Why can't America have public transit inside its cities, suburbs and regions?
Why can't America have HSR linking its cities in major regions?
It is. How do you rate its profitability? Like any major infrastructure it is a long term low yield investment, no one complains about road projects taking decades to pay back but rail is expected to be instantly profitable.
Meanwhile the highway trust fund has been broken for ages requiring congress to transfer tens of billions into it each and every year
The free market gives you a choice between a Ford and a Toyota.
It does not give you a choice between driving and a commuter/metro/regional train/streetcar. That requires collective action on our part
>Like any major infrastructure it is a long term low yield investment
Our existing experience with Amtrak is negative yield, not low yield.
Also competing pressures come into play. Here's California's current plan for HSR. It was supposed to go from SD-LA-SF-Sac like in your map. Instead it's landing several places in between and not going the way the "the crow flies" at all.
Part of that is that mountains in the way. Part is the consideration of land value when determining eminent domain compensation. Part is that communities don't want to be passed-by. Before cars and planes when the rail was the major way to get around, being skipped by a train means your town died. Last century getting skipped by the highway meant the same thing - so everyone with enough clout to be a hub gets their way.
>Why can't America have public transit inside its cities, suburbs and regions?
Why must Europeans generalize so much about a massive land mass consisting of over 300,000,000 people? My city has great public transit.
>It does not own the infrastructure it operates services on
>Its hands are tied and has nothing to untie them with
So what do you want, the free market to fix it?
>HSR doesn't stop at every little town
>It won't be high speed due to the constant deceleration and acceleration
That's all true. Vote for HSR, get just another train.
>Separate services could run to them
There already is, they wanted to be part of this project too, and now they are. People complained it was screwing the speed, and they said "well you fucking try to make it work then". So that's how things work in California.
>cost $10 billion
We're already at quadruple the original estimate for this project and over 100% of our state GDP. There will probably be some tunnels along the way. I don't want to contemplate how much tunelling every inch of the way would cost.
>So what do you want, the free market to fix it?
In other countries the railways in a populated area are owned by a separate impartial government body allowing access to all parties and providing for regular maintenance upgrades
>there already is
I mean a separate HSR
A Paris to Marseilles TGV doesn't stop at Lyons and Avignon along the way
There are separate Paris-Lyon and Paris-Avignon and lyon-Avignon and avignon-Marseilles services
Or they could have regional fast rail services on conventional, upgraded, track.
A combination of incab signalling, automated fault prevention, rebuilding existing track, some new track to eliminate winding detours, and DMU capable of 160-200kmh can make a big difference for regional areas and big towns that don't warrant HSR
America is fucking huge
Texas is larger than the 6 biggest countries of Europe *minus Russia*
That, and the cities of America are across a ton of varied topography. It was expensive as hell to make the highways that connect the nation, imagine having to lay new tracks to those cities
because america is fuck huge
europeans just dont get it.
start off in the middle of ireland. drive 45 minuets in any direction and you are in the ocean.
Star off in the middle of Los Angelas and drive 45 minuets in any direction and you are still in LA
>In other countries the railways in a populated area are owned by a separate impartial government body allowing access to all parties and providing for regular maintenance upgrades
I don't see how that would make any functional difference from how we're doing it now.
>There are separate Paris-Lyon and Paris-Avignon and lyon-Avignon and avignon-Marseilles services
That sounds ideal, though I doubt the smaller lines would see much use.
>Why can't America have public transit inside its cities, suburbs and regions?
>The General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the Great American streetcar scandal) refers to convictions of General Motors (GM) and other companies for monopolizing the sale of buses and supplies to National City Lines and its subsidiaries, and to allegations that this was part of a deliberate plot to purchase and dismantle streetcar systems in many cities in the United States as an auto marketing ploy.
do you think this conspiracy ended?
do you think the whole auto industry didn't do everything in their power to make sure rail and public transport got the short end of the stick?
it's simple OP, the murikan biz system is set up to milk every skekel from the goyim it can
>is actually needed
sort of. the proposal is outdated. there are plenty of pipelines being built right now. just not politicizes ones that need federal approval because they cross the US border and go over an aquifer (or some shit like that)..
>superfluous rail line
they're a better cost/value proposition than most of what we are currently supporting/subsidizing. generally, more capacity for a lower cost.
Because we have too many niggers.
Seriously, we have bus systems in most cities and we barely use them because of all the black people. Public transit in the U.S. isn't clean or safe.
