US High Speed Rail Network - worth it?

[Lucetia]

Do you think it's worth the resources to construct something like this? Do you think it's a waste? What might be some unintended consequences?

I believe it'd be very well worth it. I'm sure there are downfalls to it, but off the top of my hand I can't think of any. As many mentioned there are some benefits to it over a plane. Tickets I would imagine would be cheaper as well than a plane, mainly due to they would be able to hold more than a place I would believe and the fuel used would be cheaper. Though I could be wrong on that.

This would also open up a lot of opportunities for people. Depending on the speed and travel time this could open up job opportunities for some people who don't want to move from their community, but are open to working in a different count/state. Could possibly encourage people to visit other cities and visit friends, families, etc. If people are able to visit an area cheaper than it would for them to drive it would help encourage them to visit other cities for shopping and such gaining more business for others.

It would also cut down on car emissions, some traffic, and road deterioration.

There's just a lot of positives in my mind for this not to be a good idea.

[SSJrapter]

I love the idea, but if the proposed system is your original image you need to re-think 90% of it.

You have Chicago as the central hub for no arbitrary reason. You have exceptionally redundant lines (especially Florida) lines to cities (as the destination not a layover) such as Quincy..... You have too many lines to cities that don't matter (detroit, Chyenne, Chorpis Cristi, Reno to name a few) Too many lines in the Midwest (i live here there needs to be much fewer)

You could cut your proposed lines by about 50% hit more metropolitan areas and be more efficient. If all you did was connect the top 50 cities in the US (maybe 100) with a few layovers as the primary infrastructure and lead branching rails to the states, you may get a better result. The other problem you have (in the US) is security fear and paranoia that would require regulation and security checks. Imagine the threats terrorists could levy against a railroad by just blowing up a railway line in the middle of nowhere!

You have to justify this but you need to get rid of your teal, white, grey and pink railways. The other option is to have a central railway that bisects the country in half and 2 on the coasts.

[Deleted]

A+ for defence probably

A+ for defense budget size.

Nobody to defend against.

Biggest irony?

[Kujako]

A+ for defence probably

Doubt it. Our defense is fairly week (ports, coasts, borders all vulnerable as is our infrastructure). Our offense on the other hand... A+++

[GreatOak]

It's necessary for the long run, but I only question how it's going to be funded. I'd redirect 40% of the military budget to do it, which should cover most of it. I don't know about the rest but I'm sure there are other things that could be redirected. I'm not inclined to see further deficit spending towards it in our current situation. If we had a surplus or balanced budget I would support it in an instant.

[Reeve]

I love the idea, but if the proposed system is your original image you need to re-think 90% of it.

You have Chicago as the central hub for no arbitrary reason. You have exceptionally redundant lines (especially Florida) lines to cities (as the destination not a layover) such as Quincy..... You have too many lines to cities that don't matter (detroit, Chyenne, Chorpis Cristi, Reno to name a few) Too many lines in the Midwest (i live here there needs to be much fewer)

You could cut your proposed lines by about 50% hit more metropolitan areas and be more efficient. If all you did was connect the top 50 cities in the US (maybe 100) with a few layovers as the primary infrastructure and lead branching rails to the states, you may get a better result. The other problem you have (in the US) is security fear and paranoia that would require regulation and security checks. Imagine the threats terrorists could levy against a railroad by just blowing up a railway line in the middle of nowhere!

You have to justify this but you need to get rid of your teal, white, grey and pink railways. The other option is to have a central railway that bisects the country in half and 2 on the coasts.

I believe Gray is existing AmTrak lines, not the proposed lines. White hits a lot of important cities, and pink is mostly Canadian.

[GreatOak]

I love the idea, but if the proposed system is your original image you need to re-think 90% of it.

You have Chicago as the central hub for no arbitrary reason. You have exceptionally redundant lines (especially Florida) lines to cities (as the destination not a layover) such as Quincy..... You have too many lines to cities that don't matter (detroit, Chyenne, Chorpis Cristi, Reno to name a few) Too many lines in the Midwest (i live here there needs to be much fewer)

You could cut your proposed lines by about 50% hit more metropolitan areas and be more efficient. If all you did was connect the top 50 cities in the US (maybe 100) with a few layovers as the primary infrastructure and lead branching rails to the states, you may get a better result. The other problem you have (in the US) is security fear and paranoia that would require regulation and security checks. Imagine the threats terrorists could levy against a railroad by just blowing up a railway line in the middle of nowhere!

You have to justify this but you need to get rid of your teal, white, grey and pink railways. The other option is to have a central railway that bisects the country in half and 2 on the coasts.

Having Chicago as the hub is not arbitrary. Our city has been very important for our railroads. Chicago is still the most important railroad center in the country.

---------- Post added 2013-05-03 at 05:59 PM ----------

Oh, and I'm sure the Canadian govt. and other private businesses will help deal with the costs.

[Merite]

It's already being built or 100% planned to be built between San Francisco and LA. They want to grow it out even more, basically make all of California have their own high speed. I feel like it would work in California very well. I could see it working very well on the east coast as well, though due to population, building such a track would be difficult, it's very outdated..

I don't see a cross-country one really.. I would imagine it would be cheaper to fly from LA to Texas or east coast to west coast.


