Is it a little embarrassing that there are "third world" countries that have a High Speed Train, but the U. S. and Canada cannot get one?

[KostasKouvalis]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_railway_lines

https://www.britannica.com/technology/high-speed-rail

The closest thing the US has is a line that runs from Boston to Washington DC, but it takes 4 hours and has some flaws. Plans to make other high speed rail lines in the country have been continuously delayed. Meanwhile countries like Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Turkey, India, Thailand and Saudi Arabia have already either developed some, or are in the process of developing them.

Is this a little embarrassing for Canada and especially the U. S. which is the self proclaimed "greatest nation on earth."

Uzbekistan HSR

Morocco HSR

Indonesia HSR

Saudi Arabia HSR

Turkey HSR

Yeah, it's a little embarrassing

It's not embarrassing. Investing in rainbow crosswalks and transgender bathrooms is more important

[WindAtMyBack]

No, because there is a reason for it. The US and Canada are just too spread out for it to be feasible in most places. The vast majority of those countries was built after automobiles and individual transportation was the norm. The entire design and layout of the cities doesn't work well with public transportation.

You need a certain population density for it to work. You also need a certain density of destinations for it too work. You need centralized shopping districts, offices, etc. It doesn't work well when you have people going in all different directions at all different times.

This also affects the psychology and culture. Cars and individual transportation are so ingrained that people just won't use public transport even in some places where it's theoretically feasible. Some cities have decent public transport within the city itself, but most do not. Even fewer places have good transport between cities.

Higher speed rail is being developed in a limited number of places in the US. But without the expectation of widespread use, it is just a waste of money to pay for the kind of infrastructure needed for the super fast rail systems. For now, we are making the best of systems that are very old and simply can't handle the highest speeds.

I think most people would accept the cost of building high speed rail IF it got the ridership to justify it. But I think the widespread attitude is that the ridership needs to be other people, because they won't use it themselves. I think even most people who say they would use it, would not end up doing so if it was built.

However, all of this may SLOWLY be changing. For example I think Amtrak has recently become self-funded and self-sustaining for the first time in it's history. In other words, it pays for itself.

[Anonymous]

A train is only worth while if your geography and population density can justify it.

The U. S. and Canada are basically the same country in this regard with almost all of both being too low in population density to justify a train over say airplanes or cars.

Our western cities are also more modern and designed for personal transportation like cars, and not being walk-able as is required to even use a train for most people.


Only the North east cooperator has a population density high enough to justify the cost.

South Florida, California, and Texas Triangle are getting there. But almost none of the rest of America are even close to what is required.

[KostasKouvalis]

Well, with the World Cup and Olympics for instance, they were more taking into consideration tourists and fans, and not so much locals.

Is it car culture that lead to a lack of public transportation though, or lack of public transportation that lead to car culture?

[Opinion Owner]

If we didn't have cars we would have horses and more densely populated city as was built for walking with no room for cars as was build before the invention of cars in the early 20th century, and as dominates the North east and all of Europe.

The fact that we wanted cars despite their high upfront cost was because the car gave us individually the ability to go wherever we want whenever we want and carry many things with us.

Where cars do not prevail @kostaskouvalis such as in Europe or eastern US it is mostly because there is no room for them in the design of such cities not because people don't desire what they offer.

Europe makes cars cost-prohibitive with high taxes and regulations, which frankly impoverishes the European people. But even if Europe did not cars would be more difficult to use in old European cities and villages build for walking and with few places to park them.

[Anonymous]

A high speed train to nowhere

[KostasKouvalis]

I don't know, I've seen some on Pornhub that were decent size. But I also had one Indian girl tell me I was bigger than her husband

[RebelinSteel]

Not really, a number of those countries pre HSR had some of the worst infrastructure in the world. If you look at the rail distance and costs for HSR, flying is often cheaper.
Then look at the actual quality of life in those countries, if a person likes any of those countries then just move to one, oh yeah no one would, probably the exception is Thailand. The costs for high speed rail are also dependant on the cost of the land you need to go over and the type of terrain, then add in wages, I wonder how the wages would differ between Saudi and the US, would a workforce in the US work for the Saudi wage? Lots of Western countries do not have them, including Australia.

[KostasKouvalis]

I feel many don't have them because of geography. I totally forgot Australia. That is another one I'm surprised doesn't have one. Australia doesn't claim to be the greatest nation on earth though.

In some places flying might be cheaper, but not everywhere. But also taking the train might take around the same amount if time as flying, this includes getting to the airport and all formalities. For some people, paying a little extra is worth the lesser hassle. Personally, if there was almost no difference in travel time, I would chose train over flying everytime.
In France they're actually talking about getting rid of their domestic flights, because the rail system is so efficient.

[RebelinSteel]

The other bit is use case, they could connect a number of cities but is there actually a need to?
Construction costs are astronomical in the west. Land is expensive, wages are high, there is health and safety,

[KostasKouvalis]

Read monorprise's post and my reply to him, because I think that's kind of what he was getting at too

[RebelinSteel]

Yeah pretty much so.
You need paying passengers, if you don’t get them it’s a waste. Also I imagine in those countries it’s state ran, so all costs come from the population, in the west it only going to be Private companies which must be making a profit to run the network.

[BCA6010]

The US didn't get bombed into submission and have to rebuild its cities and infrastructure from scratch. We had a solid rail infrastructure for the time going into WW2, but afterwards, devoted virtually all improvements towards a national highway system and airports. Now it wouldn't be possible to do without massive demolition projects.

[buzzword]

Brightline is good.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wer5vv73ZWI

[buzzword]

In Florida since 2018...

[John_Cobretti]

Yes it is embarassing

OUr government would love spending our Tax on painting rainbows, gender change surgery for kids and sending to Ukraine

[OtterMan68]

How much money are states and the US gov spending on transgender crosswalks and bathrooms, and how much does high speed rail cost?
Let me know the next time conservatives vote for high speed rail funding.

[BonzoInBitburg]

Why would I want to take a train when I can fly?

[KostasKouvalis]

Train is less a hassle. No TSA and you can bring more things, and enjoy the scenery. And it's more comfortable and safer too probably

[BonzoInBitburg]

Less hassle? I can fly cross country in 5 hours and I have TSA PreCheck, which is cheap and I get through security in 5 minutes or less. There's no place a high speed train can go that will get me there faster than a plane so that's a complete waste of time.

[KostasKouvalis]

You still have to go through security though. That's the hassle part.

[BonzoInBitburg]

Security takes less than 5 minutes with TSA PreCheck.

[KostasKouvalis]

Doesn't matter. I don't wanna go through it. I should be able to wear my shoes and belt and bring a knife and water with me

[BonzoInBitburg]

I wear my belt and shoes through security. Not sure why I would need a knife and water is pretty easy to find to fill my water bottle once I'm on my way to the gate. Plus I can get where I want to go in a fraction of the time for not a lot of money. Trains were great a hundred years ago but now they are a waste of time

[KostasKouvalis]

It's also the principle of the thing. I am a good American Catholic boy! I'm not some fucking Islamist!