>I don't see how that would make any functional difference from how we're doing it now.
Amtrak is given priority below the services run by the tracks owner
Amtrak cannot carry out maintenance or upgrades
So if the freight operator is perfectly fine with bridges built in the Depression that have strict speed restrictions, nothing can be done
If they don't want modern in-cab signalling, automated fault detection, electrification, then then nothing can be done
>I doubt the smaller lines would see much use
Then they warrant the regional fast rail I described rather than HSR
Maybe if there was some kind of alternative mode of transit that provided people a means to drive less...
Like a vehicle that could carry a lot of people and operated on steel tracks and was powered by diesel or overhead electrification...
This would be incredibly efficient
It could be in the burbs
It could be in cities
It could go to rural regions and big towns/small cities
Little versions could operate on the streets in urban areas
Europe is tiny.
>Why can't America have public transit inside its cities, suburbs and regions?
It does. Also has a nice Interstate system, publicly funded, for transit across regions and between states.
>Why can't America have HSR linking its cities in major regions?
We went a different way, with a good system of Interstates and small local airports. High Speed Rail makes little sense in most parts of the US -- it would cost about what air travel costs and be slightly slower. (Trains would be much slower than the planes, but presumably you'd save time on not taxing and such.)
Other than trainfags who just get trainboners who want more trainporn, there is just no real constituency interested in HSR in the US.
Western + Central Europe as a whole is smaller than the continental US not even counting Alaska which is bigger than Western Europe by itself. People severely underestimate the size of the United States, especially the Western part of the country. Western+Central Europe has double the population of the US as a whole fit into roughly half the space. Extra population density makes rail a more attractive option, which is why it works so well in Japan also.
There's a saying, in Europe 100 miles is a long way; in the US 100 years is a long time.
>High Speed Rail makes little sense in most parts of the US
measured by land area, perhaps. measured in terms of people served, not so much. it could work pretty well along the east coast, in the great lakes/midwest, along the west coast, as well as some parts of the south (texas will be building some high speed rail soon).
>it would cost about what air travel costs and be slightly slower.
if you were to include time spent in airports and other related times, hours would be saved by taking high speed rail, with the optimum distances traveled being 200-500 miles (or something like that), with airplanes becoming more competitive over longer distances. trains are much more comfortable in general, as well.
This. I used to work at Disneyland when I was in college. All the Japanese or English tourists would always ask about the Grand Canyon, Chicago, New York, Yellowstone, Golden Gate Bridge, etc etc etc
It got old explaining to them that the one state they were in was bigger than their entire country.
Alaska is massive but 99% of it is uninhabited and undeveloped so It isn't really pertinent to state size discussions. Texas and California are 100x more relevant than Alaska will ever be too.
>Implying the instant you build any sort of mass transit system, it won't be flooded by niggers which alienate white passengers, causing the ultimate defunding of said system
Happens every time, welcome to niggerland.
>Implying the instant you build any sort of city, it won't be flooded by niggers which alienate white citizens, causing the ultimate defunding of said city
Happens every time, welcome to niggerland.
>tfw live in Texas
>tfw El Paso
>tfw want HSR connecting entire state
>See propose ideas for HSR for country
>Derp Lets connect El Paso all the way up to Denver.
I-I can go and get high at least...
I honestly can't tell if you agree with me, or are trying to mock me, Poe's law I guess.
But seriously, if you are trying to mock me, what you wrote is exactly what happens all the time, taxpayers move out and the local governments go broke, causing all the civil services to fail.
China has the same problem. The country is pretty fucking huge and nobody is using half of it.
The only difference is that the western part of the US has huge cities and major industry and the western part of China has peasants and goats.
>Vanderbilts fucked up rail
>Never had control over more than New York - Buffalo - Chicago
I live in Honolulu, and I can tell you that despite the fact that it's one of the most densely populated regions in the country, it doesn't have the population base to support rail in any way, shape, or form. Hell, we used to have a railroad that went all the way around the island of Oahu, and that died.
Most people take the bus because buses can go anywhere a car can, without the additional infrastructure cost of building a rail system. Efforts to increase bus ridership over the years failed miserably because most people in Honolulu have to have cars to get around and do things, ergo negating the need for public transportation unless you're a senior citizen, under-18, or can't afford to pay $125 a month to lease a car. Or you're one of the people who can't meet driver's license ID requirements.
