I think that map was created before Texas Central’s plans had really materialized. I’m looking forward to it and I hope it succeeds. I should have mentioned that all of the tentative high speed rail plans currently moving forward are privately led.
the best thing about it is the involvement of Canada and Mexico with the inclusion of Vancouver B.C, Windsor ON to Quebec City QC and Monterrey Nuevo Leon, Mexico. What makes the high speeds of Europe great is their international transit.
There are indeed some talks between Canada and the US, but you really shouldn't get your hopes too high. Getting something as simple as a deal negotiated for preclearing for customm clearances took years. There's a deal, but it has yet to be implemented. There's also the VIA rail plans HFR, something which nobody had heard of before, which nobody asked for, and which really does not get anywhere near the goal post. High Frequency Rail as they call it is not even fast enough to compete properly with air travel, let alone the car. It's really only meant for those who don't care how long it takes to get there and just need to be able to work while on the move. Heck, it does not even use the right alignment. There's also the problem that Montreal's Gare Centrale is effectively back to being a terminus, so you can forget going all the way to Quebec city. Fixing that issue is going to require a new tunnel at a cost of several billions as it will have to go straight through the basement of several high rise buildings. We've created a heck of a mess for ourselves. Canada is deep in debt just like the US, so getting anything built is going to be a struggle in the coming decade.
We should also consider consulting with the Swiss about how to build looong tunnels through mountain ranges. We're going to need it to help solve the HSR problem through the Rockies. For example, the Gotthard Base Tunnel through the Alps is 57.09 km (35.5 mi) long!
@@MikeWiggins1235711 The Swiss really didn't do much of anything special. They just took the entire book on how to dig a tunnel and threw it at the problem. The real problem with a tunnel that long isn't the length, it's the fact that you will go through multiple geology changes. You need several digging techniques in order to build a tunnel like Gothard. One section was so bad that by the time they stabilised the tunnel, it had lost 2 meters in diameter.
Highways in the US are almost never expected to turn a profit which is why you'll see Interstate highways built in some of the desolate and remote areas of the country. Places where if they were railroads would never be built because they're expected to turn a profit regardless of the economic and social benefits it would bring to otherwise isolated and depressed areas.
As a Conservative Republican, I am "ALL IN" on this to the hilt. I made my comments regarding a couple of other extensions, mere extensions, on your other video about the map.
we should not be. High speed rail is great but you need to build it in the right places. what is stupid about this map is it places HSR in areas that don't need it. Vegas to LA are great for HSR. A trancontenitnal HSR does not. LA and Vegas are less than 300 miles apart- trains running between 90-200 MPH would make the trip in about 2 1/2 hours making it highly competitive with airplanes and better than driving. main areas that could use development are already being discussed by private ventures- Dallas-Houston-San Antonio, San Diego-LA-Las Vegas. North East Corroder is a logical location.
@@williamt.sherman9841 most people would only travel on these for 2-4 hours in various multi-state areas though. The idea is just you _could_ stay on one for 6-10 hours if you needed, far faster than travelling by bus and far cheaper than air travel (if set up competently anyway).
@@kaitlyn__L not cheaper than air travel. Air travel has its costs but for long distance travel (over 800 miles) it will always be cheaper. Rails need to be maintained which adds cost and if you are traveling for a long time (over 6-10 hours) crew costs get really high. that is part of why Amtrack has trouble breaking even.
Only if Las Vegas - Salt Lake City can justify the utilization. LA - Salt Lake City is long enough where they're better off flying even if we had high-speed rail.
@@StatsMass Las Vegas to SLC is about 2.5 hours on HSR at Chinese speeds, and costs $50. That seems competitive with flying. Though I question if SLC has enough people to justify HSR.
I hope the Charlotte to Atlanta HSR route gets built soon. A large portion of south Carolina is set to get several HSR stations like in crappy cities like anderson SC I'd love to have those small cities get rail access they would flourish.
The European Union has done a huge amount of work to create standards for high speed rail to ensure interoperability across borders. I think the best way forward for the FRA is to simply copy those standards instead of reinventing the wheel. That would also reduce costs both in the long and the short run. But I fear there is too much NIH-syndrome for that to work.
@@TheFourFoot You're probably right, but it would be nice to have similar standards on both sides of the Atlantic. That would increase competition and make things easier (i.e. cheaper).
I wish brighter minds took this to heart. All we have to do is look at Spain as a shining example of railway infrastructure development to advocate train travel but wait,,,,,,, I forgot we don’t like to learn anything from other countries. I agree that states need to be involved but with the political landscape the way it is, we may never see this. I hope I’m wrong.
@@stanzhang3187 that would be a steal, but even $50 would be attractive. (With reduced tickets for families/children. I assume that like airlines most of the money is made off of first class and economy is just their to fill up the plane/train.)
It's honestly what everyone secretly wants but don't want to pay for, but if it don't exceed 200mph it's pointless, another problem connecting non major cities, another prob is selling the final decision to the state, the cost always goes up after the ground breaking, that's not ok
What a brilliant video and - if I may say so - your best one so far. Look, we're all rail fans and train enthusiasts and transit nerds and what not. But beyond all the love for den the mode, we're living in a social and environmental crisis. And local transit and high speed rail travel are one two of the few viable answers to both of them. Also: American politics in a nutshell. Very entertaining :D
( Mid April 2021 ) The French Government have just said they may almost ban air travel between cities that have high speed rail links. The idea is being promoted as an emissions cutting initiative.
Perhaps M. Macron might more usefully spend his time lecturing the Chinese, since emissions from Europe as a whole are a mere drop in the ocean compared with China and other Asian countries (and some African countries).
that's hsr to a city ot a city with with links to hsr the french government has high speed rail itsel so your your state sounds like fox news lies for entertainment
Driving long distances is hard on one’s body no matter how comfortable your car seat may be. High speed railways will enable more people to commute in comfort longer distances to work in order to live in more affordable areas that will also provide economic growth to smaller towns near rural areas. This was the case with the TGV in France.
2:50 In 14 to 16 hours from NY to LA. That’s a great trip duration for an overnight high speed connection. Like the high speed sleeper from Beijing to Hongkong...
@@TheFourFoot Ah, well. If you guys keep building sections, there will be a day where you'll have the entire line, not? I guess that's the right moment to launch the service, I guess... 😎
@@TheFourFoot They'll come around. The major problem with HSR in the US is that people can't get a feeling of a high speed train. If you want to buy a bed, the sales person can list all the details and advantages of the bed he wants to sell you, but they can't make you experience what how incredibly nice the bed is, until they can say "Why don't you try it?" And the taxpayer in the US can't 'try it out and return it if they don't like it.' The HSR-pioneers Japan and France had to deal with the same kind of resistance when they built their first lines. Japan in the 60's and France in the 70's/80's. (I'm not going into what happened to more than one monarch in France when the French didn't like what they got; let's just say that the French not known for staying quiet and weathering it...) And now, if either of those populations had to choose under threat, they probably would choose their rail-system over their highway system. I guess the resistance will lessen when Americans can experience highspeed rail travel in Florida, Texas and California, so within the context of a US-scenario. And a fair number of them will sit on that train, look out the window, see the cars on the highway move at half their speed or less... They'll remember themselves in one of those cars back in the day and they'll wonder why again they were só vocal against HSR...
Oh I know. Once a real HSR line opens, public opinion will likely shift considerably. The NEC doesn’t get much attention outside the northeast because it’s always been there, it barely qualifies as HSR, and because the rest of the country holds basically the same attitude they have about Europe/Asia, that “well of course you ride trains in Europe because that’s what you, but that couldn’t work here...” I’m sure you’re correct however that all we need is a good start! (And maybe some of that French...je ne sais quoi...
I think something that is missed in theses maps is they focus on intercontinental rail way instead regional. As regional is built out then connection built out. (Sorry if I said something stupid. I am thinking want to say something even though the video is not done)
Hello four foot, I'm James Robertson, of N.Y.St. Been living in the northeast for my whole life. (70) Appreciate that you speak about the northeast very realistically. America needs passenger trains, like it was a hundred years ago.
Picking which project I think would make the most sense to rally behind is really quite difficult. They all have varying degrees of good points and bad points. All I can do is to analyze the problem using my own mindset and hope whatever comes out doesn't sound TOO idiotic. The project I think should be at the top of the list is a High Speed Rail line connecting Chicago and Denver. Forget about the money issues (which we ALL know about!). My reasons are: 1. We should be attacking the problem of getting a transcontinental HSR the same way that the original transcontinental RR was built: in sections. 2. With the amount of wide open space between Chicago and Denver, it will be possible to build an (almost) straight line between the two cities thus making construction easier and faster ... and hopefully cheaper. 3. Because of this HSR should be able to reach the 220 mph grail that everyone is hoping for. It will also be able to stay at this speed for a much higher percentage of its run than, say, New York to Boston or D.C. to Miami. It also doesn't have many stops to make along the route. 4. Non-Stop (assuming 1100 miles) (I know it's shorter than that, I added some miles deliberately) at 220 mph = 5 hours. Assuming 10 stops at 15 minutes each adds 150 minutes, or 2 1/2 hours. So, theoretically, a trip between Chicago and Denver on this route, at these speeds, would take about 7 1/2 hours. Flying is still faster, but there is a huge advantage when you start calculating the downtown-to-downtown time. This idea is meant to show that building in segments IS the way to go. And getting the pieces assembled over time will FINALLY give the United States the coast-to-coast high speed rail line it SHOULD be showing off to the rest of the world.
