High Speed Rail

Why can't we have this in one of the world's richest and most powerful countries?

Who is bribing who to prevent this?

Is it the airlines?

Car companies?

Who?

If it's not that? Then what is the issue? Why can every other country do it but the US?

Interesting to see Ontario included in that map. We have a plan on the books for high-speed rail in the Windsor-Montreal corridor (I didn't think Ottawa was included or was a spur, but it's been a while) but getting it built is another whole story.

Quote by Seeker4

Interesting to see Ontario included in that map. We have a plan on the books for high-speed rail in the Windsor-Montreal corridor (I didn't think Ottawa was included or was a spur, but it's been a while) but getting it built is another whole story.

I liked that, only makes sense to include neighbors, would be a boost to both countries.

But why do you say it's another whole story to build it in your opinion?

Rhymes with depublicans lmao

Quote by Magical_felix

I liked that, only makes sense to include neighbors, would be a boost to both countries.

But why do you say it's another whole story to build it in your opinion?

The plan here in Ontario was announced years ago, definitely before the pandemic, and nothing more has happened. And the current provincial government doesn't seem interested in any kind of mass transit. They would rather build more highways that will service the areas their developer buddies are planning to build on.

Quote by ElCoco

For short distances, driving is more convenient and for long distances flying is quicker.

Days without ElCoco saying something idiotic: 0

Quote by Magical_felix

Days without ElCoco saying something idiotic: 0

It is the public perception of rail in North America these days, though. Part of the problem in Ontario is that our current rail service, Via, sucks badly. You can literally drive to a place like Montreal faster than the train. Even I would sooner drive most places on the corridor and I am generally a supporter of mass transit. A properly run and scheduled high-speed system might actually succeed but it will have decades of ill will built up by its predecessors to overcome. Even in the Greater Toronto Area where a government run operation called Metrolinx provides decent commuter rail service to some communities, a lot of people still choose to drive (I wouldn't if I was commuting in that region, Toronto traffic is the definition of "Hell").

Quote by Seeker4

It is the public perception of rail in North America these days, though. Part of the problem in Ontario is that our current rail service, Via, sucks badly. You can literally drive to a place like Montreal faster than the train. Even I would sooner drive most places on the corridor and I am generally a supporter of mass transit. A properly run and scheduled high-speed system might actually succeed but it will have decades of ill will built up by its predecessors to overcome. Even in the Greater Toronto Area where a government run operation called Metrolinx provides decent commuter rail service to some communities, a lot of people still choose to drive (I wouldn't if I was commuting in that region, Toronto traffic is the definition of "Hell").

I've been away for a long time, but remember a number of trips (usually hung over) on via rail between Windsor and Toronto as a college student back in the day. It was affordable for someone without a car, but that's about it. I wonder, though whether high-speed rail would service the same small-town stops like Chatham, and if so, would the stop-start of the train limit it from achieving truly high speeds? Seems like high speed would work best over longer distances - maybe Windsor-Toronto-Kingston-Montreal-Quebec City with slower regional transportation to get to the in-between places.

It's HIGH SPEED rail. It's meant to travel between cites. Like Bay Area to LA is a 6-8 hour drive depending on traffic, stops and speed. A high speed train would get there in 3 hours. A plane takes about 1.5 hours, but you have to get to the airport an hour before and then there is the drive to the airport and then the wait for your bags. The high speed train would be cheaper and theoretically take the same amount of time as a plane and also be a more comfortable and enjoyable trip.

Quote by Seeker4

It is the public perception of rail in North America these days, though. Part of the problem in Ontario is that our current rail service, Via, sucks badly. You can literally drive to a place like Montreal faster than the train. Even I would sooner drive most places on the corridor and I am generally a supporter of mass transit. A properly run and scheduled high-speed system might actually succeed but it will have decades of ill will built up by its predecessors to overcome. Even in the Greater Toronto Area where a government run operation called Metrolinx provides decent commuter rail service to some communities, a lot of people still choose to drive (I wouldn't if I was commuting in that region, Toronto traffic is the definition of "Hell").

People are stupid... What else is new?

Quote by Magical_felix

It's HIGH SPEED rail. It's meant to travel between cites. Like Bay Area to LA is a 6-8 hour drive depending on traffic, stops and speed. A high speed train would get there in 3 hours. A plane takes about 1.5 hours, but you have to get to the airport an hour before and then there is the drive to the airport and then the wait for your bags. The high speed train would be cheaper and theoretically take the same amount of time as a plane and also be a more comfortable and enjoyable trip.

In Atlanta. it is arrive 2 hours advance, then with wait time, loading, and wait on the tarmac, another hour. But before any of that, Atlanta traffic is rated almost as bad as Los Angelos, so l know you can imagine how miserable it is.

I'd welcome a rapid rail. It'd be awesome. I have taken Amtrac, then rented a car at my destination, faster than driving or flying. If it were rapid rail, that'd be even better.

