Why The US Has No High-Speed Rail

[The Lawspeaker]

China has the world’s fastest and largest high-speed rail network — more than 19,000 miles, the vast majority of which was built in the past decade. Japan’s bullet trains can reach nearly 200 miles per hour and date to the 1960s. They have moved more than 9 billion people without a single passenger causality. casualty France began service of the high-speed TGV train in 1981 and the rest of Europe quickly followed. But the U.S. has no true high-speed trains, aside from sections of Amtrak’s Acela line in the Northeast Corridor. The Acela can reach 150 mph for only 34 miles of its 457-mile span. Its average speed between New York and Boston is about 65 mph. California’s high-speed rail system is under construction, but whether it will ever get completed as intended is uncertain. Watch the video to see why the U.S. continues to fail with high-speed trains, and some companies that are trying to fix that.

[Cristiano viejo]

I think Spanish multicompanies are working in that in USA:


Renfe submits bid to help build first high-speed rail line in the US
Spanish operator wants to advise California on technical and commercial aspects of the project
https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/09/08...44_885988.html

[Westbrook]

They missed one big factor and that is US cities aren't as walkable as European cities, so let's say people use the high speed train to get somewhere, it arrives in the outskirts of the destination city and they still have to arrange for a car hire or uber ride anyway. I don't think it would be nearly as popular as this video suggests.

It could be a decent alternative to air travel but that hardly seems like it'd be worth the enormous investment and it's hard to see it replacing car travel.

[MysteriousWays]

Basic reason why is simple. Cities are much more scattered in the U.S. than in Europe, with only the Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington DC) approaching the urban density of much of Western Europe, so from an economic perspective, there won't be many people traveling among cities that are relatively close by train in most of the U.S. Rail in Europe has done best with replacing flights that are one hour or less in length, but having to arrive at the airport one hour early and then take a train or bus into the central area (so 1 hour flight, but probably 2.5-3 hours dealing with everything in the airport, and the train is relaxing and takes 3.5 hours). Only the Northeast Corridor in the U.S., plus Los Angeles to San Diego would fall into that category. Geographically, even the gap between Los Angeles and San Francisco would be on the large side, but still doable.

It could be done in a smaller scale in Florida too between Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, but just the potential audience to use this is not that big, as most people don't travel that often between the three cities. It could probably be done in a smaller scale in Texas too with Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio all being connected by rail, but outside of that, the whole issue of where you'd run the network to falls apart, as distances between cities get larger.

[KMack]

The California high speed rail that was supposed to connect SF to LA is a MASSIVE boondoggle. They scaled it back from Merced to Bakersfield which are much less populated. You can drive between those cities easily or take a bus. The rail project there might never become operational, and if it does nobody will ride it.

[The Lawspeaker]

The California high speed rail that was supposed to connect SF to LA is a MASSIVE boondoggle. They scaled it back from Merced to Bakersfield which are much less populated. You can drive between those cities easily or take a bus. The rail project there might never become operational, and if it does nobody will ride it.

That's the whole problem, isn't it ? They should have left it to private industry. Hired Virgin or some Japanese company.

[KMack]

That's the whole problem, isn't it ? They should have left it to private industry. Hired Virgin or some Japanese company.

Yep, let venture capital take the risk. This project might never see 1 person on ride on a train.

During his first State of the State address Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced he was scaling back the $77-billion project. Though his wording was open to interpretation, it appeared to sound the death knell, not necessarily for the project itself, but for the original dream.

The momentum has been halting. Ten years after voters approved it, the project is $44 billion over budget and 13 years behind schedule.

The rail authority also waded into a morass trying to acquire the land it needed in the Central Valley. The agency originally estimated it would cost $332 million to buy up properties to build the route. But cutting through orchards, vineyards and dairies with vast and sophisticated irrigation and trellis systems proved profoundly more complicated than was expected. The land acquisition is now budgeted at $1.5 billion and tied up in endless litigation.

“Somebody at high-speed rail drew a line for a route on Google Earth and had no idea of what was on the ground or how they are affecting it,” Michael Dias, a Hanford lawyer who defends farmers and is a grape and nut grower, told The Times last year.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...213-story.html

[The Lawspeaker]

Yep, let venture capital take the risk. This project might never see 1 person on ride on a train.

During his first State of the State address Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced he was scaling back the $77-billion project. Though his wording was open to interpretation, it appeared to sound the death knell, not necessarily for the project itself, but for the original dream.

The momentum has been halting. Ten years after voters approved it, the project is $44 billion over budget and 13 years behind schedule.

The rail authority also waded into a morass trying to acquire the land it needed in the Central Valley. The agency originally estimated it would cost $332 million to buy up properties to build the route. But cutting through orchards, vineyards and dairies with vast and sophisticated irrigation and trellis systems proved profoundly more complicated than was expected. The land acquisition is now budgeted at $1.5 billion and tied up in endless litigation.

“Somebody at high-speed rail drew a line for a route on Google Earth and had no idea of what was on the ground or how they are affecting it,” Michael Dias, a Hanford lawyer who defends farmers and is a grape and nut grower, told The Times last year.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...213-story.html

Funny enough: I remember reading somewhere that most trans-border European (high speed) systems also operate at a loss but since most Western European companies are state-owned you don't really see the cost.

[KMack]

Funny enough: I remember reading somewhere that most trans-border European (high speed) systems also operate at a loss but since most Western European companies are state-owned you don't really see the cost.

Not uncommon, but the Cali disaster is unheard of. Public anything never turns a profit, it is how much is the loss relative to some sort of unmeasured public service.

[The Lawspeaker]

Not uncommon, but the Cali disaster is unheard of. Public anything never turns a profit, it is how much is the loss relative to some sort of unmeasured public service.

And that's why such things should be left to private industry. Come to think of it: our railway system was placed under a unified company ("an interest group" or belangenvereniging - a kind of trust, if you may) during World War I and further unified in the years leading up to World War II. Not an inch of the Dutch main railway network was actually built by the State but all by competing corporations. The NS became a bit of a mess (suffering from severe underfunding during the 1970s to 1990s to when it was privatised) and now, as a private company with the shares still (for the majority) in state hands, it's still going nowhere: there is no real competition.