Time Magazine article on American HSR

[Tlcooper44]

https://time.com/6340931/america-high-speed-rail-history/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
An incomplete history to be sure - but convincing enough to the layman to produce a modicum of understanding.

 

[MARC Rider]

Darned right it was an incomplete history. Left out were the Amfleets and the zillions of dollars spent to upgrade the corridor tracks in the early 1980s (NY - WAS) and the 1990s (NHV - BOS). The Amfleet equipped Metroliners were a success, and the Amfleet and AEM equipped Regionals ran faster than the original Metroliners. Not to mention electrification if the corridor north of New Haven, thus eliminating the engine change. And now they're spending $$$$ to upgrade service south from Washington to Richmond. And today between New York and Washington, the train is faster than driving and has a larger market share than the airlines.

The author has a point when looking at the big picture, but the article totally ignored the success that suggest that spending more money nationwide will have beneficial results.

 

[b1xn00d]

The article makes the case that we're not spending enough, but California High Speed Rail alone is expected to cost more than twice ($128 billion) what Spain has cumulatively paid to build their entire 2500-mile nationwide HSR network ($60 billion).

Yes, more investment is needed, but we also need to admit that we're getting a lot less infrastructure than we should for the money we do spend because of a dysfunctional regulatory environment, contracting process, etc. - and actually do something about it.

 

[Tlcooper44]

The article makes the case that we're not spending enough, but California High Speed Rail alone is expected to cost more than twice ($128 billion) what Spain has cumulatively paid to build their entire 2500-mile nationwide HSR network ($60 billion).

Yes, more investment is needed, but we also need to admit that we're getting a lot less infrastructure than we should for the money we do spend because of a dysfunctional regulatory environment, contracting process, etc. - and actually do something about it.

I think that saying "we" in the US is complicated, because we're a lot more seperate that other countries. For instance, Ohio sees not enough investment, whereas california sees too much money spent.

Over the last 50 years, Amtrak (and many other transit systems) has absolutely been under-invested in - to the point where we are really feeling the pain now.

Personally, I think its also because the US isn't very good at building rail and transit (in addition to antiquated regulations, contracting, etc.). We've focused so much on roads and highways for the past 60 years, and we shouldn't expect to have the same building prowess as Germany, Japan or even Spain when it comes to trains. We have a real brain drain.