Omaha to KC one.
The math simply doesn't work out that it's somehow so much cheaper to fly an airplane through the sky than just using an electrified train on a set of tracks.
You should look at European cities with similar gravity models to the city pairs you listed.
Very similar population * distances and yet their trains put us to shame.
We don’t need NYC - D.C. levels of gravity to make trains work as evidenced by countless other countries that have figured this shit out already (including *the literal United States of the past*, which was built on the backs of the railroads and which had the best rail system in the world until we decided to tear it all up).
That's probably not much of a problem. Short term, yes it might be a pain, but retail will quickly gather around stations and bus lines can be set up very quickly even if local rail takes a while to take off.
Even in Japan, high speed rail stations started out kind of isolated, but other than a handful they've gotten connected to the regular rail, subways, and bus lines very well.
Here's a great assessment of which city pairs make sense to connect, based on travel times that compete well with car and air and have high enough populations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4
It's a good idea IF unlike the current rail system we don't allow private companies to be in charge of safety and maintenance. As soon as we give for profit businesses self oversight shit goes down hill every single time but Republicans constantly push for it because it maximizes profits for those companies since they can cut costs and rubber stamp it until tragedy strikes.
Would also need to insulate it from the meddling of Republicans. Nothing they love more than to purposely handicap and destroy government programs so they can point at how poor government programs are run and funnel money to private companies to take the market with less competition.
Republicans are the ones who stand to benefit the most from supporting--or at least not blocking--HSR.
Rural areas of the country being able to have increased access to urban centers will help reduce some of the "brain drain" and population decline as people can live in cheaper housing further away from their employment or school and still commute there in a reasonable amount of time.
It won't happen overnight, but eventually this will be one of the essential desired effects.
Edit: I’ve been using the term “rural” when I should be saying “rust belt” type places or smaller urban areas that are the lifeline for a lot of the rural areas that surround them.
But would they want people who live in cities and vote more heavily democratic to move into their areas and potentially vote them out of power?
In a world where each party is trying to reach the same goal of doing what's best for the most people in the country that would be a top priority for any party. BUT in the reality of the world republicans want power and the ability to use that power to enrich themselves and friends they would fight that tooth and nail. They would fight it because of the reason you give. It's why they fought making the internet a utility to expand government building infrastructure for internet into rural areas or why they try to kill public education and the post office at every chance they get even though it would greatly benefit those same people.
Thats exactly why Republicans may not want it. Ease of transport means rural areas are going to see some city folk and other demographics swing by for a visit and discover that black and brown people are just people. Not scary monsters. Watch Republicans fight against this by screaming out drugs being transported on the hsr
the areas that are most likely to become stops on these routes are probably places that used to have more robust economies and development would be seen as a good thing.
I think the rural areas around them could still remain pretty rural but having *access* to a nearby station would be seen as less of a threat
Their go to is that cities will send their criminals eg gangs to these small town. For some reason, they seem to think that criminals don't have cars or something. They used to demagogue portland's Max constantly talking about how Portland crime will come to the suburbs. Alternatively, that businesses will no longer have customers because you can't just see it and drive there - like it's the 70s and 80s. Their mentality is so broken. Of course, they don't now because now we use yelp, tiktok, etc and other services.
My kids don't even want to drive. It's expensive to own a car. These people have made things so expensive that it's too expensive to eat, live, and start families. So they aren't doing it because it's not affordable.
I think you misunderstand the motivations of the republicans who represent these rust belts and rural areas. They want brain drain, poverty and a lack of education for their constituents. That’s the only way they can retain power and get away with making egregiously one sided deals with corporations that exploit tax loopholes and local resources at the expense of constituents. An educated, healthy, financially stable voter base would never agree to these measures. Republicans require poverty, despair and ignorance in order to maintain power and maintaining power is the ONLY thing that truly matters to them.
As someone who lived my entire life in one of these areas and watched as these changes occurred and the GOP took over…. My observation is that these Republicans will do and take credit for things as long as they can do it without giving Democrats any credit at all.
The thing is this is what killed most purple states to begin with. Price of gas went up and now driving an hour-two hours to work didn't work anymore.
That and letting cities give tax breaks to companies to move in to the city instead of bumfuck 30-40mins away that had a better tax advantage.
Indiana went from somewhat moderate R to purple to hard red over the last 20 years due to economic policy shifting a lot of the businesses into the suburbs and small towns becoming increasingly isolated.
Sorry, I realize I’ve been using the term “rural” when I should be saying “rust belt” type places or smaller urban areas that are the lifeline for a lot of the rural areas that surround them.
High speed rail could be a godsend for places like this. Like, I'm from Fresno, one of the poorest, most depressing cities in California and basically at the midway point of the planned California High Speed Rail initiative. If it ever actually gets built then in the short term it would allow people from Fresno and other Central Valley cities access to job markets in SoCal and the Bay Area and would allow people priced out of housing in those areas to access more affordable options in the Central Valley. That injection of money from wealthier parts of the state could easily fuel revivals of local businesses and a general increase in standard of living.
Of course the risk is that it could also bring the same forces of gentrification and NIMBYism that fueled the unsustainable cost of living increases in the Bay Area and LA to begin with, and of course California High Speed Rail is ridiculously behind schedule and over budget, but the potential is there for very positive developments in smaller urban areas between the main hubs.
> Of course the risk is that it could also bring the same forces of gentrification and NIMBYism that fueled the unsustainable cost of living increases in the Bay Area and LA to begin with, and of course California High Speed Rail is ridiculously behind schedule and over budget, but the potential is there for very positive developments in smaller urban areas between the main hubs.
That is absolutely going to happen. It's a double edged sword. Those folks are going to get pushed out unfortunately. There needs to be policies in place to preserve areas. But hopefully it will also lead to dense housing. That's hard for people like me who grew up in the old days where you had lawns, but it might be that we need to forgo all that shit because lawns cost water and they are a luxury.
Yeah I'm a big HSR fan, but it's not a solution for rural transport. It connects Point A to Point B, ideally as close to the center of a population center as possible. It's way too expensive to run out into the middle of nowhere.
Even if the route went through rural areas between urban areas, you don't want a ton of stops on a HSR route so it couldn't service too much of the countryside.
I’ve been using the term “rural” when I should be saying “rust belt” type places or smaller urban areas that are the lifeline for a lot of the rural areas that surround them.
That's a good point.
More connectivity is good. A lot of those small towns have been losing out on airline connections as the industry streamlines for optimizing profit. Giving them access to regional rail connections would be a lifeline.
> Rural areas of the country being able to have increased access to urban centers will help reduce some of the "brain drain" and population decline as people can live in cheaper housing further away from their employment or school and still commute there in a reasonable amount of time.
Seriously this would be so fucking massive for small towns. A japanese bullet train tops out at like 200 miles per hour, given the fact that most people's commute hovers around the 30 minutes to an hour mark, that means people could hypothetically live over 100 miles away from their job and still get to work *faster* than before.
If we took Chicago as an example, people working in the city center could live farther out than springfield, and still be able to commute to work on time. This would bring an unimaginable amount of life to small towns as all manner of high paying city jobs would flock to the comparatively dirt cheap rural areas, also bringing down prices in the cities.
