Yeah. It makes it a lot easier to build a truly high-speed train.
It's harder for a train to go 200mph through densely populated areas where NIMBYs don't want anything built. Cows, on the other hand, don't care. The train also doesn't have to stop very often -- a train can stop in Albequerque and Santa Fe, and zip north to Colorado Springs and Denver.
The biggest challenge to high-speed trains in the US is not population density or technology; the problem is political.
You're forgetting the immense networks of rural roads. With high speed trains you can't just throw a level crossing up, and wait for a pickup full of chickens to get t-boned at 220mph. And then there is the wildlife - you'd need high fences the entire distance to stop wildlife and stock from wandering onto the tracks, but that also causes other issues with wildlife corridors.
Those rural areas are also largely divided into private property holdings, which have to be resumed meaning compensation for all the property owners.
You're right, the problem is political, in that the politics of the country is set up in such a way that a centralised body cannot just go and throw railways everywhere. But that is a design feature, not a bug. The same governmental processes that stop people ending up with a nuclear waste dump next to their town also apply to railway lines. You can't just plan this stuff from a central office in Washington and make it so.
"You're forgetting the immense networks of rural roads. With high speed trains you can't just throw a level crossing up, and wait for a pickup full of chickens to get t-boned at 220mph. And then there is the wildlife - you'd need high fences the entire distance to stop wildlife and stock from wandering onto the tracks, but that also causes other issues with wildlife corridors."
Right. Because they don't have vehicles, chickens or wildlife in any of the other nations with high-speed rail networks. These are clearly unsolvable problems.
Sometimes it seems like people are just reaching to find any possible excuse to dismiss the idea based on ideology alone, doesn't it?
I really don't think people don't want HSR. It's pretty clear they do. I think it just makes sense to center the HSR around the most valuable areas, not just build it out in rural areas because it's easier to go faster, which is basically equivalent to "because we can" logic. I don't think we should build huge transportation projects just because we can; that's my problem. It has nothing to do with ideology, it's just logic and economics.
As far as the problem with wildlife and trucks and rural roads—you just need a grade-separated track with passages above and below. Expensive but necessary and plausible.
There was talk of a new rail line to the south of Rochester, MN a number of years ago and some landowners were unhappy because the proposed line would split their fields, require new fencing to protect livestock, etc.
Would it be easier to force a half a dozen farmers/landowners to give up part of their property than thousands of house/apartment dwellers? Of course. But its still forcing people and that results in lawsuits which will drag things out.
Comments
Yeah. It makes it a lot easier to build a truly high-speed train.
It's harder for a train to go 200mph through densely populated areas where NIMBYs don't want anything built. Cows, on the other hand, don't care. The train also doesn't have to stop very often -- a train can stop in Albequerque and Santa Fe, and zip north to Colorado Springs and Denver.
The biggest challenge to high-speed trains in the US is not population density or technology; the problem is political.
You're forgetting the immense networks of rural roads. With high speed trains you can't just throw a level crossing up, and wait for a pickup full of chickens to get t-boned at 220mph. And then there is the wildlife - you'd need high fences the entire distance to stop wildlife and stock from wandering onto the tracks, but that also causes other issues with wildlife corridors.
Those rural areas are also largely divided into private property holdings, which have to be resumed meaning compensation for all the property owners.
You're right, the problem is political, in that the politics of the country is set up in such a way that a centralised body cannot just go and throw railways everywhere. But that is a design feature, not a bug. The same governmental processes that stop people ending up with a nuclear waste dump next to their town also apply to railway lines. You can't just plan this stuff from a central office in Washington and make it so.
"You're forgetting the immense networks of rural roads. With high speed trains you can't just throw a level crossing up, and wait for a pickup full of chickens to get t-boned at 220mph. And then there is the wildlife - you'd need high fences the entire distance to stop wildlife and stock from wandering onto the tracks, but that also causes other issues with wildlife corridors."
Right. Because they don't have vehicles, chickens or wildlife in any of the other nations with high-speed rail networks. These are clearly unsolvable problems.
Sometimes it seems like people are just reaching to find any possible excuse to dismiss the idea based on ideology alone, doesn't it?
I really don't think people don't want HSR. It's pretty clear they do. I think it just makes sense to center the HSR around the most valuable areas, not just build it out in rural areas because it's easier to go faster, which is basically equivalent to "because we can" logic. I don't think we should build huge transportation projects just because we can; that's my problem. It has nothing to do with ideology, it's just logic and economics.
As far as the problem with wildlife and trucks and rural roads—you just need a grade-separated track with passages above and below. Expensive but necessary and plausible.
There are a lot of old rights-of-way that could be reactivated.
The real problem is economic, not political.
A NY-SF coach-class train ticket cost $65 in 1870. That may not sound like much, but that was 2.8 ounces of gold -- figure $4700 at current prices.
A first-class ticket with sleeping compartment cost $136 -- almost $10,000 in current dollars.
Land owners do care, however.
There was talk of a new rail line to the south of Rochester, MN a number of years ago and some landowners were unhappy because the proposed line would split their fields, require new fencing to protect livestock, etc.
Here in Oregon, other landowners have gotten letters from the railways demanding payment for driveways across their lines just so they can get to their property. See http://www.kval.com/news/local/Neighbors-on-edge-over-new-ra...
Would it be easier to force a half a dozen farmers/landowners to give up part of their property than thousands of house/apartment dwellers? Of course. But its still forcing people and that results in lawsuits which will drag things out.
So you're figuring that the passenger volume between Albuquerque and Santa Fe compares with say, that between New York and Philadelphia?
Topography is also a big challenge.