As a Portland resident, I can not tell you how logical high speed rail is here. We are far more connected to bc than the rest of the country. We're too close to bother flying but driving through Seattle traffic is a huge hinderance
The Cascadia high speed rail project is really exciting, and isn’t one of the tech companies in Seattle helping fund the environmental studies? That is a great example of a public-private partnership, and honestly could be the way forward for US high speed rail. If there’s any US corridor that high speed rail makes a lot of sense outside LA to SF and the Northeast Corridor, it’s Portland-Seattle-Vancouver.
I live in Vancouver, WA just over the river from Portland, and if there was an option to take a high speed train to Seattle rather than drive the 3 hours my wife and I would probably use it just for day trips together. We love Seattle but rarely make the drive up, especially with traffic and gas prices being what they are now.
Im from Seattle and I agree with everything you said. I also think that the PNW has more support for high speed rail and other mass transit projects than other places in the US.
I think much of the US opposition to this is caused by lack of familiarity. The majority of Americans have never travelled by train. The Acela is the nearest that Amtrak get to high speed. By European standards, if you're not doing 180mph, you're not high speed. The fastest French and German trains can keep up with Apache helicopters. If more Americans got the chance to do these speeds at ground level, trains would be more popular.
Not just a lack of familiarity of trains, but of good trains either. Most Americans perceptions of trains and metros are barebones, loud and dirty monstrosities that are loaded with crime, casually unaware of European metros and trains that are of much better quality.
If you've ever ridden any of the Amtrak intercities you'll think otherwise. This is coming from someone that hopes to be alive to see the California HSR between LA and SF become reality but I fully expect EVERYONE alive right now will be long dead and gone by the time of the possibility of that that ever happening.
@@archstanton5973 Look, I know that the opposition to CHSR has been fierce. But most of their more successful tactics in delaying and overbudgeting this project have been related to land acquisitions. And while the dark money groups have't run out of money, and we shouldn't expect no opposition going forward, there is light at the end of this tunnel! Their main tool for obstructing this project is becoming toothless! CHSR have secured the vast majority of parcels for the current section (finally!), and are pretty much closing the remaining deals as we speak. This means that the rest of construction for the current section is "on rails" and can't be stopped. Most of the rest of the land needed for the entire "Phase 1" is either held by the state or is already a rail ROW. So they will have considerably fewer of these expensive land acquisition issues going forward. I'm not saying that it's going to be entirely smooth sailing going forward. The groups opposing the project will doubtlessly try to change tactics. But you will be seeing good and relatively faster progress going forward, sections being completed left and right, HSR trainsets will be acquired, they'll start testing high speed runs, there will be demonstration runs, etc. In other words, it's about to get good! Hang in there! You'll ride this train yet!
I think a high speed rail line from Charlotte to Atlanta will be a great line as well. And then extend those lines to Raleigh and whatever city in Florida is closest. But I believe in order for it to be convenient, these cities have to improve their public transit to reduce congestion and spread people out so they aren't stuck at the station waiting for a ride or having the additional cost of purchasing a rental car or Taxi/Uber.
@@Schlesss right. But Charlotte to Atlanta would be more so the first phase. Just to get the ball rolling. but definitely Atlanta to DC would be the final goal and possibly beyond that.
A good model to study is Florida’s Brightline service. A privately funded company that currently serves Miami to West Palm with construction under way to Orlando airport by the end of year or next. The plan is for this service to continue to Disney Springs and eventually Tampa. It offers “Last Mile” service from the station (as part of the ticket) to accommodate travelers reaching their final destination within 5 miles of the station so that they can travel without getting a rental car or Uber. At its full speeds it can reach up to 125 mph (but is limited to 79 mph in South Florida). If the service forks north from Orlando to Jacksonville it could make economic sense for it to continue to Atlanta. This is where Amtrak has to step up its performance and rebuild its service in areas private companies are considering before it is too late.
6:59 Pittsburgh is like a forgotten kid in Northeast. It's sad because this city is home a lot of steel and railroad related history. The memorial of the guy who invented trian air brake is literally here. Amtrak seems to not really care about it...
Unfortunately, this is the reason why we are moving out of the United States. After my husband was in a devastating accident 3 years ago, he couldn’t look at a car in the same way again. So, we moved to NYC, which has been working okay for us but the train delays and sometimes long bus waits makes it slightly inconvenient. A friend of mine told us to look into European Transportation and we were blown away by it. We’re deciding on where to move to and will make the move over to Europe within the next 2 years. But I’m not going to lie, I’m going to miss America. America is very car centric which works for most people, but in our case we prefer a vast public transit system that has fewer delays, and your not waiting in the cold longer than 10 minutes for the bus.
Also in order to make HSR a productive mode of transportation, cities connected to it must maintain a highly efficient regional public transportation network that’s well connected. It’s going to require a ton of investments, with urbanization and alternative modes such as bikes and priority bus routes being operable and extending coverage well beyond respective metro area.
New York to LA for business may be infeasible, but I could see connecting the major population centers, so people could do a rail tour of the US. It's very popular for Americans visiting Europe and I could see the reverse being true.
All we would need is ONE high speed line to show people that it works! Then there will be enough to support it! The thing is, if you want to make high speed rail work, you need a good local public transit system in the cities, to get people to and from the station.
@@Razor-gx2dq Actually it’s land owners and private businesses like the aviation and car industry that lobby against it. Government is in favour of HSR. Even the Trump administration was a lot in favour of it.
@@ee-ef8qr this is only anecdotal but many people praise the bright line in Florida (not hsr I know) and it has made many more open to the idea of more public transit.
While high-speed rail would be great, it's effectiveness is only as good as the public transporation of the cities it connects to. I personally made the trip between the SF Bay Area and my home region of Sacramento by car, and saw the Capitol Corridor train speed away effortlessly, a reminder of how even 70-100mph rail is so much faster than the car. However, it's not reasonable for me to ride it, because the light rail system of Sacramento has relatively poor coverage, and the many towns that compose the area have very hit or miss bus networks. Fortunately my town is in the planning phases of upgrading it's bike infrastructure, so an e-bike ride to the light rail will no longer be a death wish. However, it's a problem that I think far too many areas that would benefit from better rail acess still have to face if they want those projects to be successes.
The other end of the coin being almost all major Japanese cities connected to the bullet train having extensive subway systems. Especially Tokyo and Osaka.
Not defending the poor public transportation within the cities here, but every time I go back to China to visit my family, I've found that in their "smaller" cities, the bus and rail links don't do a good job connecting to the train station, especially on weekends, with low frequencies, inconvenient routes, and the such. We often find ourselves needing to take a DiDi (Chinese version of Uber,) indicating that this may have something to do with the size of the city necessitating less investment in the transit network rather than the country in which the city is in.
@@SonicBoone56 prior to WW2 many American cities had extensive transit networks, perhaps the most famous being LA’s Pacific Electric. But from the late 40s onward, car sales and road building exploded, new suburbs were built for cars, new Interstate freeways, and the old transit systems faded away, replaced with buses. There’s the conspiracy theory that National City Lines, a bus company backed by a syndicate made up of Firestone Tires, Standard Oil, and General Motors, deliberately bought up old streetcar systems, including the Pacific Electric, and replaced them with buses. However much of that is actually true, what really killed the streetcar, at least in Pacific Electric’s case, was it was using aging equipment on old tracks that hadn’t been upgraded while shiny new cars became more appealing, and people chose the new car that could take them anywhere anytime over the old train that could only go certain places on a schedule. People were fed the idea of freedom of travel, not having to rely on someone else’s schedule. Now that many cities have faced gridlock, LA being one of the worst offenders, they’re investing in new transit projects at great expense to bring back the time we were a transit-oriented nation instead of a car-oriented one. A project like California HSR can and will be a great asset and serious game changer for how people get around, but only if the transit in their departure and arrival city is good enough to get them from their Point A to Point B. If public transit is a more appealing option (convenient, reliable, clean, safe, cheaper) than driving, people will use it. LA is expanding its transit network in anticipation of it hosting the 2028 Summer Olympics, and should become one of the best transit networks in the US.
You can look at any city pair that has roughly hourly flight frequencies and a driving time greater than 3 hours (where the train speed would make an impact) but less than 6-8 hours (where the inconvenience of an airport at both ends is a smaller part of the overall time). That said, I would include the Florida triangle to be served by Brightline, the Piedmont region with a connection through Richmond to DC connecting to the Northeast, and the upper Midwest (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia (connecting the Northeast). These could have a huge impact on reducing car usage for trips AND reducing already clogged gates at major airports. It would be even better if they connected to airports (Say Piedmont connecting at CLT airport and ATL airport) like Brightline which is connecting at MCO airport, or at least offered connecting rail service to the airport (DC Union Station to DCA airport via the Washington Metro, for example)
i was going to say a highs peed line from richmond up to atleast dc would be a huge money maker. i use to live in richmond and was seeing a girl in dc so i took amtrack alot. the train from richmond to d.c was always packed out. so many people live along that line commute
Yeah, high speed rails really should connect to airports like they do in a lot of other countries, especially the airports that are a bit away from the hot spots in cities
@@InfernosReaper My cousin is visiting me in a couple of weeks. On their journey home, We'll put them on the ICE, 45 minutes to Frankfurt airport. They will stay in the Hilton upstairs in the train station, walk down the concourse to the pair terminal the next morning. Dead easy. (I'm fourth generation native Californian, I may never ride the California system, planting trees for future generation).
Raleigh to Charlotte seems logical to me. Then extend it to Atlanta. Eventually the entire Crescent route from New Orleans to DC could work as high speed.
The DC-Atlanta portion should be a high priority for Amtrak as a new “SouthEast Corridor”. While nothing compares the NEC, there is a real opportunity to link together all of the most important cities in the southeast with fast, frequent, reliable rail service with progressive improvements.
7:16 that's no HSR! That's just our local commuter train here in Stockholm, and it can't go above 160 km/h. Which is still better than the previous trains from the 1980s that could go 140 km/h. Or the ones from the 1960s that could go 120 km/h. ah, that sweet sweet feeling of continuous improvements!
The problem with building HSR is the USA is that here the cost per mile of track is higher than any other country on Earth. The amount of regulation and government red tape that has to be handled is immense. We need to free up the regulations on rail so that it is possible to fund future HSR projects.
they could have easily afford it. they spend almost 7 trillion dollars on their own created illegal wars in the middle east. with 7 trillion dollars you can build HSR give americans universal health care and make schools cheaper. But nope they rather spend it on illegal wars because thats the priority for some reason.
The cost to build would be prohibitive. Land accusation unless the gov uses eminent domain (which I hate with a passion) would drive this to hundreds of billions of not trillions of dollars! No thanks!
If Germany can build high speed rail, than it should be possible in the USA as well. We have even more regulation and a lot denser population (84 million in a country that has a smaller area than califronia). Furthermore travel times by car are a lot shorter, since most of the national highways in germany do not have speed limit. Further more housing in "rual" areas is lot more expensive than in the USA. In the big City pricing a comperable to most big cities in the world (tokyo, soeul, ...). Even though one has to admit we do not have those crazy high prices, that New York or San Francisco have. But Germany bureaucracy & regulations are crazy and building highspeed rail is a real challenge.
@@railroad9000 why hate eminent domain? Because you wouldn't profit as much? You guys only really think of profit and virtually nothing else. Benefits for me, but not for thee. Selfish to your very core.
Yes as long as they allow you to connect with city centre. Also, every major airport should have railway connectivity with city centre. Airlines essentially hold you hostage and you often spend more time reaching and checkin at airport than actually flying
I take issue with California's project being called a 'boondoggle'. California is the first to attempt bringing true high speed rail to the US, and just as with any first-of-its-kind projects, especially one of this magnitude, there were bound to be issues. That doesn't mean it's an unworthy project that should be stopped, and if anything we need to double down on California's project to get it done ASAP and show to the American people the benefits of high speed rail. It was the first and currently only US HSR project to be in the construction phase, and needs to be the first to open. All other HSR projects in the US will learn from California's example, which is why it's crucial that it gets finished between Anaheim/LA and SF and succeeds. As for the other US high speed rail corridors, one that you missed is a Midwest HSR network radiating out from Chicago to St Louis, Detroit, Milwaukee and Minneapolis, and Indianapolis and Cincinnati. High Speed Rail Alliance, based in Chicago, has been touting this hypothetical network the most. Like the Pacific NW, it's still in early proposal and planning stages. There's also a proposed high speed rail line between Atlanta and Charlotte, as well as between Phoenix and Tucson. A nationwide HSR network could be possible, by linking up these individual networks into a single system (likely excluding the Pacific NW route), connecting LA to Phoenix, Tucson to San Antonio, Dallas to Atlanta, Atlanta to Indianapolis via Nashville (with a branch to Orlando), and Charlotte to Washington DC via Richmond.
I definitely don't think the California HSR is a bad project overall. And in fact I think, when completed, it'll really spur along other projects after Americans really see what HSR can do. I guess my definition of boondoggle is just a project that's had consistent delays and has gone over budget. Both of which are true and I think it's fine to recognize that. There are lots of boondoggle projects that turn out to be great in the end. Definitely more corridors. The ones you listed, of course, also Florida and LA-Vegas. Perhaps another video someday.
