Why doesn't the U.S. have a viable highspeed rail system?

Question

Instead of NASA spending billions of dollars of tax money chasing space dust and frozen liquid, we could concentrate on a city to city and continental train that would rival the EU's.

Answer 1

A high speed rail system in North America is possible, but not likely.

As has been mentioned, cost, government will, and a lengthy list of opponents (plus not enough proponents) are part of what keeps this project on the drawing board.

On top of that, the geography and population of Europe versus North America is so vastly different as to make comparisons irrelevant.

Europe's population density is multiple times that of Canada and the United States. In addition, there are more large cities in Europe, and those cities are larger themselves. Canada's three largest cities are Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver - all very far apart geographically. The United States' three largest - New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago - are equally distant from one another.

Large expanses of sparsely populated land, far flung population centres, and the sheer size of the North American land mass make high speed rail, at least nationwide, unlikely in the immediate future. It could work in localized regions (Northeast Corridor, Quebec-Windsor corridor, Florida, and California).

Necessity, not desire, is what will eventually push high speed rail into reality.

Answer 2

Please. Americans are so car-obsessed and ignorant, they wouldn't KNOW if we had a high-speed train.

Case in point, you. We DO have a high speed train. It's called Acela. Only France and Japan are faster... only 20% faster.

That said, observe this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Metroliner1968.jpg
Does that look European?
Does that look new?
Look at that logo. Does that look government?
Not hardly. The year is 1969, and we join the Japanese at having the fastest trains in the world. And the "us" was a private company, that billed itself as "The Standard Railroad of the World".

Think they earned that?

Now... as to this silly idea about "keeping up with Europe" by crossing the continent with high speed rail. Get a globe, and a measuring tape, and you'll see the little tiny problem with that plan. America is BIGGER than Europe.

Look at a globe, not a map. Lots of maps are Mercator projections, so they don't show size right. If Greenland is bigger than Brazil, your map's wrong. (Actually, Brazil is almost 4 times the size of Greenland.)

Here's another reason:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/prices.html#Motor
For whatever reason, fuel costs 2-3x as much in Europe.

Another reason is congestion. They simply have more people per square mile than we do here. More people, more rail - which is why NYC has a subway and Omaha does not.

Answer 3

There's various reasons as to why, which have been mentioned previously.

First of all, you don't put the fox in charge of the hen-house...and personally, the oil companies have had all-time record profits for a few years already. They have more than enough lobbyists on Capital Hill counteracting that momentum for such efficiency.

Unlike what was mentioned before, the automakers are not at ALL touching this topic because it's irrelvant. I haven't read any context on any transcript pertaining to their efforts against mass transit. They are lobbying for a resolution to increasing health-care costs, artificially deflating japanese Yen currency which allow their automotive industry to prosper. (talk about protecting your own huh? Thats how their government does it).

You also have the added costs of construction which have escalated in the past few years. It's not so much the construction in this country, but many who aren't aware of the big-picture might not know that just last year alone, more office space was built in Shanghai China, than what all of Manhattan (NYC) currently has.

Currently, Dubai is building billions of dollars of residential/commercial spaces on artificially made islands. (The Palm Dubai) in a speed never been seen before. This creates burdens on our own construction infrastructure which adds substantial costs to such a massive transit rail project.

Then at the local level, you have some cities which will frown upon having that. Ironically in my city, there's a "light rail" (using existing CSX line) that will run through 5 counties. You have 2 towns which are dead set against having a stop for "whatever" reasons. Usually it's a demographics thing...no one wants it in their back yard in the belief that it brings unwanted people from nearby towns.

And as the State of Florida goes, we did have on the ballots 3 times, IF we wanted a high speed rail system running from Miami, Orlando, Tampa. The first time, it passed, But governor Bush at that time wasn't yet happy with that, citing too many costs constraints. (It would have been much cheaper back then anyways). SO he brought it up in the ballot again... and it passed again, but he still wasn't happy with those results. So again the 3rd time on the ballot, the wording was changed dramatically, where people just happen to get scared by it and vote against it.

So yes politics do play a part, but peoples education, or lack thereof, prevents the majority from moving forward in a positive direction. Gas prices WILL continue to escalate, and the question really is, at what POINT will such dramatic changes occur and take place. It's not a matter of IF, rather, When. And I welcome it. People need to take a good hard look at where they are standing nowadays.

Just my thought, hope this helps... :-)

Answer 4

Because Americans prefer to drive than take the train.

In Japan, high population densities prohibit viable personal transports like cars. Its faster to take the train. In the US, there is so much land that this is not a problem.

Answer 5

Money. And lots of it. Twenty years ago it cost nearly $1 million dollars a mile to build convention rail lines with 139 lbs rail and wooden cross ties. High speed, engineered ifrastructure must be more i would think.

You'll never wean US citizens from their automobiles until gasoline reaches $12 or $15 dollars a gallon or more.

Answer 6

Good question. Mass trainst would have been a great solution had it been implemented earlier. But companies like GM, Ford, and Chrysler lobbied against mass trainst and for a interstate highway system. Think of how much more efficient things would be if cargo were transported on rail cars rather than 18 wheel trucks. I am not against the automobile, but I am for some type of automobile mass transit partnership like in Europe.

Answer 7

No, no, no....a high speed rail system would be great but not in the hands of the fed. govt.! This has to be done by private industry to assure it will run correctly, cost less and be built to the highest standards possible. Obviously rail travel in the U.S. is not a profit making venture yet.

Answer 8

The oil companies would be against it. The big oil companies would lose millions of dollars in lost revenue and our addiction to oil would dry up...High speed rail lines and trains would be enormously expensive. I like mag-Lev trains. They can hit over 200 MPH....

Answer 9

Because Americans (yes, I am one) are adapted to convenience of their own schedules. We are not a country who likes to have other companies, ie trains, dictate our schedule for us. Some even allow the government to dictate how they think (they're called Bushbots).

Answer 10

AMTRAK has the ACELA between Boston and Wasington D.C. ... It's a pretty fast sumbitch