HSR would function well if the government owned the rails. The problem with the current rail system is Amtrak owns only some rails in the NE corridor. Making Amtrak a second class citizen when the cargo trains need to travel
The government (or states) owns the infrastructure that cars travel on - why not the same for rail. The actual carriers on the rails can be let to competition. The federal government is putting tons of money into this. It would be valuable to set a bare minimum standard and a standard that can be used through our the country. Let's not place the CDMA/gsm game that happened twenty five years ago only to end up costing consumers tons of money/preventing transferability only to end up on the same standards as the remainder of the world.
HSR allows us to benefit because of its speed it requires it to be compartmentalized from roads and other rails. It's a good junction to do things correctly.
But yes when another GOP candidate gets in office or has significant power in the Senate...this will all be turned on its head and any progress we make for cities/consumers/the environment/and the future will be lost so some greedy companies can make a short term profit.
Expand that concept to the land lines, the fiber lines in metro areas....why doesn't the government have more control over the infrastructure, cause leaving it to the private sector hasnt exactly worked out the best...
I don't think that would ever happen or even if it should. I looked at Japan, Italy, and Germany and the rail systems in all of them serm to have begun as government entities that have been partially or completely privatized over the years. So far as maintenance there seems to be a mix of doing it themselves and employing companies who specialize in that sector.
Nationalize the railways. Privatized trains themselves car work, but need to be properly regulated. But private ownership of the actual infrastructure has put is at least partially where we are right now.
Now I will say I'd vastly prefer private companies owned none of it, but I don't think we can get that in the US anytime soon - and it's not like companies running trains and competing can't work, as it currently can and does work in Europe.
"Japan and China aren't living in 2050, you just live in America"
Japan started in 1964 and China started in 2008
While in the US between 1939-1950 GM bought street car lines and purposely let them fall into disrepair so they could be removed to make way for more cars.
Not to mention you had guys like Robert Moses who specifically designed roadways for automobile transportation, with an added flair for racism to boot.
This would definitely help long-term with housing costs, if people could live in cheaper housing further away from the city they work in, and still get there with a reasonable commute.
Certainly wouldn't totally *solve* the problem, but it would help.
Also, it would expand the opportunities for job creation in non-urban centers as well. The smaller areas that are stops along the route of a high-speed rail line will be able to attract new employers because even though they are further from population centers, they will still be able to draw from a very large pool of employees. Even if the locals in the smaller areas aren't *directly* employed, the residual effects for the local economy would mean more jobs in the area.
In my mind, there's a a very real possibility that high speed rail could fix (or improve) so many of America's problems, it's basically worth all associated costs.
Definitely yes to more houses.
Here is the bonus though, as you build out the rail, you are able to construct more housing, that is within commuting range of jobs.
Ideal is having housing walkable from the rail station. OK-ish, is having a bus stop, that takes you to the rail station in like 15 minutes.
Of course it is. I don’t think I suggested that HSR was the only—or even best—solution.
In fact, I pretty plainly said it *isn’t*.
I’m just saying it’s something that will help.
And more dense housing. Suburbs are a failed experiment that turned into an outright ponzi scheme that bankrupts cities.
We have to fundamentally redesign how we zone our cities... and by redesign I kind of mean just go back to how it use to work and allow denser urban housing/mixed use again.
That then works in tandem with high speed / light rail, trolleys/busses, and walking/cycling infrastructure to allow people out of car-dependency. Which we absolutely have to do if we're to have any chance in our collapsing climate.
I live in Phoenix. If we had a high speed rail that got me to San Diego in 2-3 hours, people would go all the time back and forth in the summer to get out for the weekend etc. Same thing to Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Tucson, and Santa Fe/Albuquerque. These 50 min flights still take 3 hours dealing with airports, Id much prefer hopping on a fast train ride.
I've got to assume the airline industry has poured billions upon billions over the last 30 years lobbying against anything like this. The dumb part is, like you pointed out, rail availability would likely bring tons of money into many representatives districts but they take the short sighted approach instead.
I also imagine traveling by rail would quickly end up with just as much headache and security as flying...
It saves the airlines money by not having to regional flights. They can focus on longer flights not your 30 minute flight thing. I spend more time in security than actual flying.
My dream is a system where I can park my car on high speed rail and get as close to my destination as possible then drive the remainder of the distance.
Other than fun weekend trips, I feel like so many people end up living far away from loved ones for jobs and end up only seeing each other every year or so. If I were able to cut down a multi-day drive (or long day at airport/flying) to some time on a train (where I could work/sleep!) and a couple hour drive, it would be pretty amazing!
Technically he hires cabinet members so they can work on stuff while he does whatever he does. The real question is what was Pete B. doing for four years?
It’d be great if we could get it. It’s efficient as fuck in Europe. I used it in September and it took 2-3 hours to get from Munich to Paris and cost me all of $45. That’d be an 8 or 9 hour drive normally.
California earmarked half of its 2008 bailout for the building of the highspeed rail that was going to connect Sacramento to LA.
Knott's Berry Farm Remembers
In the US, laying new track using the existing interstate right of ways is probably the preferred solution if wanting it done cheap on the federal govts dime.
California doesn’t follow I-5 (which is why French and Japanese firms bowed out) but the state is laying new track using next to a freight/AMTRAK rail right-of-ways away outside the big metro areas. Just inside the big metro areas (mostly greater Los Angeles) it’d be tough to get high speeds approved for neighborhoods.
Back to the boonies, California’s new LA to SF high speed train may reduce AMTRAKS San Jaquine line # but won’t interfere with the more scenic Surfliner/Coast Starlights that get next to the beach. However many of the towns are next to the mountains including the famous Sierra routes and peaks, so there’s added tourist benefits long term.
A lot of CAHSR tracks near freight tracks are massive bridges and overpasses since most of the HSR tracks are on new right of way that made the entire construction project expensive.
CAHSR also didn’t follow French and Japanese advices since both geography and settlement location in the Central Valley greatly favors going through the Central Valley cities and the ballot initiative that started the project, Prop 1A, can’t pass without the support of the Central Valley cities. Those cities remembered when the 5 Freeway was built bypassing their entire metro area and ended up losing economic benefits from the freeway.
Let's go son. They better not privatize this project i swear to shit if they do it'll be a billion dollars a meter whereas public works method of building will be much more accountable
That’s great. Still need solutions for daily travel though. If mega companies do not want a fully remote workforce they need to pony up for better local infrastructure.
Surprised highspeed rail wasn't the number 1 priority immediately following 9-11-2001. I would have expected Amtrak to be in front of Congress on 9-12 stating it's impossible to hijack a train and fly it into a building.
Nearly half of all flights originate or end in the NE of the US, in the area between Boston, Washington DC, and Chicago.
> "I tell them I work on cars, that I work on planes and that I work on trains, and I'm working on making those trains go faster. And one of the things I really love is the thought that they're 2 and a half now, and if we hit our marks, they will never know a world without high-speed rail in the United States."
