I'd love it if this came to be. That drive to Houston is getting uglier and uglier.
High Speed Rail System
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
High speed rail could be a huge gamechanger in the US if it's implemented smartly. For instance, Texas Central aims to connect Houston and Dallas faster than car, and far easier than air travel. Unlike air travel, you don't need to go through extensive security checkpoints to ride a train, which means you also don't need to show up hours early to make sure you get to the gate on time. And Texas Central wants to use the Shinkansen technology, which is far safer than air travel OR driving.
The NEC could also be great for HSR, the main obstacles there are the need for grade-separated (or at least separated from the rest of the ROW) straighter tracks. In the dense NEC that's a tall order, but the success of the NEC in general should be evidence that a Shinkansen or ICE style HSR line could be hugely beneficial.
The issue with HSR is that, like most trains, it's generally not profitable. This is unfortunately a somewhat inescapably political topic, since in most countries rail networks operate at a loss, but they provide huge benefits to the citizens. And if you only want to run HSR (or rail in general) on routes that are profitable, you unfortunately will cut out some of the population that would most heavily benefit from having it. Amtrak has this problem currently, most of the unprofitable routes are subsidized by the NEC, one of the only routes that actually is profitable.
So, yes HSR could create huge benefits for Americans, imagine being able to travel from Georgia to Texas in half the time or less to drive it, without the hassle and for less than the cost of flying. The problem ultimately comes down to, someone has to pay for it.
The NEC could also be great for HSR, the main obstacles there are the need for grade-separated (or at least separated from the rest of the ROW) straighter tracks. In the dense NEC that's a tall order, but the success of the NEC in general should be evidence that a Shinkansen or ICE style HSR line could be hugely beneficial.
The issue with HSR is that, like most trains, it's generally not profitable. This is unfortunately a somewhat inescapably political topic, since in most countries rail networks operate at a loss, but they provide huge benefits to the citizens. And if you only want to run HSR (or rail in general) on routes that are profitable, you unfortunately will cut out some of the population that would most heavily benefit from having it. Amtrak has this problem currently, most of the unprofitable routes are subsidized by the NEC, one of the only routes that actually is profitable.
So, yes HSR could create huge benefits for Americans, imagine being able to travel from Georgia to Texas in half the time or less to drive it, without the hassle and for less than the cost of flying. The problem ultimately comes down to, someone has to pay for it.
The problem with this is that people who own land where the ROW would be are trying to stop the project because they don't want to sell the land, and since Texas Central is not yet operating trains, they have to argue that they are in fact a railway, so they can use eminent domain. It's a complicated situation and is really depressing, because it's literally the perfect test case for HSR in the US. Two densely populated cities separated by almost completely flat, easy to build on terrain, with insane traffic connecting them. If HSR can't succeed here, it's hard to imagine it being able to succeed anywhere. NIMBYism is a problem no matter where you go or what type of project you're talking about.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
HSR from Laredo to Quebec is what we need 
JHZR2
Staff member
I’m sure there are reasons why, but I’d think the ideal way would be to build up, above or near existing roads, at least major curves aside.
The financial loss part of it is a big deal, and the USA isn’t Japan or a European country. But it seems like at least a few markets would be well served by this.
The financial loss part of it is a big deal, and the USA isn’t Japan or a European country. But it seems like at least a few markets would be well served by this.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
TTT (Tokyo Train Tunnel) by my hotel … they like flat !
I agree. The real issue is once again it's a political discussion ultimately, who pays for it? Should the government invest the money in rail like in highways to serve the public good? It's a big discussion and one that's long overdue here imo. Roads are critical, but I think going forward high speed rail could be a huge boon as well. I like driving but if I could take my annual trip to Chicago by train in even just 2/3 the time it takes to drive for a reasonable cost, I'd do it. Flying is just too much of a hassle unless it's REALLY far.
Part of the issue is depending on where you are as well, you need to have grade separation, we have people getting hit by trains now even with our slow trains, it could be worse with 200+mph quiet trains. Either grade separation or tall fences.
Given how Texans refuse to even build a non toll road, I highly doubt they want to pay for HSR, and if nobody pays for it it will be too expensive.
Just use 2 small regional airport and run shuttle plane on it, first come first serve and start flying as soon as it is full. It is much cheaper anyways. If it is high demand they would be already on a regular flight.
I think HSR is great as commute route, for high density area, with organic growth. The problem is expansion as needed for ROW is expensive if you don't buy them ahead of time. You cannot win unless you pay up front and you cannot pay less if you buy them after it is all developed. This is one trade off you need to make no matter what.
I am somewhat hopeful the recent debacle with the Texas electric grid might make people take another look at how Texas infrastructure is designed, but that's probably a pipe dream.
High speed rail is competitive because it lacks airport style security. In some places they have begun to implement passenger and luggage checks. Who remembers the 2004 Madrid train bombings? 191 killed, 2,000 injured. Then there were the 2005 London Underground bombings.56 dead, almost 800 injured.In 2015 someone shot and killed 3 people on a train going from Amsterdam to Paris. Trains and subways are vulnerable to attacks and sabotage, arguably more do than aircraft that are relatively safe in the air. With a super-fast moving train the potential for mass casualties is drastically increased. Just because we haven't seen more attacks doesn't mean there won't be more if these fast moving targets become more attractive to bad actors.If security has to be increased to the level we see in commercial air travel, will high speed rail still look attractive?
Worth noting that bad actors would have a much easier time sabotaging actual rail infrastructure. The derailment of an oil or other chemical train could cause massive damage to nearby areas, and it would be much easier (and safer for them) to set some sort of bomb or other at critical curves that likely wouldn't be noticed in time.
I mentioned sabotage. It's the most significant vulnerability of any ground-based transportation system. Imagine the casualty numbers in an effectively executed derailment.
Problem is this could be done to any number of existing bridges, vehicular or other. Nothing is going to be 100% safe, that shouldn't stop us from actually moving forward with improvements because "bad things could happen then". Bad things already happened. Bad things happen every day in this country that are far more likely than being involved in a rail accident, and even less so one that is deliberate. The Shinkansen in Japan has had no fatalities or injuries in 60 years of operation, having carried literal multiple billions of people. In a country prone to earthquakes at that. I think of everything, concern about targeted sabotage at rail infrastructure is far lower on my list of concerns than a lot of other things.
Not exactly.
It is competitive because you can run continuous traffic with cheap energy and cheap infrastructure if done right. 8 new planes vs 1 new train, 2 lines of rail and a new station every 200 or so miles, vs small airports, traffic control, fueling infrastructure, etc etc.
The risk is still the same in HSR as bombing near density area to cause derailment is still high, vs hijacking a plane to crash somewhere.
They all have their places but IMO US has cheap domestic flights because of domestic fuel, domestic plane manufacturing, domestic pilots, and everyone has a car. This cannot be replicated elsewhere on earth so they probably should build HSR instead.
Not all countries represent the same kind of popular target. In a relatively small country infrastructure can be more easily and better guarded and secured compared to a massive country, depending on route length and terrain, of course.
The only places High speed rail works is in high density population. The east coast meets this requirement in a few cities. Most of the USA doesn't have enough densely populated areas to justify the cost. The RTD light rail in Colorado is a prime example of this. The town I live in was supposed to have light rail put in 5 years ago. RTD spent 6 million and still "needs more"
I was not arguing for or against high speed rail. I merely stated that given the current lack of security the potential for mass casualties caused by willful acts is great.
No money has been spent bailing them out. They’ve been given government aid after governments told them to stop flying. Big difference.
Similar threads