To me in the UK, I'm of the same mind as Reece Martin (RM Transit), and think that the US will drag it's feet over any more high speed rail. The UK and Europe are so far ahead with high speed rail. (A train line under the sea. Also a line under the sea from Germany to Denmark is under way.) I'm afraid that I'll never see any reports in the media, saying that,Cal train link is going to be completed in my lifetime.
High speed rail is likely going to start out slowly. Over time I'm going to guess that the graphs for high speed rail(profitability, numbers of lines, etc) is just gonna go full Mount Everest on all of us and I doubt it will be like China's system, but will possibly be bigger than TGVs. But I'm no expert, do not take this as what will 100% happen.
@@kuckoo9036 Their total loss on their HSR network over 13 years about the same as America's annual military budget. That seems sustainable. American roads lose much more than China's HSR network does. And maintaining is far easier than building it. We just have lost a lot of capability over the last 50 years. We would be completely unable to build the Interstate Highway System at all if we did it today, with all the lawsuits.
I really like high speed rail but the diminishing returns on this map are staggering. It’s 1,000 miles from Chicago to Denver, too few population centers along that journey, and it’s outside high speed rail’s ideal range of 200-500 miles. We need regional systems around clusters of large cities not coast to coast travel.
Then that's not the line to start with. East of the line Minneapolis-Omaha-Dallas the population density is very much comparable with Europe. Then there's Denver-El Paso. And again the whole west coast. In those areas (i.e. almost 2/3rds of the USA) it would be no problem to generate enough demand. Then links in between will then follow as a logical consequence - e.g. Denver to Salt Lake City or Las Vegas would be perfect for an overnight hop (about 800-1000mi could be easily done in ~8-10 hours on HSR, that's basically the sweet spot for sleeper trains).
yup. way too much space between a lot of these stops and not enough demand. flying would be more ideal. houston to dallas makes perfect sense: its faster than driving and flying.
@@stephanweinberger spending a hundred billion dollars connecting Des Moines and Omaha with Denver and Chicago makes little sense when that money could be spent on transit so much more effectively. $30 billion towards a desperately needed circumferential El train line in Chicago and towards turning Metra into a true RER service. $20 billion to pepper smaller cities in this region with light rail and bus rapid transit in their core areas like Des Moines Omaha, etc $10 billion on higher speed regional rail that would still be competitive with driving but wouldn’t be as costly as HSR. A line between Cedar Rapids-North Liberty-Coralville-Iowa City is one example. Why spend so much connecting Omaha and Des Moines when their local transit is still very weak? Have you seen Des Moines’ barebones bus network? So many more important fish to fry than this ridiculous high speed rail map.
@@eriklakeland3857 I think you misunderstood my comment. I was simply answering to the "density" argument. Just compare a map of population density between Europe and the eastern half of the US - they are not that much different! What's different is the "great void" in the center-west of the US. Hence a connection between e.g. Omaha and Denver is *not* the first priority. As for local transit projects: those go hand in hand with long distance connections. You need both! The overall goal should be that less people own cars. If you need a car for part of your mobility then there is always the temptation to use it for everything (after all you are already paying for it). In order to achieve less car dependency (and thereby also generate enough demand for long distance rail travel as a side effect) you need to cover as many transportation needs as possible - which means everything from a local bus line around your residential district, trams, lightrail, subways, commuter trains, ... all the way up to long distance trains - preferably high speed and preferably well connected to the other modes of public transport. The main issue I see with public transport in the US is *fragmentation*. There are some cities with good transit systems (and a few - very few - corridors with somewhat usable trains) - but what good is that when there is no way to travel between those cities and when there are other places (and not just a few, but actually the majority!) where it's just impossible to get to and around without a car? People don't just want to ride to work all their lives, they also want to travel, visit relatives, etc. ... if they need a car for that then they will likely also use it for their everyday journeys.
@@eriklakeland3857 It's 18 billion, not 100 at Chinese costs. Also HSR beats air up to 800 miles in China. Red tape, not speed of the train, is the main cause of costs. So a higher-speed rail would barely save anything over a true high-speed rail, and it would have far less ridership as far more people would choose to drive/fly instead.
@@SquickersKingdom Brightline Florida is running on shared freight track with little to no grade separation (except for the Orlando-Cocoa portion), using diesel trains. Brightline West will use exclusive ROW with electrified high speed trainsets capable of actual high speed. Necessity is the mother of invention sometimes.
@Va Sr almost certainly for 200mph trainsets, especially if they’re using the Velaros from their renderings. It’d make sense, seeing as they already have a relationship with Siemens.
What should happen is that whoever uses the infrastructure the most should pay the most for it. Corporations use public infrastructure but don't want to pay for any of it.
I've been working on and advocating for better passenger rail my entire adult life (age 63). I had older friends in the cause who are gone who spent their entire adult lives working on it, mostly to no avail. NOTHING will change for the good of average people in this country, not just in terms of transportation, but everything else, unless and until we get corporations and big money interests out of our government by passing a 28th amendment to the U. S. Constitution that says corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Then we prohibit corporations from participating in politics in any way, and don't allow the rich to give any more to a political campaign than you or I could afford to give, like $100. Then we can start to get a handle on our politics and do what needs to be done for the rest of us. The thing about high-speed trains is that first you have to walk before you can run. That means we need a network of decent normal speed trains that people will ride to fill out the skeletal network of high-speed ones. Make every Amtrak long-distance train daily, then run two-a-day about 12 hours apart on every route. Now every community on Amtrak will have at least one daylight round-trip per day stopping there. When that service change shows people will truly ride passenger trains (and it will), then we build on the system from there, by finally tackling the total Northeast Corridor improvement project, which is going to cost nearly $1Trillion by itself! That would include extending it to Richmond and Atlanta, and probably Montreal or Toronto. Then we fill in with the regional HS corridors that have been talked about to death for the last 40 years, like Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati. All of this MUST be tied together with effective local transit, light rail, bus, etc. so people can truly get around practically without a car, which just is not possible on a realistic basis in most parts of the country without either paying for expensive taxi connections or begging rides from friends or family to fill in the major gaps. That is what we are facing.
Sorry I missed this comment before. You’re absolutely right. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like we’re any closer to getting corporation/dirty money out of politics. But as for actually improving passenger rail, I totally agree. Twice daily LD service should be a minimum that Amtrak is pursuing, rather than trying to cut them...
I admire your endurance vis-a-vis the ubiquitous car dominance. The change would either have to come from public action or the companies would have to discover how they could make profit on rail - be it the infrastructure construction, the rolling stock or the operations. How come all these companies do not help advocating for the rail?
The freight railroads definitely do advocate for themselves lol. The Association of American Railroads and the American Short line railroad association are railroad funded lobbying firms that look out for their interesting in Congress. Amtrak can’t/doesn’t need to directly lobby given that they are a government owned corporation. The national association of rail passengers and the American public transit association advocate on behalf of publicly owned railroads/LRT/metro systems. Freight railroads are diametrically opposed to passenger trains in almost every way, but they tolerate passenger trains if they have to (Amtrak) or because they’re paid (commuter railroads).
About 14 hours train ride, I would totally use it as overnight service, instead of taking an early flight I would prefer to take late train and come refreshed to the destination, thus I think overnight service from NYC to LA might be a good option
Freight carries are under no obligation to provide any passenger service, nor are they obligated to share their infrastructure for such purposes. What HSR advocates never discuss is the vast majority of European HRS are state owned or heavily subsidized.
I have to say that I am much more a proponent of HighER Speed Rail than I am true HSR. We get more bang for the buck with it and more true Intercity. But where HSR exists, or projects such as Brightline are abuild, then, terrific.
The worst possible solution, it’s been done in U.K., Germany and along the North East Corridor in the US. Trying to get more out of system designed for a different age takes years to upgrade while rail road needs to continue to functions and impacts revenue flows during its rollout, plus when it’s done you find it’s already at capacity in a short time. True HSR requires dedicated lines and in Country as vast as the US it will work but only with key cities in proximity eg any journey below 4 hours. This pan US map is crazy and self defeating as rider numbers in mid west will not support, HSR only adds value to highly urban regions. True HSR delivers not just quick transit times it also enables greater volumes of traffic flow down the blocks in the line. I personally think that once California gets its HSR fully complete the excuses of American lobbyists will be null and void so in this moment killing California High Speed by cutting funding is their priority, it’s nut to me how Los Angeles and San Francisco are not already connected in 2020, free up both respective Airports of the domestic traffic and both Airports would still be full from traffic coming from other destinations bringing inward investment that just can’t get in today. I think Trump always was a big backer on infrastructure projects but with Democrats having their Holy Crusade against him projects in States that Democrats control New York and California struggled to get Federal support during his presidency, had California been a Republican state as in the past the funding for their HSR would have been secure. American’s led the world on Infrastructure pre and post war today much in rail and beyond in private hands crumbles, like Dams coming to the end of their life time but no funding for their replacement.
Land value tax is the best way for government revenue. Among other benefits, it incentivizes the government to improve land value by building infrastructure (like rail) which in turn directly increases tax revenue.
Omaha or Union Pac. should really try and make its self a line hub that connects to Denver, KC, STL, and Chicago. Would help draw even more businesses into the city, but sadly I dont think it will happen
U.P. really doesn't want passenger service, but it realistically is the best route for the transcon line. Going thru Denver and the mountains is a logistical nightmare, running across southern Wyoming is much better terrain and a connecting train or light rail from Cheyenne to Denver is pretty easily done...
A better plan is a north/south transcon from the Twin Cities thru Des Moines, Kansas City, DFW, to Houston. There isn't an Amtrak route currently and connecting to the Texas high-speed line currently being built for the last leg just makes good sense.
