Well China built vast blocks of buildings that would never sell to boost their economy. There's also other complications that no other nation faces while expanding infrastructure.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
USA would be so much better with a fast train infrastructure.
- Thread starter BladeoftheImmortal
- Start date
- Status
Well China built vast blocks of buildings that would never sell to boost their economy. There's also other complications that no other nation faces while expanding infrastructure.
Liljagare
Banned
Regarding the distance, not feasable to build from coast to coast etc.. So, running double lorries or transport by plane is more efficient, cheaper and better than trains?! I just fail to see that there is a cost issue with trains. Per dollar they are the best thing to use after a supercargo ship.
I vote for "big oil" wanting to keep teh oil flowing and being burned.
I vote for "big oil" wanting to keep teh oil flowing and being burned.
I heard somewhere that America only has highways because they were scared of the Russians during the cold war. The highways were built to transport tanks and stuff when the Russians attacked. Same as the internet. America needs Russia to be great again.
in england, we have a comprehensive rail infrastructure which has been mismanaged and profiteered to the point that it's often cheaper to drive your own personal petrol powered cube of steel to a place and back than it is to take a seat on a mass transit vehicle powered by overhead electricity which runs on rails.
impressive, really.
impressive, really.
That's a popular myth but it's not true. Some people advocating for the expenses used the threat of Russia (and the need for swift travel in the event of some atomic event) to support their construction, but that wasn't a reason Eisenhower proposed them. More than anything it was part of a larger economic package, and on its face it was a good idea for a car-loving nation that was so large and had so many natural obstacles in between its states.
Federalism is such a nightmare for a big infrastructure project like this. Just imagining how much hell the state and local governments would raise over eminent domain and big government encroachment gives me headaches. It's a fine idea though.
How the exactly is China fantastic high speed rail system is biting them in ass?
Not saying that everything they did during their unprecedented growth period was great and they certainly started some misguided projects, but the high speed rail system was a very good idea and the country is better of for doing it.
They require big upfront investment, but yeah, after that is done, trains are by far the most cost effective form of ground transportation. They're also the cleanest and should be the safest (planes are currently safer than trains, but that is mostly because we have much stricter regulation and much higher safety standards on planes).Regarding the distance, not feasable to build from coast to coast etc.. So, running double lorries or transport by plane is more efficient, cheaper and better than trains?! I just fail to see that there is a cost issue with trains. Per dollar they are the best thing to use after a supercargo ship.
I vote for "big oil" wanting to keep teh oil flowing and being burned.
And theoretically, they could go as fast as planes. We're not there yet and won't be for a while, but we have the technology to make it happen if we really wanted.
Now to be clear, that doesn't mean that OMG we should just build trains everywhere and don't worry about cost, if takes you 200 years to have a return on the investment (to pull a random number of my ass) it something you must consider. But looking long term, some sort of mass ground transportation over fixed routes makes the most sense as a the major way to move people around, and I wish we would've think a bit more long terms on these things.
I think by nature cities are more dense than suburbs right? So it makes sense for most people to have transport hubs in the city. For train stations this is an easy task (no gigantic flying machines that need airspace for taking off and landing). In China most airports are way out in the sticks... But for a city like Shanghai with appx 25 million people the majority of them can be served by the 4 main railroad stations essentially in the "downtown" parts of the city. It's much more convenient. Cities are smaller in the USA and airports are usually closer to the city center (except Denver that's the middle of fucking nowhere) and everyone has a car so yeah it can kind of negates the benefit I guess. Still though if I'm traveling to a new city id much prefer the option to arrive downtown versus a 20-30 minute taxi ride away (cuz we all know public transport in the USA is butt). I like flying but I love taking the train. If there is a comparable option I'll choose train every time.
acheron_xl
Member
A few years ago there was to be a train running from Chicago through Madison on its way to Minneapolis. Good commuter train. People were getting hired and plants were being built in Wisconsin to support the construction.
Then Scott Walker got elected. Now the train is going to go through northern Illinois into Iowa, bypassing WI entirely. Plant construction was halted. People fired.
So, I agree. But good luck getting it done when most of the states are controlled by republicans.
Then Scott Walker got elected. Now the train is going to go through northern Illinois into Iowa, bypassing WI entirely. Plant construction was halted. People fired.
So, I agree. But good luck getting it done when most of the states are controlled by republicans.
teruterubozu
Member
Ride the shitty Amtrak and like it, cuz that's all we have left.
We also have clean, safe drinking water in all of our cities like every other first world nation
teruterubozu
Member
Well the other problem is our roads and bridges are falling apart too.
We should just go back to horseback. This infrastructure shit ain't workin' here in the US in the modern age.
Sure about that?
entremet
Member
Well alternatives form of travel would help take the burden from roads and bridges.
We just have a government, both left and right, that doesn't care about infrastructure. That's it's really. Infrastructure is not sexy. It takes time. And it has no immediate benefits for politician that have term limits.
D.Lo
Member
Exactly, China is unique in human history for many, many reasons.
So is Japan, as an isolated densely populated group of small islands.
In fact, the reasons those countries managed to do it at all was largely on the back of those countries' trade with the US and the rest of the west.
entremet
Member
Could imagine that's sarcasm lol. Especially based on there recent Michigan shitshow.