I actually think connecting Cascadia high speed rail to California high speed rail with conventional 100-150 km/h (but still compatible) rail would be pretty amazing. That means that you could take a sleeper between Seattle and LA in 13-16 hours (depending on Cascadia HSR reaching Eugine and California HSR reaching Sacramento). This sleeper would allow for daytrips between the two regions but also provide a much needed connection through Medford OR. with both Eugine and Redding. It would compete not on speed but with comfort (and with serving underserved communities; Medford + Redding is like 3-400.000 people). However this sleeper should probably be pretty far down the priority list since-while the Amtrak corridor (or rather the Union Pacific corridor) between Sacramento and Redding can be reused-the current corridor between Eugine and Redding doesn’t go through Medford, so that might need to be built which might be quite expensive (although the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad does). And investing in all that infrastructure for just 6-8 trains a day seems a lot, especially given the need for rail in the rest of the country. But I’m gonna allow my self to dream about the West Coast Sleeper anyway ;)
@@GeographyByGeoff Unfortunately, this type of a description is parroting the disinformation campaign that this project has been subjected to. So when you take that stance you are at the very least contributing to the cause of cancelling the project altogether. I should also mention that 80% of the cascading delays and cost overruns have been traced to an organized political and legal campaign to bleed this project dry of funds and delay it, amounting to an illegal cancellation of a referendum approved project. It is quite a fraught political subject, with essentially a turf war going on. It would be great to hear at least a mention about the source of the issues this project is having. Especially since we are seeing the same malicious playbook already being applied to other HSR projects around the country. Texas Central, for example is being challenged by literally the same group of people as CHSR and sometimes even the exact same lawyers are filing the land acquisition challenges as in California. It is an organized political campaign against HSR and that is worth mentioning for the public to be aware of!
@@qjtvaddict or at least learning the challenges it takes to build high speed rail here, including ones that other countries with HSR haven’t had to face. I’ve maintained that all other US high speed rail projects will learn from California’s example, for better or worse. When you consider everything high speed rail is meant to do, more than just connect two cities in as straight a line and as quickly as possible, California really is the ideal state to prove it here. More than just connecting LA and SF in under three hours, it’s linking up all the major population centers of the state and thus bringing them closer together. What makes Japan’s Shinkansen so effective isn’t its raw speed, but its ability to move large amounts of people quickly, efficiently, and safely. That’s what California’s and all US high speed rail should strive for.
Chicago to Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St Louis, Indianapolis, and Detroit are somewhat a no-brainer, in my opinion; it's not as much of a slam-dunk as the Northeast Corridor, but it'd enable great regional mobility. Additionally, connecting the rapidly-growing Piedmont region from Raleigh to Atlanta makes pretty good sense, in spite of heavy-dependency in the cities along the way, in a similar situation to Florida connecting Miami to Orlando, Tampa, and Jacksonville.
The Midwest also has the advantage of distance and flatness: It would be very easy to build a very high speed rail line that would clearly outperform the plane or car between all of those cities, and probably extending it on routes like STL-Kansas City, Cleveland-Detroit and/or Chicago, etc
All excepT Chicago have less than F grade public transportation. Detroit has been frontier against public transportation. It was not until major layoffs from auto industry that Detroit started to put more public transportation. I don't understand US train lovers. They kept bringing Japan n Europe about rails. They refuse to admit that people don't need cars to get to subways or bullet trains. Train lovers are transit advocates n fake environmentalists. If we say improve public transportation in each city make them like New York. They will say the cities are so big, n not feasible to do so. Wait wait, tHe anti HSR has said the same thing about US is too big n sparse n not feasible to build HSR. I don't like Republican, but in term of public transportation , they are more honest than the fake liberal trasit advocates, they will say they hate public transportation. The train lovers hate public transportation but want tax payers to build the toys while poor n disadvantages continue to suffer of lack or no public transportation.
Surprised you didn't talk about the Brightline high speed rail already in existence in Florida, which is soon about to officially expand with even more expansions planned over the next few years. I think next year the connection to Orlando will be complete (ending in Miami), and there are future plans to expand to near Disney World and even later to Tampa.
@@chknlittle5807 Actually no since the regulations for high speed rail are just silly! It’s 125 mph on upgraded lines and 150 on new lines! I wish it was a universal 125
Great video!! High speed rail should be a must for the us in the future, just wanted to mention there were a few factual errors within the video, the Bay Area has over 8 million people, and the Central Valley has over 6 mil. Again great video please make more!!!!
another worthy mention is the network layout. It is an elongated route making stops more efficient and reliable. The long line section is what able trains to maintain the high speed. Versus having the trains come in from several different directions causing bottlenecking like in Germany and France.
There are other potential corridors of smaller cities served by planes. Here are two examples. Atlanta - Augusta - Columbia - Charlotte. The two end points are major international airports while the two middle points have inconvenient air connections. The second is Chicago - St. Louis - Padukah - Nashville - Chattanooga - Atlanta - Jacksonville. While the travel between the two ends wouldn't be well served by trains, routes between the intermediate cities would be faster door-to-door.
When I lived in Upstate NY in college a few years ago, I took Amtrak to NYC once and never again because it was just so inconvenient. It costed almost as much as flying, but took 6-7 hours instead of 1. Even if you include the hassle and time of going through airport security, flying is still much faster for similar amount of money. Driving took just under 4 hours. Taking the bus took about 4.5 hours, but was significantly cheaper than both flying and taking Amtrak. It's no wonder Amtrak struggles with ridership. It's expensive AND slow. Unless you are afraid of flying and can't drive, there's no reason to take Amtrak. I'd love to have access to efficient and affordable high-speed rail, but it's unlikely to happen in the US with so many lobbyists representing the car and oil industries writing fat checks to lawmakers.
Car dependency in America is very strong and isn't going to stop. Two main reasons why trains won't work in America is because it's very easy and convenient to just drive to your destination if it isn't too far away, and if it is very far, planes are faster and not that expensive where people can't afford it.
Thank you for stating this. The USA already has interstate highways and airports. High speed rail - in the context of American passenger transportation - doesn't make much sense. It is a solution looking for a problem to answer.
Interesting breakdown of the merits and drawbacks of HSR. As a resident of the Pacific Northwest I think the travel time for any HSR between Portland, Seattle and Vancouver (since it crosses an international border, unlike the other examples mentioned) has to include customs and checking passports, Don't know how much extra time is involved, but it should be acknowledged. For this country a regional approach to HSR is best because of the spread out geography shown here. That said I'd definitely use HSR up here if it were available as an option.
A coast to coast high speed rail network would make perfect sense if we used maglev technology. Maglev trains are fast enough to be competitive with airplanes over much longer distances than conventional high speed trains. In fact, Japan and China are currently building maglev lines on their longest, busiest corridors that already have conventional high speed trains. Tokyo to Osaka (320 miles) is currently a 2.5 hour journey. Soon it will be a 1 hour journey. Beijing to Guangzhou (1,428 miles) is currently an 8 hour journey. Soon it will be a 3.5 hour journey. Suppose you introduced maglev between New York and Los Angeles (2,789 miles). I bet most people would prefer to take a 7 hour maglev ride instead of a 6 hour flight, considering how much of a hassle it would save on either end of the journey. Besides, there are several segments in between that would probably attract enough passengers from other means of transit (e.g., New York to Chicago, or Los Angeles to Phoenix, etc.) as each segment opens to justify construction of the complete route over the span of a decade or two.
Bingo. Tokyo to Osaka is less than 3 hours, ideal for HSR. That will NOT be the case for New York City to Chicago, much less New York City to Los Angeles...
@@ronclark9724 I disagree. China’s busiest and most profitable line is the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway. It’s about 820 miles long and has an operating speed of about 220 mph, so the current travel time end to end is about 4 hours and 20 minutes. New York and Chicago are a similar pair of cities and a similar distance from each other (790 miles drive according to Google Maps). I expect that even with conventional high speed rail, you could get the journey down to 4 hours. With maglev, it would be less than 2 hours. Once you factor in travel time to and from airports, waiting time in airports, and frequent flight delays,it would almost certainly be faster to take either type of high speed rail than to fly from New York to Chicago.
Honestly such a massive maglev line would be awesome... But damn it'd also be absurdly expensive, even more so with the amount of highways it'd need to cross.
@@makelgrax The highways would be relatively cheap. The mountains and rivers would be the expensive part. But price isn’t really the problem. The US government has spent insane amounts of money on things we didn’t even need before. The Apollo program. Every war after WW2. Thousands of nuclear weapons. Bailouts after financial crises. The list goes on. When rich people want something wasteful, politicians manage to find the money. When the rest of us want something useful, they’re all like “But how will we pay for it?!”
As a Dallas resident, I have heard of plans to build a second high speed rail line that follows I-35 and connects Brownsville, Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, and Oklahoma City. It’s still a relatively new idea but I think they are waiting until Texas Central starts operating the line between Dallas and Houston. Also, if they built both of these lines, there’s a potential to build another high speed rail line connecting both Dallas and Fort Worth that connects both lines together
One of the problems with high-speed rail, especially here in California, is that almost every city along the route wants a stop and a station in its city. All of those stops as time to the trip. A two-hour forty minute trip has, because of the number of stops on the line, has already been estimated at more than five hours. That does NOT beat air travel, and is BARELY less time that travel by car. Another issues, especially involving the LA-San Francisco and the Portland-Seattle route is cost of construction. See, this area is VERY prone to earthquakes, and any high-speed rail projects will have to take that into consideration during construction. As a huge train fan, I would love to see high-speed rail. However, videos such as this "rah-rah, hooray for high speed rail" video don't take into consideration the problems involved.
I think it would be better if existing Amtrak services are sped up for the "local" services via, and the city stubs built first. Actually, maybe Bakersfield-LA-San Diego should have been built first as "proof of concept", with either a possible branch or intermediate stop to LA Airport.
The way it is done is to have four tracks in each station. The platforms are on the outside of the outside tracks. The center tracks are for non-stopping trains. They don't have to even slow down. I have been in stations when a train goes through at 187 mph. Not a problem. Trains stopping at the station are slowing down to stop so they have no difficulty switching to the outside tracks that are on a platform. CAHSR has publicly available proposed schedules that have all stops locals, limited stop trains with a total (including end points) of four stops and expresses that are without stops between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Pretty standard stuff.
@@qjtvaddict You end up with a situation like in England where the line between London and Birmingham is at capacity and are forced to build another for astronomical cost
High Speed Rail(HSR) must have riders to justify the cost. The Mid-West has a lot of Farm Land & like Wind/Solar Farms would take up to much of that land. Stay to a car, bus or plane. The amount of riders it would take to justify Mid-West HSR would equal the ridership of the Northeast & we won't have that kind of patronage. I can see TX & their HSR but something between KC/Chicago or Chicago/Minneapolis won't happen. Besides pricey infrastructure there will be the cost of acquiring land for right away & easement. So other then TX, which isn't looking good; the Mid-West I think, will be a zero.
@@enoughfreeways5874 Whoa now! You think 'car infrastructure' is bad...How? Parking issues, yeah; but if you have a job across town or further, what good is public transport much less HSR? You didn't read my comment fully. Do that first please.
@@carmiethompson2676 Um depends on where you are leaving or going. If you have a job in a town a 40 miles away a train would be better. If it’s a mile a car might be better but a bus or tram could do just the same as a car.
@@natenae8635 C'mon on now, you're making excuses & unrealistic assumptions. If you have to commute to a job 40 miles away, why in the world would you assume a train would be a better mode of transport? You first have to drive to the station or take a bus, hop the train & it will probably make additional stops in route. I rode Metra to Chicago, I was stopping every 10-18 minutes. Once you get to your departure stop, can you walk to work? I'm willing to bet more often then not you can't. So now you have to take a taxi/Uber(or horse). If you're in the North & it's Winter, the trip is more treacherous. So it's always going to depend on your location, that's a given. You think the majority of people live near a train station or bus line. My point was: is there going to be the ridership necessary to support the service. In France, there are ~10 HSR routes, but there are only two routes that make a profit & support the rest of the system. Yet the French taxpayers subsidizes the balance & they don't like it. You are a typical Liberal that thinks HSR is a silver-bullet to all our public transport needs & that couldn't be further from the truth. Course liberals like you don't like truth. Here's another truth: a bus/tram provides the same function as a car, but the car is faster & it's just you. So if you want to make additional stops, you have that FREEDOM! FYI: If the climate is affected by Human activity & can be proven by the Scientific Method...How, Why, Who & What is the reasonable planned response? You Libtards just want my taxes & then throw it around w/ no plan or accountability, just to make you 'feel' good that you(think) you've done something productive in the name of saving the Planet. That's selfish, arrogant & entitled. Keep your hands off my earned money & get a job.
True high speed rail is largely a distraction. There would be far greater benefits from increasing service speeds to circa 120mph on many existing corridors than building a couple of 180+mph corridors.
@@StefanWithTrains3222 start with 2 then when capacity becomes an issue then add 2 extra! OR we can have a 4 track mainline with some local stopping services and fast trains!
I have wanted this for so long! I'm afraid of flying and would love to Instead take a train to Philadelphia which I wanna rly go too. It doesn't help that the damn airline companies keep lobbying for these rails not to happen...
Excellent beginning on this topic! Will be really interested in seeing how you address those major concentrations of the US population that you left out, the metro areas of the Midwest/Great Lakes region. The numbers of people living and working there are far greater than some you included in this first round. Keep up the good work! This has been an obvious need in our country ever since 911!
You have a bunch of factual errors here unfortunately. The SF Bay Area has about 8 million people living there, not 5. Also, the actual Bay megaregion has recently grown to closer to 10 million due to the advent of supercommunting and people willing to travel longer distances daily for work. Basically, the Bay is becoming more like LA in terms of driving patterns. You're also not mentioning at all that the Central Valley houses another 6.5 million people, further contributing to the fallacy that the Valley is "nowhere". There are two million-pop+ metros (Fresno and Bakersfield) in the Valley that CHSR would directly connect to LA and the Bay. It's worth mentioning because this is so often the subject of disinformation about this project.
i came to the comments to say the same thing i had to pause the video and fact check i live in the bay and when i heard him say our population is 5 million I was like is he way wrong or am i?? 😳
@@yesid17 Same! :) I hate to be the guy that has to do it, but given how rabid the astroturf opposition to this referendum-approved (!) project has become, I just can't resist. There's just so much propaganda against it that I always end up jumping in. Can't let some millionaire obstructionist dirty trickster drain my tax money because they're stuck in the previous century.