@@TheFourFoot UP is not supportive of passenger rail being only interested in freight operations. CSX and Norfolk & Southern aren't at all friendly to lending their tracks to passenger operations.
i was actually thinking that they should have hsr to montreal and toronto that will definiteley save about 10-12 hours but at the terminal stations they should have immigration like the eurostar. and since i am from canada i want to have canada get a HSR system soon.
Its amazing how Canada could build basically 1 line and serve about half of its population. The Quebec-Windsor corridor is just begging to be built and has several logical extensions/connections to potential american lines. (Like linking NYC to Montreal, Buffalo to Toronto, and Chicago & Detroit to Windsor)
There is nothing between Minneapolis and Seattle. Why not build over the Milwaukee Road in these states? There is a right of way, No competition with freight railroads. You could truly achieve high speed over the northern plains.
@@timnewman1172 that's one of the reasons that the Milwaukee Road lost their shirts on the Pacific extension. Although electric locomotives require less maintenance, the infrastructure required to keep electricity in the wires in their electrified districts, and the maintenance of the traction grid, was expensive to run, and made no sense when the tracks could go hours between trains. With long distance electrification, you're spending lots of money and energy keeping electrons apart for no reason. There's plenty of mainlines out west that only see 20 trains a day.
I live near Akron, OH. There has been talk/plans of high-speed rail service from Cleveland to Akron, Canton, Medina, Columbus, Dayton, to Cincinnati. Amtrak used to go through Canton and Akron to Cleveland. but now there are 3 routes: #1 The North Coast Limited from Erie, PA through Cleveland, Toledo to Chicago; #2 Cleveland through Alliance to Pittsburgh; #3 Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, through WV and VA to DC. Columbus is by far the largest city in OH and it is its capital. I wonder who approved the stopping of service Akron, Canton & Columbus. I did see on the map you flashed up that plans are to at least connect Cleveland, Columbus, & Cincinnati. I think that map also showed ideas of Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Akron, Canton, to Columbus on to Indianapolis on to Chicago. Freight trains still run through those cities.
I would love to see some high-speed rail lines in the Unted States. This country should have more trains to enhance transportation for people who do not choose to fly in airplanes. The Four Foot, your video is nice.
Not to mention the MAJORITY of the cost is involved in Environmental studies to make sure that mile of track does affect the spotted snail or some crap. Do like China does and eminent domain the path and be done with it. The cost of construction is relatively small.
2:09. I'm from Long Island, NY. I would love for there to be a train going under the Long Island Sound. But Long Island has to be the NIMBY capital of the world. Take the LIRR to a station to transfer to an Amtrak going to Connecticut. That would be great for both Long Island and Connecticut's economy. But we must fight the NIMBY's.
Chicago to Quebec would definitely work if the line runs under the old Michigan Central station because then local billionaire Matty Maroun, who almost derailed 😝 the Gordie Howe Bridge, would be able to profit from it (and be incentivised to restore and renew the depot)!
Maps of "The Country" that only show 48 states are NOT maps of the COUNTRY. Don't forget the railroad in Alaska (part of the continental states) that also runs passenger service.
The spur route east of Richmond to Hampton Roads has a problem. In the 70’s, railroads took out rails to save on taxes. Most of the length of this spur route is a single line. I sense there must be other parts of that system map that suffer similar short-sightedness.
Also high speed rail cannot work as long as the rail line interacts with roads. Brightline East is claiming it is a high speed rail, but in certain areas the rail line will have road crossings in some areas every couple of miles.
It should be obvious that the US really needs to look at updating our passenger rail infrastructure. In the mid 20th century, once a few states started to build their own long-distance toll freeways (turnpikes), it was time to look at a nationwide freeway system. Once states start building HSR on their own... you get the picture.
Even if you could pull free energy out of the air, cars still take up space. I was really excited about the future of high speed trains after reading Joseph Vranich’s book “super trains “ thirty years ago. It’s encouraging to see some progress. I completely agree, if we get a few systems going, I think people will get on board.
I see the map extends a line down past San Antonio, along the Gulf Coast of Texas, all the way down to Brownsville and into Matamoros and on to Monterrey, Mexico. If you're not familiar with that part of the country, there are several reason for having a HSR line down that far. First off, there's South Padre Island, which is a very popular tourist destination. Then, right across from that is the Elon Musk StarBase spaceport. He also has plans to build his own city (StarBase, Texas) next to that to support his spaceport. Additionally, Matamoros is home to a number of Maquiladora manufacturing plants, and Monterrey is a popular Mexican tourist locale. Finally, there is limited air travel from the Brownsville airport, with flights only to D/FW Airport and to Hobby Airport in Houston. For the car buffs, the driving distance from Brownsville, even to San Antonio, is the same distance as Houston is from Dallas, requiring a 4 1/2 hour drive. In time a HSR line from San Antonio to StarBase, Texas could be financially very viable!
Some of this stuff looks good on the map, but how many people, for example, in Cheyenne would use a high speed rail line to downtown Denver? If you drive from Denver to Cheyenne you notice there's not much traffic N of Ft. Collins. A train originating in Cheyenne would probably have about 10 passengers; maybe 50 by the time it got to Denver.
yeah, but Ohio is still thinks the best way to educate themselves is by burning books and covering their ears maybe someday they will see that world is not flat
I'd like the congress to look at making PASSENGER rail a priority... There's no reason why the current "slow" Amtrak system can't be made viable by restoring passenger priority over freight (really, a small issue for the freight carriers), improvement of the rail infrastructure, and restoration of Amtrak meal/dining services. High-Speed Rail is really a regional issue: corridors need to be recognized to build high-speed services. The North-East Corridor is a great example. California and the LA-Vegas corridor. Texas (DFW to Houston and maybe even Austin). Florida...maybe...ironically, Key West would have been perfect if the old Overseas Railroad wasn't converted to car traffic. But Denver to Chicago? Nope. For people who are looking for "fast" travel that's an air route. But if Amtrak could improve service on the Zephyr so that it actually runs ON TIME and is comfortable??? Then you have a viable alternative. The Empire Builder and the Southwest Chief? People take those trains for the scenery...making those high-speed defeats the purpose. Adding Amtrak routes to serve rural communities and urban centers not currently served? That would be a great thing.
We would be neck and neck with China if we build a nationwide system, but it would be quite far to travel transcontinentally by high speed rail, I think it would take up to 14 hours from San Francisco to New York (it may be the longest route in the world)
@wtx Luq it also takes days to travel accross the country by car, yet some people do it anyhow. Also, strangely this is never used as an argument against the interstate system. As pointed out in the video it's not only about transcontinental travel; the lines serve many major cities along the way. Just because you could travel the whole way doesn't mean you have to. It's the same over here in Europe: there are high speed lines from Spain all the way to Hungary and from southern Italy up to Sweden despite virtually nobody actually traveling the whole distance; but that doesn't stop millions of people from using subsections of the network.
@@WaltANelsonPHD then get a better government - other countries manage to have decent long-distance trains, so why shouldn't that work in wealthiest nation in human history as well?
I don't think that the 2013 map makes sense for high-speed rail. HSR makes sense in high population corridors where it can outcompete short-haul/regional airlines.
I think We need: 1. West coast HSR from Vancouver BC Canada to San Diego CA. 2. Midwest HSR from Chicago to Huston. 3. East coast HSR from Montreal Qb Canada to Miami FL. And that’s just start, from then on, there is potential to expand from these locations to elsewhere, such as Seattle to Billing Montana and then to Denver Colorado before back to Chicago!! And from Chicago to Detroit to Columbus Ohio to Cincinnati and to NYC or Boston.
The focus doesn't need to be on a nationwide system but multiple systems where we can get it to work fairly easily. Obviously continue the CA line (and then build it out more from there), the Texas triangle, and everything east of the Mississippi River. The populations in these areas are dense enough, especially on the east coast. We can connect the lines in the future once we have successful lines built that shut doubters up.
Well if there was demand between New York and Los Angeles then they could use express trains and local trains so the the trip would be faster. Kinda like the NYC subway where the 4 train is express in manhattan and the 6 train is local (i think?)
máte nádhernou přírodu,chraňte si jí snižováním vypouštění emisí z automobilů a letadel,vysokorychlostní železnice je zatim jediná,která představuje rychlou velkokapacitní přepravu osob popřípadě lehkého carga z centra města do centra,myslete na budoucnost životního prostředí v kterém chcete žít
I noticed you didn't go over any of the obvious problems with that map. It has lines that won't be profitable until population growth goes massively up in several areas, like that SW line starting in Chicago. Also, it's a national train map, but not nation wide as it doesn't even try to go through large parts of the country. Also, here's the thing about High speed rail, unless the whole thing (or most of it) is high speed none of it makes much sense and at the distances involved in the US it should really be mag-lev level speeds as those start at 300mph. However, that's new and thus still very, very expensive and I don't put any stock in "close" but unproven tech from future trains, so HSR (and CAHSR is NOT HSR) so the whole concept is very far away. Local trains are good. Targeted trains like Brightline in certain areas are great and moreover private trains are especially great as they get done quickly and without beaurocratic nightmares and delays and thus more cheaply.
A way for people to get from middle America to the Florida coast without TSA or having to stop every hour to let crying kids get a snack and use the bathroom would make someone a trillionaire.
