Traveling across the country at supersonic speeds.

Because of the sheer awesome it would bring to the economy. That, and you then get journey times that would be comparable with air travel, if air travel involved simply turning up and getting on a plane.

Automotive Industry killed public transportation at the commuter level, re-developing now becomes difficult.
There are no American manufacturers of the technology, thus no lobby.
American investors are geared towards the short term high yield return, the amount of money highspeed rail requires and time to construct doesn't fit this model.

Cost of diesel fuel vs cost of jet fuel
TSA
Comfortable seats
Much more to see out the windows on a long trip

The funny thing is the USA was the early leader in highspeed rail and could have maintained that position.
The M-10000, Pioneer Zephyr, Hiawatha, and Electroliner were all operating out of Chicago, and the Flying Yankee in Maine, through the 1930s to the '50s.
All doing 90-110mph.

Because they sell liqour and steaks on board and you are allowed to smoke.

>>174533
highspeed rail requires electrification, diesel locomotive or DMU maxes out at 160-180km/h (100-110mph)

>>174536
This thing would like a word with you. 148mph and its record remains unbeaten. Its fellow 125mph DMUs are also pretty annoyed. Its replacement is lined up to come in diesel and electric variants, assuming they ever arrive.

>>174540
electrics superior anyway
cleaner, more efficient

>you have 10 seconds to explain why high-speed rail would be economically viable in the united states
Dedicated right-of-way is much more expensive than putting a few more planes in the air.

>>174545
train superior to plane

OP, do you mean cost to coast or HSR in general?

>>174544

Considering most of the electricity comes from dirty great huge coal and oil fired power plants, electric trains are probably just as bad in the environment and efficiency areas.

Although electric trains are easier to push up to high speeds.

how about this:

you have 10 seconds to explain why high-speed rail would NOT be economically viable in the united states.

go, OP.

It beats the crap out of short-range air for cost, convenience, and even speed (once the TSA and 'waiting on the runway time' has been taken into account.

If it's more convenient and cheaper than air, people will flock to it. Bingo, economic viability.

Fuel savings on shipping.

>>174552
Because in America public transport never pays for itself.

I remember reading and article where BART was considered "very successful" because half it's revenue was from passenger fare.

>>174551
>Considering most of the electricity comes from dirty great huge coal and oil fired power plants, electric trains are probably just as bad in the environment and efficiency areas.
Nope.
Still more efficient powering a passenger train than all those passengers being in cars

>>174567
>Because in America public transport never pays for itself.
Where does it elsewhere? Look at the failed efforts to privatize rail in Britain.
Its a public utility, why does it have to make a profit?
Make it a government department or government owned corporation, generating a quarter to a third of its revenue from tickets and top up rest from the government and be done with it.

How much does the government spend on roads BTW?

Anyway, rails will be viable when driving a truck/car becomes more expensive. It will. The crucial question is when.

>>174569

I was comparing electric trains to diesel trains, not electric trains to petrol driven cars.

Not that I have anything against electric trains. I just feel calling then efficient and clean is rubbish unless the infrastructure providing them with power is efficient and clean.

>>174573
For the Interstate Highway System in addition to what the Highway Trust Fund gets, the Fed has to transfer 8 to 10 billion every year from the general fund to top it up due to it running out because they haven't raised the gas tax since the early 1990s. Theres probably more shit for various kinds of infrastructure.
Then there is state spending, compounding the fail. Especially in the states with little in the way of rail public transportation.

To give you an idea of what this 8 to 10 billion a year could be spent on instead, Frances national railway company SNCF has done assessment of High-Speed Rail in the Mid West and came up with the proposal seen in this map that would operate trains at 220mph, it would cost 68.5 billion. 54% from the government and 46% private investment. So 36.99 billion from the government. 4 years of topping up the highways.
It would generate 677,000 permanent jobs and 316,000 construction jobs. Automobile trips would be reduced by 4.3 billion vehicle miles each year, saving 3 million barrels of oil each year, and additionally reduce CO2 and other pollutant emissions by 1.4 million tons in 2030.

>>174574
even if the electric train is powered by a coal plant its still going to be cleaner
500-1,000 people in electric train powered by coal plant
vs
500-1,000 cars on the road

Short version:

High speed rail is cheaper than alternative infrastructure (highways and airports) by tens of billions of $$.

Much longer than 10 seconds version:

On it's own, of course high speed rail isn't economical. But since when does any transportation project yield a profit if you include the initial investment? Highways and bridges aren't free.

Systems in Japan and Europe have shown that operators can easily turn a profit once the system is built.

If you consider the opportunity cost, however, it makes much more economic sense to invest in rail. The California system is estimated to cost $42.6 billion. Let's be generous to the naysayers and call it a cool $60 billion. If this system ISN'T built, it's not as if $60 billion is suddenly freed up for the general fund - the alternative is that the state MUST spend $80-100 billion+ to address the infrastructure needs of the 50 million people who will be living in California by 2050.

