What are the main obstacles to the United States building a network of high speed interstate rail?

Question

I really am growing to hate airports with a passion.

Answer 1

Run James Run, makes good points in that for a high-speed rail system to be effective in the U.S. it needs to have its own, dedicated right-of-way and to not operate passenger trains over the private freight lines (one point about Acela, while it is designed to tilt that feature was never included with the trainsets purchased by Amtrak, although right at the moment I cannot remember exactly why).

In any event, for high-speed rail to become a reality simply ask your congressman/woman why more money has not been appropriated for the service.  Over the last ten years or so, particularly recently as airline service has virtually crumbled away, we have been asking for better rail service (just look at Amtrak's ridership, which broke an all-time record during 2007) but the money has simply not been provided.  Why?  I have no idea although building more highways certainly isn't the answer...  (For instance, Amtrak's annual subsidy of $2 billion is comical compared to what highways and airlines receive.)

So, until Uncle Sam decides to step up and make passenger rail a priority it will be left up to the states and proponents (like the National Association of Railroad Passengers, NARP) to push for future upgrades and improvements (this is happening as we speak as more and more folks are seeing the advantages rail provides although if Washington would ever get involved and truly back such a project it would do so that much faster).

Of note, if one wants to truly see how a passenger rail system should be properly planned and developed simply look at what the State of North Carolina has been doing for the last few decades (their website is posted below).  

(Regarding obtaining land, while NIMBY groups are sometimes a hassle, acquiring right-of-way is not that difficult, particularly if the government would ever fund a high-speed rail project, as eminent domain laws would accomplish such.)

Answer 2

It will require a great deal of investment both from companies and government and the abolition of all those unguarded rail/road crossings. The road building/construction industry and airlines will probably lobby heavily against it too, although the results as well as less pollution, will be less road congestion and with fewer local flights, far fewer air traffic control delays to fights, which will improve the image of airlines

Answer 3

The size of the United States and cost of building such a network.  We love our cars and the sense of Independence it gives us, getting people to use the system in large enough numbers to make it practical is a challenge.  Here in Texas they have talked for years of building a high speed rail line a triangle from San Antonio, to Austin, to Dallas/ Ft. Worth, to Houston and Houston to San Antonio.  But it has only been talk.

Private land ownership is another obstacle.

Answer 4

Ha. I actually have some work experience in this area.

In the Northeast we have the northwest corridor, or rail from Boston to DC (Technically it goes from Maine to Miami, but the high volume is people who use Amtrak to go travel to from Boston, Providence, CT, NYC, Jersey City/Trenton, Philly, DE, Baltimore and DC).

In the northwest corridor we have Acela, which is supposed to be a high speed electric train that looks like the bullet trains of Europe and Japan. The upside of Acela is it's environmentally clean and looks s**y. The downside is it doesn't get one from NYC to Boston *that* much faster.

The original advertised schedule showed that one would bea able to depart downtown Boston and arrive in Midtown (Penn Station) 3 hours later. Add no taxis, no security, and it's an attractive pitch vs. air travel. Actual time is 3 1/2 hours. Problem is the on-time rate is poor and the old-school trains only take 4 hours and ticket prices are about 40% less ($84 compared to $212).

They can make awesome high speed trains, the problem is they decided to use the same tracks as the old trains. No matter how well you make the new train perform, they will be limited by old tracks. In Europe when they build those 200 mph trains, they lay brand new track that will accommodate those beasts.

One big thing about tracks is curves. In Europe trains can go faster because of the straightaways. In the Northeast at least, the old tracks are winding. Another difference is in Europe, where the tracks do curve, one side of the track banks up slightly so the train is slightly tilted, Angular momentum keeps the force of the train perpendicular to the tracks even if the curving train isn't perpendicular to the ground (think those big NASCAR tracks that have an embankment. Thos cars take a turn on a flat course, they go flying off.)

Americas old tracks have no such embankment, so, smartly, the designers of the Acela train designed the train itself to tilt to compensate. If your in a backseat of a car with three people and the car takes a turn really fast the person on one side cans use the turning momentum and slide down the seat and squish against the other two people. The trucks/wheels of the train are flat on the tracks just like a car, but the cabin tilts to compensate, so no one is flying up against each other on turns. Although this design is smart, it doesn't fully compensate the way brand new tracks would.

Here's what I think the bottom line is. Laying brand new track to build Europe/Japan style efficient rail travel will never be profitiable enough for a private company because ticket costs will be outrageous.  And given the debacle (sl)Amtrak has been, and given that people in the US hate "socialism", or undertaking public works projects that might be a boon for society as a whole, high speed rail will never happen in the US.

Answer 5

Oil companys and lobbyists.

Answer 6

It's partly because the U.S. is so big.  Europe is just as big, but had 10 or so countries paying for the construction.  The U.S. government isn't willing to spend so much money, especially now that the economy is bad.

Answer 7

Your house is right in the way. Otherwise it would be done.

Answer 8

COST !!  The cost of purchasing a right-of-way, the cost of building PAX only high-speed trackage, the cost of the equipment, the cost of EIR / EIP reports, the cost of fighting the Auto / Airline lobbies, NIMBY groups, and the Environmental whiners.

I LOVE the train... I commute daily on CalTrain, and use the ACE (Altamont Commuter Express) monthly for traveling out to my brother's ranch.

The ACE runs from San Jose, CA to Stockton, CA over Union Pacific tracks, and takes 2 hr 10 minutes to cover that 85 miles... the train COULD make that trip in about 1 hr 20 minutes IF the tracks were in shape to allow it to roll at 75mph.  Sadly, there are LONG stretches where the track is in POOR shape, and Union Pacific just hasn't plans to upgrade the track... it works fine for THEIR freight.

I'm looking FORWARD to seeing MORE of the California Hi-Speed Rail program come into being... though I PRAY they are SMART enough to make the systems compatible

Answer 9

I think a high-speed rail network would be great. However, there are a lot of issues preventing such a project. First: money. Second: environmentalists. Third: urban sprawl.

For years, there has been talk of a high-speed "trial" line from McCarran (LV airport) out to proposed airport at Stateline. If this is successful, they would extend the line to L.A. However, this is only a pipe dream. Legislators continue to table the issue. They use the stuggling Las Vegas Monorail as a scapegoat for why not to move forward with a high-speed line.