I took the Eurostar from Paris to London and it was som much an enjoyable experience than the airport. A plane ride from Paris to London is around an hour and 15 minutes. A high speed train ride is about an 2 hours and a half. However, you don't have to be there 2 hours before takeoff. I had to go through customs and 45 minutes before take off will give one plenty of time to board your train. On the train, ot is spacious, clean, with big windows to sight see. You can put your luggage on a median rack or on an overhead ben. The lavatory on board are more spacious and clean than that on the plane. Tje wifi was decent, not spectacular, but free and way better than my recent plane flight from Frankfurt Germany to LAX. Once high speed rail connects two major cities, there is no turning back, it will change this nation for the better. Tje ride was enjoyable. And you land in the heart of the city. When I flew back from Paris to Los Angeles, I almost missed my connecting flight to LA because of airport security and customs. I literally got my pass port checked about 3 times, waiting in these slow lines hoping I don't miss my flight. Go through the train, go to security, go to your platform, and off you go. I am looking forward to that day when I am whisk away from LA to Las Vegas. That route will be so popular my only concern is that it might sell out on Weekends. 😉
The LA-SFO HS rail is budgeted at 100 Billion, of which only 20 % has been financed, and everyone knows that it will end up with an even higher price tag eventually, after all the delays. Going by these numbers, 2 trillion would buy you 20 such stretches or HS rail tracks, if you would blow all your infra- structure budget on HS rail, leaving bridges, dams, ports, conventional rail, highways, waterways and gazillion other projects out of funds. The reality is that the US has dug itself a deep hole when it comes to infrastructure, and 2 trillion, which on one hand will be difficult to push through the senate, as first US-senators have already signaled limited support, even among the 50 votes needed to push it through, and yet, these 2 trillion will only cover a small amount of all the needs that exist. That is the reality of the US 2021. Believe me, I would love LOVE LOOOVE to see everything that you are dreaming of, don't get me wrong. But if I am given only 2 trillion of a budget, I am afraid that there is just not a chance to do much HS rail, except maybe a tiny limited stretch (pick your battles on where it could be: CA, TX, MA, etc). We are on the cusp of finding out whether Maglev and/ Hyperloop are just pipe dreams or can actually become a commercially viable system. My guess is, that it will take about 10 years to really know. Investing into 20th century HS rail, when the 21st century technology is almost ready, is just not wise. Let that decision shake out first, and meanwhile use the present budget to prioritize tons of less expensive, and yet very beneficial infrastructure projects. This should very much include rail, but conventional rail in form of regional rail (1-2 hour distances), commuter rail, capacity bottlenecks, bridges, access to trains, etc.... tons to do, and then tackle a modified HS rail concept, when it is clear, which way to go. Like Middle East, Africa, South America, and many other places, the US may end up leaving the 20th century behind and moving straight on into the technologies of the 21st, and that would be just fine for the country. Just an opinion, of course. We shall see, what will happen. The good news is, at least something will happen now, and that already counts as progress in this country.
Maglev is also a 20th century tech which has an even greater price tag. That's why the german, chinese and even rich gulf state authorities voted against when thinking about expanding their HSR network. Just the japanese planning to develop some "long" distance maglev lines, but they already have the world's best functioning HSR network, so even Japan isn't in a hurry.
@@vicelias5288 *ur actually completely wrong!!! U don't really own any property in the US, u lease it from the Government which will always give States & Federal eminent domain rights anytime they wanna do something to that land that u think u own... Would u like examples of this happening???
@@vicelias5288 Still that price is insane. Ther are also property rights in Europe (some even more strict AFAIK), still we manage to build HSR lines over here for about half as much.
There are indeed some talks between Canada and the US, but you really shouldn't get your hopes too high. Getting something as simple as a deal negotiated for preclearing for customs clearances took years. There's a deal, but it has yet to be implemented. There's also the VIA rail plans HFR, something which nobody had heard of before, which nobody asked for, and which really does not get anywhere near the goal post. High Frequency Rail as they call it is not even fast enough to compete properly with air travel, let alone the car. It's really only meant for those who don't care how long it takes to get there and just need to be able to work while on the move. Heck, it does not even use the right alignment. There's also the problem that Montreal's Gare Centrale is effectively back to being a terminus, so you can forget going all the way to Quebec city. Fixing that issue is going to require a new tunnel at a cost of several billions as it will have to go straight through the basement of several high rise buildings. We've created a heck of a mess for ourselves. Canada is deep in debt just like the US, so getting anything built is going to be a struggle in the coming decade.
As a Brit I find one issue with American railways is the distance from the center of town/ city they connect to... Or lack of a station. Tho looking at Google maps recently the section between Richmond and Wilson just south of rockey mountain is pretty darn straight. Maybe us high-speed should build 250-350mph capable right of ways?
IMHO you want to reduce the scope of that dream to the triangle between Montreal, DC and Chicago (sections of the white, red, blue and purple line shown at 0:12). That is already ambitious and hard enough to get, yet it would bring a handsome reduction of domestic flights and related CO2.
I only wish... However, you'd be going against the bus, airline, automaker/diesel equipment, petroleum, construction, and electrical/utility lobbies - just to name a few! I don't think that outside of the Northeast Corridor, and the mostly completed portion in Cali between Bakersfield and Merced, you'll see _ANY_ future dedicated HSR lines!
As far as the Gordon Howe bridge goes, a large part of the reason why Canada is financing it has to do with trade. A very large portion of the trade between Canada and the US goes through the old Ambassador bridge. It does not have a direct highway connection on the Canadian side. It's old, and it's owner hasn't been maintaining it properly. Canada wasn't going to stand around and wait for the Ambassador bridge to become a major problem and obstacle to trade. In the greater scheme of things, the price tag of the bridge is small in comparison to the economic benefits it brings.
Yeah, it would be nice if that was routed farther south around Utah. I wouldn't mind a regional high speed rail, but I really wouldn't want it connected to Denver, Seattle, Portland, or California. Other than that, it looks like a pretty interesting project.
there are some parts of the map that really make sense and could bring a lot. Would be nice to have US finally understanding the benefit of doing things together rather than each and every in his car.
Why was the high speed rail line between Houston and Dallas not even mentioned in this video ? Construction is about to begin.
I think that map was created before Texas Central’s plans had really materialized. I’m looking forward to it and I hope it succeeds. I should have mentioned that all of the tentative high speed rail plans currently moving forward are privately led.
Map is from 2013.
Not to mention, isn't it being mostly done with private money? This is the way.
As a huge HSR advocate, I already like your videos, but you just made me a bigger fan. I love the insight. Keep up the good work!
Thanks a lot! I’m glad you liked it!
the best thing about it is the involvement of Canada and Mexico with the inclusion of Vancouver B.C, Windsor ON to Quebec City QC and Monterrey Nuevo Leon, Mexico. What makes the high speeds of Europe great is their international transit.
Absolutely!
There are indeed some talks between Canada and the US, but you really shouldn't get your hopes too high. Getting something as simple as a deal negotiated for preclearing for customm clearances took years. There's a deal, but it has yet to be implemented.
There's also the VIA rail plans HFR, something which nobody had heard of before, which nobody asked for, and which really does not get anywhere near the goal post. High Frequency Rail as they call it is not even fast enough to compete properly with air travel, let alone the car. It's really only meant for those who don't care how long it takes to get there and just need to be able to work while on the move. Heck, it does not even use the right alignment. There's also the problem that Montreal's Gare Centrale is effectively back to being a terminus, so you can forget going all the way to Quebec city. Fixing that issue is going to require a new tunnel at a cost of several billions as it will have to go straight through the basement of several high rise buildings. We've created a heck of a mess for ourselves. Canada is deep in debt just like the US, so getting anything built is going to be a struggle in the coming decade.
We should also consider consulting with the Swiss about how to build looong tunnels through mountain ranges. We're going to need it to help solve the HSR problem through the Rockies. For example, the Gotthard Base Tunnel through the Alps is 57.09 km (35.5 mi) long!
@@MikeWiggins1235711 The Swiss really didn't do much of anything special. They just took the entire book on how to dig a tunnel and threw it at the problem. The real problem with a tunnel that long isn't the length, it's the fact that you will go through multiple geology changes. You need several digging techniques in order to build a tunnel like Gothard. One section was so bad that by the time they stabilised the tunnel, it had lost 2 meters in diameter.
And the fact that the routes are short. But that isn't the US. Heck, the Auto-Train route is longer than the longest run in England or Germany.
Highways in the US are almost never expected to turn a profit which is why you'll see Interstate highways built in some of the desolate and remote areas of the country. Places where if they were railroads would never be built because they're expected to turn a profit regardless of the economic and social benefits it would bring to otherwise isolated and depressed areas.
yes lol
If you ask me, I'd prefer Congress to push for this rather than beat a dead horse with expanding the network on freight lines
oh boy the meme map that shows up every other week on twitter
Had to do it lol
As a Conservative Republican, I am "ALL IN" on this to the hilt. I made my comments regarding a couple of other extensions, mere extensions, on your other video about the map.
Same. I hate how trains are becoming a “democrat” thing. And tbh I hate how many republicans are against it. High speed rail has lots of potential.
we should not be. High speed rail is great but you need to build it in the right places. what is stupid about this map is it places HSR in areas that don't need it. Vegas to LA are great for HSR. A trancontenitnal HSR does not. LA and Vegas are less than 300 miles apart- trains running between 90-200 MPH would make the trip in about 2 1/2 hours making it highly competitive with airplanes and better than driving.
main areas that could use development are already being discussed by private ventures- Dallas-Houston-San Antonio, San Diego-LA-Las Vegas. North East Corroder is a logical location.
@@williamt.sherman9841 most people would only travel on these for 2-4 hours in various multi-state areas though. The idea is just you _could_ stay on one for 6-10 hours if you needed, far faster than travelling by bus and far cheaper than air travel (if set up competently anyway).
