The Lack of High Speed Rail in the USA/Canada

There is already a lot of talk about this.

However, this is a conspiracy website, so, in your opinion, why do YOU think there is a lack of high speed rail in the United States of America (and Canada as well)?

Interested in hearing what YOU think (and if you also have your own conspiracy theories or other people's, then don't hesitate to post)?

For starters, most places with successful high speed rail networks are much smaller geographically than the US and Canada are.

Like it or not, different modes of transit are economically workable at different distances. For example, look at the concord jet ... sure, supersonic speed aircraft you would think would be a winner for all routes, but the reality was that it was only economical for certain distances and certain routes. So the concord never caught on for more than a few flight paths.

High speed rail may simply be the same way.

Not only that, but successful transit depends on finding a high concentration of people who want to go from point A to point B. If you don't have that, then your transit system has to be heavily subsidized, and in fact, most US mass transit systems are. Quite frankly, because the road and highway systems are so well developed, people can more easily get into a car and go precisely where they want to instead of hopping on a bus, train, or plane even and going approximately where they want to and then having to make further transportation arrangements (often rent a car), to get where they are going once there.

This is another example of the sheer size of the US working against the heavy development of such systems. The scale of places like Europe and Japan are much friendlier to mass transit systems because spaces are much more compacted. At the end of your mass transit run, you have less distance to figure out for yourself than you would in the US.

Just keep in mind, it's not uncommon for a single US state to be as big as an entire European country.

**EDIT**

My husband also points out that while the US may have roughly equivalent land mass to Europe, they have twice our population packed into that area -- something like 741 million to the US's 350 million. It's much easier to find your concentrations of people who need to go from point A to point B with those population concentrations than it would be in the US. For example, while places in the desert southwest and Great Basin regions have population, what would be the point of making the expenditure to extend high speed rail to those areas? There simply wouldn't be the people. Roads, however, are far more economical than building an entirely new infrastructure, and they can reach everyone with little effort, even down to the simple dirt road.

Ahem...*She's..

a reply to: AnakinWayneII
Who's got the money to invest in providing one? Could they expect to get any profit out of it?

I think high speed rail sounds good on paper but as Ketuso explained, it makes no sense economically.

I think people just hate airline travel so much they create this fantasy about high speed rail as an alternative. However, the same issues like security, pricing, and govt regs would make rail travel just as bad imho.

I drive if I can do it in under 7 hours.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

It does not financially make sense. Look at California's attempt.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Everyone riding together, in the same vehicle, having to look at each other? That's communism.

Something something my taxes.

a reply to: underwerks

Question.

Where would you go on it with any regularity?

I look at it as the same as air travel, and I use that now very, very little. You might be able to do one or the other: airplane or high speed rail, but I doubt you'd manage both in this country, and air travel is more efficient because it doesn't have to deal with the realities of geography like high speed rail does, so it's faster even with the boondoggle of security, etc.

You would have to basically convince almost all the business travel that high speed rail was the better alternative for their work-related travel in order to do it, and it would take a lot of time, money, and government subsidy to get a network comparable to what air travel provides.

PS - You are the only one who has brought up communism. When we talk about subsidy, we're talking about the government deciding it has to be done so they undertake to finance it to make it possible/competitive because no one else is sinking their capital into it and there's usually a reason for that.

a reply to: underwerks

Every riding together?! I guess airlines are commie bastards ...

Oh, oh ... every riding together ... I forgot that every amusement park ride ever is now communist too.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII


I'll give you an example.
There is a group trying to get high speed rail from Columbus Ohio to Chicago.
The rail would run through Fort Wayne, a town I live fairly close too.

The projected cost of a ticket for me to Chicago is $60.
So my family would pay $180 round trip.
A trip that would take a little over two hours because of the stops along the way.

I can drive to Chicago in three ish hours depending on traffic conditions for $40 in gas plus $20 parking garage fees.

Honestly I just don't see where the ridership is coming from.
Amtrak is failing for the same reasons.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ya slammed the door shut on this potential conspiracy with alacrity.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: ketsuko

Ya slammed the door shut on this potential conspiracy with alacrity.

Not all conspiracies are created equal.
High speed rail only works in areas of high population density.
Rural areas can't provide enough riders.
So no conspiracy.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Exactly why it fails.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: AnakinWayneII


I'll give you an example.
There is a group trying to get high speed rail from Columbus Ohio to Chicago.
The rail would run through Fort Wayne, a town I live fairly close too.

The projected cost of a ticket for me to Chicago is $60.
So my family would pay $180 round trip.
A trip that would take a little over two hours because of the stops along the way.

I can drive to Chicago in three ish hours depending on traffic conditions for $40 in gas plus $20 parking garage fees.

Honestly I just don't see where the ridership is coming from.
Amtrak is failing for the same reasons.

There was talk about chicago to indy at one point iirc. The only benefit to high speed rail is you can work while traveling for business even if you could drive in same amount of time.

The conspiracy is why it is being forced down our throats when it is clear the numbers to support it dont compute.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Yep. I could see a time coming when you might have an argument to put a route down the I-135 corridor from Dallas through Austin to San Antonio. If any state could find a way to not screw it up, Texas might be able to, but they're getting so many blue state transplants, their government might be mucked up enough to make it like Cali's high speed project to nowhere by the time they decide to try it.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Yeah, Kets summed it up so well that I didn't even read farther into the thread as I now see you were making the same point later on.

a reply to: ketsuko

That Cal project always seemed elitist to me anyway. For the cost of a private development the price of a ticket would be unreasonable for a regular consumer and as a taxpayer subsidy for the wealthy. Always seemed to me to be nothing more than a '''futuristic'' pipe dream for the jet setting business crowd. A boondoggle in either case

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The proposed route made no sense to me.

As commuter heavy as California is, they might be able to make use of some high speed routes, certainly a good light rail network with their tech industry, but they chose a route that just makes no real sense if they were actually trying to alleviate any of that burden on anyone.

For the record, the US has more abandoned rail lines than Europe ever had rail. Add to that that Grade is the most important feature when relating to rail. Rail lines can only be accommodated on relatively small slopes.

A town that I lived in was at one time the wealthiest town in the US, until rail took off as a means of transportation. The reason why is there was only room for one set of tracks to be put through the area and the burgeoning iron and steel industry was transplanted to the west to in an area that could have more rail lines. Then that city again ran into the same problem, and the iron and steel industry was again displaced much further west.

This was all due to the surrounding hills and valleys being way to expensive to run rail lines through efficiently, eventually this lead to the rail lines being abandoned except for use occasionally in through traffic. Beyond this, though the US had a buttload of rail line, almost none of it is suitable for high speed rail due to needing to meander through hills and valleys rather than allowing long straight routes without tunnels or bridges, but is fine for slower speed industrial and commercial usage.