Private autos aren't economically viable either. Do you think all these roads are making money? No, they cost a hell of a lot of money.

Not to mention all the money the tax payers spent bailing out the auto industry.

>>174578

How viable is expanding LAX? San Jose International? San Francisco International? These airports are already at or quickly nearing their capacity, and the lack of room around them literally prevents any further expansion at these sites. How viable is expanding 12 lane highways in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco etc etc? How much money are we willing to spend to build AND maintain all these roads?

For how long should we bet our future on oil staying at $76/barrel? The only reasons Southwest is able to keep fares low is because it is a younger company with less pension obligations for now (which are climbing every year) and because of its foresight to hedge oil futures. These oil futures lock them in at roughly $50/barrel, keeping their operations profitable, but only for the next 5 years at most. Should we trust infrastructure needs to a private corporation with a less-than-sound business model? Not to mention the fact that high speed rail carries passengers from city-center to city-center, reducing travel times and commutes. Name ONE air route in California that is capable of doing this.

High speed rail makes economic sense. It makes environmental sense. It makes sense for the future of the United States.

>>174576
well that 37 billion would probably be split between the states and the Fed (and Canada too if they link to Toronto), defraying its cost

Another thing they need to do is develop the rail inside a city and the surrounding region.
And I don't mean the dinky halfarsed lightrail places are doing, that thing is a glorified streetcar and should be treated as such.
I mean proper multiple-carriage train providing commuter service traveling through suburbs to city centre terminal and metro service traveling around city.

>>174594

Yes, feeder systems are an important part of high speed rail strategy. Thankfully, the California planners are well aware of this. LA has their ambitious 30/10 plan, and San Francisco has BART and Caltrain for commuter rail as well as Muni for citywide service. San Diego is recognizing that it needs to get its act together and is planning an extension to La Jolla. The biggest cities that need to wake up are Sacramento, San Jose and Anaheim. The larger cities along the central valley corridor where the train will run will also need to think about what they're going to do as well, but frankly they have no money to do anything.

Light rail isn't necessarily a streetcar, btw. San Diego's system has an average speed of 55 mph and a daily ridership of 118k. If anything, this is closer to a rapid transit system than a tram.

>>174631
So far LA has just been doing the sort of lightrail projects I complained about like the Blue Line.
You can improve a lightrail by putting it on a highway median strip or a dedicated right of way a railway mainline like the German Tram-Train, and that should be an option if you want to extend its range beyond the metropolitan area, but no matter what its still going to carry 100-200 people.
A commuter or metro train will carry ~1,000 people.

Americunt here.
If rail was more available, I would use it as an alternative to driving long distances.
I go on a lot of road trips, and don't really want to spend the money on airfare.

the "designated corridors"
its pretty halfarsed IMHO

>>174570
>Its a public utility, why does it have to make a profit?
Profit isn't necessary, but it should be revenue neutral. There is nothing wrong with expecting the users to pay for the system. The other choice is a tax increase that is a burden for everyone, including the ones that don't use the system.

>>174546
>train superior to plane
Amazing argument anon.

If running a high-speed train in the U.S. I think the relatively simple TGV.
The head-on collision accident doesn't happen as long as the fool doesn't operate TGV.

>>174524

If union contracts could get cut down, it would be cheaper than airlines, average speeds would compare to airlines, there would be considerably less fuel burned per passenger mile than airlines or buses, will significantly undermine the ability of transit-based terrorists to cause damage to cities, cabins don't need to be pressurized, amenities such as beds and dining tables are common and easy enough to keep in the system, and it would be generally awesome.

Pic somewhat related. Not exactly what we would call HSR, but going 100MPH on the ground before WWII was pretty damn impressive.

Amtrak can't even turn a profit in the north-east corridor, with government subsidizes. If you can't do it there you can't do it anywhere.

Most of this rail system is going to be set up to move goods faster and cheaper, not people. It is just being sold to Americans as passenger rail; because investing government money in rail infrastructure that will benefit large corporations isn't a good selling point these days.

>>174524
The sheer density between Boston and Washington DC shows that you can make money on a good system, and the current system is not fast at all.

>>174685

Wrong. In fact, Amtrak does indeed turn a profit running Acela in the NEC. Farebox returns of Acela Express along with the Northeast Regional on the NEC generate over 50% of Amtrak's operating budget. Amtrak has learned how to be lean and mean, despite the shitty track geometry of the NEC and lack of purpose-built infrastructure and right of way.

>>174688

Sorry, revenue not operating budget hahaha, Amtrak is still heavily subsidized by the federal govt.

Fuck man, I don't care about high-speed rail. I just want some light rail going at 60 mph with few stops in my city.