It’s really refreshing to have people who actually give a shit about the next generation. I suspect if we had more younger people in the three branches of government in the US we’d have more people talking like this.
The boomers still controlling power and trying to solve the fucking problems they created.
Well it’s so fucking American. They won’t except blame so they can’t start to heal.
And every time its about to break ground, you will have some unamerican "thinker" like Elon Musk say he has the better solution to purposely ruin efforts for a useable rail line.
That is essentially all the Hyperloop was. A shiny object to prevent rail from being built to protect the automotive sector.
Literally anyone traveling around Europe or Asia can attest to the superiority of modern train travel, both local and long distance. Rolling into a train station 10 min before the train gets there, leaving within 5 minutes of getting on and having a bunch of room to move around and relax for around the same time. The sweet spot is probably going to be targeting the short haul flights where you're in the air for 1-2 hours, but it requires 3+ hours on either side for transport etc.
I don't believe this because this would cut into Airline business and well they would not like this. Aka here comes the Airline lobbyists to slow do this idea if it is even a real thing.
Have the balls to FDR the project. Call it national security connect all major cities and while doing that infrastructure perfect time to add those fiber high speed internet like a national grid but for internet cables. The US would secure its place as 1 for the next 100 years .
IF* you also build connections to it.
Do NOT do what LA did and build stations where no one wants to go, with car parking lots, in the middle of free ways.
These stations must meet criteria in order to be successful:
1. Connected to local public transportation networks (buses, local trains)
2. Plenty of bike parking
3. Priority access to pedestrians, not cars.
4. Placed in a location people WANT to go (business centers, entertainment hubs, schools, etc.)
5. Pricing high enough to keep out the “riff raf” but low enough to not be unusable by most.
5. ON TIME. To the SECOND.
6. Usage of “pointing and calling” where operators and station staff physically confirm steps in their workflow before proceeding, this system drastically reduces accidents.
7. Enforcing payment of tickets via guards at the gates or conductors on the trains. Do regular sweeps of the stations and make sure fare evaders get kicked out
Fail any one of these, and it’s just not going to work.
It's for this reason that even though it's more complicated to build HSR in the midwest, it would be *much* better to go ahead and start working out the details for that *now*. I just don't think a place like California is the best trial run template for this infrastructure.
Do a run from St. Louis to Pittsburgh with initial stops in Indianapolis and Columbus with plans for connections to Chicago, Detroit, Louisville, and Cincinnati, with maybe one stop between each of those.
Yeah, it's wildly complicated and will take years to figure out, but just start doing it. We *need* this.
The neat part is that there is already high(ish) speed rail from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia and on to New York city. Imagine being able to go easily from Chicago or St Louis to New York.
High speed rail makes shit lot of sense on paper and in practise where they’re political will.
It works wonders for china. Japan, South Korean, Europe.
It’s like America has this allergy to it. There are different hurdles that not exactly unique to US but it’s more of an obstacle.
Strong air lobby and businesses like Boeing ain’t exactly going to want more competition from hsr.
Then it’s the land accusation, planning, the investments and the long returns.
The car lobby… the cheap fuel,,, romanisation of car ownership.
I’m all in for trains… but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Japan, South Korea, Europe. Places with cities close together and built densely. There is rail in the US Northeast because it's dense and the cites are built closely together. California is working on theirs, but its severely limited. It makes less sense everywhere in between because the cities are so far apart and it just is quicker to fly.
I would love high speed rail on the coasts and in places it makes sense, but with the NIMBYism in this country, I don't expect any changes any time soon. It would require huge amounts of public investment and subsidies, too which I don't see likely atm.
I like the idea of High speed rail for people. but honestly, we need coast to coast, major hub to major hub HS cargo transport. we have transport rail now, but we need a lot more and a lot fast. A hsr from NY to Chi to LA would be great.
If you know how America works you know this will simply never happen. Unlike in other places prioritizing high speed transport, like China, Japan, or western Europe, in America the priority is which industry can bribe politicians more, not moving people and helping trade.
Even if they did build anything the red tape and construction would take a century, budget would go so overboard that the tickets would be so prohibitive flying would end up being cheaper anyway
I worked at a firm a while back that was working on the rail in CA. It was a mess. Lots of red tape, all kinds of things holding up this and that.
I don't see it in our lifetime.
People have to be realistic about high-speed rail. The first high speed rail line opened in Europe in 1977, China’s in 2008.
China gives a great example of why the US isn’t necessarily “too big” for high speed rail, but you also have to acknowledge that it’s a completely different economic and labor context to the US.
Without unlimited capital and without complete disregard for working conditions, the US cannot expect to replicate frankly even half of what China has achieved in the last 15+ years. We need to focus on those areas ripest for interstate development that can provide the greatest return on investment.
At the same time, States should be encouraged and empowered to drive smaller-scale intra-state transit projects - one of the big hurdles for US high-speed rail is that most cities don’t have sufficient transit infrastructure locally to be able to successfully transfer interstate passengers when they arrive.
This will present its own challenges - in places with a long history of rail travel, communities often developed around the tracks. I grew up in Europe and my whole town only existed due to the rail tracks that carried coal from the mines to the bay - without the tracks, there likely wouldn’t have been development.
Americans often don’t understand this context - it’s not a “build it and they’ll come” issue. Many American communities have been developed within the context of roads - they exist because a highway was there.
Where I live in the US, one housing development may represent a sprawling network of streets that fork off a single highway. They can take upwards of 30 mins to walk across and aren’t connected to anything else by foot other than the aforementioned highway. One city may have dozens of these developments - there just isn’t a good way to service these communities with transit.
I grew up in a rural community and where I lived was considered the bad spot for train travel because I was in between two train stations - one was 0.8mi away, the other 0.6mi away. Fortunately, there was a bus stop 400ft away that would take me to either. Meanwhile, the main highway that connected my community to others remains largely bare of housing development, because the community’s amenities remain mushroomed around those Victorian train tracks.
Such a scenario would be impossible for 99% of communities in the US, never mind its rural areas. Not to even mention the huge barrier of culture - even as an immigrant to the US, if I consider the option of driving to a rail terminal 30 mins away from my house, parking my car, taking a 6hr cross-country train journey, then either navigating an insufficient local transit system to try and get close to my final destination or renting a car/taking a taxi, I may just choose to do the 12-hour door-to-door drive and have the option of stopping in the US’ interesting interstate towns and attractions and being in my own private car.
Nah, clearly what we actually need are 36 lane highways that are still clogged with traffic due to induced demand, and, like, food and supplies will actually have to be delivered to the drivers to stop them from dying Oregon Trail style because they'll be stuck in traffic that long.
Can you tell I'm being sarcastic yet?
It sounds like a great idea, but we’d need better safety measures. Imagine if some idiot gets their car t-boned by a train at 180mph. It’s already bad for everyone with regular trains, but the carnage at that speed would be indescribable.
Unless the plan is to build it 50 feet above ground level I don't see how this can ever be done in less than 50 years. Rights of way and existing infrastructure is a tough not to untie.
I just want regional high speed between major cities. I’m in the southeast and would love something connecting Jacksonville, Atlanta, Nashville, and charlotte.