@@kaitlyn__L not cheaper than air travel. Air travel has its costs but for long distance travel (over 800 miles) it will always be cheaper. Rails need to be maintained which adds cost and if you are traveling for a long time (over 6-10 hours) crew costs get really high.
that is part of why Amtrack has trouble breaking even.
@@williamt.sherman9841 could probably add a Florida line + something based around Chicaco + Vancuver-Seattle-Portland
At least a tiny bit of the map is becoming reality now!
Texas, Nevada and California to be more precise, the rest of the states may have to wait a while
@@alquinn8576 Who cares, at least they're doing it, everyone else isn't even trying yet thanks to stupid ignorant Republicans and car culture people
Someday in the 2030's I will be going from Palo Alto to LA
Try 2100's
You can do that now.
@@vicelias5288 By then, you'll need a high speed boat because half of California will be underwater!!
Most important thing is bringing down US unit construction costs more in line with the rest of the world.
It's like the map from the board game, "ticket to ride"
Basically lol
LA/Las Vegas line should extend all the way up to Salt Lake City.
Only if Las Vegas - Salt Lake City can justify the utilization. LA - Salt Lake City is long enough where they're better off flying even if we had high-speed rail.
Heck, we have the technology, how about a train from New York to Vegas.
@@StatsMass Las Vegas to SLC is about 2.5 hours on HSR at Chinese speeds, and costs $50. That seems competitive with flying.
Though I question if SLC has enough people to justify HSR.
I hope the Charlotte to Atlanta HSR route gets built soon. A large portion of south Carolina is set to get several HSR stations like in crappy cities like anderson SC
I'd love to have those small cities get rail access they would flourish.
For sure! This is a really interesting project and I hope it succeeds!
The European Union has done a huge amount of work to create standards for high speed rail to ensure interoperability across borders. I think the best way forward for the FRA is to simply copy those standards instead of reinventing the wheel. That would also reduce costs both in the long and the short run. But I fear there is too much NIH-syndrome for that to work.
No kidding. There’s certainly no reason to reinvent the wheel here, but I’m sure that won’t stop america from trying lol
@@TheFourFoot You're probably right, but it would be nice to have similar standards on both sides of the Atlantic. That would increase competition and make things easier (i.e. cheaper).
Yes it would lol
@@TheFourFoot Well, there is no harm in dreaming… :) Nice channel by the way!
Thanks!
I wish brighter minds took this to heart. All we have to do is look at Spain as a shining example of railway infrastructure development to advocate train travel but wait,,,,,,, I forgot we don’t like to learn anything from other countries. I agree that states need to be involved but with the political landscape the way it is, we may never see this. I hope I’m wrong.
forgot to mention that it should be ultra affordable because a ticket to NYC from DC.... actually ISN'T...
NYC to DC is $25 at Chinese costs.
@@stanzhang3187 that would be a steal, but even $50 would be attractive. (With reduced tickets for families/children. I assume that like airlines most of the money is made off of first class and economy is just their to fill up the plane/train.)
It's honestly what everyone secretly wants but don't want to pay for, but if it don't exceed 200mph it's pointless, another problem connecting non major cities, another prob is selling the final decision to the state, the cost always goes up after the ground breaking, that's not ok
Even if it costs a lot its worth it and we have the money
Another great video. Fun to see you giggle about rail. 🚄🚅🚋
Great overview and you even included practical action items that an individual can follow up on. Thanks!
Glad you liked it!
What a brilliant video and - if I may say so - your best one so far. Look, we're all rail fans and train enthusiasts and transit nerds and what not. But beyond all the love for den the mode, we're living in a social and environmental crisis. And local transit and high speed rail travel are one two of the few viable answers to both of them. Also: American politics in a nutshell. Very entertaining :D
Thank you very much!
the aviation industry would love to know more about the innovative faa. 😅
Fair enough lol. It was a poor choice of words. I meant to say they had the budget and personnel to actually do their job...sorta lol
In comparison to the FRA, it is
I,m for fuel efficient nights in electric drones with enforcement powers
I really appreciate this video my dude!
I’m glad you liked it!
( Mid April 2021 ) The French Government have just said they may almost ban air travel between cities that have high speed rail links. The idea is being promoted as an emissions cutting initiative.
Perhaps M. Macron might more usefully spend his time lecturing the Chinese, since emissions from Europe as a whole are a mere drop in the ocean compared with China and other Asian countries (and some African countries).
@@AndreiTupolev I have been brought up to believe that I should put my own house in order before criticising other people.
that's hsr to a city ot a city with with links to hsr the french government has high speed rail itsel so your your state sounds like fox news lies for entertainment
@@kevinhenwood5254 I understand all of your words & some of your abbreviations but. I may be a bit thick as I have no idea what you are trying to say.
@@kuckoo9036 I wrote about high speed rail. I did not use HSR. I think you may have meant your reply for someone else.
Driving long distances is hard on one’s body no matter how comfortable your car seat may be. High speed railways will enable more people to commute in comfort longer distances to work in order to live in more affordable areas that will also provide economic growth to smaller towns near rural areas. This was the case with the TGV in France.
Another great video. Thanks.
Glad you liked it! Thanks!
2:50 In 14 to 16 hours from NY to LA. That’s a great trip duration for an overnight high speed connection. Like the high speed sleeper from Beijing to Hongkong...
I’m sure it would be popular, but the cost of getting the line built is a bit steep lol
@@TheFourFoot Ah, well. If you guys keep building sections, there will be a day where you'll have the entire line, not? I guess that's the right moment to launch the service, I guess... 😎
I fully support it, there’s a few people that don’t, however lol
@@TheFourFoot They'll come around. The major problem with HSR in the US is that people can't get a feeling of a high speed train. If you want to buy a bed, the sales person can list all the details and advantages of the bed he wants to sell you, but they can't make you experience what how incredibly nice the bed is, until they can say "Why don't you try it?"
And the taxpayer in the US can't 'try it out and return it if they don't like it.'
The HSR-pioneers Japan and France had to deal with the same kind of resistance when they built their first lines. Japan in the 60's and France in the 70's/80's. (I'm not going into what happened to more than one monarch in France when the French didn't like what they got; let's just say that the French not known for staying quiet and weathering it...) And now, if either of those populations had to choose under threat, they probably would choose their rail-system over their highway system. I guess the resistance will lessen when Americans can experience highspeed rail travel in Florida, Texas and California, so within the context of a US-scenario. And a fair number of them will sit on that train, look out the window, see the cars on the highway move at half their speed or less... They'll remember themselves in one of those cars back in the day and they'll wonder why again they were só vocal against HSR...
Oh I know. Once a real HSR line opens, public opinion will likely shift considerably. The NEC doesn’t get much attention outside the northeast because it’s always been there, it barely qualifies as HSR, and because the rest of the country holds basically the same attitude they have about Europe/Asia, that “well of course you ride trains in Europe because that’s what you, but that couldn’t work here...” I’m sure you’re correct however that all we need is a good start! (And maybe some of that French...je ne sais quoi...
I think something that is missed in theses maps is they focus on intercontinental rail way instead regional. As regional is built out then connection built out. (Sorry if I said something stupid. I am thinking want to say something even though the video is not done)
Agreed
Hello four foot, I'm James Robertson, of N.Y.St. Been living in the northeast for my whole life. (70) Appreciate that you speak about the northeast very realistically. America needs passenger trains, like it was a hundred years ago.
I could see the East Coast part work
Picking which project I think would make the most sense to rally behind is really quite difficult. They all have varying degrees of good points and bad points. All I can do is to analyze the problem using my own mindset and hope whatever comes out doesn't sound TOO idiotic.
The project I think should be at the top of the list is a High Speed Rail line connecting Chicago and Denver. Forget about the money issues (which we ALL know about!). My reasons are:
1. We should be attacking the problem of getting a transcontinental HSR the same way that the original transcontinental RR was built: in sections.
2. With the amount of wide open space between Chicago and Denver, it will be possible to build an (almost) straight line between the two cities thus making construction easier and faster ... and hopefully cheaper.
3. Because of this HSR should be able to reach the 220 mph grail that everyone is hoping for. It will also be able to stay at this speed for a much higher percentage of its run than, say, New York to Boston or D.C. to Miami. It also doesn't have many stops to make along the route.
4. Non-Stop (assuming 1100 miles) (I know it's shorter than that, I added some miles deliberately) at 220 mph = 5 hours. Assuming 10 stops at 15 minutes each adds 150 minutes, or 2 1/2 hours. So, theoretically, a trip between Chicago and Denver on this route, at these speeds, would take about 7 1/2 hours. Flying is still faster, but there is a huge advantage when you start calculating the downtown-to-downtown time.
This idea is meant to show that building in segments IS the way to go. And getting the pieces assembled over time will FINALLY give the United States the coast-to-coast high speed rail line it SHOULD be showing off to the rest of the world.
At 9:23, "Wisconsin, Florida, and 𝐎𝐇𝐈𝐎"
Fucking killed me, man
They should also make a corridor from Los Angeles to Mexico City, but I'm not sure how long that would take
Yes, we absolutely should!
Mexico City to Tijuana would be built first
Mexico needs to fix its corruption before building hs rail
To me in the UK, I'm of the same mind as Reece Martin (RM Transit), and think that the US will drag it's feet over any more high speed rail. The UK and Europe are so far ahead with high speed rail. (A train line under the sea. Also a line under the sea from Germany to Denmark is under way.) I'm afraid that I'll never see any reports in the media, saying that,Cal train link is going to be completed in my lifetime.
High speed rail is likely going to start out slowly. Over time I'm going to guess that the graphs for high speed rail(profitability, numbers of lines, etc) is just gonna go full Mount Everest on all of us and I doubt it will be like China's system, but will possibly be bigger than TGVs. But I'm no expert, do not take this as what will 100% happen.