If we built real high speed rail, the airlines will burn it down. Imagine not having to take 5 days to get from Albany NY to Savannah Georgia by plane, days cancelled and 12 hours waiting an 16 hour layover and 5 hours going through TSA You can actually drive to anywhere east of the Mississippi faster than you can fly
@@marrqi7wini54 in theory yes but the lobbying groups would never see it that way and true rail would be fighting them (plus oil and car groups) all the way
Many regulations must be repealed in order to get this started. The DOT and the Federal Railway Administration have set far too many bureaucratic and inefficient regulations on what can be built and how to build it. This dramatically increases the costs, not to mention with increased bargaining with unions. There has to be more public private partnerships in deals with reformed regulations that make sense and open up for potential investments. There used to be a regulation back in the Obama era which prohibited imports of European trainsets due to “safety reasons”, this was later repealed. Unfortunately I don’t see these regulations being reformed or repealed any soon. Not only has this stifled innovation and growth potential in the railroad industry, it’s actively decelerating any progress within infrastructure growth compared to many other countries.
Rail from Charlotte to Atlanta should be a no-brainer. Then connect them to the Northeast corridor through Raleigh-Durham and Richmond and connect to Florida through Macon with extensions to Savannah to the Florida peninsula (Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa and Miami) and through Albany, GA to the Gulf Coast (Tallahassee, Pensacola, Mobile, Biloxi and New Orleans...and connect to Texas rail system) and connect from Atlanta to the Midwest through Chattanooga and Nashville.
There are some problems: 1. Long-distance train travel is not enjoyable unless the sleeper coach. For reference, the high-speed rail gets much less attractive once the entire travel time exceeds 5-6 hours in China. Therefore, the high-speed rail is only suitable for areas with big cities close enough, such as California, New England, and Florida. 2. Almost every country with successful high-speed rail has its rail system heavily relying on government subsidies. The only exception is Japan, and you know why. How much will the American federal government be able to invest in building up the mega project and keep spending money to maintain its operation? Or the high-speed rail must be extremely popular, with more than half the tickets sold in every train set to make the 180mph+ train profitable. In my opinion, a much more rational and feasible solution is to modernise America's existing rail network, such as making the whole network offer a 150mph speed limit instead of only small pits of the rail line that can operate high-speed services. That requires a significant investment since many parts of the railway must be rebuilt to remove sharp curves and electrification. For example, if passengers can catch an Acela-like high-speed EMU from LA to the Bay Area with only a few stops between, the timetable should offer a 30-minute interval frequency so that the passengers can find taking the train is as convenient as catching a subway train. The price should be fair, not too high or too cheap with various classes of cabins offered. Snacks will be provided, but no hot meals will be sold since passengers are not supposed to stay on the train for more than 3 hours. For now, Californians can only choose between a 90 mins flight and a 6-hour drive if they wish to travel between these two cities. 3-hour train service will effectively fill the vacancy for passengers who are not hurried and looking for a budget solution. If this program could get success in California, then the whole high-speed rail projects in North America would be encouraged.
Brightline from Miami to Orlando will reach 120mph and the line from Orlando to Tampa is expected to reach 150mph. There's already a line running from Miami to West Palm...only reaching 80mph, it's not quite HSR, it's still quite a bit faster than driving. The line from Miami to Orlando is over 70% complete and will be running by early 2023. Brightline has also finished negotiations with the state to run track through the middle of I-4 from Orlando to Tampa and that is predicted to be complete by 2028. Beyond that, Brightline owns the tracks to Jacksonville and is expected to connect there shortly after Tampa is up and running. There's a good shot Florida will have the most extensive (higher) speed rail system in the country (aside from Acela) up and running in 10 years or so. That connects all of Florida's largest metros, nearly 15 million people. Additionally, both Orange and Hillsborough counties (Orlando and Tampa) have transportation taxes on the ballot this year which have a good chance at passing. This would extend and increase service on Orlando's Sunrail and likely create Tampa's version utilizing existing CSX tracks, which means the metro's most populated suburbs will have a simple train connection to the Brightline stations and beyond. It's pretty exciting, especially considering how unfathomable this was just a few years ago. Seriously, who would have bet that in the next 10-15 years Florida would be one of the most connected rail regions in the US?
Have you seen the Sunrail? It's patterns ? When it's run and how often it runs? Hiw it doesn't run on the weekend...although I admit it's better than having nothing...it is a very lacking system....
We all like Brightline, but it is not HSR. Not even close. Even at 125mph, that's waaaay below HSR minimum limits for new trackage and still below the limit even for converted trackage. And the claims that the train will run at 150mph between Tampa and Orlando is ludicrous. They don't have the money to build an ROW of that quality. That would be an order of magnitude more expensive than what they are currently building and they are barely able to afford that! Also, their Siemens Chargers have a top speed of 125mph. They can't afford new (likely electric) trainsets. In other words, this is just marketing. It's not happening. It's a good train service, but it has an average speed of 53mph. That's not faster than driving. Not even close! There's no need for this propaganda. Everyone can look up the numbers and immediately tell that the information was disingenuous.
@@danielcarroll3358 Yes, but they won't. It's a lot more expensive to build to that standard than to 125mph, which is just conventional trackage with grade separation. At those speeds you need better everyting. Electrification costs yet more money. Trainsets that can go 150mph is again more money. I'd say that there's almost zero chance that Brightline actually does this. They're just going to pull a fast one and revert to 125mph after soaking up all the positive publicity for building "HSR". If we want them to actually have any reason to build HSR, then we have to hold them accountable. Currently, they are just building conventional rail but are somehow already getting all the good publicity from HSR. Why would they ever bother to do more and spend more (a lot more) if everything is working just fine as is?
That makes perfect sense and I hope it gets done at a reasonable price tag. More freight lines would also help develop the US and maybe even a higher speed freight. Let's just make sure the routes are revenue streams and not money pits like in some other countries.
Most of the high speed lines are quite financially solvent :3 The problem is when the national train companies uses these lines to pay for the small lines that it inherited and are indeed money pits ^^".
It takes a strong, central government to build and run High Speed Rail, some countries works because the provinces don't dare to say otherwise. So, the answer is more likely NO
You don’t see a need for high speed rail out of Chicago? Chicago to Minneapolis, Chicago to Kansas City, Chicago to Indianapolis, Chicago to Nashville?? Chicago to Florida (Miami) would be a huge draw if you get to Miami in less than 12-16 hours. Chicago is a major rail hub.
Chicago had 3 rail lines who hit 100mph scheduled legs 80 years ago. They couldn't compete over that distance against 1950s aircraft and cars when they came along. At 400 miles it's significantly longer HSR pairs in Europe... Chicago has the commuter rail network to support HSR but the cities close enough to possibly pair don't have the network or population density to make it economically feasible except for maybe Cleveland. At the edge of feasible distance and there should be an available former tight of way so it could actually be built. St Louis has lost way too much population ft Wayne and Indy aren't big enough. Detroit same problem as st Louis You start getting over 8 hour trips you start getting into dining cars and sleeper cars... Now you're driving the price way out of wack. Dining cars were always big money losers for the railroads and sleeper rommettes will push things to $1000+ each way. Only business travelers will pay that, but time is too important, so they'll fly every time and stay at a nice hotel for less
The cost per mile of laying new track ranges from one million to one and a half million per mile. That cost belongs to the railroads and not the US government. Railroads in the US are privatized and not nationalized like other nations of the world. Nationalization of transportation and in this case, railroads mean the citizens who pay taxes paid for the rail infrastructure. Most nations that have high speed rail and electric capacity are small compared to the US. Furthermore, most Americans are addicted to their vehicles and will continue to drive regardless. Yes, I can see major hubs in the US being electrified to run commuter trains, but high-speed rail is too costly to construct, purchase the rolling stock and engines, deal with the unions, maintenance, and so on and so forth.
The reason why they love their cars so much is because they don't have any other options. Car infrastructure has overtaken USA. If you build it they will come
Stop making excuses that are invalid!!!! Commuter trains feed into high speed trains. And there’s no alternative to car use the transit is that bad. HSR is actually cheaper than penn station renovations and many subway lines
I rode the Acela quite a bit back in the months following the 9/11 attack. It's frustratingly close to being the best travel option compared to driving or flying, but falls a little short in both speed and cost. Being just a little bit better would make it the no-brainer choice. As it is, it's merely a viable alternative if you hate flying and traffic. I'm willing to pay a bit more and wait a bit longer to avoid that, but not everyone I travel with is willing to accept that tradeoff.
I live in the UK and I've e literally spent the day in London after travelling from Glasgow. It's a four and a half hour train journey, centre to centre, or an eight hour drive each way. I can rock up to the station with minutes to spare with as much luggage and fluids (beer) as I like and go to sleep for most of it. I will never ever fly to London again, the train is too good!
As a Texan who's been paying close attention to the progress of Texas Central, I'm afraid that the picture here doesn't look very good. Currently NIMBYs have it tied up in the courts asking it to prove that it is in fact a rail company. I wish I was joking. Between that, the radio silence, and the various other roadblocks that people are trying to throw in front of it, currently it's looking like yet another example of a HSR line being starved to death before it can get started.
Why must ultra-high speed be the most important feature of inter-city rail? There is always so much opposition to any big project (cost and NIMBY-ism). The goal should be: build rail service that contain the right mix of features that draws a sustainable ridership. What if part of the money that would have been spent to maximum speed was instead used to build comprehensive bus networks in the destination cities?
Here's the part all these Sheldon Coopers always leave out of their HSR dreams. In those other countries, they will just take the land. There is no NIMBY/Karen culture.
Doubling the speed of Acela? Just how? By defying the laws of physics? You can only reach 300 mph on perfectly straight tracks. Even a slight curve forces the train to slow down to half that speed. Also, it's such a densely populated area. Where do they think they can build new tracks?
I thought it was supposed to be a lot of underground sections. Anyway, maglev is officially dead. Even Japan can't make it work and all the other projects (even the Chinese extension) were cancelled. A NEC maglev will never be built. I wish they focused on just conventional HSR. It could interoperate with the Acela, and as a bonus it actually works economically! Time to let these gadgetbahns and vaporware die the quiet death that they deserve.
@@ianhomerpura8937 True, but it is already more delayed than CHSR. It is already more overbudget than CHSR. And it has lower projected ridership than an equivalent HSR line. And everybody keeps saying that CHSR is a boondoggle and should be killed off. Well, this Japanese maglev project is substantially worse on every metric. Japan is too deep into this it to pull back now, and fast train tech is a bit of a national fad there. But it is clear that everyone else is cancelling their maglev projects and no one is starting any new ones. Even the Chinese dropped their extension project for the only operational maglev line in the world. Even if this project somehow pulls through, this is still most likely the end of maglev. And this is in no small part because of how disastrous this particular project has proven to be.
@@TohaBgood2 what do you mean by delayed?? They're actually ahead of the deadline by ten years. May I ask where your sources are from? Also, just noting that your statements mirror what opponent were saying when the first Shinkansen line was being built. But when it opened in 1964 they were all proven wrong.
How long did it take to plan and construct Chengdu to Chongqing? About the same distance as SF to LA. Or the question is how much longer does it take the US to build compared to China? Probably more than twice as long.
Connecting the California and PNW lines with a single high speed system that largely follows I5 would be a massive benefit to the west coast. For me personally It would turn a 5 hour drive to something like 2 hours on a train to visit my family in portland. It isnt even so much about the time as how exhausting making the drive is.
That's so helpful that your family live at the station in Portland, and that you don't have to add to the two hour train trip to actually get from the station to a distant house.
If these regions had high speed rail networks then built links between them, as well as to the low speed rails, then New York to LA via train would be possible without making the network itself impractical and would make plenty of sense for people on the edge of one network traveling to the edge of another. Well, it would if a few more high population sections got their own region too. There are a few zones on that map that would work as regional networks that are oddly left out.
One problem is, Amtrak doesnt own their rails, various companies own tracks across the country. Amtrak owns like 5%. Even though you are renting a place, do you think the homeowners would gladly starting making big changes to the property and house?
If ya ever tried to build something near any major city in the USA that requires property purchases, right-of-way acquisition, environmental impact reviews and reporting, hundreds of building permits and several hundred inspections ……… and so much more !!! With double double double trouble trouble trouble anywhere in S.California or downtown Boston. you will soon find your project becoming hideously extensive and the completion date is about 15 years longer than planned. That’s why big ew infrastructure projects like high speed rail system, which would be absolutely WONDERFUL, won’t get done anytime soon in the USA. The benefits of dedicated public high speed rail crisscrossing, connecting major metropolitan areas in the USA could have huge positive impacts. Like saving all kinds of energy, relieving congested highways, allow commuting from smaller less expensive places to live while still working in the big overpriced expense cities (housing for the hundred millionaires and up club). I would love to see this kind of intelligent infrastructure happen, but I pretty sure it won’t start during my lifetime. Did I mention the cost of donations to politicians, their staff and friends and other much less friendly bribes …. er … contributions ? Working people could actually could buy homes for reasonable prices …… might even put a dent in homelessness. This is only my opinion. Which you already knew before reading this …… Have a great evening and don’t let social media make you clinically depressed …..
