When will the US start deploying high-speed trains?

Question

With the price of gas rising constantly, in parallel to searching alternative fuel technologies, we should be looking at ways to develop public transport and a high speed train would be one of them. The French TGV hit another record a few weeks ago with speeds of almost 575 km/hour or 357 miles/hour. It would take a little more than 2 hours to go from NYC to the Midwest...

Answer 1

A BIG part of the problem is that railroad right-of-ways are very expensive... and are OWNED by freight lines !!  The only passenger service are metro commuter short-lines or AMTRAK which are ALL federally subsidized.

I live in the SF Bay Area of California, and am a CALTRAIN and ACE rider. CALTRAIN is an exceptional commuter line that OWNS the former Union Pacific tracks up the Peninsula, WITH "Baby Bullet" service that runs at about 100mph.  ACE runs between San Jose and Stockton... but has to compete with freight trains on Union Pacific tracks.

Just the same, BOTH trains have high ridership... and growing.  The main problem is the distance from suburban stations to the various industries, businesses, and homes that they serve !!

Yes, I'd LOVE to see more trains and more EFFICIENT trains here in the USA... but sadly, most Americans LOVE their cars and refuse to surrender the "freedom" of jamming our roads and polluting our skies... so they can park AT the mall rather than walking two blocks.

ONE thing needed to run at TRULY high-speeds are tracks without ANY crossings...

Answer 2

As long as the majority of the population of the US can afford to drive their cars, they will.  It is an illicit love affair, and until it ends, people will continue to stay away from mass transit in droves.

If you build it, they may not come....................

It's tough to get investors in the private sector to take a gamble such as this, and the government has a poor track record when it comes to Amtrak operation.

When a tank of gas costs, say $125 or more, people may develop an interest in alternative modes of transportation.  Not before.

Answer 3

I agree with that, but don't forget we already have high speed trains.

Acela started in December 2000.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Expre...

We and the Canadians were early players in high speed rail, with Metroliner and LRC.  And we are the world experts on running high speed rail on existing tracks.  Speaking of that, our existing tracks are far better than other countries, thanks to our profitable freight business.  We also have a lot of disused but intact rights-of-way in useful places, like the old PRR through Indiana and Ohio, the MC from Gary to Detroit, the Cotton Rock from StL to KC, the Coast Line from SF-LA, the Rock Island, the Milwaukee Road.  When we get serious, we have assets.

Right now we're struggling through denial of some overwhelming economic and environmental realities that most other countries have already admitted and embraced.  Once we get our heads together,  we'll own the high speed rail business.  Again.

Answer 4

We already have a high speed train...granted it only goes 150 mph tops, but it's still fast.  It's along the Northeast Corridor and runs from Boston to DC via NYC.  I think the whole run takes 5 hours.

Answer 5

California is planning one from Southern California to Northern California through the Central Valley, but it is still in the planning stages. I believe Amtrak has some limited high-speed services in parts of the country. But nothing widespread or anything.

The automobile and oil cartel has such a iron grip on transportation that it's hard to say when high-speed trains will become a reality.

Answer 6

I believe that jets are still faster than the highest speed trains, ruining everything. Dont forget a high speed train will make stops, therefore average speed is reduced from record top speed and tracks aren't direct as flight paths making distances longer. In a time squeezed society where buisnessmen routinely make day trips out of NYC-LA because of jets, trains cant compete...