You’re right. I’m sure that whenever the first high speed line opens, ridership will spike once more people learn about it ride it.
@@kuckoo9036 Their total loss on their HSR network over 13 years about the same as America's annual military budget. That seems sustainable. American roads lose much more than China's HSR network does.
And maintaining is far easier than building it. We just have lost a lot of capability over the last 50 years. We would be completely unable to build the Interstate Highway System at all if we did it today, with all the lawsuits.
I really like high speed rail but the diminishing returns on this map are staggering. It’s 1,000 miles from Chicago to Denver, too few population centers along that journey, and it’s outside high speed rail’s ideal range of 200-500 miles. We need regional systems around clusters of large cities not coast to coast travel.
Then that's not the line to start with.
East of the line Minneapolis-Omaha-Dallas the population density is very much comparable with Europe. Then there's Denver-El Paso. And again the whole west coast. In those areas (i.e. almost 2/3rds of the USA) it would be no problem to generate enough demand. Then links in between will then follow as a logical consequence - e.g. Denver to Salt Lake City or Las Vegas would be perfect for an overnight hop (about 800-1000mi could be easily done in ~8-10 hours on HSR, that's basically the sweet spot for sleeper trains).
yup. way too much space between a lot of these stops and not enough demand. flying would be more ideal. houston to dallas makes perfect sense: its faster than driving and flying.
@@stephanweinberger spending a hundred billion dollars connecting Des Moines and Omaha with Denver and Chicago makes little sense when that money could be spent on transit so much more effectively.
$30 billion towards a desperately needed circumferential El train line in Chicago and towards turning Metra into a true RER service.
$20 billion to pepper smaller cities in this region with light rail and bus rapid transit in their core areas like Des Moines Omaha, etc
$10 billion on higher speed regional rail that would still be competitive with driving but wouldn’t be as costly as HSR. A line between Cedar Rapids-North Liberty-Coralville-Iowa City is one example.
Why spend so much connecting Omaha and Des Moines when their local transit is still very weak? Have you seen Des Moines’ barebones bus network? So many more important fish to fry than this ridiculous high speed rail map.
@@eriklakeland3857 I think you misunderstood my comment. I was simply answering to the "density" argument. Just compare a map of population density between Europe and the eastern half of the US - they are not that much different! What's different is the "great void" in the center-west of the US. Hence a connection between e.g. Omaha and Denver is *not* the first priority.
As for local transit projects: those go hand in hand with long distance connections. You need both!
The overall goal should be that less people own cars. If you need a car for part of your mobility then there is always the temptation to use it for everything (after all you are already paying for it). In order to achieve less car dependency (and thereby also generate enough demand for long distance rail travel as a side effect) you need to cover as many transportation needs as possible - which means everything from a local bus line around your residential district, trams, lightrail, subways, commuter trains, ... all the way up to long distance trains - preferably high speed and preferably well connected to the other modes of public transport.
The main issue I see with public transport in the US is *fragmentation*. There are some cities with good transit systems (and a few - very few - corridors with somewhat usable trains) - but what good is that when there is no way to travel between those cities and when there are other places (and not just a few, but actually the majority!) where it's just impossible to get to and around without a car? People don't just want to ride to work all their lives, they also want to travel, visit relatives, etc. ... if they need a car for that then they will likely also use it for their everyday journeys.
@@eriklakeland3857 It's 18 billion, not 100 at Chinese costs. Also HSR beats air up to 800 miles in China.
Red tape, not speed of the train, is the main cause of costs. So a higher-speed rail would barely save anything over a true high-speed rail, and it would have far less ridership as far more people would choose to drive/fly instead.
I would like the Dessert Wind, come back, then I could go to Las Vegas from Chicago.
I think once brightline get back up and running and when they start on Brightline west I think it will start to turn public opinion on it
Brightline isn't even real high speed. It's 125 mph peak and in the south Miami area it only goes 80mph (same as the regional tri-rail)
@@SquickersKingdom Brightline Florida is running on shared freight track with little to no grade separation (except for the Orlando-Cocoa portion), using diesel trains. Brightline West will use exclusive ROW with electrified high speed trainsets capable of actual high speed. Necessity is the mother of invention sometimes.
@Va Sr almost certainly for 200mph trainsets, especially if they’re using the Velaros from their renderings. It’d make sense, seeing as they already have a relationship with Siemens.
I love how every map I’ve seen bypasses Tulsa, Oklahoma altogether…..as if it doesn’t exist or have a line that could be utilized.
What should happen is that whoever uses the infrastructure the most should pay the most for it. Corporations use public infrastructure but don't want to pay for any of it.
You going to do a video on the new Amtrak map that was shown off today?
Yes lol
I've been working on and advocating for better passenger rail my entire adult life (age 63). I had older friends in the cause who are gone who spent their entire adult lives working on it, mostly to no avail. NOTHING will change for the good of average people in this country, not just in terms of transportation, but everything else, unless and until we get corporations and big money interests out of our government by passing a 28th amendment to the U. S. Constitution that says corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Then we prohibit corporations from participating in politics in any way, and don't allow the rich to give any more to a political campaign than you or I could afford to give, like $100. Then we can start to get a handle on our politics and do what needs to be done for the rest of us.
The thing about high-speed trains is that first you have to walk before you can run. That means we need a network of decent normal speed trains that people will ride to fill out the skeletal network of high-speed ones. Make every Amtrak long-distance train daily, then run two-a-day about 12 hours apart on every route. Now every community on Amtrak will have at least one daylight round-trip per day stopping there. When that service change shows people will truly ride passenger trains (and it will), then we build on the system from there, by finally tackling the total Northeast Corridor improvement project, which is going to cost nearly $1Trillion by itself! That would include extending it to Richmond and Atlanta, and probably Montreal or Toronto. Then we fill in with the regional HS corridors that have been talked about to death for the last 40 years, like Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati. All of this MUST be tied together with effective local transit, light rail, bus, etc. so people can truly get around practically without a car, which just is not possible on a realistic basis in most parts of the country without either paying for expensive taxi connections or begging rides from friends or family to fill in the major gaps. That is what we are facing.
How do I get behind this? This is brilliant!
@@Loud.Thoughts Many states have associations of railroad passengers, and there is the Railroad Passenger Association for the national level.
Sorry I missed this comment before. You’re absolutely right. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like we’re any closer to getting corporation/dirty money out of politics. But as for actually improving passenger rail, I totally agree. Twice daily LD service should be a minimum that Amtrak is pursuing, rather than trying to cut them...
I admire your endurance vis-a-vis the ubiquitous car dominance. The change would either have to come from public action or the companies would have to discover how they could make profit on rail - be it the infrastructure construction, the rolling stock or the operations. How come all these companies do not help advocating for the rail?
The freight railroads definitely do advocate for themselves lol. The Association of American Railroads and the American Short line railroad association are railroad funded lobbying firms that look out for their interesting in Congress. Amtrak can’t/doesn’t need to directly lobby given that they are a government owned corporation. The national association of rail passengers and the American public transit association advocate on behalf of publicly owned railroads/LRT/metro systems. Freight railroads are diametrically opposed to passenger trains in almost every way, but they tolerate passenger trains if they have to (Amtrak) or because they’re paid (commuter railroads).
About 14 hours train ride, I would totally use it as overnight service, instead of taking an early flight I would prefer to take late train and come refreshed to the destination, thus I think overnight service from NYC to LA might be a good option
Me too!
Shows how important Chicago is.
Freight carries are under no obligation to provide any passenger service, nor are they obligated to share their infrastructure for such purposes. What HSR advocates never discuss is the vast majority of European HRS are state owned or heavily subsidized.
I have to say that I am much more a proponent of HighER Speed Rail than I am true HSR. We get more bang for the buck with it and more true Intercity. But where HSR exists, or projects such as Brightline are abuild, then, terrific.
The worst possible solution, it’s been done in U.K., Germany and along the North East Corridor in the US. Trying to get more out of system designed for a different age takes years to upgrade while rail road needs to continue to functions and impacts revenue flows during its rollout, plus when it’s done you find it’s already at capacity in a short time. True HSR requires dedicated lines and in Country as vast as the US it will work but only with key cities in proximity eg any journey below 4 hours. This pan US map is crazy and self defeating as rider numbers in mid west will not support, HSR only adds value to highly urban regions. True HSR delivers not just quick transit times it also enables greater volumes of traffic flow down the blocks in the line. I personally think that once California gets its HSR fully complete the excuses of American lobbyists will be null and void so in this moment killing California High Speed by cutting funding is their priority, it’s nut to me how Los Angeles and San Francisco are not already connected in 2020, free up both respective Airports of the domestic traffic and both Airports would still be full from traffic coming from other destinations bringing inward investment that just can’t get in today. I think Trump always was a big backer on infrastructure projects but with Democrats having their Holy Crusade against him projects in States that Democrats control New York and California struggled to get Federal support during his presidency, had California been a Republican state as in the past the funding for their HSR would have been secure. American’s led the world on Infrastructure pre and post war today much in rail and beyond in private hands crumbles, like Dams coming to the end of their life time but no funding for their replacement.
Land value tax is the best way for government revenue. Among other benefits, it incentivizes the government to improve land value by building infrastructure (like rail) which in turn directly increases tax revenue.
Omaha or Union Pac. should really try and make its self a line hub that connects to Denver, KC, STL, and Chicago. Would help draw even more businesses into the city, but sadly I dont think it will happen
U.P. really doesn't want passenger service, but it realistically is the best route for the transcon line. Going thru Denver and the mountains is a logistical nightmare, running across southern Wyoming is much better terrain and a connecting train or light rail from Cheyenne to Denver is pretty easily done...