Thank you for the video. Well done. I am a little upset you didn't mention our Brightline train here in Florida. While it isn't high speed, it might be a good push for rail here in America that would lead to high speed rail around the country.
It'll be in my next one for sure. These were just the ones I was most familiar with and I really try to keep my videos under 10 minutes. If I'm being honest, the Pacific Northwest HSR probably isn't as prominent as I make it in this video, but I directly worked on the last iteration of the project so I'm intimately familiar with the state of it. Thanks for watching!
Brightline, the option that is slower than driving and twice as expensive, and has such low ridership it seems everyone agrees. Hardly the example you want to run with. Unless you are using it as an example of how even the intelligent implementations of passenger rail will still fail.
i think brightline could have major impacts by convincing people that hsr and rail travel in general is a good form of transportation. there just isn’t any modern rail yet
@@TheOwenMajor Really? Slower than driving? You ever been on I-95 during Rush hour in Southeast Florida? There are two speeds in your Car : Crawl or Stop!
@@xoxxobob61 It's either slower when you factor in end to end transport or it's a wash. Either way, the public votes with their wallets and with butts in seats. Brightline has neither. The proof is in the proverbial pudding. People can say how wonderful it is, but where is the ridership?
You can Great Lakes high speed rail to the north-east network using Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Utica Albany Corridor former New York Central water level route. At Albany route splits down to New York Penn Station via Hudson Valley and Boston South Station via Springfield and Worcester, MA. If you want international links 🇺🇸NY Penn Albany and Montreal Quebec🇨🇦 Buffalo🇺🇸 Toronto 🇨🇦via Niagara Falls, NY. These trains run to Albany where it's split to serve Toronto and Montreal.
I just rode e the Acela from New York to Boston. I enjoyed the trip as it was fast and Boston has a good subway system so we didn’t miss having a car. I booked another trip back up while I was on the way to Boston. The route goes along the coast of Connecticut stopping in key cities before heading north to Providence. Without bypassing those cities in Connecticut I can’t see how they would be able to greatly improve the speed. In the Northeast, you’re heading from one major city to the next major city. So without spending an insane amount of money, which we don’t have to acquire the right of way through some of the most expensive real estate in the US we are just stuck with improvements to the existing right of way which is already established. On another note, you didn’t mention the train they’ve just built from Orlando to Miami. When done, I believe it’s supposed to go from Miami to Tampa. I don’t think it’s categorized as a high-speed real but it’s definitely a game-changer and getting very good reviews so far. I’m planning to take a trip down to Florida and riding the train is one of the things on my to-do list. The one thing we don’t want to get stuck on is everything has to be high speed. The focus should be on fast & convenience. The other focus should be on eliminating some of the tons of red tape and facilitating acquiring the right of way. And why does the train have to compensate the highway department for the loss of revenue from tolls? That’s one of the things I heard they had to deal with in Florida.
There are a number of mistakes that were made in the passenger rail business in the US over the last 60 years. Some of them were due to business practices. Others were due to policy decisions. The biggest policy decisions IMO were the cutting up of abandoned right-of-ways after local or regional rail lines shut down. As to routes it all comes down to traffic density and travel time. In my mind the travel time breaks down around three hours total trip time. Yes by air the fight might be less than an hour but the whole hassle of getting to the airport. Going through TSA. And then travel time to your destination. Besides it's not just HSR. Non motor vehicle or flying travel is also heavily dependent on just how you arrive at the departure point. And what is available at your destinstion. Another factor with HSR in urban areas is grade crossings. Lets say you want to operate HSR out of a major urban center. Is there an existing rail corridor? If so does it have a majority of surface grade crossings? In my opinion the best place to run a HSR route in urban areas is as elevated routes using existing expressway corridors where ever practicable.
USA : spends billions on interstate and freeway projects and then will burn trillion on lane widenings for the ones running thru urban environments. All while not being able to fully pay for any of it and keeps taking out goverment loans and going bankrupt as a result. Also USA : says HSR is too expensive and wastefull and unaffordable/unsustainable somehow.
High Speed Rail works well when it reaches its destination within three hours. Beyond three hours HSR loses the competition with the airlines considerably. Therein lies the problem with America, a large nation, not a TINY nation like France or Germany or Japan. Even in China more prefer to fly than ride a HSR train more than three hours. It is a five hour flight from London to Tel Aviv, yes to another continent. It is a five and a half hour flight from New York City to Los Angeles, a six hour flight from Boston to Los Angeles. It is a seven hour flight from Miami to Seattle, notice I did not mention Alaska or Hawaii. It is a seven hour flight from London to Toronto, mind you across an ocean to another hemisphere... There is a reason why Americans prefer to fly longer distances, it is the same reason why Europeans and Asians fly longer distances too... 80 percent of Americans have flown, whereas less than 2 percent have rode Amtrak regional or long distance services. No wonder Congress funds airports more than Amtrak...
Living in central GA.. Atlanta needs some rail relief . Macon, Savannah and Atlanta. Connect the major airports to rail access? Every major interstate goes to Atlanta . Rail should be an option. Could go from Macon to Jacksonville by rail? Macon to Orlando? Rail should follow the Interstate system in the US.
It would be great if the Northeast corridor high speed train service be extended into Norfolk,VA which is the Southeasternmost end of the Northeast Corridor that is being ignored as if it doesn’t exist at all.
Surprised you didn't mention Florida. Brightline is already operating in South Florida and working on connecting to Orlando and eventually Tampa. The term "high speed" is somewhat loose since only a small section of the line will exceed 100mph. Additionally the time will be roughly the same time as by car without traffic (3.5 to 4 hours). However, lack of a good public transit system at either end will limit the usefulness of the line. I could envision a highspeed line all the way up to Atlanta since the land is very flat for most of that distance. Flying is too much of a hassle but driving is 7-8 hours.
Problem for me currently is the I-75 corridor between Detroit and Cincinnati. Living in Toledo, to get to my parents house in Cincinnati I either need to (1) drive the 2hr30min, (2) take a 5hr Greyhound bus, or (3) take a 9hr Amtrak train. The current rail system from Toledo to Cincinnati consists of either going to Chicago then down through Indianapolis or going to Cleveland and then taking a bus down the I-71 corridor, which is stupid in my opinion, but at least they made steps in the last year to make a new station in Oxford between Cincinnati and Indianapolis. A problem of Amtrak is the shared space with freight trains; trains are limited to 70mph between Chicago and Cincinnati, and between Toledo and Cleveland, but the speed limit on I-65/I-74, I-80/90, and now OH-2 at Sandusky are all 70mph with most people going 80-85mph. There were talks of a highspeed rail triangle from Toledo to Detroit then over to Lansing, but still the major problem is the I-75 corridor between Toledo and Cincinnati, so much so that they spent 7 years to upgrade the section between Lima and Toledo to 3-lanes each way, continuing to push south until they reach the 3-lanes in Troy.
Eurostaer SA has filed for bankruptcy. Even with a perfect situation, London, Paris Amsterdam and Brussels, , it has had a tough time making money. The building costs is huge, but what happens after is a question also. I flew on Southwest from LAX to Las Vegas for $39 a couple weeks ago. No rail can compete with that. Rail competition would leave airlines discounting more. Let the private investors decide, if prudent, they will jump on it. The govt is the go too for bad investment. I am a rail fan, having taken and enjoyed the Eurostar a few times, but, if they can't make money ongoing, it is too much to speculate we can.
Why does the government have to make profitable investments though? The whole point of the government is that they can build shit that is good for ordinary people without having to worry about making a profit.
Also worth noting that since takeoff is the most energy intensive part of a flight, short haul flights are very bad for the enviorment with our current planes. HSR could offer a comparable service with lower emissions
Other High speed rail can be from New York to Milwaukee ( via Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago ) with a brach to Detroit and Chicago to Buffalo ( via Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland ) and Northeast Corridor can be extended from Washing DC upto Norfolk ( via Richmond ). Others might include from Chicago to Memphis ( via St. Louis ) , Cincinnati to Miami ( via Nashville, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Orlando, West Palm Beach ) with a branch from Nashville to Memphis and Orlando to Tampa and lastly Houston to Jacksonville ( via New Orleans, Mobile, Tallahassee ) with Mobile to Atlanta Branch Line ( via Montgomery ) Overnight Sleeper High Speed Trains can be used in these long distance case. Love from an Indian Railfan
Dream on! We do NOT live in the land of Unicorn. The corporate railroads have NO desire to spend billions to upgrade their tracks for HSR. The government has NO desire to spend billions to build new HSR tracks when less than 2 percent ride Amtrak's regional or long distance services....
Good train connection in the midwest are a no brainer. Ohio has a similar density (105/kn2 as France or Spain , and higher than Sweden. The coridors Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Louisville and Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago have 2mln city regions at 200-250 km distances. Ideal for 'faster' or high speed passenger rail connections !
Much better balanced than most people on the issue, but still problems There are major geological issues with getting a train 1) out of LA and ) getting into the Bay area... Plus the the train will have much less access to both the Bay area and greater LA. The train will only service LA downtown, SF downtown and San Jose downtown, while greater LA and the Greater Bay areas area have 5 commercial airports each... So the planes will hold the advantage for a far greater number of travelers Similar geologic problems in PNW... What it first has to do is expand traditional heavy commuter rail which fell to 3 runs a day due to the pandemic... Once Portland/Seattle cities can support 18 hour a day train service, then consider hsr In Texas the travel to the train stations will be as much of a problem as getting to the airports... At least both Houston and Dallas have multiple airports Money would be better spent funding traditional commuter service on the front range of the Rockies connecting Cheyenne down though Denver, Colorado springs, to Trinidad with less frequent service over Raton Pass and to Albuquerque... A nice linear corridor in an area with extremely high growth
I've given up hope for it happening in the U.S. Even IF there was a competent high speed rail network connecting cities in the U.S the networks within cities are still subpar and people would just end up taking cars instead.
I think it would be great, but I think rail proponents forget that the same security measures would need to be implemented just like at airports. Bombs or other security issues could also be an issue. Maybe more efficient and cleaner air travel is better?
Regarding whether it would work in the Midwest, it’s important to understand how close the major cities really are. For example I live in Kansas City, metro population roughly 2.1 million. West of me is the Topeka/Lawrence region & then no true big cities until you reach the Front Range. However if you start heading East or Northeast from here you reach a major metro area about every 250 miles, with smaller metros of at least 100k people or more dotting the paths in between. People think of the Midwest as just wheat fields & cornfields outside of Chicago, but there’s a galaxy of cities & good sized towns throughout the region. Much of the region was built out around railroads. A lot of older infrastructure at this point in need of upgrades, but it’s very doable.
![Stroads are Ugly, Expensive, and Dangerous (and they're everywhere) [ST05]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ORzNZUeUHAM/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Portland resident, I can not tell you how logical high speed rail is here. We are far more connected to bc than the rest of the country. We're too close to bother flying but driving through Seattle traffic is a huge hinderance
The Cascadia high speed rail project is really exciting, and isn’t one of the tech companies in Seattle helping fund the environmental studies? That is a great example of a public-private partnership, and honestly could be the way forward for US high speed rail. If there’s any US corridor that high speed rail makes a lot of sense outside LA to SF and the Northeast Corridor, it’s Portland-Seattle-Vancouver.
I live in Vancouver, WA just over the river from Portland, and if there was an option to take a high speed train to Seattle rather than drive the 3 hours my wife and I would probably use it just for day trips together. We love Seattle but rarely make the drive up, especially with traffic and gas prices being what they are now.
I loved living in Seattle but left because of the traffic
Im from Seattle and I agree with everything you said. I also think that the PNW has more support for high speed rail and other mass transit projects than other places in the US.
I think much of the US opposition to this is caused by lack of familiarity. The majority of Americans have never travelled by train. The Acela is the nearest that Amtrak get to high speed. By European standards, if you're not doing 180mph, you're not high speed. The fastest French and German trains can keep up with Apache helicopters. If more Americans got the chance to do these speeds at ground level, trains would be more popular.
Not just a lack of familiarity of trains, but of good trains either. Most Americans perceptions of trains and metros are barebones, loud and dirty monstrosities that are loaded with crime, casually unaware of European metros and trains that are of much better quality.
God how many times have I in a comment section seen Americans defending their reasons with: Only poor people take public transport
250 km/h or 155 mph here in europe is called high speed
It's not that, it's just Republicans don't like the idea of spending money on anything that benefits more than themselves.
No, most of the opposition to this in the United States is based on the sheer expanse of the country.
I'd be happy having ANY options of trains, not just high speed
Me too. I'd take comfort and affordability over high speed.
If you've ever ridden any of the Amtrak intercities you'll think otherwise.
This is coming from someone that hopes to be alive to see the California HSR between LA and SF become reality but I fully expect EVERYONE alive right now will be long dead and gone by the time of the possibility of that that ever happening.
Lets imrove new York style public transportation in all major cities first
@@archstanton5973 Look, I know that the opposition to CHSR has been fierce. But most of their more successful tactics in delaying and overbudgeting this project have been related to land acquisitions. And while the dark money groups have't run out of money, and we shouldn't expect no opposition going forward, there is light at the end of this tunnel! Their main tool for obstructing this project is becoming toothless!
CHSR have secured the vast majority of parcels for the current section (finally!), and are pretty much closing the remaining deals as we speak. This means that the rest of construction for the current section is "on rails" and can't be stopped.
Most of the rest of the land needed for the entire "Phase 1" is either held by the state or is already a rail ROW. So they will have considerably fewer of these expensive land acquisition issues going forward.
