do you think a HSR (high speed rail) would work in the U.S.?

Question

i was recently reading an article about how they are going to try and put a few of these in the U.S.

i believe the routes they plan on selling were these.

Los Angeles to Las Vegas (up to San Francisco too would be a good loop)
Tampa to Orlando to Miami
Baltimore to Washington D.C. maybe into Pennsylvania
a loop in Texas
a Chicago/Illinois loop maybe into Missouri/St. Louis
Chattanooga to Atlanta

keeping in mind they will probably try linking these with other cities to make it more efficient.

im not real sure about the laws and how fast they will let these things go, but lets say 130-150 mph. they say these trains best suited for trips about 2-3 hours or 100-400 miles. saying they can beat both plane and car in this range.

obviously faster than a car and not nearly as much hassle as an airport. plus trains usually put you in the city where as planes usually put you on the outskirts.

what are your opinions? would you use it? good alternative to driving or flying? good/bad for economy? mixed with pre existing public transportation easy way to travel?

just curious about what other people think. i can see it working or failing

Answer 1

They'd work, especially if the subsidy given air travel got brought into line with what is given rail.

Answer 2

I plan to pretend gas will be $2/gallon forever! LOL! OK seriously...



Step 1: Accept the realities of subsidy. Transport everywhere is subsidized massively by governments. You think user fees pay for the airport expansion? Not hardly. Highway taxes might pay the state/federal/interstate highway system, but they'd be useless without millions of miles of local roads your local taxes pay for. The only system that's ACTUALLY profit making is the freight railroad system in North America, because of deregulation.



Amtrak is actually an amazingly good deal for subsidy. Take an 800 mile Amtrak trip, you'll pay $85 and the government will subsidize $15 more. In Europe, you take an 80 mile trip, you'll pay $45 and the government will pay $55 more. We get a better deal because the service is so weak. Want better service? Subsidize it. It's cheaper if you consider the other stuff you DON'T have to build (e.g. airports, highway lanes, oil wars).



Once you do that, you're basically in like Flynn. People want high-speed-rail, just their grandparents don't want to pay for it and keep voting for "invest in foreign wars, not America" conservatives.



Second, America already has trains that go 125-150 between Boston and DC. So your Baltimore-DC line is in, grats! You can go much faster with trains you can pretty much just buy from France.



Third, it's just a question of the political will to roll them out in America, which would require a lot of rail construction. But it's very routine stuff... grading and bridges and eminent domain, like they've been doing for 150 years. Just a little straighter lol!



LA-Vegas is a stupid route, it would only work if it were subsidized by the casinos. That's been proposed, but they want to end the line on the east side of Cajon Pass, which means it does nothing for California traffic, leaves you without a car in Vegas, and is only a "goshy wow" sort of attraction like the Disney monorail.



All those other routes aren't going to happen. All the states will march to Washington, and hold out their hat for some of the $8B Federal high speed rail commitment. Their hats will all be empty. Their hats will be empty because the states aren't willing to "ante up" their share of the costs. Except for California, their hat contains $10 billion that the voters voted in 2008 (in the middle of the recession, note.) So the feds will give all the states a few hundred grand each to pay the staff in their high speed rail development office... and they'll throw the billions into California's hat. LA-SF, that's gonna happen even though it's the toughest route.

Answer 3

It would work! Europe has the DB Bahn, the ICE and the TV lines of high speed rail. At 200km

per hour, you wonder if it is safe? Believe it!! Safety is the watch-word and a few accidents during the course of technology are understood, i/e 'respect the bullet train if you are thinking

of crossing the tracks and ignoring the warning signals'.

The most advanced land transportation that we have in the U.S. that connects the public to remote locations is a private bus system. ( greyhound )



By the way, I have nothing but respect for the honest Americans that have been forced to ride a bus for up to four days and nights to get to their destination.

A destination that could have taken nine hours by air, if only these honest Americans had a credit card, and a valid license and proper ID. Trust me; Thugs on buses are non-existent

these days. 95% of the riders are just trying to get home or to the next hardship and thinking about ways to overcome.



The high speed rail in Europe has overcome the 'class-system' by making it affordable for all to board the same train. There are sections of the train for all classes and situations.

The worst class of rider is the one like myself, with no reservation and a last minute boarder

with no seat...but happily standing at a table in the bistro car with a very tall glass of German wheat bier, and watching the trees along both sides of the club car melt into an almost invisible screen as the High Speed Train reaches its top speed.



200kmh and not even a worry of spilling my Bier!!!



There is something for everyone with High Speed Rail.

Answer 4

Not sure it'll catch on. There is a high speed rail line already operating in the US from Boston to Washington, DC. The other ones you mention, particularly Chicago-St. Louis and Los Angeles to Las Vegas might work. However, the US is primarily reliant on air and car travel. The current low speed passenger rail lines are government-funded because they can't make enough money on their own to stay afloat. While commuter lines have been successful, I don't think a European style high speed rail network would work.

Answer 5

Ofcourse it would work. As the 'North East Corridor' is proof. The trick is getting people to ride. Since weve only one example in the US to go by, thats hardly 1% of the commuting public that actually sees this. the rest just dont know from lack of experience. i feel that if more people were exposed to the benefits of this type of transit, then we would see more of an outcry for it. The cost is hardly anything as the trainsets are comparable to the cost of one airliner, the rights of way already exist, so we really only need rails, ties, and ballast. FACT!

Answer 6

Yes, I think they would work. The northeastern corridor (Boston to NYC to DC) already has fairly fast trains. The California route (LA to SF) is currently being planned. Some parts of the US are actually quite densely populated, and people do travel, so I don't see why it wouldn't work. And yes, it would cost a lot, but then highways and airports cost a lot too.

Answer 7

Yes, it would work, if there were people willing to invest in it. High speed trains can do up to 200mph, we have them here in Europe and they are used for international as well as internal travel e.g. the Eurostar which runs between London and Paris and Brussels.

Answer 8

Absolutely they would work.



If done correctly, it wont fail.



Remember, high Speed or any passenger rail system requires government subsidy to operate, they are not profitable.