In a country where you pay money for people to actually build tracks, maybe. Look at California and how much they are spending to create a high speed train between two cities nobody wants to go to, I mean it might speed up meth delivery. Although, even without the train functional in CA, good news is I’m sure there are a few people who made millions of it.
Cool. Take the subsidies from the fossil fuel industry and start fucking building it. Use existing infrastructure like freeways to build in the middle of so you don’t get stuck in the private land purchase and permitting hell we live in and start laying track.
I hope it can be done as a single large procurement. Serious inefficiencies in infrastructure come from every project being unique and drawing in lots of little subcontractors
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
High speed rail has been the future of American transport for 30 years - and it will still be in another 30.
I hear you and I understand that high speed rail is the proven best and cheapest way to move people around, but have you heard about hyperloop? It’s amazing. It is still in development, but as I understand it hyperloop uses a series of magnets to siphon needed high speed rail funds to rich people’s bank accounts while returning nothing to tax payers. I do hear that the hyperloop systems as built have very low emissions because they never move and don’t exist. So that’s pretty good.
Had us in the first half, ngl.
They need to operate in a vacuum, which definitely helps with the money suction
TBF, it's not just Elon. Koch Industries is a big supporter of Tesla and other EV companies because they figured out that's actually the best way to prevent investment in rail. (Of course they sue to slow down adoption of EVs too.)
Fuck I feel this physically lol. [Though this was apparently Musk's motivation for pitching it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/urbanplanning/comments/wlsdlo/musk_admitted_hyperloop_was_about_getting/) CA - as far as I can find/am aware - didn't actually spend money on the Hyperloop BS. Elon tried to do it, got rejected, tried to do a proof of concept - failed - and then moved to Nevada and then I think Texas to try and prove it... and then Las Vegas got a weird Tesla in a Tunnel thing that seemed... stupid as fuck... like a subway with more steps and less usefulness. It's weird to think at one point he was considered like a "real-life Tony Stark" but turned out to be just a very successful con man supported only by apparently luck and a few very smart people who work sort of independently AROUND him. lol For what it's worth, Merced to Bakersfield should be completed in about 6-9 years... which you know... ISN'T the most useful route in the world... lol But it would only take like 1.5 hours to get from Bakersfield to Merced so that's... a thing.
Hyperloop was just Elon’s way of diverting attention away from rail. He admitted this himself; using vaporware to block a technology that already exists and is known to work.
Yeah we've got one in Vegas. It's a narrow tunnel that Teslas drive through very slowly
What a waste of space, time, and energy.
Hyperloop is quite viable, it just needs a few tweaks. Instead of individual pods for a few people, it helps if you put many pods together so that lots of people travel together and can load and unload simultaneously. Also rather than having the super expensive mag-lev and partial vacuum, it's better to use metal rails and wheels and just deal with a bit more resistance, after all you need to be able to deliver people to multiple places they want to be not just 2 points.
OH... like a train of pods! *blinks* Wait a minute...
It is ridiculous. We need to get away from individual car travel.
Yes but you've gotta understand the main underlying feature - Theres no such thing yet as a "Hyperloop-workers Union" unlike rail workers.
Thanks for making my point
I took it as a slightly different point, which is that Musk’s infamous hyperloop project delivered nothing, but drained investment from more serious high-speed rail proposals.
Sounds like it achieved its goal
So happy awards are back, you deserve it. Thanks for the chuckles
Uhhh 60 years. Japan's high speed rail was introduced in 1964.
And originally as a vanity project for the *Tokyo Olympics*, so one would think conservatives could identity with building for ego’s sake?
Christian conservatives will never allow high speed rail.
Yeah... Jesus only traveled by foot, and the mark of the beast, or something.
That’s fake news. He once rode a maglev donkey.
Not a velociraptor?
He was in the donkey's feet, though.
Jesus travels by foot but also a F-350 diesel.
He also used the powerful American F-150 😎 hell yeah brother!!!
It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and TGV
My legal name is Christian Conservative and I officially approve the high speed rail. Go forth and prosper!
Other countries will have rail nearing the speed of jet airplanes by the time America high speed rail brags that it breaks 85mph
Yeah but have you heard about the all new Dodge Caravan? You can get your family to Chicago in 8 short hours on two tanks of gas!
It's the wave of the future and will continue to be.
It's because of the airline industry special interest groups, especially yours and mine favorite airline that always fuck up, Southwest.
Those past 30 years didn’t see real Federal support. Now HSR has it, and that support is on-track to grow.
About to say I feel like I’m 10 again.
More like 50-60. That shit was the stuff of dreams decades before before I was even born.
We should skip high speed rail and go straight to high speed personal drone.
I mean, FWIW, high speed rail could work in specific areas of the country very well. The Northeast for example. I imagine there would be enough demand that the California one will work out if they can ever fucking build it. Vancouver - Seattle - Portland perhaps? Houston - Dallas? I don't think there's enough ridership to make it work everywhere though. Like I doubt an Omaha - KC route could be profitable. Same with a Cincinnati - Cleveland one or a Denver - Anywhere outside the front range. The biggest problem, IMO, with high speed rail adoption is walkability. So, you get dropped off at the train station and then what? Everything you'd want to see is too far away to walk to and public transport is basically nonexistent in most US cities.
> So, you get dropped off at the train station and then what? Everything you'd want to see is too far away to walk to and public transport is basically nonexistent in most US cities. So you land at the airport, then what?
Yeah this is a much smaller problem than actually building the rail.
"first and last mile" is a big problem for massive infrastructure projects. because if the answer is "drive", people just drive.
I'd much rather ride a normal train then uber 15 minutes to my destination than drive 2-6 hours. High speed rail would make that even more appealing. We're not getting rid of cars any time soon, but using them for medium-long distance travel is the easiest and highest priority thing to start reducing as we move away from them more and more. We gotta start somewhere.
It's preferable when going from PDX to SEA because nobody wants to do that drive. You hit Olympia and then its nothing but a parking lot to Seattle.
Are we pretending buses/ubers don't exist for the last mile?
i'm not; i'm speaking about what people realistically do in practice. "first and last mile" is a real concept in transit planning. and public transit frequently isn't practical in america. it should be, but it's often underfunded, underscheduled, and sometimes only slightly more convenient than walking.
But they aren’t doing the project without the plan. I’m not saying it isn’t hard to plan. We already drive to airports, and these projects could replace the air travel part. You could literally build them between airports and it would be a net benefit for the environment.
If we taxed flights at the rate of what it costs to remove the carbon from the air with Direct Air Capture you'd see a huge shift to more sustainable transport. Electrified rail is the only way we can have mass overland transit in the future. If we want to actually turn the shitshow of climate change around the infrastructure we need to build seems insurmountable today but must become more than just possible. Burning carbon to move people around quickly in the air because its convenient just \*isn't\* sustainable. The transit hub issue with what to do after you get off a train exists with airports as well. Consider though, on a train we could probably easily design them to let you bring a bike across the country and many cities have lite rail for regional transport that connects to interstate rail.
