This one was pretty insane.Thanks to my patrons: Adrian, Alex, Alexander Trout, andrew mullins, Andrew Schumacher, Andy Balonis, an engineer, Anthony Albence...
There is only one country that built a high speed rail network of length and ubiquity that would meet their needs, and that is China. Even then, the country has a lot of underutilized high speed rail infrastructure and built a lot of the network for other than economic reasons.
Even if the USA was to start a massive federal level HSR program tomorrow, it would likely be several disconnected networks which may never connect across the Rockies. The city pairs just aren’t there.
Even if the USA was to start a massive federal level HSR program tomorrow, it would likely be several disconnected networks which may never connect across the Rockies.
I’m curious, why wouldn’t Japan or France qualify as countries which have “built a high speed rail network of length and ubiquity that would meet their needs”? Yes, China has by far the most HSR infrastructure and world-leading HSR expertise, but surely at least a few other countries can satisfy such a mediocre standard as “meeting their needs”?
Both Japan and France have great high speed rail systems, but they are on par with a built it California High Speed Rail, maybe with connections to Nevada and Arizona. They may be national networks, but the size in the USA would put them more at the size of an individual state.
The scale of HSR required to take a trip like shown in the video would need to be on a system the scale of China’s system, not Japan or France.
And note that I didn’t say that high speed rail in the USA is bad, just that it probably wouldn’t be one full network; there would likely be gaps in coverage.
They mean meeting the needs of the US. France is the size of Texas. What works in France doesn’t translate to the US because of our sheer geographic size. China is the only country with high speed rail that compares in geographic size to the US.
But we absolutely could and should have high speed rail corridors that cover the east coast and west coast separately.
Exactly. The USA should have high speed rail, but it isn’t going to be one continuous network. We also shouldn’t set the expectation for transcontinental high speed rail trips as the marker for success because that is going to lead to poor investment in HSR.
Yeah honestly northeast corridor is the way to do it and just explode the investment in the DC to New York space.
After that it can expand north and south to cover more of the East Coast. Hopefully west coast can do their own and then maybe express train connections to cities in the center to fill in over time
Two cities of a certain size that are within the distances that high speed rail makes sense over driving or flying. It makes sense to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco, for instance. However, there isn’t that much density in a large part of the country to justify the cost of high speed rail currently.
Hell, a big complaint with California’s HSR implementation is that it isn’t initially connecting either of the two main cities; those segments are still under design.
So a high speed rail trip cross country isn’t going to be viable any time soon, and likely shouldn’t be planned for beyond mandating a federal electrification and signaling standard.
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.
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.
Wow what an excellent retort, I must now go back and reconsider my entire belief system and everything I’ve ever learned /s. But on a more serious note, money does practically grow on trees when viewed from the government’s perspective.
Inflation was caused by a combination of supply chain disruptions (mostly this) and corporate profiteering (less this). It had little to nothing to do with government actions. Read some nonpartisan literature on the topic before you come back.
Wow you certainly cited some excellent sources there. Based on your well educated and certainly unbiased expertise I’m sure printing unlimited money by the government won’t have negative consequences. There can’t be any examples of real world bad monetary policy that has nothing to do with US partisan politics…
I don’t know, people seem to live in these hellscapes just fine. In fact after Covid they are leaving denser urban centers and moving to the suburbs in higher numbers…
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)
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.
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.
Imagine if the US joined the rest of the civilized world and built high speed rail networks
There is only one country that built a high speed rail network of length and ubiquity that would meet their needs, and that is China. Even then, the country has a lot of underutilized high speed rail infrastructure and built a lot of the network for other than economic reasons.
Even if the USA was to start a massive federal level HSR program tomorrow, it would likely be several disconnected networks which may never connect across the Rockies. The city pairs just aren’t there.
So what? You gotta start somewhere
I’m not saying you shouldn’t start, just that I wouldn’t expect a Spokane to Missoula or a Boise to Salt Lake City segment any time soon.
I’m curious, why wouldn’t Japan or France qualify as countries which have “built a high speed rail network of length and ubiquity that would meet their needs”? Yes, China has by far the most HSR infrastructure and world-leading HSR expertise, but surely at least a few other countries can satisfy such a mediocre standard as “meeting their needs”?
Both Japan and France have great high speed rail systems, but they are on par with a built it California High Speed Rail, maybe with connections to Nevada and Arizona. They may be national networks, but the size in the USA would put them more at the size of an individual state.
The scale of HSR required to take a trip like shown in the video would need to be on a system the scale of China’s system, not Japan or France.
And note that I didn’t say that high speed rail in the USA is bad, just that it probably wouldn’t be one full network; there would likely be gaps in coverage.
They mean meeting the needs of the US. France is the size of Texas. What works in France doesn’t translate to the US because of our sheer geographic size. China is the only country with high speed rail that compares in geographic size to the US.
But we absolutely could and should have high speed rail corridors that cover the east coast and west coast separately.
Exactly. The USA should have high speed rail, but it isn’t going to be one continuous network. We also shouldn’t set the expectation for transcontinental high speed rail trips as the marker for success because that is going to lead to poor investment in HSR.
Yeah honestly northeast corridor is the way to do it and just explode the investment in the DC to New York space.
After that it can expand north and south to cover more of the East Coast. Hopefully west coast can do their own and then maybe express train connections to cities in the center to fill in over time
Removed by mod
What are “city pairs”?
Two cities of a certain size that are within the distances that high speed rail makes sense over driving or flying. It makes sense to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco, for instance. However, there isn’t that much density in a large part of the country to justify the cost of high speed rail currently.
Hell, a big complaint with California’s HSR implementation is that it isn’t initially connecting either of the two main cities; those segments are still under design.
So a high speed rail trip cross country isn’t going to be viable any time soon, and likely shouldn’t be planned for beyond mandating a federal electrification and signaling standard.
Thanks for the explanation!
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.
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
Spoken like someone who thinks money grows on trees.
Wow what an excellent retort, I must now go back and reconsider my entire belief system and everything I’ve ever learned /s. But on a more serious note, money does practically grow on trees when viewed from the government’s perspective.
But on a more serious note, money does practically grow on trees when viewed from the government’s perspective.
:Looks at record inflation of the past two years: No, I’m pretty sure there is a cost that will eventually be paid.
Inflation was caused by a combination of supply chain disruptions (mostly this) and corporate profiteering (less this). It had little to nothing to do with government actions. Read some nonpartisan literature on the topic before you come back.
Wow you certainly cited some excellent sources there. Based on your well educated and certainly unbiased expertise I’m sure printing unlimited money by the government won’t have negative consequences. There can’t be any examples of real world bad monetary policy that has nothing to do with US partisan politics…
:Cough Argentina: :Cough Venezuela: :Cough Turkey:
Ohh sorry I must have had to clear my throat there.
Imagine if the US joined the rest of the civilized world and built cities that aren’t 99% unlivable suburban hellscape
I don’t know, people seem to live in these hellscapes just fine. In fact after Covid they are leaving denser urban centers and moving to the suburbs in higher numbers…
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-citylab-how-americans-moved/
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)
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.
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.
Removed by mod