It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why doesn't the US have a high speed rail system

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Why?

Because of land acquisition costs. High speed rail is different than regular or narrow gauge rail in that it requires specific land to make the rail line work.

It's not feasible in the major cities because of too many obstructions, and in the west there are many land owners who see projects like this as their meal ticket.

Bottom line...it's all about money.




posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

A big difference between here and china, is labour practices. They tend to use what amounts to as slave labour to build thier rail. We tend to pay union wages for that.
Not sure on the cost difference, but id take a wild guess at 5000 percent?

Im not against high speed rail, but it would be hugely expensive here.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Florida has Brightline and it has had its share of woes.

It seems trains and cars don't do well sharing the landscape in Florida. But it is Florida after all.

www.sun-sentinel.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
Florida has Brightline and it has had its share of woes.

It seems trains and cars don't do well sharing the landscape in Florida. But it is Florida after all.

www.sun-sentinel.com...


In Japan if you commit suicide, your family gets billed for it when done on the tracks. And it isn't cheap either. Happens all too often these days.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Simple answer is cost. Land is expensive and building the rail isn't cheap. I know California just recently decided to stop a high speed train project. It was estimated to cost 100 billion. Then keep in mind most government projects eventually cost double the estimates.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 10:09 PM
link   
According to IMF, adjusted for purchasing power, China’s succeeded in becoming the worlds largest economy in 2014. So China can afford to implement a high speed rail network because it isn't a third world country.

Whilst US is spending 900 billion a year on military, China is spending $146 billion etc. Without spending huge amounts on interest payment for national debt (US=$363 billion) etc etc etc it can afford to invest in infrastructure whilst US would need to perhaps burrow another 20-40 trillion to building a similar high speed train network.

A wall maybe.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 10:44 PM
link   
If rail was economically feasible it would exist. I would never use a train and I imagine I am not alone. It makes me think that it would lose money or someone would have done it already. Passenger trains have always been losers in the U.S.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JAGStorm

Because as far as boondoggles go, the military industrial complex sucks up every last penny.


I just have to point out that spending on our social programs is twice what is spent on the military and is growing at 5% + a year compounding.

That is a FAR, FAR bigger expense and issue than our military spending.

We do medicare for all and that would be double our yearly spending by itself - which is impossible by the way without massive inflation.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil


People love their cars and the cost of such a rail system would be insanely expensive.


Just think how many people it would put to work! It would be good for the economy, and the environment. People my age can't drive too far without falling asleep at the wheel, lol.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: pavil


People love their cars and the cost of such a rail system would be insanely expensive.


Just think how many people it would put to work! It would be good for the economy, and the environment. People my age can't drive too far without falling asleep at the wheel, lol.


The problem with passenger rail is no one will ride it so it is a waste of dollars which ould be spent on important Infracstructure improvements like to our electrical grid.


edit on 2019/2/16 by Metallicus because: Sp



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Elon Musk is working on it from the bottom up.
The Boring Company

His is for cars but heavy rail could benefit from the same tech.
edit on 2/16/2019 by staple because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Because there is not enough demand from one area to have a train to another area to justify the costs.
edit on 17-2-2019 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 01:38 AM
link   
The complex, yet so simple answer is:

Koch brothers and other heavy influencer/lobbyists.

The long distances are perfect for railroad traffic, but the politicians are swamped with offers/orders to withhold any serious efforts on public mass transit.

When was the last new subway built?



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I would say there are groups that do not want free travel to be easily extensible.

I do not buy into the narrative that it because land costs just look at how eminent domain is used to usurp property for private industry and the pipelines.



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Cost of infrastructure is probably the main reason.

To make it worth while investing in such a massive undertaking and massive outlay it would have to be obvious that there was going to a return or at least a huge benefit from this new mode of transportation.

To make it worth while it couldn’t just be ‘a little better’ than air travel. It would have to be ‘a lot’ better.
If cars were just ‘a littler better’ than horses, but we still had the massive undertaking and cost of roading and infrastructure, of safety standards, licensing, manufacture etc, then we’d still be using the horse.
If planes were just ‘a little better’ than ships, but we still had the massive undertaking and cost of infrastructure, then we’d still be using passenger ships.

I know we’re not talking about replacing air travel with a high speed rail but the same reasoning still applies.
There’s massive cost and infrastructure to implement. For something that’s only ‘a little better’ than planes OR cars. Or even other trains for that matter.

Once this balance of costs and benefits is evened out somewhat, high speed rail will probably be used. A rail link that goes through all the major cities and makes zero stops anywhere else doing around 500 mph would be awesome.

I’d use it to cross the country if it could do it fast enough. Including all the stops at about ten to twenty major cities. And if was cheaper than flying. Otherwise I’d just fly.

I imagine there’s only one or two generations left of fossil fuel transportation though so there might not be a range of travel options anyway.



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

Because we're a giant country with private ownership of land. It would cost too much to build that much rail. And considering the previous post about BTU per passenger mile, it just does not save enough energy. How much evil carbon would be put in the air from years of construction across the U.S.?

Also, how feasible is a high-speed rail from London to Baghdad?



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Why do you continue to say no one will ride it? Just because you won’t, doesn’t mean the rest of us won’t. Open your mind just crack would ya? Not just your opinion in the world.

I, for one, like to travel and see the different areas. I like to live in the country, but work in the big city. I like to visit relatives that live over 12 hours away by car. (And truthfully, just as long to take the plane from start to finish time from house to house.) I would take a high speed train to any of these if it were available.

I would use a high speed train. And I like to think I count as a someone.



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 03:08 AM
link   
The other problem for high speed rail in the US is the fact that the population is too spread out in urban areas to make the astronomical costs justifiable. Rail has to be a viable alternative to other forms of transportation in order to work and be profitable. In other words, it has to take the place of another mode of transportation, and if people still wind up using cars to get to the rail line you haven't accomplished much, plus then you're faced with a tertiary problem of where to put all those cars which requires even more land.

Despite these things there are people looking into developing high speed rail-like systems in the US. The Denver metro area is one of ten test bench locations selected for a pilot program called 'Hyperloop'. Hyperloop isn't a "train" exactly, but it is fast (very), 750mph+ which makes it even faster than air travel.

We'll see I guess.

Note: As others have noted, it's probably going to have to be a pretty frosty day down below before you're going to get this kid to voluntarily get inside a vehicle which goes 760mph inside of a tube which is underground!



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

Because the US economy runs on the petro dollar,the perfect rail system in Calif we had was destroyed taken over by oil companys,right after 34 when socialist's bought out the US,and the Federal Reserve came in to take over



posted on Feb, 17 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldtimer2

Wow...well, I guess ATS is a conspiracy site after all.

In just one sentence you've captured not just one, but four, grand NWO conspiracies!

**make room under the bed, I'm comin' in**




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join