I'm not saying that it's going to be entirely smooth sailing going forward. The groups opposing the project will doubtlessly try to change tactics. But you will be seeing good and relatively faster progress going forward, sections being completed left and right, HSR trainsets will be acquired, they'll start testing high speed runs, there will be demonstration runs, etc. In other words, it's about to get good! Hang in there! You'll ride this train yet!
@@TohaBgood2 that’s the goal my man! can’t wait to ride it when it’s completed
I think a high speed rail line from Charlotte to Atlanta will be a great line as well. And then extend those lines to Raleigh and whatever city in Florida is closest. But I believe in order for it to be convenient, these cities have to improve their public transit to reduce congestion and spread people out so they aren't stuck at the station waiting for a ride or having the additional cost of purchasing a rental car or Taxi/Uber.
I would say from DC to Atlanta, thru Richmond, Raleigh, Greensboro, Charlotte and Greenville
@@Schlesss right. But Charlotte to Atlanta would be more so the first phase. Just to get the ball rolling. but definitely Atlanta to DC would be the final goal and possibly beyond that.
A good model to study is Florida’s Brightline service. A privately funded company that currently serves Miami to West Palm with construction under way to Orlando airport by the end of year or next. The plan is for this service to continue to Disney Springs and eventually Tampa. It offers “Last Mile” service from the station (as part of the ticket) to accommodate travelers reaching their final destination within 5 miles of the station so that they can travel without getting a rental car or Uber. At its full speeds it can reach up to 125 mph (but is limited to 79 mph in South Florida). If the service forks north from Orlando to Jacksonville it could make economic sense for it to continue to Atlanta. This is where Amtrak has to step up its performance and rebuild its service in areas private companies are considering before it is too late.
@@mohammadqureshi7274 private companies tend to avoid government bs
Not a problem do it all at once
6:59 Pittsburgh is like a forgotten kid in Northeast. It's sad because this city is home a lot of steel and railroad related history. The memorial of the guy who invented trian air brake is literally here. Amtrak seems to not really care about it...
Problem is that Pittsburgh isn’t part of this corridor. All the other cities mentioned are lined up neatly in a line.
Unfortunately, this is the reason why we are moving out of the United States. After my husband was in a devastating accident 3 years ago, he couldn’t look at a car in the same way again.
So, we moved to NYC, which has been working okay for us but the train delays and sometimes long bus waits makes it slightly inconvenient. A friend of mine told us to look into European Transportation and we were blown away by it. We’re deciding on where to move to and will make the move over to Europe within the next 2 years.
But I’m not going to lie, I’m going to miss America. America is very car centric which works for most people, but in our case we prefer a vast public transit system that has fewer delays, and your not waiting in the cold longer than 10 minutes for the bus.
Hire a cab for door to door services...
Also in order to make HSR a productive mode of transportation, cities connected to it must maintain a highly efficient regional public transportation network that’s well connected. It’s going to require a ton of investments, with urbanization and alternative modes such as bikes and priority bus routes being operable and extending coverage well beyond respective metro area.
New York to LA for business may be infeasible, but I could see connecting the major population centers, so people could do a rail tour of the US. It's very popular for Americans visiting Europe and I could see the reverse being true.
Yeah right now we are stuck with road tripping but it seems a lot less stressful to travel across the country by HSR
All we would need is ONE high speed line to show people that it works! Then there will be enough to support it!
The thing is, if you want to make high speed rail work, you need a good local public transit system in the cities, to get people to and from the station.
Too much government red tape. Government overreach ruins everything
@@Razor-gx2dq Actually it’s land owners and private businesses like the aviation and car industry that lobby against it. Government is in favour of HSR. Even the Trump administration was a lot in favour of it.
Any examples
@@ee-ef8qr this is only anecdotal but many people praise the bright line in Florida (not hsr I know) and it has made many more open to the idea of more public transit.
While high-speed rail would be great, it's effectiveness is only as good as the public transporation of the cities it connects to. I personally made the trip between the SF Bay Area and my home region of Sacramento by car, and saw the Capitol Corridor train speed away effortlessly, a reminder of how even 70-100mph rail is so much faster than the car. However, it's not reasonable for me to ride it, because the light rail system of Sacramento has relatively poor coverage, and the many towns that compose the area have very hit or miss bus networks. Fortunately my town is in the planning phases of upgrading it's bike infrastructure, so an e-bike ride to the light rail will no longer be a death wish. However, it's a problem that I think far too many areas that would benefit from better rail acess still have to face if they want those projects to be successes.
Spot on! It isn't just HSR, there must also be better public transit within the cities...
The other end of the coin being almost all major Japanese cities connected to the bullet train having extensive subway systems. Especially Tokyo and Osaka.
This whole country, local to national, really needs to rethink it's design and get away from car-focused infrastructure.
Not defending the poor public transportation within the cities here, but every time I go back to China to visit my family, I've found that in their "smaller" cities, the bus and rail links don't do a good job connecting to the train station, especially on weekends, with low frequencies, inconvenient routes, and the such. We often find ourselves needing to take a DiDi (Chinese version of Uber,) indicating that this may have something to do with the size of the city necessitating less investment in the transit network rather than the country in which the city is in.
@@SonicBoone56 prior to WW2 many American cities had extensive transit networks, perhaps the most famous being LA’s Pacific Electric. But from the late 40s onward, car sales and road building exploded, new suburbs were built for cars, new Interstate freeways, and the old transit systems faded away, replaced with buses.
There’s the conspiracy theory that National City Lines, a bus company backed by a syndicate made up of Firestone Tires, Standard Oil, and General Motors, deliberately bought up old streetcar systems, including the Pacific Electric, and replaced them with buses. However much of that is actually true, what really killed the streetcar, at least in Pacific Electric’s case, was it was using aging equipment on old tracks that hadn’t been upgraded while shiny new cars became more appealing, and people chose the new car that could take them anywhere anytime over the old train that could only go certain places on a schedule. People were fed the idea of freedom of travel, not having to rely on someone else’s schedule. Now that many cities have faced gridlock, LA being one of the worst offenders, they’re investing in new transit projects at great expense to bring back the time we were a transit-oriented nation instead of a car-oriented one.
A project like California HSR can and will be a great asset and serious game changer for how people get around, but only if the transit in their departure and arrival city is good enough to get them from their Point A to Point B. If public transit is a more appealing option (convenient, reliable, clean, safe, cheaper) than driving, people will use it. LA is expanding its transit network in anticipation of it hosting the 2028 Summer Olympics, and should become one of the best transit networks in the US.
You can look at any city pair that has roughly hourly flight frequencies and a driving time greater than 3 hours (where the train speed would make an impact) but less than 6-8 hours (where the inconvenience of an airport at both ends is a smaller part of the overall time).
That said, I would include the Florida triangle to be served by Brightline, the Piedmont region with a connection through Richmond to DC connecting to the Northeast, and the upper Midwest (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia (connecting the Northeast).
These could have a huge impact on reducing car usage for trips AND reducing already clogged gates at major airports.
It would be even better if they connected to airports (Say Piedmont connecting at CLT airport and ATL airport) like Brightline which is connecting at MCO airport, or at least offered connecting rail service to the airport (DC Union Station to DCA airport via the Washington Metro, for example)
i was going to say a highs peed line from richmond up to atleast dc would be a huge money maker. i use to live in richmond and was seeing a girl in dc so i took amtrack alot. the train from richmond to d.c was always packed out. so many people live along that line commute
Yeah, high speed rails really should connect to airports like they do in a lot of other countries, especially the airports that are a bit away from the hot spots in cities
@@InfernosReaper My cousin is visiting me in a couple of weeks. On their journey home, We'll put them on the ICE, 45 minutes to Frankfurt airport. They will stay in the Hilton upstairs in the train station, walk down the concourse to the pair terminal the next morning. Dead easy. (I'm fourth generation native Californian, I may never ride the California system, planting trees for future generation).
Raleigh to Charlotte seems logical to me. Then extend it to Atlanta. Eventually the entire Crescent route from New Orleans to DC could work as high speed.
The DC-Atlanta portion should be a high priority for Amtrak as a new “SouthEast Corridor”. While nothing compares the NEC, there is a real opportunity to link together all of the most important cities in the southeast with fast, frequent, reliable rail service with progressive improvements.
7:16 that's no HSR! That's just our local commuter train here in Stockholm, and it can't go above 160 km/h. Which is still better than the previous trains from the 1980s that could go 140 km/h. Or the ones from the 1960s that could go 120 km/h.
ah, that sweet sweet feeling of continuous improvements!
The problem with building HSR is the USA is that here the cost per mile of track is higher than any other country on Earth. The amount of regulation and government red tape that has to be handled is immense. We need to free up the regulations on rail so that it is possible to fund future HSR projects.
Just curious why prices have become THAT high. It's just too much.
they could have easily afford it. they spend almost 7 trillion dollars on their own created illegal wars in the middle east. with 7 trillion dollars you can build HSR give americans universal health care and make schools cheaper. But nope they rather spend it on illegal wars because thats the priority for some reason.
The cost to build would be prohibitive.
Land accusation unless the gov uses eminent domain (which I hate with a passion) would drive this to hundreds of billions of not trillions of dollars!
No thanks!
If Germany can build high speed rail, than it should be possible in the USA as well. We have even more regulation and a lot denser population (84 million in a country that has a smaller area than califronia). Furthermore travel times by car are a lot shorter, since most of the national highways in germany do not have speed limit. Further more housing in "rual" areas is lot more expensive than in the USA. In the big City pricing a comperable to most big cities in the world (tokyo, soeul, ...). Even though one has to admit we do not have those crazy high prices, that New York or San Francisco have. But Germany bureaucracy & regulations are crazy and building highspeed rail is a real challenge.
@@railroad9000 why hate eminent domain? Because you wouldn't profit as much?
You guys only really think of profit and virtually nothing else. Benefits for me, but not for thee. Selfish to your very core.
Yes as long as they allow you to connect with city centre.
Also, every major airport should have railway connectivity with city centre.
Airlines essentially hold you hostage and you often spend more time reaching and checkin at airport than actually flying
Substitute "government" for "airlines."
City center doesn’t apply well to the US as most people don’t live there that’s where the jobs are
City centers in the US are business districts, not hubs.
I take issue with California's project being called a 'boondoggle'. California is the first to attempt bringing true high speed rail to the US, and just as with any first-of-its-kind projects, especially one of this magnitude, there were bound to be issues. That doesn't mean it's an unworthy project that should be stopped, and if anything we need to double down on California's project to get it done ASAP and show to the American people the benefits of high speed rail. It was the first and currently only US HSR project to be in the construction phase, and needs to be the first to open. All other HSR projects in the US will learn from California's example, which is why it's crucial that it gets finished between Anaheim/LA and SF and succeeds.
As for the other US high speed rail corridors, one that you missed is a Midwest HSR network radiating out from Chicago to St Louis, Detroit, Milwaukee and Minneapolis, and Indianapolis and Cincinnati. High Speed Rail Alliance, based in Chicago, has been touting this hypothetical network the most. Like the Pacific NW, it's still in early proposal and planning stages. There's also a proposed high speed rail line between Atlanta and Charlotte, as well as between Phoenix and Tucson.
A nationwide HSR network could be possible, by linking up these individual networks into a single system (likely excluding the Pacific NW route), connecting LA to Phoenix, Tucson to San Antonio, Dallas to Atlanta, Atlanta to Indianapolis via Nashville (with a branch to Orlando), and Charlotte to Washington DC via Richmond.
I definitely don't think the California HSR is a bad project overall. And in fact I think, when completed, it'll really spur along other projects after Americans really see what HSR can do. I guess my definition of boondoggle is just a project that's had consistent delays and has gone over budget. Both of which are true and I think it's fine to recognize that. There are lots of boondoggle projects that turn out to be great in the end.
Definitely more corridors. The ones you listed, of course, also Florida and LA-Vegas. Perhaps another video someday.
I actually think connecting Cascadia high speed rail to California high speed rail with conventional 100-150 km/h (but still compatible) rail would be pretty amazing. That means that you could take a sleeper between Seattle and LA in 13-16 hours (depending on Cascadia HSR reaching Eugine and California HSR reaching Sacramento). This sleeper would allow for daytrips between the two regions but also provide a much needed connection through Medford OR. with both Eugine and Redding. It would compete not on speed but with comfort (and with serving underserved communities; Medford + Redding is like 3-400.000 people).
However this sleeper should probably be pretty far down the priority list since-while the Amtrak corridor (or rather the Union Pacific corridor) between Sacramento and Redding can be reused-the current corridor between Eugine and Redding doesn’t go through Medford, so that might need to be built which might be quite expensive (although the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad does). And investing in all that infrastructure for just 6-8 trains a day seems a lot, especially given the need for rail in the rest of the country. But I’m gonna allow my self to dream about the West Coast Sleeper anyway ;)
@@GeographyByGeoff Unfortunately, this type of a description is parroting the disinformation campaign that this project has been subjected to. So when you take that stance you are at the very least contributing to the cause of cancelling the project altogether.
I should also mention that 80% of the cascading delays and cost overruns have been traced to an organized political and legal campaign to bleed this project dry of funds and delay it, amounting to an illegal cancellation of a referendum approved project. It is quite a fraught political subject, with essentially a turf war going on. It would be great to hear at least a mention about the source of the issues this project is having. Especially since we are seeing the same malicious playbook already being applied to other HSR projects around the country. Texas Central, for example is being challenged by literally the same group of people as CHSR and sometimes even the exact same lawyers are filing the land acquisition challenges as in California. It is an organized political campaign against HSR and that is worth mentioning for the public to be aware of!
From California the country is learning on how NOT to do HSR!!!!!
