I want high speed trains as much as the next person, but they don’t work for the United States in the same way that flying does.
High speed rail would work on the coasts and in specific intercity regions. There most definitely should be high speed rail between nearby large cities - Texas, the Midwest, and California could really use high speed rail systems.
But the lack of these routes aren’t necessarily a disaster at present, especially when Americans generally need a car at their destination anyway (thanks to irreversible city planning from the past).
What high speed rail can never compete with are flights across the huge country.
The world’s largest high speed rail network in China doesn’t have to deal with United States sized distances. All Chinese cities are relatively close to the eastern coast.
And all Chinese cities are easy to traverse and live in without owning a car. The whole concept of the automobile-based single family home detached suburb doesn’t exist there.
Even with these advantages, a high speed train from Beijing to Shanghai (about 5 hours) barely competes with a flight on a low cost airline. It’s slower and not even very much cheaper.
Beijing to Shanghai is about 640 miles by plane. That distance wouldn’t even get you from New York to Chicago. Now imagine trying to get from New York to Orlando (940 miles) or Denver (1600 miles).
A high speed train simply can’t go fast enough to compete on price nor time (remember: more time in transit means more salaries paid to crew).
Train beats airplanes by other factors e.g. easy transition to subways so people spend much less time going to the train station than airports; also airplane especially the cheap ones tend to delay for X hours without notice while trains are usually on time. Also trains are much more comfortable.
I will second this and also add that I think there are unlockable network effects that happen when economic activity can be more dense across the country vs. a few large metropolitan areas. Of course they could use some public transit as well.
I totally agree with you. The problem is, how do you undo a half century of city planning, especially when McMansions and subdivisions continue to sprawl to this day?
Realistically, you can’t - not quickly at least, and furthermore you’ve got a whole population of people that is used to this lifestyle.
So I’m just evaluating (in my opinion) the prospects of high speed rail based on what we have right now. I think if it was a slam-dunk no brainer economic activity and tax revenue generator, it would have been done already.
I respect your opinion, I think that it's something that takes investment before economic activity is seen. Like many startups spending venture capital to build a network that doesn't turn a profit until it's scaled to a certain size, rail builds economies around it where it is. A lot of boom towns in the early 20th century were a result of a railway moving through the town. Hotels, restaurants, shops, etc were built by rail towns. It provides a physical conduit of currency and importantly freight moving around the country (but until I have sources up, this is my opinion).
I agree that those factors can beat airplane travel, but none of them really outweigh travel time in practice.
For subway connections, there is no physical limitation preventing local transit from connecting to the airport. Cities of varying sizes have direct connections to local transit (e.g. Chicago, Fort Worth, Cleveland). The fact that New York City got this so very wrong is an outlier. And finally, subway connection is irrelevant to the bulk of American cities that are car dependent. Having a high speed train arriving in Columbus, Ohio won’t fix the fact that you need to rent a car or Uber everywhere once you get there (to the point where, if you’re within a ~6 hour drive, you’re probably better off just driving your own car that you likely already own).
Flight delay problems are overblown and dramatized, most flights are on time. Trains can most certainly be delayed as well (usually not as frequently, sure - depends heavily on the train system).
Thing is, a flight to LA from New York could be delayed for hours and hours and it would still beat the train.
High speed rail would work on the coasts and in specific intercity regions. There most definitely should be high speed rail between nearby large cities - Texas, the Midwest, and California could really use high speed rail systems.
But the lack of these routes aren’t necessarily a disaster at present, especially when Americans generally need a car at their destination anyway (thanks to irreversible city planning from the past).
What high speed rail can never compete with are flights across the huge country.
The world’s largest high speed rail network in China doesn’t have to deal with United States sized distances. All Chinese cities are relatively close to the eastern coast.
And all Chinese cities are easy to traverse and live in without owning a car. The whole concept of the automobile-based single family home detached suburb doesn’t exist there.
Even with these advantages, a high speed train from Beijing to Shanghai (about 5 hours) barely competes with a flight on a low cost airline. It’s slower and not even very much cheaper.
Beijing to Shanghai is about 640 miles by plane. That distance wouldn’t even get you from New York to Chicago. Now imagine trying to get from New York to Orlando (940 miles) or Denver (1600 miles).
A high speed train simply can’t go fast enough to compete on price nor time (remember: more time in transit means more salaries paid to crew).