>>174529

Yes, because all those businesses on the highways did AWESOME after interstates were built. Now all the businesses on the interstate exits are going to fail and small towns between big cities will be out even more jobs.

>>174544

You realize coal plants produce electricity, right? Yep, lots cleaner and more efficient.

>>174696
It depends on where you are.

>>174695
so a swampass town's mobil station will close? Like I give a fuck

>>174657
If there was an Orlando to Tampa rail in FL I would use it at least 3x a month, and half of my family would do the same.

Hell, then I could get a job in Tampa and use it every damn day if it was 150mph plus it would only be a ~1 hour ride tops.

>>174712
Nice. No credit for the largest source of direct carbon-free emissions.

>>174723
Which one's that?

>>174724
Nuclear.

>>174567
50% cost recovery is on par with most transit systems in Europe. The only places where transit makes money are poor countries (because few people can afford cars), and Asia (due to massive densities).

>>174725
>Renewable energy
>Nuclear

There's a difference between being emissions-free and renewable.

>>174727
*carbon-emissions free, my bad

>>174727
Irrelevant when they both don't produce direct carbon emissions. Besides, nuclear can provide base load. I would love to see any renewable other than hydro do that.

>>174727
>Doesn't know that nuclear fuel can be reused.

>>174668
>Profit isn't necessary, but it should be revenue neutral. There is nothing wrong with expecting the users to pay for the system. The other choice is a tax increase that is a burden for everyone, including the ones that don't use the system.
Those not riding it still benefit through reduced congestion, reduced pollution, reduced carbon emission, reduced oil consumption, etc
we all benefit one way or another from a competently planned well laid out public transportation system

>>174679
>If union contracts could get cut down
You think they're non-union workers in France, Germany, Spain, Japan, South Korea, etc?
You think they're being paid and worked at the rate of a Bangladeshi textile worker?
This is just a rightwing meme on your part.

>>174685
Thats because of all the government subsidies road and air travel get.
The transfer of billions of dollars to the Highway Trust Fund when it dries up every year has already been explained, and here is another: Amtrak has to pay for its own security but airports get their security paid for them by the Federal Government.
read this: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSIB27628520080612
And another thing: Name a passenger rail service that operates 100% privately. Look at what happened when they privatized British Rail, or the London Underground, or Melbournes commuter.
If the 3rd largest Metro in Europe can't be run as a private concern then what does that say?
Put away your free market ideology and consider practicality.

>>174696
>You realize coal plants produce electricity, right? Yep, lots cleaner and more efficient.
I've been seeing this posted a lot lately, must be some new Cato Institute talking point.
Consider 500-1,000+ people on an Electric Multiple Unit train versus 500-1,000+ cars on the road.
Even with that train powered by a coal plant that is still going to be orders of magnitude more efficient than the passengers being in cars.
And further more a railway can carry many more people than a freeway:
>The carrying capacity of a freeway lane is roughly 1800 vehicles per hour, or 2000 people per hour given average vehicle occupancy of 1.11 passengers. A typical six-lane freeway therefore carries up to 12,000 people per hour in both directions.
>A double-track suburban railway, meanwhile, can easily support one train movement every three minutes in each direction without straining its capacity. A six-car train can carry around 1000 passengers before reaching crush conditions. Thus the rail line can carry at least 40,000 people per hour in both directions, and perhaps more depending on the signalling system and vehicle design.
And before anyone says HURR 4 PEOPLE IN CAR ask yourself how often you see that as the norm?

>>174772

>>174774
not sure how the diesel is better, unless its using a level of capacity seen only in India

>>174729
hydro might be clean but its effect on the physical environment can be pretty nasty

>>174791

hydro is the best shit man it gets you high as fuck

>>174765

It's more a matter of forking out for gigantic pensions (I'm not against pensions in general, but union pensions are way too fucking big for blue collar work) and being unable to fire an employee for being an incompetent lazy dumbass because of a union contract. We have the DOL and OSHA to make sure employers treat their employees fairly and provide safe working conditions.

>>174657

It's only somewhat half-assed. It should be more extensive east of the Mississippi river and along the Pacific coast, but it's left empty in the central and western areas for 2 reasons: barren plains of nothing but wheat fields and not enough big cities to stop, and the Rocky Mountains. That mountain range would require you to tunnel much more than they had to for the Alps, and it's just not worth it. And even if we could tunnel it, it would still have to make it all the way up to Denver, and high-speed generally isn't made to handle serious grades. You can see they dodged the Appalachians in the east, and those aren't exactly the steepest mountains in the world, either.

>>174803
>work hard for decades
>not taken care of in retirement
makes sense

>>174803
>It's only somewhat half-assed.
I was referring to Houston not being connected to the rest of Texas, Florida cut off, Mid West Hub not connected to the North East