@@qjtvaddict or at least learning the challenges it takes to build high speed rail here, including ones that other countries with HSR haven’t had to face. I’ve maintained that all other US high speed rail projects will learn from California’s example, for better or worse. When you consider everything high speed rail is meant to do, more than just connect two cities in as straight a line and as quickly as possible, California really is the ideal state to prove it here. More than just connecting LA and SF in under three hours, it’s linking up all the major population centers of the state and thus bringing them closer together. What makes Japan’s Shinkansen so effective isn’t its raw speed, but its ability to move large amounts of people quickly, efficiently, and safely. That’s what California’s and all US high speed rail should strive for.
Chicago to Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St Louis, Indianapolis, and Detroit are somewhat a no-brainer, in my opinion; it's not as much of a slam-dunk as the Northeast Corridor, but it'd enable great regional mobility.
Additionally, connecting the rapidly-growing Piedmont region from Raleigh to Atlanta makes pretty good sense, in spite of heavy-dependency in the cities along the way, in a similar situation to Florida connecting Miami to Orlando, Tampa, and Jacksonville.
The Midwest also has the advantage of distance and flatness: It would be very easy to build a very high speed rail line that would clearly outperform the plane or car between all of those cities, and probably extending it on routes like STL-Kansas City, Cleveland-Detroit and/or Chicago, etc
All excepT Chicago have less than F grade public transportation.
Detroit has been frontier against public transportation. It was not until major layoffs from auto industry that Detroit started to put more public transportation.
I don't understand US train lovers. They kept bringing Japan n Europe about rails.
They refuse to admit that people don't need cars to get to subways or bullet trains.
Train lovers are transit advocates n fake environmentalists.
If we say improve public transportation in each city make them like New York.
They will say the cities are so big, n not feasible to do so.
Wait wait, tHe anti HSR has said the same thing about US is too big n sparse n not feasible to build HSR.
I don't like Republican, but in term of public transportation , they are more honest than the fake liberal trasit advocates, they will say they hate public transportation. The train lovers hate public transportation but want tax payers to build the toys while poor n disadvantages continue to suffer of lack or no public transportation.
Surprised you didn't talk about the Brightline high speed rail already in existence in Florida, which is soon about to officially expand with even more expansions planned over the next few years. I think next year the connection to Orlando will be complete (ending in Miami), and there are future plans to expand to near Disney World and even later to Tampa.
Brightline is not high speed rail. There are zero high speed rail lines in the US and only one under construction in California.
@@UnicyclDev brightline is actually building an expansion from west palm to Orlando that will count as high speed, and should be running in 2023
@@chknlittle5807 Actually no since the regulations for high speed rail are just silly! It’s 125 mph on upgraded lines and 150 on new lines! I wish it was a universal 125
@@UnicyclDev And one in Texas
Great video!! High speed rail should be a must for the us in the future, just wanted to mention there were a few factual errors within the video, the Bay Area has over 8 million people, and the Central Valley has over 6 mil. Again great video please make more!!!!
another worthy mention is the network layout. It is an elongated route making stops more efficient and reliable. The long line section is what able trains to maintain the high speed. Versus having the trains come in from several different directions causing bottlenecking like in Germany and France.
There are other potential corridors of smaller cities served by planes. Here are two examples. Atlanta - Augusta - Columbia - Charlotte. The two end points are major international airports while the two middle points have inconvenient air connections. The second is Chicago - St. Louis - Padukah - Nashville - Chattanooga - Atlanta - Jacksonville. While the travel between the two ends wouldn't be well served by trains, routes between the intermediate cities would be faster door-to-door.
I love all the trains and Amtrak and Amtrak trains in the US and USA and high-speed rails.
When I lived in Upstate NY in college a few years ago, I took Amtrak to NYC once and never again because it was just so inconvenient.
It costed almost as much as flying, but took 6-7 hours instead of 1. Even if you include the hassle and time of going through airport security, flying is still much faster for similar amount of money. Driving took just under 4 hours. Taking the bus took about 4.5 hours, but was significantly cheaper than both flying and taking Amtrak.
It's no wonder Amtrak struggles with ridership. It's expensive AND slow. Unless you are afraid of flying and can't drive, there's no reason to take Amtrak. I'd love to have access to efficient and affordable high-speed rail, but it's unlikely to happen in the US with so many lobbyists representing the car and oil industries writing fat checks to lawmakers.
I took the train from Albany to Buffalo once and yeah, never again. It took me all friggen day when driving would've been something like 5 hours.
Car dependency in America is very strong and isn't going to stop. Two main reasons why trains won't work in America is because it's very easy and convenient to just drive to your destination if it isn't too far away, and if it is very far, planes are faster and not that expensive where people can't afford it.
Thank you for stating this. The USA already has interstate highways and airports. High speed rail - in the context of American passenger transportation - doesn't make much sense. It is a solution looking for a problem to answer.
@@mikeynth7919 No the problem it seems to answer is the shit ass traffic when you hit a city
Interesting breakdown of the merits and drawbacks of HSR. As a resident of the Pacific Northwest I think the travel time for any HSR between Portland, Seattle and Vancouver (since it crosses an international border, unlike the other examples mentioned) has to include customs and checking passports, Don't know how much extra time is involved, but it should be acknowledged. For this country a regional approach to HSR is best because of the spread out geography shown here. That said I'd definitely use HSR up here if it were available as an option.
A coast to coast high speed rail network would make perfect sense if we used maglev technology. Maglev trains are fast enough to be competitive with airplanes over much longer distances than conventional high speed trains. In fact, Japan and China are currently building maglev lines on their longest, busiest corridors that already have conventional high speed trains. Tokyo to Osaka (320 miles) is currently a 2.5 hour journey. Soon it will be a 1 hour journey. Beijing to Guangzhou (1,428 miles) is currently an 8 hour journey. Soon it will be a 3.5 hour journey. Suppose you introduced maglev between New York and Los Angeles (2,789 miles). I bet most people would prefer to take a 7 hour maglev ride instead of a 6 hour flight, considering how much of a hassle it would save on either end of the journey. Besides, there are several segments in between that would probably attract enough passengers from other means of transit (e.g., New York to Chicago, or Los Angeles to Phoenix, etc.) as each segment opens to justify construction of the complete route over the span of a decade or two.
Maglev: A different gauge. 🙂
Bingo. Tokyo to Osaka is less than 3 hours, ideal for HSR. That will NOT be the case for New York City to Chicago, much less New York City to Los Angeles...
@@ronclark9724 I disagree. China’s busiest and most profitable line is the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway. It’s about 820 miles long and has an operating speed of about 220 mph, so the current travel time end to end is about 4 hours and 20 minutes.
New York and Chicago are a similar pair of cities and a similar distance from each other (790 miles drive according to Google Maps). I expect that even with conventional high speed rail, you could get the journey down to 4 hours. With maglev, it would be less than 2 hours.
Once you factor in travel time to and from airports, waiting time in airports, and frequent flight delays,it would almost certainly be faster to take either type of high speed rail than to fly from New York to Chicago.
Honestly such a massive maglev line would be awesome... But damn it'd also be absurdly expensive, even more so with the amount of highways it'd need to cross.
@@makelgrax The highways would be relatively cheap. The mountains and rivers would be the expensive part. But price isn’t really the problem. The US government has spent insane amounts of money on things we didn’t even need before. The Apollo program. Every war after WW2. Thousands of nuclear weapons. Bailouts after financial crises. The list goes on. When rich people want something wasteful, politicians manage to find the money. When the rest of us want something useful, they’re all like “But how will we pay for it?!”
As a Dallas resident, I have heard of plans to build a second high speed rail line that follows I-35 and connects Brownsville, Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, and Oklahoma City. It’s still a relatively new idea but I think they are waiting until Texas Central starts operating the line between Dallas and Houston. Also, if they built both of these lines, there’s a potential to build another high speed rail line connecting both Dallas and Fort Worth that connects both lines together
One of the problems with high-speed rail, especially here in California, is that almost every city along the route wants a stop and a station in its city. All of those stops as time to the trip. A two-hour forty minute trip has, because of the number of stops on the line, has already been estimated at more than five hours. That does NOT beat air travel, and is BARELY less time that travel by car.
Another issues, especially involving the LA-San Francisco and the Portland-Seattle route is cost of construction. See, this area is VERY prone to earthquakes, and any high-speed rail projects will have to take that into consideration during construction.
As a huge train fan, I would love to see high-speed rail. However, videos such as this "rah-rah, hooray for high speed rail" video don't take into consideration the problems involved.
Run local and express trips done
Go maglev get help from Japan HSR would do better in the east coast
I think it would be better if existing Amtrak services are sped up for the "local" services via, and the city stubs built first. Actually, maybe Bakersfield-LA-San Diego should have been built first as "proof of concept", with either a possible branch or intermediate stop to LA Airport.
The way it is done is to have four tracks in each station. The platforms are on the outside of the outside tracks. The center tracks are for non-stopping trains. They don't have to even slow down. I have been in stations when a train goes through at 187 mph. Not a problem. Trains stopping at the station are slowing down to stop so they have no difficulty switching to the outside tracks that are on a platform. CAHSR has publicly available proposed schedules that have all stops locals, limited stop trains with a total (including end points) of four stops and expresses that are without stops between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Pretty standard stuff.
@@qjtvaddict You end up with a situation like in England where the line between London and Birmingham is at capacity and are forced to build another for astronomical cost
there's already a higher-speed amtrak corridor in Michigan, might be a good basis for Chicago-Detroit-Toronto HSR
Illinois has been pushing for high speed rail quite a bit, so I've heard.
they need to electrify those midwest lines
I’m excited to see what the Midwest can do.
High Speed Rail(HSR) must have riders to justify the cost. The Mid-West has a lot of Farm Land & like Wind/Solar Farms would take up to much of that land. Stay to a car, bus or plane. The amount of riders it would take to justify Mid-West HSR would equal the ridership of the Northeast & we won't have that kind of patronage. I can see TX & their HSR but something between KC/Chicago or Chicago/Minneapolis won't happen. Besides pricey infrastructure there will be the cost of acquiring land for right away & easement. So other then TX, which isn't looking good; the Mid-West I think, will be a zero.
@@carmiethompson2676 Yes cause car infrastructure has helped cities so much
@@enoughfreeways5874 Whoa now! You think 'car infrastructure' is bad...How? Parking issues, yeah; but if you have a job across town or further, what good is public transport much less HSR? You didn't read my comment fully. Do that first please.
@@carmiethompson2676 Um depends on where you are leaving or going. If you have a job in a town a 40 miles away a train would be better. If it’s a mile a car might be better but a bus or tram could do just the same as a car.
@@natenae8635 C'mon on now, you're making excuses & unrealistic assumptions. If you have to commute to a job 40 miles away, why in the world would you assume a train would be a better mode of transport? You first have to drive to the station or take a bus, hop the train & it will probably make additional stops in route. I rode Metra to Chicago, I was stopping every 10-18 minutes. Once you get to your departure stop, can you walk to work? I'm willing to bet more often then not you can't. So now you have to take a taxi/Uber(or horse). If you're in the North & it's Winter, the trip is more treacherous. So it's always going to depend on your location, that's a given. You think the majority of people live near a train station or bus line. My point was: is there going to be the ridership necessary to support the service. In France, there are ~10 HSR routes, but there are only two routes that make a profit & support the rest of the system. Yet the French taxpayers subsidizes the balance & they don't like it. You are a typical Liberal that thinks HSR is a silver-bullet to all our public transport needs & that couldn't be further from the truth. Course liberals like you don't like truth. Here's another truth: a bus/tram provides the same function as a car, but the car is faster & it's just you. So if you want to make additional stops, you have that FREEDOM! FYI: If the climate is affected by Human activity & can be proven by the Scientific Method...How, Why, Who & What is the reasonable planned response? You Libtards just want my taxes & then throw it around w/ no plan or accountability, just to make you 'feel' good that you(think) you've done something productive in the name of saving the Planet. That's selfish, arrogant & entitled. Keep your hands off my earned money & get a job.
True high speed rail is largely a distraction. There would be far greater benefits from increasing service speeds to circa 120mph on many existing corridors than building a couple of 180+mph corridors.
120 is an easy upgrade to 180 it depends on the route.
Ehh America has straight motorways
125 mph corrdior would be great with 4 tracks and for tilting trains 160 mph
@@StefanWithTrains3222 start with 2 then when capacity becomes an issue then add 2 extra! OR we can have a 4 track mainline with some local stopping services and fast trains!
@@Mgameing123 yes but I was talking about that but when completed
I have wanted this for so long! I'm afraid of flying and would love to Instead take a train to Philadelphia which I wanna rly go too. It doesn't help that the damn airline companies keep lobbying for these rails not to happen...
HELL YES!!! high-speed passenger trans-continental rail service can really work very well in the USA!!!!
Excellent beginning on this topic! Will be really interested in seeing how you address those major concentrations of the US population that you left out, the metro areas of the Midwest/Great Lakes region. The numbers of people living and working there are far greater than some you included in this first round. Keep up the good work! This has been an obvious need in our country ever since 911!
Who do you think they plan to continue to rob in order to fund these coastal boondoggles?
You have a bunch of factual errors here unfortunately. The SF Bay Area has about 8 million people living there, not 5. Also, the actual Bay megaregion has recently grown to closer to 10 million due to the advent of supercommunting and people willing to travel longer distances daily for work. Basically, the Bay is becoming more like LA in terms of driving patterns.
