I wish Americans would (could) travel more, and see what other developed countries are like.
If they did this, they would realize why high speed rail makes sense in other developed countries but not in the US. Most other developed countries are tiny.
Aomori-Kagoshima (top of Japan to bottom) - 1928 km.
London-Moscow - 2885km.
Paris, France to Mosul, Iraq - 4522km.
NY-LA - 4469km.
And unlike the NY-LA route, all of the routes I mentioned have a lot of destinations in between the endpoints. For example, on the Paris-Mosul route you find Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Syria. Between NY and LA there are Omaha, Chicago, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Denver and Vegas.
Even the short London-Moscow route passes through Antwerp, Dusseldorf, Berlin, Warsaw and Minsk.
>Most other developed countries are tiny
and have less people, less potential funds, etc. That isn't a valid arguemnt. Transportation infrastructure is almost by definition scalable.
Your point about destinations is pretty valid though. Getting to california from other parts of the US is an effort. The east coast has a lot of different possibilities though, and even things like Dallas-houston are frequented enough, and the time to get to DFW, go through security, etc. would be compensated easily by just taking a train.
The map the WH offered for the ARRA takes advantage of that fact. When big hubs are built, having single links between them becomes reasonable.
Rail scales up, not down. You can put two trains on a track and it costs marginally more than one train. If you put one empty train on the track, the cost is the same as a full train.
Having less money can actually help the economics of a rail line - if people are poorer (e.g. Europe), they can't afford a car and are stuck taking the train. The limiting case of this is India where low speed rail is extremely popular.
Comments
I wish Americans would (could) travel more, and see what other developed countries are like.
If they did this, they would realize why high speed rail makes sense in other developed countries but not in the US. Most other developed countries are tiny.
Aomori-Kagoshima (top of Japan to bottom) - 1928 km.
London-Moscow - 2885km.
Paris, France to Mosul, Iraq - 4522km.
NY-LA - 4469km.
And unlike the NY-LA route, all of the routes I mentioned have a lot of destinations in between the endpoints. For example, on the Paris-Mosul route you find Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Syria. Between NY and LA there are Omaha, Chicago, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Denver and Vegas.
Even the short London-Moscow route passes through Antwerp, Dusseldorf, Berlin, Warsaw and Minsk.
>Most other developed countries are tiny and have less people, less potential funds, etc. That isn't a valid arguemnt. Transportation infrastructure is almost by definition scalable.
Your point about destinations is pretty valid though. Getting to california from other parts of the US is an effort. The east coast has a lot of different possibilities though, and even things like Dallas-houston are frequented enough, and the time to get to DFW, go through security, etc. would be compensated easily by just taking a train.
The map the WH offered for the ARRA takes advantage of that fact. When big hubs are built, having single links between them becomes reasonable.
Rail scales up, not down. You can put two trains on a track and it costs marginally more than one train. If you put one empty train on the track, the cost is the same as a full train.
Having less money can actually help the economics of a rail line - if people are poorer (e.g. Europe), they can't afford a car and are stuck taking the train. The limiting case of this is India where low speed rail is extremely popular.
Damn. Europe sounds pretty awesome when you put it that way.