High-Speed Trains in the US?

demondawn asks: "Countries around the world are researching and adopting high-speed rail systems, but the U.S. seems to be behind the bandwagon. How do Americans feel about the adoption of a high-speed rail system in the U.S.? How do people in nations that have already adopted high-speed rail feel about their services? And how about tourists who have travelled either to or from the U.S. feel about public transportation around the world?"

Comments

A Good Thing

[Quattro Vezina]

As someone who is carfree by choice and who has issues with flying, I wish we had a high-speed train system like Japan's.

Flying

[comwiz56]

In America we have relatively cheap plane travel to anywhere in the continental US. Despite many privacy concerns about the current state of air travel in the US, flying is still one of the cheapest (for the distance) and safest methods of transportation around. Still, competition from the rail industry would likely be a good thing, opening more options up, and eventually lowering prices.

Re:Flying

[Seraphim1982]

Granted a train takes longer, but this is offset by the fact you can work or relax effectively on a train. Seriously, I'd rather take a train than first class air travel any day.

It's also offset by the fact that there is a lot less waiting involved in a train trip. You don't have to deal with security like at the airports, and you don't have as big of a problem with luggage. In addition train station are generally located in the middle of cities, while airports are generally located on the outskirts of cities, so it may be esier to get where your going once you arrive if you take a train.

They don't care.

[Pig Hogger]

For more than 50 years, the average american has been brainwashed by car and petroleum companies into believing that their car-centric "life" is the best thing since industrial bakeries have invented sliced bread.

They are very happy squandering more and more money into bigger and bigger trucks so any proposition to do otherwise is viewed as communist. Also, there is an anglo-saxon cultural trait that sees the city as something sinful, bad, evil that should be fled at all cost, hence the popularity of suburbia.

In the same vein, here is a very good explanation of the whole idea of having livable cities.

Re:They don't care.

[Murphy Murph]

For more than 50 years, the average american has been brainwashed by car and petroleum companies into believing that their car-centric "life" is the best thing since industrial bakeries have invented sliced bread.

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

Trains are best for medium distances

[bluGill]

Its the old population density issue.

Trains work great for medium distances, which describes all of Japan, and any single country in Europe. They do poorly for long distances because a standard airplane goes twice as fast (at worst case), and has no problem with terrin that is hard to get a train through.

When you go between two cities in a single country trains are nice. (often trivially slower than a plane after you factor in all the hastles of flying) This describes Europe, cities are close enough that flying isn't enough faster.

In the US cities are more spread out, except on the coasts. There is a high speed train between NY and Boston. Law prevents it from reaching high speed, but it is high speed otherwise. Well if the law wasn't in the way anyway, IIRC they need a few more upgrades to reach high speeds, but who would pay for that if you won't be able to reach those speed anyway.

I don't know what California doesn't have a high speed train. It would make sense, they have the population to support it. (though perhaps not enough people are going in one direction? I don't know)

For me there is no point in a high speed train. I live in Minneapolis, there is no place for it to go. In the metro area stops would be too frequent, and any other city is far enough away that you fly. Though that may not be true, there is a special case that might make sense. The airport is considering a train to some tiny airport outstate that can handle more planes than they can.

Re:beating the dead horse

[spitzak]

They have cars in Europe, you know. They like them a lot, I seem to remember the Italians and Germans in particular really like cars. Doesn't stop them from having trains, too.

If they vote for it, they will build it.

[I am Jack's username]

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

Economic strength is also important. Finland, Sweden, and Russia are not only poorer but have lower pop. densities, yet have vastly superior rapid train systems.

USA population 293 027 571/land area 9 161 923 sq km=31.98.

Sweden 8 986 400/410 934=21.87.

Finland 5 214 512/304 473=17.13.

Russia 143 782 338/16 995 800=8.46.

Even more important of course is how concentrated parts are, not the country averages.