You're also not mentioning at all that the Central Valley houses another 6.5 million people, further contributing to the fallacy that the Valley is "nowhere". There are two million-pop+ metros (Fresno and Bakersfield) in the Valley that CHSR would directly connect to LA and the Bay. It's worth mentioning because this is so often the subject of disinformation about this project.
i came to the comments to say the same thing i had to pause the video and fact check i live in the bay and when i heard him say our population is 5 million I was like is he way wrong or am i?? 😳
@@yesid17 Same! :)
I hate to be the guy that has to do it, but given how rabid the astroturf opposition to this referendum-approved (!) project has become, I just can't resist. There's just so much propaganda against it that I always end up jumping in. Can't let some millionaire obstructionist dirty trickster drain my tax money because they're stuck in the previous century.
If we built real high speed rail, the airlines will burn it down.
Imagine not having to take 5 days to get from Albany NY to Savannah Georgia by plane, days cancelled and 12 hours waiting an 16 hour layover and 5 hours going through TSA
You can actually drive to anywhere east of the Mississippi faster than you can fly
I honestly think HSR would simply be another option rather than killing the airline industry because you would need a lot of them.
@@marrqi7wini54 in theory yes but the lobbying groups would never see it that way and true rail would be fighting them (plus oil and car groups) all the way
Many regulations must be repealed in order to get this started. The DOT and the Federal Railway Administration have set far too many bureaucratic and inefficient regulations on what can be built and how to build it. This dramatically increases the costs, not to mention with increased bargaining with unions. There has to be more public private partnerships in deals with reformed regulations that make sense and open up for potential investments. There used to be a regulation back in the Obama era which prohibited imports of European trainsets due to “safety reasons”, this was later repealed. Unfortunately I don’t see these regulations being reformed or repealed any soon. Not only has this stifled innovation and growth potential in the railroad industry, it’s actively decelerating any progress within infrastructure growth compared to many other countries.
I love Northwest Pacific High Speed Rail.
Rail from Charlotte to Atlanta should be a no-brainer. Then connect them to the Northeast corridor through Raleigh-Durham and Richmond and connect to Florida through Macon with extensions to Savannah to the Florida peninsula (Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa and Miami) and through Albany, GA to the Gulf Coast (Tallahassee, Pensacola, Mobile, Biloxi and New Orleans...and connect to Texas rail system) and connect from Atlanta to the Midwest through Chattanooga and Nashville.
There are some problems:
1. Long-distance train travel is not enjoyable unless the sleeper coach. For reference, the high-speed rail gets much less attractive once the entire travel time exceeds 5-6 hours in China. Therefore, the high-speed rail is only suitable for areas with big cities close enough, such as California, New England, and Florida.
2. Almost every country with successful high-speed rail has its rail system heavily relying on government subsidies. The only exception is Japan, and you know why. How much will the American federal government be able to invest in building up the mega project and keep spending money to maintain its operation? Or the high-speed rail must be extremely popular, with more than half the tickets sold in every train set to make the 180mph+ train profitable.
In my opinion, a much more rational and feasible solution is to modernise America's existing rail network, such as making the whole network offer a 150mph speed limit instead of only small pits of the rail line that can operate high-speed services. That requires a significant investment since many parts of the railway must be rebuilt to remove sharp curves and electrification. For example, if passengers can catch an Acela-like high-speed EMU from LA to the Bay Area with only a few stops between, the timetable should offer a 30-minute interval frequency so that the passengers can find taking the train is as convenient as catching a subway train. The price should be fair, not too high or too cheap with various classes of cabins offered. Snacks will be provided, but no hot meals will be sold since passengers are not supposed to stay on the train for more than 3 hours. For now, Californians can only choose between a 90 mins flight and a 6-hour drive if they wish to travel between these two cities. 3-hour train service will effectively fill the vacancy for passengers who are not hurried and looking for a budget solution. If this program could get success in California, then the whole high-speed rail projects in North America would be encouraged.
We
Need
More
High speed rail!
Brightline from Miami to Orlando will reach 120mph and the line from Orlando to Tampa is expected to reach 150mph.
There's already a line running from Miami to West Palm...only reaching 80mph, it's not quite HSR, it's still quite a bit faster than driving.
The line from Miami to Orlando is over 70% complete and will be running by early 2023. Brightline has also finished negotiations with the state to run track through the middle of I-4 from Orlando to Tampa and that is predicted to be complete by 2028.
Beyond that, Brightline owns the tracks to Jacksonville and is expected to connect there shortly after Tampa is up and running. There's a good shot Florida will have the most extensive (higher) speed rail system in the country (aside from Acela) up and running in 10 years or so.
That connects all of Florida's largest metros, nearly 15 million people.
Additionally, both Orange and Hillsborough counties (Orlando and Tampa) have transportation taxes on the ballot this year which have a good chance at passing. This would extend and increase service on Orlando's Sunrail and likely create Tampa's version utilizing existing CSX tracks, which means the metro's most populated suburbs will have a simple train connection to the Brightline stations and beyond.
It's pretty exciting, especially considering how unfathomable this was just a few years ago.
Seriously, who would have bet that in the next 10-15 years Florida would be one of the most connected rail regions in the US?
Have you seen the Sunrail? It's patterns ? When it's run and how often it runs? Hiw it doesn't run on the weekend...although I admit it's better than having nothing...it is a very lacking system....
We all like Brightline, but it is not HSR. Not even close. Even at 125mph, that's waaaay below HSR minimum limits for new trackage and still below the limit even for converted trackage. And the claims that the train will run at 150mph between Tampa and Orlando is ludicrous. They don't have the money to build an ROW of that quality. That would be an order of magnitude more expensive than what they are currently building and they are barely able to afford that! Also, their Siemens Chargers have a top speed of 125mph. They can't afford new (likely electric) trainsets. In other words, this is just marketing. It's not happening.
It's a good train service, but it has an average speed of 53mph. That's not faster than driving. Not even close!
There's no need for this propaganda. Everyone can look up the numbers and immediately tell that the information was disingenuous.
@@TohaBgood2 If they build the line for 150 mph it will have to be electrified and that is a good thing.
@@danielcarroll3358 Yes, but they won't. It's a lot more expensive to build to that standard than to 125mph, which is just conventional trackage with grade separation. At those speeds you need better everyting.
Electrification costs yet more money. Trainsets that can go 150mph is again more money. I'd say that there's almost zero chance that Brightline actually does this. They're just going to pull a fast one and revert to 125mph after soaking up all the positive publicity for building "HSR". If we want them to actually have any reason to build HSR, then we have to hold them accountable.
Currently, they are just building conventional rail but are somehow already getting all the good publicity from HSR. Why would they ever bother to do more and spend more (a lot more) if everything is working just fine as is?
@@TohaBgood2 Most standards use 125 mph as the bare minimum, not 150.....
Fun that you show the regional train from Stockholm at 7:17 😀
That makes perfect sense and I hope it gets done at a reasonable price tag. More freight lines would also help develop the US and maybe even a higher speed freight. Let's just make sure the routes are revenue streams and not money pits like in some other countries.
Most of the high speed lines are quite financially solvent :3
The problem is when the national train companies uses these lines to pay for the small lines that it inherited and are indeed money pits ^^".
It takes a strong, central government to build and run High Speed Rail, some countries works because the provinces don't dare to say otherwise.
So, the answer is more likely NO
A chicago to Detroit high speed rail would be dope
You don’t see a need for high speed rail out of Chicago? Chicago to Minneapolis, Chicago to Kansas City, Chicago to Indianapolis, Chicago to Nashville?? Chicago to Florida (Miami) would be a huge draw if you get to Miami in less than 12-16 hours. Chicago is a major rail hub.
Chicago had 3 rail lines who hit 100mph scheduled legs 80 years ago. They couldn't compete over that distance against 1950s aircraft and cars when they came along. At 400 miles it's significantly longer HSR pairs in Europe... Chicago has the commuter rail network to support HSR but the cities close enough to possibly pair don't have the network or population density to make it economically feasible except for maybe Cleveland. At the edge of feasible distance and there should be an available former tight of way so it could actually be built. St Louis has lost way too much population ft Wayne and Indy aren't big enough. Detroit same problem as st Louis
You start getting over 8 hour trips you start getting into dining cars and sleeper cars... Now you're driving the price way out of wack. Dining cars were always big money losers for the railroads and sleeper rommettes will push things to $1000+ each way. Only business travelers will pay that, but time is too important, so they'll fly every time and stay at a nice hotel for less
The cost per mile of laying new track ranges from one million to one and a half million per mile. That cost belongs to the railroads and not the US government. Railroads in the US are privatized and not nationalized like other nations of the world. Nationalization of transportation and in this case, railroads mean the citizens who pay taxes paid for the rail infrastructure. Most nations that have high speed rail and electric capacity are small compared to the US. Furthermore, most Americans are addicted to their vehicles and will continue to drive regardless. Yes, I can see major hubs in the US being electrified to run commuter trains, but high-speed rail is too costly to construct, purchase the rolling stock and engines, deal with the unions, maintenance, and so on and so forth.
Way cheaper than interstates and other car infrastructure. It's time for America to suck it up and redesign cities
You are so right. Thanks
The reason why they love their cars so much is because they don't have any other options. Car infrastructure has overtaken USA. If you build it they will come
Stop making excuses that are invalid!!!! Commuter trains feed into high speed trains. And there’s no alternative to car use the transit is that bad. HSR is actually cheaper than penn station renovations and many subway lines
I rode the Acela quite a bit back in the months following the 9/11 attack. It's frustratingly close to being the best travel option compared to driving or flying, but falls a little short in both speed and cost. Being just a little bit better would make it the no-brainer choice. As it is, it's merely a viable alternative if you hate flying and traffic. I'm willing to pay a bit more and wait a bit longer to avoid that, but not everyone I travel with is willing to accept that tradeoff.
Raleigh to charlotte to atlanta would be so useful for the south
I live in the UK and I've e literally spent the day in London after travelling from Glasgow. It's a four and a half hour train journey, centre to centre, or an eight hour drive each way. I can rock up to the station with minutes to spare with as much luggage and fluids (beer) as I like and go to sleep for most of it. I will never ever fly to London again, the train is too good!
I want all the trains and Amtrak and Amtrak trains in the US and USA and high speed rails.
Now that Laos has a bullet train before the U.S., next Cambodia will have one before the U.S.
As a Texan who's been paying close attention to the progress of Texas Central, I'm afraid that the picture here doesn't look very good. Currently NIMBYs have it tied up in the courts asking it to prove that it is in fact a rail company. I wish I was joking. Between that, the radio silence, and the various other roadblocks that people are trying to throw in front of it, currently it's looking like yet another example of a HSR line being starved to death before it can get started.
Why must ultra-high speed be the most important feature of inter-city rail? There is always so much opposition to any big project (cost and NIMBY-ism). The goal should be: build rail service that contain the right mix of features that draws a sustainable ridership. What if part of the money that would have been spent to maximum speed was instead used to build comprehensive bus networks in the destination cities?
Here's the part all these Sheldon Coopers always leave out of their HSR dreams. In those other countries, they will just take the land. There is no NIMBY/Karen culture.
Doubling the speed of Acela? Just how? By defying the laws of physics? You can only reach 300 mph on perfectly straight tracks. Even a slight curve forces the train to slow down to half that speed.
Also, it's such a densely populated area. Where do they think they can build new tracks?
Above the current tracks, I guess.
I thought it was supposed to be a lot of underground sections. Anyway, maglev is officially dead. Even Japan can't make it work and all the other projects (even the Chinese extension) were cancelled. A NEC maglev will never be built.
I wish they focused on just conventional HSR. It could interoperate with the Acela, and as a bonus it actually works economically! Time to let these gadgetbahns and vaporware die the quiet death that they deserve.
@@TohaBgood2 Japan is still building theirs. They're planning to open the section from Tokyo to Nagoya by 2027.
@@ianhomerpura8937 True, but it is already more delayed than CHSR. It is already more overbudget than CHSR. And it has lower projected ridership than an equivalent HSR line. And everybody keeps saying that CHSR is a boondoggle and should be killed off. Well, this Japanese maglev project is substantially worse on every metric.
Japan is too deep into this it to pull back now, and fast train tech is a bit of a national fad there. But it is clear that everyone else is cancelling their maglev projects and no one is starting any new ones. Even the Chinese dropped their extension project for the only operational maglev line in the world.
Even if this project somehow pulls through, this is still most likely the end of maglev. And this is in no small part because of how disastrous this particular project has proven to be.
@@TohaBgood2 what do you mean by delayed?? They're actually ahead of the deadline by ten years. May I ask where your sources are from?
Also, just noting that your statements mirror what opponent were saying when the first Shinkansen line was being built. But when it opened in 1964 they were all proven wrong.
You need to compare door-to-door times between planes and trains. Often makes travel times for plane trips less than 300-400 miles actually longer.
How long did it take to plan and construct Chengdu to Chongqing? About the same distance as SF to LA. Or the question is how much longer does it take the US to build compared to China? Probably more than twice as long.
Connecting the California and PNW lines with a single high speed system that largely follows I5 would be a massive benefit to the west coast. For me personally It would turn a 5 hour drive to something like 2 hours on a train to visit my family in portland. It isnt even so much about the time as how exhausting making the drive is.
That's so helpful that your family live at the station in Portland, and that you don't have to add to the two hour train trip to actually get from the station to a distant house.
No mention of Raleigh-Charlotte-ATL ? Ideal distance for HSR, and all are rapidly growing.
If these regions had high speed rail networks then built links between them, as well as to the low speed rails, then New York to LA via train would be possible without making the network itself impractical and would make plenty of sense for people on the edge of one network traveling to the edge of another.
Well, it would if a few more high population sections got their own region too. There are a few zones on that map that would work as regional networks that are oddly left out.
One problem is, Amtrak doesnt own their rails, various companies own tracks across the country. Amtrak owns like 5%. Even though you are renting a place, do you think the homeowners would gladly starting making big changes to the property and house?