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know

I've been away for a long time, but remember a number of trips (usually hung over) on via rail between Windsor and Toronto as a college student back in the day. It was affordable for someone without a car, but that's about it. I wonder, though whether high-speed rail would service the same small-town stops like Chatham, and if so, would the stop-start of the train limit it from achieving truly high speeds? Seems like high speed would work best over longer distances - maybe Windsor-Toronto-Kingston-Montreal-Quebec City with slower regional transportation to get to the in-between places.

My understanding is that's what is planned. I think either London or Kitchener might get a stop as well. But, yeah, Chatham, Woodstock, and similar that do have Via service right now are out for high-speed. It is all still a pipedream right now anyhow. I have not heard any talk about it in months, if not years, since the high level plan dropped.

Quote by Buz
I'd welcome a rapid rail. It'd be awesome. I have taken Amtrac, then rented a car at my destination, faster then driving or flying. If it were rapid rail, that'd be even better.

I've done that with people from my company for meetings in Toronto a couple times using Via. Didn't rent, just Uber'd once we got there. London to Toronto actually works fairly well. It's when you're trying to go further afield, e.g. when my son used to take the train down from Ottawa, that the cracks in the system really start to show.

Quote by Chryses

For niche markets like the San Francisco - Los Angeles link, passenger rail may be competitive. For longer distances, Chicago - Los Angeles or even Chicago - Denver, even if two hundred mph can be achieved, the rail travel time cannot compete with current flight times (4 hours 20 minutes and 2 hours 35 minutes respectively).

What about the price and comfort, ding dong... that's the main selling point, pun intended.

Ever heard of the orient express? Don't let me see you first on the way to Chi chryses......

Quote by Chryses

I take the train to New York when I have the time.

See, now just imagine it new and everything streamlined and it going 180 mph.

The infrastructure costs necessary to design and build the system would be immense and increasing every year - first to create everything - then to maintain everything.

The rails have to be elevated or underground - they cannot have grade crossings. They can't use any of the thousands of miles of existing rails - as they are built for handling heavy loads and not high speeds - plus you can't have high speed rail sharing the same tracks (most aren't contiguous ribbon rail, but even if they were) you'd still have to deal with freight traffic clogging up the tracks.

As a nation we can't even maintain our highways, bridges, tunnels and turnpikes for automobiles. We can't rebuild or bring up to date our 1960s era electrical transmission lines and towers and...

We do a shitty job with maintaining and protecting our current infrastructure (which could use a couple dollar capital investment, also).

You'd have to plot out new paths for the tracks which need to anchored solidly to the ground. You'll need to traverse creeks, rivers (bays/gulfs) etc - which are also used for barge & tanker traffic. You'd have to acquire the right of way for all of these routes. That expense will be large also.

Might be cheaper to send a 1500 person colony to Mars and set up terraforming. Both would probably take as long to accomplish also.

Sorry to piss on everyone's Post Toasties.

Quote by WellMadeMale

The infrastructure costs necessary to design and build the system would be immense and increasing every year - first to create everything - then to maintain everything.

The rails have to be elevated or underground - they cannot have grade crossings. They can't use any of the thousands of miles of existing rails - as they are built for handling heavy loads and not high speeds - plus you can't have high speed rail sharing the same tracks (most aren't contiguous ribbon rail, but even if they were) you'd still have to deal with freight traffic clogging up the tracks.

As a nation we can't even maintain our highways, bridges, tunnels and turnpikes for automobiles. We can't rebuild or bring up to date our 1960s era electrical transmission lines and towers and...

We do a shitty job with maintaining and protecting our current infrastructure (which could use a couple dollar capital investment, also).

You'd have to plot out new paths for the tracks which need to anchored solidly to the ground. You'll need to traverse creeks, rivers (bays/gulfs) etc - which are also used for barge & tanker traffic. You'd have to acquire the right of way for all of these routes. That expense will be large also.

Might be cheaper to send a 1500 person colony to Mars and set up terraforming. Both would probably take as long to accomplish also.

Sorry to piss on everyone's Post Toasties.

All this is true, the main hurdle in California is the right of way and greedy fuckers holding out for their piece of the tax payer pie. Endless excuses... always... just like we can't have universal healthcare either... or socialized higher education...

But again, how can we call ourselves the most powerful country when China can have high speed rail but we just can't?

Why can all other developed nations have things but we just can't, and why do half of us appear to actively fight against our tax dollars being used for citizens instead of corporate welfare/socialism?

More American "we can't". And this time it's not even because of the Constitution. Truly the greatest nation.

Quote by Magical_felix

All this is true, the main hurdle in California is the right of way and greedy fuckers holding out for their piece of the tax payer pie. Endless excuses... always... just like we can't have universal healthcare either... or socialized higher education...

But again, how can we call ourselves the most powerful country when China can have high speed rail but we just can't?

Why can all other developed nations have things but we just can't, and why do half of us appear to actively fight against our tax dollars being used for citizens instead of corporate welfare/socialism?