Did he keep it?
PdotMichael
Banned
They are only more expensive because buses and planes are ridiculously subsided.
The fact that a bus travel companies don't need to care about streets infrastructure because its all paid by tax payers give them an adventage against railway companies.
The American government doesn't justify expenditures to the people, either.
Manmademan
Member
Also noteworthy is that it's pretty much the same people that oppose public transportation projects (republicans) that are in favor of building said wall
Depends on the city you're talking about.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Guess what? The train just got 10 feet longer.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
there's a high speed rail train being built in California that's going to connect the San francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles with stops in between.
The cost? $64 billion dollars. BILLION. It does have to go 200mph or more. By Law. which is awesome but considering it will be 10 years late and billions overbudget, I have no faith in it whatsoever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
Also I guarantee you it will look nothing like this, cause they will have no money for anything fancy once they realize how god awful California is at large projects
Federal govt was also going to partially fund the project but Republicans blocked all funding.
A lot of cost is associated with preplanning. So environmental impact studies. Buying land and legal issues dealing with that. Hyperloop would also run into those funding sinkholes.
Since the OP brought up Trump, he at least does support infrastructure spending.
Which city has suburbs that are more densely populated? And wouldn't that mean that now the suburb is the city and the old city is the suburb?
Gamecocks625
Member
This would be amazing. Even just in the urban corridors, it would radically change the US. Sadly there is just WAY too much red tape to attempt to do projects like this.
Seriously. This is how people think in the US outside of NYC, Chicago and Boston where the cities really have had mass transit in the modern history (has become a way of life). I remember when Seattle finally got their light rail line running and anyone outside of the city said it was for poor people and minorities. Some really sick stuff in the comments.
Being in SC, this would be incredible.
I can imagine most longer connections in the US being better served by airlines. Though trains within pockets of urbanized areas are definitely feasible. But I think the US is better served with actual mass transit inside cities, like Hazmat said:
I went to Disney Village, Orlando for a conference once. I wanted to visit a professor in UCF, Orlando while I was there, but it was somewhat on the other side of town. Not going to rent a car for a single afternoon (I don't even think I had a driver's license then), I figured I could take public transportation. Looking at the bus schedule, going from one side of the city to the other would take me five hours with six stopovers. For a one way trip!
I mean forget trains, who's going to take a train if you still need to rent a car to get to your destination.
I went to Disney Village, Orlando for a conference once. I wanted to visit a professor in UCF, Orlando while I was there, but it was somewhat on the other side of town. Not going to rent a car for a single afternoon (I don't even think I had a driver's license then), I figured I could take public transportation. Looking at the bus schedule, going from one side of the city to the other would take me five hours with six stopovers. For a one way trip!
I mean forget trains, who's going to take a train if you still need to rent a car to get to your destination.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
And that is why ridesharing apps are successful.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Can't have nice things cause Republicans.
Orlando could use its own local rail system as well, rather then having to rely on busses in that spread out city.
Orlando could use its own local rail system as well, rather then having to rely on busses in that spread out city.
What about the steel industry? The oil industry is not an all-powerful lobby.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
Seeing how there is so little population in the Land between coasts, I don't see NY/LA happening but there is excuse about not having high speed coastal trains. Amtrak is so far behind Europe it's sad
It's not that the suburb is more densely populated, it's that quite a few cities are so spread out that much of their area is indistinguishable from suburbs.
How About No
Member
My town used to have a passenger train connecting it to the bigger cites. It was shut down years before I was born. Wud hav bin nyce
Giant Panda
Member
Train infrastructure might not be worth it since driverless cars are the future.
Well then one airport serving that massive area won't do much good. A few train stations would be a hell of a lot better.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Our roads are in disrepair as well. Also, they can work in tandem, which is a goal for uber and lyft currently. Connecting neighborhoods to transportation hubs.
Unfortunately in the US competing interests have gained control of the political landscape such that they can successfully squash any major initiative to build regional high-speed rail, or at least make it extremely difficult for one to succeed.
Even with perfect conditions, there are tons of challenges and massive up front capex required to build out a functional high speed rail network.
Example of a recent project to build a commuter rail system from San Antonio to Austin, currently going up in flames: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/lone-star-rail-survives-kill-shot-but-put-under-mi/nqqJW/
Even with perfect conditions, there are tons of challenges and massive up front capex required to build out a functional high speed rail network.
Example of a recent project to build a commuter rail system from San Antonio to Austin, currently going up in flames: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/lone-star-rail-survives-kill-shot-but-put-under-mi/nqqJW/
ClosingADoor
Member
I think those are the top speeds and not the regular ones. I wish Amsterdam - Rotterdam - Brussels was 300 km/h all the way. But the average speed is about half that.
PdotMichael
Banned
Driveless cars don't fix any transportation/infastructure problems.
In fact driveless cars will be one of the many reasons why the USA will stay the worst CO2 producer per capita.
AstroNut325
Member
So keep voting in people who are staunchly against infrastructure investments and just hope they magically change their minds over the next century?
Yeah, they are top speeds though Antwerpen - Brussels part is marked under 200 km/h even on that map.
PdotMichael
Banned
Because working transportation and energy infastructures is something for communists.
- Status