And that conventional trains take two hours longer between San Francisco and Los Angeles than in the 1940s when trains peaked in America.
When *PASSENGER* trains peaked in America.
Minor nitpick: the PNW (sometimes called Cascadia) plan also includes Eugene (or at least it will once it gets further).
You forgot one of the most important: Florida!
They even have a line already!
Would like to see Buffalo to New York in high speed, or real low cost. I want to get to one from the other in 6 hours for $20!
If ya ever tried to build something near any major city in the USA that requires property purchases, right-of-way acquisition, environmental impact reviews and reporting, hundreds of building permits and several hundred inspections ……… and so much more !!! With double double double trouble trouble trouble anywhere in S.California or downtown Boston.
you will soon find your project becoming hideously extensive and the completion date is about 15 years longer than planned.
That’s why big ew infrastructure projects like high speed rail system, which would be absolutely WONDERFUL, won’t get done anytime soon in the USA.
The benefits of dedicated public high speed rail crisscrossing, connecting major metropolitan areas in the USA could have huge positive impacts. Like saving all kinds of energy, relieving congested highways, allow commuting from smaller less expensive places to live while still working in the big overpriced expense cities (housing for the hundred millionaires and up club).
I would love to see this kind of intelligent infrastructure happen, but I pretty sure it won’t start during my lifetime.
Did I mention the cost of donations to politicians, their staff and friends and other much less friendly bribes …. er … contributions ?
Working people could actually could buy homes for reasonable prices …… might even put a dent in homelessness.
This is only my opinion. Which you already knew before reading this ……
Have a great evening and don’t let social media make you clinically depressed …..
Thank you for the video. Well done. I am a little upset you didn't mention our Brightline train here in Florida. While it isn't high speed, it might be a good push for rail here in America that would lead to high speed rail around the country.
It'll be in my next one for sure. These were just the ones I was most familiar with and I really try to keep my videos under 10 minutes. If I'm being honest, the Pacific Northwest HSR probably isn't as prominent as I make it in this video, but I directly worked on the last iteration of the project so I'm intimately familiar with the state of it. Thanks for watching!
Brightline, the option that is slower than driving and twice as expensive, and has such low ridership it seems everyone agrees.
Hardly the example you want to run with. Unless you are using it as an example of how even the intelligent implementations of passenger rail will still fail.
i think brightline could have major impacts by convincing people that hsr and rail travel in general is a good form of transportation. there just isn’t any modern rail yet
@@TheOwenMajor Really? Slower than driving? You ever been on I-95 during Rush hour in Southeast Florida? There are two speeds in your Car : Crawl or Stop!
@@xoxxobob61 It's either slower when you factor in end to end transport or it's a wash.
Either way, the public votes with their wallets and with butts in seats. Brightline has neither.
The proof is in the proverbial pudding. People can say how wonderful it is, but where is the ridership?
You can Great Lakes high speed rail to the north-east network using Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Utica Albany Corridor former New York Central water level route. At Albany route splits down to New York Penn Station via Hudson Valley and Boston South Station via Springfield and Worcester, MA. If you want international links 🇺🇸NY Penn Albany and Montreal Quebec🇨🇦 Buffalo🇺🇸 Toronto 🇨🇦via Niagara Falls, NY. These trains run to Albany where it's split to serve Toronto and Montreal.
I want northeast high speed rail.
Boston to DC. No brainer. If price gets down to $99 or $129 round trip, this route will get huge traffic and profit.
You missed florida and la to vegas, both brightline projects.
Great clip of the UK's Great Western service (9:04), approaching Dawlish.
I just rode e the Acela from New York to Boston. I enjoyed the trip as it was fast and Boston has a good subway system so we didn’t miss having a car. I booked another trip back up while I was on the way to Boston. The route goes along the coast of Connecticut stopping in key cities before heading north to Providence. Without bypassing those cities in Connecticut I can’t see how they would be able to greatly improve the speed. In the Northeast, you’re heading from one major city to the next major city. So without spending an insane amount of money, which we don’t have to acquire the right of way through some of the most expensive real estate in the US we are just stuck with improvements to the existing right of way which is already established.
On another note, you didn’t mention the train they’ve just built from Orlando to Miami. When done, I believe it’s supposed to go from Miami to Tampa. I don’t think it’s categorized as a high-speed real but it’s definitely a game-changer and getting very good reviews so far. I’m planning to take a trip down to Florida and riding the train is one of the things on my to-do list.
The one thing we don’t want to get stuck on is everything has to be high speed. The focus should be on fast & convenience. The other focus should be on eliminating some of the tons of red tape and facilitating acquiring the right of way. And why does the train have to compensate the highway department for the loss of revenue from tolls? That’s one of the things I heard they had to deal with in Florida.
Live in Portland, work in Seattle. Go shopping in Vancouver, and head back home to Portland.
It could be done!
So how long will it take to see high speed rail in the us?
I feel like Chicago to Philly with places like Detroit, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh as a few stops
There are a number of mistakes that were made in the passenger rail business in the US over the last 60 years. Some of them were due to business practices. Others were due to policy decisions. The biggest policy decisions IMO were the cutting up of abandoned right-of-ways after local or regional rail lines shut down.
As to routes it all comes down to traffic density and travel time. In my mind the travel time breaks down around three hours total trip time. Yes by air the fight might be less than an hour but the whole hassle of getting to the airport. Going through TSA. And then travel time to your destination. Besides it's not just HSR. Non motor vehicle or flying travel is also heavily dependent on just how you arrive at the departure point. And what is available at your destinstion.
Another factor with HSR in urban areas is grade crossings. Lets say you want to operate HSR out of a major urban center. Is there an existing rail corridor? If so does it have a majority of surface grade crossings? In my opinion the best place to run a HSR route in urban areas is as elevated routes using existing expressway corridors where ever practicable.
I love California High Speed Rail.
USA : spends billions on interstate and freeway projects and then will burn trillion on lane widenings for the ones running thru urban environments. All while not being able to fully pay for any of it and keeps taking out goverment loans and going bankrupt as a result.
Also USA : says HSR is too expensive and wastefull and unaffordable/unsustainable somehow.
Logic: Because interstate and freeway projects are open access, allowing rural and urban dwellers to use the projects.
High Speed Rail works well when it reaches its destination within three hours. Beyond three hours HSR loses the competition with the airlines considerably. Therein lies the problem with America, a large nation, not a TINY nation like France or Germany or Japan. Even in China more prefer to fly than ride a HSR train more than three hours. It is a five hour flight from London to Tel Aviv, yes to another continent. It is a five and a half hour flight from New York City to Los Angeles, a six hour flight from Boston to Los Angeles. It is a seven hour flight from Miami to Seattle, notice I did not mention Alaska or Hawaii. It is a seven hour flight from London to Toronto, mind you across an ocean to another hemisphere... There is a reason why Americans prefer to fly longer distances, it is the same reason why Europeans and Asians fly longer distances too... 80 percent of Americans have flown, whereas less than 2 percent have rode Amtrak regional or long distance services. No wonder Congress funds airports more than Amtrak...
Living in central GA.. Atlanta needs some rail relief . Macon, Savannah and Atlanta. Connect the major airports to rail access? Every major interstate goes to Atlanta . Rail should be an option. Could go from Macon to Jacksonville by rail? Macon to Orlando? Rail should follow the Interstate system in the US.
More people in the US need to be educated about the benefits of high speed rail.
Thanks for making this video Geoff.
It would be great if the Northeast corridor high speed train service be extended into Norfolk,VA which is the Southeasternmost end of the Northeast Corridor that is being ignored as if it doesn’t exist at all.
Surprised you didn't mention Florida. Brightline is already operating in South Florida and working on connecting to Orlando and eventually Tampa. The term "high speed" is somewhat loose since only a small section of the line will exceed 100mph. Additionally the time will be roughly the same time as by car without traffic (3.5 to 4 hours). However, lack of a good public transit system at either end will limit the usefulness of the line. I could envision a highspeed line all the way up to Atlanta since the land is very flat for most of that distance. Flying is too much of a hassle but driving is 7-8 hours.
Problem for me currently is the I-75 corridor between Detroit and Cincinnati. Living in Toledo, to get to my parents house in Cincinnati I either need to (1) drive the 2hr30min, (2) take a 5hr Greyhound bus, or (3) take a 9hr Amtrak train. The current rail system from Toledo to Cincinnati consists of either going to Chicago then down through Indianapolis or going to Cleveland and then taking a bus down the I-71 corridor, which is stupid in my opinion, but at least they made steps in the last year to make a new station in Oxford between Cincinnati and Indianapolis. A problem of Amtrak is the shared space with freight trains; trains are limited to 70mph between Chicago and Cincinnati, and between Toledo and Cleveland, but the speed limit on I-65/I-74, I-80/90, and now OH-2 at Sandusky are all 70mph with most people going 80-85mph. There were talks of a highspeed rail triangle from Toledo to Detroit then over to Lansing, but still the major problem is the I-75 corridor between Toledo and Cincinnati, so much so that they spent 7 years to upgrade the section between Lima and Toledo to 3-lanes each way, continuing to push south until they reach the 3-lanes in Troy.
The PNW 1 hour travel time between cities is incrediblly generous
Eurostaer SA has filed for bankruptcy. Even with a perfect situation, London, Paris Amsterdam and Brussels, , it has had a tough time making money. The building costs is huge, but what happens after is a question also. I flew on Southwest from LAX to Las Vegas for $39 a couple weeks ago. No rail can compete with that. Rail competition would leave airlines discounting more. Let the private investors decide, if prudent, they will jump on it. The govt is the go too for bad investment. I am a rail fan, having taken and enjoyed the Eurostar a few times, but, if they can't make money ongoing, it is too much to speculate we can.
They are not bankrupt.
Why does the government have to make profitable investments though? The whole point of the government is that they can build shit that is good for ordinary people without having to worry about making a profit.
Also worth noting that since takeoff is the most energy intensive part of a flight, short haul flights are very bad for the enviorment with our current planes. HSR could offer a comparable service with lower emissions
5:52 - This is where Southwest Airlines began.
Other High speed rail can be from New York to Milwaukee ( via Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago ) with a brach to Detroit and Chicago to Buffalo ( via Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland ) and Northeast Corridor can be extended from Washing DC upto Norfolk ( via Richmond ). Others might include from Chicago to Memphis ( via St. Louis ) , Cincinnati to Miami ( via Nashville, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Orlando, West Palm Beach ) with a branch from Nashville to Memphis and Orlando to Tampa and lastly Houston to Jacksonville ( via New Orleans, Mobile, Tallahassee ) with Mobile to Atlanta Branch Line ( via Montgomery )
Overnight Sleeper High Speed Trains can be used in these long distance case. Love from an Indian Railfan
Dream on! We do NOT live in the land of Unicorn. The corporate railroads have NO desire to spend billions to upgrade their tracks for HSR. The government has NO desire to spend billions to build new HSR tracks when less than 2 percent ride Amtrak's regional or long distance services....
Good train connection in the midwest are a no brainer. Ohio has a similar density (105/kn2 as France or Spain , and higher than Sweden. The coridors Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Louisville and Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago have 2mln city regions at 200-250 km distances. Ideal for 'faster' or high speed passenger rail connections !
HEY! What about the Great Lakes region of the U.S. and Canada??
Good stuff thoroughly enjoyed this from the northeast so that area definitely would benefit from this and other regions around the country as well
Our high speed rail here in CALIFORNIA has been under construction since 2015, and so far, nothing looks resemble a high speed rail....
Much better balanced than most people on the issue, but still problems
There are major geological issues with getting a train 1) out of LA and ) getting into the Bay area... Plus the the train will have much less access to both the Bay area and greater LA. The train will only service LA downtown, SF downtown and San Jose downtown, while greater LA and the Greater Bay areas area have 5 commercial airports each... So the planes will hold the advantage for a far greater number of travelers
Similar geologic problems in PNW... What it first has to do is expand traditional heavy commuter rail which fell to 3 runs a day due to the pandemic... Once Portland/Seattle cities can support 18 hour a day train service, then consider hsr
In Texas the travel to the train stations will be as much of a problem as getting to the airports... At least both Houston and Dallas have multiple airports
Money would be better spent funding traditional commuter service on the front range of the Rockies connecting Cheyenne down though Denver, Colorado springs, to Trinidad with less frequent service over Raton Pass and to Albuquerque... A nice linear corridor in an area with extremely high growth
I've given up hope for it happening in the U.S. Even IF there was a competent high speed rail network connecting cities in the U.S the networks within cities are still subpar and people would just end up taking cars instead.
Make it where you can put your car on also. Don't have to deal with luggage or rental cars. Trains usually drop you off where you don't want to be.
You didn’t mention the California extension of high speed rail planned to San Diego and the Brightline route from LA to Las Vegas. Thanks.
There have been light talks of connecting Cleveland and Chicago via a high-speed rail system.
I think it would be great, but I think rail proponents forget that the same security measures would need to be implemented just like at airports. Bombs or other security issues could also be an issue. Maybe more efficient and cleaner air travel is better?
Regarding whether it would work in the Midwest, it’s important to understand how close the major cities really are. For example I live in Kansas City, metro population roughly 2.1 million. West of me is the Topeka/Lawrence region & then no true big cities until you reach the Front Range. However if you start heading East or Northeast from here you reach a major metro area about every 250 miles, with smaller metros of at least 100k people or more dotting the paths in between. People think of the Midwest as just wheat fields & cornfields outside of Chicago, but there’s a galaxy of cities & good sized towns throughout the region. Much of the region was built out around railroads. A lot of older infrastructure at this point in need of upgrades, but it’s very doable.