Simply put, there's no reason for there to be rail within cities when buses are better. And there's no reason to have rail on this fucking island because, with less than 250,000 people living within walking distance of the rail's stations.
and yet there's zero reason why regional areas can't have HSR, as someone has just pointed out Boston to DC is similar to European distances, and is just as dense as Europe; a huge percentage of the people here live in the DC/Philly/NYC/NJ/Boston megalopolis.
blacks ruin everything they touch. that shouldn't stop us from building things. it just means we must also uphold law and order.
>it doesn't have the population base to support rail in any way, shape, or form
you live on an island. no shit it can't support rail.
>there's no reason for there to be rail within cities when buses are better
capacity. light rail can carry a shitload more people than any form of buses can. it also requires much less maintenance, with the only downside being that it has a higher initial cost. it is objectively better in a number of situations.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Why would you want cheap, reliable public transportation from niggerville into whitopia? Why would you want blacks to have easy transportation to your neighborhood, your home, your children?
It's largely thanks to the trains from Louisiana to Illinois that Chicongo is such a shithole.
>all the non-energy stuff can ONLY use oil
>oil can't be synthesized to make that crap if needed anyways
>missing the point entirely
if you have a separate energy source, you can fucking make oil as a storage medium.
>You don't have a government that can do whatever the fuck it wants.
I'm afraid I've got some bad news.
And the main reason why people are against it is because they're obese baby boomers and Detroit has had a long propaganda campaign to basically brainwash people into thinking that every american needs to drive a shitty plastic truck or an oversized range rover
So we should all suffer because niggers? Let's abolish the airline industry too, since apparently a ton of niggers were able to make the pilgrimage to Fergusson
I hate bikes now. My city council voted to install a bike line on main street, put up barricades lining that lane, and turn the lane next to it into metered parking spaces, so we go from six lanes to three lanes. On main street, that everyone has to use for eastward traffic, to get onto the interstates leading out of downtown.
>Live on an island
>No shit it can't support rail
Tell that to the railfags who are spending $6.5 billion on it.
Look at it this way: Light Rail can only use that capacity on specific routes. Unless people in your cities and suburbs live and work in highly centralized locations, it's less efficient than using a fleet of buses. And maintenance costs include maintaining and upgrading the tracks, not just the cars. Never mind that if you want to upgrade the cars you have to place massive bulk orders to replace them all at once, rather than just swapping out gradually.
Stop ruining our freight rail network with your obsolete, subsidized passenger train.
There is still a need for commuter rail, tourist trains, and light rail in densely populated areas. But the time of money losing passenger trains is over.
Cars are too convenient and planes are too fast. It's OVER.
>Tell that to the hawaiian railfags who are spending $6.5 billion on it.
also, absolutely disgusting waste of money. how the fuck did they get $6.5 billion? we could build out our entire transit system with that. the problem isn't with rail itself. your policy makers and/or transit planners are retarded.
i'm a semi truck driver and a very big traveler
I've been on the rails in Japan and many of the ones in Europe
I drive across the country very often and I can honestly say the US is FUCKING HUGE
>Way more expensive to fabricate it rather than just get it naturally
then we should save our fucking oil for that, instead of burning it for energy, when we can reasonably supplant it with other sources.
>what is technological innovation
$1.5 billion from the Federal government, $3.8 billion from a State-wide tax increase. But it's going over budget, so the funds earmarked for it from that aren't going to cover it.
>convenient for travelling long distances
i agree with you that we need to stop shitting up our freight rail network with shitty and obsolete passenger rail bullshit. we need a separate system for passenger rail.
look, the tunnel under the alps works because their aren't a lot of ways around the alps... in california you can run the route around the mountains for MUCH less money than it takes for a tunnel and the only thing that suffers is ride times...
>2030 in the year of our Lord
>not living in based MN
>gateway isn't labelled as LRT
>doesn't include Riverview corridor LRT
>doesn't include Minneapolis to White Bear Lake LRT
>all kinds of BRT and aBRT not labelled
and still breddy good
rental bikes seem like a good idea but the problem is if you own a bike you have some practice in riding it and how to ride it in your enviroment...
now granted some people who rent these know how to ride.. but a lot of causuals see them and think ZOMG BIKERIDING I can see the city while biking!!! and then become a stupid nuisance to normal pedestrians and cars because they have no clue how to ride smart in a city
Yeah, you're about two blocks from where you started. Which makes a decent argument for public transit...
