This one was pretty insane.Thanks to my patrons: Adrian, Alex, Alexander Trout, andrew mullins, Andrew Schumacher, Andy Balonis, an engineer, Anthony Albence...
Because it doesn’t make economic sense to do so. Outside of a few population centers the US does not have the same population density to pull it off. There may be a few routes on the East and West coast that are viable. But overall our cities are mostly suburban and too spread out to make it an effective alternative.
It is possible to build trains/stations in lightly populated areas and have modern building codes in place to encourage modern, efficient towns be developed around them.
I think only very few people would argue for a fully connected continental network. But as you said, up and down the coast is a very good usecase for high speed rail and it’s a shame you don’t have any yet.
For what it’s worth, in terms of urban development some of the big cities do move forward. I think that’s often overlooked when mocking the US for its car dependency. (But it will take a long while until the dependency debt is paid off)
The East and (to a lesser extent) West Coast already do have quite solid coverage by train. High speed would be nice but the population density is also such that it probably isn’t worth it because of the frequent stops.
But yeah. People really forget the scale of the US. Our one country is roughly twice the size of the EU. And while we have the densely populated areas that are comparable to “France to Belgium”, we have a LOT of empty flyover states that are comparable to the ass end of Norway and so forth.
And in actual civilized countries? It is REALLY easy to take a train to a population center. Small town? You are probably catching a bus or renting a car.
Don’t get me wrong. The US needs a LOT of work and, from looking at the amtrak route, there are a few extra lines that would actually connect the midwest/southwest pretty well. You still wouldn’t take a train from NYC to California but you might from Kansas to Chicago or whatever.
But most people come at this from “a really rich and privileged white guy told me that Amsterdam is heaven” and don’t seem to realize that our actual cities aren’t THAT much worse (unless you are a cyclist. cycling is suicide in a city) and that Amsterdam doesn’t have to deal with a North Dakota sized dead zone of all civilization and infrastructure.
The “it’s not economical” argument is used very often for numerous topics and it always begs the question: not economical compared to what? Is the purportedly more economical choice accounting for every externality it creates? Is it only economical because it already exists? Are there reasons we should stop doing the economical option? Lastly, what unaccounted for benefits might materialize if the uneconomical choice was pursued anyway?
So in this particular situation, we’re comparing the costs of building and operating high speed rail lines in the US to maintaining highways, hundreds of thousands of vehicles, airports, and planes. We should also account for the externalities created by using this infrastructure, so a shitload of carbon emissions plus the negatives of car culture and flying is just an awful experience.
We should also consider what may happen if high speed rail was built anyway. I bet there would be so much more medium distance travel, people would be going on day trips to cities they wouldn’t have considered before. Previously unknown and forgotten areas of the country may be revitalized. Who knows what cool stuff could happen.
Anyway, it really sucks when people use the “iT,s nOt eCoNoMiCaL” argument because it’s probably not true when everything is taken into account.
At the end of the day, if something is economical, it basically happens automatically in a market economy. For example: It would be pointless if the U.S. government started running car rental stores in every major population center… because – duh – that idea makes money and other people are already doing it.
From that perspective, you could argue that it’s actually the government’s job specifically to do uneconomical things. That’s why running a government is hard; almost all ideas are uneconomical, so how does one manage to pick only the good uneconomical ideas? Good government policy requires the kind of foresight that can’t be gleaned from a cost/benefit analysis.
There are plenty of routes out there that are economical. I wouldn’t expect one national system, but I would expect a series of state and regional systems similar to California’s planned system or the Northeast Corridor.
Because it doesn’t make economic sense to do so. Outside of a few population centers the US does not have the same population density to pull it off. There may be a few routes on the East and West coast that are viable. But overall our cities are mostly suburban and too spread out to make it an effective alternative.
Imagine if the US joined the rest of the civilized world and built cities that aren’t 99% unlivable suburban hellscape
It is possible to build trains/stations in lightly populated areas and have modern building codes in place to encourage modern, efficient towns be developed around them.
China took it to an extreme in one situation but it’s entirely possible on smaller scales.
I think only very few people would argue for a fully connected continental network. But as you said, up and down the coast is a very good usecase for high speed rail and it’s a shame you don’t have any yet.
For what it’s worth, in terms of urban development some of the big cities do move forward. I think that’s often overlooked when mocking the US for its car dependency. (But it will take a long while until the dependency debt is paid off)
The East and (to a lesser extent) West Coast already do have quite solid coverage by train. High speed would be nice but the population density is also such that it probably isn’t worth it because of the frequent stops.
But yeah. People really forget the scale of the US. Our one country is roughly twice the size of the EU. And while we have the densely populated areas that are comparable to “France to Belgium”, we have a LOT of empty flyover states that are comparable to the ass end of Norway and so forth.
And in actual civilized countries? It is REALLY easy to take a train to a population center. Small town? You are probably catching a bus or renting a car.
Don’t get me wrong. The US needs a LOT of work and, from looking at the amtrak route, there are a few extra lines that would actually connect the midwest/southwest pretty well. You still wouldn’t take a train from NYC to California but you might from Kansas to Chicago or whatever.
But most people come at this from “a really rich and privileged white guy told me that Amsterdam is heaven” and don’t seem to realize that our actual cities aren’t THAT much worse (unless you are a cyclist. cycling is suicide in a city) and that Amsterdam doesn’t have to deal with a North Dakota sized dead zone of all civilization and infrastructure.
The “it’s not economical” argument is used very often for numerous topics and it always begs the question: not economical compared to what? Is the purportedly more economical choice accounting for every externality it creates? Is it only economical because it already exists? Are there reasons we should stop doing the economical option? Lastly, what unaccounted for benefits might materialize if the uneconomical choice was pursued anyway?
So in this particular situation, we’re comparing the costs of building and operating high speed rail lines in the US to maintaining highways, hundreds of thousands of vehicles, airports, and planes. We should also account for the externalities created by using this infrastructure, so a shitload of carbon emissions plus the negatives of car culture and flying is just an awful experience.
We should also consider what may happen if high speed rail was built anyway. I bet there would be so much more medium distance travel, people would be going on day trips to cities they wouldn’t have considered before. Previously unknown and forgotten areas of the country may be revitalized. Who knows what cool stuff could happen.
Anyway, it really sucks when people use the “iT,s nOt eCoNoMiCaL” argument because it’s probably not true when everything is taken into account.
At the end of the day, if something is economical, it basically happens automatically in a market economy. For example: It would be pointless if the U.S. government started running car rental stores in every major population center… because – duh – that idea makes money and other people are already doing it.
From that perspective, you could argue that it’s actually the government’s job specifically to do uneconomical things. That’s why running a government is hard; almost all ideas are uneconomical, so how does one manage to pick only the good uneconomical ideas? Good government policy requires the kind of foresight that can’t be gleaned from a cost/benefit analysis.
This is an excellent point
There are plenty of routes out there that are economical. I wouldn’t expect one national system, but I would expect a series of state and regional systems similar to California’s planned system or the Northeast Corridor.