I'm all for it though, we could use the infrastructure improved.

P.S. If our score is a D-, then I guess the rest of the world is completely failing.

[PickleballAce]

Putting cost aside, I'd love to see it. Always enjoyed travel by rail any time I've had a chance to do it.

[Naxere]

Minneapolis to Los Angeles in around 16 hours? No thanks, I'll stick to the 3.5 to 4 hour flight.

[Ult92]

I love the idea, but if the proposed system is your original image you need to re-think 90% of it.

You have Chicago as the central hub for no arbitrary reason. You have exceptionally redundant lines (especially Florida) lines to cities (as the destination not a layover) such as Quincy..... You have too many lines to cities that don't matter (detroit, Chyenne, Chorpis Cristi, Reno to name a few) Too many lines in the Midwest (i live here there needs to be much fewer)

You could cut your proposed lines by about 50% hit more metropolitan areas and be more efficient. If all you did was connect the top 50 cities in the US (maybe 100) with a few layovers as the primary infrastructure and lead branching rails to the states, you may get a better result. The other problem you have (in the US) is security fear and paranoia that would require regulation and security checks. Imagine the threats terrorists could levy against a railroad by just blowing up a railway line in the middle of nowhere!

You have to justify this but you need to get rid of your teal, white, grey and pink railways. The other option is to have a central railway that bisects the country in half and 2 on the coasts.

I should mention that the image is not mine. All credit goes to Alfred Twu - http://www.alfredtwu.com. But yeah, I agree with some of those suggestions. More important just to get the major urban areas connected first.

[Lucetia]

It's already being built or 100% planned to be built between San Francisco and LA. They want to grow it out even more, basically make all of California have their own high speed. I feel like it would work in California very well. I could see it working very well on the east coast as well, though due to population, building such a track would be difficult, it's very outdated..

Yup, I've heard a lot about that on the radio here in California. Now granted I haven't heard much lately only because I haven't listened to the radio in awhile so I'm not sure how the plans are coming along.

What I could see being done is each state develop their own rails to certain areas and then eventually a bigger project of linking them altogether somehow would be done afterwards. Either way I think ever state should have this type of system as there are just too many benefits and cuts down on some of the problems with roads and car emissions and stuff.

[Reeve]

It's already being built or 100% planned to be built between San Francisco and LA. They want to grow it out even more, basically make all of California have their own high speed. I feel like it would work in California very well. I could see it working very well on the east coast as well, though due to population, building such a track would be difficult, it's very outdated..

I don't see a cross-country one really.. I would imagine it would be cheaper to fly from LA to Texas or east coast to west coast.


I'm all for it though, we could use the infrastructure improved.

P.S. If our score is a D-, then I guess the rest of the world is completely failing.

Yeah I could definitely imagine much greater efficiency by just doing the west coast and then from Texas eastwards. The only really big city between those areas is Denver. Sorry Denver.

---------- Post added 2013-05-03 at 06:09 PM ----------

Minneapolis to Los Angeles in around 16 hours? No thanks, I'll stick to the 3.5 to 4 hour flight.

You probably wouldn't use it for that. You'd use it for Minneapolis to Chicago.

[Dasffion]

This would be very awesome and needs to be implemented. Would create thousands of jobs as well.

[Deleted]

I don't think you should look at it as "the only big city in between."

The future of the U.S. is in taking advantage of the vast unused areas between those huge hubs, in sprawling out as it used to be some decades back. In connecting those areas to the bigger cities, and to the world.

You can't look at it as connecting the dots between the biggest cities. That will only lead you to failure.

[Ave07]

This better happen! There are concerts and events I want to go to out of Florida but, plane tickets cost over $500 to get there except for New York which is always $80 =/

[Ult92]

Minneapolis to Los Angeles in around 16 hours? No thanks, I'll stick to the 3.5 to 4 hour flight.

Keep in mind, some of the longer trips can be done overnight. Japan has "sleeper cars" which you can reserve a head of time. It's essentially like staying in a small hotel room overnight, except you are traveling while sleeping. Effective use of time!

[Rukentuts]

Minneapolis to Los Angeles in around 16 hours? No thanks, I'll stick to the 3.5 to 4 hour flight.

I did Shanghai to Beijing once, it was fine; just get a sleeper car.

Keep in mind, some of the longer trips can be done overnight. Japan has "sleeper cars" which you can reserve a head of time. It's essentially like staying in a small hotel room overnight, except you are traveling at the same time. Effective use of time!

Damn you beat me to it.

[Dasffion]

Minneapolis to Los Angeles in around 16 hours? No thanks, I'll stick to the 3.5 to 4 hour flight.

If they model this on European or Japanese Trains then 16 hours on a train would be far superior to the 3.5 to 4 hour flight. Also that 3.5 to 4 hour flight is more realistically 6-8 hours (if you're lucky) since you're not accounting for how early you have to arrive at an airport, time it takes to board, time it takes to taxi, take off land, etc.

And my last experience with Eurorail, which granted was a long time ago, those trains are NEVER late. You could set your watch by them.

[Naxere]

You probably wouldn't use it for that. You'd use it for Minneapolis to Chicago.

I'd still take the hour flight to Chicago over the ~4 hour train ride. I like getting where I'm going as quickly as possible (unless, the price is right).