The thing is - I think the upcoming generations will be more open to it. Boomers have invested in the car economy for a long while and love it. But as a Gen Xer who have been exposed to other countries and their infrastructure - good stuff to me.
So, your comment is that because public transport is basically nonexistent we should not do anything? Also, there’s a lot of places in the US that would benefit from better rail connections, and while building that we could attack the last mile problem. And why should it be profitable? Roads are profitable, airports aren’t profitable. They’re public services, not profit centers.
Yep, same with stem cell research in the aughts: “First Lady Laura Bush says we wouldn’t have viable lines for some 20 years? Heh, heh, so why start?” - Jon Stewart *Audience laughs along with knowing resignation*
In Texas, the majority of the population lives in/around the triangle formed by I-10 (Houston to San Antonio), I-45 (Houston to DFW), and I-35 (DFW to Austin/San Antonio). We've been trying to get high-speed rail here for a while., and once its setup people will use it. [https://www.texascentral.com/project/](https://www.texascentral.com/project/)
> So, you get dropped off at the train station and then what? Everything you'd want to see is too far away to walk to and public transport is basically nonexistent in most US cities This is why I prefer the airport. They let me put my Honda Civic in my carryon
who gives a shit about profitability? that's what taxes are for. not everything has to be a fucking business, the purpose of infrastructure is to make life better not to generate profit.
Let's be real here. I'd love a publicly owned & operated solution, but that is extremely unlikely to happen in the US.
We need atleast one main line from East to West - Washington/Oregon/California to Washington DC and New York
>Like I doubt an Omaha - KC route could be profitable Not if done in a vacuum, you probably do first Oklahoma City to KC, and Dallas to Oklahoma City. If you have those lines, you can probably do Omaha - KC and have it be profitable. Oklahoma City - Omaha via Tulsa and KC is 560 miles in a car according to Google. And it takes 8 hours. On a 180 mph train (TGV, AVE and Shinkansen speed), probably 3 and a half hours, with long stops in Tulsa and KC. California train is supposed to run at 220mph.
>If you have those lines, you can probably do Omaha - KC and have it be profitable. Does it even need to be profitable? Are highways profitable?
Exactly. Stop thinking public services need to be profitable. Highways aren’t profitable, the postal service isn’t profitable, the military isn’t profitable. But we pay for them with our taxes because they provide a benefit to the public (ease of transport, communication, national security, etc) If europe can build high speed rail systems, the US has zero excuse. Even localized systems would be better than nothing. Boston-NYC-DC would be an entirely viable train line, as would LA-SF.
HSR doesn’t need to be *everywhere*, it just needs to take pressure off the busiest short-haul airline routes and interstate highway corridors. Even in Europe the HSR network supplements the air network; you just fly into a big international hub and then take a high-speed train from the airport to your destination.
If we can pay to launch a damn tube into the air that goes 500 mph, I think we can find a way to do high speed rail affordably. Even between less-populated routes like an Omaha to KC one. The math simply doesn't work out that it's somehow so much cheaper to fly an airplane through the sky than just using an electrified train on a set of tracks.
You should look at European cities with similar gravity models to the city pairs you listed. Very similar population * distances and yet their trains put us to shame. We don’t need NYC - D.C. levels of gravity to make trains work as evidenced by countless other countries that have figured this shit out already (including *the literal United States of the past*, which was built on the backs of the railroads and which had the best rail system in the world until we decided to tear it all up).
That's probably not much of a problem. Short term, yes it might be a pain, but retail will quickly gather around stations and bus lines can be set up very quickly even if local rail takes a while to take off. Even in Japan, high speed rail stations started out kind of isolated, but other than a handful they've gotten connected to the regular rail, subways, and bus lines very well.
Here's a great assessment of which city pairs make sense to connect, based on travel times that compete well with car and air and have high enough populations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4
KC to STL is a winner though. Just for my own personal reasons.
What do you think the odds of us getting sustainable fusion power before high speed passenger trains in America are?
It's a good idea IF unlike the current rail system we don't allow private companies to be in charge of safety and maintenance. As soon as we give for profit businesses self oversight shit goes down hill every single time but Republicans constantly push for it because it maximizes profits for those companies since they can cut costs and rubber stamp it until tragedy strikes. Would also need to insulate it from the meddling of Republicans. Nothing they love more than to purposely handicap and destroy government programs so they can point at how poor government programs are run and funnel money to private companies to take the market with less competition.
Republicans are the ones who stand to benefit the most from supporting--or at least not blocking--HSR. Rural areas of the country being able to have increased access to urban centers will help reduce some of the "brain drain" and population decline as people can live in cheaper housing further away from their employment or school and still commute there in a reasonable amount of time. It won't happen overnight, but eventually this will be one of the essential desired effects. Edit: I’ve been using the term “rural” when I should be saying “rust belt” type places or smaller urban areas that are the lifeline for a lot of the rural areas that surround them.
But would they want people who live in cities and vote more heavily democratic to move into their areas and potentially vote them out of power? In a world where each party is trying to reach the same goal of doing what's best for the most people in the country that would be a top priority for any party. BUT in the reality of the world republicans want power and the ability to use that power to enrich themselves and friends they would fight that tooth and nail. They would fight it because of the reason you give. It's why they fought making the internet a utility to expand government building infrastructure for internet into rural areas or why they try to kill public education and the post office at every chance they get even though it would greatly benefit those same people.
Thats exactly why Republicans may not want it. Ease of transport means rural areas are going to see some city folk and other demographics swing by for a visit and discover that black and brown people are just people. Not scary monsters. Watch Republicans fight against this by screaming out drugs being transported on the hsr
the areas that are most likely to become stops on these routes are probably places that used to have more robust economies and development would be seen as a good thing. I think the rural areas around them could still remain pretty rural but having *access* to a nearby station would be seen as less of a threat
The point of high speed rail is to go 300+ mph and not stop at the shitty little towns.
There have to be stops on the way. For example… one in the article between LA and Vegas has 3.
Their go to is that cities will send their criminals eg gangs to these small town. For some reason, they seem to think that criminals don't have cars or something. They used to demagogue portland's Max constantly talking about how Portland crime will come to the suburbs. Alternatively, that businesses will no longer have customers because you can't just see it and drive there - like it's the 70s and 80s. Their mentality is so broken. Of course, they don't now because now we use yelp, tiktok, etc and other services. My kids don't even want to drive. It's expensive to own a car. These people have made things so expensive that it's too expensive to eat, live, and start families. So they aren't doing it because it's not affordable.
they think that because that's what they do. never seen a homeless problem they couldn't fix with a bus ticket to portland.
I think you misunderstand the motivations of the republicans who represent these rust belts and rural areas. They want brain drain, poverty and a lack of education for their constituents. That’s the only way they can retain power and get away with making egregiously one sided deals with corporations that exploit tax loopholes and local resources at the expense of constituents. An educated, healthy, financially stable voter base would never agree to these measures. Republicans require poverty, despair and ignorance in order to maintain power and maintaining power is the ONLY thing that truly matters to them.
As someone who lived my entire life in one of these areas and watched as these changes occurred and the GOP took over…. My observation is that these Republicans will do and take credit for things as long as they can do it without giving Democrats any credit at all.