The concept of 'the common good' is currently foreign to Americans. The common good is WOKE! Socialism! Horrors! We had a brief period in America (1935-1975) when America was on the road to greatness thanks to FDR. But Lewis Powell, the Koch Bros., and the Republican Party have spent the last 50 years cultivating social Darwinism as "freedom". Their vision for America is basically feudalism, with the uber-rich waging unilateral class warfare on the rest of us, who are merely seen as cheap labor and mass consumers. Thanks to their Fox "News" propaganda outlet, most Americans don't even know what life in America was like 60 years ago, or that life in other countries is so much more comfortable for the common man and woman, thanks to democratic socialism. The affluent, who have bought all our politicians in America have us right where they want us, and any thought for anything beyond the monthly bottom line, like saving the planet from global warming, or infrastructure development for the good of all is just 'woke' pie-in-the-sky.

Quote by ElCoco

Much of what you've said there is why the pic in the OP won't happen.

Giving tax breaks every few years to the corporations and upper 10% of wage earners so they can hoard $ since the 1980s - while denying the rest of America all the better things our lives could be if we weren't propping up billionaires, allowing hundreds of thousands to cheat on paying their taxes.

Just 1 example: (Denying the hiring of 160 plus IRS agents to police the cheaters is a great way to extend the grift - instead, let's arm officers and teachers and establish a police station inside every public and private grade school, junior high and high school with the money earmarked for those IRS agent hires).

Keep allowing Republican and Democrat congressmen/women to play the NYSE using their insider information gleaned from sitting in on special committees and seeing the future - 3 to 12 months before ordinary investors. THAT has worked great (for congressmen) since 1981.

If we were to go back to the taxation levels prevalent in America during the 1960s - we could get back into the black and out of the red in less than 10 years, cut back on our military spending and reroute those funds to infrastructure expenditures.

We're too busy allowing our Supreme Court justices to sell their decisions to the highest anonymous bidders (looking directly at Alito and Thomas here - curious which other Republicans were playing those silent games to enrich themselves at OUR expense to keep propping up billionaires in America).

We're too busy NOT investigating and indicting and prosecuting the treasonous criminals who tried to overthrow the legitimate votes of over 80 million people in America who voted - primarily against the Trump crime spree. Our 'new' DOJ stalled on even initiating a cursory investigation of the Trumplets - cuz they didn't want to upset them? What about the 80 plus million people you're failing to support, motherfuckers!

Do Your Jobs Better.

High speed rail is currently under construction in California though... Will be up and running in roughly 7 years.

Rest of the country too pathetic to attempt it unfortunately.

Quote by ElCoco

This a backgrounder for why the pic in the OP won't happen.

ElCoco talking about getting backgrinded lol what

[Responding to pointless with pointless is exponentially pointless]

[Another post failing to add to the conversation in any meaningful way]

Quote by Ironic

If you can believe that link, it's been 15 years in development without any rail in place. What's another7 years or so?

Man, something wrong with this kid... The actual rail is not what you build first... That's the easiest part of it. You really don't understand that or are you just arguing in bad faith (like always)?

Literally a picture of the structure the rail goes on.

Another picture of the structure under construction that the rail eventually goes on... [Edited: Unnecessary]

The problem is that in the US, the powers that be don't care about public transport. The United States actually has more rail lines than any other nation on Earth. The main issue is that these are all privately owned. And for private companies, it is far more profitable to transport goods than people.

In most countries, public transport is seen not only as a national good, but a necessity. In places like Japan or South Korea, public transport is something that everyone uses and therefor their tax dollars go to making it the best, cleanest and most efficient. In the US, people HATE spending money on anything that doesn't positively affect hem directly. This is why institutions made for public use are generally viewed as "worse" than those for private use.

In general, in the US if it doesn't make money, it's not worth doing. This goes for education, health care, and public transportation. The people that use these services are seen as lower class human beings. Compare the New York City subway to the rail systems in more developed countries like Japan, Germany or South Korea. Not only is the public transportation system seen as "gross" but the people that use it are seen as gross.

But the main reason is that the companies that own these rail lines make more money by transporting goods than by transporting people. And the government has no interest in building new rail lines, because their interest is in making as much money as possible, not making lives easier for their citizens.

I think Bullitt trains will be great for the USA. That would help get so many automobiles off of our very crowded highways. And save lives by cutting down on auto accidents.

Just build overpasses for either the trains or the roads. Do not add to the deadly train/automobile intersections.

Quote by Ironic

This could beat the California effort. The construction of a bullet train between Las Vegas and Southern California is planned to begin later this year. If successful, it would become “the first true high-speed rail system in America."

This kid doesn’t realize Southern California is in California.

Quote by Chryses

If this project does open for business in late 2027 or early 2028, then it will beat the California High-Speed Rail Authority effort.

Any news on the Virginia high speed rail project? How’s that coming along?