A better plan is a north/south transcon from the Twin Cities thru Des Moines, Kansas City, DFW, to Houston. There isn't an Amtrak route currently and connecting to the Texas high-speed line currently being built for the last leg just makes good sense.
I support both transcon plans, but you’re right UP ain’t going to return your calls on that one lol
@@TheFourFoot UP is not supportive of passenger rail being only interested in freight operations. CSX and Norfolk & Southern aren't at all friendly to lending their tracks to passenger operations.
That's a valid point he said towards the end, " people don't really understand what high speed rail could do for us.
i was actually thinking that they should have hsr to montreal and toronto that will definiteley save about 10-12 hours but at the terminal stations they should have immigration like the eurostar. and since i am from canada i want to have canada get a HSR system soon.
Its amazing how Canada could build basically 1 line and serve about half of its population. The Quebec-Windsor corridor is just begging to be built and has several logical extensions/connections to potential american lines. (Like linking NYC to Montreal, Buffalo to Toronto, and Chicago & Detroit to Windsor)
This is a cool vision and we could even use maglev trains or something like a hyperloop train.
There is nothing between Minneapolis and Seattle. Why not build over the Milwaukee Road in these states? There is a right of way, No competition with freight railroads. You could truly achieve high speed over the northern plains.
It’s not a bad idea!
And parts of it were electrified many years ago!
That is one reason I moved to Montana. I live along the Milwaukee Way.
That’s awesome!
@@timnewman1172 that's one of the reasons that the Milwaukee Road lost their shirts on the Pacific extension. Although electric locomotives require less maintenance, the infrastructure required to keep electricity in the wires in their electrified districts, and the maintenance of the traction grid, was expensive to run, and made no sense when the tracks could go hours between trains. With long distance electrification, you're spending lots of money and energy keeping electrons apart for no reason. There's plenty of mainlines out west that only see 20 trains a day.
I live near Akron, OH. There has been talk/plans of high-speed rail service from Cleveland to Akron, Canton, Medina, Columbus, Dayton, to Cincinnati. Amtrak used to go through Canton and Akron to Cleveland. but now there are 3 routes: #1 The North Coast Limited from Erie, PA through Cleveland, Toledo to Chicago; #2 Cleveland through Alliance to Pittsburgh; #3 Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, through WV and VA to DC. Columbus is by far the largest city in OH and it is its capital. I wonder who approved the stopping of service Akron, Canton & Columbus. I did see on the map you flashed up that plans are to at least connect Cleveland, Columbus, & Cincinnati. I think that map also showed ideas of Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Akron, Canton, to Columbus on to Indianapolis on to Chicago. Freight trains still run through those cities.
I would love to see some high-speed rail lines in the Unted States. This country should have more trains to enhance transportation for people who do not choose to fly in airplanes. The Four Foot, your video is nice.
Not to mention the MAJORITY of the cost is involved in Environmental studies to make sure that mile of track does affect the spotted snail or some crap. Do like China does and eminent domain the path and be done with it. The cost of construction is relatively small.
China is F in the environment focus. Let's leave them to their DOOM while we plan for a eco friendly Transit system
2:09. I'm from Long Island, NY. I would love for there to be a train going under the Long Island Sound. But Long Island has to be the NIMBY capital of the world. Take the LIRR to a station to transfer to an Amtrak going to Connecticut. That would be great for both Long Island and Connecticut's economy. But we must fight the NIMBY's.
Yeah that sounds about right. We need more YIMBY’s lol
the Winsor-Quebec corridor is also on that map...I'm afraid Canada is waiting for hyperloop 🤣
It’s probably gonna be a long wait lol
Chicago to Quebec would definitely work if the line runs under the old Michigan Central station because then local billionaire Matty Maroun, who almost derailed 😝 the Gordie Howe Bridge, would be able to profit from it (and be incentivised to restore and renew the depot)!
Maps of "The Country" that only show 48 states are NOT maps of the COUNTRY. Don't forget the railroad in Alaska (part of the continental states) that also runs passenger service.
The spur route east of Richmond to Hampton Roads has a problem. In the 70’s, railroads took out rails to save on taxes. Most of the length of this spur route is a single line. I sense there must be other parts of that system map that suffer similar short-sightedness.
The entire map implies new rail construction nationwide
I rode the TGV from Provance(SP) to Paris and found it most enjoyable and would support any building here in the states
Also high speed rail cannot work as long as the rail line interacts with roads. Brightline East is claiming it is a high speed rail, but in certain areas the rail line will have road crossings in some areas every couple of miles.
Truly a description of third world rail. I shouldn't say that, as, some third world countries have new higher speed trains.
It should be obvious that the US really needs to look at updating our passenger rail infrastructure. In the mid 20th century, once a few states started to build their own long-distance toll freeways (turnpikes), it was time to look at a nationwide freeway system. Once states start building HSR on their own... you get the picture.
I'd love to see you collab with Well There's Your Problem about our difficult history with HSR in the US :D
That would definitely be fun to do!
Would love to see that too!
This will become a reality once Europe completes their teleportation project.
Even if you could pull free energy out of the air, cars still take up space. I was really excited about the future of high speed trains after reading Joseph Vranich’s book “super trains “ thirty years ago. It’s encouraging to see some progress. I completely agree, if we get a few systems going, I think people will get on board.
I totally agree, I think if we got HSR everyone would be so blown away they'd want to forget cars.
I see the map extends a line down past San Antonio, along the Gulf Coast of Texas, all the way down to Brownsville and into Matamoros and on to Monterrey, Mexico. If you're not familiar with that part of the country, there are several reason for having a HSR line down that far. First off, there's South Padre Island, which is a very popular tourist destination.
Then, right across from that is the Elon Musk StarBase spaceport. He also has plans to build his own city (StarBase, Texas) next to that to support his spaceport. Additionally, Matamoros is home to a number of Maquiladora manufacturing plants, and Monterrey is a popular Mexican tourist locale.
Finally, there is limited air travel from the Brownsville airport, with flights only to D/FW Airport and to Hobby Airport in Houston. For the car buffs, the driving distance from Brownsville, even to San Antonio, is the same distance as Houston is from Dallas, requiring a 4 1/2 hour drive. In time a HSR line from San Antonio to StarBase, Texas could be financially very viable!
Some of this stuff looks good on the map, but how many people, for example, in Cheyenne would use a high speed rail line to downtown Denver? If you drive from Denver to Cheyenne you notice there's not much traffic N of Ft. Collins. A train originating in Cheyenne would probably have about 10 passengers; maybe 50 by the time it got to Denver.
So why did they build the I-25 then?
The previous high speed rail that was proposed for Ohio had an average speed of 12 mile an hour.
yeah, but Ohio is still thinks the best way to educate themselves is by burning books and covering their ears maybe someday they will see that world is not flat
Good luck. It's gonna cost around 50m per kilometer. You'd have to fight off spending hawks and lobbying airlines, automakers, energy sectors.
Mostly environmentalist making sure the spotted horn billed snail wasn’t harmed.
Boeing and the airlines will never let this happen.
As someone who works at Boeing. Screw them
I'd like the congress to look at making PASSENGER rail a priority... There's no reason why the current "slow" Amtrak system can't be made viable by restoring passenger priority over freight (really, a small issue for the freight carriers), improvement of the rail infrastructure, and restoration of Amtrak meal/dining services. High-Speed Rail is really a regional issue: corridors need to be recognized to build high-speed services. The North-East Corridor is a great example. California and the LA-Vegas corridor. Texas (DFW to Houston and maybe even Austin). Florida...maybe...ironically, Key West would have been perfect if the old Overseas Railroad wasn't converted to car traffic. But Denver to Chicago? Nope. For people who are looking for "fast" travel that's an air route. But if Amtrak could improve service on the Zephyr so that it actually runs ON TIME and is comfortable??? Then you have a viable alternative. The Empire Builder and the Southwest Chief? People take those trains for the scenery...making those high-speed defeats the purpose. Adding Amtrak routes to serve rural communities and urban centers not currently served? That would be a great thing.
We would be neck and neck with China if we build a nationwide system, but it would be quite far to travel transcontinentally by high speed rail, I think it would take up to 14 hours from San Francisco to New York (it may be the longest route in the world)
I would definitely ride!
China has couchettes on their CRH2E sets; I suppose the US could do the same on an overnight trans-continental high speed service
@wtx Luq it also takes days to travel accross the country by car, yet some people do it anyhow.
Also, strangely this is never used as an argument against the interstate system.
As pointed out in the video it's not only about transcontinental travel; the lines serve many major cities along the way. Just because you could travel the whole way doesn't mean you have to. It's the same over here in Europe: there are high speed lines from Spain all the way to Hungary and from southern Italy up to Sweden despite virtually nobody actually traveling the whole distance; but that doesn't stop millions of people from using subsections of the network.
Since the proposed system will be run by the federal government, one way NY to SF will take the better part of a week.
@@WaltANelsonPHD then get a better government - other countries manage to have decent long-distance trains, so why shouldn't that work in wealthiest nation in human history as well?
I don't think that the 2013 map makes sense for high-speed rail. HSR makes sense in high population corridors where it can outcompete short-haul/regional airlines.
It's not an infrastructure bill, its 2 Trillion in pork. 9% to infrastructure. Nine percent.
I think We need:
1. West coast HSR from Vancouver BC Canada to San Diego CA.
2. Midwest HSR from Chicago to Huston.
3. East coast HSR from Montreal Qb Canada to Miami FL.
And that’s just start, from then on, there is potential to expand from these locations to elsewhere, such as Seattle to Billing Montana and then to Denver Colorado before back to Chicago!!