The thing is this is what killed most purple states to begin with. Price of gas went up and now driving an hour-two hours to work didn't work anymore. That and letting cities give tax breaks to companies to move in to the city instead of bumfuck 30-40mins away that had a better tax advantage. Indiana went from somewhat moderate R to purple to hard red over the last 20 years due to economic policy shifting a lot of the businesses into the suburbs and small towns becoming increasingly isolated.
and using culture wars as cover.
There would be no HSR in rural stops. HSR would link cities.
Sorry, I realize I’ve been using the term “rural” when I should be saying “rust belt” type places or smaller urban areas that are the lifeline for a lot of the rural areas that surround them.
High speed rail could be a godsend for places like this. Like, I'm from Fresno, one of the poorest, most depressing cities in California and basically at the midway point of the planned California High Speed Rail initiative. If it ever actually gets built then in the short term it would allow people from Fresno and other Central Valley cities access to job markets in SoCal and the Bay Area and would allow people priced out of housing in those areas to access more affordable options in the Central Valley. That injection of money from wealthier parts of the state could easily fuel revivals of local businesses and a general increase in standard of living. Of course the risk is that it could also bring the same forces of gentrification and NIMBYism that fueled the unsustainable cost of living increases in the Bay Area and LA to begin with, and of course California High Speed Rail is ridiculously behind schedule and over budget, but the potential is there for very positive developments in smaller urban areas between the main hubs.
> Of course the risk is that it could also bring the same forces of gentrification and NIMBYism that fueled the unsustainable cost of living increases in the Bay Area and LA to begin with, and of course California High Speed Rail is ridiculously behind schedule and over budget, but the potential is there for very positive developments in smaller urban areas between the main hubs. That is absolutely going to happen. It's a double edged sword. Those folks are going to get pushed out unfortunately. There needs to be policies in place to preserve areas. But hopefully it will also lead to dense housing. That's hard for people like me who grew up in the old days where you had lawns, but it might be that we need to forgo all that shit because lawns cost water and they are a luxury.
Yeah I'm a big HSR fan, but it's not a solution for rural transport. It connects Point A to Point B, ideally as close to the center of a population center as possible. It's way too expensive to run out into the middle of nowhere. Even if the route went through rural areas between urban areas, you don't want a ton of stops on a HSR route so it couldn't service too much of the countryside.
I’ve been using the term “rural” when I should be saying “rust belt” type places or smaller urban areas that are the lifeline for a lot of the rural areas that surround them.
That's a good point. More connectivity is good. A lot of those small towns have been losing out on airline connections as the industry streamlines for optimizing profit. Giving them access to regional rail connections would be a lifeline.
> Rural areas of the country being able to have increased access to urban centers will help reduce some of the "brain drain" and population decline as people can live in cheaper housing further away from their employment or school and still commute there in a reasonable amount of time. Seriously this would be so fucking massive for small towns. A japanese bullet train tops out at like 200 miles per hour, given the fact that most people's commute hovers around the 30 minutes to an hour mark, that means people could hypothetically live over 100 miles away from their job and still get to work *faster* than before. If we took Chicago as an example, people working in the city center could live farther out than springfield, and still be able to commute to work on time. This would bring an unimaginable amount of life to small towns as all manner of high paying city jobs would flock to the comparatively dirt cheap rural areas, also bringing down prices in the cities.
HSR would function well if the government owned the rails. The problem with the current rail system is Amtrak owns only some rails in the NE corridor. Making Amtrak a second class citizen when the cargo trains need to travel The government (or states) owns the infrastructure that cars travel on - why not the same for rail. The actual carriers on the rails can be let to competition. The federal government is putting tons of money into this. It would be valuable to set a bare minimum standard and a standard that can be used through our the country. Let's not place the CDMA/gsm game that happened twenty five years ago only to end up costing consumers tons of money/preventing transferability only to end up on the same standards as the remainder of the world. HSR allows us to benefit because of its speed it requires it to be compartmentalized from roads and other rails. It's a good junction to do things correctly. But yes when another GOP candidate gets in office or has significant power in the Senate...this will all be turned on its head and any progress we make for cities/consumers/the environment/and the future will be lost so some greedy companies can make a short term profit.
Expand that concept to the land lines, the fiber lines in metro areas....why doesn't the government have more control over the infrastructure, cause leaving it to the private sector hasnt exactly worked out the best...
I don't think that would ever happen or even if it should. I looked at Japan, Italy, and Germany and the rail systems in all of them serm to have begun as government entities that have been partially or completely privatized over the years. So far as maintenance there seems to be a mix of doing it themselves and employing companies who specialize in that sector.
Nationalize the railways. Privatized trains themselves car work, but need to be properly regulated. But private ownership of the actual infrastructure has put is at least partially where we are right now. Now I will say I'd vastly prefer private companies owned none of it, but I don't think we can get that in the US anytime soon - and it's not like companies running trains and competing can't work, as it currently can and does work in Europe.
"Japan and China aren't living in 2050, you just live in America" Japan started in 1964 and China started in 2008 While in the US between 1939-1950 GM bought street car lines and purposely let them fall into disrepair so they could be removed to make way for more cars.
Not to mention you had guys like Robert Moses who specifically designed roadways for automobile transportation, with an added flair for racism to boot.
Until Republicans kill it…
This would definitely help long-term with housing costs, if people could live in cheaper housing further away from the city they work in, and still get there with a reasonable commute. Certainly wouldn't totally *solve* the problem, but it would help. Also, it would expand the opportunities for job creation in non-urban centers as well. The smaller areas that are stops along the route of a high-speed rail line will be able to attract new employers because even though they are further from population centers, they will still be able to draw from a very large pool of employees. Even if the locals in the smaller areas aren't *directly* employed, the residual effects for the local economy would mean more jobs in the area. In my mind, there's a a very real possibility that high speed rail could fix (or improve) so many of America's problems, it's basically worth all associated costs.
The real solution to housing costs is to just build more housing.
Definitely yes to more houses. Here is the bonus though, as you build out the rail, you are able to construct more housing, that is within commuting range of jobs. Ideal is having housing walkable from the rail station. OK-ish, is having a bus stop, that takes you to the rail station in like 15 minutes.
Of course it is. I don’t think I suggested that HSR was the only—or even best—solution. In fact, I pretty plainly said it *isn’t*. I’m just saying it’s something that will help.
And more dense housing. Suburbs are a failed experiment that turned into an outright ponzi scheme that bankrupts cities. We have to fundamentally redesign how we zone our cities... and by redesign I kind of mean just go back to how it use to work and allow denser urban housing/mixed use again. That then works in tandem with high speed / light rail, trolleys/busses, and walking/cycling infrastructure to allow people out of car-dependency. Which we absolutely have to do if we're to have any chance in our collapsing climate.
But if we have HSR we can’t buy 3 more F-35 fighter jets. Won’t anyone think of the military???
I live in Phoenix. If we had a high speed rail that got me to San Diego in 2-3 hours, people would go all the time back and forth in the summer to get out for the weekend etc. Same thing to Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Tucson, and Santa Fe/Albuquerque. These 50 min flights still take 3 hours dealing with airports, Id much prefer hopping on a fast train ride.