I am so fucking pissed that San Luis Obispo will not be getting high speed rail. The transit in this area is total bullshit and I hate having to drive for fucking hours just to get anywhere in this fucking shithole state.
Allegedly. It's what keeps bits of road between the potholes.
way back when, a deal was struck in which the railroad companies got (i dont remember), and in exchange, they had to give priority to passenger rail over freight rail, or some shit like that. something which is never enforced these days. (someone who knows about this can better expain)
the railroad companies currently own those lines, but they are supposed to have some obligations. since feds dont actually own them, cant upgrade them or do shit.
sort of like the post office. shit cant be done to fix things without congressional action, and congress doesnt give 2 flying fucks about fixing anything.
nitrile gloves and xray machines cost too much...
kidding but airline industry doesnt want cheaper prices and little less profit and more business
they want more expensive prices less business more profit
Jets happened. People stop taking railroads and moved to passenger airlines because they're much faster. Railroad companies, specifically those who relied solely on passengers to generate income, began to declare bankruptcy and go out of business. As these lesser lines and companies went bankrupt, revenue for larger rail companies, those who owned large networks of tracks, began to drop and people feared that the rail industry would go down in flames.
Because rail was too big to fail, the Federal government stepped in and founded a public corporation to handle all inter-city passenger traffic. That was Amtrak. Because Amtrak is still popular, but is a massive money sink, it was never privatized or disbanded, as was intended.
Now, after decades of consolidation in the rail industry, those companies that own rail lines are self-sufficient, but passenger travel remains a huge cost sink that pays out no profits at Amtrak rates, so nobody is interested in entering the field, leaving Amtrak the sole passenger rail operator outside of cities and metros.
ive hear projections for 2020 to break ground on texan rail line but i doubt that will happen so quick
if/when it does happen all texas will need is a nuclear power plant and we can say fuck you to government grants and become a super state
UAL Reports $1.1 Billion Full-Year 2013 Profit Excluding Special Charges, an 84 Percent Increase over 2012 Results; $571 Million Profit Including Special Charges
is there something im missing united made half a billion in profit last year
it could be less expensive no?
>airlines are heavily subsidized
>HSR would blow airlines out of the water if they were given a fair shake
>trains being an order of magnitude more comfortable than other means of travel
>trains requiring less maintenance over time that other means of travel
>trains having higher passenger capacity than other means of travel
>initial capital costs roughly equivalent to other means of travel
>literally and actually nothing bad about rail relative to other forms of transportation
Over long distances, rail is slower. That's why it's stronger in Europe than in the US - once you get into several hours of traveling time, the faster plane makes up for the longer airport procedures.
>on HSR from NC to WA
>funny guy puts stuff on tracks or car stalls out
>die or slow down
>no problem like this with planes
if you can get me 2.5k miles in 7 hours reliably i might consider your silly idea
It should only happen if construction is funded exclusively by the inhabitants of the cities. Why should everyone else have to pay because someone living in a city doesn't want to get a car and drive?
>It should only happen if construction is funded exclusively by the inhabitants of rural areas. Why should everyone else have to pay because someone living in the country wants to get a car and drive?
>implying cities haven't subsidized rural areas for decades
>B-BUT THESE HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES PRACTICALLY PAY FOR THEMSELVES
1st, HSR is primarily for regional travel, in which case it completelyQ crushes airlines.
2nd, NY to CA can be done reasonably in 1 day by train if you build actual HSR. distance between LA and NYC is 2500 miles (rounded up). at 220mph, that trip would take 11.5 hours (rounded up).
a google search yields nonstop flights between NYC and LA take between 5 hr 40 min and 5 hr 50 min.
HSR only takes 2x as long. this then leaves another 12 hours of margin for stops, transfers, those 1/100000 delays, perhaps a longer total route, or a slower average speed, etc.
this also doesn't include the hours spent in airports on either end, or non nonstop flights (dem layovers). not every flight takes only ~6 hours.
HSR fares would also be much cheaper, especially compared to better quality flights (nonstop, better amenities, actually having personal space).
then there's the factor of comfort, which planes can't compete with, unless flight attendants start giving the passengers blowjobs.
if time is absolutely critical/preferred, then a plane would be taken. otherwise, no one in their right mind would pass up on HSR to take a flight.
the airlines would be endangered like passanger rail before them, and most people would be fine with that.
>even outside it's intended primary use, it's still better