And from Chicago to Detroit to Columbus Ohio to Cincinnati and to NYC or Boston.
The focus doesn't need to be on a nationwide system but multiple systems where we can get it to work fairly easily. Obviously continue the CA line (and then build it out more from there), the Texas triangle, and everything east of the Mississippi River. The populations in these areas are dense enough, especially on the east coast. We can connect the lines in the future once we have successful lines built that shut doubters up.
Yes, but it will take time, given our current systematic pace. We have to change certain things in order to speed this sort of thing up.
Well if there was demand between New York and Los Angeles then they could use express trains and local trains so the the trip would be faster. Kinda like the NYC subway where the 4 train is express in manhattan and the 6 train is local (i think?)
With check in times for baggage, TSA and time to get to the airport flying a few hundred miles versus taking a train doesn’t make sense.
If people ride greyhound buses from LA to NY already, they will do that with trains too. It's also much faster than with buses.
if there were no stops hsr would be faster than plain if you count boarding and unboarding
máte nádhernou přírodu,chraňte si jí snižováním vypouštění emisí z automobilů a letadel,vysokorychlostní železnice je zatim jediná,která představuje rychlou velkokapacitní přepravu osob popřípadě lehkého carga z centra města do centra,myslete na budoucnost životního prostředí v kterém chcete žít
Now the extension of Sun Set Limited to Florida
I noticed you didn't go over any of the obvious problems with that map. It has lines that won't be profitable until population growth goes massively up in several areas, like that SW line starting in Chicago. Also, it's a national train map, but not nation wide as it doesn't even try to go through large parts of the country. Also, here's the thing about High speed rail, unless the whole thing (or most of it) is high speed none of it makes much sense and at the distances involved in the US it should really be mag-lev level speeds as those start at 300mph. However, that's new and thus still very, very expensive and I don't put any stock in "close" but unproven tech from future trains, so HSR (and CAHSR is NOT HSR) so the whole concept is very far away. Local trains are good. Targeted trains like Brightline in certain areas are great and moreover private trains are especially great as they get done quickly and without beaurocratic nightmares and delays and thus more cheaply.
Really wish we had high speed rail from Pittsburgh to NYC and Florida. The Amtrak is just pitiful with its speed and efficiency.
I think a lot of people want a service like that!
If we are going to see this built we need to get the cost down from the $200 million per mile it currently is costing.
that maotai though
Hello from Kansas 🇺🇸
A way for people to get from middle America to the Florida coast without TSA or having to stop every hour to let crying kids get a snack and use the bathroom would make someone a trillionaire.
I took the Eurostar from Paris to London and it was som much an enjoyable experience than the airport. A plane ride from Paris to London is around an hour and 15 minutes. A high speed train ride is about an 2 hours and a half. However, you don't have to be there 2 hours before takeoff. I had to go through customs and 45 minutes before take off will give one plenty of time to board your train. On the train, ot is spacious, clean, with big windows to sight see. You can put your luggage on a median rack or on an overhead ben. The lavatory on board are more spacious and clean than that on the plane. Tje wifi was decent, not spectacular, but free and way better than my recent plane flight from Frankfurt Germany to LAX. Once high speed rail connects two major cities, there is no turning back, it will change this nation for the better. Tje ride was enjoyable. And you land in the heart of the city. When I flew back from Paris to Los Angeles, I almost missed my connecting flight to LA because of airport security and customs. I literally got my pass port checked about 3 times, waiting in these slow lines hoping I don't miss my flight. Go through the train, go to security, go to your platform, and off you go. I am looking forward to that day when I am whisk away from LA to Las Vegas. That route will be so popular my only concern is that it might sell out on Weekends. 😉
The LA-SFO HS rail is budgeted at 100 Billion, of which only 20 % has been financed, and everyone knows that it will end up with an even higher price tag eventually, after all the delays. Going by these numbers, 2 trillion would buy you 20 such stretches or HS rail tracks, if you would blow all your infra- structure budget on HS rail, leaving bridges, dams, ports, conventional rail, highways, waterways and gazillion other projects out of funds.
The reality is that the US has dug itself a deep hole when it comes to infrastructure, and 2 trillion, which on one hand will be difficult to push through the senate, as first US-senators have already signaled limited support, even among the 50 votes needed to push it through, and yet, these 2 trillion will only cover a small amount of all the needs that exist. That is the reality of the US 2021.
Believe me, I would love LOVE LOOOVE to see everything that you are dreaming of, don't get me wrong. But if I am given only 2 trillion of a budget, I am afraid that there is just not a chance to do much HS rail, except maybe a tiny limited stretch (pick your battles on where it could be: CA, TX, MA, etc).
We are on the cusp of finding out whether Maglev and/ Hyperloop are just pipe dreams or can actually become a commercially viable system. My guess is, that it will take about 10 years to really know. Investing into 20th century HS rail, when the 21st century technology is almost ready, is just not wise. Let that decision shake out first, and meanwhile use the present budget to prioritize tons of less expensive, and yet very beneficial infrastructure projects. This should very much include rail, but conventional rail in form of regional rail (1-2 hour distances), commuter rail, capacity bottlenecks, bridges, access to trains, etc.... tons to do, and then tackle a modified HS rail concept, when it is clear, which way to go.
Like Middle East, Africa, South America, and many other places, the US may end up leaving the 20th century behind and moving straight on into the technologies of the 21st, and that would be just fine for the country. Just an opinion, of course. We shall see, what will happen. The good news is, at least something will happen now, and that already counts as progress in this country.
Screw it, might as well just wait for Scotty to beam me up!?!
Maglev is also a 20th century tech which has an even greater price tag. That's why the german, chinese and even rich gulf state authorities voted against when thinking about expanding their HSR network. Just the japanese planning to develop some "long" distance maglev lines, but they already have the world's best functioning HSR network, so even Japan isn't in a hurry.
There are property rights in the U.S. You just can't confiscate landowners property like in China and elsewhere.
@@vicelias5288 *ur actually completely wrong!!! U don't really own any property in the US, u lease it from the Government which will always give States & Federal eminent domain rights anytime they wanna do something to that land that u think u own... Would u like examples of this happening???
@@vicelias5288 Still that price is insane. Ther are also property rights in Europe (some even more strict AFAIK), still we manage to build HSR lines over here for about half as much.
There are indeed some talks between Canada and the US, but you really shouldn't get your hopes too high. Getting something as simple as a deal negotiated for preclearing for customs clearances took years. There's a deal, but it has yet to be implemented.
There's also the VIA rail plans HFR, something which nobody had heard of before, which nobody asked for, and which really does not get anywhere near the goal post. High Frequency Rail as they call it is not even fast enough to compete properly with air travel, let alone the car. It's really only meant for those who don't care how long it takes to get there and just need to be able to work while on the move. Heck, it does not even use the right alignment. There's also the problem that Montreal's Gare Centrale is effectively back to being a terminus, so you can forget going all the way to Quebec city. Fixing that issue is going to require a new tunnel at a cost of several billions as it will have to go straight through the basement of several high rise buildings. We've created a heck of a mess for ourselves. Canada is deep in debt just like the US, so getting anything built is going to be a struggle in the coming decade.
As a Brit I find one issue with American railways is the distance from the center of town/ city they connect to... Or lack of a station.
Tho looking at Google maps recently the section between Richmond and Wilson just south of rockey mountain is pretty darn straight. Maybe us high-speed should build 250-350mph capable right of ways?
IMHO you want to reduce the scope of that dream to the triangle between Montreal, DC and Chicago (sections of the white, red, blue and purple line shown at 0:12). That is already ambitious and hard enough to get, yet it would bring a handsome reduction of domestic flights and related CO2.
Once the first line is built, building 25000 more miles like China is far easier.
I only wish... However, you'd be going against the bus, airline, automaker/diesel equipment, petroleum, construction, and electrical/utility lobbies - just to name a few! I don't think that outside of the Northeast Corridor, and the mostly completed portion in Cali between Bakersfield and Merced, you'll see _ANY_ future dedicated HSR lines!
Getting the first line is far harder than going from the first line to China's network, due to politics.
@@stanzhang3187 - Politics in _ANY_ country, regardless of what type of governmental system it is, often hinders progress!
@@Jhihmoac Once there's the first line in America for people to experience demand to build more will skyrocket.
As far as the Gordon Howe bridge goes, a large part of the reason why Canada is financing it has to do with trade. A very large portion of the trade between Canada and the US goes through the old Ambassador bridge. It does not have a direct highway connection on the Canadian side. It's old, and it's owner hasn't been maintaining it properly. Canada wasn't going to stand around and wait for the Ambassador bridge to become a major problem and obstacle to trade. In the greater scheme of things, the price tag of the bridge is small in comparison to the economic benefits it brings.
The owner Matty Maroun almost put the schnitz on the Gordie Howe Bridge - he attempted to hold a statewide or local referendum to kill it!
Yeah, it would be nice if that was routed farther south around Utah. I wouldn't mind a regional high speed rail, but I really wouldn't want it connected to Denver, Seattle, Portland, or California. Other than that, it looks like a pretty interesting project.
This would be a better use of resources than trying to force everyone into "electric" vehicles.
Why is electric in quotation marks?
We can blame Tutor-fucking-Perini for screwing everything up with the CAHSR!! I am just saying!!
Look to see what North Carolina with state adding to federal plans
Never ending story.
there are some parts of the map that really make sense and could bring a lot. Would be nice to have US finally understanding the benefit of doing things together rather than each and every in his car.
For sure!