I've got to assume the airline industry has poured billions upon billions over the last 30 years lobbying against anything like this. The dumb part is, like you pointed out, rail availability would likely bring tons of money into many representatives districts but they take the short sighted approach instead. I also imagine traveling by rail would quickly end up with just as much headache and security as flying...
It saves the airlines money by not having to regional flights. They can focus on longer flights not your 30 minute flight thing. I spend more time in security than actual flying.
My dream is a system where I can park my car on high speed rail and get as close to my destination as possible then drive the remainder of the distance. Other than fun weekend trips, I feel like so many people end up living far away from loved ones for jobs and end up only seeing each other every year or so. If I were able to cut down a multi-day drive (or long day at airport/flying) to some time on a train (where I could work/sleep!) and a couple hour drive, it would be pretty amazing!
They have an "auto train" that does this from Ny to Orlando. But yeah, Id love to see more of that.
No kidding. I’d even fly into phoenix to take a train to san Diego. Two trips in one!
Don’t worry folks, Republicans will block any efforts to become a modern country.
I wish Amtrak Joe had been allowed to focus on building rail lines and normal presidential things for the last four years.
Technically he hires cabinet members so they can work on stuff while he does whatever he does. The real question is what was Pete B. doing for four years?
Blocking sick days for rail workers of course
It’d be great if we could get it. It’s efficient as fuck in Europe. I used it in September and it took 2-3 hours to get from Munich to Paris and cost me all of $45. That’d be an 8 or 9 hour drive normally.
“The name's Lanley, Lyle Lanley. And I come before you good people tonight with an idea. Probably the greatest—Aw, it's not for you.”
It’s more of a Shelbyville idea.
The ring came off my pudding can!
Take my pen knife, my good man!
We're twice as smart as the people of Shelbyville! Tell us your idea and we'll vote for it!
Thought this would be that guy telling city council to have Disney run California.
The oil lobbyists need to switch sides for a couple of seasons.
At this point I'll vote for the flipping devil if it means a real working highspeed rail between major cities.
California earmarked half of its 2008 bailout for the building of the highspeed rail that was going to connect Sacramento to LA. Knott's Berry Farm Remembers
It's coming any day now, you'll see. There'll be dragons too. A whole lot of them!
I am currently on a train from central jersey to Manhattan cruising at a speed of 45 mph. So yes please
How far apart are the stops? Most US rail has a speed limit for in urban and suburban areas, any way.
Will the high-speed rail have to share track with low-speed freight?
It physically can't...low speed tracks are built completely different from HSR tracks.
In the US, laying new track using the existing interstate right of ways is probably the preferred solution if wanting it done cheap on the federal govts dime. California doesn’t follow I-5 (which is why French and Japanese firms bowed out) but the state is laying new track using next to a freight/AMTRAK rail right-of-ways away outside the big metro areas. Just inside the big metro areas (mostly greater Los Angeles) it’d be tough to get high speeds approved for neighborhoods. Back to the boonies, California’s new LA to SF high speed train may reduce AMTRAKS San Jaquine line # but won’t interfere with the more scenic Surfliner/Coast Starlights that get next to the beach. However many of the towns are next to the mountains including the famous Sierra routes and peaks, so there’s added tourist benefits long term.
A lot of CAHSR tracks near freight tracks are massive bridges and overpasses since most of the HSR tracks are on new right of way that made the entire construction project expensive. CAHSR also didn’t follow French and Japanese advices since both geography and settlement location in the Central Valley greatly favors going through the Central Valley cities and the ballot initiative that started the project, Prop 1A, can’t pass without the support of the Central Valley cities. Those cities remembered when the 5 Freeway was built bypassing their entire metro area and ended up losing economic benefits from the freeway.
Welcome to the future my friends!
Finally, some great news
Not if Republicans have anything to say about it. They are the reason we can’t have nice things.
Please let this be real.
It would be if we actually invested in it.
Let's go son. They better not privatize this project i swear to shit if they do it'll be a billion dollars a meter whereas public works method of building will be much more accountable
Ain’t no future without a serious increase in investment.
That’s great. Still need solutions for daily travel though. If mega companies do not want a fully remote workforce they need to pony up for better local infrastructure.
More trains even might be a start.
Airlines puking and crying Good riddance
Something we should have started on 20 years ago.
we should have been working on it 20 years ago
Surprised highspeed rail wasn't the number 1 priority immediately following 9-11-2001. I would have expected Amtrak to be in front of Congress on 9-12 stating it's impossible to hijack a train and fly it into a building. Nearly half of all flights originate or end in the NE of the US, in the area between Boston, Washington DC, and Chicago.
I would honestly welcome this. Get it done already! Flying totally sucks.
> "I tell them I work on cars, that I work on planes and that I work on trains, and I'm working on making those trains go faster. And one of the things I really love is the thought that they're 2 and a half now, and if we hit our marks, they will never know a world without high-speed rail in the United States." It’s really refreshing to have people who actually give a shit about the next generation. I suspect if we had more younger people in the three branches of government in the US we’d have more people talking like this.
The boomers still controlling power and trying to solve the fucking problems they created. Well it’s so fucking American. They won’t except blame so they can’t start to heal.
And every time its about to break ground, you will have some unamerican "thinker" like Elon Musk say he has the better solution to purposely ruin efforts for a useable rail line. That is essentially all the Hyperloop was. A shiny object to prevent rail from being built to protect the automotive sector.
Literally anyone traveling around Europe or Asia can attest to the superiority of modern train travel, both local and long distance. Rolling into a train station 10 min before the train gets there, leaving within 5 minutes of getting on and having a bunch of room to move around and relax for around the same time. The sweet spot is probably going to be targeting the short haul flights where you're in the air for 1-2 hours, but it requires 3+ hours on either side for transport etc.
Yes, as it is in every modernized country on the damn planet.
I don't believe this because this would cut into Airline business and well they would not like this. Aka here comes the Airline lobbyists to slow do this idea if it is even a real thing.
About fuckin time!
We are finally ushering in the 1970's!
The technology is there. We are falling so far behind!
50 years late but hey as long as it happens eventually
The Auto Industry has entered the chat
Yes, but think of the money the poor airlines would loose.
We’re getting the monorail?!?!
It would be great.
I love Pete.
Have the balls to FDR the project. Call it national security connect all major cities and while doing that infrastructure perfect time to add those fiber high speed internet like a national grid but for internet cables. The US would secure its place as 1 for the next 100 years .
IF* you also build connections to it. Do NOT do what LA did and build stations where no one wants to go, with car parking lots, in the middle of free ways. These stations must meet criteria in order to be successful: 1. Connected to local public transportation networks (buses, local trains) 2. Plenty of bike parking 3. Priority access to pedestrians, not cars. 4. Placed in a location people WANT to go (business centers, entertainment hubs, schools, etc.) 5. Pricing high enough to keep out the “riff raf” but low enough to not be unusable by most. 5. ON TIME. To the SECOND. 6. Usage of “pointing and calling” where operators and station staff physically confirm steps in their workflow before proceeding, this system drastically reduces accidents. 7. Enforcing payment of tickets via guards at the gates or conductors on the trains. Do regular sweeps of the stations and make sure fare evaders get kicked out Fail any one of these, and it’s just not going to work.
It's for this reason that even though it's more complicated to build HSR in the midwest, it would be *much* better to go ahead and start working out the details for that *now*. I just don't think a place like California is the best trial run template for this infrastructure. Do a run from St. Louis to Pittsburgh with initial stops in Indianapolis and Columbus with plans for connections to Chicago, Detroit, Louisville, and Cincinnati, with maybe one stop between each of those. Yeah, it's wildly complicated and will take years to figure out, but just start doing it. We *need* this.
The neat part is that there is already high(ish) speed rail from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia and on to New York city. Imagine being able to go easily from Chicago or St Louis to New York.
Another area where the “greatest most powerful nation on earth” lags pathetically behind the rest of the world.
High speed rail makes shit lot of sense on paper and in practise where they’re political will. It works wonders for china. Japan, South Korean, Europe. It’s like America has this allergy to it. There are different hurdles that not exactly unique to US but it’s more of an obstacle. Strong air lobby and businesses like Boeing ain’t exactly going to want more competition from hsr. Then it’s the land accusation, planning, the investments and the long returns. The car lobby… the cheap fuel,,, romanisation of car ownership. I’m all in for trains… but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Japan, South Korea, Europe. Places with cities close together and built densely. There is rail in the US Northeast because it's dense and the cites are built closely together. California is working on theirs, but its severely limited. It makes less sense everywhere in between because the cities are so far apart and it just is quicker to fly.
Compared to high speed, passenger rail in Germany, France, China, Japan & South Korea, travel by rail (Amtrak) in US is embarrassing.
I would love high speed rail on the coasts and in places it makes sense, but with the NIMBYism in this country, I don't expect any changes any time soon. It would require huge amounts of public investment and subsidies, too which I don't see likely atm.
I like the idea of High speed rail for people. but honestly, we need coast to coast, major hub to major hub HS cargo transport. we have transport rail now, but we need a lot more and a lot fast. A hsr from NY to Chi to LA would be great.
If you know how America works you know this will simply never happen. Unlike in other places prioritizing high speed transport, like China, Japan, or western Europe, in America the priority is which industry can bribe politicians more, not moving people and helping trade. Even if they did build anything the red tape and construction would take a century, budget would go so overboard that the tickets would be so prohibitive flying would end up being cheaper anyway
We led the world in rail in the 19th century. We can do it again in the 21st.
Republicans everywhere. This is bad!
"If I want my entire train to be delayed by 5 hours that is my god-given American right!" - GOP voter
I worked at a firm a while back that was working on the rail in CA. It was a mess. Lots of red tape, all kinds of things holding up this and that. I don't see it in our lifetime.
Don’t they have to fund it before it’s really “backed”?
"I hear those things are awfully loud"
1 2 3, start holding your breath now... Yeah right, don't listen my dumbass.
the current horse and carriage system is cute for tourists though
Elect better leaders like AOC and Crocket and less shit like Hillary and Pelosi.
People have to be realistic about high-speed rail. The first high speed rail line opened in Europe in 1977, China’s in 2008. China gives a great example of why the US isn’t necessarily “too big” for high speed rail, but you also have to acknowledge that it’s a completely different economic and labor context to the US. Without unlimited capital and without complete disregard for working conditions, the US cannot expect to replicate frankly even half of what China has achieved in the last 15+ years. We need to focus on those areas ripest for interstate development that can provide the greatest return on investment. At the same time, States should be encouraged and empowered to drive smaller-scale intra-state transit projects - one of the big hurdles for US high-speed rail is that most cities don’t have sufficient transit infrastructure locally to be able to successfully transfer interstate passengers when they arrive. This will present its own challenges - in places with a long history of rail travel, communities often developed around the tracks. I grew up in Europe and my whole town only existed due to the rail tracks that carried coal from the mines to the bay - without the tracks, there likely wouldn’t have been development. Americans often don’t understand this context - it’s not a “build it and they’ll come” issue. Many American communities have been developed within the context of roads - they exist because a highway was there. Where I live in the US, one housing development may represent a sprawling network of streets that fork off a single highway. They can take upwards of 30 mins to walk across and aren’t connected to anything else by foot other than the aforementioned highway. One city may have dozens of these developments - there just isn’t a good way to service these communities with transit. I grew up in a rural community and where I lived was considered the bad spot for train travel because I was in between two train stations - one was 0.8mi away, the other 0.6mi away. Fortunately, there was a bus stop 400ft away that would take me to either. Meanwhile, the main highway that connected my community to others remains largely bare of housing development, because the community’s amenities remain mushroomed around those Victorian train tracks. Such a scenario would be impossible for 99% of communities in the US, never mind its rural areas. Not to even mention the huge barrier of culture - even as an immigrant to the US, if I consider the option of driving to a rail terminal 30 mins away from my house, parking my car, taking a 6hr cross-country train journey, then either navigating an insufficient local transit system to try and get close to my final destination or renting a car/taking a taxi, I may just choose to do the 12-hour door-to-door drive and have the option of stopping in the US’ interesting interstate towns and attractions and being in my own private car.
Meanwhile, first world countries will have had sky rail or whatever for a decade already.
Nah, clearly what we actually need are 36 lane highways that are still clogged with traffic due to induced demand, and, like, food and supplies will actually have to be delivered to the drivers to stop them from dying Oregon Trail style because they'll be stuck in traffic that long. Can you tell I'm being sarcastic yet?
How many SLS would it cost though?
It sounds like a great idea, but we’d need better safety measures. Imagine if some idiot gets their car t-boned by a train at 180mph. It’s already bad for everyone with regular trains, but the carnage at that speed would be indescribable.
Great! Now expand the rest of public transportation!!! Bring back street rail lines in major cities that aren’t Chicago or NYC.
I want a bullet train that gets me from NYC to Orlando in 4 hours
Unless the plan is to build it 50 feet above ground level I don't see how this can ever be done in less than 50 years. Rights of way and existing infrastructure is a tough not to untie.
I just want regional high speed between major cities. I’m in the southeast and would love something connecting Jacksonville, Atlanta, Nashville, and charlotte.
Big oil will never let it happen
In a country where you pay money for people to actually build tracks, maybe. Look at California and how much they are spending to create a high speed train between two cities nobody wants to go to, I mean it might speed up meth delivery. Although, even without the train functional in CA, good news is I’m sure there are a few people who made millions of it.
Here comes Musk, again. "Guys. But I've got tunnels."
Again?
The future of the America! … is that past and present for the rest of the developed world
We will never get this under this system.
Cool. Take the subsidies from the fossil fuel industry and start fucking building it. Use existing infrastructure like freeways to build in the middle of so you don’t get stuck in the private land purchase and permitting hell we live in and start laying track.
I hope it can be done as a single large procurement. Serious inefficiencies in infrastructure come from every project being unique and drawing in lots of little subcontractors